House of Commons
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(5 years, 9 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, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)
At a time when people think parliamentarians are engaged in some sort of slugfest, I commend the Opposition parties for perfect collaboration on this first question.
Solar is a UK success story, as I know all hon. Members will recognise. The feed-in tariff scheme, under which 80% of installations have been solar, has cost £5.9 billion to date in supporting those 830,000 installations. Prices have fallen over 80% since the introduction of the scheme, which is why we are amending it, as I set out in the smart export guarantee consultation, and I look forward to receiving the response of the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake).
Tom Brake
Does the Minister agree that households exporting to the grid should be paid a fair rate? Will she ensure an explicit minimum price for exported electricity to allow the market to recover some confidence that new solar homes will receive treatment consistent with that of other electricity generators?
Claire Perry
I completely agree that nobody should be exporting power to the grid for free, or indeed below zero as has happened in some other countries. The level at which that export tariff and the mechanism are set is a matter for consultation, and I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman’s points on that subject.
Helen Hayes
Industry surveys show that 30% to 40% of solar firms installing domestic systems are now contemplating closure, given the mess that the Minister’s Department has made of policies for smaller-scale renewables. The Government’s own figures show that deployment of solar PV was less than 300 MW last year, down 90% compared with 2015, and Ofgem’s targeted charging review now threatens even the few solar farms that have been built without subsidy. Will she now meet the Solar Trade Association and its colleagues as a matter of urgency to discuss this latest threat to a part of our energy market that is critical to delivering carbon reduction?
Claire Perry
I agree entirely with the hon. Lady about this being an important part of our energy market, which is why I am so proud that 99% of our solar installations have happened since a Conservative-led Government have been in power. I frequently meet the Solar Trade Association, which is always a pleasure. I encourage her to look beyond a regime of subsidy for delivering renewable energy, as the evidence of the numbers suggests that there are 2.3 GW of solar projects in the pipeline that already have or are awaiting planning permission and that could be delivered without subsidy. We are moving rapidly to a subsidy-free world for solar generation. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady shakes her head, but it is true. It is important that we do not equate subsidy with output, and with actually delivering the power we want.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that making solar power compulsory for all new builds would be beneficial for the homeowner, would remove any need for subsidy and would cost the taxpayer nothing?
Claire Perry
My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. He will know that building regulations now set minimum energy standards, couched in performance terms rather than being prescriptivist about the types of technology that should be used. Builders are increasingly adding renewable energy systems, but I am always interested to see what more we can do to bring forward such a good way of lowering bills and CO2 emissions.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Both solar and wind have been very successful in driving down industry costs, but does my hon. Friend recognise that that poses a challenge to technologies such as wave and tidal that are competing against solar and wind? Such technologies are chasing a number that is always falling faster than they can keep up with.
Claire Perry
I do. I was pleased to meet the Marine Energy Council a few days ago. The meeting was supported by a cross-party group of MPs, and we discussed exactly this issue and how, in a cost-effective way, we might look to continue supporting technologies that are further from market.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
On Friday children across the country will go on strike, saying they have lost confidence in the Government’s ability to tackle climate change. Does the Minister think these children are wrong, or can she explain to them why the UK is spending £10.5 billion to subsidise fossil fuels—more than any other country in Europe—at the same time as scrapping the solar export tariff and forcing some people to give their surplus solar energy back to the grid for free?
Claire Perry
There are a number of inconsistencies in that question, but I think it is incredible what young people across the world are doing. They did the same thing at COP, where we had some compelling statements. Young people expect us to wake up to the reality of the future, which is why I am so proud to stand here and tell them that they live in a country that has led the world in decarbonisation over the last 20 years and is the first major industrial economy to ask for real advice, rather than a few fake words, on how we will get to net zero. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman chunters on about net fossil fuels, but there are no direct subsidies for fossil fuels. I think he is suggesting that we should not have an oil and gas industry in the UK. I would like to see how that plays out with his colleagues north of the border.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s commitment that no small-scale producer should export electricity to the grid for nothing. Will she confirm that as well as applying to solar, that would extend to small-scale hydro?
Claire Perry
Yes, that is absolutely correct. I know that my hon. Friend takes an interest in this, so I wish to emphasise that we recognise the value of community energy, which has benefited in many cases from this scheme. If people have the chance to respond to the consultation emphasising the value of that, it would be much appreciated.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
Britain has a very strong record in this area, with the highest level of employment in our history, combined with some of the strongest rights for workers in Europe. Last month, I announced new measures to counter discrimination at work against women returning from maternity leave, and we are one of the first countries in Europe so to do.
Grahame Morris
I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, but may I remind him that unemployment in my constituency is up by almost 1,000 on the same period last year, to 2,860? May I also tell him that a fire at Country Style Foods in Peterlee in my constituency has left a number of people looking for work, including one temporary worker employed through an agency? She had worked for the same company for seven years on a zero-hours contract, but a short break in her employment has stopped her accessing contributions-based benefits. In most zero-hours contracts, this “flexibility” is illusory. When would he consider that zero-hours contracts are inappropriate?
Greg Clark
Two thirds of workers on zero-hours contracts say that they do not want any more hours and that they are content. On the break in service, the hon. Gentleman will know that that relates to one of the recommendations of the Taylor review that we have committed to implementing.
Lilian Greenwood
It has been almost two months since the Minister announced that workers on zero-hours contracts would get the right to request a stable contract. There are 65,000 people in the east midlands whose main job is on a zero-hours contract; our region has the highest percentage of people on these contracts, according to the Office for National Statistics. That means tens of thousands of people vulnerable to unfair treatment at work, uncertain about whether they can afford to get through the next week, let alone plan for the future. In this HeartUnions Week, the TUC is rightly calling for a ban on exploitative zero-hours contracts. When will the Government act to tackle insecurity in the workplace, rather than just tell workers to ask nicely for a permanent contract?
Greg Clark
The Taylor report, and indeed the Select Committee, considered the recommendation that has come from some sources to ban zero-hours contracts. The Taylor report concluded that banning zero-hours contracts
“would negatively impact many more people than it helped.”
The joint report by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee found that people on zero-hours contracts preferred to have that flexibility, for the most part—[Interruption.] That was the evidence given to the Committee. The hon. Lady will know that we have committed to bringing in the right to request a stable-hours contract.
Alex Norris
I refer colleagues to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Last week, the GMB and Hermes struck a landmark deal that proved that secure work is compatible with new and emerging industries. Today, I am writing to DPD, which has a depot in my constituency, to ask it to meet the unions and follow suit. Will the Secretary of State say today that it is important that we establish good laws in this country, but companies can get on with it now? They can get around the table with their unions and secure the jobs for their people in their workplace.
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I met Tim Roache, the head of the GMB, last week and congratulated him and Hermes on having come to their agreement. It shows that good employers can work with their employees to agree what is the best for them mutually, and it is a very good example of that.
Karen Lee
According to the TUC, 3.8 million people are working in insecure jobs with no guarantee of hours, which represents a 36% increase since 2010. One of my constituents in Lincoln, Dan, is struggling to break out of the cycle of precarious work. He told me:
“You cannot support a family”—
and he is doing his best—
“if every morning you’re turning up for a job that might not exist.”
Does the Minister agree that the unacceptable increase in insecure work fundamentally undermines the UK’s high employment levels?
Greg Clark
I am glad the hon. Lady mentions our high employment levels—she is right to do so—because for people to have the best opportunities for prosperity we have to ensure that there are jobs available. She will know that we have more jobs and more vacancies in this country than we ever have had. The number of workers on zero-hours contracts is just 2.4% of all employees, and that is falling, as it happens. As I say, two thirds of them prefer that flexibility. The right approach, in line with the recommendations of the Taylor review, is to give workers the opportunity to request a stable, fixed contract, but to allow flexibility for those who want it.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is right to recognise that zero-hours contracts give flexibility to particular groups of people, many of whom have caring responsibilities and peripatetic work patterns. Without those contracts, they would not be able to enter the world of work and benefit themselves. Does he recall that it was the last Labour Government that had these contracts as exclusive and that we got rid of that abuse?
Greg Clark
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We made that change, and it was of great benefit. We should be proud of the increase in employment that has taken place. According to the Resolution Foundation, the biggest gainers principally have been women, ethnic minorities, single parents and disabled people. That is something we should be proud of.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that with the creation of 3 million brand-new jobs since 2010, more people in our country are in secure employment than ever before in our nation’s history?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fact, the number is 3.25 million more jobs since 2010, and 80% of those have been full-time. The number of zero-hours contracts has actually fallen.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Rugby has the second highest rate of people in work in the west midlands, and one reason for that is the flexibility in the local labour market, especially in the growing logistics sector. Does the Secretary of State agree that for many people, the ability to choose the hours they work is important to them?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Taylor report called for two-sided flexibility, so that employers and employees can make a choice as to what the best arrangements are for them both.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) says that the east midlands has the highest proportion of people on zero-hours contracts, but she failed to add that we also have the highest economic growth outside of London and the south-east. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best guarantees of improving workers’ rights, conditions and wages are a strong demand for labour, a growing economy and the control of unskilled migration, which is something we will be able to do after Brexit?
Greg Clark
I agree with my hon. Friend that having jobs and vacancies available is the best source of security for people in this country. We have a proud record of having secured that over the past eight years.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
Last week, it was reported that the Government plan to bring forward legislation to commit to guaranteeing workers’ rights outside the EU. Will the Secretary of State confirm that no Government can bind their successors? As easily as legislation can be passed, a future Tory Government could take those rights away, just as this Government have done by introducing tribunal fees, passing the draconian Trade Union Act 2016 and failing to crack down on bogus self-employment. Why would Members on the Opposition Benches trust anything that the Government say about ensuring workers’ rights in law?
Greg Clark
The record of this Government has been to extend workers’ rights way beyond what the European Union has offered. In the UK, we have 52 weeks of maternity leave, for example, compared with a requirement of 14 weeks in the EU. This House has chosen to give rights of paternity leave and pay to fathers and partners that are not yet available in the EU. The measures that the hon. Lady knows we are about to introduce for people returning from maternity leave makes us a leader in Europe on the issue. She should be confident in the ability of this House to promote and protect workers’ rights.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)
Through the good work plan, the Government are strengthening employment rights for all workers. We are introducing measures that will support innovative businesses, while ensuring that workers of all ages have access to fair and decent work. In April, we will introduce inflation-beating increases to the national minimum wage rates, benefiting 350,000 young workers directly.
Martyn Day
Despite the PM promising on her first day in the job to tackle burning injustices, this Government have consistently refused to introduce a real living wage for all, with the under-25s particularly hard hit. If Government will not act, will they devolve these powers to Holyrood?
Kelly Tolhurst
I point out that some of the highest unemployment rates are among that age group so our priority is to make sure that young people are able to gain secure work and experience. In actual fact, nine out of 10 workers between the ages of 18 and 24 are paid above the national minimum wage rate, and we are continuing to work towards increasing that year on year.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)
The retail sector is the UK’s largest private sector employer and recognises that it has a responsibility for this issue, and it is pioneering responsible sourcing practices. The Government welcome campaigns such as the British Retail Consortium’s “Better Retail Better World” and Oxfam’s “Behind the Barcodes”. The Government remain determined to eliminate exploitation, and the landmark Modern Slavery Act 2015 increases specialist support for victims and places requirements on businesses to be transparent about their supply chains.
Kerry McCarthy
I secured a debate last year on this issue, highlighting the shocking extent of modern slavery in our supermarket supply chain. Will the Minister tell me what action has been taken since then?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this question and for giving us an opportunity to talk about this matter. The retail sector regards human rights and supporting sustainable markets as fundamental principles within its psyche. The British Retail Consortium has played a pivotal role, and it was a founder member of the “Stronger Together” scheme. Under the Modern Slavery Act, there is a duty on employers to submit modern slavery statements, and they should be doing so by the end of March.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
May I invite my hon. Friend to meet Sir Charlie Mayfield, who is the chairman of the John Lewis Partnership, which of course includes Waitrose? She will know that it has an audit trail to ensure that all its goods are produced ethically. When can she meet him?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and say that we meet Sir Charlie Mayfield regularly. This gives us a great opportunity to highlight the fact that there are thousands of businesses really stepping up to the mark on this issue. ASOS and Co-op are leading the way on transparency, and are identifying risks and taking action. M&S, Unilever and Tesco are also signing up to the employers’ pay principles.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
We all want to be able to buy food in the supermarkets without trampling on the human rights of the people who produced it. Yet less than half of all agricultural companies are complying with their requirements under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, so what changes will the Government make to ensure that companies properly report what they are doing to tackle problems with human rights in their supply chains?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. The Home Office has written to more than 17,000 businesses reminding them of their obligations to submit their modern slavery statements. We are committed to the Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, a UN initiative, and we are proud to be the first country to have an action plan in place, but, as with all these things, we will continue to keep them under monitoring.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
In my role as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Nigeria, I am aware that Guinness Nigeria is being sold by Tesco. Is the Minister aware that Diageo and other companies in Nigeria have pledged to eradicate modern slavery from their supply chains?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion. He is quite right. That is just another example of where the sector, working with Government, is taking action to stamp out these practices where they identify them and telling us how they are taking action to eradicate them.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)
We are committed to protecting consumers and providing clear information so that they understand their rights. That is why we have launched a public information campaign to reach out to consumers, citizens and businesses. As part of that, we have provided tailored information to consumers about their rights after EU exit. We are working closely with partners such as Citizens Advice on this issue.
Kelly Tolhurst
The hon. Lady raises an important point. Every piece of no-deal legislation that we have brought through the House has had an impact assessment, and we have already submitted five pieces of legislation. We have been very clear that consumer rights will be protected when we leave the European Union, and I am committed to doing that.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
In the Minister’s estimation, what has the Office for Product Safety and Standards achieved in its first year of existence?
Kelly Tolhurst
My hon. Friend is right to highlight that the new Office for Product Safety and Standards has got its strategy plan together. We are working through that, working with data-led intelligence to ensure that we tackle product safety inequalities when they appear.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
As the Government continue to threaten the public with a catastrophic no-deal Brexit, which they admit themselves would be detrimental to consumers, a report by Which? shows that a staggering 82% of people said that the Government had communicated either too little information or no information at all about the impact of such a Brexit. Will the Minister tell the House whether that is a result of sheer incompetence, or is it simply that the Government no longer care about consumers?
Kelly Tolhurst
This Government are committed to retaining the high levels of consumer protection that we have. We have been very clear about that; we set out our intentions in the consumers Green Paper. We have launched advertising campaigns and published guidance on the Government’s website regarding certain elements of consumer rights. We are working closely with the Consumer Protection Partnership, which brings together the enforcement and the information bodies that work with consumers. We are committed to delivering for consumers, and that will not change—in or out of the EU.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Chris Skidmore)
The South East local enterprise partnership, which covers the district of Tendring, has received £590 million through the local growth fund to drive regional development. Business support for small and medium-sized enterprises is available through the LEP’s Business Essex, Southend and Thurrock growth hub. The LEP is funding projects to strengthen coastal communities, including Tendring, as well as supporting the highly skilled offshore renewables sector.
Giles Watling
High-skilled jobs are clearly useless without anyone to fill them, and the employee supply chain necessitates a clear role for further education. I recently signed a cross-party letter to the Chancellor calling for further education funding to be increased to above inflation in the next financial year. Does the Minister agree with me and 164 other colleagues that that is a good idea?
Chris Skidmore
The Government have protected the base rate of funding for 16 to 19-year-olds until 2020 and are working closely with the post-18 funding review led by Sir Philip Augar to ensure a coherent vision for further and higher education. As part of its local industrial strategy for the district of Tendring, I welcome the fact that the South East LEP is investing in further education, including £10 million for the Colchester Institute’s Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Innovation Centre, its Learning and Technology Centre in Braintree, and a centre of excellence in health and care in Colchester.
Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)
My right hon. Friend is quite right that we have a diverse energy supply and we must continue to maintain that, guided by the principles of lowest cost, lowest carbon and the maximum exploration of overseas trade opportunities. As the Secretary of State set out in his recent speech, we should continue to use market mechanisms wherever we can to maintain this diversity of supply.
Mr Dunne
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. However, can she reassure the House, and many of our constituents, that the move from the existing feed-in tariff to the smart export guarantee will not jeopardise the viability of solar energy anaerobic digester producers and that they will continue to be paid for exporting energy to the grid?
Claire Perry
My right hon. Friend is quite right. As I said earlier, we are very keen to ensure, through the smart export guarantee, that we move to the lower-subsidy or subsidy-free future that we know we can get to, but that we continue to see the sorts of viable projects that he references. I would urge him to make sure that the views of his constituents are reflected in the consultation that closes on 5 March.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Has the Minister had recent conversations with the power distribution networks? They are very powerful, they transmit all the electricity, and they are owned by very strange people, in my view. Warren Buffett owns all the power distribution in the north through Berkshire Hathaway. The Chinese own it all in London and the south-east through the Cheung Kong and Li Ka Shing enterprises. Are they efficient? Are they effective? Do they work in the national interest, or in somebody else’s national interest?
Claire Perry
The hon. Gentleman, I am sure, shares my view that we should have the most efficient and well-invested energy system going forward that keeps costs down for consumers. He will also know that since privatisation—[Interruption.] Well, if he wants an answer perhaps he could stop shouting at me and listen. We have seen a large reduction in power outages and an increase in energy security. We have to make sure that the system is fit for the future because, as he knows, much of what happens in the future will not be creation of energy on the old coalfield sites and distribution down the transmission lines—there will be far more decentralised energy, and we continue to look forward to that development. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
The capacity or otherwise of a particular Minister to speak fluent Chinese is, at best, a secondary consideration in respect of this question, I say to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who is chuntering endlessly from a sedentary position.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
I very much agree with diversity of energy supply, but will my right hon. Friend assure me that there will be no diminution in the controls over the fracking industry, which has agreed to the regulations and has to stand by them?
Claire Perry
I thank my right hon. Friend for asking a very topical question. The situation is this. We have set out very clearly our need to explore soberly and scientifically this potentially important resource. We rejected the companies’ request during the process of extraction from the first well to change the regime, on the basis that it was fit for purpose. I have been very well aware of all the scientific suggestions that somehow this regime should be reviewed. Of course, we now have an independent regulator, the Oil and Gas Authority, and it is within its remit, should it wish, to look at the science. For me, it is a scientist-led decision—it is nothing to do with politicians.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Minister outline any recent findings regarding the harnessing of tidal power and any project the Department is pursuing or overseeing?
Claire Perry
The hon. Gentleman will know that we continue to look actively at this sector. Indeed, we have invested over £50 million in innovation in the sector over the past few years. However, it was right to reject the most expensive power station ever proposed in the form of the Swansea tidal lagoon. It is very pleasing to see that that project has now been brought forward in a form that does not require any Government subsidy. That is clearly a vote of confidence in this sector and this technology going forward. Our door is open for innovative proposals in this area. I was pleased, as I said, to meet the Marine Energy Council to see what more we can do.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Chris Skidmore)
The Department regularly assesses comparative levels of R&D expenditure in the UK and in EU member states. The Office for National Statistics has estimated that overall gross R&D expenditure in the UK was £33.1 billion in 2016—1.7% of GDP, compared with the EU average of 1.9% of GDP. We must do more, so in our industrial strategy we have committed to spending 2.4% of GDP on R&D across the UK economy by 2027.
Vicky Ford
Many British-based scientists are concerned that their participation in cross-border science networks might be jeopardised by Brexit. Can the Minister confirm that it is this Government’s intention that the UK should continue to participate in Horizon Europe’s next framework programme, FP9, and that the best way for us to help to make sure that that happens is for this House to support the withdrawal agreement?
Chris Skidmore
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on this issue. The Government’s priority is a smooth and orderly exit from the EU as set out in principle in the EU withdrawal agreement. Voting for the agreement would provide continuity and reassurance for researchers in continuing to participate in the Horizon programmes. It is no secret that we want to explore association with Horizon Europe. The political declaration makes clear our joint intention to establish terms and conditions regarding UK participation in EU programmes as part of our future relationship.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
As I said to the Minister yesterday, I have two universities in my constituency, and they are very concerned about research and development; they do a lot of work for companies like Jaguar Land Rover, and mainly in the industrial sector. What guarantee can the Minister give that the level of funding will be maintained after 2020? The Chancellor has not committed to that so far.
Chris Skidmore
I am proud, as the Universities Minister, that we have in this country three of the world’s top 10 universities when it comes to research. We want to ensure that we continue to have that international reputation. We have made Treasury guarantees on the underwrite extension, ensuring that we continue to be part of all the projects that are part of Horizon 2020. We want to ensure that the association with Horizon Europe has universities at the front and centre of it.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
The Chancellor and I work closely together to support businesses right across the United Kingdom, but as I said before, the best option for Scotland in facing Brexit is to provide certainty to business by supporting a deal that has been proposed with the European Union.
Gavin Newlands
I am not entirely convinced by that answer. With the risk of red meat facing tariffs of around 40%, the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland, Andrew McCornick, described a no-deal Brexit as “catastrophic” for Scotland’s farmers and crofters. In the event that the Prime Minister is unable to get her deal through the Commons and opts for no deal instead of extending article 50, and given what the Secretary of State has said about no deal, will he resign?
Greg Clark
The solution is in the hon. Gentleman’s own hands. The NFU has been clear about this in Scotland and every part of the United Kingdom—it said that we should back the deal that has been negotiated. He has the opportunity to do that.
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Greg Clark
I am delighted to say that we work closely with the Scottish Government and universities and businesses across Scotland. One example is the sector deals that we have struck, including the life sciences sector deal, in which Scotland is strong, which means investment going into Scottish institutions and creating good jobs now and in the future.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
A recent survey by Ernst & Young found that 92% of Scottish firms do not feel fully ready for Brexit. They are being left adrift by this Government. Given the calamitous collapse of the phantom deal for the ferry company with no ships—the Seaborne Freight fiasco—does the Secretary of State stick by his comment that the contract was “prudent and responsible”?
Greg Clark
The Secretary of State for Transport gave a statement on that yesterday and was clear that no Government money had been put into that. When it comes to building confidence for businesses in Scotland, which I hope the hon. Gentleman and I want to do, he will know that the way to allay businesses’ concerns is to ensure that we conclude an agreement. There is one that has the support of businesses in Scotland and across the country, and I hope his party will back it.
Drew Hendry
That answer is simply not good enough. Even the former head of the civil service, Bob Kerslake, said that the fiasco will
“just confirm the view of many that this country is in a mess”.
If the UK Government cannot put in place their own services, will the Secretary of State support the SNP’s demand for the Chancellor to use the spring statement to provide firms with the fiscal support they need to put in place their own measures to get them through this Tory Brexit mess?
Greg Clark
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman would raise fiscal matters, when some of the fiscal decisions taken in Scotland recently have further diminished investors’ confidence. For Scotland to be the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom is a terrible signal to not only workers but businesses.
John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)
I know that the hon. Gentleman is a proud Yorkshireman, and he will know that we frequently discuss the economic success story that is Yorkshire and the Humber. It may be a little bit politically incorrect, but I am sure he is proud of the fact that in the first three years of the Conservative Government from 2010, Yorkshire created more jobs than the whole of France.
John Grogan
But given that economic growth in Yorkshire and the Humber has on average been about 1% since 2010, compared with 3% in London, does the Minister see merit in the proposals and the economic case for One Yorkshire devolution that have been presented to Ministers? It is backed by 18 local authority leaders, many of them distinguished Conservatives.
Claire Perry
I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is reviewing the proposals. I see in his place the Mayor of the Sheffield city region, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who is doing a fantastic job. I say to the hon. Member for Keighley (John Grogan) that in the places where large-scale mayoralties are working well, such as the west midlands with Andy Street or on Teesside with Mayor Houchen, a cross-party proposal has been brought forward, bottom up, for the Government then to make a decision on.
Mr Speaker
Order. No, no. Last time I visited Ochil and South Perthshire, the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, it was a most stimulating experience, but my recollection is that the constituency was a considerable distance from Yorkshire. I call Chris Davies.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
And Wales is even further, Mr Speaker. [Laughter.]
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)
Our modern industrial strategy for our whole country will ensure that the UK remains one of the most competitive locations in the world for manufacturing investment. We are investing over £600 million in the high-value manufacturing Catapult, and up to £167 million in our “Made Smarter” industrial digitalisation programme. I hope and believe that this will help UK manufacturers develop, adopt and exploit new technologies to make us really successful in the future.
Chris Davies
The British soft drinks industry plays a very important part in the manufacturing sector in our country and should really be applauded for the way in which it has adapted to meet the recent sugar tax. With the Government’s announcement that a bottle return scheme will be introduced in the next few years, will my hon. Friend assure the industry and this House that this scheme will be uniform right across the country?
Richard Harrington
Much as I would like to do so, I cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance, because waste and recycling policy is a devolved matter. However, it is our preference that the scheme is UK-wide, and we will really be pushing that with the devolved authorities.
Preet Kaur Gill
The latest monthly figures from the Office for National Statistics reveal that manufacturing output has collapsed into recession territory, with a sixth consecutive month of falling output. As part of that, manufacturing fell 4.9% in the final quarter of last year. Will the Government listen to Labour, trade unions and businesses, and take the threat of a no-deal Brexit off the table to restore manufacturing sector confidence and protect my constituents’ jobs?
Richard Harrington
I agree with the hon. Lady and with the Prime Minister that a hard Brexit without a deal would be a disaster for the economy of this country, and Toyota, Jaguar Land Rover and many people have said how important the just-in-time process is. I hope that the hon. Lady will listen, and that she will vote for the Prime Minister’s deal, which will give the motor and manufacturing industries the transition period they need.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
The UK automotive sector is a vital part of our economy, generating £78 billon of turnover and directly employing 160,000 people in manufacturing alone. We are working with the sector through our industrial strategy and, in particular, the automotive sector deal, to make sure that our industry leads in the technologies of the future.
John Spellar
The Secretary of State knows that diesel efficiency helps to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, he knows that new diesel engines are also much cleaner and he knows the importance of diesel production for our motor industry as it makes an orderly transition to new propulsion systems, so why is he letting his fellow Cabinet members the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Health and Social Care grandstand in demonising diesel, and why is he not standing up for our car industry and our car workers?
Greg Clark
I say to the right hon. Gentleman, who I know takes an interest in this, that I have always been clear, and indeed the “road to zero” strategy is very clear, that having a new diesel engine is a perfectly reasonable choice as we move towards zero-emission vehicles in the future. That is very clear: I have said it, my colleagues have said it and I am happy to repeat it to the House.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Our car industry is a global success story facing existential challenges—climate change, technology change, market change and Brexit. As 80% of our imported parts come from the European Union and 80% of cars made are exported, including half to the European Union, motor manufacturers say a no deal could mean £4.5 billion in tariffs, affecting hundreds of thousands of jobs. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) are known to favour a customs union in private, but with 45 days to go, do they not have a duty to make the private public, to take no deal off the table and to stand up for a permanent customs union and British jobs?
Greg Clark
I would say that the hon. Lady and her colleagues have a duty to listen to what the employers that she mentions have to say. I could mention Ford, which said:
“It’s important that we get the agreement ratified that’s on the table at the moment”.
Aston Martin has said that it is “obvious” that the deal
“meets the needs of all the requests we put forward as an industry”,
and that its needs it to be ratified. McLaren has said that the withdrawal agreement would provide urgently needed certainty. If the hon. Lady wants to follow the representations of our employers, she should do what they say and back the deal.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)
The Government recognise the importance of post offices to rural communities across the UK and are committed to the post office network’s future. The Post Office offers targeted financial support in recognition of the unique challenges of running a rural post office. Postmasters who run community branches that are the last shop in the village can receive packages combining fixed and variable remuneration to reflect their special circumstances.
Maria Caulfield
Post offices in my rural villages of Newick, East Dean and Alfriston are still temporarily closed because the Post Office local model, on a transaction-fee basis, is not enticing potential postmasters. Will the Minister look at returning to a community-based Post Office model to help these post offices to reopen?
Kelly Tolhurst
The Government have invested significantly in post offices in recent years. While there is no programme of post office closures, some unexpected closures, for some reasons beyond the control of the Post Office, as in my hon. Friend’s constituency, can occur. Work is currently under way in regard to her constituency, and there is hope that the services will be restored. I will also ask the Post Office to liaise directly with my hon. Friend on those issues.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Given that many rural post offices are barely profitable if they are profitable at all, is it not time for Ministers to consider giving business rates relief to all rural post offices—in particular, those housed by the Co-op movement, which continue to provide a service to local communities?
Kelly Tolhurst
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have doubled permanent small business relief and increased the threshold at which businesses pay business rates. We are investing in community branches. The Post Office has launched a smaller community branch development scheme, which is guaranteed to benefit another more than 700 post offices. We will keep working with the Post Office to make sure that we maintain our network of 11,500.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Surely Devon and Cornwall are home to both rural post offices and highly skilled jobs. With a degree of lateral thinking, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) can shoehorn his inquiry into the question of which we are currently treating.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Kelly Tolhurst
It is true: it has been too long since I have had the opportunity to visit my hon. Friend’s part of the country. I have met some of his colleagues to talk about post office opportunities in the south-west. As I have already reiterated, we are committed to delivering those rural post offices.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
As the Minister will be aware, in the Postal Services Act 2011 the House has already given its in-principle agreement to mutualise the post office network. Will she indulge a former Post Office Minister and agree to meet me to discuss how the powers in sections 4 and 5 of the Act could be used to take forward this exciting policy innovation?
Kelly Tolhurst
The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct: the Post Office is at the forefront of looking at new ways in which it can modernise and increase the services delivered through our post offices. I will be more than happy to listen to any suggestions that he has—so, yes, of course, at some point I will meet him.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)
In the past five years we have halved late payments and through our call for evidence we are looking at what more we can do to end the scourge of late payments affecting small businesses. In January, we announced £2 million of funding for our business basics programme, supporting 15 innovative projects. We continue to do that as we try to improve productivity.
Peter Heaton-Jones
Many of the excellent small businesses in North Devon are in the hospitality sector. Will the Minister assure me that the Government will continue to support those excellent small businesses, which give such good service to our visitors and tourists?
Kelly Tolhurst
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. North Devon is a wonderful part of the country. The tourism sector is particularly important for our economy, providing 1.6 million jobs across all regions and contributing £67.7 billion in gross value added. The Government are committed to supporting the sector and to continuing to work with small businesses through our industrial strategy and the sector deal that is under way.
Kevin Hollinrake
Sadly, HBOS managers were found guilty of defrauding their own small business customers, yet the Financial Reporting Council has steadfastly refused to seriously consider whistleblower evidence that KPMG and the bank colluded to cover up bank losses partly attributable to that fraud. What will my hon. Friend do to ensure that this matter is seriously investigated?
Kelly Tolhurst
My hon. Friend raises a really important question. There have been several criticisms of the FRC, which is why the Secretary of State commissioned Sir John Kingman to lead a review of the regulator. We are taking forward Sir John’s recommendations to create a stronger regulator with stronger powers. I assure my hon. Friend that I will continue to meet him on the particular issue he raises, so that we can find a resolution.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that we should support workers who keep small businesses like cafes and pubs going? In his so-called “Good Work Plan”, the Business Secretary boasted that the Government will ensure that all tips go to workers in full. Where exactly is the Bill that was first promised three years ago?
Kelly Tolhurst
The hon. Lady is quite right. In October last year, we announced that we will bring forward legislation regarding tipping in the next Session. We are committed to doing that. It is this Government who have brought it forward.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for International Trade seems to be hell-bent on destroying our businesses, judging by his support for zero import tariffs. Can the Business Minister confirm that she understands the damage that unilaterally imposing zero import tariffs would do to businesses and jobs in this country? Will she confirm whether she or the Business Secretary will remain as members of the Government if that policy is adopted?
Kelly Tolhurst
I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised this issue. We engage with the small business community, the wider business community and all business representation organisations on a weekly basis. It is quite right that we consult a plethora of businesses throughout the UK on any decision that will be taken on customs and tariffs. We will take into consideration their views when we set our policy, which will be announced in the near future.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)
The Government are committed to supporting working families. We are conducting a short and focused review of the provisions for parents of premature, sick and multiple babies, focusing primarily on barriers to the labour market. I have met colleagues, Bliss and The Smallest Things.
Rosie Cooper
In response to the Minister’s reply, may I ask when that review will commence and when we can expect its conclusions?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank the hon. Lady for allowing me to talk about this issue. A short internal review has been carried out by my officials and I expect to receive information on that shortly. I have already committed to keeping cross-party colleagues updated and I happily extend that commitment to her.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
Since our last departmental questions, we have been continuing to implement the industrial strategy. We are doing more, for example, to protect businesses and consumers from online threats, with the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund backing research to make hardware more secure. As we leave the EU, we are determined to continue to be a pioneer in setting the highest standards, including proposals—currently being consulted on—to expand protections for pregnant women and new parents returning to work after having children.
Mrs Latham
Could the Secretary of State tell us what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the creative industries sector deal?
Greg Clark
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. It was one of the first sector deals. We were very determined to act on the report of Sir Peter Bazalgette, which celebrated the potential for new jobs to be created. It is going extremely well. Investments are being made in virtual reality, creating new opportunities for small businesses to benefit from the technology that larger ones have.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
Since the start of the year, the Financial Times, The Observer, The Times, POLITICO and The Spectator, as well as many specialist publications, have described the looming energy crisis facing the UK following the collapse of plans to develop three nuclear power stations at Wylfa, Moorside and Oldbury, but back in November 2018, the Secretary of State announced that the energy trilemma—the challenge of providing energy that is green, cheap and secure—was coming to an end. Is he still of this view?
Rebecca Long Bailey
That was straight and very to the point. The Secretary of State may have pointed to the falling cost of renewable energy, but he cannot disown his Government’s policies, unfortunately, which are plunging that industry from crisis to crisis. New deployment of solar has fallen 90% since 2016. New onshore wind deployment has fallen 80%, so that certainly does not sound like the end of the energy trilemma. With people getting nervous about how we are going to keep the lights on, will he describe in detail where exactly he expects the UK to source low-carbon electricity from by the end of the 2020s?
Greg Clark
We have a proud record of being one of the world’s leaders in renewable energy. The proportion of renewable energy on the grid at the moment has hit 33% for the first time in our history. We are the world’s leader in offshore wind. The challenges that the hon. Lady identifies come from the fact that energy sources are falling in price. They are more abundant than ever before and we have established ourselves as the place in the world with the technology to be able to deploy them on the grid. She should welcome that.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)
That is an excellent point from my hon. Friend, as we would expect. Luckily, we are on the case and have the Automotive Council skills working group, with which we are doing our best to deal with the problem that he mentions as a partnership between Government and industry.
Danielle Rowley (Midlothian) (Lab)
The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)
I am very pleased to assure the hon. Lady that we are not only doing enough, but leading the developed world. Our renewables generation has increased fourfold since 2010. We have decarbonised our economy—as our four nations—more than any other country in the G20, and we were the first industrialised county to seriously look at that shocking Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report and ask our own independent Committee on Climate Change for its advice on how we can get to a net zero-carbon economy going forward.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Let me be clear: pregnancy and maternity discrimination is unacceptable and illegal. That is why, last month, the Government announced a consultation on pregnancy and maternity discrimination. The consultation seeks to extend redundancy protection for pregnant women and it seeks views on what the Department is doing to tackle pregnancy and maternity discrimination. I point out that this will go beyond what the EU currently allows.
Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Chris Skidmore)
The hon. Lady is correct to say that cyber-resilience must be a key part of our industrial strategy. I was in Northern Ireland last Friday to discuss with organisations how they could be involved in our AI programme and with setting up masters programmes in cyber-security.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
Kelly Tolhurst
I would love to come to Penzance if time permits—it is an area of the country I would love to visit—and I will continue to work with my hon. Friend to deliver post office services in his region. He is a passionate supporter of the Post Office and I welcome his support for me in my role as the Minister in that area.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
Greg Clark
Of course we need to consult—and we are consulting—with businesses and sector organisations to ensure that the right decision is made, but no decision has yet been taken.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
Claire Perry
With much pleasure. We published figures last week showing that we continue to reduce our emissions, which are down 3% year on year. I say again that we are decarbonising faster than any other country in the G20. We are doing our bit domestically as well as internationally with our £6 billion of climate spending, and we have formally put our name forward to host the crucial climate change talks in 2020, although we must remember that other countries are still interested.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Kelly Tolhurst
I recognise the distress felt by constituents in cases of insolvency and where companies cease to trade. The redundancy payment service, operated by the Insolvency Service, has already made statutory redundancy payments to 157 eligible employees. Payments in respect of unpaid wages cannot be made while the company is still not in formal insolvency procedures, but we remain ready to act.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
My office has been meeting representatives of the Coal Authority to talk about geothermal opportunities in Clackmannanshire in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss these opportunities?
Claire Perry
My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for what could be a very valuable source of heat from flooded mine workings. It seems apposite to recognise the effort that went into digging them out, and it would be good to use them in our low-carbon future. As he knows, I continue to look at his ideas with great interest.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Central to economic development in Yorkshire will be the design of the new UK shared prosperity fund. What work is the Secretary of State doing across Government to ensure that the fund works to the maximum benefit of the Yorkshire economy?
Greg Clark
We are having conversations across the UK, including with local leaders, of whom the hon. Gentleman is a distinguished example, and I look forward to continuing those discussions so that we can set out the prospectus.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
My right hon. Friend was right to tell the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee that business was crying out for clarity on Brexit, but we cannot have that clarity until we have a meaningful vote. Will my right hon. Friend therefore confirm that the Government will bring that meaningful vote back to the House as a matter of urgency? It would be wholly irresponsible for it to be held within a matter of days before we are due to leave the European Union.
Greg Clark
My right hon. Friend is right to say that we need to bring certainty and enable businesses to plan for the future, but she is also fortunate, in that the Prime Minister is about to make a statement on the matter.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
The mineworkers’ pension scheme has boosted Government coffers by billions while ex-miners and their widows receive an average pension of £80 a week. Will the Secretary of State meet miners’ representatives and the trustees of the scheme to hammer out a fairer pension deal?
Claire Perry
As the very proud daughter-in-law of a miner’s widow who benefits from the scheme, I take its stewardship very seriously. I believe that it will be debated in the House in a couple of days, and I should be delighted to discuss it further. I should point out that the extraordinary arrangements that were developed between the Government and the trustees have delivered much higher returns to the beneficiaries than similar schemes, but I continue to be happy to meet Members to discuss the issue.
Mr Speaker
I am extraordinarily grateful to the hon. Lady, but I think it can wait.
Mr Speaker
No, I think it can wait. I look forward to it with interest and enthusiasm, but—
Mr Speaker
It may do, but the Prime Minister is waiting to address the House, and I think that people want to hear her. We will hear the hon. Lady in due course.
Leaving the EU
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the Government’s ongoing work to secure a Brexit deal that honours our commitments to the people of Northern Ireland, commands the support of Parliament, and can be negotiated with the EU.
On 29 January, the House gave me a clear mandate and sent an unequivocal message to the European Union. Last week, I took that message to Brussels. I met President Juncker, President Tusk and the President of the European Parliament, Antonio Tajani. I told them clearly what Parliament wanted in order to unite behind a withdrawal agreement—legally binding changes to the backstop—and I explained to them the three ways in which that could be achieved.
First, the backstop could be replaced with alternative arrangements to avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union met Michel Barnier to discuss the ideas put forward by the Alternative Arrangements Working Group, which consists of a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am grateful to them for their work, and we are continuing to explore their ideas. Secondly, there could be a legally binding time limit to the existing backstop, or thirdly, there could be a legally binding unilateral exit clause to that backstop. Given that both sides agree that we do not ever want to use the backstop and that if we did so it would be temporary, we believe it is reasonable to ask for legally binding changes to that effect.
As expected, President Juncker maintained the EU’s position that it will not reopen the withdrawal agreement. I set out the UK’s position—strengthened by the mandate that the House had given me—that the House needs to see legally binding changes to the backstop, and that that can be achieved by changes to the withdrawal agreement. We agreed that our teams should hold further talks to find a way forward, and President Juncker and I will meet again before the end of February to take stock of those discussions.
So our work continues. The Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are in Strasbourg today, and last week the Attorney General was in Dublin to meet his Irish counterpart. Following my own visits to Brussels, Northern Ireland and Ireland last week, I welcomed the Prime Minister of Malta to Downing Street yesterday, and I will be speaking to other EU27 leaders today and throughout the week. The Leader of the Opposition shares the House’s concerns about the backstop; I welcome his willingness to sit down and talk to me, and 1 look forward to continuing our discussions. Indeed, Ministers will be meeting members of his team tomorrow.
I think that there are a number of areas in which the whole House should be able to come together. In particular, I believe that we have a shared determination across the House not to allow the UK’s leaving the EU to mean any lowering of standards in relation to workers’ rights, environmental protections, or health and safety. I have met trade union representatives and Members on both sides of the House, and my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary is leading work to ensure that we fully address all concerns about these vital issues. We have already made legally binding commitments to no regression in these areas if we were to enter the backstop, and we are prepared to consider legislating to give these commitments force in UK law. And in the interests of building support across the House, we are also prepared to commit to asking Parliament whether it wishes to follow suit whenever the EU changes its standards in these areas. And of course we do not need to automatically follow EU standards in order to lead the way, as we have done in the past under both Conservative and Labour Governments. The UK has a proud tradition of leading the way in workers’ rights whilst maintaining a flexible labour market that has helped deliver an employment rate almost 6 percentage points above the EU average.
Successive Governments of all parties have put in place standards that exceed the minimums set by the EU. A Labour Government gave British workers annual leave and paid maternity leave entitlements well above that required by the European Union. A Conservative-led Government went further than the EU by giving all employees the right to request flexible working; and I was proud to be the Minister for Women and Equalities to introduce shared parental leave so that both parents are able to take on caring responsibilities for their child—something no EU regulation provides for.
When it comes to workers’ rights this Parliament has set a higher standard before, and I believe will do so in the future. Indeed we already have plans to repeal the so-called Swedish derogation, which allows employers to pay their agency workers less, and we are committed to enforcing holiday pay for the most vulnerable workers—not just protecting workers’ rights, but extending them.
As I set out in my statement two weeks ago, the House also agrees that Parliament must have a much stronger and clearer role in the next phase of the negotiations. Because the political declaration cannot be legally binding and in some areas provides for a spectrum of outcomes, some Members are understandably concerned that they cannot be sure precisely what future relationship it would lead to. By following through on our commitments and giving Parliament that bigger say in the mandate for the next phase, we are determined to address those concerns. The Secretary of State has written to all members of the Exiting the EU Committee seeking their view on engaging Parliament in this next phase of negotiations, and we are also reaching out beyond this House to engage more deeply with businesses, civil society and trade unions.
Everyone in this House knows that the vote for Brexit was about not just changing our relationship with the EU, but changing how things work at home, especially for those in communities who feel they have been left behind. [Interruption.] Addressing this and widening opportunities is the mission of this Government that I set out on my first day as Prime Minister, and I will continue to work with Members across the House to do everything we can to help build a country that works for everyone.
But one area where the Leader of the Opposition and I do not agree is on his suggestion that the UK should remain a member of the EU customs union. I would gently point out that the House of Commons has already voted against that, and in any case—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is a lot of noise and heckling, but the record shows that everyone gets a chance to question the Prime Minister. I think it is right that she should have a proper and respectful hearing, and the same courtesy must be extended to the Leader of the Opposition in due course.
The Prime Minister
First, I would gently point out that the House of Commons has already voted against that, and in any case membership of the customs union would be a less desirable outcome than that which is provided for in the political declaration. That would deliver no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions across all sectors, and no checks on rules of origin. But crucially it would also provide for the development of an independent trade policy for the UK that would allow us to strike our own trade deals around the world, something the Labour party once supported.
On Thursday, as I promised in the House last month, we will bring forward an amendable motion. This will seek to reaffirm the support of the House for the amended motion from 29 January—namely to support the Government in seeking changes to the backstop and to recognise that negotiations are ongoing. Having secured an agreement with the European Union for further talks, we now need some time to complete that process. When we achieve the progress we need, we will bring forward another meaningful vote, but if the Government have not secured a majority in this House in favour of a withdrawal agreement and a political declaration, the Government will make a statement on Tuesday 26 February and table an amendable motion relating to the statement, and a Minister will move that motion on Wednesday 27 February, thereby enabling the House to vote on it, and on any amendments to it, on that day. As well as making clear what is needed to change in the withdrawal agreement, the House has also reconfirmed its view that it does not want to leave the EU without a deal. The Government agree, but opposing no deal is not enough to stop it. We must agree a deal that this House can support, and that is what I am working to achieve.
I have spoken before about the damage that would be done to public faith in our democracy if this House were to ignore the result of the 2016 referendum. In Northern Ireland last week, I heard again the importance of securing a withdrawal agreement that works for all the people of this United Kingdom. In Belfast I met not just politicians but leaders of civil society and businesses from across the community. Following this House’s rejection of the withdrawal agreement, many people in Northern Ireland are worried about what the current uncertainty will mean for them. In this House we often focus on the practical challenges posed by the border in Northern Ireland, but for many people in Northern Ireland, what looms larger is the fear that the seamless border between Ireland and Northern Ireland that helped to make the progress that has followed the Belfast agreement possible might be disrupted. We must not let that happen, and we shall not let that happen.
The talks are at a crucial stage, and we now all need to hold our nerve to get the changes that this House requires and to deliver Brexit on time. By getting the changes we need to the backstop, by protecting and enhancing workers’ rights and environmental protections and by enhancing the role of Parliament in the next phase of negotiations, I believe we can reach a deal that this House can support. We can deliver for the people and the communities that voted for change two and half years ago and whose voices for too long have not been heard. We can honour the result of the referendum, and we can set this country on course for the bright future that every part of this United Kingdom deserves. That is this Government’s mission, and we shall not stint in our efforts to fulfil it. I commend this statement to the House.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I usually thank the Prime Minister for giving me an advance copy of her statements, but this one was handed to me just as I was leaving my office to come down here, so I can only assume that she entrusted it to the Transport Secretary to deliver it to me.
Our country is facing the biggest crisis in a generation, yet the Prime Minister continues to recklessly run down the clock. We were promised that there would be a deal last October; it did not happen. We were promised a meaningful vote on a deal in December; it did not happen. We were told to prepare for a further meaningful vote this week, after the Prime Minister had again promised to secure significant and legally binding changes to the backstop; that has not happened. Now the Prime Minister comes before the House with more excuses and more delays.
In her statement, the Prime Minister has failed to answer even the most basic questions. What progress has she made on identifying and working up the alternative arrangements? Have they been presented to the European Union? If not, when will they be presented? Will she set them out before this House and ask for its approval of them? In truth, it appears that the Prime Minister has just one real tactic: to run down the clock, hoping that Members of this House can be blackmailed into supporting a deeply flawed deal. This is an irresponsible act. She is playing for time, and playing with people’s jobs, our economic security and the future of our industries.
Yesterday, growth figures showed the lowest growth since 2012 and our manufacturing sector mired in recession. The decision by Nissan last week to pull its investment from its Sunderland plant may be only the thin end of a very long wedge. Uncertainty and falling confidence in this Government’s ability to deliver are putting jobs at risk. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will be hearing the same warnings as I am: that several major manufacturers—household names employing tens of thousands of people—are poised to follow in Nissan’s footsteps.
Earlier today, we heard from the Leader of the House that the next meaningful vote may not happen until after the EU summit on 21 March—just days before Brexit is due to happen. If that is not the case, will the Prime Minister tell the House today when the meaningful vote will be? We also learned from the Leader of the House that any changes to the backstop will not be written into the legally binding withdrawal agreement. Will the Prime Minister confirm that?
Is the Prime Minister really prepared to risk people’s livelihoods, jobs and investment in a desperate attempt to push her deeply flawed deal through Parliament? She has just told this House to hold its nerve. Tell that to Nissan workers in Sunderland and the thousands more worried about their job security and the future of their communities. No Minister who is serious about protecting jobs in this country would allow a Prime Minister deliberately to run down the clock and play chicken with people’s livelihoods. To stand by and do nothing would be a complete dereliction of duty.
As I received the Prime Minister’s letter yesterday in response to Labour’s Brexit plan, it became clearer to me that the Prime Minister is merely engaged in the pretence of working across Parliament to find solutions. She has not indicated that she will move one iota away from her rejected deal or any of her red lines. On the backstop, the Prime Minister has pointed out that Labour also has concerns. But let us make no mistake about it—that has never been a major issue with the Prime Minister’s deal. In order to stop the UK falling into the backstop, we need a permanent customs union and a strong single market deal. That is the key to maintaining an open border on the island of Ireland and to protecting jobs, industry and living standards in this country. That is why it is backed by businesses that employ and trade unions that represent millions of workers in this country.
To correct the Prime Minister’s claim in her statement, we want to negotiate a new UK-EU customs union, as I set out in my letter. The Prime Minister says there is no need to negotiate a customs union as her deal provides for the benefit of being in one, but I am afraid that that is simply not the case. The deal that the Prime Minister negotiated means that there will be barriers to trade in goods and there will be no frictionless trade, putting manufacturers across the country at a huge disadvantage. That is made quite clear in the political declaration when it says that
“the Parties will form separate markets and distinct legal orders”
and concedes that that
“can lead to a spectrum of different outcomes for administrative processes as well as checks and controls”.
Nothing is secured.
The Prime Minister is also trying to win support for her deal by promising to protect workers’ rights after Brexit. Well, just look at the record of the Conservatives. They attacked trade union rights through the Trade Union Act 2016. They kept this House up all night opposing the minimum wage in 1997. They are the party that introduced employment tribunal fees and the public sector pay cap. For many of them, ripping up rights is what Brexit is all about. Take the Secretary of State for International Trade, for example. He once wrote:
“It is too difficult to hire and fire and too expensive to take on new employees. It is intellectually unsustainable to believe that workplace rights should remain untouchable”.
It is no wonder that trade union leaders such as Tim Roache of the GMB and Frances O’Grady, the general secretary of the TUC, have rejected the Prime Minister’s inadequate pledges. It is also vital that we keep pace with the best consumer safeguards and environmental protections. As if the warnings of the destruction of our biodiverse natural life are not serious enough, we have to be serious about all environmental protections and indeed make them much stronger.
There is a sensible way forward, but the Prime Minister is refusing to listen. Labour’s alternative has been widely welcomed as a way of breaking the impasse by business leaders, European leaders and even some Conservative MPs, but the Prime Minister refuses to listen. I urge all Members to think about the damage that the Prime Minister’s strategy is doing—the threat to industry, unskilled jobs and communities all across this country. Now is not the time to stand idly by. Now is the time to stand up and do the right thing, to rule out no deal and to back Labour’s alternative plan.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the announcement by Nissan, but it is important that the House recognises that Nissan has confirmed that none of the current 7,000 jobs at the plant will be lost. It remains committed to the UK and more capital will be invested in Sunderland than was originally planned in 2016. He asked me about the progress on the alternative arrangements and whether they were going to be put before the European Commission. I remind him of what I said in my statement:
“Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union met Michel Barnier to discuss the ideas put forward by the Alternative Arrangements Working Group, which consists of a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends.”
I think that answers his question.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about Labour’s proposals. I referenced the issue with the customs union in my statement, but of course he also talks about being a member of the single market. Being a member of the single market means accepting free movement and one of the things that people voted for when they voted to leave the European Union was to bring an end to free movement. That is what this Government will deliver.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the dates for votes that are going to take place in this House. I set those out in my statement as well. He referenced businesses quite a lot but, of course, businesses backed the deal—[Interruption.] They did. He talked about uncertainty but, of course, the best way to end uncertainty is to vote for a deal. He talked about running down the clock, but I wanted to have this sorted before Christmas. I brought a deal back—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Matheson, I have nurtured for a long time an ambition to see you become a statesman. I think you are threatening that prospect with these noisy gesticulations. Be calm—Buddha-like.
The Prime Minister
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The deal was negotiated before Christmas, so it is not I who is trying to run down the clock—[Interruption.] It is no good Labour Members who voted against the deal pointing their fingers across the House. Every time somebody votes against a deal, the risk of no deal increases.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about acting in the national interest. Yes, we should be acting in the national interest and the national interest is in getting a deal agreed through this Parliament. That is why we are working with the European Union in everything that we are doing.
The right hon. Gentleman made several references to the issues of businesses, the issue of jobs and protecting jobs. We are going back to deal with the issue of the backstop, but the deal that we have negotiated with the EU—the political declaration that sets out the future—is a deal that protects jobs. The one thing that we know would threaten jobs in this country would be a Labour Government.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will recall that, when we served together in the Cabinet, the coalition Government were very enthusiastic about the prospect of negotiating EU trade deals with important trading partners around the world, including the prospect of a trade deal with Japan. The Japan deal was concluded on 1 February, and I think it covers a bigger proportion of the global economy than any trade deal negotiated so far. Does the Prime Minister aim to seek a customs arrangement that enables us to continue to enjoy, or to begin to get, the benefits of this important deal after 29 March, or is she insisting that we have to leave it and have our own trade policy, and begin our own negotiations with a country that has a much bigger economy than our own and is likely to demand concessions from the United Kingdom that it was not able to demand from the European Union?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right that the economic partnership agreement with Japan came into force on 1 February. Of course, prior to that, we had been trading with Japan on World Trade Organisation arrangements. It has been the policy of the Government, in relation to the trade deals that have been agreed between the European Union and countries around the world, that we see continuity in those agreements at the point at which we leave the European Union—we have also been working to see continuity were we to leave with no deal—but we also want to ensure that we can enhance our trade arrangements with countries around the world, and so build our own trade agreements with those countries. The best and most sensible approach is to maintain trading relations as they are as we leave the European Union, and then build and enhance those trading relations with our own independent trade agreements.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Sometimes I think the Prime Minister must live in a parallel universe. We have just heard that she wanted this concluded in December. Talk about rewriting history—it was the Prime Minister who denied us the right to have a meaningful vote. [Interruption.] She sits there laughing. Sometimes you should be honest with yourself, never mind being honest with the people of the United Kingdom.
Here we are, once again: a statement from a Prime Minister lost in a Brexit fantasy. We are 45 days from Scotland being dragged out of the European Union against our will, 45 days from economic catastrophe. She talks about Japan. Goods leaving Japan in the next few days will arrive after we leave the European Union, and we do not know what the tariff regime will be for those imported cars and training shoes, or whatever else. The ongoing mess of this Government never ceases to amaze.
Does the Prime Minister understand that EU leaders have refused to budge on any changes to the withdrawal agreement? Donald Tusk said on 6 February that the EU is not making any other offer. What does the Prime Minister not understand in that statement? Why does she not understand that the EU will not reopen the withdrawal agreement that she signed up to? Does she realise the danger of running down the clock? Forty-five days to go, and here we are with a Government who cannot even deliver a ferry contract.
Prime Minister, your response to my letter requesting sight of what economic analysis you have done on your own deal poses more questions than answers. The question is simple: have you done an economic assessment of your deal’s impact on the UK economy? I want a simple yes or no.
Prime Minister, you are asking this House to vote on your deal and you cannot even be honest about the economic impact. You expect MPs to vote for this, but your binary choice is simply laughable. A growing number are calling for an extension to article 50. Extend article 50 today.
The Prime Minister’s deal is a fraud. Ending freedom of movement and leaving the biggest trading bloc in the world, this will be catastrophic for Scotland. The UK is already suffering the cost of Brexit. Will she put an end to this economic madness?
Prime Minister, as students get set for university applications and as business owners look to prepare for the new financial year, your Government are causing a new wave of uncertainty. We on these Benches refuse to accept Scotland being dragged out of the European Union against our will. Ultimately, Scotland will have a choice: be an independent European nation or remain part of an inward-looking UK. Scotland’s voice must be respected.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman has been making the same points in response to my statements, regardless of their content, for some time now. He talks about the economic analysis, and we published an economic analysis of the Government’s proposals.
Mr Speaker
Order. There is plenty of scope for disagreement about what is true and what is not true but, in fairness, I repeat the point that the person who has the floor must be heard.
The Prime Minister
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I say to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) that, in his intervention from a sedentary position, I think he may have inadvertently misled the House on this matter.
Mr Speaker
Order. Forgive me, but I did not hear what was said. [Hon. Members: “He said, ‘Liar.’”] I hope the word “liar” was not used. [Interruption.] Order. I am perfectly capable of handling this matter with alacrity, and I shall do so. [Interruption.] Order. If that word was used, it must be withdrawn at once without equivocation or qualification. [Interruption.] Order. If a Member on the Front Bench used that word—I am sorry, but I am not debating it, I am not arguing and I am not negotiating—it must be withdrawn at once.
I admit that I did not see which Member used the word, but I am advised on good authority that it was used by the leader of the Scottish National party. If so—I want the debate to continue, and it will—I simply ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw that word. He cannot accuse another Member in this House of dishonesty. Withdraw.
Mr Speaker
There are plenty of precedents for that. I remember doing it once myself, and I remember a member of the shadow Cabinet, the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson), once doing it out of deference to the Chair rather than out of deference to the person whom he had been attacking. That is enough.
The Prime Minister
Thank you, Mr Speaker. To continue my explanation to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, the Government have put forward an economic analysis of their proposed deal. We did that in the economic analysis published before the withdrawal agreement was put before the House. In it we recognised that areas of the political declaration had not yet been confirmed and that variations in relation to the degree of friction across the border would come from that. We could have taken a very low variation, which would have been very close to the Government’s deal, and we could have taken a high variation, but we took a midpoint, which is entirely fair for the Government to do. The economic analysis shows that, if we are to honour the referendum, the deal that delivers best for the British economy is the deal that the Government have put forward.
The right hon. Gentleman also talks about putting an end to the current situation. As I have indicated, we can indeed move forward when we have agreed a deal across the House. If he is so concerned about avoiding no deal, I assume that, when a deal is brought back from the European Union, he and SNP Members will vote for it in order to support the future of the United Kingdom.
Once again, the right hon. Gentleman talks about the economic impact on Scotland of leaving the European Union and he talks, virtually in the same breath, about his view that Scotland should be independent from the United Kingdom. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That may raise cheers on the SNP Benches, but it would not raise cheers from those people in Scotland whose economic future depends on being a member of the UK.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Of course there is enormous interest, which, as per usual, I want to accommodate. May I appeal to colleagues at this time, with the country watching us, to have a robust but respectful debate? It is perfectly possible for colleagues to make their points with considerable force but to do so with courtesy. I know we will be led in this matter by a former party leader and a notably courteous right hon. Gentleman, Mr Iain Duncan Smith.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
May I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement, in which she referred to the successful amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady)? She will recall that its successful passage was heavily based on a thing that has become known as the “Malthouse compromise”. She has also said that this proposal was discussed yesterday in Brussels by the Secretary of State and one of the negotiators. For the avoidance of doubt, will she confirm that this proposal forms part of Government policy?
The Prime Minister
I know my right hon. Friend has been involved in the meetings that have taken place with the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, looking at the proposals that have come to be known as the Malthouse compromise. Of course, a number of alternative arrangements have been proposed over the past months. The possibility of alternative arrangements to replace the backstop is recognised by both the UK and the EU in the political declaration that was agreed in November. There are some issues and some questions in respect of the proposals that have been tabled. I raised the issue of alternative arrangements with the European Commission, European Council and European Parliament when I was there last week. As I said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able to discuss these issues with Michel Barnier yesterday.
As I set out in my previous statement to the House, what people across this House want to ensure is that the backstop, as it currently exists, cannot become a permanent arrangement in which the UK could find itself. There are various ways of dealing with that: as I set out in my previous statement, one is to replace that backstop completely with alternative arrangements; and another is to ensure that the backstop can never be permanent. Those are the issues that have been discussed, but I have laid Parliament’s views clearly before the EU.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
Now that the Prime Minister has reached out to the general secretary of Unite the Union, and to the Leader of the Opposition and his entourage, she is no doubt better informed as to how Trotsky might have dealt with the Brexit crisis. But will she elaborate a little more on her discussions with the general secretary of the TUC and its 6 million affiliated members, and the official Brexit spokesman of the Labour party, who have made it very clear that the best way to protect workers’ rights is to give workers a say on the final deal, and the option of remaining in the EU and keeping the workers’ rights they already have?
The Prime Minister
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the issue I have discussed with trade union leaders, the secretary general of the TUC and Members from across this House is the concern to ensure that there is no reduction in workers’ rights in the UK, a commitment that this Government have given and will continue to meet.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
I agree with the Prime Minister, and have done for many months, that the best way to avoid a no-deal outcome to Brexit is to have a deal put in place. That is why I have been pleased, at the request of the Prime Minister, to work as part of the alternative arrangements working group. But is it not now clear that to get that agreement through the House those alternative arrangements are going to have to command the confidence of a majority of Members on this side, our confidence and supply partners, and some Labour MPs? The tenor of the Leader of the Opposition’s response today shows that, unfortunately, working on a cross-party basis is unlikely to deliver a vote for the agreement and certainly not continued votes for the necessary legislation. That is the reality of the parliamentary arithmetic, isn’t it?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for the work she has been doing on the issue of alternative arrangements. Obviously, I want to see a deal that can get through the House, supported by all Members from my party and by our confidence and supply partners, but it is in the interests of this Parliament and of taking legislation forward to see a strong vote from across the whole House on this issue. As she has said, the tone of the response by the Leader of the Opposition did not give much encouragement on that issue, but we will continue to talk with the Labour party Front-Bench team. As I said, the Brexit Secretary and other members of the ministerial team will be meeting the Leader of the Opposition’s team to take forward those discussions and to explore the issues that the Labour party wishes to raise.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Although strength in pursuit of a principle is to be admired, inflexibility and denial in the face of the facts is not, especially when the future of the country is at stake. The facts are that alternative arrangements for the Northern Ireland border were examined extensively last summer and found wanting; that the EU has made it clear that it will not reopen the withdrawal agreement; that the rolling over of the trade deals that the Father of the House referred to is not going well; and that businesses are spending millions of pounds and pulling their hair out because they fear the prospect of a no-deal Brexit on 29 March. I do not believe that the Prime Minister would do that to our country. I do not think that Ministers would allow her to do it, so why does she continue to pretend that she might?
The Prime Minister
I have consistently said— and I made the point in my statement this afternoon—that what I want and what the Government want is a deal with the European Union. But there is only one way to ensure that we avoid no deal. I know I say this a lot, and I know right hon. and hon. Members shout out at it and so forth, but if they do not want no deal, they have to agree a deal.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is facing intransigence both from the undemocratic EU and from MPs who voted for the European Union Referendum Act 2015, the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 but who are now trying to reverse this with their own votes. She has not signed the withdrawal agreement, which itself contains undemocratic and unconstitutional features, including the backstop and article 4, which removes control over our lawmaking. If this undemocratic intransigence continues, will she therefore walk away from the negotiations?
The Prime Minister
Obviously, what we are doing now is working with the EU to achieve what this Parliament has said it wants to see achieved, notably legally binding changes to the backstop that deal with the issues that have been raised by this Parliament. I continue to work on those points, but my hon. Friend made a very important point at the beginning of his question, which is that Members from across this House overwhelmingly voted for a referendum. It was clear at the time that this House would respect the result of the referendum. The Government of the time made it clear that we would respect the result of the referendum. This House over- whelmingly voted to trigger article 50. Article 50 had a two-year timeline to it, which ends on 29 March, and this House voted for the withdrawal agreement Act. At every stage so far this House has been willing to put into place the result of the referendum. What the House now needs to do is agree a deal, so that we can leave on 29 March and progress on to the next stage of negotiations and progress on to a brighter future.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The country’s counter-terror chief has said that no deal would be a “very serious flaw” in our security arrangements. The police chief in charge of preparing for Brexit has said that no deal would leave us less safe. The Prime Minister and I have always previously agreed on the importance of not undermining our national security or public safety, but she knows that her continued delays have increased the risks of no deal on 29 March, so if she has failed by the middle of March to persuade this House to back a deal, is she still ruling out extending article 50—yes or no?
The Prime Minister
The extension of article 50 does not solve the problem. The only way to solve the problem of having no deal is to agree a deal. The right hon. Lady says that my delays have caused the position we are in. We are in this position because I negotiated a deal with the European Union and brought it back to the House of Commons, and the House of Commons, including Members on her side of the House, rejected that deal. We are now working to address the issue raised by the positive vote that the House of Commons gave on 29 January. That vote ensured it was clear what changes the House of Commons felt were necessary to agree a deal.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
We are all acutely aware that time is racing away, which is why more and more Members are saying we must extend article 50. We also need time for all the necessary legislation. Will the Prime Minister confirm that in the numerous statutory instruments being laid that are not debated, there is not one planned for next week, when some MPs may be away, committing us to zero tariffs in the event of no deal? Zero tariffs would decimate our agriculture and food industries and start a race to a bottom. Such a significant decision would have far-reaching consequences and would demand full parliamentary scrutiny.
The Prime Minister
There will be a number of statutory instruments that the House will be addressing. The House will be working hard on Brexit arrangements next week. On the issue of tariffs in the event of no deal, discussions are still being undertaken with businesses and other sectors.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), can the Prime Minister now give millions of people and businesses across the country a simple answer to this straight question: if she is faced with a choice of leaving the European Union without a deal on 29 March or seeking an extension of article 50, what will she do? We deserve to know the answer to that question.
The Prime Minister
What I am doing is working to ensure that we can bring a deal back to the House. It will then be for the right hon. Gentleman and other Members of the House to determine whether they want to support a deal with the European Union.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
The Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Liberal party both implicitly criticised the UK Government’s record on workers’ rights in comparison to Europe. They both ignored the fundamental right of safety in the workplace, on which we have had the best record in Europe in every year since we joined, so there is little to fear in this area. Given that, will the Prime Minister guarantee to the House that any future changes in this area will be subject to the control of the House?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point about the good record this country has on workers’ rights. I can confirm that I believe we should not just be automatically following what happens in Europe in this area; we should be making those decisions, and it is important that we in this country and this House make those decisions. With our record of going further and having better workers’ rights than a number of areas of the European Union, that makes sense.
Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
The Prime Minister referenced the fact that there are concerns in Northern Ireland about maintaining the seamless border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, but she should also reference, as she knows, the grave concern among many in Northern Ireland about creating new barriers between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, given that we trade more with the rest of the United Kingdom than the Irish Republic, the rest of the EU and the rest of the world put together. Neither barrier is necessary or needed under any scenario. The Prime Minister and the House know what is needed to pass the withdrawal agreement, so will she confirm that the stance taken by Leo Varadkar—we met him in Belfast on Friday in a very cordial meeting—and others could lead to the very outcome that they say they wish to avoid?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the concerns that have been expressed about the trading relationship between Northern Ireland and Great Britain and the issue of potential regulatory barriers. It is an issue that he and I have discussed on a number of occasions. We talk here about what it takes in this House to ensure that we agree a deal, but that deal has to be agreed with the European Union, and that means that all members of the EU27 have to agree that deal. I was able to have cordial and constructive talks with the Taoiseach on Friday. The right hon. Gentleman referenced his own talks. I hope, trust and believe that all sitting around the table want to ensure we deliver a deal that delivers on the commitments for the people of Northern Ireland and that can pass this House and be agreed by the EU.
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what she is doing to extricate this country from the humiliation of the backstop, in accordance with the overwhelming wishes of the House, but will she confirm that there is no point having a time limit on the backstop unless that is written into the treaty itself and unless the end date falls substantially before the next general election?
The Prime Minister
As my right hon. Friend already knows, I want to see the future relationship in place by the beginning of 2021, which is well in advance of the next general election. The other point he made is absolutely the point I have been making to the European Union. One of the concerns of this House was that any assurances given on the temporary nature of the backstop in early January were not of the same legal form as the international treaty that forms the withdrawal agreement. That is why we are asking for the assurances to have a legally binding status. The obvious way to do that is within the withdrawal agreement.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I say to the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) that the humiliation this country faces is losing jobs and investment. That is the issue we should be focusing on.
The Business Secretary told our Select Committee last week that Friday 15 February is the deadline for getting a deal for businesses that export to the far east, as shipments take six weeks to arrive. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Business Secretary? Will she guarantee that those free trade agreements that we enjoy today will still exist when those goods arrive on 29 March?
The Prime Minister
We are well aware of the timetables that businesses are working to. That is why we have been pressing and working hard to get the deal agreed by the House and the European Union. It is also the case that we are working on those trade agreements. A number of continuity agreements have been signed with trading nations around the world to ensure that we can continue to trade on the current arrangements.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I welcome the categorical assurance that my right hon. Friend has given the House in respect of the House’s ability to debate a neutral motion on Wednesday 27 February, but time is very short. Can she explain to the House how we will comply with the provisions of section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 if there is a deal? How will we implement the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill and still leave on 29 March? Is it not the case that looked at realistically, there will have to be an application to extend the article 50 process, even if my right hon. Friend is successful in getting some kind of agreement through the House?
The Prime Minister
As my right hon. and learned Friend said, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 makes clear that the provisions of the 2010 Act apply to the withdrawal agreement and require it to be laid before Parliament for 21 sitting days. In most circumstances, that period may be important for the House to have an opportunity to study a piece of legislation, but in this instance, MPs will already have debated and approved the agreement as part of the meaningful vote. While we will follow normal procedure if we can, where there is insufficient time remaining following a successful meaningful vote, we will make provision in the withdrawal agreement Bill, with Parliament’s consent, to ensure that we are able to ratify on time to guarantee our exit in an orderly way.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Let us remember what this looks like to anxious people outside this place. It looks like what it is: a Prime Minister buying time in a disingenuous, transparent attempt to run down the clock and force MPs from all four nations of the UK to back her, with a no-deal done deal looming large. Has she at any point in her accelerated timeline considered how and when she will gain legislative consent from the devolved Parliaments on the withdrawal agreement Bill, which will no doubt encroach on their competencies?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady talks about buying time. I am taking the very clear message given by this House of Commons to the European Union to negotiate changes to the deal, such that this House of Commons will have confidence and be able to agree the deal.
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. Does she agree that requiring legally binding changes to the backstop is not only reasonable but essential if we are to pass the deal through this House? While Brexit was the UK’s choice, if Brussels remains stubbornly intransigent, a departure on World Trade Organisation terms would be the EU’s choice.
The Prime Minister
The point that my right hon. Friend makes about the legally binding nature of the changes is important. This House has been clear about those issues, and, as I mentioned in an earlier response, I have raised with the European Union this question of the different legal force of the commitments that have been made so far and the concern that the withdrawal agreement in the international treaty would currently take precedence over the legal assurances that were given in the separate letter about the temporary nature of the backstop. It is the equivalence of that legally binding nature, to make sure that the withdrawal agreement cannot then trump anything extra, that is important.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
The whole House will have heard the Prime Minister’s response to the important question from the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) about the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill. It will also have heard the Prime Minister’s response that she does not intend to honour the 21-day period needed to lay it. We have not seen the draft of the Bill, yet it deals with very, very thorny issues about the divorce bill when we leave, EU citizens’ rights, the supremacy of European law during the transition period and the consent to remain under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice during that period. How on earth does the Prime Minister expect Members from all parts of this House to consent to that legislation without seeing a draft of it at this moment in time? Will she not acknowledge that there is no chance that she will pass that legislation in 45 days’ time? On that basis, will she commit to extending article 50 so that we do not crash out with no deal, threatening jobs right up and down this country?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She has raised an important point about the timetable, which was mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). As I said, the 21 days in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 are normally there because there has not been an opportunity for the House to see the nature of the agreement that it is considering. In this case, of course, the House would already have had an opportunity to approve the agreement. We are looking for changes in the agreement, but the vast majority of the agreement will not be changed in the discussions that we are having with the European Union, and the House has already been able to look at that as part of the meaningful vote. I am sure that, when a meaningful vote has been agreed on in this House, every Member will want to ensure that they are able to operate on a timetable that enables us to leave at the end of the two-year period, which was agreed by this House when we triggered article 50.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
The Prime Minister is driving this House towards two options that the British people do not want. We have already voted in this House against having a no-deal departure, and we have also already massively voted against her own prime ministerial deal with Brussels. She has simply turned this exercise now into one of cobbling together enough support to win a vote in this House when, actually, we deserve so much more than that. It is not just about getting the ERG on board, or getting enough Labour MPs to switch sides, but about getting the British people on board for the future that lies ahead. That takes more than just votes here, more than just the results of grubby backroom deals. Is it not time to recognise that the only responsible action ahead of us is to go back to the people and get their seal of approval?
The Prime Minister
I have responded to questions of that ilk from my right hon. Friend on a number of occasions, and I have not changed my opinion. It is important that this House recognises that, having given the choice to the British people as to whether to leave or to stay in the European Union and having received the choice of the British people, we should respect that choice and deliver on it, and that is what we are doing.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I note that, during her statement, the Prime Minister said that she had secured an agreement with the EU for further talks. I am sure that she used the word “talks” advisedly, because when the Brexit Committee was in Brussels last week, we were told very clearly that the negotiations were over and that they ended in November when the Prime Minister shook hands on the deal to which she had agreed. Is not the reality quite simply this: that deal will not be changed by the EU? She cannot get that deal through this House, so what she needs to do is put the deal to the people of the four nations of the United Kingdom.
The Prime Minister
I have just answered exactly that question in relation to a vote, and my view has not changed in the 30 seconds or so since I answered my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening).
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
The Malthouse compromise, if adopted, would deliver the requirement of the amendment put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) and passed, which was to replace the backstop. The Prime Minister’s comments just now to my right hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) and for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) were really encouraging. Will she commit to instructing civil servants both in Brussels and in Westminster to work these proposals up into legal text?
The Prime Minister
I believe that my right hon. Friend, along with some of my other right hon. Friends, previously indicated to me that he understood that work done by others outside this House had indeed contributed to a potential legal text. I know that meetings are continuing with officials to look at the issues that have been raised around the alternative arrangements. I have indicated what has happened in relation to that in Brussels, and we will continue to work on those alternative arrangements.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Essentially, the Prime Minister is asking us to please give her more time to convert base metals into gold, but is it not a complete fantasy to expect the Irish Government to put a time limit on the Good Friday agreement? We should not expect them to do that. Unless colleagues across the House take some responsibility on Thursday and snap out of this delusion right now, we will be at the mercy of this Prime Minister’s run-the-clock-down strategy.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman talks about the issue of the time limit—he described it as a time limit on the Good Friday agreement. No, it would not be a time limit on the Good Friday agreement. This Government remain absolutely committed to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and to the commitments and obligations that we have within that agreement. We all remain committed to ensuring that there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. I have always said, as has the Taoiseach, that the best way of delivering that is in the future relationship, and that is what we are working to do.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
May I reassure the Prime Minister that I am holding my nerve like anything? Will she therefore confirm that it remains at the heart of the Government’s policy, in the national interest, to secure a deal, which, at the end of the day, will achieve the closest possible political, economic and security relationship with our friends and allies in the European Union?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for holding his nerve. May I reassure him that, obviously, what we are doing in negotiating this deal is ensuring that we deliver on the referendum? We will be leaving the European Union, but its countries are our closest neighbours and it remains in the interests of this country, and the European Union, for there to be a close relationship between the UK and the EU in future. We have set out proposals for that future close relationship and, obviously, the second stage of negotiations will be putting that relationship into legal text.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
The Prime Minister was quite right to rule out again staying in a customs union, which was not on the manifesto of either of the two main parties. [Interruption.] The customs union. Does she think that we might perhaps change the wording in talking about no deal? If we cannot get an agreement, then surely we can go over to the WTO and use article 24. It is not crashing out. People voted to leave; they did not vote for a deal as such. They voted to leave, and we need to leave on 29 March.
The Prime Minister
Obviously, the hon. Lady and a number of Members in this House have raised the issue of World Trade Organisation arrangements. Of course, there are many parts of the world that we currently trade with—not just with the European Union—on what are EU terms of trade rather than WTO terms. I continue to believe that the best route for this country is to leave with a deal, which is why we are working so hard to get the changes that this Parliament requested.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I welcome the tone that the Prime Minister struck last week in her meeting with businesses in Northern Ireland, where she indicated that she would be seeking changes to the backstop, rather than its wholesale replacement. Is it worth underlining again today the reason why the backstop is there and the important purpose that it serves—namely, locking in something good amidst all the other uncertainty that is going on?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We all want to see the continuation of the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland, and the economic situation for people in Northern Ireland being enhanced and improved in the coming years. The seamless border is an important part of the progress that has been achieved. I was pleased to be able to go to Belfast and reaffirm our commitment to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which is unshakeable. There had been some concerns in Northern Ireland, but I was able to allay them. This Government remain absolutely committed to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the progress that has been achieved in Northern Ireland following that agreement.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister rightly said that the political declaration is not legally binding, but can she guarantee that she will still be in her job when our future relationship with the EU is finally agreed? If not, why would any of us take any of her assurances, given that she will not be the Prime Minister who does the final deal?
The Prime Minister
I am committed to ensuring that we are able to deliver on the political declaration and negotiate a future relationship that delivers for the people of this country.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady may shake her head. There are elements of the political declaration that are still for debate, and I recognise that there will be rigorous debate on some of those elements. In short, we want to ensure that when we come to the end of the implementation period, we have that close economic and security relationship with the European Union.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I hope that there is not a special place somewhere in particular for those of us who take a rather literal interpretation of the word “replace”.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend has always held a special place in my estimation and, indeed, in that of Members across the House, and I would not suggest that he would be going to any other special place.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Many of my constituents who live with serious health conditions are very concerned about the disruption to the supply of medicines upon which they rely. Should doctors be writing prescriptions to permit patients to stockpile medical supplies, or can the Prime Minister guarantee today—a mere 45 days from Brexit—that there will be no disruption to medical supplies post Brexit?
The Prime Minister
We are working with suppliers that provide medicines to the UK to ensure that there will be a continuity of supply and that patients will continue to receive the medicines they need in all scenarios, including in the case of no deal, so that patients will not need to, and should not seek to, secure and store additional medicines at home. We have already agreed that medicines and medical products, including medicines that can be bought in shops, will be prioritised to ensure that the flow of all these products will continue unrestricted after 29 March 2019. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary wrote to health and care providers in December about the preparations for no deal, and we have been discussing with the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland civil service the arrangements that will pertain in those locations.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
The Prime Minister tells us that she has a mandate to go back and renegotiate the backstop by virtue of the amendment that was passed on 29 January. But by a bigger margin and on a cross-party basis, this place gave her another mandate, which was to take no deal off the table. We have voted to reject her deal and we have voted to reject no deal, but not only is the Prime Minister kicking the can down the road yet again, she also again refuses to take no deal off the table. This is in the face of the analysis and advice of the civil servants who have informed the Cabinet, which has debated this issue, of the profoundly bad consequences—in the words of the Business Secretary, the “ruinous” situation—that we would face in the event of no deal. When will the Prime Minister publish that advice and analysis so that my constituents can understand why no deal is no option for this country?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is obviously right about the votes that took place in this House. However, the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), which was voted for on a cross-party basis, also referenced the fact that this House wanted to leave the European Union with a deal, and that is what we are working for. I repeat to my right hon. Friend that we cannot just say that we do not want to have no deal; we can ensure that there is not a no-deal situation only by agreeing a deal.
Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
A common external tariff would mean reduced friction in the trade of goods, which would be hugely beneficial for our manufacturing sector. A new customs union would achieve this and would not, as I understand it, prevent us from striking our own trade deals in services. Why, then, is the Prime Minister ruling out this alternative arrangement for the backstop, and why is she so confident that the benefits of setting new tariffs outweigh the negative impacts of increased friction and costs throughout supply chains?
The Prime Minister
The description of the situation given by the hon. Lady is not one that I recognise. If she cares to look at the political declaration—
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady says that she has looked at the political declaration, and we make it clear in that declaration that the future relationship will have no tariffs, quotas or restrictions of that sort. She asked why not a customs union. The customs union requires us not to be able to strike our own trade deals. The benefit of the deal that has been agreed and that the Government first put forward is that we would achieve the benefits of no tariffs, no quotas and no restrictions at the same time as being able to negotiate our own trade deals.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred several times to the need for legal certainty. The response today from the Attorney General to a question that I asked on this very matter suggested that he was always willing to assist the House in being able to find that legal certainty. May I ask that any changes negotiated are brought back to the House, and that the Attorney General gives us the benefit of that advice? The legal certainty is what will make many colleagues feel that they can or cannot support something.
The Prime Minister
I recognise hon. Members’ concerns regarding the legally binding nature of any changes that are achieved. Of course, the Attorney General will make information available to the House to enable the House to take its decision.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
While the Prime Minister is happy to kick the can down the road for yet another two weeks, over 3 million EU nationals are living in appalling uncertainty. As it stands, the Home Office’s EU settlement scheme could leave hundreds of thousands of EU nationals undocumented and at risk from the hostile environment, so will the Prime Minister accept that only a declaratory system, under which those resident in the UK before 29 March are automatically granted leave to remain, would protect all citizens’ rights, as she claims she wants to do?
The Prime Minister
We have put forward a sensible and reasonable scheme. We have said that we will guarantee rights for EU citizens here in the UK, even in the event of no deal, so this would not only pertain in the event of a deal. As the hon. Lady will know, no fee will be required on the full roll-out of the settlement scheme, and we will reimburse any fees that have been paid in the pilots. However, we retain the right to ensure that it is possible for this country to determine that individuals who perhaps have a particular criminal record are not in this country, and that is a right that we will look at across the board. The sort of situation that the hon. Lady suggests is therefore not right. We have a good scheme that is easy to use and for which there will be no charge.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I am more optimistic than other members of the Brexit Select Committee; I believe that the EU can and will agree to make legally binding changes that will enable the Attorney General to give revised advice on our not being tied indefinitely into a customs union against our will. But if my right hon. Friend comes back to the House with those changes, at that stage it is surely the responsibility of us all as MPs to support the Bill, get the business done and accept responsibility for that. Does my right hon. Friend agree that any attempt by MPs to pre-position ourselves as blaming the EU for no deal would be a severe dereliction of duty?
The Prime Minister
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that at the point at which a meaningful vote is brought back to this House, it will be the responsibility of every Member of this House to determine their vote according to the nature of that deal and, of course, according to the views that they feel about no deal. It is the case that the only way to avoid no deal other than—I am sorry, Mr Speaker; I may inadvertently have misled the House myself earlier when I said that the only way to avoid no deal was to agree a deal. Of course, it is possible to avoid no deal by staying in the European Union, but we are not going to do that. [Interruption.] We are not going to do that because that would be going back on the vote of the people of this country. We will be leaving the European Union, and when the deal comes back it will be the responsibility, as my hon. Friend says, of every Member of this House to determine whether or not we move forward with that deal.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
With the Prime Minister recklessly running down the clock to a crash-out Brexit, can I say to the responsible members of her Government that if they fail to act soon to prevent such a calamity, history will judge them very, very harshly? But can I also say to my own Front Benchers that now the Government have rejected our offer, if they fail to honour the unanimously agreed policy at our conference in favour of a public vote, they too will be judged very harshly by history?
The Prime Minister
The second part of that question was not addressed to me, so I will not be responding to it. The right hon. Gentleman stands up and says that we are recklessly running down the clock in order to crash out with no deal. That is not the case. If that was the case, I would not be spending time talking to EU leaders, going to Brussels, going to Dublin, and trying to work out a way that we can find to deliver on a deal that respects the concerns raised by this House and that will get through this Parliament.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The organisation Leave Means Leave is telling my constituents that we can walk away from the EU with no agreement but also be a global champion for free trade. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is totally illogical, and that if we want to be a global champion for free trade, our first act should be to agree an agreement with our largest trading partner?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has made an important point, which is that if it is the case that we believe that we want to make trade agreements with countries around the world on terms other than WTO terms, then it also makes sense to make a trading agreement—and we have a very good one proposed by the Government—with the European Union, and that is what we will work to achieve.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister might remember that I congratulated her on trying to speak to a wider group of people and to speak to the Opposition and do all those things that she started doing. From where I am standing, I do not think she has completed that job. I thought there were some good signs this week that there was a discourse and an exchange of views, and we could have seen that in this House there is actually probably a majority for a sensible course forward. On the other hand, can I remind her that outside here, since the referendum, there has been a fantastic change in the national mood? As I go around and speak to people—reasonable people, not the extremists—I find an urgent desire to get this sorted with a second referendum and a people’s vote.
The Prime Minister
Certainly, when I go on the doorsteps, I do get from people an urgent desire to get this sorted—not to get a second referendum and a people’s vote but actually to deliver on the first vote and, to do so, to leave the European Union on 29 March.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Prime Minister is absolutely right to hold her nerve. The EU could write the textbook on 11th-hour deals. Most colleagues in this place prefer a good deal to no deal, but can she reassure the House that should we leave on 29 March on no-deal WTO terms, we are sufficiently prepared?
The Prime Minister
We are indeed. We have ramped up our preparations. We are continuing our preparations for no deal. We are engaging not just with Government Departments but with the devolved Administrations and with the Northern Ireland civil service. We are engaging with local authorities up and down the country, and obviously working with businesses and those who would need to make alterations to their operations in the event of no deal. We continue to ramp up those preparations.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
We hear a lot about the reasons, or the assumed reasons, why people voted to leave the EU, but one thing I am sure about: the people of this country are demanding effective leadership on this issue and they feel absolutely that they are not getting it from anywhere—anywhere—on the political landscape. If the Prime Minister’s attempts to keep her party together by getting the ERG on board fail, will she accept, at that point, the need to build a consensus properly across the House, and that the easiest way, potentially, of reaching that consensus will be to get her deal over the line, as it stands now, by accepting the case for putting it to the people for ratification?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady and I have a different view in relation to a second referendum, as I have expressed earlier. I think it is important that we deliver on the referendum that took place in 2016, but it is also important that as we do that, we do it in a way that obviously needs to command support from this House. I want to see support from across this House. I think that a strong show of support for a deal across the whole House will be important as we move forward into dealing with the legislation, and for other reasons too. I naturally want my colleagues and our confidence and supply partners to support the deal, but, as I say, I look to having a deal that I can bring back that will command strong support across the House.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has repeatedly said that no deal is better than a bad deal. The last deal she put to the House failed, and I welcome her attempts to go back to the EU to strike a better one. But does she agree that to get that better deal, we have to keep no deal on the table as a negotiating tool? Take it off, and no deal—no fair deal—will be struck.
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend that we do need to ensure in the negotiations that people recognise the options that are available. As I have said to a number of Members, we are not going to stay in the European Union, so the only other way of not having no deal is to agree a deal. We cannot simply say that we do not want no deal and then not deliver a deal that ensures that we do not have no deal.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
This week, the European Commission published a document spelling out the implications of the withdrawal agreement. It made it quite clear that Northern Ireland would have to
“maintain…regulatory alignment with the EU”,
that the EU’s customs code would “continue to apply” to Northern Ireland, and that that would mean “systematic” checks on all
“goods travelling from the rest of the UK to Northern Ireland”
at all ports and airports. That would rip apart the United Kingdom. To use the Prime Minister’s own words, will she ensure that that must not happen and will not happen?
The Prime Minister
I am as clear as the hon. Gentleman is that we want to ensure that we will keep the United Kingdom together. It was precisely in order to avoid that sort of customs border between GB and Northern Ireland that led to us negotiating the UK customs-wide territory in the withdrawal agreement—in the backstop as it currently appears in the withdrawal agreement. On the issue in relation to regulatory changes, of course we have indicated commitments that the UK Government would be able to make in relation to that situation as we would be respecting what we committed to in the December joint report. I am absolutely clear that everything this Government will be doing we will be doing to ensure that we keep the United Kingdom together. That means keeping Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom —England, Scotland and Wales, as well.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, particularly her very clear exposition of why she does not want to remain in the customs union: because it would materially fetter our ability to do international trade deals in our own right. She is absolutely correct in that. Can I ask her to confirm that that position is wholly consistent with the 2017 Conservative manifesto, and will therefore enjoy strong support from all parts of these Benches, whether we have been sent to hell or not?
The Prime Minister
I believe it is consistent with our manifesto. It is also consistent with the original set of principles that I set out in the Lancaster House speech, which many Members refer to.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister has talked about wanting to achieve an orderly Brexit, but the Public Accounts Committee has carried out a lot of work which shows that even with a deal, Brexit will be far from orderly. In the light of that and the points raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) about the constitutional challenge of getting the deal through, will she commit today to not ruling out extension of article 50, to ensure that whatever happens, this country is prepared?
The Prime Minister
We will ensure that this country is prepared. The hon. Lady refers to an orderly Brexit. The deal that we negotiated—setting aside the issue of the backstop and the changes to that required by the House—provides for an implementation period, which provides an orderly progression to the future relationship. That is what we are working for, and that is what I hope the House will find its way to agreeing.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
Can the Prime Minister be absolutely clear that when we leave the European Union, our environmental standards in this country will rise, not fall?
The Prime Minister
We are committed to ensuring that our environmental standards do not fall. I believe that it is in the interests of this country—indeed, it is the desire of this House and this country—to enhance our environmental standards in the future. The Government have shown their commitment through the 25-year environmental strategy and the environment Bill that my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary will bring forward. In a number of ways, we are showing our commitment to enhanced environmental standards.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
A close member of my family suffers from ulcerative colitis and is a serving police officer. They have been told that they may not be able to access the medicine they need to keep them well on a day-to-day basis. What does the Prime Minister say to my family member and to the many thousands of people across the UK who have chronic illnesses, some of which are exacerbated by anxiety and uncertainty, as she recklessly goes towards no deal by threatening Members? She needs to think again. What impact assessment has she done for people like my family member who are suffering from chronic illnesses?
The Prime Minister
That point was raised earlier by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), to whom I responded by making clear the work we have been doing with suppliers of medicines to ensure that there will be continuity of supply and that patients will continue to receive the medicines they need in all scenarios, including a no-deal scenario. When we are able to bring a deal back that deals with the issues raised by this House, the hon. Lady and every Member will have the responsibility of determining whether they want to leave the European Union with or without a deal.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
One opportunity to boost our coastal communities post Brexit is the establishment of free ports, which port operators will not consider while we are a member of the customs union. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s reaffirmation that we will be leaving the customs union, but can she give an assurance that she will not concede further on that in any customs arrangements that she negotiates, so that we can establish free ports?
The Prime Minister
I know that my hon. Friend has had a great interest in free ports for some time and has been promoting the concept, as has the Mayor of Tees Valley, Ben Houchen. This is an interesting area. There are issues that need to be addressed in relation to free ports, but it is an interesting area that we would want to look at.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
In the Prime Minister’s statement on 21 January, she told the House that she would
“look for further ways to engage… regional representatives in England.”—[Official Report, 21 January 2019; Vol. 653, c. 27.]
In response to my written parliamentary question last week, she said that that would not happen until “the next phase”—in other words, after we have left the EU. How does she expect to build support across the House when she shows this level of contempt for the regions of this country that will be worst affected?
The Prime Minister
That is not the case. I gently remind the hon. Lady that Members of this House represent all parts of the United Kingdom. We are talking with trade unions and businesses about the impact of decisions that are being made on parts of the United Kingdom. As I indicated in my statement, I committed when I became Prime Minister to a country that works for everyone, and that is what we continue to work for.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Is there not a precedent in the EU for member states that have been unable to ratify a treaty because of a democratic decision taken in their own country to go back to the EU and secure important changes? One country did so, having failed to agree the Lisbon treaty through a referendum; it secured legally binding changes by way of a protocol, to which the EU agreed—that country was Ireland.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is right that there is precedent for a country saying that it is not able to accept the terms of a particular agreement and going back to the European Union to negotiate different terms.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Ah yes, the president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly—President Moon.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has made great statements about honouring the referendum, but the thing I am asked most often by colleagues across Europe and people in my constituency is which selective process the Prime Minister used in honouring which votes. We had an election in 2015, and she did not like the result, so she went back to the people in 2017. We had a vote on her deal, and it was rejected, but now we have to look at it again with small alterations. We voted against no deal, and yet she is not implementing that. How can voters in my constituency and people across Europe who watch what happens in this House have any trust that whatever deal is put on the table will be binding and will not be altered should the UK leave the European Union?
The Prime Minister
At the 2017 general election, 80% of the people who voted voted for parties that were committed to honouring the result of the referendum and taking the United Kingdom out of the European Union. That is exactly what the Government are working to do. The hon. Lady refers to no deal. We cannot simply take no deal off the table. As I said, if we are not going to stay in the European Union, the only way to ensure that there is not a no-deal is to have a deal.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
Surely the backstop has become an unnecessary nightmare for all of us because we do not know what the future trading relationship will be between the UK and the EU27. If Brussels digs in its heels on not giving the small concession that the Prime Minister is asking for, will she seek to go into an implementation period post 29 March for 20 months, in which time we can negotiate the future trading relationship?
The Prime Minister
We will indeed have an opportunity during the implementation period to negotiate the details of that future trading relationship. I expect that to be done by December 2020, such that we are then able to put that future relationship into place.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I was glad that the Prime Minister mentioned her support for the Liberal Democrat policy of shared parental leave, but does she remember her Conservative colleagues who fought tooth and nail against it? Does she remember the Beecroft report—an extensive Conservative assault on workers’ rights that was stopped by the Lib Dems? Outside the EU, there is nothing to stop a future Conservative Prime Minister tearing up her legal commitments. There is no Brexit that can guarantee workers’ rights, and that is why we need a people’s vote.
The Prime Minister
We are giving those commitments in relation to workers’ rights. I was the person who ensured that the Conservative party’s policy was for flexible working for all and shared parental leave.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement today, and I pay tribute to her determination to get a good withdrawal deal and her commitment to ensure that we leave the EU on 29 March. Does she appreciate the strength of feeling in my constituency against the backstop proposal, and will she confirm that she has listened to those concerns and will continue to pursue a real and constructive change in these arrangements?
The Prime Minister
I can give my right hon. Friend that assurance. I have heard the message clearly that Parliament gave in relation to the backstop, and we are working for those legally binding changes that this Parliament wishes to see.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill is legislation of the highest political, legal and constitutional significance. It is absolutely vital that this House has sufficient time to debate and scrutinise it. It would be a constitutional outrage if that were not the case. Does the Prime Minister not then agree that it is crystal clear that we cannot do justice to this vital piece of legislation without an extension of article 50?
The Prime Minister
I assure the hon. Gentleman that, of course, the House will have looked at the nature of the withdrawal agreement through the meaningful vote that it conducts, and giving support for that withdrawal agreement will then enable us to get on with the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the House will have sufficient time, I believe, to scrutinise that Bill.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree that talking about helping left-behind areas should not be seen as a tactical matter to get through the withdrawal agreement, but should be at the very heart of what this Government are about? That is promoting a renaissance of the regions as part of building Brexit Britain, and that means every region, including coastal towns, such as Dover and Deal, which I represent.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has made an important point. When I stood on the steps of Downing Street on the first day I was Prime Minister, I was very clear that I wanted to ensure that we worked for those communities that did feel that they were left behind and did feel that they had not achieved the benefits that they had seen some other parts of the country have. That does mean certain parts of the country, and it also means certain types of town, like coastal towns such as Dover and Deal, which my hon. Friend represents and champions so well.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
In the Prime Minister’s statement today and the lack of concrete progress, it feels as though the Prime Minister is purposefully making Parliament hit its head against a brick wall in the hope that when we stop, we might feel better. We are fewer than 45 days away from exit day, yet the Prime Minister is picking and choosing which of the directions from this House that she listens to. This House overwhelmingly said that it wanted to reject no deal. Please, Prime Minister, stop being so stubborn and focusing on buying fridges and fantasy ferries, and at least admit that extending article 50 would help this House take back control?
The Prime Minister
What this House voted for was an amendment that confirmed avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, confirmed that this House wished to leave with a deal and confirmed the issue that needed to be addressed for this House to agree a deal, and that was the issue of the backstop.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
I visited Brussels last week as a member of the Exiting the European Union Committee, and we met Martin Selmayr. Whether or not I believe him is another matter, but he explained to us that he could see no reason why the Commission would ever want to use the backstop. From the Government supporting the Brady amendment two weeks ago, I have to assume that the Government do not want the backstop. Parliament does not want the backstop, and the Northern Ireland public and the public across the rest of the UK do not want the backstop. May I ask my right hon. Friend: why is it still there?
The Prime Minister
Nobody wants to use the backstop. The reason the backstop is there is that it is the guarantee that there will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland in the circumstances in which the future relationship has not come into place at the end of the implementation period. There is an alternative available within the withdrawal agreement, which is a further extension of the implementation period. There are pros and cons in both of those positions. Of course we want to see change to the backstop, but there are issues around the fact that in the implementation period there would almost certainly be a request for money, which does not occur in relation to the backstop. It is there as a guarantee. It is like an insurance policy: you take it out, but you never want to have to use it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
A recent national opinion poll in Northern Ireland showed that 60% of those polled were clearly against the backstop—a majority of opinion. Is the EU policy on the backstop like that great Eagles song, “Hotel California”: you can check out anytime you like, but you cannot leave? Will the Prime Minister give an assurance to Unionists in Northern Ireland that there can be no progress unless the backstop is removed or is time-limited?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman has made the point clearly. In fact, it is this House that has said it requires changes to be made to the backstop—legally binding changes—and that is what we are working for.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
I have constituents working at GE Aviation, BAE Systems, Spirax Sarco, Jaguar Land Rover and Honda, and those businesses urgently need certainty. What assurances can the Prime Minister provide that the talks are credible and constructive, not cosmetic, and that they can reasonably be expected to yield progress?
The Prime Minister
The talks I had last week I think indicated, from the point of those in the European Commission, that they do indeed want to ensure we can leave with a deal. They have extended those talks; previously, indeed, there had been some unwillingness to extend the talks. But now that Parliament has shown what it specifically wants to see changing in the withdrawal agreement, we are able to have those talks and to explore the various ways in which we can ensure we deliver a deal that this Parliament can support.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The Prime Minister assured the House on 14 January that the right to be British, Irish or both in Northern Ireland was clear and referenced in the withdrawal agreement, yet in Belfast on 5 February stated that
“I know that in some cases recently, people have encountered difficulties in securing their”—
Irish—
“rights as Irish citizens”.
Does the Prime Minister therefore recognise and agree that Emma DeSouza and many others in Northern Ireland are Irish citizens and therefore EU citizens, all the while the Home Office claims they are British?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman has raised an issue on which, first, it is absolutely clear that the position of people in Northern Ireland to be Irish, British or indeed both is made very clear in the withdrawal agreement—it is maintained in that withdrawal agreement. There has been an issue raised in relation to a small number of cases about the interaction of that with the immigration rules that we apply here in the United Kingdom, and that is what the Home Secretary is working on.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. Does she agree with me that extending article 50 just to have more months of procrastination and to allow some people to carry on dishing out the soundbites, rather than voting for solutions, will be of no use to us, no use to the EU and no use to our economy either?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Extending article 50 does not solve the issue; it just extends the length of time of consideration. The point would still have to come when Members of this House would have to make a decision and exercise—respect—their responsibilities. He references the economy. Actually, businesses have said to me that they do not want to see article 50 extended, because they feel that would extend the period of discussion and uncertainty, and they want a deal delivered and a deal agreed.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
It is understandable that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is wary, but he knows that Labour promised in the general election to respect the outcome and to work for a deal, so I hope he will take every opportunity that is offered to him to talk, with the shadow Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Secretary, to the Government and to officials in order to hold the Government to account and the Prime Minister to account on the promises she has made in her statement today, particularly on workers’ rights.
Does the Prime Minister share my concerns about the downturn in economic growth? Since the referendum, 2,000 new jobs have been created at Doncaster iPort in my constituency. It seems to me that it is indecision, not Brexit per se, that is now holding back business. It is absolutely essential that we face compromise in a straightforward way and seek a deal. There are some in this House who say, “Take no deal off the table”, but for them no deal is ever going to be a winner. I ask the Prime Minister to reiterate that, across Parliament, we have to do what business and our communities want, and reach a compromise and get a deal done sooner rather than later.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady makes a very important point, which is that it is in the interests of business and in the interests of communities to get a deal agreed so that we can move forward. I believe there are businesses that are holding back investment in this country, waiting for us to get the deal over the line, and that that investment will be made when we get that deal. It is for every Member of this House to be prepared to accept, as the right hon. Lady has said, that we are all making compromises. The agreement with the European Union involves some compromise—that is because it is two sides coming together to agree a deal—but it is in the best interests of this country to have that deal and to get it sorted.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I entirely support what the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) has just said.
This morning, I met the representative of a large manufacturer in my constituency who is incredibly concerned about what would happen in the case of no deal. Will my right hon. Friend lay out clearly the consequences of no deal for our vital services sector? It has a trade surplus both with the EU and across the world, and it is responsible for the jobs of so many millions of our fellow citizens.
The Prime Minister
There is absolutely no doubt that no deal would, of course, have an impact on our economy; I think that in the longer term we would be able to recover from that impact. Obviously, there have been a number of academic and other studies that have made assessments of the impact of no deal. As my hon. Friend has said, the services sector is obviously very important for us. That is why I believe that the proposals and the deal in the political declaration, which gives us flexibility in developing our services, including financial services, are so important for the future.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Brexit has evoked many emotions—anger and sadness. Last week, the Prime Minister was in Ireland. Do the Government care about breaking Irish hearts?
The Prime Minister
When I was in Ireland and met the Taoiseach, we were discussing not only the issue of the backstop and getting a deal with the European Union that can get through Parliament, but also the future relationship between the UK and Ireland. Obviously, given the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland—a land border with Ireland: a continuing member of the EU27, but also a close neighbour—we want to ensure that for the future we can enhance and build on the very good relations that the UK and Irish Governments have had in recent years. So I hope that the hon. Lady will be with us.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Political leaders across Europe have been unanimous in stating that the Prime Minister’s deal, which was overwhelmingly rejected by this House, was the only deal possible because of the Prime Minister’s own red lines. We are now in the terrifying situation that in 45 days we could crash out with no deal. The right hon. Lady has heard Members on both sides calling for an extension to article 50 this afternoon. Will she now tell the House how many votes she is happy to lose before she considers extending article 50?
The Prime Minister
I have set out the procedure that the Government are going to follow in relation to this issue and we continue to work to be able to bring back a deal for a meaningful vote.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Food and Drink Federation has said today that the industry would face its biggest catastrophe since 1939 if we were to leave without a deal. Yet the Government have still not even reached a deal that we can agree on here, much less to take to Europe. Given all that, how do I justify to my constituents why this Parliament shut at 3.27 pm last Wednesday because the Government had literally nothing for MPs to discuss?
The Prime Minister
Many things happen in Parliament, and not just in this Chamber. The hon. Gentleman might wish to point out to his constituents that the Government have taken the decision of not enabling him to have a recess next week because there is business for this Parliament to do and we will be doing that business.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
If the Prime Minister is serious about meeting the 29 March deadline, will she allow the House to get on and do what it is here to do instead of filling our time with general debates and statutory instruments? If we are coming back next week instead of recess, will we deal with the Agriculture Bill, the Fisheries Bill, the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, the Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill or the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill? Will we ever see the withdrawal agreement Bill?
If we are to leave on 29 March, these matters will all have to be dealt with here and in the other place. Why does the Prime Minister not just accept what is obvious to the rest of the world and start now the process for an orderly extension of the article 50 period?
The Prime Minister
The immigration Bill, I believe, is in Committee today, so work is being done on the immigration Bill. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says it is in Committee: it is the normal procedure of the House of Commons that, having had a Second Reading, a Bill goes into Committee.
I also say to the right hon. Gentleman that next week there will indeed be many statutory instruments that relate to Brexit and that are important preparations for this House to make. He talks about bringing forward a withdrawal agreement Bill: we cannot have a withdrawal agreement Bill until we have a withdrawal agreement. If he wants the Bill, I assume that he is going to support the withdrawal agreement.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
We were told that we would see the final report on anti-dumping duties on aluminium foil by Christmas; entirely predictably, we have not seen anything at all. The issue is very niche, but for a company in my constituency it is extremely important. It is one example of where businesses have been left in a state of hopeless uncertainty because of the Government’s failure to prepare for Brexit. Is it not time that, rather than letting businesses continue in this state, the Prime Minister announced that she will extend article 50?
The Prime Minister
As I have just indicated, there are businesses saying to me that article 50 extension does not solve the problem for them. What they want to see is a deal agreed by this Parliament and then a deal that has been negotiated with the EU and agreed by this Parliament being put into place.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
May I bring the Prime Minister back to workers’ rights? She will be aware that the European Parliament and European Commission are currently negotiating for better and stronger workers’ rights for workers in the gig economy and for working parents. Those are far better and stronger than those found in the current UK Government’s good work plan. If Europe agrees to those new regulations, will the UK Government implement them for working people in the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister
What I have said in the statement and what we have indicated is that if there are future changes to workers’ rights in the European Union, we have committed to giving Parliament the opportunity to say whether the United Kingdom would support those rights.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It is patently obvious that the Prime Minister’s tawdry strategy is now to string this out until the last second in an attempt to blackmail and bully MPs into supporting this deal. I reassure her that I will take her advice: I will hold my nerve and refuse to bend the knee to this job-destroying Brexit. May I urge my party’s Front Benchers to do likewise—refuse to vote for it and instead honour our conference commitment to holding a public vote on this deal?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman talks about the impact of not having come to a deal at this stage and then in his question wants to go into a situation where we do not have a deal, we do not have agreement across this House and there is an extension of the time and the uncertainty that he has already referred to. I do not think that a people’s vote—a second referendum—is the right way forward for the reasons I indicated earlier. I believe that what people want us to do is deliver on the referendum and get on with it.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
What progress, if any, has the EU signalled to the Prime Minister may be possible on the backstop to date?
The Prime Minister
That is precisely what we are talking to the European Union about: how we can resolve the issue of the backstop in a way that will command the support of this Parliament. We have agreed that we will enter those talks, and that is exactly what we will be discussing.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The European Union and all the people speaking for it in the different institutions have made it absolutely clear that the withdrawal agreement negotiated by this Prime Minister, agreed by this Prime Minister and signed off by this Prime Minister is not going to be amended. But this House has rejected the withdrawal agreement. Is not the only way out of this now—and this gives the Prime Minister what she wants—for this House to adopt the negotiated withdrawal agreement with a sunset clause? Then it can be put to the people in a referendum: whether they accept it or whether they wish to remain in the EU with the better deal that we have now.
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers I gave earlier in relation to the issue of a second referendum.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Given that the Prime Minister has said repeatedly that she will not go back and give the country the choice on whether this is actually what they want, given that she has said repeatedly that she does not want to extend article 50 and given that she refuses to take no deal off the table, what advice would she give to those tens of thousands of UK students currently studying in the EU? What about those British holidaymakers who have already made their arrangements? They may have chronic health conditions and find that they are not able to get cover.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady indicates her concerns about the prospect of leaving with no deal. There is an answer to ensuring that we do not leave with no deal and that is to agree a deal.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The duty of any Government is to keep their citizens safe and surely there can be no compromise on that, so is the Prime Minister really saying that, despite all the warnings from the police and the security services about the effect on our national security of crashing out with a no deal, she is willing to allow us to crash out on 29 March, rather than extend article 50?
The Prime Minister
What I am saying is that the first aim of the Government must be what we are doing, which is negotiating changes to the deal with the European Union that can be brought back to this House and can command the support of this House.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
No fewer than eight Government Ministers have described no deal in terms such as “catastrophic”, “a betrayal”, “disastrous” and “the worse possible outcome”. Why is the Prime Minister still playing Russian roulette with the option of no deal? At what stage of this lethal game does she expect those Ministers to resign from her Government? Perhaps that should be on Thursday, when Parliament has the opportunity to find a way of ruling out no deal once and for all. [Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman says that Parliament would find a way of ruling out no deal once and for all. There are only two ways in which we can ensure that we do not have a no-deal situation. One is to stay in the European Union. The right hon. Gentleman might want to do that. [Interruption.] He says, “Yes, absolutely” from a sedentary position. That is not the result of the referendum. The Government will deliver on the result of the referendum and we will leave the European Union. The only other way of ensuring that we do not have no deal is to agree a deal. That seems to be pretty obvious to me.
Mr Speaker
I think the proper response to the sneeze from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) at the end of the last question is, “Bless you.”
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
We are now 45 days away from the projected departure date, and we still have no clarity and no closure on a deal that the Prime Minister negotiated when there were 135 days to go. May I ask for her opinion on this statement from the innocent days when there were only 110 days to go, on the eve of the last pulled vote in December?
“If Parliament does not agree a Brexit deal soon then we must recognise that the original mandate to leave, taken over two years ago, will begin to date and will, eventually, no longer represent a reflection of current intent.”
Those are not my words, but the words of the right hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). If members of her own Government get it, why won’t she? Can she not see why the general public see that her only strategy is to run down the clock?
The Prime Minister
The Government’s position is very clear. We believe it is better for this country to leave with a deal. That is the position that the House of Commons has taken, but the House of Commons has also said that it does not agree the deal that was negotiated. It wants to see changes to the backstop and that is what we are working for.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
The Prime Minister has taken many questions encouraging her to end uncertainty by taking no deal off the table, but many others encouraging her to create more uncertainty by extending article 50 and calling for a second referendum. The Liberal Democrats managed to advocate both in the same question. Does she share my confusion over the uncertainty among those who oppose Brexit over whether uncertainty is acceptable or not?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has very neatly pointed out the contradiction in many of the contributions that have been made in the House today.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has spoken about how she wants a country that works for everyone and in her speech she talked about the damage that would be done to the public’s faith in our democracy. What is her message to the 48.1% who voted remain, who did not get a mention in her statement?
The Prime Minister
The deal that the UK Government have been pursuing is one that respects the result of the referendum but does so in a way that protects jobs, protects our security and protects the Union of the United Kingdom. I believe that that is the deal that is right for everyone across the United Kingdom.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
Last week, my constituent Karin Vaughan had to travel to a registration centre in Edinburgh from the village of Letham in Fife. Mrs Vaughan moved to the UK 74 years ago when she was three months old. Her village is very, very angry. She is upset. What is the Prime Minister’s message to Mrs Vaughan? I hope it is, “I’m sorry.”
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman raises a specific case. I do not know all the details of the case that he has raised. If he is reflecting the fact that we are saying that those who are European Union citizens, in order to ensure they have the verification of their position here, should apply under the EU settlement scheme, then I believe the Government are taking the right approach. We are making that an easy scheme for people. As he knows, I have said that from the national roll-out of that scheme there will be no fee.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The proposals from my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) have the best prospect of securing a majority across the House, far better than the Prime Minister’s deal, which was voted against by two thirds of hon. Members. Is it not therefore incumbent on her to facilitate negotiations in co-operation with the Labour Front-Bench team and the European Union to see how much progress can be made on those proposals, and then bring them back to this House as they represent the best way forward?
The Prime Minister
As I indicated in my statement, we are continuing our discussions with the official Opposition, but it is also the case that this House made clear what it is that it wants to see in order to be prepared to agree a deal. That was made clear in the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), which was approved by this House.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
I am sure that, like you, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister is ferociously well read and will have read the 14th century masterpiece, “The Divine Comedy”, which is home to Dante’s inferno, the nine circles of hell. The eighth circle was reserved for fraudsters. Is that not where we will find those from the referendum campaign who broke electoral law, and deployed all kinds of political sorcery and false promise to win the referendum? At this rate, I am afraid to say, it is probably where the Prime Minister’s own withdrawal agreement is going.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
It is absolutely clear that the EU will not reopen negotiations to discuss the draft withdrawal agreement on the backstop, or on any other of the issues. It is profoundly disappointing that the Prime Minister is pretending otherwise. It is also clear, as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and others have said, that we are running out of time, that the economy is stalling and that businesses are really floundering. So in the interests of the country, Prime Minister, will you agree to extend article 50?
The Prime Minister
We are in talks with the European Union, so the premise of the hon. Lady’s question is, I believe, not correct. They are talking to us about what changes could be possible in relation to the backstop. That is the first point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey) pointed out, to complain about the impact of uncertainty on the economy and then to ask to increase the period of uncertainty is a contradiction.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Mention has been made of the different parts of the UK. I have the honour to represent the far north of Scotland—I suspect the House has gathered that by now. When I put it to the Prime Minister a few days ago that European structural funds had brought great historic good to my part of the world—they have greatly benefited my constituents, paying for new airports, roads, economic development, tourism and so on—she referred me to the shared prosperity fund. We are very scant on the detail of the shared prosperity fund. May I respectfully ask her to ask her officials to meet me and other interested Members to discuss what the fund might be and how it might apply to needy areas such as mine?
The Prime Minister
We will be consulting on the nature of the shared prosperity fund and the criteria under which it will operate, so I will ask the relevant Minister to meet the hon. Gentleman in the way he has requested.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Police chiefs told us yesterday that no deal will mean no access to DNA, no access to security alerts on terrorism and no access to the European arrest warrant. The Prime Minister’s own deal will not give security on those issues over the next two years pending discussions with the European Court of Justice, so why is she undertaking this reckless action? Will she undertake a backstop on security?
The Prime Minister
The deal we have negotiated on security does provide. There are, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, two areas where it does not specify the particular instruments that will be used in relation to access, for example, to criminal records, but it does specify that that access will be enabled and the discussions will be on the form that that access takes. The deal we have agreed ensures that we are able to continue the security co-operation with the European Union that has helped to keep us safe.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Prime Minister just said that she thinks her deal is the best for the UK, so why will she not put her trust in the UK people and put it back to them for ratification?
The Prime Minister
I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to that question earlier.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Prime Minister mentioned the meetings that she had with political parties in Northern Ireland, but she gave no indication at all of having listened to anything they had to say. Sinn Féin and the Social Democratic and Labour party could not have been clearer that tinkering with the backstop is tantamount to tinkering with the permanence of a peace agreement and cannot be accepted. Meanwhile, in a statement issued on 7 February, the Ulster Unionists said that
“as time is short, an extension to Article 50 must not be ruled out if a workable deal is to be reached.”
Will the Prime Minister tell us whether she is listening to the majority in Northern Ireland, or is she still obsessed with following the orders of the minority, as is shown by the empty Democratic Unionist party Benches?
The Prime Minister
When I was in Northern Ireland, I met the five political parties. I met representatives from civil society and businesses. They were making a variety of points in relation to this issue. One of the points that civil society was making in particular was the importance of the commitment to no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland in helping to ensure that the progress that had been made in Northern Ireland since the Belfast/Good Friday agreement would continue.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
In her statement, the Prime Minister used the phrase “hold your nerve” with regards to negotiations with the EU, but is she also not saying to the sensible members of her Cabinet, many of whom are sitting on the Front Bench with her, that they should hold their nerve in refusing to take no deal off the table so that she can run down the clock, come back to this House at the 11th hour and blackmail the House to back her deal?
The Prime Minister
The choice that this House and Members of this House will face—this choice will come at whatever point, but I believe that it should come before 29 March so we can deliver on leaving the EU on 29 March—is very simply whether they do want to leave with a deal, or whether they want to leave with no deal, because unless we stay in the European Union, the only way not to have no deal is to agree a deal.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Since her drubbing in this House in January, the Prime Minister has sought to reopen the withdrawal deal but, in the last two weeks, the Austrian Chancellor, the German Chancellor, the Dutch Prime Minister, the President of the European Council, the French President, the Irish Prime Minister and the President of the European Commission have all been absolutely unequivocal in saying that they will be not be reopening the deal. Yet the Prime Minister still acts as if it is all going swimmingly. Can she tell us which one of that group she expects to blink first?
The Prime Minister
Some of the people the hon. Gentleman has referred to have also referred to the need for us to find creative solutions to ensure that we can deal with the issue that has been raised by this Parliament.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
So far, the Prime Minister’s Brexit policy has involved transport arrangements with no ships, a facilitation arrangement in Northern Ireland with no facilitators and a backstop arrangement that does not actually stop anything. On top of that, we have been promised meaningful votes that disappear like mirages as we get near them. When will the Prime Minister get real and recognise that only a customs union with the EU will sort the Northern Ireland border issue, protect our manufacturing and command a majority of the House?
The Prime Minister
It is not the case that the only resolution of the issue of the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland is a customs union with the European Union.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government’s own economic analysis, which was of the Chequers deal, not the Prime Minister’s disastrous deal, demonstrated that our nation and the people of our country are going to be significantly poorer. Why does the Prime Minister think that, without a customs union, people on these Benches—Labour MPs—will vote for people to be poorer by following her deal?
The Prime Minister
First, I did make it clear that the deal that the Government had put forward was analysed in the economic analysis. We recognise that there was not economic analysis of the political declaration, which is part of the vote that took place in the House of Commons, because there are elements of that that are not yet tied down and agreed. However, variations were indicated within the economic analysis. A mid-term variation in relation to friction at the border was indicated. I say to the hon. Lady that it is not the case that the analysis shows that leaving the EU and the deals that are proposed would leave us poorer than we are today. What it does show is differences in the growth in the economy under the various deals, compared with staying in the European Union, but we are leaving the EU, and the analysis showed that the deal that the Government had proposed was the deal that was best for respecting the referendum and protecting jobs and the economy.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister is offering a choice between being shot in the head with a no-deal Brexit or shot in the foot with her Brexit. When will she realise that the best way of getting her deal through this House is with the proviso that it will be ratified by a public vote, when the public can judge between her deal and the existing deal—staying in the EU? If they opt for that, we will save the two years of the transition period and can get on with the jobs at hand.
The Prime Minister
I am not quite sure what timescale the hon. Gentleman thinks he would save by having a second referendum, because that in itself would take considerable time to take through the House and put in place. I will respond to him in the way that I have responded to others: I do not believe that it is right to have a second referendum. I believe that it is right to deliver on the result of the 2016 referendum.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister could achieve a majority in the House if she were just to recognise the scale of the defeat that she had on her deal recently and bring forward an amendment to her red lines on a customs union, with a British say in trade deals. That would be the way to break the impasse, but she does not seem to be prepared to do that because it would break her own party in the process, so it is party before country. However, she is also presenting a false choice to Parliament by saying that it is a choice between a deal or crashing out with no deal. We know for a fact that the Prime Minister has the option, if it came down to the wire—to the last 24 hours—to revoke article 50 and stop the clock to save us from a disastrous no deal. If it came to it, would the Prime Minister do that?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman suggests that I revoke article 50. Revoking article 50 means going back on the result of the 2016 referendum—
The Prime Minister
It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. What the European Court of Justice made clear in its determination was that it was open to an individual member state to request a revocation of article 50, but that that meant staying in the European Union.
Mr Speaker
Ah! Of course “B” for “Brown” comes before “G” for “Gray”, but on the other hand, “A” for “Airdrie” comes before “K” for “Kilmarnock”. I call Mr Neil Gray.
Neil Gray
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister asked us to hold our nerve and essentially to trust her, but does she not have a nerve in asking us to support her plan when it has been her plan, her deal and her intransigence for 30 months that have got us into this mess? How can we trust her when she continues to run down the clock by wasting our time this week and next by re-tabling a motion from last month, and when she continues to gamble by putting a no deal in front of us in order to put her party and her position ahead of the people?
The Prime Minister
What the Government are doing is taking the instruction of this Parliament, which was to get changes to the withdrawal agreement and to the backstop, so that this Parliament can agree a deal. That is what we are working on and what we are determined to deliver.
Alan Brown
On the “trust me” and “hold your nerve” theme, let us look at the no-deal preparations in terms of the ferry contract. Using an emergency procedure exemption for direct awards to the ferry companies in breach of European rules, there was an award to a ferry company with no ships and negative assets. Yesterday at the Dispatch Box, the Transport Secretary said, “Don’t worry, it hasn’t cost taxpayers money”—we now learn that up to £800,000 has been spent on external consultants —and he ducked issues about legal challenges while his Department was in court. Will the Prime Minister sack the Transport Secretary, or is that the general level of competence of this Government, which we are supposed to have trust in?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman talks about money spent. Money was indeed spent on securing all the contracts let. Third-party due diligence was properly carried out and would have been regardless of who the agreements were entered into with.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the Prime Minister and all colleagues.
I have been advised that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), the leader of the Scottish National party, has a point of order that relates to earlier exchanges. If that be so, I am happy to take it now.
Ian Blackford
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I rise more in sorrow than in anger. We live in exceptional times. It is one thing to hear the Prime Minister say she wanted this decided in December, when it was she who took it off the table, but if that were not bad enough, when I pressed her on the economic analysis of her deal, she said the Government had published economic assessments of the proposals. Furthermore, she also said that I had perhaps inadvertently misled the House, which beggars belief, because if anyone has inadvertently misled the House, it is the Prime Minister. The fact is the Treasury published an economic analysis of Brexit in November, before the Prime Minister’s deal, that in no way referred to the Prime Minister’s deal. This goes way beyond spinning.
Perhaps more importantly, the House is to be asked to vote on a proposition without the economic impact assessment. I am asking two things. First, can the Prime Minister correct the record? Secondly, what options are open to us to make sure that before we come to perhaps the most important vote this House will take we have the facts of the economic assessment? It is the case that under any of the Treasury’s Brexit assessments we will be worse off than under the current deal. That is the fact and the reality of the situation. The Prime Minister really has to learn some grace.
Mr Speaker
The Prime Minister has been at the Dispatch Box for two and a quarter hours and has answered all inquiries. She is welcome to return to the Dispatch Box and respond to the right hon. Gentleman, but she is under no obligation to do so.
The Prime Minister
I said that the Government had put forward a deal and that an economic analysis was done on that deal. The political declaration was part of what was brought to the House. The right hon. Gentleman says there was no reference to that in the economic analysis. The economic analysis indicated what might be the impact of the various elements of the spectrum of choice on friction at the border. It reflected the fact that the political declaration had not confirmed the point at which friction would or would not occur. That was in the economic analysis published before the meaningful vote.
Mr Speaker
No, no, no. I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that I think that for today honour is served. I was happy to hear his point of order, and the Prime Minister has graciously responded.
I do not wish to invest the proceedings with levity, but the right hon. Gentleman asks what can be done to ensure that all the facts are in the possession of the House when key votes take place. I do not suppose he is investing me with powers to ensure that state of affairs. I cannot, not least because one person’s fact is another’s opinion. That is in the nature of political argument. I would only say—and another example has been provided today by the exchanges on this statement, for which I again thank the Prime Minister and all colleagues—that the House will always have the fullest possible opportunity, institutionally and individually, to state views, to pose questions and to extract answers. That is the best we can do. My role is simply to try to facilitate that. I am glad that we have, I think, finished on a reasonably harmonious note. Let us leave it there for now.
Royal Assent
Mr Speaker
Before we move to the second statement—the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has been in his place patiently awaiting the opportunity to make it—I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Finance Act 2019
Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019
Tenant Fees Act 2019
Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Act 2019.
Cairncross Review
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Jeremy Wright)
With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, before I make my statement, I invite the House to join me in paying tribute to one of our sporting greats, Gordon Banks, who sadly passed away earlier today. He was one of football’s finest-ever goalkeepers and a vital part of England’s World cup winning team, and his performances for club and country leave behind an exceptional legacy. The tributes in the past few hours are testament to his personal qualities. He was a fierce opponent on the pitch but a kind and generous man off it. I am sure the thoughts of the whole House are with his friends and family.
With permission, I would like to make a statement on the publication of the Cairncross review. I would like to thank Dame Frances Cairncross for leading the review and the expert panel and officials who worked with her to develop it. It comes at an important time. In her report, Dame Frances paints a vivid picture of the threat to high-quality journalism in this country. There are about 6,000 fewer journalists now than there were roughly a decade ago. Print circulation of daily national papers fell from 11.5 million in 2008 to 5.8 million in 2018. In the same period, circulation of local newspapers halved.
As the review makes clear, there are many reasons for this, but the main driver is a rapid change in how we consume content. The majority of people now read news online, including 91% of 18 to 24-years-olds. As this shift has taken place, publishers have struggled to find ways to create sustainable business models in the digital age. As the review sets out, between them Google and Facebook capture the largest share of online advertising revenue and are an increasingly important channel for the distribution of news content online. They also hold an array of data on their users that news publishers cannot possibly hope to replicate, which further strengthens their position in the digital advertising market.
This combination of market conditions threatens to undermine the future financial sustainability of journalism. Even publications that have only ever been online are struggling. This should concern us all. Dame Frances notes that while high-quality journalism is desirable, there is one type of journalism that society and democracy cannot do without, and that is public interest journalism. This is the type of journalism that can hold the powerful to account and is an essential component of our democracy. It helps us to shine a light on important issues, in communities, in courtrooms, in council chambers and in this Chamber, but this type of journalism is also under threat, especially at the local level, and the review cites numerous examples of what happens to communities when a local paper disappears. Dame Frances’s report comes at a vital time, therefore, and I welcome her focus on public interest journalism.
I want to set out to the House how the Government intend to respond to this important issue. There are many substantial recommendations in the review. There are some that we can take forward immediately and other more long-term recommendations where we will consult with stakeholders about the best way forward.
First, I will deal with the recommendations we are able to progress immediately. Online advertising now represents a growing part of the economy and forms an important revenue stream for many publishers, but this burgeoning market is largely opaque and extremely complex, and it is impossible to know whether the revenue shares received by news publishers are fair. The review proposes that the Competition and Markets Authority conduct a market study of the digital advertising market. The purpose of this study would be to examine whether the online marketplace is operating effectively and whether it enables or prevents fair competition. It is right that policy makers and regulators have an accurate understanding of how the market operates and check that it is enabling fair competition, and I have today written to the CMA in support of this study. I will also urge Professor Jason Furman to treat the review as additional evidence in his ongoing inquiry into digital competition in the UK, whose findings are due to be published in the spring. I recognise that online advertising has given rise to a wider set of social and economic challenges, and my Department will therefore conduct a review of the way in which online advertising is regulated.
The Cairncross review cites the concerns of publishers about the potential market impact of the BBC on their sustainability. They argue that the BBC’s free-to-access online content makes it harder for them to attract subscribers. The review also questions whether the BBC is straying too far into the provision of “softer” news content—traditionally the preserve of commercial publishers —and suggests that that might benefit from the scrutiny of Ofcom.
Let me be clear: the Government recognise the strong and central role of the BBC. As the review states,
“the BBC offers the very thing that this Review aims to encourage: a source of reliable and high quality news, with a focus on objectivity and impartiality, and independent from government.”
However, it is right that the role of the BBC, as a public service broadcaster, be appropriately transparent. The review recommends that
“Ofcom should assess whether BBC News Online is striking the right balance between aiming for the widest reach for its own content…and driving traffic from its online site to commercial publishers (particularly local ones)”.
Of course, some of those questions were addressed as part of the charter review process, but I have written today to ask Ofcom to look carefully at the review’s recommendations and identify any new concerns that deserve attention. For instance, there may be ways in which the BBC could do more to drive traffic to commercial sites, particularly the local press.
Another recommendation is a proposal for two separate forms of tax relief for news publications, one of which is intended to bolster the supply of local and investigative journalism by enabling it to benefit from charitable status. The review notes that in the United States philanthropic donations provide, on average, 90% of the total revenues of non-profit news publishers. Although we have a different media landscape, as the review points out, charitable status could reduce the costs for those producing essential public interest reporting, and could pave the way for a new revenue stream through philanthropic donations. I recognise that that avenue has been explored before and that some hurdles will have to be cleared, but I believe that we should pursue it. I have therefore written to the Charity Commission, and look forward to hearing how it can help in that regard.
As I explained earlier, there are areas in which we shall need to consult further and respond in further detail. For instance, Dame Frances recommends the establishment of an institute for public interest news to promote investigative and local journalism. She proposes that the institute should act as a convener for organisations with the means to support public interest news, including the BBC and online platforms. It would also be tasked with generating additional finance for the sector, driving innovation through a proposed new fund, and supporting an expansion of the BBC’s local democracy reporting service. That BBC-funded scheme is a shining example of what can be done. The first of its kind in the industry, it is embedding 150 journalists in local publishing firms to produce local democracy reporting, particularly relating to local councils. I met some of those reporters last week. So far they have produced 50,000 stories between them, all of which might not otherwise have been heard. The Government will explore, with others, what more can be done in that regard.
The review calls on the Government to do more to incentivise the publishing industry’s transition to digital. It proposes an extension of the current scope of VAT exemptions so that they apply to online payments for all news content, not simply print news content, and a new tax relief for public interest news providers. I know there is passionate support for that in the publishing sector, and we share its ambition for a healthy and sustainable industry. As the House knows, the Government always keep taxes under review. Any decision to amend the UK tax regime is, of course, a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer as part of the annual fiscal cycle, but I will discuss the matter further with the industry and with my colleagues at the Treasury.
I want to highlight two recommendations that cover similar ground to work that the Government are already doing. One is the sensible proposal that the Government should develop a media literacy strategy, working with the range of organisations already active in this space. Evidence suggests that there is a correlation between media literacy and a greater propensity to pay for news, so improving media literacy will also have an impact on the sustainability of the press. Ensuring that people have the skills they need in order to separate fact from fiction is the key to long-term success in tackling this issue, and I am pleased that Dame Frances has focused on it. We welcome the recommendation, which relates closely to our ongoing work to combat disinformation. Last month the Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries, my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), hosted a roundtable on media literacy, and the Government are looking into what more we can do to support industry efforts in that area.
The other recommendation that I want to highlight is the call for the creation of new codes of conduct between publishers and the online platforms that distribute their content. The codes would cover issues relating to the indexing of content on platforms and its presentation, as well as the need for advance warning of algorithm changes likely to affect a publisher. Their development would be overseen by a regulator. The review also proposes that regulatory oversight be introduced as part of a “news quality obligation”, requiring platforms to improve the way in which their users understand the origin of an article of news and the trustworthiness of its source. Dame Frances recognises that platforms are already starting to accept responsibility in that regard.
Those two proposals deserve the Government's full consideration, and we will think about how they can inform our approach. Our consideration will include our work on the online harms White Paper, which is due to be published shortly.
The review sets out a path to help us to put our media on a stronger and more sustainable footing, but Dame Frances makes it clear that it is just one contribution to the debate. We cannot turn back the clock, and there is no magic formula to address the systemic changes faced by the industry. However, it is the role of any responsible Government to play an active part in supporting public interest journalism. We will consider the review carefully, and will engage with press publishers, online platforms, regulators, academics, the public and Members of the House as we think about the way forward. I remain open to further proposals that may go beyond the recommendations or scope of the review.
I know that this issue is of great concern to Members in all parts of the House, and today’s review is an important milestone. At the heart of any thriving civil society is a free and vibrant press. The Government—and, I have no doubt, the House—are committed to supporting it through changing times, and ensuring that it can continue to do its job. I commend my statement to the House.
Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement. I also thank him for his warm words about the late Gordon Banks, who was not only a great goalkeeper—perhaps the greatest ever to wear three lions—but a true gentleman. Not everyone will know of his contribution to civic life in the Potteries and in Staffordshire as a whole, from support for veterans to dementia care. To the people of Staffordshire, he was not just a sporting hero but a community hero. He will be greatly missed.
As the Secretary of State said, the release of the Cairncross report is a milestone—a small milestone—on the road of our enormous task of addressing digital and news publishing. Finding the right solutions requires creative policies and cross-party partnership, and Opposition Front Benchers are ready to work with the Government where we can. I thank the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee for the rigour of its ongoing work in relation to the harms caused by digital disruption. I look forward to reading its next report, and I commend its Chair, the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), for maintaining a determined cross-party unity of purpose in the face of corporate obfuscation from companies such as Facebook.
As we have heard, this review addresses an urgent issue: we have lost 6,000 frontline reporter jobs since 2007; newspaper circulation rates have fallen by half; 350 local news titles have closed; and half of Britons are now worried about fake news. Meanwhile, the emerging tech companies continue to increase their bottom lines with ever-increasing advertising revenues, extracting value from content produced by others while taking little responsibility for the destruction they leave in their wake.
Some of the review’s recommendations in this regard are particularly welcome. We said last summer that Labour would extend charitable status to public service journalism, so I am pleased to hear that the Secretary of State has today written to the Charity Commission to pursue that further. We have also publicly supported increased media awareness courses and reporter training schemes, and I am glad to see that the Government might soon be adopting that approach as well. But in other areas I am afraid that the review is barking up the wrong tree.
I understand that the Secretary of State is duty bound by this report to write to Ofcom asking for an assessment of BBC News Online’s market impact, but that could be counterproductive, because while local titles are closing it is the BBC that produces exactly the sort of public interest and publicly trusted content that the review was designed to encourage. Does the Secretary of State therefore agree that it will be a big mistake if the Government choose to pick a fight with the BBC over this, or to raid its budgets even further, rather than tackling the real problem: a distorted digital market?
It seems to me that the problem is clear: savvy tech platforms have developed targeted behavioural advertising that allows companies to direct their products towards certain audiences. Only they can do that, because the data needed to segment markets is overwhelmingly owned by emerging data monopolies, so the only way to reach consumers is through a decreasing number of digital giants. This is all part of surveillance capitalism.
Mergers and acquisitions by digital giants have meant that over half of all digital advertising revenues in the UK are now hoovered up by two companies, Google and Facebook. This is a duopoly. It is the main cause of the 70% reduction in print advertising revenues that has hit newspaper bottom lines so hard, and the dominant position of these social media giants means that in negotiations with news publishers they do not play fair.
I understand that this is a difficult problem to solve: these are global companies so big that they see themselves as being above the law. So let me say to the newspaper industry that I know the situation looks bleak, and it may be disappointed that there are not harder recommendations in this review, but even in these dark days of Brexit and increasing division in politics there is one man who is uniting this House: Mark Zuckerberg. He insulted us all when he refused to attend the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. He may think that the UK market and our institutions are not a priority for him, but I hope he knows there is now a new resolve that transcends our party differences to deal with abuses by his company and others.
I appreciate that the Secretary of State has asked the Competition and Markets Authority for a market study of digital advertising, but does he agree that this review was actually tasked with looking at that in its terms of reference? It is not his fault that the review has ducked this part of its responsibilities, but the reality is that commissioning the CMA to look at this kicks the can down the road again.
We need a bolder, quicker approach. Having looked at this problem for a couple of years now, I think there is a position and a process that we could all coalesce around. First, we need to address the immediate symptoms of market abuse caused by the data monopolies: the harms, the hate, and the fake news. To do that we need a new duty of care obligation on social media companies, enforced by a tough new regulator. Last week a Minister indicated that the duty of care could be enforced by criminal sanctions, not just civil penalties, if companies are found to be in breach. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Government are considering this?
Secondly, we must address the root cause of the problem, which I believe is a distorted digital market. A review by the CMA is all well and good, and we welcome it, but we need to modernise competition laws to make them fit for the data age to really address abuse in the digital market.
Thirdly, once we have dealt with the symptoms and the causes of the problem, we must improve the health of our digital markets by shaping a digital public sphere to bolster our media sector and protect our democracy. I envisage an online sphere where citizens can access trustworthy news from professional reporters and researchers, content from public institutions, central and local government and public service broadcasters, and public services like our great galleries and collections without being surveilled or targeted by advertisers and having to give up their personal data to transact for services. I hope we can commit today to take our lead from the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee and work in a spirit of unity to deal with the destructive dominance of the tech giants.
Jeremy Wright
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I also welcome his undertaking to work with us; there is undoubtedly a broad measure of agreement across the House, and it would be sensible for us to work together. I also agree with what he said about the Select Committee’s work in this space, and we all await its further and final report on the issue of misinformation, which is due imminently.
On the BBC, the hon. Gentleman mentioned two aspects of what the review says. The first was the issue of market impact and the BBC. As I said in my statement, without prejudging the outcome I think it is appropriate to invite Ofcom to see whether more can be done here. I do not imply criticism in that request, but it is sensible for me to follow through on that recommendation of the review. But as the hon. Gentleman will recognise, the review also congratulates the BBC, and indeed the News Media Association, for the development of the local democracy reporter scheme and suggests that it may well be expanded. Again, it would be right for us to pursue that, and it is a recognition of the positive contribution the BBC is making in this space.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about the dominance of Google and Facebook, and that is undoubtedly a stark feature of the review. It is sensible to follow through on the review’s recommendation to involve the CMA, as it clearly has a role in determining whether the processes over which it holds sway are being appropriately applied, but I do not believe we should stop there, which is why I intend to begin a Government-centred review of the broader policy implications surrounding the online advertising market. That will follow on from the Furman review of competition issues which is already under way.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the work the Government are doing on online harms, and he knows that we are considering a number of the issues he has mentioned, including of course the penalties that ought to be available when online platforms that have understood their responsibilities choose none the less not to exercise them. He also knows that I am committed to ensuring that those penalties are meaningful. He will forgive me for asking him to wait a little longer for the detail, but we will publish the White Paper shortly.
Finally, I agree entirely with what the hon. Gentleman says about the importance of trustworthy news. It is fundamental to our democracy and our society that we can trust what we read, and that there is a means whereby citizens of this country can read proper and informed scrutiny of what those in power are doing. That applies at both national and local level. The purpose of the Cairncross review was always to make a substantial contribution to that debate and to offer some ways forward. I believe it has done that; I have not suggested, and neither has Dame Frances, that it presents all the answers to these very complex problems, but they are problems with which we are right to wrestle as a democracy, and we are right not to let go of the importance of the scrutiny we are all rightly subject to.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I very much welcome Dame Frances Cairncross’s report, which I believe addresses one of the greatest challenges to properly functioning democracy today. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the priority must be to facilitate more professional journalists to report on the proceedings of local councils, local courts and other local institutions, which are currently all too often going unreported? The BBC’s local democracy initiative at least starts to address that challenge, so will he look at ways of expanding that initiative, perhaps by bringing on board to it the technology companies that are currently distributing the content but doing nothing to help collect it?
Jeremy Wright
I agree with my right hon. Friend. A large part of the answer is, as he says, to ensure that there are more professional journalists in the right places at the right times to provide the scrutiny that we all agree is important and necessary. As he has heard me say, the local democracy reporting scheme is a good example of how that might be achieved in the times that we currently live in. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the part that he played in bringing that scheme into existence in conjunction with the BBC. It is a good thing, but he is right to say that there is scope for further expansion, as Dame Frances Cairncross has also pointed out. That expansion must be paid for, and I will certainly look into his suggestion and pursue further how we might persuade those who are benefiting from the current arrangements to ensure that their worst excesses are mitigated.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I should like to join the Secretary of State and others in paying tribute to Gordon Banks. The sporting world has indeed lost a giant. In Scotland, we lost another sporting giant yesterday. Kat Lindner was 39, and her untimely death has shocked everyone across the sporting community in Scotland, particularly at Glasgow City where she was formerly a player. She moved to Scotland in 2005 from Germany, and she won every domestic trophy with City. She appeared for the team 173 times and scored 128 goals, helping the club to five league titles, two Scottish cups and two league cups. She is survived by her partner of 16 years, Laura Montgomery. She was not just an athlete but a well respected academic at my own alma mater, the University of Stirling. I am sure that the Secretary of State will join me in marking her sad and untimely death.
We on these Benches—I am a little isolated here today—very much welcome the Cairncross review, and I pay tribute to Frances Cairncross and to Enders Analysis, which supported her work. The review comes at an important moment for our democracy. After the mess of the Vote Leave campaign, the scandal of Cambridge Analytica, the death of Molly Russell and the huge damage that online harm is doing to our young people, the public expect more. My team and I met representatives of the NSPCC recently, and they gave us some statistics. One in seven children between 11 and 18 have been asked to send self-generated images, and 7% of 11 to 16-year-olds have sent naked or semi-naked images. It is so important that we get this right and that we do the necessary work on self-harm. The recommendations to create a better balance between publishers and platforms, and to persuade online platforms to act in a more responsible way, are hugely important.
The issue of fake news has been mentioned, and I am sure that many people believe that it is damaging our democracy and, indeed, the reputation of the tech companies that have a duopoly in this area, as the shadow Secretary of State said. We must take this very seriously. I hope that the Secretary of State will not simply kick the can down the road in regard to the Competition and Markets Authority, and that he will consider adopting as many of the recommendations as possible.
I absolutely agree that the BBC’s local democracy initiative has been very positive. However, we have before us the huge issue of the licence fee—a tax on the elderly. I know that that is not a mess of the Secretary of State’s making, and I say gently to him that his predecessors appear to have held the BBC to ransom over this issue. That is unacceptable, and I want to work with him and colleagues across the House to ensure that the BBC can be properly funded and that our over-75s get to keep their free licences.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman share my concern over the report’s finding that the number of frontline journalists has dropped in the past 10 years from 23,000 to 17,000, at a time when we are so in need of good-quality journalism both at home and abroad? The report’s recommendations on this are important. Cairncross highlights the fact that although news can be found on television and radio, written journalism supplies the largest quantity of journalism and is most at risk. That has never been more apparent than it is now. I commend to the Secretary of State Lindsey Hilsum’s book, “In Extremis”, about the late Marie Colvin, who was unlawfully killed by the Assad regime in 2012. As she once said, we have to bear witness in order to make a difference. We rely on our foreign correspondents to bear witness to atrocities and crimes that none of us could ever imagine or bear witness to, and I am sure that we all pay tribute to Marie and her family.
The duopoly of the big tech companies, Facebook and Google, and the behaviour of Mark Zuckerberg have been mentioned. We must pay tribute to the work of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee on this, but criminal sanctions must be put in place. These tech companies cannot continue to get away with the kind of things that they have got away with. What measures does the Secretary of State believe will be necessary to bring those companies on board with these proposals? Their response could well be that they will regulate their own content and not submit to any external regulator, so what more does he believe we can do make those changes and put in place the excellent recommendations that Frances Cairncross has presented?
Jeremy Wright
I agree entirely with what the hon. Lady has said about Kat Lindner. Her death is clearly a great tragedy, not just for her family, friends and partner but for all those who have been inspired by her success in the sport that she pursued.
The hon. Lady made reference to a number of aspects of the Cairncross review. She is right to say that we should insist on the platforms taking responsibility for what they can do. One thing they can do is to ensure that the issue of so-called fake news, misinformation and disinformation is addressed robustly. They have the capacity to do that, and as Dame Frances recognises in the review, some good work has been done by the platforms on this, but there is clearly a great deal more that they could achieve. The hon. Lady is also right to say that it is in the interests of the online companies to do that. If they do not do so, they will cause ongoing damage to their reputations, and I know that they will want to take that very seriously.
The hon. Lady mentioned the licence fee concession and its impact on the BBC. She will forgive me if we do not engage in that debate at this point, but I would say that what we expect and hope for from the BBC is something that can be delivered, irrespective of the debate that goes on about the licence fee concession. I know that the BBC is keen to follow up on some of the recommendations in this review and to see how it can help further. The hon. Lady is also right to say that we should pay tribute at every opportunity to those brave journalists who bear witness to what happens not only in this country but around the world, and who, at considerable risk to themselves, take the chance to deliver those messages and bear that witness for our benefit. Marie Colvin and others deserve our thanks.
The hon. Lady rightly picked up the fact that the Cairncross review refers to the possibility of an independent regulator taking responsibility for some of the things that Dame Frances has described. That is something that we are considering in the context of the online harms White Paper, and it might well be that some of the recommendations in this review are best dealt with when bringing forward that White Paper. There will be a Government response, which I think will come in tranches. Some of it will come very quickly, some will be brought into the online harms White Paper, and some will take a little longer.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Following up on what my right hon. and learned Friend said, not only was Gordon Banks the greatest goalkeeper that the world has ever seen, but he was my childhood hero, which is more important.
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. The review is overdue and most welcome, and I want to make two particular points about it. First, it is absolutely right to ask for the BBC to be looked at. If a subsidised organisation is able to become a publisher, which it was not prior to the arrival of the internet, then it is now in the same space as others that do not benefit from such a subsidy and have to earn money. That has caused a problem, and we must look at how the BBC operates given the amount of money that it receives and at what damage or problems that causes.
Secondly, I agree with the deputy Leader of the Opposition, the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson), that the elephant in the room is the social media companies. Adam Smith makes it clear in “The Wealth of Nations” that this kind of monopoly cartel is damaging to people as individuals and to the functioning of a democratic society. At some point, social media companies will need to be broken up, and the way to do that is to make them publishers and responsible for everything on their sites. Just watch what will happen after that.
Jeremy Wright
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. On the BBC, there is a balance. It is right to ask Ofcom to consider whether further measures ought to be taken to ensure that the BBC is using its position for good, and it is important at least to ask whether it is facilitating good local content or effectively squeezing out good local providers. However, that is a matter for Ofcom. I repeat that the review also rightly praises the BBC, and the local democracy reporting service should be praised and expanded.
Turning to social media platforms, my right hon. Friend will know that the Government are engaged in several overlapping pieces of work, and the online harms White Paper will address many of the issues he describes. There is an ongoing question as to whether it is appropriate to apply the label of publisher to online companies. However, I am less interested in the label and more interested in what those companies do, how we ensure that they fulfil their responsibilities to the users of their services and then, of course, what should happen if they do not fulfil those responsibilities.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
The market dominance of the duopoly affects all our communities, including places such as Wrexham, where The Leader, the local paper, and Wrexham.com, the new kid on the block, are under threat due to multinational organisations. It is entirely right to confront the monopolistic situation, and I encourage the Secretary of State to take up the line proposed by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman and be much more aggressive with the CMA in its dealings to break up that situation so that we can have honest news organisations right across the UK.
Jeremy Wright
The hon. Gentleman knows well that the CMA is rightly independent and will make its own judgments. However, I hope that he will recognise that I have wasted no time in engaging it on this issue. As for the online platforms, he will have heard what I said about the position they hold within the online advertising market in particular, but we must make a distinction here. We must recognise that advertising has changed, probably irrevocably, which is Dame Frances’s view, but we must also ensure that the behaviour of online platforms is not squeezing what is truly good and useful about local journalism and what is essential to the conduct of our democracy.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I say with too little pride that when BBC Children in Need showed a programme about MPs playing football, I let in a goal at Wembley, but Gordon Banks let in more.
When it comes to professional and public interest journalism, the recommendations in chapter 6 of the Cairncross review are important for everyone to read. With the Secretary of State having referred to how the BBC is helping local journalism, may I take this opportunity to say that today is the last day for responses to the BBC consultation on age-related licences? I hope that the Secretary of State will consider whether the Treasury could make it possible for the value of the licence concession to the over-75s to be taken into account in the old-age pensioners free tax allowance, so that the money can be recycled into the BBC. That would be a far better way of making the licence means-related than any of the other suggestions in the consultation.
Jeremy Wright
My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion, which I am sure both my Department and the Treasury will want to consider. He will expect me to say that the BBC has not yet come to any conclusions. The consultation process in which it quite rightly engaged is only now coming to an end, and it is right that the BBC has the opportunity to consider what has been said and to bring forward its proposals, which we will then consider and respond to.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I associate myself with the remarks of the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell).
As someone who lived through the reduction in the number of jobs and the shrinking circulation figures, and whose family was directly affected by them, I recognise everything in this report and welcome its recommendations. Many of them, such as a new institute for public interest news and tax breaks for non-profit and charitable organisations, are very welcome. Less welcome, though, is the sideswipe at the BBC for the local democracy reporter scheme, which is vital in protecting local democracy, although one problem with the scheme may be that it has been consumed by the four biggest players. In taking this issue forward, perhaps the Secretary of State might consider some way of protecting local and hyperlocal publications by ensuring they are part of the scheme so they are not eaten up by the bigger organisations.
Jeremy Wright
I take the hon. Lady’s point about hyperlocal reporting. As we seek to expand what is currently provided, it is important that the scheme focuses on the very local provision that people are particularly keen on having. However, to be fair to Dame Frances and, indeed, to the BBC, I do not think she was taking a swipe at the BBC’s local democracy reporter scheme. I think her view of that scheme, like mine, is that it is a very positive move that has worked well on the scale at which it currently operates, and there is capacity for it to do more if we can find a way to expand it, as we discussed a little earlier.
Although there are questions to be asked about the BBC’s engagement in this space, and we will ask those questions, the Cairncross review’s view on the local democracy reporter scheme is, broadly speaking, positive.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Only a few years ago, three local free newspapers went to almost every home in Harlow. The last one, the Harlow Star, has shut its doors in the last couple of weeks and residents have nothing. This has disenfranchised thousands of residents in my constituency—not just the elderly but those who cannot afford the internet—and some of them have been ringing my office asking me to send them or read them the news. That is where we are.
Despite our having an incredible online newspaper, Your Harlow, and a possible new paid-for Harlow edition of the Epping Forest Guardian, the fact remains that thousands of people are going to be disenfranchised. Will my right hon. and learned Friend use this opportunity to help small community organisations that may already have small publications either with some kind of tax credit or with a special grant, just as we give grants to entrepreneurs to start small businesses, to ensure that people are not left out of receiving the news, especially as we have had a basically free newspaper in our town since 1953?
Jeremy Wright
I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I join him in paying tribute to Your Harlow, which is a sadly all-too-rare example of a local news institution that has transferred online successfully. He mentions other titles that have not survived and, as he knows, that experience is replicated across the country.
On tax reliefs and other forms of incentive that we are able to offer, we will consider what Dame Frances says very carefully. One attraction of at least one of the methods she suggests is that it will enable us to focus on the public interest news that she speaks so much about and that we want to see supported. If we do that, it would be a good case to make.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I have not yet read the whole report, but I am surprised by the focus on the BBC when these two internet giants are dominating and hoovering up all the advertising revenue. Is it not important that we focus our attention on where the problem lies, rather than undermining the BBC at a time when so much fake news finds its way on to our computer screens so easily via those platforms?
Jeremy Wright
I cannot speak for the exchanges today but, when the hon. Gentleman reads the report, I reassure him that he will see much more focus on Google and Facebook than on the BBC. As I said earlier, Dame Frances’s view on the BBC is much more balanced than some of the reporting would suggest.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Codes and reviews are all very well, but we are being weak with these American tech giants, and I think they are taking us for fools. They are a monopolistic, anti-competitive force in our society. This is not a luddite view; I believe in competition. I very much echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) said: they should pay the same tax, have the same level of responsibility and be held to the same account as every other company—every other publisher. They are simply sucking the life out of our retail sector and out of local newspapers. I agree entirely with what the Opposition spokesman said: we have to be far more robust. They are attacking our children; they are using manipulative, addictive practices to trap our children. We have seen the publicity about dating apps and the rest. So let us be strong and robust, and let these companies play by the same rules as everybody else.
Jeremy Wright
My hon. Friend will recognise that one reason why these companies are such a force in our society, as he says, is that so many of our constituents use their products so extensively. That is a fact of modern life, with which we must contend. It is also apparent that it will be difficult and perhaps wrong for us to assume that we can treat these companies in exactly the same way as we can treat newspapers and their editors. But none of that means that we need to abdicate our responsibility to ensure that these companies fulfil theirs. The Government intend to ensure that they do, and he will see, when we bring forward the White Paper and we talk about some of the issues that have been canvassed this afternoon, that the Government have every intention of making sure that these companies do live up to their responsibilities.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I would like to associate my colleagues and myself with the tributes paid to Gordon Banks. This weekend, we will have the Northern Ireland BetMcLean league cup final, and I am sure the Secretary of State will want to take the opportunity to wish Ballymena United and Linfield Football Club all the best as they compete for that cup—I hope the sky blues win.
We are dealing here with the concentration of enormous economic power with the few, and with a very few platforms and platform owners; the dangerous monopoly of expertise; the power of surveillance; the fact that the much-promised encryption and privacy of personal data does not exist, even in WhatsApp; and the unlimited potential for the abuse of technology and people. Surely the Secretary of State agrees that the commercial strength and share of the advertising market of these new platforms, the personal wealth of those who own them and the monopoly of personal data are, in the words of this important review, each alone a “justification” for regulation. Surely he agrees that much more must be done immediately. Will he join me and the deputy leader of the Labour party in saying from the Dispatch Box that there must immediately be put on these companies a duty of care to all those who use them? That will be the first wake-up call and the first sobering reality that these platforms will face.
Unfortunately, I fear that the Government, once again, have pulled their punches on the BBC. The BBC has huge firepower compared with ITV and UTV, its subsidiary in Northern Ireland. It has the largest news-watching audience, yet the BBC competes deliberately against it to undermine it in Northern Ireland. That disadvantage must stop as soon as possible.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. We have a ten-minute rule Bill and important business to move on to, so I ask colleagues to make questions and, correspondingly, answers short.
Jeremy Wright
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will do my best. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for inviting me to wish both sides in the Northern Ireland cup final well. That is much easier to do, and I am happy to join him in doing that. As for the BBC, there are no Government punches being thrown here, pulled or otherwise; we are talking about the recommendation of an independent review and, as I say, Dame Frances is making a sensible and balanced set of proposals. As for his comments about the online platforms, I agree with him that there are concerns about the concentration of market power in very few hands and about the responsibilities of these companies to keep their users safe online. I can tell him that the Government are conscious about acting on both those things. I shall be giving some of the messages he has just outlined directly to the online platforms when I travel to the United States next week.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his kind words about Gordon Banks. He was not only England’s greatest goalkeeper, but Stoke City’s—the Potters’—greatest goalkeeper, too. He was also a friend of mine. He lived in my borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme. I well remember going to see him in the 1960s when he first joined Stoke and my dad took me to the terraces of the old Victoria Ground.
I come from North Staffordshire, which is well served by its local newspaper, The Sentinel. It is a tribute to the editor, Martin Tideswell—Stoke born and bred—that in these difficult days and times it not only comes out six days a week, but has managed to keep a lot of display and classified advertising. The Government clearly cannot subsidise newspapers; that is not what journalism is about. Is it not about time that the major beneficiaries online, such as Google and Facebook, not only pay their taxes, but are held better to account over copyright and pay fairer dues to publishers, including those of national and local newspapers?
Jeremy Wright
On the hon. Gentleman’s last point, he will know that the Government supported the progress of the EU directive on copyright. We believe it appropriate that those who create content are properly rewarded for what they do. As he knows, this is a complex area, but we are keen to see further measures to ensure that content creators are properly rewarded.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
Having had a career in the media, I appreciate the importance of accuracy in reporting and am a supporter of my local Somerset County Gazette and the Wellington Weekly News, because they should be cornerstones of local democracy. In that respect, I welcome the recommendations in the Cairncross review to set up the independent institute to promote local investigative journalism and the provision of public interest news.
Our Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee inquiry into fake news and disinformation highlighted the threats facing high-quality journalism, largely through the use of algorithms and bots to spread what is effectively fake news—stories that are not true—to huge audiences. Does my hon. Friend agree that that needs addressing with strong measures against the publishers promulgating it? Does he also agree that the traditional media outlets that often pick up these clickbait stories should themselves be responsible for promoting good-quality journalism so that the public know who they can trust? Will my right hon. Friend give assurances that that will be addressed through the proposed new institute?
Jeremy Wright
As my hon. Friend knows, and as I have reported to the House, the Somerset County Gazette was the first newspaper I ever appeared in, so I have always had a soft spot for it. What she said is right; it is important that all media outlets take responsibility for checking what they put into their particular publications, whether they are online or not. She can expect that we will be taking up many of the themes that her Select Committee has so expertly covered in its inquiry.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I rise as the chair of the cross-party group for the National Union of Journalists and also as a former local newspaper reporter for the Caernarfon and Denbigh Herald and the Holyhead and Anglesey Mail. Let us face facts: it is not the BBC that is closing down local papers or debate on local democracy. The Cambrian News has been a vital source of news for almost 160 years in mid-Wales. There is a responsibility there for Government to maintain that tradition. The recommended tax relief measures are welcome, but does the Secretary of State not agree that by making Facebook and Google pay for the journalist content they use, he would be taking a first pragmatic step in offsetting the huge loss of advertising revenue to the tech giants, which is what is closing down local papers?
Jeremy Wright
When the hon. Lady has the chance to read the report in full, she will see for herself that the focus of the report is not criticism of the BBC, and it is important that is recognised. So far as payment for content by the online platforms is concerned, when she reads the report she will see that Dame Frances does not suggest we pursue that. Fundamentally, her concern is that if we did that, we may in fact see less news in total. That is not the objective that she or we would have.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
A significant source of revenue for papers such as the Scarborough News and the Whitby Gazette are the statutory notices informing local residents about planning applications, road closures and so on. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that it will continue to be an obligation for these advertisements to be carried in local newspapers?
Jeremy Wright
We will of course have to consider that very carefully, but I know that my hon. Friend will recognise that the primary purpose of the exercise is to make sure that people in a given local area know what is happening. Therefore, it is important that channels are used that will reach the maximum number of people, and that must be the guiding principle in this exercise.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
May I associate myself with the comments about the late Gordon Banks who was both a national hero and a local hero for all his work in Stoke and Staffordshire, particularly in raising huge amounts of money for charity?
I welcome the local democracy reporting service. The Secretary of State and I heard about that work last week. May I encourage its expansion? I also pay tribute to those local reporters who, quite often, face the same kind of attack, online and offline, that we, as Members of Parliament, face, and that our staff face in carrying out our work.
Jeremy Wright
Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. I am grateful to him for hosting and chairing the meeting that gave me the opportunity to meet those remarkable reporters. As he said, they do good work, they face unfair attack and criticism for it and we should take every opportunity to stand up for them.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
When I worked in the policy and strategy department at the BBC, I tasked myself with answering the question of whether the licence fee was sustainable in a digital age. I came to the conclusion that it was not, and others did as well. It was known within the BBC the effect that this was having on local journalism. Is the Secretary of State also aware that the BBC has tentacles in other areas such as BBC Worldwide, Radio 1 and BBC Films, which are all competing with the commercial sector? While we are talking about journalism today, we will, in the future, be talking about other areas.
Jeremy Wright
My hon. Friend raises much broader questions about the BBC and its place in the broadcasting landscape that I know he will recognise. The problem that the Cairncross review is focused on, which is the diminution of local news outlets of the traditional kind, is a problem that is not restricted to the UK where the BBC is pre-eminent, but exists across the world in other jurisdictions where the BBC has no similar role.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
In Stevenage, we are well served with the Stevenage Comet, which is a free weekly newspaper that was once delivered to every household but is now delivered to about half the households. However, it is supported by the local community through advertising. Has the Minister considered what the impact would be if we reduced VAT on advertising in free weekly newspapers?
Jeremy Wright
We will certainly consider some of the tax recommendations that are made by Dame Frances in her review, but my hon. Friend will recognise that the fundamental problem is that a large proportion of the advertising that used to find its way into local newspapers is now being done online. That is what has driven the need for us to consider these very fundamental questions about the way in which public interest journalism in particular should be funded. The review gives us a good start on that, and that is what we will persist with.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
Our local papers have an essential role in chronicling all that happens in our local communities. Their archives are therefore an important local resource, so the Secretary of State will be alarmed to hear that, when Trinity Mirror took over the Mid Somerset newspapers in 2016, it removed from Wells all of those archives, and despite many promises of their return it has failed to deliver thus far. Will my right hon. Friend intervene and seek to expedite their return from Watford to Wells?
Jeremy Wright
I will certainly look into what my hon. Friend says. I agree with the general tenor of his remarks. It is important that we not only preserve the ability of our local newspapers to report on what happens now and what will happen in the future, but do our best to preserve the crucial record that they have created of what has happened in the past.
Points of Order
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In answer to an urgent question on 8 January, the Transport Secretary claimed that his decision to award a contract to Seaborne Freight incurred no cost to the taxpayer, telling the House that
“we are not spending money unless these ferries operate.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 191.]
Yesterday, the National Audit Office found that £800,000 had been spent on external consultants to assess the bid. The ministerial code says that
“it is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister”.
Has the Secretary of State indicated to you that he plans to make a personal statement to the House on his conduct in relation to this matter?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I understand that he has also advised the Secretary of State’s office that he would be raising the matter. If the Secretary of State believes that he has inadvertently misled the House, I am sure that he will take steps to correct the record. Of course, he may have a different view of the facts, but I am sure that all of this will be the subject of further scrutiny and debate. The shadow Secretary of State has put his view on the record, so the Treasury Bench will have heard it, and there are many other ways in which he can pursue this matter for further information.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Several days ago a local newspaper in Northern Ireland, the News Letter, carried a story about two Sinn Féin MPs with the headline:
“Sinn Fein MPs did not register trip at Venezuelan government expense”.
After reading the story, I wrote to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards about the matter. All Members will be aware of sanctions that can be levied against Members who take their seats and fall foul of the registration process, but I seek your guidance and that of the office of the Speaker regarding Members who do not take their seats and are still subject to a registration process, but who in this case appear not to have followed that process. Setting aside the politics of going on a visit to a dictator in Venezuela, the actual registration process appears not to have been carried out. What sanctions will follow given that those Members do not take their seats and therefore do not get a salary? How will financial sanctions or other types of sanction be levied if, indeed, those Members are found to be guilty?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he wished to raise this point of order. I can confirm that the requirement to register financial interests applies equally to Members who have not taken their seats as it does to Members who have done so. Registrations should be made within 28 days of any appropriate hospitality. It is far too early to talk of sanctions, but the hon. Gentleman has raised the matter with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and put his concerns before the House.
Child Cruelty (Sentences)
Tuesday 12th February 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Child Cruelty (Sentences) Bill 2017-19 View all Child Cruelty (Sentences) Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to increase the maximum custodial sentence for the offences of child cruelty and causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to die or suffer serious physical harm to imprisonment for life; and for connected purposes.
I very much thank all Members of this House who have come here today in support of this Bill. The purpose of this Bill—Tony’s law—is to ensure that individuals who commit the most serious acts of cruelty against children face appropriate punishment when convicted of this crime. At the moment, the maximum sentence stands at 10 years. I would like to see this raised to life imprisonment.
I would like to pay tribute to Tony Hudgell, who is the inspiration for this Bill and is in the Gallery today, accompanied by his mother, Paula, and others from his real family—the family who love and care for him. This House has had the pleasure of their company before—in January, when I presented their petition of 12,000 signatures calling on the Government to reconsider the maximum sentence for child cruelty. This Bill continues their campaign and I am proud to put it before the House today.
Shortly after Tony Hudgell was born, he was attacked by his biological parents. They broke his fingers and his toes. They tore the ligaments in his legs. They caused such terrible damage that both his legs had to be amputated and Tony is now wheelchair-bound. Tony was only admitted to hospital 10 days after these injuries were inflicted. We can only imagine how much pain he suffered in the first weeks of his life. It is Tony’s enormous good fortune that he was fostered and then adopted by Paula, her husband Mark and their children, who have loved and looked after him ever since.
Tony’s case is extreme, but sadly it is not unique. Last December, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children said that almost 17,000 cases of child cruelty or neglect were reported to the police in the past five years—an average of over 3,000 cases each year, double the number reported in the previous five years. Sadly, too few result in a conviction. Paula had to take Tony’s case back to the courts after the Crown Prosecution Service initially failed to bring a successful charge against his biological parents. I am pursuing the possible reasons behind this with the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), with whom I had a fruitful meeting last week. I am grateful to see him in his place. I thank him for the time he has taken in considering this matter and look forward to further discussions with him on it.
I realise that child cruelty is a difficult crime to take through the courts, and those figures reflect this fact. That is, not least, because it is so often conducted in secret behind closed doors, with only the victim, a child, as the witness. I understand that proving the intent to harm is therefore extremely hard. I realise that this means that prosecutions for grievous bodily harm, with the harsher punishments that would then be available, are not easy to bring. But should that really mean that the sentence is lighter than that which would have been available? Carers and parents who harm the children they are responsible for are betraying a trust and undermining our society. It is a wrong that we all know cries out for justice. That is why I welcome the legal reform that was introduced a number of years ago that enabled us to bring child cruelty charges in the first place.
However, should the difficulty really lead to a more lenient sentence? Why does an individual who commits grievous bodily harm face a maximum sentence of life or, more often, 16 years in prison, while those who commit child cruelty or neglect have a maximum of 10 years? As the judge said, in this exceptional circumstance he would have given more had it been available. In exceptional circumstances such as Tony’s, when the only two people in the house were jointly responsible for the harm done to an innocent baby, the difficulty of proving intent should not allow a lighter punishment. In cases like Tony’s, where the abuse is better described as torture, how can child cruelty attract a maximum sentence that is so much shorter when the young victims of such cruelty may live with the consequences for their whole lives?
To address this discrepancy, and to give judges more discretion, I propose amending two Acts—the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 and the Children and Young Persons Act 1933—by extending the term of the relevant sentences. These amendments are not intended to be used often. Indeed, I pray, as I am sure we all do, that they are never used at all. But they would, only in exceptional circumstances where judges think that they are more appropriate, allow longer sentences, in line with crimes against adults—crimes that are more public, more visible and are not hidden behind closed doors, but have similarly life-changing consequences.
I seek to do this not only on behalf of Tony Hudgell but for all those innocent children who have been, or are, at risk of falling victims to the most awful of crimes. I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Tom Tugendhat, Sarah Champion, Tim Loughton, Bob Blackman, Philip Davies, Mr Edward Vaizey, Henry Smith, Ruth Smeeth, Ian Austin, Victoria Prentis, John Mann and Nicky Morgan present the Bill.
Tom Tugendhat accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 March and to be printed (Bill 334).
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords]
Tuesday 12th February 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019 View all Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 February 2019 - (12 Feb 2019)
17:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 252 / Noes: 303 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 249 / Noes: 301 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:30 - The House divided: - Ayes: 249 / Noes: 300 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 299 / Noes: 241 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 1, page 5, line 10, at end insert—
“(3A) Before making any regulations under subsection (3)(b), the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on—
(a) the likely effects of the provisions of this Act on persons undergoing rehabilitation for brain injuries, and
(b) the interaction between the provisions of this Act and the processes for prescribing for brain injury rehabilitation therapy.”
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 5 to 32.
Amendment 2, in schedule 1, page 15, line 24, at end insert—
“(d) the effects of any treatment undergone by the cared-for person, including prescription brain injury rehabilitation therapy.”
Government amendments 33 to 37.
Amendment 49, page 16, line, leave out from “out” to the end of line 16, and insert
“by the responsible body.”
This amendment would require the responsible body to carry out the consultation in all cases.
Government amendment 38.
Amendment 50, page 17, line 13, at end insert—
“(ca) the arrangements are being authorised under paragraph 16 of this Schedule, or”
This amendment would require an AMCP to review all cases where the responsible body is authorising arrangements based on a statement provided by a care home manager.
Government amendment 39.
Amendment 48, page 18, line 21, at end insert—
“Authorisation charges
24A No charges may be made in relation to the steps taken in determining whether the responsible body may authorise the arrangements for the cared-for person.”
Amendment 3, page 18, line 35, at end insert “or
(c) at the end of a period of prescription brain injury rehabilitation therapy undergone by the cared-for person.”
Amendment 4, page 20, line 4, after “met” insert
“taking into account any treatment to be undergone by the cared-for person, including prescription brain injury rehabilitation therapy.”
Government amendments 40 to 46.
Amendment 51, page 23, line 1, leave out paragraphs 39 and 40 and insert—
“39 (1) The responsible body must appoint an IMCA to represent and support the cared-for person if–
(a) one or more of sub-paragraphs (2), (3), (4) or (5) applies, and
(b) sub-paragraph (6) does not apply.
(2) The cared-for person makes a request to the responsible body for an IMCA to be appointed.
(3) The responsible body has not identified an ‘appropriate person’ to support and represent the cared-for person in matters connected with the authorisation.
(4) The responsible body has identified an ‘appropriate person’ to support and represent the cared for person in matters connected with the authorisation, and they have made a request to the responsible body for an IMCA to be appointed.
(5) The responsible body has reason to believe one or more of the following—
(a) that, without the help of an IMCA, the cared-for person and any appropriate person supporting and representing them would be unable to understand or exercise one or more of the relevant rights;
(b) that the cared-for person and any appropriate person supporting and representing them have each failed to exercise a relevant right when it would have been reasonable to exercise it;
(c) that the cared for person and any appropriate person supporting and representing them are each unlikely to exercise a relevant right when it would be reasonable to exercise it.
(6) The cared-for person objects to being represented and supported by an IMCA.
(7) A person is not to be regarded as an ‘appropriate person’ to represent and support the cared-for person in matters connected with this schedule unless—
(a) they consent to representing and supporting the cared-for person,
(b) they are not engaged in providing care or treatment for the cared-for person in a professional capacity,
(c) where the cared-for person is able to express a view about who they would like to represent and support them, the cared-for person agree to being represented and supported by that person,
(d) where the cared-for person is unable to express a view about who they would like to represent and support them, the responsible body has no reason to believe that the cared-for person would object to being represented and supported by that person,
(e) they are both willing and able to assist the cared-for person in understanding and exercising the relevant rights under this Schedule, including with the support of an IMCA if appropriate.
(8) The ‘relevant rights’ under this schedule include rights to request a review under Part III of this Schedule, and the right to make an application to the court to exercise its jurisdiction under section 21ZA of this Act.”
This amendment would broaden the provision of advocacy, ensuring that advocates are provided as a default unless the cared-for person does not want one.
Government amendment 47.
Chris Bryant
I will speak to amendment 1 and the three other amendments in my name and the names of several colleagues.
I want to start with enormous praise for the national health service, which in many cases makes the key decisions on everything that we will talk about today. Sometimes those are very difficult decisions, including for families, and they need to be managed with care and sensitivity. Ensuring that we have the right law in place to enable clinicians to make the right decisions is vital. I was on the Public Bill Committee for the Mental Health Act 2007 under the Labour Government, and I remember many of the rows and difficulties then. Ensuring that legislation fits the complicated circumstances of real life is not all that easy, and in particular, the definition of what might be proper treatment is not readily come by.
Often lobbyists get a really bad press. My experience of lobbyists in this field is entirely positive, including those working for the pharmaceutical industry, who do an amazing job in providing new drugs that can save people’s lives and manage their conditions much better, and the many charities in this field. When lobbyists are decried, I sometimes want to point out that they play an important part in ensuring that Members of Parliament know exactly what they are doing when it comes to legislation.
All the amendments that I have tabled relate to acquired brain injury. I am aware that several other colleagues who are members of the all-party parliamentary group on acquired brain injury are here today. I do not want to make an apology for that, but I want to explain why I have tabled these amendments. It is partly because I believe that acquired brain injury, though recognised and understood by some, is something of a hidden epidemic in Britain.
Something like 1.4 million people in this country are living with an acquired brain injury. A new person presents at accident and emergency with a brain injury every 90 seconds. Many of these injuries have lasting effects that are completely invisible to an ordinary member of the public. For instance, the person standing in front of us in a queue who is being difficult might look as if they are drunk or just being difficult, but they may have a brain injury. We would have no idea, and the person feels trapped and finds the situation as difficult as we do. The more we come to an understanding of acquired brain injury in this country, the better.
There are many different causes of brain injury, including road traffic accidents, accidents about the home and stroke. One cause that has been brought home to me recently is carbon monoxide poisoning. Not only the high level of carbon monoxide poisoning that follows an incident, but a sustained low level of carbon monoxide due to poor central heating systems or facilities or something like a Calor gas burner in a home, can end up causing a long-term brain injury. This particularly affects some of those who live in the worst housing in the land, and who are the poorest and least able to afford, for instance, to have their boiler mended or assessed every year.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend aware of the problem that some members of the armed forces face with acquired brain injury? It may be because they were involved in or close to the explosion of an improvised explosive device, or because they had a gunshot wound, when the head covering was hit but not penetrated, and the shock can lead to acquired brain injury.
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I know the role she has played, in particular in the all-party group on the armed forces, and of course in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. She is absolutely right, and there are sometimes coup and contrecoup elements of damage to the brain. There is also some evidence to suggest that some people diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder have actually been suffering from a brain injury.
Interestingly, the Ministry of Defence has done some of the most innovative work in relation to brain injuries—physical brain injuries, as it were—and it has been able to transfer some of the skills and research involved in that work to the wider population, which is all to the good. However, I think that the way in which the mind sits inside the brain and the brain sits inside the skull is one of the areas of research that is still underdeveloped, and we still need to do a great deal more about it.
Other causes include brain tumours and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, where somebody may have had a series of relatively minor concussions. There is a complete misunderstanding of what concussion actually involves, particularly in sport. This might be leading to some of the long-term sustained problems of, for example, people in my own constituency who played rugby for many years and had repeated concussions. They may suffer from dementia, depression and anxiety in later life, but have no understanding that that may relate to a brain injury, rather than to anything else.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
While we are talking about sport, may I say that this does not involve only rugby players? There is now evidence that footballers, particularly those heading the ball, suffer sustained brain injuries. It used to be interpreted as dementia, but it is a lot more serious than that. Has my hon. Friend had any discussions with the Football League about that?
Chris Bryant
I have had lots of discussions, some of them more fruitful than others, with the Football Association.
It is wholly to be deprecated that FIFA still will not allow a full substitution for an assessment of brain injury during a match. Ten minutes are needed to do a proper assessment on the pitch, but at the moment only three minutes is available in a FIFA match. There can be no substitution, and it is not therefore in the team’s interests to take the person off the pitch. I think that this must change. If there is one thing that I hope Parliament will say to FIFA about this in the next few months, it is that this must change. People we talk of as heroes, such as Jeff Astle, have died because of heading the ball. If those who are heroes to our young people today end up suffering in later life because of what they sustained in their footballing career, we will have done them a terrible disservice.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this applies equally to those who play rugby league, and in fact perhaps more, given the impact that some tackles occasionally have?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. One of the things about rugby league and about rugby union, which I know rather better, being from south Wales—[Interruption.] I do not think it is parliamentary to tut-tut from the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you don’t mind my saying so. The truth is that many of the players today are bigger, stronger and faster, so the impacts may be much more significant than they were in the past. Curiously, when we watch some of the commentary on Twitter and Facebook about matches, we see a kind of rejoicing in the physical pain that people are going through, and I think we really need to roll that back. We need to roll that back so that we are actually caring about the players. Quite often the players themselves will be desperate to go back on. It should not be the player who makes that decision; it should be an independent doctor who makes it. [Interruption.] I think you want to intervene on me, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
The tut-tut was to say that the hon. Gentleman would benefit from knowing both types of rugby. The only thing I would add, just to help his case, is that in rugby league a player is taken off for a full assessment by a doctor and not allowed back on. That is the benefit on which rugby league is leading the sport.
Chris Bryant
I am glad I took that intervention. It is unusual to get an intervention from the Chair, but I think we welcome this new style of chairing.
Chris Bryant
I am tempted to make a point of order! No—you are absolutely right, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The key thing is to have the same protocols for all sports, so that there is the same protection. A child might play rugby league one year and rugby union the next; if there are different protocols, that will undermine the whole system. Incidentally, the point also applies to a whole range of other sports—hockey and ice hockey, as well as American football, in which there is growing interest in the United Kingdom. We should not let the issue be led by litigation, which is what has happened in the United States of America: we should let it be led by the medical science, which is rapidly changing.
Mrs Moon
My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. One of the things that concern me most is that it is easy to label someone with any form of brain injury—whether dementia, Parkinson’s or anything else—when they also have an infection. What can be seen as difficult behaviour can be misunderstood when it is caused by the infection rather than by any acquired injury or illness.
Chris Bryant
Yes. People will also attribute bad intention to the person when what is happening is that the short-term memory is simply not functioning properly. For instance, someone with very little short-term memory may find it difficult to turn up on time, as I mentioned earlier. That may be not because they are being lazy, truculent or difficult but simply because their brain does not work in that way. It may mean that their capacity is so diminished that, according to the Bill, they cannot make decisions. Alternatively, it might just be one of the elements that needs to be dealt with—they need to find tricks to circumvent the problem, and medical and clinical professionals can help.
This is why I tabled my amendments. Neurorehabilitation, when done well and on a sustained basis, can take an individual from being low functioning and high dependency, perhaps needing three or four people just to be able to wash themselves, clothe themselves and provide for themselves physically, to a much higher level of personal functionality and much greater independence. I have made that argument from a different place, in the sense that taking someone from needing four people to look after them to just one person coming in once a day for an hour or so could be an enormous financial saving to the taxpayer. That is why neurorehabilitation and the work that has been done in many cases can be so important.
Neurorehabilitation is really important in relation to the Bill. We might be able to take somebody from a place where they are not truly able to make a decision about what treatment they should be undergoing and, according the Bill, deprive them of their liberty, to a place where that would no longer be appropriate. My anxiety is that if there is no incentive in the system to ensure that neurorehabilitation is provided to people, there is a danger that we just discard them and leave them by the side, particularly as we are now talking about a three-year term rather than a one-year term. I think the clauses at the end of the Bill militate in favour of renewal, rather than providing a clear option not to renew at that point.
I have an anxiety that perhaps in some care homes and other places there just might be an incentive to think, “Well, this person isn’t going to get better so we’re not going to do anything to try to help them to get better.” I do not want to give up on so many people. Thanks to what the Government have done with the major trauma centres, we now save about 800 or 1,000 more lives every year following road traffic accidents and the like, but we need to give people quality of life. We do not have enough people working in this field. We need to recruit many more people. If 20 people were inspired by what we are talking about today to go and work in that field—there are so many high rewards for people working to take people from high dependency to low dependency—that would be a success in itself.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the all-party group inquiry heard some remarkable examples of people who have gone through the pathway with neurorehabilitation prescriptions and are increasingly able, with great work and support on everyone’s part, to carry out many functions?
Chris Bryant
Absolutely. One key thing that we saw repeatedly—this is an issue for the Bill, I think—was the fluctuating nature of some brain injuries. For instance, fatigue is a very common feature of many brain injuries. I do not mean just feeling tired because you are sitting at the back of a debate in the House of Commons and somebody is wittering on for far too long and you fall asleep, but real, genuine fatigue. I mean the kind of lassitude that leaves you unable to move from one side of the bed to the other. It is often misunderstood, because it might look like laziness to somebody with a judgmental eye. That lassitude can pass or go through phases and can sometimes be a bit difficult to explain or predict. I am therefore really keen that we ensure, in all the processes in the Bill, that anyone with an acquired brain injury is regularly and repeatedly reassessed so that they have an opportunity to escape. That is important.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making some good points. The only point I would make to him is that without a deprivation of liberty order—I agree that they should be open to review, and I am sure the Minister will go on to talk about how that can happen—some of the people he talks about may have to be put under the Mental Health Act 2007 due to the fluctuating nature of their capacity. That would be much more restrictive and could lead to them being sent to entirely the wrong places to be cared for. I would just give that caveat and that warning to him about the potential consequences of what he is saying.
Chris Bryant
I think the hon. Gentleman has just read, in some weird way, what I was about to say—he has a very special mental capacity of his own if he is able to read my notes from that distance. He is absolutely right, however, and I do not want to drive a coach and horses through the Bill at all. I fully accept that there is a requirement for some elements of it.
I have an anxiety about the pace at which the Bill is going. It is a shame that the code is not yet available, because it would significantly affect how we viewed some of the issues that we are talking about today. All the things in my amendments should probably be in the code, rather than on the face of the Bill—that is what the Minister said to me yesterday, and I should have given her a much harder time, by the way—but why do we not have the code now? We are not going to have it before the Bill receives its Third Reading, and I think that is a mistake. It is not as though we have lots of wonderful business to be getting through.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
A young person in my constituency has contacted me—she has a disability and works for a disabled people’s organisation called Inclusion London—to raise concerns about the speed at which the Bill is going through Parliament. There is a sense of it being rushed through without adequate consultation, which it needs, and with little regard for the people who are likely to be affected by it. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Chris Bryant
Yes, I do have that anxiety. I want to be a bit critical of the Government on that, because this is a two-year Session of Parliament and there is no reason why this could not have been done in a proper way. I am slightly conscious that there is not a great deal of time left today, however, so I am keen to bring my remarks to a close.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Before my hon. Friend concludes, since the code is going to be so central to the operation of the Bill, and since none of us will have seen it before the Bill concludes its proceedings, does he think that it is vital for the Minister to say today that there will be proper and extensive consultation on the code before it is implemented?
Chris Bryant
Yes. The Government have effectively already said that, but to be really nasty, we should have had the code before today, in all honesty, even if it was only in draft form, so that we would be able to see what we are really talking about, and I would then not have been talking about these amendments.
I want to bring my remarks to a close as soon as I can. We need to build in an incentive to make sure that there is proper neurorehabilitation provision for people with acquired brain injuries. All too often, patients and carers in this field feel as though they are being processed. That is not because health clinicians are nastily minded, but because people sometimes end up having to deal with so many different departments that they feel as though they are being pushed from pillar to post. That is why it is really important that the Government strike the right note when it comes to the next stage of introducing the code.
Amendment 1 simply says that
“the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on”
the “likely effects” of the Bill on ABI before it comes into effect. Amendment 2 requires the “relevant person”, who could be somebody managing a care home, to consider
“the effects of any treatment undergone by the cared-for person, including prescription brain injury rehabilitation therapy”
in addition to the length of time since the assessment was originally made. Amendment 3 would mean that an authorisation that was not renewed would lapse after 12 months, after a time specified in the original authorisation, or, as I would like it to be,
“at the end of a period of prescription brain injury rehabilitation therapy”.
I think that is key to making sure that there is an incentive to ensure that therapy is provided. Amendment 4 refers to the renewal of an authorisation and requires the responsible body to take into account
“any treatment to be undergone by the cared-for person, including prescription brain injury rehabilitation therapy”.
I do not think that any of those amendments would do the Bill any harm—no harm at all—and I am feeling a bit more grumpy with the Minister than I was yesterday when I met her, so who knows? We might end up voting on them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Brine)
It is good to see the hon. Gentleman on his feet, but I hate to see him grumpy. He will have my response to his all-party group next week. I promised him a recommendation by recommendation response to his report, the launch of which I attended, and he will have it next week.
Chris Bryant
That is true, but she has to prove her mettle on this. I do not mean that in a nasty way; I simply mean that we want some changes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
A lot of people want to speak, but we have to finish at 6 o’clock, so we only have 90 minutes.
The Minister for Care (Caroline Dinenage)
I am here today to prove my mettle.
I will start by stating the obvious: our liberty is our most fundamental human right. The challenge today is that the current system of deprivation of liberty safeguards no longer provides protection to all the vulnerable people entitled to it. The system has proved to be overly bureaucratic and inefficient to apply, and case law has resulted in article 5 of the European convention on human rights being understood in a very different way, and this has, in effect, widened the definition of deprivation of liberty eighteenfold. The result is a long backlog of applications that has built up over time such that today about 125,000 people may be subject to a deprivation of liberty without formal authorisation.
The Bill introduces a new system—the liberty protection safeguard—based on work of the Law Commission that involved more than three years of consultation and consideration. It is designed to provide robust protections and to be simpler so that protections may be afforded quickly and effectively to those who need them. It is absolutely right that any proposed changes to the protection of some of the most vulnerable people in our society be scrutinised closely, however, and I am grateful for the close examination of the Bill by hon. Members and noble Lords during the Bill’s passage here and in the other place.
I thank the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for raising the issue of how liberty protection safeguards will work for people who have a brain injury or may need to be deprived of their liberty while receiving care or treatment. I also thank him for his chairmanship of the all-party group on acquired brain injury. He does an outstanding job and is a great advocate for the group.
A leading charity in this area, Headway, reports that every 90 seconds someone is admitted to a UK hospital with an acquired brain injury or related diagnosis, such as trauma, stroke, tumour and neurological illness, and many of these will require some form of rehabilitation. For some people, this can be a lifelong need. Having met the hon. Gentleman yesterday to discuss his concerns, I understand that neurorehabilitation can in some cases help people to regain capacity over time and that his amendments are intended to account for this and to ensure that a deprivation of liberty occurs only when strictly necessary.
I would like to provide some reassurance that the first principle of the Bill is that a deprivation of liberty should occur only where it is considered essential and where authorisation conditions are met. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have considered carefully how this model will work for this group of people and are confident that the reformed model will embed consideration of deprivation of liberty into the earliest stages of care and treatment planning so that from the outset these arrangements will work alongside neurorehabilitation therapy and adhere to the less-restrictive principle of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
I understand the Minister’s concern not to impinge on the rights of disabled and elderly people, but is she not concerned that more than 100 social care and disability organisations have written to her raising continuing concerns, including about the Bill adversely affecting the rights of people who rely on care and support services. Does she think they are wrong, or does she think they have legitimate concerns that still need to be properly addressed?
Caroline Dinenage
Of course, any organisation representing these vulnerable people that raises concerns deserves to have them listened to, and I am sure that the vast majority are legitimate concerns, which is why we have been listening so carefully up until this point. The right hon. Gentleman will know how many amendments we have made in the other place, in Committee and today.
We will continue to listen and collaborate as we deal with the code of practice, about which I shall say more in a moment. A working group of third-sector organisations is helping us to put the document together so that it is not rushed. It is not being prepared for the purposes of Parliament, but it will come before Parliament. Following a wide public consultation, both Houses will vote on it. That collaboration has been and will continue to be important: it is not the end of the conversation, but very much part of it.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
May I pursue the intervention from the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb)? Is the Minister satisfied that the definition of the deprivation of liberty will not lead to litigation in the courts? Some constituents have written to me saying that the proposed changes could open a legal can of worms. Can the Minister reassure me that this will not end in expensive litigation, either for constituents or for the Government?
Caroline Dinenage
I do not think it is ever possible to say that. This particular area of law has always been open to legal challenge. We decided to include a definition because so many stakeholders, as well as the Law Commission and Members of the other place, thought it essential, but the wording is very specific.[Official Report, 13 February 2019, Vol. 654, c. 7MC.] It refers to what does not constitute a deprivation of liberty rather than what does, because we did not want to leave out accidentally something that could open up a legal challenge further down the line. This is where the code of practice comes into its own. It will include case studies and examples, so that those affected by the Mental Capacity Act will have a better understanding of how it works for them.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The Minister has just mentioned case studies, and she has mentioned them before. She has circulated case studies to a few people, but they were not circulated to me or to any other members of the Committee, which I think was very discourteous. We keep hearing about things that are in the distance—over there—and will come together at some point, but those case studies have not been circulated, and they should have been.
Caroline Dinenage
I think that there must be some confusion. The case studies will be part of the code of practice. They will be gathered together in the document, and third-sector organisations will contribute to ensure that we cover every cohort. We must bear in mind that we are trying to cater for wildly different groups of people. The document will have to cover the young person with an acquired brain injury to whom the hon. Member for Rhondda referred, a 16-year-old who has had a learning disability since birth and the 97-year-old with dementia. It must not be the box-ticking one-size-fits-all exercise for which the current legislation provides.
We are aware that mental capacity assessments may be of particular concern to the group of people mentioned by the hon. Member for Rhondda. Assessing the capacity of people with acquired brain injuries can be particularly challenging, and will require skilled and careful consideration. Government amendments 28 to 37, which I shall discuss later, outline our intention to publish regulations in order to ensure that the assessors have the appropriate knowledge and experience.
We agree that the likelihood of capacity to fluctuate should be ascertained during the assessments, and we will expect that to be considered in the authorisation, in the length of authorisation and in the frequency of reviews. Fluctuating capacity is complex and fact-specific and deserves in-depth and detailed guidance, which is why we will include the details in the code of practice. I appreciate what the Opposition amendments are trying to do and I fully agree with their spirit, but I hope that my commitment to work with others on the code has given the hon. Gentleman and other members of the all-party parliamentary group the reassurance that they need.
Through the scrutiny of the Public Bill Committee and the ongoing engagement with stakeholders, we have identified a number of areas in which the Bill could be strengthened further. As I have said before, I firmly intend to introduce a more effective, efficient system of robust safeguards, moving away from the one-size-fits-all approach that no longer works. I am committed to doing this in a very collaborative way, and where possible to identify legislative improvements that can be made to work. I am committed to looking at this again, and as a result a number of Government amendments have been tabled that improve the Bill and the way in which liberty protection safeguards work.
Amendment 5 aligns the definition of a care home manager in Wales with that in England. The Bill as currently drafted defines care home managers in Wales as a registered manager. This amendment changes that so that it is linked to the registered service provider. Amendments 7 to 23 will remove any perceived conflict of interest where a deprivation of liberty occurs in an independent hospital. Under amendment 14 the responsible body in cases where arrangements are mainly carried out in an independent hospital would be the local authority in England and in Wales the local health board for the area in which the hospital is situated. This removes any potential misuse of power or conflict of interest in independent hospital settings. Amendment 22 outlines that in England the responsible body is the local authority responsible for the education, health and care plan or the care plan under the Care Act 2014. If a person does not have one of these, the responsible body is that in the area where the hospital is situated.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
What provision does the Minister think should be made in the code for the families? Often the adult children or the parents know these people extremely well and have very caring approaches, and they may have wisdom to inform the decision, but there might be the odd occasion when the family member has their own agenda and not that of the vulnerable person. So what should the role of the family be?
Caroline Dinenage
The role of the family is much greater in this amended legislation than it is currently. A number of families have told us through our work on this Bill that they feel very disenfranchised by the current system. For example, in the new system a family member or a loved one can be an approved person.[Official Report, 13 February 2019, Vol. 654, c. 7MC.] That would be the person’s advocate through the process. That method brings family members and loved ones much closer into the decision-making around this whole system.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I received some correspondence from Age Concern, as the Minister knows. It wanted to raise two specific issues; I spoke to the Minister about this, but I want to raise it again to have it recorded in Hansard. The issues are the definition of the deprivation of liberty, which I understand the Government are including in the Bill, and access to advocacy. I reiterate, too, the point made by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood): the importance of having family and loved ones as part of the process. We must not disenfranchise them; if we do that, we are doing this wrong. So will the Minister confirm that those things are in place?
Caroline Dinenage
Yes, that definition is included in the Bill, and it is also expected that people will have an advocate. That is an approved person; it can be a family member or loved one or it can be an independent mental capacity advocate, or indeed both if the family do not feel they are fully equipped to be able to support their loved one.
Jim Shannon
So the wishes and feelings of the loved ones and their families are at the heart of the Bill?
Caroline Dinenage
The wishes and feelings of the vulnerable person are at the centre of the Bill, and the wishes and feelings of their family will definitely be taken into consideration if their family is the approved person. We must always leave a little space in case the person does not want their approved person to be a family member for whatever reason.[Official Report, 13 February 2019, Vol. 654, c. 8MC.] The wishes and feelings of the individual must be at the heart of this, and that was at the heart of the original Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Mrs Moon
Does the Minister agree that one of the most essential things everyone should do while they are well is make sure they take out an enduring power of attorney that names the person they want to oversee their health and wellbeing should they be in a situation such as this? Also, many families are intimidated into making bad decisions out of fear that the care home might say, “If you don’t do as we say, or if you complain, move your parent.” Giving power into the hands of care home managers is a very dangerous situation.
Caroline Dinenage
As a Justice Minister, I was responsible for lasting powers of attorney and we spent a lot of time trying to convince people to make those sorts of decisions for themselves as early as possible.
Several hon. Members rose—
Caroline Dinenage
I am going to make little progress now because I have a lot more to say and I know that other Members want to speak as well.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
What assurances can the Minister give that the regulations will be genuinely co-created with practitioners and cared-for people? If they are not, how can we be sure that the amendments are not a way of clandestinely watering down the protections of the Bill?
Caroline Dinenage
The Bill is very clear about the skills and qualifications necessary for those carrying out the assessments, but the code of practice that goes alongside the Bill will be carried out in partnership. We already have a working group made up of third sector organisations that are working to ensure that the statutory document that goes alongside the Bill is as robust as we can make it.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I would like to thank the Minister for meeting me earlier to discuss the Bill. She was very generous with her time. On the question of the code, does she envisage that there will be training on the code for these professionals? If so, how long does she think the training will take, and when will it be properly in force for local authorities to utilise?
Caroline Dinenage
Yes, we envisage that there will be training and we will be working with partners such as Skills for Care to look at the best ways of implementing that sort of support.
Catherine West
Could the Minister outline the role of care staff in preparing the documentation and making ready for the assessments, as opposed to the role of the responsible body—the local authority—that will make the assessment?
Caroline Dinenage
I am actually coming to that very section of the Bill now.
We are proposing that a review of an authorisation will be completed by an approved mental capacity professional when an objection is raised by someone with an interest in the cared-for person’s welfare. It is vital that objections can be raised not just by the person themselves but by others who have an interest in their welfare. This could be a member of the care staff, a close friend or a family member. The Government amended the Bill to clarify that objections can be raised at a pre-authorisation stage, and these new amendments clarify that objections can be raised at any time throughout the authorisation and can lead to a review of the ongoing need for deprivation of liberty.
Amendments 39, 40 and 42 relate to authorisations that need to vary in order to prevent them from ceasing because small variations need to be made. Under the current deprivation of liberty safeguards system, an authorisation is tied to one specific location. This creates a situation in which a person has multiple authorisations if they need to move between settings. If a person is in a care home and has a planned stay in hospital, for example, a new application has to start from scratch. The Law Commission recommended that authorisations should be able to cover more than one setting to remove that duplication. There is an exception if someone needs to go into hospital in an emergency, when variations can be made without a review taking place first, but one should be held as soon as possible afterwards. In some cases, the responsible body will change even though the person still resides in the same location. For example, a care home resident may become eligible for NHS continuing healthcare, but their location and care will not change.
Opposition amendment 49 seeks to require the responsible body to carry out the consultation required by the Bill in every case, removing the ability of the care home manager to complete the consultation. We are clear that it is not appropriate for certain functions to be conducted by the care home manager, which relates to what the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) was saying. The Bill explicitly prevents anyone with a prescribed connection to a care home, which will be set out in regulations and will include care home managers and staff, from completing the assessments required for an authorisation and the pre-authorisation review. We are clear that decision making lies with the responsible body, not the care home manager.
Consultation is another matter. We expect, as part of good care, that care providers are consulting with the people in their care, and with those with an interest in that person’s welfare, to establish their needs, wishes and feelings. That applies regardless of whether someone is subject to a liberty protection safeguard and should happen on an ongoing basis. Having care home managers complete the consultation required by the Bill is simply building upon current good practice. The Bill has clear safeguards for that purpose. Objections do not need to be raised through the care home manager. They can be raised directly to the responsible body by the person or by someone interested in their welfare. If there are concerns about the care home manager’s ability to complete the consultation required under the Bill, the responsible body can decide to take on the care home function and complete the consultation itself.
Liz Twist
Many hon. Members will have had a large amount of correspondence from constituents on this matter. Does the Minister accept that there is huge concern about the operation of the provisions and about the role of care home managers more generally? The amendments seek to address that concern, but that feeling remains.
Caroline Dinenage
I accept that there were a number of concerns, but we made changes to say that care home managers would not in any way be responsible for authorisation or for pre-authorisation reviews.
Several hon. Members rose—
Caroline Dinenage
I am afraid that I will not take any more interventions because Mr Deputy Speaker might fall out with me entirely. In short, care home managers will be responsible for consultation, which is already part of good care.
Amendment 50 would require an approved mental capacity professional to complete the pre-authorisation review, where care home arrangements are being authorised and where the care home manager provides a statement to the responsible body. The Law Commission recommended the creation of the AMCP role and also recommended that their use should be focused on those cases where their input is needed. The commission recommended that AMCPs should consider cases where an objection is raised and the Bill does that. The Bill also allows other relevant cases to be referred to an AMCP. We expect, for example, cases where there are complex circumstances, or particularly restrictive practices are proposed, to be referred by the responsible body to an AMCP. We have also specified that an AMCP must carry out the pre-authorisation review in independent hospital cases. However, we agree with the Law Commission that not every case should be considered by an AMCP. By having a targeted system, with a greater focus on more complex cases, we can ensure that people receive the protection to which they are entitled.
Turning to amendment 51, I thank hon. Members for raising advocacy, about which we spoke at length in Committee. Advocacy is of the utmost importance for ensuring that the voice of the person is heard. That is why this Bill creates a presumption of advocacy for everyone who is subject to arrangements under liberty protection safeguards. During our engagement with stakeholders, many people and their families told us that the DoLS system was something that was done to them without family involvement. That is why this Bill introduces the appropriate person role described by the Law Commission. Family members and those close to the person will be able to be an appropriate person and provide representation and support. We recognise that that role can be challenging, which is why it will be conducted only by those who are willing to do it. Otherwise, people will be able to request an independent mental capacity advocate to support them in providing that important representation.
Like Opposition Members, we want to ensure that people receive advocacy, but we recognise that we should not impose it on people, nor should it become a formality without real effect. Our Bill already delivers on amendment 51.
Caroline Dinenage
I am afraid that I cannot take any more interventions at this stage.
Our Bill allows the person themselves to request an IMCA from the responsible body if they have the capacity to do so, and it explicitly states that an appropriate person can request an IMCA or that the responsible body should appoint an IMCA if it believes that the appropriate person having the support of an IMCA would be in the cared-for person’s best interest.
I agree that the appropriate person has a challenging role with vital duties to ensure that the person exercises their rights, and we want to work with others in the sector to establish how best to support them in this role. There is existing provision in the Bill to address the concerns raised by amendment 51. In some areas, the amendment adds uncertainty and over-complication.
This Bill is about protecting vulnerable people and replacing a one-size-fits-all system.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for listening to many of the concerns that have been expressed about the Bill, as shown in the Government amendments. How are we going to deal with the extraordinary backlog of cases, which has left over 125,000 people without protection? The safeguards she has set out will stop this being a rushed process, but will she say something about the backlog?
Caroline Dinenage
The backlog of 125,000 people without the safeguards they need, with their families lacking reassurance and with the people who care for them lacking legal protection, is an enormous concern. That is why, during the long period in which we will set out the code of practice, we will be supporting local authorities to go through those backlogs. From day one, when the system is implemented, any new applications and those still in the backlog will be processed using the new system.
With grateful thanks for your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will now sit down. This new system puts individuals at its very heart, and it removes the one-size-fits-all, box-ticking exercise we have unfortunately come to live with under the current system.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
The opening two speeches have taken 55 minutes, and we have to finish at 6 pm. I recognise that a lot of other people want to speak, and I certainly do not want to put pressure on the Opposition spokesperson, who also wants to make a speech. When other people come in, please remember that we want to get through everybody.
Barbara Keeley
We should not be in this position of having less than two hours on Report. This Bill has been rushed. We were in the same position on Second Reading, and it is absolutely unacceptable for such an important Bill to be rushed through as it has been today. I spoke to the Minister about this yesterday. She could have chosen to bring the Bill back on a different day, and I am sorry that she has not.
I am every bit as concerned about this Bill as I was on Second Reading. It remains deeply flawed. It weakens the current safeguards for people who lack capacity, and we have not even had a clear answer to the question that the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) just asked about the current backlog of DoLS applications. It is not clear how that will be cleared.
The Minister said at the start of Committee that she would work constructively with other parties on this Bill, but that has not been reflected in our experience. She has dismissed many of the serious concerns raised both by Opposition Members and by the many charities and representative groups outside the House with an interest in the Bill.
I said in Committee that our amendments were the bare minimum required to ensure that the Bill is fit for purpose. The Government rejected all our amendments in Committee, and, despite some movement on one or two issues since, the Bill retains the majority of the significant flaws it contained on Second Reading. It is sad that, having been through all the stages, this is where we are.
We have tabled further amendments to address some of the glaring holes that remain in the Bill, and I thank all the stakeholders who have helped us, including the Alzheimer’s Society, VoiceAbility, Mencap and Lucy Series. Without these amendments, we simply do not believe that the Bill is fit for purpose, and we oppose it progressing further.
Janet Daby
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill should be paused until the draft code of practice is ready?
Barbara Keeley
I very much agree with that. We have heard about a code of practice and regulations, but we cannot see any of these things. With this Bill, we should have had the promised detail on the code of practice. We should not be passing the Bill without it.
First, I wish to talk about amendment 50, which addresses the role proposed in the Bill for care home managers. A number of Members have raised that issue, and we fundamentally disagree with that role, in the same way that we disagreed with the role in the liberty protection safeguards system being given to independent hospitals, which the Government are now amending. There is no logic in the Government removing one conflict of interest from the Bill and not the other.
When this Bill was introduced in the House of Lords, it placed almost all power and responsibility for the LPS in the hands of care home managers. It would have allowed them to be judge and jury, deciding when to deprive people of their liberty. I accept that the Bill has been marginally improved from the original position. The Government were forced to make concessions in the House of Lords, but what they have done so far is the bare minimum. The Bill still hands far too much power to care home managers. Stakeholders across the sector, including care home managers themselves, are very concerned about this. Care England, the representative body for care homes, has said:
“As providers we are very concerned about the inherent conflict of interest associated with placing Liberty Protection Safeguards assessment responsibilities on care home managers “
I also want to quote something that was written in evidence to the Public Bill Committee. A submission made by the Albert House nursing home stated:
“Managers in Care Homes are already stretched and heaping further responsibility on them could lead to more people giving up and looking for easier work.”
It seems clear that even care home managers do not want this responsibility to be given to them. I cannot understand why the Government are insisting on doing so, unless of course the reason is just cost saving.
Under the Government’s proposals in the Bill, local councils will be able to delegate the assessment and consultation process to the care home manager whenever they see fit. That risks creating a postcode lottery, where some local councils with adequate resources carry out LPS assessments themselves, while others will have to reduce their role to simply rubber-stamping the applications they get from care home managers. That cannot be right.
We have to be clear in this Chamber that one issue facing the current system is that some local councils are not able to properly resource their DoLS teams following years of cuts to their funding. This Bill would allow cash-strapped local councils to outsource the process entirely, with serious consequences for cared-for people. If care home managers organise the authorisation process, they decide who carries out medical assessments, and who determines whether the arrangements are necessary and proportionate. I have heard colleagues expressing concern that the statement provided by the care home manager forms the basis of authorisation. We know that many local councils do not currently have the resources to fund their DoLS teams properly now. Conservative Members have talked about the backlog and concerns about that, but in recent weeks we have seen a further £1.3 billion taken out of grant funding to local councils. The Minister has given us no reassurance that the Government will provide any new funding for the proposed system.
Steve McCabe
While my hon. Friend is on the subject of care home managers, may I ask whether she agrees that if they are responsible for the consultation, which is supposed to be one of the safeguards protecting a person’s liberty, the person cannot possibly be at the heart or centre of the Bill? Such a provision drives a coach and horse through the notion that their liberty is being protected.
Barbara Keeley
I absolutely agree with that. Local councils face a serious resource issue, and we see a pressing of this role away to care home managers. I have got some examples with me, but I do not know whether I will have time to go through them. However, we can see that there will be a strong temptation in local councils simply to presume that the care home manager is right. We have to recognise that over-stretched professionals in local councils will sometimes simply accept the word of care staff without fully investigating the case.
In the Public Bill Committee, I talked about the recent case of Y v. Barking and Dagenham. This was the case of a young man who was placed in an inappropriate care home. Initially his parents were satisfied with his placement, but over time the quality of his care deteriorated. We hear a lot and have great concerns about restraint. That young man was restrained in that care home 199 times in two years and suffered significant harm. Y eventually got out of that placement, following a court-appointed guardian visiting and raising concerns, but it took the intervention of somebody outside the care home—that is the key thing.
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Lady is making a powerful case and she talked about many such cases in Committee. Does she agree that this shows exactly why the DoLS system needs overhauling? It is not offering the required protections for vulnerable people, which is why this Bill is so urgent.
Barbara Keeley
I could not disagree with the Minister more, because what she is doing is putting people into the lion’s den. I do not know whether she is listening to me, but I am reading her a case where the difficulties arose because the local authority listened to care staff and did not listen to the parents’ objections at all. That is the difficulty. Under the new LPS system, that young man would not have had any safeguards or protection, because the care home staff would have been the people sorting out his authorisation.
Caroline Dinenage
Under the new system, family members and parents will be listened to, because they will be the approved person, the representative and the advocate. Their voices will be heard, which is not happening currently.
Barbara Keeley
It is not helpful if the Minister and I argue about this. We have had this argument enough times in Committee. She just needs to see that there is a level of concern. I am quoting a case where significant harm was done to a young person in a care home because the parents were not listened to and the care staff were.
Dr Poulter
I can understand where the hon. Lady’s concerns come from, but having had detailed discussions with my hon. Friend the Minister, I am reassured, perhaps more than the hon. Lady, by the systems and some of the amendments that have been put in place to take into consideration concerns about conflicting provider interest. She makes a good point on the lack of funds and resources and cash-strapped local authorities. Without the money to support local authorities, there is a real risk that scrutiny of care homes and the processes in place under the legislation will be sadly lacking, to the detriment of people under deprivation of liberty orders. What reassurance has she had, if any, during the passage of the Bill that the funding crisis affecting social care and local authorities is being addressed by the Government, both in respect of this legislation and otherwise?
Barbara Keeley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. We have had no reassurances whatever. In fact, since the Committee finished, £1.3 billion has been taken out of central Government funding to local councils. Whatever our position was when we were in Committee, things are now much, much worse.
The Minister does not agree, but it is disturbing that we are still in the position on Report of trading the arguments back and forth. We gave lots of examples. There is provision in the Bill for an approved mental capacity professional. With our amendment we want to be sure that we do not have cash-strapped local councils delegating responsibility. There is talk under some amendments to bring in reviews, but reviewers have to be able and willing to stand up to care home managers, and that is a difficult thing.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) said earlier, care home managers have a lot of power. They have the power to evict and the power to stop visits. Amendment 49 would work with amendment 50 to address the role that the care home manager could play. It is one of the most concerning provisions in the Bill, and it must be addressed if the new liberty protection safeguards are to be fit for purpose.
I do not in any way want to stigmatise care home managers, but I ask Government Members to accept that we are talking about a situation where at least 20% of care homes require improvement or are rated inadequate. Care home manager vacancies are at 11%. We are not talking about a situation where all care homes have a proper care home manager in place, or where they are all doing as well as they could. If the Minister reads many CQC reports, she will see that care homes often fall down on care planning. CQC inspectors often find that there is not a proper or adequate care plan for the situation.
Catherine West
Is my hon. Friend satisfied that rights of appeal are being managed correctly in the Bill?
Barbara Keeley
No. On the Opposition Benches, we are not satisfied with very much about the Bill, but I am talking about our amendments for care home managers because we feel that safeguards have been weakened. I will give an example, because there are many cases where the powers of care home managers are used to shut down any opposition to what they are doing. A person whose husband was in a care home visited him every day and took a keen interest in his wellbeing. He had lost the ability to speak and had little mobility. She found that he was in pain and when she raised that with staff, they failed to act and dismissed her concerns. She then raised it with the care home manager who warned her that if she continued to take up staff time, she would be banned from visiting her husband who was actually nearing the end of his life. That is an awful thing—that a wife would be banned from visiting her husband near the end of his life. It was only with the help of an outside organisation that the cause of the pain was identified. If relatives, including spouses, were prevented from visiting in the situation that I have just described, how could they be raising a major objection? How could they be challenging the care home manager? The appeals question that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) just raised with me is very concerning.
Under the current provisions of the Bill, care home managers are expected to carry out the consultation process, and yet this is the one opportunity that the cared-for person and their family have to register any objections to the proposed arrangements. The process needs to be carried out independently so that people can feel free to speak their minds. Amendment 49 achieves that. It prevents the local council from delegating the consultation process to the care home manager, and then this crucial step must be carried out by the local council itself.
In Committee, the Minister said she believed that it could be appropriate for a care home manager to carry out that process, because those with an interest in the welfare of the cared-for person can flag up objections, but that would not always work in practice. For that to happen, a family member would have to know that they had the right to do that. They have to know with whom to raise their objection and then raise it in a timely manner. That is pretty key in relation to this business of care homes and to challenging on behalf of the cared-for person. It is not reasonable to expect people to understand the intricacies of the system. Similarly, we cannot expect everyone to have the confidence to negotiate the system for themselves. We here perhaps do not always think how hard it is to challenge those in authority, but it is a very difficult thing to do indeed. We need to offer a cared-for person a chance to object in a setting that they are comfortable with, without fear of reprisals from care home managers.
Government amendment 38 goes against the principles that I set out in relation to our amendment 49. It is unacceptable for the care home manager to be involved in that consultation with the cared-for person and their family, so we are in a situation where the two amendments are directly opposed.
Let me move on to our third amendment, amendment 51, on advocacy, because that addresses the provision of independent advocates for cared-for people. That is a crucial safeguard, which enables people to realise their rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The advocacy system proposed in this Bill is excessively complex. It could see people being denied an advocate when they need one. Our amendment seeks to simplify the system, ensuring that advocacy becomes the default option. Stakeholders have told us that they are concerned about the use of a best interests test to determine whether somebody should receive an advocate.
Clearly, there is a situation in which the Minister thinks that a best interests test is used to avoid overriding the wishes and feelings of the cared-for person. We agree that advocacy should never be forced on somebody, but we must be explicit about this principle of advocacy being available as the default.
Catherine West
My hon. Friend is so generous in taking interventions. Does she agree that there is no consistency in the choice of advocates across the regions?
Barbara Keeley
That may well be the case, but the difficulty here is that we have a complex system when we should have a simple system that clarifies that an independent advocate, an IMCA, should not be appointed if a cared-for person objects to it, but that everyone who wants or needs an advocate can get one. There should be an absolute right to request that an advocate be appointed both for the cared-for person and for any appropriate person who is representing them.
Our amendment would ensure that support is provided where an appropriate person is not able, on their own, to give the cared-for person the support that they need. That is particularly important, and there are many examples. I am sure that the vast majority of responsible bodies would not exploit loopholes, but we feel that there are loopholes in the current situation.
Budget pressures are another concern. There are concerns that advocates may not be allocated because of Government cuts to local council budgets. We feel that it is important that the wording from the existing Mental Capacity Act is retained. Let me give an example. The concern was put succinctly in evidence submitted to the Public Bill Committee by the Doughty Street Chambers Court of Protection team, who said:
“The requirement to ‘take all reasonable steps’ is a weakening of the current requirement that the supervisory body must appoint an IMCA...It is therefore possible that a ‘cared for person’ may qualify for an IMCA but that due to resource issues the reasonable steps taken do not result in such an appointment, and this safeguard may not be available.”
From everything the Minister has said, I know that she agrees about the importance of advocacy, and we have heard a lot of case studies, one of which I will briefly mention. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) described a case that has stuck with me since. An advocate was visiting a man in a care home who was clear that he wanted to leave and move back to his own home. When the advocate looked into the matter further, they discovered that the man’s home had been put up for sale by the local council to fund his care. He had no idea that that was happening and was extremely upset. With the help of an advocate, he was able to challenge the local council’s decision and prevent his home from being sold. I recall that example from Committee, and it is a powerful one that demonstrates just how important an advocate can be. Without one, this man’s home would have been sold without his knowledge, and he would then have been forced to remain in a care home that he wanted to leave. There are countless examples of how important an advocate can be.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I rise to support the Bill and, in particular, to speak in favour of Government amendments 24 and 33.
Before I do so, let me respond to some of the points that have already been made. First, with regard to the timescale in which the Bill is being taken forward, there has been plenty of opportunity for colleagues to look at its details. I draw Members’ attention to the fact that there have been not just one but two detailed reports on this issue by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, one in June 2018—our seventh report of this Session—and then, in October 2018, our 12th report, in which we considered the draft Bill in some considerable detail. At that point, we welcomed the recommendations of the Law Commission. Of course, the Law Commission had itself been some three years in preparing its recommendations, so the Bill can hardly be described as rushed.
Steve McCabe
Does the hon. Lady recognise that the Law Commission objects to the fact that its recommendations were not taken up by the Government when they constructed the Bill?
Fiona Bruce
I was about to say that the Joint Committee welcomed the Law Commission’s recommendations because they clearly highlighted the need for changes to be made.
As we pointed out in our seventh report, as far back as last June, the Cheshire West case that the Minister mentioned had resulted in a 10-fold increase in the number of DoLS applications. That is why there has been such a backlog. That case placed extreme pressure on local authority resources. Some 70% of the almost 220,000 applications for DoLS authorisations in the year up to our report were not authorised within the statutory timeframe. Consequently, many incapacitated people continued to be deprived of their liberty unlawfully. Those responsible for their care, or for obtaining authorisations, were having to work out how best to break the law. That is completely unacceptable, and it is why this Bill needs to brought forward in a timely way.
There also needs to be, as the Committee recommended in our 12th report, a definition in the Bill. I hear colleagues’ reservations about that definition, but, as we said—I am glad that the Government took up our recommendation—that it is important to give cared-for people and their families, and professionals, greater certainty about the parameters of any scheme so that we can ensure that scrutiny and necessary resources are directed where needed. We said:
“It is undeniable that any definition in statute may be refined by future case law”.
That remains that case. None the less, not to have endeavoured to provide a definition would, we believe, have been wrong.
Having made those preliminary comments, I will speak in more detail about amendment 24 and expand on the remarks made about the importance of family engagement and keeping the family informed. Information for the family and those who care deeply about the welfare of the person is the cared-for person’s greatest safeguard against exploitation and bad care. It is paramount that families have a role to play in their relatives’ care planning, wherever that is desired by the cared-for person, not least by giving them the option to stay fully informed and to object to proposed plans if they are not satisfied.
Families can play an important role in monitoring care if they are given sufficient information. The care itself is important. The quality of care will vary between and within care homes, but monitoring the care plan is essential to ensure that the cared-for person’s dignity is maintained. The cared-for person’s quality of life depends on how they are treated day in, day out and whether they receive care in a way that enhances their personal dignity or whether, sadly, they are treated less well.
Families are well equipped to monitor care, but only if they are kept informed. That is why I support amendment 24, which improves access to information for the cared-for person and their appropriate carers and supporters, which may well include their family. The requirement for information to be
“accessible to, and appropriate to the needs of, cared-for persons and appropriate persons”,
means that the cared-for person is placed at the heart of the liberty protection safeguards authorisation process. Not only that, but now that relatives can be informed about their loved one’s care plan, they will notice if the plan states something that is not happening and question why.
I am pleased to see that the amendment requires the publication of information on the cared-for person’s rights and the circumstances in which it might be appropriate to request a review or make an application to the court. People must know what their rights are and the legal procedures. This will not be costly. It will certainly be far less costly than the court cases that are likely to come if the requirement to provide information about all aspects of the process and the plan are not on the face of the Bill. It will save costs in the long term and ensure that the approved mental capacity professionals act always as they should.
The code of practice will play an important role. It would be helpful to see examples of family members working with the responsible bodies and the care teams to ensure that care plans are being delivered appropriately and are in the best interests of cared-for individuals. I am sure we all want to see that.
I turn to amendment 33. In the JCHR’s 12th report, we indicated that there has been concern as to
“whether care home managers have the necessary skills and knowledge to arrange or undertake the assessments and whether they are sufficiently independent to do so”
and whether care home managers are
“trained and resourced to take on these additional responsibilities.”
It is heartening to hear that the Government have listened and are clearly stating that care home managers and staff should not, and under these proposals will not, complete assessments. It is equally heartening that the Government, having listened to concerns expressed in Committee, are saying that all those doing such assessments must have the necessary skills, knowledge and qualifications—for example, as physicians, nurses or social workers—and that that will be specified in regulations. I want Ministers to put in place appropriate arrangements to assess whether implementation of this element of the Bill is working well—for example, to ensure that specifications of required qualifications and the experience of assessors are kept updated and that the revised system is working well and without difficulty in practice.
Ministers might consider taking up the recommendation in the JCHR’s 12th report that particular vigilance should be exercised by local authorities where care homes are rated by the CQC through an inspection as inadequate or requiring improvement, to ensure that those who are making referrals are properly competent to do so.
Norman Lamb
I want to speak primarily in support of the amendments in the name of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), and others. However, I want to comment right at the start—I realise this is not the decision of the Minister—about the time we have to debate a Bill that deals with fundamental human rights. I just think it is absolutely outrageous, and we should place on the record our total opposition to the way in which, wholly inappropriately, it has been rushed through.
I should also say that I completely understand the need for reform. I said that on Second Reading, and I acknowledge the Minister’s sincerity on that. I recognise that we breach the human rights of the people who are on a long waiting list for anything to happen to them, but that is no justification for getting it wrong at this stage. Surely we must not weaken the protections for very vulnerable people, yet the organisations that have followed this process all the way through are very clear that that is precisely what we will do.
I just think this is extraordinary: the Government have commissioned a review of the Mental Health Act, and although we have not had the formal response yet, I expect that much of what the review calls for will be supported by the Government, yet the review moves in a diametrically opposite direction to this Bill. The review talks about “rebalancing the system” and about
“a real shift in the balance of power between the patient and the professional”.
The review also talks about
“a right to advocacy based on an opt-out approach.”
That is what the amendments in the name of the shadow Minister seek. This will not, as the Minister implied, force advocacy on anyone; this is about having it as the default option. The Law Commission has called for a right to advocacy as an opt-out approach, yet the Government are resisting it. Why are they resisting it? This reduces the rights and protections of vulnerable people, and for that reason it seems to me that it is unacceptable.
On Second Reading, I said that I would not oppose the Bill at that stage, and I said:
“Our assessment will be at the end of the process: is it workable? Does it genuinely respect and safeguard individuals’ human rights? Does it result in very vulnerable people being better protected than they are under the existing…flawed system?”
At that time, I asked the Minister to meet all of us, including interest groups, before going into the Committee stage. I said on Second Reading:
“Do not rush headlong into the Committee stage.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2018; Vol. 651, c. 744.]
Yet, within a fortnight, we were in Committee, which is exactly what I had urged her not to do.
Then we come to the views of the sector. I mentioned earlier that over 100 organisations, including care providers, disabled people’s organisations and charities, have written to the Minister. They make it clear that reform should not be at the cost of the human rights of people who rely on essential social services. I want to deal, specifically and finally, with the conflict of interest issue. They say in that letter to the Minister that
“serious conflicts of interest will be placed upon care managers who will be in control of key information about assessments and review processes.”
The Law Society—surely we should take its concerns seriously—says of care home managers that
“any task or role they undertake must be completely conflict free”,
and that they should not be arranging or carrying out critical assessments. Care home managers should not be responsible for consultation with the cared-for person. It describes the current process—it is not a past but a current concern about the Bill, as amended—as “deeply flawed”. It says:
“It is not difficult to envisage a vulnerable person being uncomfortable or reluctant to give an honest answer when questioned by the care home manager on their willingness to stay”—
in that care home—
“or their ‘happiness’ in the current placement.”
The Law Society’s concern is also about the capacity of care home managers to undertake this work, given that the whole system is under massive pressure. Bluntly, the quality of care home managers is such—many of them are really good, but some of them are not, frankly, good enough—that we cannot rely on them to undertake this vital work, which goes to the protection of the civil liberties of vulnerable people.
Barbara Keeley
On the training that the Minister has talked about and the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) just referred to, I understand from impact assessments that there is half a day’s training for care home managers and two hours of training for social workers. What does the right hon. Gentleman think of that?
Norman Lamb
That is clearly insufficient when it comes to the vital task of playing a role in the protection of people’s civil liberties and human rights. That is what the Bill envisages.
Sue Bott, the deputy chief executive of Disability Rights UK, says:
“Given the rare unanimity across the health and social care sector and disabled people’s organisations we urge the Government to delay the Bill and look again at its provisions. It is better to have a co-produced piece of legislation that works for everyone than rush through a new law that, in its current form, will seriously undermine the human rights of disabled people.”
I urge the Minister to listen carefully to that—the “rare unanimity” across the sector. When I was responsible for taking the Care Bill through Parliament, we ensured that by the end pretty much everyone was on board, although it was a slow and sometimes frustrating process.
The Minister will be applauded if she now recognises that these concerns about the amended Bill are not past ones but current ones. If we are to get people on board and ensure that everyone agrees that we are properly protecting the human rights of very vulnerable people, the right thing to do now is pause, before the Bill goes back to the House of Lords, to ensure in particular that the provisions on conflict of interest of care home managers and the rights of advocacy are properly addressed. If the Minister can do that, she will go a long way towards bringing people on board. I am sure that that is what she wants.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Given the restrictions on time, I will curtail my speech and take out remarks I might have made; I am conscious that colleagues would also like to speak.
I always agree with the passion of the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on these issues, but I do not agree with his conclusions on aspects of the Bill. I am reassured by the Government amendments, particularly in relation to independent hospitals: such a hospital might have a potential business interest in keeping someone in its service, so it will not at any time judge whether that person needs to be under the deprivation of liberty safeguards.
It is important that we have a modern system; as has been mentioned, the backlog of 125,000 people under the existing system is utterly unacceptable. What standards there are will need to be changed. When I look at the Opposition amendments, particularly amendment 49, I take the Minister’s point that the consultation—actually talking to someone about their views and their care—is part of what we would expect a care provider to be doing. There must be clear, independent safeguards around deprivation of liberty, and the ability to have an independent check. In some cases, it would be better for someone who works with the individual every day to do the consultation, rather than someone literally turning up from the local authority or health board, who may not have had any contact with them. We are talking about people with issues when it comes to interacting and understanding some of the engagement, so I do not see why there should be consultation in all cases. We are talking about consultation, not decision, and I do not see what the issue is with that.
I turn briefly to the amendments moved by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). The attention he brings to the issue of acquired brain injury is always welcome—particularly in the football world, on the day when an England 1966 hero passed away. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that those from that era often acquired head injuries as a result of heading heavy leather balls, particularly when wet. That is still an issue in football today. I join the hon. Gentleman in saying that the rules should be looked at. If that can be done in rugby without affecting the flow of the game, there is no reason why it cannot be done in football. Similar arguments were advanced in relation to video referees and they are now in place.
I am conscious of the time remaining for others to have their say, so I will just say that I support the Bill and that I do not see the need for the amendments tabled by the Opposition.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
It will be obvious that three people have indicated they wish to take part. I am sure that they will all limit their remarks not to a very small amount, but if they could be limited to six or seven minutes then everyone will get a chance to put their view.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster).
It is my firm belief that the Bill is deeply flawed. Even with the concessions Ministers have made, and the forensic scrutiny and dogged determination of my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and her Opposition Front-Bench team, as well as those in the other place, the Bill will do very little to help the crisis in our mental health services. Even at this late stage, I would add my name to those of my many colleagues and a plethora of stakeholder organisations urging Ministers to delay the Bill to allow proper deliberation and discussion. Why do I say that?
First, we cannot debate the Bill without a clear sense of the issues at stake. We are talking about the state’s right to remove liberty from a citizen without trial or the judgment of their peers. That goes to the very heart of habeas corpus and our most fundamental human rights. It concerns the very liberties that this Parliament has stood for centuries to defend. When Parliament has played fast and loose with our right to be free from arbitrary imprisonment, the consequences have brought shame upon us, so we must always think very carefully before passing laws that remove a person’s liberty, no matter how compelling we consider the reasons.
Secondly, we must never forget the history of the treatment of people with mental illness in this country. We have a sorry and shameful history of incarcerating people with mental illness, autism, dementia and other conditions. Often the incarceration was unnecessary and cruel, and motivated by malice not medicine. Women in particular could be locked up for so-called “hysteria” when husbands wanted them out of the way. We must tread very carefully.
Thirdly, there is the question of scrutiny of the Bill. We must act only after the deepest of thought and most widespread discussion and consultation. Unfortunately, the Bill has not been subject to the widest consultation and the deepest discussion. The discussion and suggestions that we made in Committee seem to have been largely ignored by the Government. We might have expected Ministers to have learned the lessons from the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which was imposed without consultation and then had to be delayed after its flaws were exposed. It then cost us hundreds of millions of pounds for an unnecessary raft of reckless reforms.
The Bill has been rushed and the consultation with stakeholders has been incomplete. You do not have to take my word for it, Madam Deputy Speaker. Just consider the remarkable open letter issued on Friday 8 February by so many of the organisations closest to the issue: the Voluntary Organisations Disability Group, Disability Rights UK, Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities, Action on Elder Abuse, Dementia Friends, Sense, the National Autistic Society, Royal Society for Blind Children and Mencap, just to mention a few—a very few—of the more than 100 local and national organisations across England and Wales who wrote to the Care Minister and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Blackwood.
What did this huge coalition of caring organisations come together to say? They raised “serious concerns” and “significant objections”. They called the Department for Health and Social Care’s consultation “piecemeal”. They talked about “serious conflicts of interest”. They highlighted the facts that impact assessments have been late and limited in coverage, and that there is a lack of clarity about how the system will be regulated with independent oversight. They concluded:
“We believe that the reforms in their current guise pose a threat to the human rights of those requiring the greatest support in life.”
A threat to human rights is a serious charge. When so many organisations are making it, surely Minsters must listen and not just plough on regardless?
There is a saying in the disability rights movement: no decisions about us without us. When I served as a trustee of the Alzheimer’s & Dementia Support Services and as a Mencap Society committee member, that was a principle we held dear, yet those in their place on the Treasury Bench are not listening. To be clear with the House, we have a serious problem that needs fixing. We have vulnerable people waiting for months, families at the end of their tethers and mental health and care professionals feeling frustrated, and that is why the system is broken.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on a fantastic, very heartfelt and experienced speech. Does he share my concern that the foundations on which this is being laid—primarily on local government—are very weak, with an £8 million funding gap? The Government have not faced up to that crisis yet.
Mr Dhesi
I thank my hon. Friend and I fully agree with him. The cuts to local government have been devastating and the Bill will merely exacerbate the situation.
Finally, we have come a long way in our understanding of mental illness, dementia and neurodiversity. I note with pride that a new group was founded this weekend—the Labour neurodiversity group—to build on the success of our party’s neurodiversity manifesto. We wish the group all the very best. We have made great strides in tackling stigma and prejudice, thanks to the efforts of people such as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), who deserve nothing but praise.
We are learning all the time and our laws must reflect our enlightened attitudes and the latest thinking, not the outdated views of previous eras. I am happy to associate myself with the Labour amendments being discussed this afternoon. If there is one I would highlight, it is the proposed amendment that guarantees a vulnerable person the right to an advocate. In too many cases, they have no one to speak up strongly on their behalf, to articulate their wishes and to champion their best interests. It is surely right that such a person should always be available.
As a member of the Bill Committee, I know that we made some progress in improving the Bill, but I remain unconvinced that it will be enough to rescue this piece of legislation and to provide a fair, workable system that ensures the best possible care for hundreds of thousands of people and guarantees their human rights. Many hon. Members have highlighted the 2017 Law Commission review.
Fiona Bruce
The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about human rights, but what answer does he have for the fact that up to 125,000 people are currently being unlawfully deprived of their liberty, in breach of article 5 of the European convention on human rights? That is the problem that the Bill seeks to rectify.
Mr Dhesi
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but in terms of human rights, this issue is being raised not just by me, but by more than 100 pre-eminent organisations in the field. The only way to solve that is through funding—that is the only way in which we can lay this matter to rest. The hon. Lady highlighted the 2017 Law Commission review of the deprivation of liberty safeguards, which stated that the current regime is
“in crisis and needs to be overhauled.”
I agree. There is a crisis and the current system cannot cope, but surely the answer is not to replace bad laws with yet more bad laws, and that is what we are in danger of doing.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I will be brief. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has tabled an excellent amendment, which I support. We know that the system is broken. What we are doing is replacing it with an even worse system. Just to acknowledge how broken the system is, the Alzheimer’s Society’s national dementia helpline receives over 100 calls a month about the Mental Capacity Act, which is clearly confusing and complicated for people with dementia, as well as for their families and carers. However, as we have heard, so many different disability organisations and a whole range of charities, as well as the Law Commission, are saying that this Bill is not fit for purpose.
I particularly support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda. The Greater Manchester Neuro Alliance, which I have supported for several years now, has several concerns, particularly about a person who presents inconsistently and has a cognitive impairment, mental health problems or is simply vulnerable and does not accept or appreciate their illnesses and the limitations. One member of the alliance from Oldham told me:
“My son has been deemed as having capacity because he can answer questions yes or no but he can’t be left alone or allowed to go out unsupported, he doesn’t take his medication and doesn’t have the ability to plan or manage anything including lifesaving treatment every three weeks”.
Such examples are not addressed in the Bill.
I will move swiftly on, Madam Deputy Speaker. I share the concern that my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) has expressed so clearly about care home managers and the conflict of interest in the Bill. It is a minefield and needs to be addressed. She made that point clearly.
Amendment 48, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), would rightly prevent cared-for people from being charged for the assessments required by the system, potentially providing a financial incentive to do the mental capacity assessments. Without the amendment, we cannot be sure that people will not be charged more for their care solely because they require liberty protection safeguards to be granted. If the Minister does not accept the amendment, I would like to know why. On advocacy, we need to ensure that the “best interests” test is changed to place more weight on a person’s wishes.
There are several other issues with the Bill. It has not had a sufficient airing. It has not been consulted on greatly, but I will hand over to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I had hoped to address several of the amendments signed by my hon. Friends and me, because this is a bad Bill with huge opposition across our society. It fails to protect people adequately, meaning they could be locked up without a proper process of assessment and without advocacy support—and that includes 16 and 17-year-old children. The protections for them are also inadequate, as they are for their parents. Time is against me, however, so I will turn straight to amendment 48, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams).
There is a genuine concern among organisations in the sector that vulnerable people, particularly those receiving private care, may be charged for an assessment or for assessments to be carried out. I know the Minister got a bit fed up with me banging on about funding and about the fact that local authorities such as mine in Stockton-on-Tees have lost millions of pounds in funding and that budget reductions are continuing across health. I have also addressed the tight margins on which care homes operate and the need to ensure the sector remains viable.
We know that the sector is strained financially and might feel it has no choice but to implement fees and charges for the assessment of clients’ mental capacity. The intention of the amendment is to ensure that this does not happen. Several written submissions to the Public Bill Committee raised concerns about the absence of any provision for a fee for medical professionals to provide medical evidence.
This is the right point to refer to the revised impact assessment published by the Government. I and other Opposition Members have been contacted by academics accusing the assessment of perpetuating a myth by saying that GPs will provide diagnostic evidence and conduct capacity assessments for the LPS and that this will have no resource implications. What total nonsense. How has this conclusion been reached? I have not heard from a single body or GP arguing it will have no resource implications—quite the opposite.
The experience of judicial DoLS applications to the Court of Protection seems to be that GPs are very reluctant to provide such evidence, either because they do not feel skilled enough to do so or because they require payment. This means that someone will have to pay a fee for the medical assessment, and there is nothing in the Bill or the NHS charging regulations to prevent it from being passed on to the person themselves.
Evidence shows that that is already happening. Southfield House, a care home in Stockport, was found to be charging residents £250 if they required a deprivation of liberty authorisation. A complaint was lodged with the Care Quality Commission by Edge Training, but it was told in response that that was allowed. What was that £250 for? “An application to the local authority requesting an assessment” appears to cover it—and after that, there was the £125 annual fee. Individuals who are going through what can only be an extremely emotionally difficult process are being charged hundreds of pounds for the luxury.
It is frustrating that the care home is well within its rights to make those charges. A spokesman put it best:
“The social care sector…is currently under huge financial pressure. All tasks from care to admin to facility carry a cost”.
Because the sector is underfunded, the Government consider it appropriate to take financial advantage of the most vulnerable people in society.
I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote, but I think that the Minister must take on board the whole issue of charges. At present, the law gives care home managers and others carte blanche to charge exactly what they want. There are no limitations whatsoever. I ask the Minister, perhaps at the regulations stage, to come back with specific ideas to restrict care home managers and others from exploiting those vulnerable people.
Chris Bryant
I was expecting my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) to go on a bit longer, but now that I have the Floor, let me say this.
There is quite a bit of consensus, certainly among Labour Members, that there are elements of the Bill with which we are not happy, and I am sure that we will vote on those in a few moments. What the Minister said earlier makes me hopeful that she will do her level best to ensure that the way in which the needs of people with acquired brain injuries can be met will be clearly laid out in the code of conduct. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) said, some of the issues are very specific to them; they are different from those affecting other people in the same category.
The deprivation of liberty is one of the most important issues that Parliament ever has to consider. We all accept that, and it was referred to by both the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley). I hope that we manage to get the code of conduct right, at the right time, and that the process we use ensures that as many as possible of the users, patients, carers and organisations that are involved in this matter on a daily basis have a real opportunity to feel that they can own that code. I think that that is the point at which the Minister might manage to assuage some of our concerns, although some Labour concerns are extremely strong.
As I told the Minister yesterday, I do not intend to press my amendment to a vote. She is smiling now. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House, I propose to put Government amendments 5 to 37 together.
Schedule 1
SCHEDULE TO BE INSERTED AS SCHEDULE AA1 TO THE MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005
Amendments made: 5, page 8, line 6, leave out from “Wales,” to end of line 10 and insert
“the person registered, or required to be registered, under Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016 (anaw 2) in respect of the provision of a care home service, in the care home;”.
This amendment amends the definition of “care home manager”, in Wales, so it will be the person who is the registered service provider. This mirrors the approach taken for England.
Amendment 6, page 8, line 13, at end insert—
““Education, Health and Care plan” means a plan within the meaning of section 37(2) of the Children and Families Act 2014;”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 22.
Amendment 7, page 8, leave out line 16
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 13.
Amendment 8, page 8, line 17, at end insert—
““independent hospital” has the meaning given by paragraph 5;”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 13.
Amendment 9, page 8, line 27, at end insert—
““NHS hospital” has the meaning given by paragraph 5;”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 13.
Amendment 10, page 8, line 46, leave out “Hospital” and insert “NHS hospital and independent hospital”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 13.
Amendment 11, page 8, leave out line 47.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 13.
Amendment 12, page 9, line 15, after “6” insert “(1)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 18.
Amendment 13, page 9, line 16, leave out “a” and insert “an NHS”.
This amendment amends paragraph 6(a) so that where arrangements are carried out mainly in an independent hospital the responsible body for those arrangements will not be the hospital manager.
Amendment 14, page 9, line 17, at end insert—
(aa) if the arrangements are carried out mainly in an independent hospital in England, the responsible local authority determined in accordance with paragraph 8A;
(ab) if the arrangements are carried out mainly in an independent hospital in Wales, the Local Health Board for the area in which the hospital is situated;”
This amendment makes provision for who the responsible body will be for cases where arrangements are carried out mainly in an independent hospital in England or Wales.
Amendment 15, page 9, line 18, leave out “paragraph (a) does not apply” and insert “none of paragraphs (a) to (ab) applies”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 14.
Amendment 16, page 9, line 27, leave out “neither paragraph (a) nor paragraph (b)” and insert “none of paragraphs (a) to (b)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 14.
Amendment 17, page 9, line 28, leave out “(see paragraph 9)” and insert
“determined in accordance with paragraph 9”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 14.
Amendment 18, page 9, line 28, at end insert—
‘(2) If an independent hospital is situated in the areas of two or more Local Health Boards, it is to be regarded for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(ab) as situated in whichever of the areas the greater (or greatest) part of the hospital is situated.”
This amendment provides that, for the purpose of determining who is the responsible body, if a hospital is situated in the areas of two or more Local Health Boards, it should be regarded as situated in whichever of the areas the greater (or greatest) part of the hospital is situated.
Amendment 19, page 9, line 29, after “manager” insert
“, in relation to an NHS hospital,”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 13.
Amendment 20, page 9, line 45, at end insert—
(ca) if the hospital is vested in a Local Health Board, that Board.”
This amendment makes provision that the hospital manager for an NHS hospital vested in a Local Health Board will be that Board.
Amendment 21, page 9, line 46, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 on page 10
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 13.
Amendment 22, page 10, line 20, at end insert—
8A (1) In paragraph 6(1)(aa), “responsible local authority”, in relation to a cared-for person aged 18 or over, means—
(a) if there is an Education, Health and Care plan for the cared-for person, the local authority responsible for maintaining that plan;
(b) if paragraph (a) does not apply and the cared-for person has needs for care and support which are being met under Part 1 of the Care Act 2014, the local authority meeting those needs;
(c) in any other case, the local authority determined in accordance with sub-paragraph (4).
(2) If more than one local authority is meeting the needs of a cared-for person for care and support under Part 1 of the Care Act 2014 the responsible local authority is the local authority for the area in which the cared-for person is ordinarily resident for the purposes of that Part of that Act.
(3) In paragraph 6(1)(aa), “responsible local authority”, in relation to a cared-for person aged 16 or 17, means—
(a) if there is an Education, Health and Care plan for the cared-for person, the local authority responsible for maintaining that plan;
(b) if paragraph (a) does not apply and the cared-for person is being provided with accommodation under section 20 of the Children Act 1989, the local authority providing that accommodation;
(c) if neither paragraph (a) nor paragraph (b) applies and the cared-for person is subject to a care order under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 or an interim care order under section 38 of that Act, and a local authority in England is responsible under the order for the care of the cared-for person, that local authority;
(d) if none of paragraphs (a) to (c) applies, the local authority determined in accordance with sub-paragraph (4).
(4) In the cases mentioned in sub-paragraphs (1)(c) and (3)(d), the “responsible local authority” is the local authority for the area in which the independent hospital mentioned in paragraph 6(1)(aa) is situated.
(5) If an independent hospital is situated in the areas of two or more local authorities, it is to be regarded for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) as situated in whichever of the areas the greater (or greatest) part of the hospital is situated.”
This amendment makes provision as to who the responsible body will be in cases where arrangements are carried out mainly in an independent hospital in England.
Amendment 23, page 11, leave out lines 45 to 47.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 22.
Amendment 24, page 12, line 19, at end insert—
12A (1) The following must publish information about authorisation of arrangements under this Schedule—
(a) the hospital manager of each NHS hospital;
(b) each clinical commissioning group;
(c) each Local Health Board;
(d) each local authority.
(2) The information must include information on the following matters in particular—
(a) the effect of an authorisation;
(b) the process for authorising arrangements, including making or carrying out—
(i) assessments and determinations required under paragraphs 18 and 19;
(ii) consultation under paragraph 20;
(iii) a pre-authorisation review (see paragraphs 21 to 23);
(c) the circumstances in which an independent mental capacity advocate should be appointed under paragraph 39 or 40;
(d) the role of a person within paragraph 39(5) (an “appropriate person”) in relation to a cared-for person and the effect of there being an appropriate person;
(e) the circumstances in which a pre-authorisation review is to be carried out by an Approved Mental Capacity Professional under paragraph 21;
(f) the right to make an application to the court to exercise its jurisdiction under section 21ZA;
(g) reviews under paragraph 35, including—
(i) when a review will be carried out;
(ii) the rights to request a review;
(iii) the circumstances in which a referral may or will be made to an Approved Mental Capacity Professional.
(3) The information must be accessible to, and appropriate to the needs of, cared-for persons and appropriate persons.
12B (1) Where arrangements are proposed, the responsible body must as soon as practicable take such steps as are practicable to ensure that—
(a) the cared-for person, and
(b) any appropriate person in relation to the cared-for person,
understands the matters mentioned in sub-paragraph (3).
(2) If, subsequently, at any time while the arrangements are being proposed the responsible body becomes satisfied under paragraph 39(5) that a person is an appropriate person in relation to the cared-for person, the responsible body must, as soon as practicable, take such steps as are practicable to ensure that the appropriate person understands the matters mentioned in sub-paragraph (3).
(3) Those matters are—
(a) the nature of the arrangements, and
(b) the matters mentioned in paragraph 12A(2) as they apply in relation to the cared-for person’s case.
(4) If it is not appropriate to take steps to ensure that the cared-for person or any appropriate person understands a particular matter then, to that extent, the duties in sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) do not apply.
(5) In this paragraph “appropriate person”, in relation to a cared-for person, means a person within paragraph 39(5).”
This amendment inserts new paragraphs 12A and 12B of the new Schedule AA1 to require responsible bodies to publish information about authorisation of arrangements under the Schedule and to take steps at the outset of the authorisation process to ensure that cared-for persons and appropriate persons understand the process.
Amendment 25, page 12, line 32, after “practicable” insert
“and appropriate, having regard to the steps taken under paragraph 12B and the length of time since they were taken,”.
This amendment amends the duty in paragraph 13(2) of the new Schedule AA1 for a responsible body to take steps, as soon as arrangements are authorised, to ensure that cared-for persons and appropriate persons understand matters relating to the authorisation, to reflect the fact the body may have already have done that very recently under new paragraph 12B (inserted by Amendment 24).
Amendment 26, page 12, line 33, leave out from “any” to “understands” in line 34 and insert “appropriate person”.
This amendment amends the duty in paragraph 13(2) so that the duty to ensure that cared-for persons and appropriate persons understand matters relating to an authorisation does not also apply to independent mental capacity advocates (who can be expected to understand those matters) in line with the new duty in paragraph 12B (inserted by Amendment 24).
Amendment 27, page 12, line 34, leave out from “understands” to end of line 5 on page 13 and insert
“the matters mentioned in paragraph 12A(2)(a), (c), (d), (f) and (g) as they apply in relation to the cared-for person’s case”.
This amendment aligns the description of matters that must be explained to the cared-for person and any appropriate person with the list of matters in new paragraph 12A (inserted by Amendment 24).
Amendment 28, page 14, line 46, at end insert—
‘(1A) The person who makes the determination need not be the same as the person who carries out the assessment.”
This amendment makes it clear that a determination need not be made by the same person who carries out an assessment. A person could, for example, make a determination based on an assessment carried out previously by a different person (paragraph 18(6) of the new Schedule AA1 allows for this).
Amendment 29, page 14, leave out lines 47 and 48 and insert—
‘(2) The appropriate authority may by regulations make provision for requirements which must be met by a person—
(a) making a determination, or
(b) carrying out an assessment,
under this paragraph.
(2A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (2) may make different provision—
(a) for determinations and assessments, and
(b) for determinations and assessments required under sub-paragraph (1)(a) and determinations and assessments required under sub-paragraph (1)(b).”
This amendment provides power to make regulations setting out requirements which must be met for a person to make a determination or carry out an assessment. The requirements will relate to matters such as knowledge and experience. Different requirements may be set out for a person making a determination than a person carrying out an assessment.
Amendment 30, page 15, line 12, after “the” insert “determination or”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 29.
Amendment 31, page 15, line 14, after “the” insert “determination or”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 29.
Amendment 32, page 15, line 16, leave out “The” and insert “An”.
This amendment is to make it clear that the assessment being referred to is an assessment on which a determination under the paragraph is made.
Amendment 33, page 15, line 32, leave out “made on an assessment” and insert
“by a person, who meets requirements prescribed by regulations made by the appropriate authority, made on an assessment by that person”.
This amendment is to make it clear that a determination required under paragraph 19 of the new Schedule AA1 must be made by the same person who carries out the assessment on which that determination is based and that person must meet requirements set out in regulations.
Amendment 34, page 15, leave out lines 38 to 44.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 33.
Amendment 35, page 15, line 46, leave out from “16,” to “by” in line 1 on page 16 and insert
“a determination may not be made”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 33.
Amendment 36, page 16, line 7, leave out “assessment” and insert “determination”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 33.
Amendment 37, page 16, line 9, leave out “assessment” and insert “determination”.—(Caroline Dinenage.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 33.
Amendment proposed: 49, page 16, line 12, leave out from “out” to the end of line 16, and insert “by the responsible body.”—(Barbara Keeley.)
This amendment would require the responsible body to carry out the consultation in all cases.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Speaker
Consideration completed. Colleagues, I will now suspend the House for no more than five minutes in order to make a decision about certification. The Division bells will be rung two minutes before the House resumes. Following my certification, the Government will table the appropriate consent motion, copies of which will be made available in the Vote Office and will be distributed by Doorkeepers.
Mr Speaker
I can now inform the House that I have completed certification of the Bill, as required by the Standing Order. I have confirmed the view expressed in my provisional certificate issued on 11 February. Copies of my final certificate will be made available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website.
Under Standing Order No. 83M, a consent motion is therefore required for the Bill to proceed. Copies of the motion are available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website and have been made available to Members in the Chamber. Does the Minister intend to move the consent motion?
Caroline Dinenage
indicated assent.
The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England and Wales) (Standing Order No. 83M).
[Dame Eleanor Laing in the Chair]
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
As the knife has fallen, there can be no debate in the Legislative Grand Committee. I remind hon. Members that, if there is a Division on the consent motion, only Members representing constituencies in England and Wales may vote.
Resolved,
That the Committee consents to the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords] as amended in the Public Bill Committee and on Report.—(Caroline Dinenage.)
The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decision of the Committee (Standing Order No. 83M(6)).
The Speaker resumed the Chair; decision reported.
Third Reading
Caroline Dinenage
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Our liberty is the most fundamental of our human rights. By passing this Bill, we can be proud that we have helped to promote the human rights of our country’s most vulnerable people and increased access to protections for the 125,000 individuals who are being deprived of their liberty and are not receiving the safeguards they deserve. That means 125,000 people whose families do not have the peace of mind that their loved ones are being protected, and 125,000 care providers who do not have the requisite legal protection.
Members of both Houses have contributed to the discussions and debates on this Bill, for which I am extremely grateful. We have made changes in both Houses to ensure that the liberty protection safeguards system introduced by the Bill does everything possible to protect human rights—to give a voice to the person and those close to them—while also ensuring that the system is targeted and not cumbersome to people, their families and our health and care sector. I committed from the outset that we would collaborate on this Bill, listen and take on board all the ideas and feelings of stakeholders and Members from both Houses, and many of the amendments we have put forward today are exactly in that collaborative spirit.
Dr Poulter
I thank my hon. Friend for the conciliatory way in which she has gone about dealing with this Bill, engaging with colleagues on both sides of the Houses, and putting forward some good and sound amendments to get the Bill to a better place. However, on the issue of funding, which was raised during the debate earlier, if we are going to make social care legislation or legislation of this sort appropriate and have the right safeguards in place, we need local authorities to have a better funding settlement. Is that something she can take away and raise with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government?
Caroline Dinenage
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. I am grateful to him for all his feedback on this Bill, because it is very helpful to be able to speak to somebody from a medical background to understand how such a Bill will work in practice at the sharp end. We have given councils access to £10 billion over this three-year period, which just shows the scale of the issues we are facing in adult social care. The Green Paper that will be published shortly will go further in setting out the long-term sustainability of the sector.
As we have heard today, there is no question but that the current DoLS system is failing. In 2014, a House of Lords Committee identified the system as being complex and bureaucratic, and since then the situation has only got worse. An increased number of cases means that local authorities are unable to process all the applications. With more than 48,000 people now waiting over a year, we cannot risk people being subject to overly restrictive health and care practices. This new system will enable quicker access to safeguards, meaning that we can ensure less restrictive practices are being used.
The Government tasked the Law Commission with reviewing the DoLS system and recommending improvements. After more than three years of careful work and consultation, it published its report, which stated the urgent need for reform. That was followed by a report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which also recommended having a more targeted system by focusing resources on those who are the most vulnerable or those who have the most complex circumstances, and on cases where objections have been raised. Coupled with this, we have ensured robust safeguards in the system, including independent review and oversight, alongside access to representation and support.
I am grateful to all our partners who have worked with us on this Bill. The input of third sector groups, those who work in the health and care sector and of course those who receive safeguards themselves has all helped to shape our Bill for the better. The Law Commission was absolutely right when it said that DoLS needed to be replaced as a matter of urgency, and that is why we have brought this legislation forward now. We cannot continue with the current system. We are proud to bring forward the Law Commission’s recommendations in this Bill, and we are proud to reform the system and introduce a less bureaucratic, more personalised approach that will work better for people, their families and professionals. I commend this Bill to the House.
Barbara Keeley
It is appalling that we should have had less than two hours for Report stage of a Bill affecting the human rights of some 2 million vulnerable people who lack capacity—and we had less than two hours for Second Reading. Given that there is no appreciable business to occupy ourselves with next week, it is ludicrous that the Government should have forced the Bill through today.
The Bill that we are being asked to pass today is simply not fit for purpose; it simply replaces the current flawed system, which the Minister has just described, with a new one that is actually more flawed. There are a number of issues that we still consider unacceptable. The largest is that the Bill still creates a major conflict of interest in relation to the managers of private care homes. It is simply wrong that a business with a financial stake in seeing a deprivation of liberty authorisation granted can do all the legwork and then just have its recommendation rubber-stamped by the local council.
I hope that care home managers will seek to carry out their new role well, but we know that they are already overstretched. The Bill creates extra pressures.
Norman Lamb
Does the shadow Minister share my confusion and concern that the Mental Health Act review, which the Government commissioned, appears to be moving in one direction—strengthening the rights of individuals—while this Bill appears to be moving in precisely the opposite direction?
Barbara Keeley
That is very much the case. We asked on Second Reading for some consideration of the interface between the two.
As well as the issue of care home managers, there is a real concern about the restrictions on access to advocacy under the Bill. Advocacy is a fundamental pillar of any system for authorising deprivation of liberty. The Bill means that vulnerable people who need an advocate may not get one, and amendments that could have changed that have been rejected. The use of a best interest test to decide whether someone gets an advocate has been widely criticised. The Government could and should have removed the reliance on the best interest test.
The maximum renewal period of a deprivation of liberty authorisation is tripled by the Bill. As the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) said, the Mental Health Act review is moving in one way while this Bill moves in another. The Bill could see people being detained for three years at a time without a full reconsideration of their case. The only safeguard against that being misused is a series of regular reviews, but we do not know how regular those will be or what they will look like.
In Committee, the Government introduced a new definition of deprivation of liberty to the Bill. It is woefully inadequate and will inevitably result in costly litigation. The Government introduced the definition late on, with next to no consultation. The clashes between that definition and existing case law will lead to court challenges. The definition will see some people deprived of their liberty without the safeguards they need, while the issue is sorted out in the courts.
The process that the Bill has been through could be used as a case study of how not to make legislation.
Barbara Keeley
I do not have time, I am afraid.
The Government have consistently tried to push the Bill through as fast as they can, with minimal consultation. It should be clear that stakeholders are united in thinking this a poor piece of legislation, and on many issues the Government have failed to address their concerns. On Second Reading in the House of Lords we heard the Bill described by Baroness Barker as
“one of the worst pieces of legislation ever brought before this House.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 December 2018; Vol. 794, c. 1247.]
The Bill may have improved slightly, but there has been too little progress for us to support its becoming law. It would enshrine a fundamental conflict of interest and weaken the current safeguards of people without capacity.
It was clear from the start that the Bill was intended to shift the costs of authorising deprivation of liberty away from the state and on to private providers. This matter is too important for us to pass a Bill that we know will not work properly simply because Government budget cuts have created a problem. The Government chose to continue to cut local council budgets; as a result of that lack of resourcing, tens of thousands of people are being deprived of their liberty without authorisation. Letting the backlog build up was a political choice, but this Bill is not a solution. It will not adequately protect people’s human rights, and replacing one bad system with another will not be progress. If the Government were serious about protecting people’s liberty, Ministers would have paused the Bill, which we called on them again today to do, and given local authorities the resources they need to address the backlog. They could then have given this matter the time, consultation and consideration it needs before beginning a new Bill that does not weaken the protections that vulnerable people rely on.
I thank members of the Public Bill Committee, our excellent Whip, all the hon. Members who contributed to this shortened debate tonight and, particularly, the Clerk to the Committee. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to join us in voting against this flawed piece of proposed legislation that undermines the human rights of vulnerable people who lack capacity.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Business Without Debate
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 4 to 10 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Animals)
That the draft Farriers and Animal Health (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 13 December 2018, be approved.
That the draft Veterinary Surgeons and Animal Welfare (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 13 December 2018, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Public Procurement)
That the draft Defence and Security Public Contracts (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 13 December 2018, be approved.
Representation of the People
That the draft Representation of the People (Election Expenses Exclusion) (Amendment) Order 2019, which was laid before this House on 17 December 2018, be approved.
Local Government
That the draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2019, which was laid before this House on 12 December 2018, be approved.
That the draft Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 12 December 2018, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Energy Conservation)
That the draft Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 19 December 2018, be approved.—(Jeremy Quin.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (intellectual Property)
That the draft Intellectual Property (Copyright and Related Rights) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 19 December 2018, be approved.—(Jeremy Quin.)
The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 13 February (Standing Order No. 41A).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Northern Ireland
That the draft Northern Ireland (Ministerial Appointment Functions) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 9 January, be approved.—(Jeremy Quin.)
Question agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I propose, with the leave of the House, to take motions 14 and 15 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Social Security
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 16 January, be approved.
That the draft Tax Credits and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 16 January, be approved.—(Jeremy Quin.)
Question agreed to.
Petitions
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
This is no nostrum of an idea. The petitioners are supported by notable local organisations: Denny & Dunipace Heritage Society, the Communities Along the Carron Association, Community Green Initiative, and Forth Environment Link.
The petition of the residents of Falkirk constituencies
Declares that roadside litter discarded from moving vehicles is an unacceptable blight in our communities and increases risk to other motorists and costs to local authorities and private business; further that it causes flooding in drainage infrastructure, causes disruption to normal traffic flow and is a national embarrassment, specifically to the tourist industry; and further that it contradicts the sustainable, renewable and green ambitions the communities of Falkirk desire.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Transport to instruct the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) to issue penalty points on the driving licenses of individuals who allow litter to be thrown from their vehicle.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002310]
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of 65 residents and homeowners. It relates to the poor quality of insulation work carried out in properties in Lowestoft by Mitie Property Services as part of a Government-backed community energy savings programme, which is causing considerable personal distress and is having a negative impact on the value and saleability of dwellings.
The petition states, “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to set up a means whereby each house be assessed by an external specialist ECO assessor and we obtain redress for our individual issues, compensation for financial losses and have assurance our homes can be insured without penalties.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Lowestoft, Suffolk,
Declares that the Community Energy Savings Programme is causing us significant suffering: accruing detriments to our finances, health and wellbeing, and private and family lives; further that residents of Lowestoft particular grievance is with the standard of external wall insulation installed to certain properties as part of the Community Energy Saving Programme 2009 - 2012 (CESP); further that the CESP was a Government policy, set down in legislation, designed to improve domestic energy efficiency standards in the most deprived geographical areas across Great Britain; further notes that many vulnerable residents are having to live with the impact on our homes from the premature deterioration of the very poor installations; further notes that there is no evidence of appropriate training certification for the external wall cladding insulation and thus many residents are unable to obtain a valid guarantee/warranty which has affected the value of our homes and at worst has meant homes cannot be sold; further that the GCS Chartered Surveyors who were instructed to comment on the standard and workmanship of the external wall insulation have concluded that the external wall insulations do not meet system designer and BBA specification; further that the GCS Chartered Surveyors found the insulations were installed by MITIE Property Services who did not have approvals in place to install the system at the time; further that many partners are responsible for the failure of this programme including: MITIE Property Services, The Bright Green Lowestoft Organization, Waveney District Council, Suffolk Climate Change Partnership, Climate Energy Limited and npower; further that whilst the project was delivered by a number of partners the main contractors, MITIE, have overall responsibility for ensuring the installation is compliant to the system designer's specifications; and further that the installations were found to fall fault of numerous problems including: incorrect sealing, missing trims, faulty cladding and poor rendering.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons to set up a means whereby each house be assessed by an external specialist ECO assessor and obtain redress for their individual issues, compensation for financial losses and have assurance our homes can be insured without penalties.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002418]
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of 1,816 residents of York and a further 1,278 who engaged through online and other petitions: a total of 3,094 residents who, alongside city businesses, opposed a proposal to move York’s Crown post office from Lendal, where it has been located since 1884, to the back of WHSmith in Coney Street, which is inaccessible to many disabled people. The move will be seriously detrimental to my city.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to put an immediate stop to this franchising plan, and to work with stakeholders, including the CWU, to develop a new strategy that sees the Post Office at Lendal safeguarded for the future and retained in public ownership.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the plans to close York’s Crown Post Office and open a franchise in WHSmith are not supported by the people of York, will put the jobs of well trained and and efficient staff at risk and will have a detrimental impact on local retailers and our city centre business community; further that the Crown Post Office was built in 1884 and is one of the last surviving late-Victorian purpose-built post offices still in use; notes this is one of 74 Crown Post offices scheduled by Post Office Ltd to be franchised to WHSmith which CWU estimate will cost £30m in staff compensation alone and will see 800 jobs put at risk and yet the public have not been consulted on this privatisation; further that the Crown Post Office plays a major role in drawing people into the city centre and this change will add to existing pressures on the city centre; further that there are concerns about the sustainability of the store which is located on Coney Street that has seen foot falls drop by 15% over the past 2 years; further notes that research by Citizens Advice in 2016 shows that WHSmith franchises result in longer queueing times, inferior service and advice; further that deep concern about the valued staff whose jobs are at risk and face a future of employment with a company that is closing stores and relies on a business model of low pay and part-time employment; and further notes an uncertain future for a very important war memorial which will be relocated if these plans go ahead.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to put an immediate stop to this franchising plan, and to work with stakeholders, including the CWU, to develop a new strategy that sees the Post Office at Lendal safeguarded for the future and retained in public ownership.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002419]
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
I rise to present three petitions on behalf of parents, carers, staff and governors of nursery schools in Derby. The maintained nursery sector is the jewel in the crown of the early years but is facing an uncertain future as a result of Government policy.
The first petition states:
The petition of The parents, cares, staff and governors of Whitecross maintained nursery school in Derby City.
Declares that we are concerned about the future of maintained nursery schools in England after March 2020 as no guarantee has been given by government that adequate funding will continue when supplementary funding ends.
The petitions therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Government to take action to ensure maintained nursery schools are financial sustainable for the future.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002421]
The other petitions are:
The petition of parents, carers, staff and governors of Central Community maintained nursery school in Derby.
[P002422]
The petition of the parents, carers, staff and governors of Ashgate maintained nursery school in Derby.
[P002423]
Licensing of Medical Devices
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I rise to talk this evening about medical devices and the way in which they are licensed and regulated. They are a very important and growing part of medicine, and they can save and transform lives—indeed they have done for millions of patients over many generations. However, when faulty or poorly designed or poorly looked into and proven, they have also damaged, and indeed ended, the lives of many thousands of patients around the world. My principal point is that the regulatory system for medical devices in our country, and across Europe and arguably the wider world, is simply not fit for purpose and must be properly reformed.
The term “medical devices” is rather vague. It refers to everything from bandages to syringes through to heart pacemakers and artificial joints, and I want to be clear that what I am talking about is the more complex end of the spectrum: the more high-risk, class III as they are called, implantable devices.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
I want to put on record my thanks for all the work my hon. Friend has done on mesh. Does he agree that we must be careful that what might appear to be a relatively cheap quick fix can turn out to be a massive problem for a lot of patients?
Owen Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for his thanks, and I will talk about mesh shortly as it is illustrative of the wider problem.
The problem is best summed up not in my words but those of the Royal College of Surgeons, which said at the tail end of last year, in response to a big journalistic investigation, that we need to see in our country urgent and drastic regulatory reform and in particular that we need to start with the creation of a compulsory register for all new devices and implants that go into patients in the UK. Will the Minister commit to that?
Let me give a couple of examples of what I am talking about. Last year alone in the UK surgeons operated on patients for 80,000 knee joints, 60,000 hip replacements, 50,000 pacemakers and 7,000 usages of surgical vaginal mesh, down from its height in 2008 when there were 14,000 instances of surgical vaginal mesh inserted into women. Let me pause for a moment to talk about that example of vaginal mesh and why its use has declined so precipitously. The answer lies in what I am talking about—in the development and marketing, and the fact that, as with so many of these devices, their true safety and efficacy is only revealed in the real world once they have been implanted into patients, and sometimes after many years. Many of the variants of vaginal mesh, like most of the other devices now on the market, are developed without any real clinical trials, and certainly without the randomised controlled clinical trials we are familiar with in respect of medicines; that is an extraordinary fact. We understand why that is the case, but there are other ways in which the device manufacturers could ensure their devices were safer and definitely not going to harm patients.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work he does as chair of the all-party group on surgical mesh implants. He will be aware that when the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency appeared before the Public Petitions Committee in the Scottish Parliament it admitted that its verification process for use of mesh implants amounted effectively to a two-week desktop exercise carried out by three people at a cost of £20,000. Does he agree that that example fundamentally shows that the way the MHRA is reviewing these devices is not fit for purpose, is completely inadequate and, as we know from the work of the APPG, puts patients, and in the case of mesh implants lots of women across the UK, at risk?
Owen Smith
The hon. Gentleman, who has also done excellent work on mesh as co-chair of the group, is completely right.
Our regulatory system for these devices, including mesh, is more akin to the system that applies to toasters or plugs, and the way in which they get kitemarks, than to the way in which medicines are approved. It is so problematic that, last year, the journalist I was talking about applied to get a kitemark—known as a CE mark—for surgical mesh. However, the item in question was a bag that had previously been used to keep oranges in, but they still succeeded in getting a CE mark for it. It obviously was not put into a woman, but real mesh has been and is being put into thousands of women all over the world, including those suffering from organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. The real impact of the mesh has been revealed in the chronic pain, disability and even death suffered by many women as a result of the mesh warping, breaking, morphing, changing its constitution and cutting into organs inside the body. This was revealed only after years of sales.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about the devastating impact that mesh has had on women. I discovered the real impact of it when a constituent came to visit me on Friday. Wendy talked about the impact that it had had on her life. She said that she had been concerned about the mesh and had discussed it with her surgeon, who had insisted that it was not mesh but tape. She was therefore misled by a medical professional. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is another worrying aspect of how these medical devices are being marketed and communicated to patients?
Owen Smith
Yes, I absolutely agree. There are many instances of similar mis-selling of these products to women. We need to examine the relationship between the doctors who are selling or marketing these products to their patients and the companies that develop them. Some have an interest in those companies, and others are getting a money benefit through doing this in the private sector. All these things desperately need to be looked at.
The terrible truth is that the surgical mesh scandal that is unfolding is just one of the scandals relating to medical devices. We had the metal-on-metal hip joint scandal, with metallosis poisoning people’s bodies. We had the scandal of textured PIP breast implants poisoning women’s bodies. Those implants are now connected with increased incidences of cancer. We had spine-straightening devices for children that were only ever tested on corpses. We had pacemakers such as the Nanostim, which was designed to sit inside the heart and work for up to 19 years. It has now been removed from the market because the batteries started to break down and cease to work and, worse, it was giving people electric shocks. The devices are now being cut out of people. Between 2015 and 2018, UK regulators alone received reports of 64,000 adverse events involving medical devices. A third of those incidents resulted in serious medical repercussions for patients, and 1,004 resulted in death.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I would like to pay tribute to the tremendous work that my hon. Friend has done on mesh. Quite a number of people in my constituency have suffered as a result of the use of mesh, and they are extremely grateful for the work that he has been doing. About 20 years ago, we had the scandal of silicone implants, and someone in my constituency had a double mastectomy because the silicone had leaked inside her body. These problems are still happening. We set up a register, but suddenly the register disappeared. I am glad that my hon. Friend has made a point about the register and asked for the Minister’s commitment on this.
Owen Smith
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her kind words. She is completely right to say that there are devices on the market here and across the world that are still causing grave medical problems for patients. The question we have to ask is: how did these things get on to the market in the first place? How have we got so many of these devices that are causing such significant problems? The common problem that unites mesh with all the other device scandals in our country and across the globe is the weakness of the regulatory system in the UK, in the EU and, to a lesser extent, in America, where the pathway for testing approval, marketing and surveillance of such devices just is not good enough.
How does the system work? It will shock people to hear that we do not have a central body that is responsible for checking out, authorising and licensing devices in the same way as for medicines. If a company in the UK wants to create a new prosthetic hip joint, it does so and then it shops around among a group of what are called notified bodies. These are effectively commercial organisations that are in turn licensed by the MHRA to be a body that checks safety and efficacy through the clinical data provided by the companies and then gives them their conformité Européenne—their EU kitemark. Once a company has received that mark, the device can be sold all across the EU.
Companies do not need clinical trial data in order to substantiate their claims that devices are efficacious and safe. Quite often—this is true of a remarkable proportion of the devices on the market—they do not even have to undertake first-hand clinical evaluations themselves and can rely on being follow-on products that go through a regulatory pathway that is termed as being “substantially equivalent” to the products that have gone before. For instance, there are examples of mesh on the market now that are the 61st iteration of an original licensed mesh that is no longer on the market because it was proven to be dangerous. There is no real mandatory post-marketing surveillance of these devices.
Given that the difficulty of randomised control trials versus placebo for a device—someone cannot put a wooden heart into one patient and a pacemaker into another in order to see which one works—means that there will be a degree of risk in testing such things in the real world, one would think that we would have a system that would test how devices are doing in the real world and get companies or the Government to monitor them, but we do not, which is in stark contrast to the regime for medicines. Changes are coming into effect, however. A new medical devices regulation was launched across the EU in 2017 and will come into effect in May 2020. It was introduced with the acknowledgement of many of the problems that I have highlighted.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on an issue that is important to many of us. With the EU’s new medical device rules coming into place in May 2020, as he says, does he agree that the number of available notified bodies is already diminishing? The Government must be aware of that and must work to find a way to secure acceptance of UK notified bodies as part of any arrangement, allowing for the smooth transition of notified bodies and product certification.
Owen Smith
I agree in part with the hon. Gentleman. One thing that I did not say earlier is that there are 50 notified bodies across the EU, so if a company goes with its new artificial hip to one body and says, “Will you approve this for my CE mark, because I would like to sell it in the EU?” and the body says no, because it does not think the data is good enough, all the company has to do is go to the next notified body, and if it says no, the company can go to the one after that, and if the third body says no, the company can go to the fourth one. Neither any of the notified bodies nor the manufacturer are under any obligation to disclose that the device had been turned down earlier. I agree that fewer notified bodies would be a good thing, but there are big questions for us in the UK because we will have no notified bodies once we have left the EU.
There are other problems with the new directive, which is a strengthening of the regulations, but it is not strong enough. For example, it now says that companies should summarise their clinical trials data, that they should take clinical data that is, if possible, sourced from clinical investigations carried out under the responsibility of a sponsor—meaning something more akin to randomised control clinical trials—and that they should ordinarily have a quality management system and a post-market surveillance system that should be proportionate to the risk class of the device in question. However, the point is that none of those things is mandatory.
There is no mandatory requirement to conduct proper trials or to max out the tests that are done. There is no mandatory requirement to publish data. There is no mandatory requirement to publish all data, including negative data. There is nothing to stop the companies continuing to conceal data, or shopping around between different notified bodies, and there is nothing to stop the companies doing the bare minimum on surveying how their product is doing in the marketplace. The directive is a strengthening but, unfortunately, it is not the strengthening we need.
If we leave the EU, the directive will not necessarily apply in all regards in the UK. The Government have tried to respond to the concern voiced by others before me by saying that they will effectively apply the regulation in future, but that would bring difficulties in and of itself. As I said, we would effectively be accepting products that are kitemarked and approved elsewhere in Europe, and not by our own notified bodies, because we will not be part of that system any longer. I assume we will be using the European database on medical devices, which is designed to work right across Europe, but we will not be part of the expert panels that reflect on the findings reviewed through that database.
Crucially, I assume that the MHRA will be filling some of those gaps. It will already have an almighty job on its hands in trying to fill the gap on medicines once we are outwith the purview of the European Medicines Agency. I fear that devices will once again be the Cinderella of the medical game. We did not have regulations for devices at all before 1990, and we may find that we are playing catch up with the European Union in future.
Whichever way Brexit turns out, and in reflecting on the flaws in the regulatory system I have highlighted, I ask the Minister, first, to try to get the MHRA, or whatever replaces our current regulatory pathway, to go back to the first principles of protecting patient safety at all times. There is too much talk in Europe of maintaining our advantage over other markets as an early adopter of innovation. Well, early adoption can go wrong if the innovation has not been adequately tested, and mesh is a great example.
Secondly, will the Minister do what the Royal College of Surgeons has asked her and the Government to do and set up a national registry of all “first implanted into a man or woman” devices—the innovations—so that we can track what happens with those devices, as we should have been able to do with mesh? Thirdly, will the Minister make sure that whatever system we have imposes much more stringent obligations on companies to undertake the most rigorous tests in respect of such medicines? In any new system, we should rule out anything like the substantial equivalence model that has been deployed in Europe for so long. It seems crackers to have a system that is basically a paper-based exercise without any real-world tests.
Lastly, I would like our Government to follow the example of the Australian Government, where the Minister’s counterpart, Greg Hunt, issued a national apology to the many women whose lives have been ruined by the debilitating effect of pelvic mesh implants:
“On behalf of the Australian government I say sorry to all of those women with the historic agony and pain that has come from mesh implantation, which have led to horrific outcomes”.
Our Government should similarly apologise to women damaged by surgical mesh. Irrespective of how Brexit turns out, they should pledge to radically reform the regulatory pathway for this class of medicines in order to make sure that no patients, men or women, suffer, as patients have in the past, as a result of medical devices.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) on securing this debate and again challenging me on the regulation of medical devices. Obviously, we have discussed issues relating to mesh before, but this evening he has given a comprehensive critique of the weaknesses in the regulation of medical devices. We have to be very conscious that, unlike drugs, once a medical device is implanted, it stays there for good; the body does not process it and it does not leave the body. We can, therefore, imagine that clinical evidence and trial evidence will take many years to build up. Our perspective, from the point of view of trying to guarantee patient safety, needs to consider that in any future method of regulation.
The hon. Gentleman has highlighted some of the weaknesses. It is fair to say that perhaps in the past regulation has focused excessively on what is in the commercial interests of businesses to maintain competition, rather than having patient safety at its heart; I think that, when it comes to medical regulation, it should have that at its heart. Naturally, he referred to mesh, which he and I have discussed many times before. There is no doubt that mesh has transformed the lives of some women when they were living with the debilitating consequences of stress incontinence, but it is becoming clear that mesh was deployed far too insensibly—far too many women were given this treatment, often at comparatively young ages, given that this was going to stay in their body for a long time.
I do not want to pre-empt what will come out of the Cumberlege review, but I have discussed some of the findings with Baroness Cumberlege. On the whole issue of how our medical establishment have dealt with this, the conversations that have taken place with women who were having this treatment were utterly inadequate and we will learn many lessons. I say to those women who have suffered badly at the hands of mesh treatment that there are clear medical criteria relating to that product and, if they have any complaint about the treatment they have received, they should be pursuing claims for clinical negligence against their practitioners. We look forward to the conclusions of Baroness Cumberlege’s review.
The hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) mentioned the issue of the national devices registry. I will say, up front, that I can assure them that this matter is already under consideration by the Department and it is linked to our wider digitisation agenda for the NHS. We have the technology and we should use it, in the interests of patient safety. We will be implementing that under new EU regulations to trace medical devices through unique device identifiers. I would be more than happy to meet him at a later date as we progress these proposals. As we depart from the European Union, we have an opportunity to alter our regulatory system. I am not sure that all my Conservative colleagues, in pushing Brexit, see it as an opportunity to tighten regulation, but that opportunity remains, so I look forward to that dialogue.
We clearly need to improve the existing system of regulation. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the EU directive currently under consideration will deliver that improvement, and we fully intend to take that forward. As he has described, medical devices are regulated in an entirely different way from medicines, and we need to make sure that regulation remains fit for purpose and that it responds to technological innovation. We also need to make sure that we have sufficient pre-market assessment, so that in assessing their efficacy we can really give evidence of how these devices are used by patients. That is why manufacturers, notified bodies and the MHRA conduct ongoing post-market surveillance. We will all wish to be made more confident that that is fleet of foot where it identifies any potential weakness. The more data we can collect, the more we can make those judgments earlier. The emergence of a better registry will enable us to do exactly that. I acknowledge wholeheartedly that there is scope for improvement and that systems and processes need to be constantly tested against the ultimate purpose—that guiding star, the principle of patient safety. No patient who presents themselves to any area of the national health service should expect anything other than the best possible care. They should be able to trust that we have in place a regulatory regime that will protect them. I am personally committed to that review and challenge.
As I mentioned, we will implement the regulatory improvements currently being taken through the EU, even though we are now leaving the EU institutions. We are confident that the regulation will drive system-wide improvement, including to the levels of clinical data mandated before products can be placed on the market. That will establish a strong and improved baseline for any system we implement after our departure from the EU. These changes to our system will place more stringent requirements on those manufacturing and supplying medical devices and will enhance the MHRA’s market surveillance responsibilities, resulting in clearer obligations to conduct inspections and the ongoing safety monitoring of devices.
In advance of those new regulations, the Government have taken a number of actions to ensure that existing legislation is operating as effectively as possible. That includes a programme of joint assessments of notified bodies, including inspections by multiple competent authorities to ensure that notified bodies’ assessments of new products and robust implementation of new standards for the clinical data are required for the new high-risk devices coming to the market.
It is true, I have to confess, that there has been a historic lack of transparency in the current system. It has not always been easy for patients to investigate and find more data about the things being put in their bodies. That is why the Government have prioritised the issue in negotiations on the new EU legislation. When those changes are implemented, there will, as the hon. Gentleman said, be an EU database that will contain details of all devices on the UK market, including where safety issues are identified. We are committed to ensuring that that will happen as part of our planning for a no-deal exit from the European Union.
Before I run out of time, I again want to mention the Cumberlege review, which will report later this year. It will give us many lessons about just how our medical device regulation has been less than optimal in the past. We will of course commit ourselves to any changes to respond to that review. I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate and I look forward to further debate with him on these issues.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Judical Pensions and Fee-Paid Judges' Pension Schemes (Amendment) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Judicial Pensions and Fee-Paid Judges’ Pension Schemes (Amendment) Regulations 2019.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham.
The draft regulations relate to the contribution rates for members of two judicial pension schemes. Their purpose is to make provision to extend the current member contribution rates and earnings thresholds in two different pension schemes to the next financial year. The schemes are: the judicial pension scheme 2015, which was established under the Judicial Pensions Regulations 2015, following wider public service pension reforms; and the fee-paid judicial pension scheme, which was established under the Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) Regulations 2017, following the Supreme Court decision in the 2013 O’Brien case, and related court decisions.
The reason for extending the rates is that the existing provision for member contribution rates will expire on 31 March 2019. The draft regulations are therefore needed to make an amendment to specify the member contribution rates to apply for the next year, from 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020. The regulations will enable us to ensure the continued operation of the schemes by deducting the appropriate member contributions for that year. As we propose to continue the same rates, the amendment regulations simply maintain the existing provisions for one further year. This interim measure is required pending the completion of a broader process that relates to the valuation of the judicial pension schemes. That process has been ongoing for a period, and the outcome of the valuations is to be determined.
It might be helpful to set out some background and to explain the ongoing valuations. Following the reform of public service pension schemes in 2015, as reflected in the legislative framework, Departments are required to undertake valuations of their respective public service pension schemes every four years. That obviously includes the Ministry of Justice in respect of judicial pension schemes. The valuations of public service pension schemes do two things: first, they measure the cost of providing pension benefits to members of the schemes; and secondly, they inform the future contribution rates paid into the schemes by both the employer and the members of the scheme. Work has been under way on the first such valuations of public service pension schemes. The Government, however, have paused part of the valuations process because they are seeking permission to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal in the McCloud case, which concerns pensions.
Let me explain that court decision in more detail. In December 2018, the Court of Appeal ruled that the transitional protection offered to some individuals as part of the 2015 public service pension reforms, including that in the judicial pension schemes, amounted to unlawful discrimination. The issue related to the protection is that, as part of the 2015 reforms, most public servants and judges moved to new career-average pension schemes. However, members within 10 years of their normal retirement age were protected and remained in existing final salary schemes, together with members who were between 10 years and 13 years and six months from their normal retirement age, who were given tapered protection to remain in the existing scheme for a period of time, before they moved to the new scheme introduced by the reforms.
As I said, the Ministry of Justice has applied to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal, and a decision is awaited. As the legal process is ongoing and there is some uncertainty about the impact of the ruling on wider pension reforms, it was considered prudent to pause that element of the valuation, which has the potential to affect future member benefits and/or contribution rates.
Let me turn back to the draft regulations and the steps we took to bring them forward. With a view to reaching an agreement on the proposal, we consulted, in accordance with the relevant requirements, by way of a four-week consultation from 24 October to 21 November last year. We consulted representative judicial organisations with a view to reaching agreement, and received 23 responses, the majority of which agreed with the proposal. Two respondents did not agree, and also raised some points relating to wider pension issues outside the scope of the consultation, which was on the proposal to extend the current rates as an interim measure for one year. For example, they disagreed with the stepped approach for contribution rates and expressed preference for a flat rate to apply, and for a non-contributory scheme. We engaged further, with the aim of reaching agreement, but unfortunately were unable to secure the agreement of the two respondents.
In addition to the consultation, we have laid a report before Parliament that sets out the rationale for the amendment regulations. Furthermore, as the judicial pension schemes to which the draft regulations relate are UK-wide, we have kept the devolved Administrations informed of progress and will continue to engage closely with them on further developments.
Under this interim measure, the cost of accruing pension scheme benefits will remain the same for members of both schemes for the scheme year April 2019 to March 2020. If it is agreed that changes to member contribution rates, or any other changes, are required in future as a result of the valuation process, those changes will be backdated to 1 April 2019 where appropriate.
I conclude by reinforcing the point that the existing arrangements for member contribution rates for both the 2015 and 2017 judicial pension schemes will expire on 31 March, so the draft regulations are a necessary interim measure to continue the effective operation of those pension schemes until a longer-term solution is put in place. I hope hon. Members will agree that the regulations are an important and necessary interim measure to continue the arrangements for member contribution rates and for the effective operation of the judicial pension scheme.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham.
The Opposition will not seek a Division on this statutory instrument—we understand that it is purely a one-year extension of an existing scheme—but I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that we are quite unhappy with the way that judicial pensions have been dealt with for a number of years. The Government have tried to deal with the issue for at least four to five years. One case went to an employment tribunal, where the Government were held to have acted illegally by changing the dates and years of pension requirements. That case, which is going to the Supreme Court, deals with the concern that some judges were being paid more and would retire with a higher pension than those who had done a similar job. Basically, younger, newer judges were being discriminated against. One of the reasons the employment tribunal held that the provision was discriminatory was that younger judges were often women and members of the black and minority ethnic community. In essence, that was the main reason why the Government were found to have acted wrongly.
The Ministry of Justice and the Government are aware that there is currently an acute shortage of High Court “red” judges. One reason why is that a number of senior lawyers and practitioners are not putting themselves forward for High Court appointment. A substantial number of positions have been vacant for years and it does not seem that they will be filled in the next few years. One of the main reasons for that has been the big change in judicial pensions. In any country, for people to have confidence in the law and in law enforcement processes, we do not need just good laws; we need able and good people who can implement those laws properly. To ensure confidence, we need the best people to be our judges, tribunal panel members, tribunal chairs, district judges, county court judges and circuit judges, but they have to be remunerated properly for that to happen.
Although the Government have been carrying out consultations, the Ministry of Justice needs to sit down with the judges and have a proper discussion, so that we do not have these interim ad hoc yearly renewals. The Senior Salaries Review Body has made a number of recommendations that the Minister has not mentioned. All the Ministry is doing by extending the current provision is kicking that SSRB report even further down the road. It is important that the Ministry have that discussion with the judges and, as it does not appear to have done so, considers the SSRB’s recommendations. The SSRB has come up with some excellent recommendations, and if the Government applied their mind to them, they could probably resolve the issue a lot more quickly and smoothly.
In essence, the Ministry’s handling of the issue has not been great and there is discontent among the judiciary. A solution has been put forward. The issue of judicial pensions needs to be addressed but, as I said, we will not seek a Division on these regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Small Charitable Donations Act (Amendment) Order 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Small Charitable Donations Act (Amendment) Order 2019.
Good morning, Mrs Moon. The Government recognise the important role that charities play in our society and are committed to encouraging greater charitable giving. We therefore continue to provide support to charities and their donors through a broad and generous package of tax reliefs, which in 2017-18 was worth more than £5 billion. The draft order presents an opportunity to enhance the Government’s support further by increasing the individual donation limit on the gift aid small donation scheme from £20 to £30 with effect from 6 April.
Gift aid was introduced by Sir John Major as Chancellor nearly 30 years ago. When eligible taxpayers give a sum of money to charity, it allows the charity to reclaim from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs the basic rate of tax on the gift. For a charity to claim that tax relief, an eligible donor must sign a gift aid declaration form that confirms his or her consent to the charity’s reclaiming the income tax paid on the donation. Gift aid is now a well established and significant revenue stream for charities: in the 2017-18 tax year, more than £1.26 billion in gift aid relief was paid to charities throughout the United Kingdom.
It is not always practical or feasible for a gift aid declaration to accompany charitable donations such as those received by small charities via collection tins on the high street or by churches via the collection plate. That is why, after listening to those groups, in 2013 the Government introduced the gift aid small donations scheme, which is designed to help charities to receive a gift aid-style top-up payment—a 25% top-up from the Government—on small cash and contactless card donations without a gift aid declaration being signed and submitted. The scheme is not a substitute for the original gift aid scheme; where a donor makes a larger donation or can reasonably be expected to complete a declaration form, gift aid should still be claimed in the usual way.
Take-up of the gift aid small donations scheme has increased year on year, although it would be helpful if more charities knew about it, understood it and used it. In 2017-18, 24,000 charities claimed a total of £34 million through the scheme. In our 2018 autumn Budget, the Government announced our intention to increase the individual donation limit on what a charity can claim through the small donations scheme from £20 to £30, extending support for charities. Some 80% of the organisations that currently participate in the scheme claim well below the £8,000 overall limit that we have set in the past, so we estimate that 20,000 organisations will benefit from greater top-up donations as a result of the draft order. The draft order’s change to the donation limit will benefit the good causes to which the donations have been pledged. I commend it to the Committee.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Good morning, Mrs Moon. As the Minister outlined, the Small Charitable Donations Act 2012, which came into force on 6 April 2013, introduced a new scheme to enable charities and community amateur sports clubs to claim a gift aid-style top-up payment on small cash donations of up to £20 in circumstances in which it is not practical or feasible to obtain a gift aid declaration. The draft order will increase to £30 the maximum individual small charitable donation on which such payments can be claimed. My understanding is that eligible charities and CASCs can claim top-up payments up to £8,000 for small donations each year.
As hon. Members are probably aware, the gift aid small donations scheme was established in 2012 with cross-party support. The Small Charitable Donations and Childcare Payments Act 2017 then made several changes to gift aid small donations to simplify and increase access to the scheme, particularly for smaller and newer charities, including allowing small donations covered by the scheme to be made by contactless payment from April 2017. Although the Opposition welcomed that streamlining to create legislative clarity and coherence, we have continued to emphasise the need for robust Government monitoring of the gift aid small donations scheme, especially in relation to its use for fraud or tax evasion. Will the Government publish any information that they have on the matter?
Unfortunately, there have been cases of charities being used as vehicles for tax avoidance and fraud. It is incumbent on us to make it as hard as possible to abuse charitable status. During the passage of the 2017 Act, the Opposition tabled a new clause that would have required a review of the prevention of fraud and abuse in the small donations scheme. Such a review would need to address the number of penalties imposed under the 2012 Act and the circumstances giving rise to the imposition of such penalties. It should also include HMRC’s assessment of the extent to which charities have been established or have operated for the primary purpose of securing benefits from the small donations scheme, and of the evidence available on the role of the gift aid matching rule in preventing fraud and abuse. Will the Minister update us on whether the Government will consider such a review?
Has there been any evidence of the gift aid small donations scheme being used for fraud or tax evasion? Will the Government publish any information that they have on it? Will the Minister also update us on the Treasury’s monitoring of any potential loopholes? The explanatory memorandum to the draft order notes that
“20 per cent of organisations currently participating in the GASDS are already claiming at, or close to, the overall limit of £8,000 per charity (or community building).”
I note that charities can claim up to £8,000 per building; do the Government have data on how many organisations are claiming for more than one building? How much of the gift aid small donations scheme benefit has accrued to large organisations claiming for more than one building? Are there any plans to increase or decrease the £8,000 limit after the donation size has been increased?
The Government’s policy paper states:
“Following stakeholder feedback the government has decided to increase the individual donations limit for GASDS to £30. A consultation is not needed to make this small change.”
However, an increase of 50% from £20 to £30 is very significant. What is the evidence base for that figure? What estimate have the Government made of the effect on how and by whom donations are made? The policy paper further states:
“This measure will be monitored through information provided in correspondence and regular feedback from the charity sector.”
The draft order is exempt from the requirement to provide a review provision in accordance with section 28(3)(c) of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, as it relates to
“the giving of grants…by…a public authority”.
None the less, as the Opposition have noted a number of times, it would be advantageous to have a more comprehensive and transparent process in place.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The spokesperson for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Norwich South, raised some interesting points, but I did not pick up whether he supports the draft order. It is important that his questions be answered and considered, but the draft order will make a relatively minor change that I think will broadly be welcomed by the charitable sector. In my experience in the sector before coming to Parliament, I have seen the difference that gift aid can make to the operation of charities, especially small and community-based organisations and churches, which the Minister mentioned. The opportunity to reclaim from the likes of street collections, where it is not physically possible to collect gift aid information, is valuable.
Clive Lewis
We will probably abstain, but may I pick up the point the hon. Gentleman is making? It is easy to assume that all charities are charitable in their nature and how they operate, but clearly there are some with the potential not to do what they say on the tin. According to the Lloyds Bank Foundation,
“the proliferation of larger public service contracts meant that new types of charity had emerged, which had little interest in meeting local community need, but were instead ‘driven by market share’ and ‘prepared to slash costs to win contracts, with little regard to service quality.’”
We also know that there can be fraud and that charities can be used as a front for it. Our position is simply that there needs to be transparency.
Patrick Grady
That is very helpful. I do not necessarily disagree with any of it, but I would be concerned about standing in the way of a relatively minor uplift that would be beneficial, taking into account inflation and the increasing frequency and popularity of contactless donations. I totally agree with the points on transparency and on the need for that kind of scrutiny to continue. On that basis, I will not oppose this measure.
I want to respond to one other point that the Minister made. He said that not all small charities—legitimate local charities—necessarily take all this up. Perhaps there is a job for some us as constituency Members to encourage smaller community organisations that do not realise that this opportunity is available to them.
On at least one note of consensus, I notice that paragraph 8.1 of the explanatory memorandum states:
“This instrument does not relate to withdrawal from the European Union.”
I am sure that we all look forward to the day when we see that more frequently in explanatory notes.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I will not be abstaining on the instrument; I will be supporting it on behalf of the charities in my constituency, where there are a lot of small charities. This is a minor but eminently sensible proposal by the Government, which will be welcomed by the many small charities in my constituency.
Former coalfield communities do not have large charities and large organisations; they have small charities and small organisations. It might interest the Minister to know that the one large charity supported in my constituency is Help for Heroes. Bassetlaw is not the wealthiest part of the country, but it is the highest per capita contributor to that charity in the entire country. That also goes for small charities—for example, the local mosque, which is the first in Bassetlaw. It was formed by a charity and I supported its establishment. There were some difficulties with extreme elements in the local community. Raising the £200,000 needed to establish the mosque requires a lot of small charitable donations.
The extra 25% that can be gleaned—I appreciate that it is only up to £8,000 annually for small charities—can make a significant difference to churches and to those who have set up small charities, which is particularly common in my area. An example is when a child has died in tragic circumstances and the family has set up a charity. That is a common tradition in mining communities, and it is a fine one. These charities are tiny and make a small but important impact. The fact that they can go that bit further—not least through the use of contactless donations, which has spread rapidly to areas such as mine—is to be welcomed. I fully endorse the Government bringing this measure forward. This is common sense, and I hope that Labour Members will support it rather than abstain.
Robert Jenrick
I thank those colleagues who have spoken. I am grateful to the Scottish National party spokesman, the hon. Member for Glasgow North, and to my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, for indicating either their support or their intention not to oppose this measure. Gift aid has enjoyed cross-party support ever since it was created 30 years ago. I hope that will continue, not only because it is an important measure in its own right, but because it is important to give certainty to charities that enjoy it across the length and breadth of the country.
As the hon. Member for Bassetlaw set out, a multitude of smaller charities have already welcomed the measure. In fact, we were responding to the voices of charities, many of which wrote to me. I attended the excitingly named charity tax conference a year ago, and this was one of their No. 1 asks to the Government. We have been pleased to oblige by laying the instrument. It will make a small difference to those charities and to all those individuals who put money on a collection plate in their local church or give to a small charity on the high street. I cannot see any reason why one would not wholeheartedly support that.
We take fraud seriously, as the Committee would expect. There has not been any material evidence of fraud, although there have been a small number of cases. In May 2016, three individuals were jailed for a total of 22 years for defrauding HMRC of £5 million in fictitious gift aid claims. That built upon a previous case from the month before, in which three other individuals were jailed for a total of 11 years for submitting fraudulent gift aid claims totalling £340,000. Thankfully, the unscrupulous individuals who seek to exploit charitable status for criminal purposes are rare, and there is no evidence of systematic abuse.
We designed the scheme in quite a complex manner— too complex, according to some charities—to make it difficult to conduct fraudulent activity. HMRC works closely with the charity regulator, the Charity Commission, with which I have been in regular contact over the last year on a number of matters, to ensure that charities are properly regulated and that any abuse of charities is dealt with robustly. When a charity is suspected of fraud, HMRC will share the information as soon as possible with the Charity Commission, which will consider further action, including removal from the charities register. Although we take that situation seriously, I do not want to overemphasise it because abuse of the scheme is not widespread. It is an important scheme that we should take forward into the years ahead.
The hon. Member for Norwich South asked about increasing the £8,000 limit. We increased the limit substantially, from £5,000 to £8,000, as recently as 2016, so we think it logical to keep it at that level for the foreseeable future. The hon. Member for Glasgow North raised a legitimate concern about public awareness of the scheme. That is something that all right hon. and hon. Members could take away from the Committee and encourage smaller charities, local parish churches and other good causes that they visit and encounter to take advantage of the scheme.
We did some research with the Charity Commission at the beginning of last year. As a result of that research, we wrote to all the charities in the country that take advantage of gift aid but have not yet, the best of our knowledge, used the gift aid small donations scheme—around 47,000 charities—to publicise the scheme and explain its relative simplicity, and to encourage them to take part in it. I hope that the Committee will wholeheartedly support this good news for our charitable sector.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Equivalence Determinations for Financial Services and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Equivalence Determinations for Financial Services and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward? As the Committee will be aware, the Treasury has been undertaking a programme of legislation under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to ensure that if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period there will continue to be a functioning legislative and regulatory regime for financial services in the UK. This statutory instrument is an important part of that programme. It will address deficiencies related to the EU’s equivalence framework for financial services once the UK is no longer an EU member state, and will make provision for elements of the UK’s stand-alone equivalence framework in a scenario where the UK leaves the EU without an agreement.
Many members of the Committee will be familiar with the EU’s framework for equivalence. The EU’s internal market for financial services works by harmonising prudential regulation and supervisory standards. Common rules aim to provide adequate consumer protection and financial stability, so that financial services can safely be sold across borders within the EU. For the same reasons, the EU also harmonises to some extent the rules permitting financial services firms outside the EU to sell to consumers in the EU. EU legislation allows the European Commission to determine that a country outside the EU, often termed a third country, has a regulatory and supervisory regime in a particular area of financial services that is equivalent to the corresponding EU regime.
Equivalence provisions exist in several areas of EU financial services legislation. The ability to grant equivalence is a key component of financial services regulation and supports cross-border activity. Equivalence decisions can reduce or eliminate overlaps in regulatory and supervisory requirements, thus decreasing the regulatory burdens on firms. Some equivalence decisions can also provide improved prudential treatment or facilitate the exchange of services and products. This can lead to increased competition, which has benefits for firms and consumers, while protecting consumers and financial stability in the EU from risks associated with buying financial services from outside the EU.
Before making an equivalence decision, the Commission will undertake an assessment of the third country’s regulatory and supervisory regime. The Commission may also ask the European supervisory authorities—ESAs—for technical advice to support its assessment. As an EU member state, any equivalence decisions made by the Commission currently have effect in the UK. After exit, the Commission’s current decisions will be retained EU law and will continue to permit third country firms to be treated as they are now.
In a no-deal scenario, the UK will be outside the European economic area and no longer part of the EU’s equivalence framework for financial services. The UK will become a third country to the EU. We need to amend retained EU law to reflect that new relationship. The Government place significant importance on the need to have a functioning stand-alone equivalence regime, which will support our future relationships with the EU and other financial centres with which we want to build stronger partnerships.
Members of the Committee will be aware that other Treasury SIs that have completed their passage in Parliament have already transferred equivalence responsibilities from the Commission to the Treasury and functions from the ESAs to the UK financial regulators in a no-deal scenario. While maintaining the same substantive criteria that the EU currently uses to judge equivalence, this SI will help to complete the UK’s framework and ensure that the UK has a stand-alone regime.
The instrument does three main things to support the development for a stand-alone UK equivalence framework in the event of a no-deal exit. First, it corrects deficiencies in existing equivalence decisions made by the Commission, which will be transferred to the UK’s statue book as retained EU law on exit day. An example of this deficiency fix is replacing references to “the Union” with references to “the United Kingdom”, to reflect the UK’s new position outside the EU. Fixing those decisions is important to minimise disruption for some firms with business in equivalent countries and for some overseas firms that currently rely on them. This will help to avoid disruption to the UK’s relationship with non-EU countries.
Secondly, the instrument replaces the functions given to the ESAs with functions for the UK financial services regulators. When undertaking new equivalence assessments, the Treasury may obtain technical advice from the UK financial services regulators—the Financial Conduct Authority, the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Bank of England. The SI also creates an obligation on the Treasury and the UK regulators to enter into a memorandum of understanding that sets out in more detail the operational processes to support equivalence assessments.
Thirdly, the SI creates a temporary power for Ministers to make equivalence and exemption decisions for EU and EEA member states by direction for some specified equivalence regimes listed in the SI. That is separate from and in addition to the permanent arrangements for making equivalence decisions after exit, which require a negative resolution instrument in Parliament. The temporary power is needed to prepare for the particular circumstances we would face if the UK left the EU without a deal. As an EU member state the UK has not previously needed powers to determine whether the EU is equivalent, but in a no-deal scenario it will be important for the Treasury to have powers to make such decisions in time for exit day, to respond quickly and effectively to any risks to the financial system and to avoid disruption for firms and markets.
Let us be clear: in such a situation, the UK would need to be nimble and able to act quickly to find the EU equivalent to the UK and support market functioning. Having an effective and time-limited power puts us in the optimum position to work with the European Commission to find each other’s regimes equivalent, which would be the most sensible outcome to protect cross-border economic activity and avoid disruption, although, failing that, equivalence decisions by the UK of the EU should not be assumed.
To illustrate why the powers are required, I point out to the Committee that the Commission has published several draft legal acts granting exemptions to UK bodies in a no-deal scenario. That shows our shared view that some equivalence decisions are important to have in place for day one of exit. The power is intended to be used to mitigate risks around exit and would expire 12 months after exit day; thereafter, any future equivalence decisions for the EU and EEA member states would need to be made by regulations subject to the negative procedure, as they would for all other foreign countries. To ensure transparent use of the temporary power, the SI obliges Ministers to lay any direction before Parliament and to publish it.
The Treasury, as is customary with all these SIs, has worked closely with the Bank of England, the PRA and the FCA in the drafting of this instrument. It has also engaged the financial services industry on this SI and will continue to do so. The regulators and key industry stakeholders have expressed support for the provisions in the instrument as necessary to mitigate disruption and provide legal certainty about the UK’s equivalence system.
The Government believe that the proposed legislation is necessary to ensure that the UK has a clearly defined and operable equivalence framework in a no-deal scenario. The powers it contains are necessary to ensure that the Treasury and UK regulators are able to respond if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period. I hope colleagues will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. Once again, the Minister and I are here to discuss a statutory instrument that makes provision for a regulatory framework after Brexit in the event that we crash out without a deal. I will spare the Minister the full list of our concerns; I think we are somewhere around 15 through the list, but these events are almost daily now, so he is aware of our concerns. It is enough to say that the Opposition would like to put on record our worries that the process of transposing this legislation has not been as accessible or as transparent as it should be.
Last night in the main Chamber we debated the Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill—the “in-flight” financial services Bill—which the Opposition voted against. One of the reasons for opposing that Bill is that the combination of work happening in Delegated Legislation Committees, along with the “in-flight” Bill, is creating a patchwork of new rules. We believe that is inherently vulnerable to clashes, gaps and inconsistencies.
That is also our view of today’s instrument. Clearly, the objectives are the right ones, but the Minister and I have already voted on a great number of items of regulation where in some instances the Government have transferred powers to the Financial Conduct Authority, the Prudential Regulation Authority, the Treasury or the Bank of England, so it is not entirely clear why we now need this separate instrument, to pass distinct powers to grant equivalence arrangements separate to the decisions that we have already taken in each of those specific instruments. Once again, while there is a sunset clause in this legislation, it is worrying that the Treasury is trying to give itself powers to keep in its back pocket to deploy should it decide that they need to be exercised.
Will the Minister clarify why we need stand-alone powers of this kind and which regulations he feels they would be used in reference to? What is the relationship between this general set of regulations on equivalence and the specific statutory instruments that we have already debated and which already relate to the transfer of powers? Why has the Treasury been given powers to make labour-intensive evaluations of regulatory standards in other countries, as opposed to that going to the Financial Conduct Authority, the Bank of England or the Prudential Regulation Authority? Is the Treasury properly resourced for this work? If not, will it receive extra resources for what it is being asked to do? Will there be a publicly available central register of all equivalence decisions, so that domestic and external market participants can have ready access to up-to-date information, along with the accompanying rationale for the decisions that have been made?
I note that these powers can be used before exit day, with a view to taking effect on 29 March. The Minister directly referred to this near the end of his speech. That is an uncomfortable proposition and distinct from some of the legislation we have already passed. With just 33 working days to go until we leave the European Union, can the Minister indicate in what context they would be used during this period and why that would be felt to be necessary? I believe the words that he used were that the Government need to be “nimble” in that scenario, but as parliamentarians we need more reassurance about that and about the general scope and intention of this legislation. I hope the Minister can provide that for us.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Edward, and to join everyone here today.
I share a lot of the Opposition’s concerns. They have been well expressed in previous Committees and yesterday on the floor of the House. We are concerned about the Government giving themselves more powers under this SI. This is a pattern in all these SIs and the Bill yesterday. The Government are giving themselves more powers and taking that power away from us as MPs. This is by no means taking back control, but giving themselves all the control and giving the Treasury very specific powers as well.
I have a couple of questions. The Minister said that equivalence cannot be assumed, but I would argue that the SI should have assumed that the UK would automatically grant equivalence to EU regulations in the absence of any kind of practical reasons standing against that. Failing to provide that automatic reassurance is another example of the UK Government’s sowing mistrust in our European partners. The EU can revoke equivalence at any time, so it would be an act of good faith for the Government to say that for their part they would not do so, and that might be of some assistance.
Further to that, there is an additional burden on the Treasury, the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority. Can the Minister tell me how many staff are working on equivalence assessments within those institutions? Knowing how many people are working on it would give a good idea of the Government’s intention to use these powers. If there is nobody working on it, or one person in a cupboard at the back of the hall somewhere, perhaps one could say that they are not going to be looking at it, or they are not going to be using these powers, but if there is a squad of 50 working on it, that is quite different, not least because of the additional expense that that would impose.
It seems a little like the instrument, because it is not specific and is a bit broader, is intended to paper over the gaps that other statutory instruments might have left. Is its purpose to cover things in a more general sense?
We are running out of time, getting closer and closer to Brexit. The rhetoric around no deal is ramping up, which is certainly not helping to reassure businesses in Glasgow Central, Scotland or anywhere else. We have to face the reality that the UK Government are not ready to leave. Article 50 must be extended. We are running out of road here, and the risk is that we will end up with no legislation to cover things that need to be covered in the event of no deal, which seems increasingly likely.
John Glen
I thank the hon. Members for Stalybridge and Hyde and for Glasgow Central for their observations. I will first attend to the general points about readiness and the intention of the Government, which is clearly to secure a deal.
I assure hon. Members, as I have on previous occasions, that there is no secret agenda in the Treasury to grab power. The SI is about contingency arrangements for the unwelcome outcome of no deal. We take this responsibility very seriously. An impact assessment was published on 7 February stating that there will be no new operational requirements for firms owing to the draft instrument.
I will now seek to address the specific points raised by Opposition Front-Bench Members. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde asked, in essence, why we need these extraordinary powers to grant EU and EEA equivalence on exit day. It is important to stress that this temporary power is intended only to mitigate cliff-edge risks and to support UK market activity and the continuity of cross-border business. The power is time limited; it will expire 12 months after exit day, which was determined following engagement with the industry and regulators. Thereafter, any further equivalence decisions regarding the EU and EEA will need to be made by regulations via the negative procedure.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the resources in the Treasury. The Treasury has been preparing to take on these additional functions and is well equipped, given its existing responsibility for financial services policy. We have worked closely with the FCA and the PRA during the development of the draft instrument, and we are confident that we are well placed to make future equivalence decisions.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the appropriateness of the Treasury making equivalence decisions, rather than the regulators. Under the EU’s equivalence framework, the European Commission is responsible for making jurisdiction-level equivalence decisions. The European supervisory authorities are responsible for providing technical assessments to the Commission when requested and for making firm-level recognition decisions on third country firms. Our approach will ensure that there is a functioning equivalence framework in the UK after exit that mirrors the current split in responsibilities between the Commission and the ESAs, with the Commission’s function transferring to the Treasury and the ESAs’ functions transferring to the relevant regulatory authorities. That is consistent with what we have done in the other SIs.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether a central register of equivalence decisions will be created. All decisions will be laid in Parliament and published on gov.uk, so they will be publicly available. There are no plans at this point to have a central register, but the process is intended to be completely transparent.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central asked whether Parliament would be consulted on a decision to revoke equivalence. In the future, equivalence decisions will be made and revoked by regulations subject to the negative procedure. This is a well-established procedure that allows Parliament to scrutinise proposed secondary legislation and to object if it has concerns, including about any decision to revoke an equivalence decision.
The hon. Lady asked about good will towards the EU and what will be the best decision. Clearly, we share a common heritage; the United Kingdom as a whole, including the excellent financial services located in Glasgow and Edinburgh, has contributed richly to the development of the EU regulations. We will obviously start from a common starting point. However, decisions around equivalence will be matters for both sides to come to terms with, and we will seek to do the best thing for the UK financial services industry in whatever prevailing conditions exist. We cannot anticipate that degree of co-operation, so we cannot make decisions proactively, as we might wish to do had we a deal and an implementation period, which would allow us to work such things out—as we intend.
Alison Thewliss
I understand what the Minister is saying, but surely it is in our interest—ours and the EU’s—if we want to continue to interact as we do now, to do things in a similar way.
John Glen
Absolutely it is, but what we cannot do until we have a deal is to determine what no deal would look like. It is therefore appropriate for me, as the Minister responsible for the UK financial services industry, to seek to reserve those powers, as the Commission is doing now—largely.
The hon. Lady caught me out, as she has often done before, when she asked about the number of people working on equivalence at the regulators. All I can say is that the Treasury is confident that the regulators have in place the resources to meet that function and they have devoted significant time to preparing for changes. I do not have a specific figure, but I am confident in their overall provisioning for that programme of work. I draw attention to schedule 1, which sets out the files in question.
The statutory instrument is needed to ensure that the UK has a clearly defined equivalence framework once outside the EU and is able to support the continuity of cross-border business in any scenario, and that the legislation functions appropriately if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period. That is not our intention, but I am confident that, given the engagement we have had with the regulators and the industry, the SI is required. I hope that the Committee has found our sitting informative and will now support the draft regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anne Milton
The Raise the Rate and Love Our Colleges campaigns have been very successful and, to a large extent, led to the number of hon. Members who attended that debate to raise the issue. I will continue to raise this with the Treasury. It has to be said—I have to continue to point this out to hon. Members—that there is over £2 billion available in apprenticeship funding from 2020. It is there now. Currently, colleges are not doing that much of that apprenticeship training. I look forward to seeing them getting more involved in those opportunities.
[Official Report, 4 February 2019, Vol. 654, c. 3.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills:
Errors have been identified in my response.
The correction information should have been:
Anne Milton
The Raise the Rate and Love Our Colleges campaigns have been very successful and, to a large extent, led to the number of hon. Members who attended that debate to raise the issue. I will continue to raise this with the Treasury. It has to be said—I have to continue to point this out to hon. Members—that there is over £2.5 billion available in apprenticeship funding from 2019-2020. It is there now. Currently, colleges are not doing that much of that apprenticeship training. I look forward to seeing them getting more involved in those opportunities.
Petitions
The future of maintained nursery schools
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 12th February 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19 View all Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 February 2019 - (12 Feb 2019)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. As usual, please switch off your mobile phones—I have done so. Tea and coffee are not allowed, and we have been told to be strict about that—I am a tea-oholic myself, but I am afraid it is just water. Date Time Witness Tuesday 12 February Until no later than 10.30 am Professor Bernard Ryan, Professor of Migration Law, University of Leicester; Professor Alan Manning, Chair Migration Advisory Committee Tuesday 12 February Until no later than 11.00 am Migration Watch UK Tuesday 12 February Until no later than 11.25 am Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants Tuesday 12 February Until no later than 3.00 pm Universities UK; TUC; Royal College of Nursing; Tuesday 12 February Until no later than 4.00 pm Liberty; Justice Tuesday 12 February Until no later than 4.30 pm CBI Tuesday 12 February Until no later than 5.00 pm Focus on Labour Exploitation Thursday 14 February Until no later than 12.30 pm Detention Action; The Children‘s Society; Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association; Deloitte LLP; Amnesty International UK Thursday 14 February Until no later than 1.00 pm Hilary Brown, Director, Virgo Consultancy Services; Martin Hoare, Senior Partner, H & S Legal Solicitors Thursday 14 February Until no later than 2.30 pm National Farmers Union Scotland Thursday 14 February Until no later than 3.00 pm Professor Steven Peers, Professor of EU, Human Rights and World Trade Law, University of Essex Thursday 14 February Until no later than 3.30 pm Professor Stijn Smismans, Director of the Cardiff Centre for European Law and Governance; The 3 Million Thursday 14 February Until no later than 4.30 pm Institute for Government Thursday 14 February Until no later than 5.00 pm Britain in Europe
Today we will consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication, and then a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence session. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take these matters formally, without debate.
I call the Minister to move the programme motion, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee for the Bill.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 12 February) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 12 February;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 14 February;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 26 February;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 28 February;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 5 March;
(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 7 March;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
(3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clause 1; Schedule 1; Clauses 2 to 5; Schedules 2 and 3; Clauses 6 and 7; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 7 March.—(Caroline Nokes.)
The Chair
That means that the deadline for amendments to be considered at the Committee’s first sitting for line-by-line consideration will be the rise of the House on Thursday 21 February.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Caroline Nokes.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Caroline Nokes.)
The Chair
Welcome, everyone. I want our two witnesses to enjoy the session. I do not know whether you have appeared before parliamentarians before, but you are not on trial. You both look innocent as far as I am concerned. It is really just a question of Committee members getting information from your good selves, which will help them when they deliberate the Bill.
We will now hear evidence from Professor Bernard Ryan, of the University of Leicester, and Professor Alan Manning, who chairs the Migration Advisory Committee. I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill, and that we must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed—I hope that colleagues have the timings in front of them. They are either half an hour or an hour.
The scope of the Bill is quite narrow. It is not a wide-ranging immigration Bill. It would end free movement of European economic area and Swiss nationals in the United Kingdom, and questions should be focused on the effects of that, rather than on wider immigration matters. I ask that witnesses also try to keep their comments focused on the scope of the Bill. We have until half-past 10 for this witness panel.
Do any members of the Committee wish to declare any relevant interests in connection with the Bill?
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
In relation to this afternoon’s sitting, I am a founding trustee of Focus on Labour Exploitation, but I cannot be here for that part of the sitting anyway.
The Chair
Q
Professor Ryan: I am Bernard Ryan. I am professor of migration law at the University of Leicester.
Professor Manning: I am Alan Manning, current chair of the MAC and professor of economics at the London School of Economics.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Q
Professor Ryan: I see the Bill as an historic measure. If you take a long view, it is one of the moments at which the basic categories of immigration law are being redefined. In relation to EU citizens, it is essentially just a framework for switching off the rights that exists, but what about the people who are here already? If it is such a fundamental change, should provision not be made for them? Particularly in a no-deal scenario, which of course we have to look at, there is clearly a question about the people who are here now. If we get a withdrawal agreement, there will be implementing legislation for that, but there is no clear plan to have implementing legislation or equivalent legislation in the absence of an agreement. That would leave the people who are already here exercising rights without legislative protection.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
Q
Professor Ryan: I welcome clause 2. Some of us have been arguing for a long time, particularly since the referendum in 2016, that there is not full provision for Irish citizens in immigration law. There is, in a somewhat obscure manner, recognition of Irish citizens coming from other parts of the common travel area—that, in practice, means coming from the Republic—but, of course, that does not give protection or recognition to the position of Irish citizens who might simply enter the United Kingdom from elsewhere, or indeed who are born in the United Kingdom. That is the gap in legislative terms. Of course, the policy in practice is not to require of Irish citizens leave to enter or remain. That has always been the position, but it has never been clearly expressed in legislation. Clearly, this is the time to do it.
Maria Caulfield
Q
Professor Ryan: In terms of legislation, Irish citizens are protected only when they enter the United Kingdom from elsewhere in the common travel area; they are not exempt from immigration law when they enter the United Kingdom from the rest of the world. That is the large gap that clause 2 addresses.
Afzal Khan
Q
Professor Ryan: I would not want to be specific about what might happen in future. I am conscious that the Bill will potentially define a framework for decades regarding EU citizens. We just have to look at the Windrush story. The way in which Commonwealth citizens of that generation still rely on the Immigration Act 1971 to protect them is not fully understood. Section 34 conferred upon them automatic indefinite leave to remain. That is more than 40 years ago. What was put in place then is still being used. We have to think in that kind of timescale. I do not want to be specific about what might change in the future regarding public policy for EU citizens.
Afzal Khan
Q
Professor Manning: The first potential problem is that an employer-driven system can lead to workers being extremely vulnerable. They are here only for short periods and do not really understand the system, and so on. We would need quite extensive regulation to prevent potential abuse of those workers.
Secondly, if you are concerned about the social integration of migrants, it will not help with that. Inevitably, there is no point in people who are here only for a short period investing in building a life here, and links to the wider community.
Thirdly, historically it has been the case that, because it is quite artificial—at the end of 12 months a worker has to leave, perhaps to be replaced by another—it generally sets up some kind of pressure for employers to extend the 12 months. It may start off in that form, but there is a risk of drift into a more permanent migration route.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Q
Professor Manning: The view in the report that we published in September is that EEA migration has not had very big costs. It has not had very big benefits either. The technical analysis in the White Paper indicated that. There would be impacts here and there. The general point is that after 2004 free movement, more by accident than design, was a system for primarily lower-skilled migration. Most countries have a preference for higher-skilled migrants. The proposals that we made, and that were taken forward in the White Paper, were essentially to alter the balance towards more higher-skilled migrants.
Jack Brereton
Q
Professor Manning: Not to any great extent—we are fairly confident about that. There is some evidence of a small effect but, because of the minimum wage, there has been quite a substantial protection against that at the bottom end of the labour market. It has certainly not had a positive effect on wages—the evidence there is neutral to negative. I would not say that any of that effect has been very big.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Q
Professor Manning: Our proposal was to maintain the existing system of salary thresholds, of which £30,000 is one but not the only one. A lot of commentary omits that important detail. If you take that number, we think that the argument for having migrants is normally that there is a shortage of workers in the domestic labour market to do that job. Our proposal is that you should be able to employ migrants, but you have to be paying above the going rate for wages; you must not be employing migrants to undercut the domestic labour market. The absolute minimum salary threshold that you would consider would be something like the average, which is about 50% of workers. When you say it is 58% of workers, I think it is entirely reasonable to think that there is some upward pressure on wages in the manufacturing sector. I understand that the CBI is not very keen on that, because to the CBI wages are a cost, but to other people it is their income.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Q
Professor Manning: Care is a very particular problem, as we singled out in our report. It faces very serious recruitment and retention problems. The root cause of the problem is that it does not pay enough. The root cause of why it does not pay its workers enough is because no one has sorted out the funding situation for social care, even though it has been known for many years that this is not a functional system. We understand that there is a real problem in social care, but it is important to focus on the root cause of the problem, and that will not be solved by immigration.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Q
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
Q
Professor Ryan: Because I work in immigration law, I see the Bill and the White Paper as quite separate from one another, and the discussion about future labour migration policy and other aspects of immigration policy as very much apart from the Bill. I see the Bill as providing a system for switching off EU rights and dealing with the particular case of Irish citizens. I see them as very separate from one another.
Tracey Crouch
Q
Professor Ryan: I see them as essentially different projects, if you wish—different aspects of where things are going. They certainly can fit together, but it seems to me that the Bill does not predetermine anything about what future policy would look like.
Tracey Crouch
Q
Professor Manning: The Bill does not have any details on exactly what the future system will be. The White Paper talks about a consultation as well, and there is still quite a lot of detail to be filled in. There is still considerable uncertainty about exactly what that future system would be.
Paul Blomfield
Q
Professor Ryan: It does not, because it does not really attempt to do that. In a sense, that is the gap that I am identifying. In relation to EU rights, the Bill provides for switching off, but it does not provide anything about prior residents or people who are already exercising rights. There is nothing said about that in the Bill. We do not know the exact intentions on how transition arrangements would be operated, for example, under the powers in the Bill. Nothing has been said so far to indicate that the Bill is going to provide protection to anyone who is here already.
Paul Blomfield
Q
Professor Ryan: Yes, indeed. That is why I started with that observation—to try to ask for the Bill to be seen in those terms. Understandably, because of the politics around leaving the European Union, everyone is concerned with the moment, as it were, but I urge the Government to take a longer view of what the Bill really means and think about other things that could go in the Bill because of the long life that it may have.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Q
Professor Manning: It is not just simple supply and demand, but supply and demand is relevant. It is important not to exaggerate the role that immigration plays in everything that is happening in the labour market as a whole. We have a very tight labour market at the moment, and demand for labour is running ahead of supply in many sectors. There are complaints about shortages and vacancies in a lot of places. Solving that through immigration, it is said, means increasing the supply of labour to bring demand and supply into line, but in our view that will not work because when immigrants come, they increase supply. They earn money, spend money, and add to labour demand more or less in balance. That is why the overall effect is neutral.
We think the way in which you should respond to imbalance in the labour market is through raising wages. Where do those rising wages come from? Partly, employers are put under pressure to use labour more efficiently when labour is scarce, so that is part of the efficiencies that you talked about. There might be some sectors that have been quite profitable in recent years, so there is some scope to squeeze profits, although there are many sectors where margins are tight. If you talk to employers, they would say they really have not got that much choice.
It is also the case that workers will vote with their feet and go to work for employers that they think offer them the best deal. In that process, there are good employers and bad employers. When labour markets are tight, good employers do well and bad employers find it harder. That is a natural process by which we have rising living standards in the economy.
Alison McGovern
Q
Professor Manning: There are British employers at the cutting edge of new technology, so it is very hard to find productivity gains. But we also know that productivity in British industry across the piece lags behind our competitors, notably in Germany, quite substantially. Within all sectors there is a huge range of productivity. There are very efficient employers, but a lot of research suggests there is quite a long tail of not-so-productive employers where there are potential productivity gains to be had by moving to current best practice.
Alison McGovern
Q
Professor Manning: In the interim report that we published last spring, we did a broad sectoral analysis in which we looked at trends in productivity. We also did a regional analysis, but we have not done a full mix of regions by industry. I don’t know if you can say a particular industry in a particular region, but I have a particular view on that.
Alison McGovern
Q
Professor Manning: We did an analysis of how it would impact different regions. For example, when one talks about salary thresholds, we have tables on how this would affect different regions. But you are right to point out that there are very big regional inequalities in the UK that probably have been allowed to fester for too long. One of the reasons, for example, why we do not recommend regional variations in salary thresholds is because we do not want to institutionalise some parts of the country as low wage and other parts as high wage.
Alison McGovern
Q
Professor Ryan: I would not want to be that dramatic.
Alison McGovern
Q
Professor Ryan: It is more that Parliament needs to think about future-proofing the immigration arrangements that are put in place, to think about whether this will work over the long term and not leave people out. To take the Windrush parallel, it is the children from those times who, later in life, are having to prove their status. Exactly the same could happen with EU citizens; the children of those citizens may struggle later if things are not designed correctly to establish what is happening now. Whatever arrangements are put in place, that should be part of what is being addressed.
I believe that, somehow, through primary legislation, guarantees need to be put in place for current residents. I recognise that could be done in subsequent legislation—the withdrawal agreement Act would be another opportunity to consider this question—but, of course, if we do not have that legislation because there is no deal, this seems to be the opportunity. I realise that is a difficulty, but perhaps it should be addressed now.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Q
Professor Ryan: This is not the only opportunity to do it, but if there is no deal, this may be the best opportunity to do it. That is really what I am saying.
Nic Dakin
Q
Professor Ryan: Yes. The numbers are massive; we are talking about more than 3 million people who potentially have claims. It is not realistic, in my view, to think that they will all come forward and that everyone who needs to prove later on that they made those claims will be able to do so. It is just too large a cohort.
Nic Dakin
Q
Professor Manning: I am not sure that is quite right. There is a system of salary thresholds, of which £30,000 is one, but there are others. For example, there is a new entrant rate of £20,800; for NHS staff and teachers, the national pay scales are the relevant salary thresholds. To take the two examples you gave, butchery is one of the medium-skill occupations that we recommend should become eligible for non-EU migrants, but it is one of the lower-paid occupations. We do think that the sector needs to offer more. It is not terribly attractive work, particularly when one is talking about the big food-processing plants; I have visited one. That sector is, again, not paying wages that are competitive in the domestic labour market.
I do not think it is unreasonable to expect it to be able to compete for labour in a tight labour market. We want people to have high-quality jobs, which is partly about high wages but also about good terms and conditions. I do not feel that that sector is fully stepping up to the mark at the moment.
Nic Dakin
Q
Professor Manning: Across the piece, if you take the medium-skilled jobs that would be brought within the non-EU system, we recommend the existing salary thresholds. I keep pushing back a bit when anyone says £30,000, and saying that it is actually wider than the £30,000.
Across the piece, our estimate for April 2017—it will be slightly lower now—was that something like 60% of people in those medium-skilled occupations are currently paid less than £30,000 on a full-time basis. We view that as appropriate because, as I said, we want the salary thresholds to be above the average wage.
We want sizeable amounts. We want to be able to say to employers, “Fine. You need migrants, but you have got to pay above the going rate in order to have access to them.” We think the salary thresholds have to be a little bit above at least the minimum—a bit above the average salaries.
Nic Dakin
Q
Professor Manning: There is a debate. When I say “a bit above”, I accept that there is a contentious issue about how much above. Some people are saying, “The absolute minimum salary threshold you would consider would be the current average,” and yet some people are talking about salary thresholds that are well below average earnings in many of these sectors.
Nic Dakin
Q
Professor Manning: I go back to what I said earlier. When people say, “We have to have migrants,” they only feel as though they have to have migrants because they are not competitive in the domestic labour markets. To work as a care assistant—the main job in social care—does not require formal qualifications.
There are currently quite large numbers of people in the UK who are not in work but who report their last occupation as being in social care. There is a labour supply for social care out there at the moment, but people do not want to work there, because the labour market is quite tight and the terms and conditions are very poor.
Nic Dakin
Q
Professor Manning: We accept that, and we singled it out as a big problem. The issue with financing social care is not just with this Government; it is a long-lasting issue that has not been addressed, and I am not sure it is being particularly addressed at the moment.
There is a risk if you have a carve-out for social care. A good example is Canada, which had a live-in caregiver programme. It was about live-in carers, but it was similar. That programme expanded incredibly rapidly, but as soon as the migrants who had come in under that route had the opportunity to leave the sector, they left the sector because—just as the existing residents found—the terms and conditions were poor and they could get better elsewhere. After 10 years, only something like 10% of workers were still working in care. The Canadian Government shut that programme down last spring, because it did not solve the problem.
Our concern about this is that a carve-out for social care will be a short-term fix. It will stop the real, underlying problems being addressed. It will look successful in the short run, but in the medium to longer run it will not work.
Maria Caulfield
Q
Professor Manning: I must confess that I am not absolutely sure what clause 1 says.
Maria Caulfield
Clause 1 basically repeals free movement between the EU and the UK. Do you think that that will have an effect on overall immigration to the UK?
Professor Manning: We do not focus so much on numbers. In general terms, it is about being more restrictive on the EU side, but liberalising on the non-EU side. We think that what is more important is not the overall numbers but ensuring that migration is for the benefit of existing residents, which is the criterion that we use in deciding on policy. We think that making migration easier for higher-skilled than for lower-skilled workers would serve that end, but the numbers will depend on how the British economy is doing and lots of other factors. We do not really focus on the numbers so much; it is about making sure that we think each individual migrant who comes in under a work migration scheme is contributing to the UK.
Maria Caulfield
Professor Ryan, do you have a view on that?
Professor Ryan: I think it would be surprising if it did not have an effect on numbers.
Maria Caulfield
But do you have an idea of what the scale of that effect will be?
Professor Ryan: No, but impressionistically, there has been a significant increase in EU migration over the past decade or more. Presumably that will be slowed by switching off the rights.
Maria Caulfield
Q
Professor Ryan: Only that they should go together, I suppose, at the commencement of the switch-off, the moment it happens. I am thinking particularly about a no-deal scenario; that has to be in step with the arrangements for the future.
Afzal Khan
Q
Professor Ryan: I was focusing particularly on the question of guarantees for people who are exercising rights already—prior residents, as it were. That is the key detail that is left out. Apart from that, it is understandable that it is a framework and that details will be filled in later, particularly as regards timing.
Afzal Khan
Q
Professor Manning: One example that you could use is the old seasonal agricultural workers scheme. In its early years, there were issues with some undesirable practices, but in later years the MAC’s view—it was before my time, so I was not involved in that piece of work—was that it was a fairly well run system. What is envisaged in the White Paper is potentially on a much bigger scale, which would mean much more expenditure on enforcement and so on. At the moment we do not really have the infrastructure in place for enforcement; it would have to go along with development of the programme itself.
Afzal Khan
Q
Professor Manning: That kind of scheme was not in our report. We laid out reasons why we were not terribly enthusiastic about it, but it was a feature of the White Paper more than of our report.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Q
Professor Ryan: That is correct: I have argued in the written evidence—and I believe they will be saying something similar—that there are some adjustments that one could imagine. As it stands, the Bill does not guarantee equality as regards family migration for Irish citizens. That is thinking especially about Irish citizens who might want to relocate to the United Kingdom: they are not guaranteed to be in the same position as British citizens. That is a provision that could be made—or, one hopes that a commitment could be made that the rules will be framed so that Irish citizens will be treated in the same way as British citizens as regards family migration.
There are questions about the deportation provisions as well. I am not disputing that it should be possible to deport Irish citizens or to exclude them, but we need to recognise that the policy has been to do that only in exceptional circumstances. That is somewhat different to the “conducive to the public good” standard that is usually applied in deportation cases. It is important to get clarity about the intentions going forward as regards use of the deportation power. There is a specific issue about Northern Ireland, because of the Belfast Agreement and the entitlement of people from Northern Ireland to identify as Irish citizens. It is important that that entitlement is not compromised by the possibility of deportation of Irish citizens that is confirmed in the Bill.
I have suggested that it could be done through amendments, but the Government could clarify their intentions in relation to Northern Irish citizens.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Professor Ryan: Immigration policy is complex and it evolves so there has to be a structure that permits that to proceed. Perhaps immigration rules could be drafted differently; I know that work about that is going on. I am certainly not against the idea of having immigration rules, and doing the bulk of immigration policy in that way.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Professor Ryan: Exactly. The question is whether certain guarantees should be written into primary legislation. I suppose that that is what I am asking for.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Professor Ryan: Are you assuming that the withdrawal agreement—
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Professor Ryan: I question why we even need a deadline for applications under the settlement scheme. There will be advantages to individuals to registering through that scheme, regardless. I do not see why we need a hard line that says, if you do not register by x date, then unless you come within some exception that we formulated, tough luck. I do not see why we need a deadline at all.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Professor Ryan: Children are the key test here. A child who is here now is eligible under the settled status scheme. Other people are taking those decisions for them, or failing to register. Even if they are registered, how do they know that and prove it later on? The opportunity for them to come back and make the application much later is a way of fixing any difficulties that arise. It would solve a lot of problems if there were no hard deadline for the settlement scheme.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Professor Ryan: It would be possible to formulate a guarantee in that way as well. I have been focusing on the people, ensuring that individuals are protected without specifying what protections they get. It clearly would also be possible in a guarantee to consider the core rights that would be obtained by the beneficiaries of any guarantee.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Professor Manning: I am not sure it is just Treasury—
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Professor Manning: Yes, of course. It is important to realise that it is only modelling being more restrictive on the EU side. It is not modelling at all the liberalisation on the non-EU side. So it is not modelling the whole package at all.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Professor Manning: That is my understanding.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Professor Manning: The numbers that you quote make the point we made in our report that neither the costs nor the benefits have been very large. When you take that £4 billion over five years, quoted on the public finances, that adds up to a bit under 25p per person per week for a really quite substantial reduction in migration.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Professor Manning: I could do quite a lot with £4 billion, yes, but it is under 25p per person per week. You can say that is not a good idea, but you cannot say it is a big negative impact. It is what we said: the impacts, both costs and benefits, have been modest.
The Chair
May I remind colleagues that this session finishes at 10.30 am? I have got two people waiting to catch my eye, one of whom we have not heard from before. I also want to give the Minister a chance.
Eleanor Smith (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
Do you have any concerns, Professor Ryan, about British nationals living in the EU?
Professor Ryan: It is not something I have looked at, to be honest with you. Clearly, their protection requires an agreement between the two sides. It is far more secure with an agreement than without. The European states, the EU27, are now starting to take or announce measures to protect British citizens themselves in the event of no deal. That could be co-ordinated at the European Union level as well. I suppose that if we do end up without the withdrawal agreement, we cannot rule out a special agreement concerning citizens’ rights in the future as well. Even in a no deal situation, there are mechanisms by which British citizens in the rest of the EU could be protected.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The previous Government policy was to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands, but the Home Secretary seems to be saying now that immigration should be at sustainable levels. Professor Ryan, what sort of factors do you think we should take into account to decide what sustainable levels are? Professor Manning, should the Migration Advisory Committee have some sort of role in assisting the Home Office to set what these sustainable levels are?
Professor Ryan: I would rather not answer that question. The question of what sustainable levels are is not really a legal question.
Professor Manning: We make our recommendations based on what we think is in the interests of the resident population. The Migration Advisory Committee has never focused on numerical targets for net migration. We have always been more interested in actual migration policy. We think of the net migration target more as a statement of political intent that might influence policy. It is not, in itself, a policy. We do not see ourselves as making recommendations to meet that particular target. We always make recommendations on what we think is in the interests of the resident population.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Q
Professor Manning: I do not think that is a phrase that we would particularly use. I go back to what I said earlier: the right system is one in which you make sure—as best you can—that migrants coming to the UK on work systems are providing benefits to the resident population. The word “sustainable” does not seem to fit into that sentence very easily.
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
Q
Professor Manning: The proposals are mostly going to affect those sectors that have relied heavily on lower-skilled EEA workers: food processing, hospitality, warehousing and transport. It is not care assistants, for example, who account for a lower fraction of EEA migrants than the national average. It is not the NHS, which has a lower fraction of EEA migrants than then national average. There is also agriculture. Our view is that if you have a special scheme for a sector, you are giving that sector privileged access to labour; you are preferring that sector over some other sector. Generally, we think there should be a level playing field of competition, particularly in lower-skilled sectors. It is reasonable to think that people working in hospitality might also work in retail and so on, and those sectors should be competing for workers.
The one exception is that we did recommend a seasonal agricultural scheme, because seasonal agricultural workers are 100% migrant at the moment. No other sector gets close to that. We do not think it is realistic to fulfil seasonal work with a resident settled population. That is the one exception, but generally we do not see a strong argument for giving preference to one sector over another, particularly when that sector may use that privileged access simply to keep terms and conditions worse than they would otherwise have to be in the wider labour market.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Professor Manning: There was a page or two in the White Paper about expanding the role of the Migration Advisory Committee. We particularly welcome two aspects of that. First, we have more independence, in a way, to set our own agenda at times, and not just take commissions from Government. Secondly, a big issue is the availability of data. We strongly feel that at the moment—this is very long standing—there is insufficient evaluation of policy. When a policy is announced there is really not that much follow-through, looking at what exactly the impact of the policy was. Did it actually achieve what it set out to?
Caroline Nokes
Q
Professor Manning: Potentially. At the moment we are doing some work on the shortage occupation lists, although that is within the current system, so it is eligible only to graduate-level occupations. It is really important that it is used in a discerning way. It is not a solution to generalised shortages of labour; it is for targeted solutions to particular bottlenecks in the economy. When a sector reports a shortage, it is always really important to ask why it has a shortage, and why migration is the only solution to the problem. For some of the sectors that we have been talking about, the answer is really due to a failure to offer jobs that are sufficiently attractive in the domestic labour market. In such cases, we are not clear that migration would not actually worsen rather than alleviate the problem.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Professor Ryan: I think I have made the point that, if there is not a deal, there is a difficulty with relying on subsequent legislation that may never come. There may be a case for making provision just for that scenario in this Bill. If there is a withdrawal agreement that is then implemented through legislation, one has to recognise that the settlement scheme is, in many ways, more generous than the withdrawal agreement. It has taken out the requirement for qualifying conditions to be met by EU citizens, and the approach to evidencing residence is pretty open.
The question arises: would the second Bill actually protect everyone who is in the settlement scheme? I would hope that, in the end, anyone who gets recognised through that scheme can rely on those rights, and that, even if they are not covered by the withdrawal agreement, anyone who gets recognised through that scheme, without fraud and misrepresentation, has statutory protection for their position going forward.
There is a separate issue about people who do not apply. I have already said that I do not really understand why we have to have a hard deadline. One could imagine—in either Bill, I suppose—legislation ensuring the right to come back at a later date to apply, for those who are entitled to do so.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Professor Ryan: I am sorry, but I did not quite follow the question.
Caroline Nokes
The settled scheme is up and running. We are awarding EU citizens their status, and we have achieved that by secondary legislation; we laid various statutory instruments that enabled us to open the settlement scheme. Whether as part of the withdrawal Bill or potentially as part of this Bill, do you see any challenge whatsoever with a gap between the end of free movement and the rights of individuals through the settlement scheme being enshrined in primary legislation?
Professor Ryan: Do you mean a gap with regard to timing?
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that we will never know the answer to that question, because we have come to the end of our allotted time. On behalf of the Committee, I thank both witnesses for their time. Thank you very much indeed, gentlemen.
Examination of Witnesses
Lord Green of Deddington and Dr Benedict Greening gave evidence.
The Chair
Welcome, Lord Green and Dr Greening. We have until 11 o’clock for this session. I think we all felt that the previous session went very quickly, and I am sure this will go even more quickly. First, could you please introduce yourselves?
Lord Green: Thank you, and good morning. I founded Migration Watch 18 years ago and have been the chairman ever since.
Dr Greening: I am Ben Greening. I have worked for Migration Watch for three years.
The Chair
Splendid. Which colleague would like to ask the first question? I call Afzal Khan.
Afzal Khan
Q
Lord Green: Yes—probably medium skilled. Before I answer your question, can I just thank the Chairman for the invitation? I notice that you have about 25 witnesses and we are the only ones whose view is that immigration should be reduced. In saying that, we have the support of some 38 million people. I just leave that on the table as something that the Committee might like to be aware of.
Certainly there are medium skills that are not very well paid. I would have thought that very high skills probably are well paid.
Afzal Khan
Q
Lord Green: Yes, certainly. First of all, we are very doubtful about it in principle. It seems to us to be a rather obvious way of avoiding getting people into the official immigration statistics. I think that is a mistake in terms of public trust. We are assuming, by the way, that EU citizens will be eligible for this, and there are indications that that will be so. There is no difference in effect between somebody who is here for 11 months, goes away for a year’s cooling-off period, and who can then come back and work for a period that has not yet been defined. I only have to say that to illustrate the difficulties of knowing who these people are, where they are and how long they have been here. We simply do not have the necessary information to do that.
Afzal Khan
Q
Lord Green: No, absolutely not.
Afzal Khan
Q
Lord Green: No. Its funds have been cut back as part of general cuts in public funds. It does not have the people it needs and it is simply not able to do the job that I am sure it would wish to do. You only have to look, for example, at the number of people who are here illegally and are removed, which has declined very sharply in recent years.
Afzal Khan
Q
Lord Green: I think you are implying that the Bill does just that—that it is a framework Bill. I think it has to be read in conjunction with the White Paper. We have looked at that to see what the risks might be, and today we are publishing an estimate that it will lead to net foreign migration of about 430,000 a year in a few years’ time. It could even hit half a million unless serious moves are taken to reduce it. From that figure, you have to subtract roughly 50,000 a year, which is the 10-year average of British emigration. You are looking at something like 380,000 net migration quite soon, which is higher than the previous peak of 340,000. Reaching that calculation—as I said, I will send it to the Committee—has very serious political implications, but I will leave that to you. In reaching it, we have deliberately ignored the 11-month workers to whom you referred in your first question, Mr Khan. We think that is misleading, and in practice there will be circular migration that amounts to significant numbers of low-skilled workers.
Let me just explain the proposal to weaken the highly skilled department. As you probably know, the proposal is to reduce the level of skills from degree to A-level, to reduce the salary level from £30,000—even £21,000 has been mentioned—to remove the requirement to advertise a job beforehand, and so on. You would be left with pretty much free movement, because 50% of EU migrants who have come here already are in those higher-skilled categories that the Government are now talking about. The other 50% could come as the 11-month brigade.
You would be looking at something that is very close to free movement, and you would have enormously increased the scope for migration from around the world. As outlined in the White Paper, these moves will open 9 million UK jobs to worldwide competition. That is bound to have a very substantial effect, partly because employers will understandably scour the world for less expensive employees. What is more, there will be a substantial number of employees who would want to come here, because those routes will lead to settlement. Our view is that this is a very dangerous policy in terms of numbers, and therefore in terms of the public response to immigration and immigrants.
The Chair
Lord Green, the Clerk has taken careful note of your remarks about the balance of witnesses. I did not have any hand in it, and we will reflect on the issue.
Lord Green: It is not a criticism. This is life—we are the only body in the UK that makes these points.
Jack Brereton
Q
Lord Green: Yes, I certainly would, and I think the public would certainly take the same view. As we have mentioned before, the Bill is only a framework. I think the Scottish National party and the Lords have pointed out that it has enormous secondary powers, which I am sure you will consider. In effect, it opens the door to whatever the Government might later decide. Reading the White Paper, I think we will all be in difficulty.
Jack Brereton
Q
Lord Green: That is a political question and your Members will know better than I do, but I think they will be serious.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Q
Lord Green: Until 1998, the level of net migration had never been more than 50,000 a year, and on some occasions it had been negative. Times were different, but we did not really need large-scale migration until then. You probably remember—you may have been an MP at the time—that when the Labour Government eased the immigration system, the numbers trebled in a couple of years. You will also remember that when the points-based system was introduced in 2008, we found very soon that we had something like 40,000 bogus students arriving in one year, mainly from the Indian subcontinent. We also found that 1,000 bogus colleges had to be closed. I am not trying to criticise the Labour party in this matter. My point is more general: the pressures on our immigration system worldwide are very strong indeed. We have seen it twice and there is every risk that we are going to see it again.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Q
Lord Green: No, but I agree with almost everything that Professor Manning said. The needs of the economy change, but we also need to make sure that there is an incentive or pressure on employers to use their labour more efficiently, to increase productivity and so on. If you look at a graph, you will see that productivity in the UK, apart from being well below France and Germany, has been flat for 10 years, and immigration has been several million in that period. You cannot possibly argue that immigration on its present scale is improving productivity or anything else.
It is also a key point that there is no evidence for the UK that immigration adds to GDP per head. I think there are one or two studies in the United States about Mexicans providing home assistance for computer experts, or something, but in the UK there is no such evidence. The basic pressure for large-scale immigration comes from employers who make money out of it. They are there to make money if they are able to do so.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Q
Lord Green: Not necessarily. We would settle for the Government’s policy until very recently at 100,000. I think that is a reasonable number. While we are on the general point, if we go on as we are, we will continue to add 1 million to our population every three years by reason of immigration. This has enormous effects, starting with housing, and they cannot just be put aside.
Tracey Crouch
Q
Lord Green: I do not see any need for it.
Tracey Crouch
We have just heard from Professor Manning about seasonal workers, for example. The NFU has sent out a briefing for a debate this afternoon, which makes it clear that the food and farming business is worth £113 billion to our economy. As we have just heard from Professor Manning, seasonal workers mainly from EU countries make up a significant percentage of that. Can I ask the question again: once we have left the EU, can you see any preference within that system for EU citizens?
Lord Green: I am sorry; I did not realise you were including that. We do not oppose a seasonal agricultural workers scheme, for the reasons you have described, but they are not immigrants; they are shipped in for the season and shipped out again. The system was run for about 50 years after the war and only closed down when the eastern Europeans arrived. It should be possible to reinstate a system that does not affect migration but does provide these workers—hopefully not so many that British workers will be unable to get jobs of that kind.
Tracey Crouch
Q
Lord Green: The arrangements are not reciprocal, in the sense that in the EU these matters are very largely a national decision—almost the only things that are—so we cannot run, as it were, a reciprocal policy that relates to what is happening in the EU. The EU is introducing a blue card scheme, which is the equivalent of our tier 2, but it is not being very widely used. The only point I would make about British citizens is that they are not being given enough attention, in terms of their future in the countries where they are. I do not think the Commission has been very effective, frankly. While we are paying great attention to the European Union citizens who are here, as we should, we should pay equal attention to Brits in Europe.
The Chair
We are more than halfway through this session, and we have not heard anything from Dr Greening.
Alison McGovern
Q
Lord Green: First of all, what was the word that you were worried about?
Alison McGovern
Q
Lord Green: Oh yes—well, they were shipped in.
Alison McGovern
Q
Lord Green: I want you to understand how this system worked. It was actually employers who brought them in—can I say in bulk?—together, as a group, in order to work in the fields.
Alison McGovern
Q
Lord Green: Of course it would increase the dependency ratio. There is no doubt about that. Equally, there is only one way to deal with that, which is to raise the retirement age. If you are going to try to use immigration to deal with the dependency ratio, it becomes a Ponzi scheme, because as the new migrants get older you have more older people, and therefore you need more migrants in order to restore the balance. That is the oldest story in the book.
Alison McGovern
Q
Lord Green: You can do various calculations on that. I do not have them in my head. I think that so long as we live longer and healthier, there is perfectly good reason to raise the retirement age.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Q
Lord Green: No, I think that is completely irrelevant, frankly. I hope that this is a meeting in which I can speak to you clearly and simply. If I was making some public speech, I would use different words. This is not a public speech, I hope.
Gavin Newlands
Q
Lord Green: No, I don’t think they are.
Gavin Newlands
Q
Lord Green: The first thing is to restore the cuts that have been made, but I think they will probably need more than that, because they will have a new situation to deal with. But I am not an expert on the administration of the Home Office.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Lord Green: There are bound to be problems. You are talking about literally millions of people, most of whom have good English, but not all. There is certainly a possibility—a probability—that by the time the deadline comes, there will be people who have not registered. I listened to what the previous witness said about that.
We will need to be careful that we do not accidentally find that a large number of people have rights that they are not aware of—have rights through their parents that they are not aware of, as one of the Committee members put it. There is a risk there, but that is administration and I am sure that the Home Office will do its best.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Lord Green: I do not have a strong view on that, but it does seem sensible to have a deadline, otherwise people will leave it and leave it and never get it done. The deadline helps to get people in and do the registration, so it is at least a line in the sand, but I do not think it should be the end of the world.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Dr Greening: I have seen something from the Government in which they specified that the deadline was somewhat flexible, so if there were good reasons why people had not applied by the deadline, they would be treated on a case-by-case basis.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Dr Greening: It is reassuring to see in the White Paper that the Government said:
“The EU Settlement Scheme…will ensure that those who successfully apply for it have a clear immigration status in the UK, safeguarding against what happened”
to some members of the Windrush generation. The Government are clearly aware of the lessons to be learned from Windrush and are applying them in applying the EU settlement scheme. There are bound to be some teething issues and problems.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Dr Greening: That would be a major problem. I hope that the Government take—
Stuart C. McDonald
Lord Green has highlighted the problems in terms of funding for Home Office administration. I think the Home Office is pulling out all the stops and doing its best to try to register as many EU nationals as it can, but even if it achieves a 90% success rate, 400,000 people will still be in a similar situation to the Windrush generation.
Dr Greening: We do have concerns about that. We will be watching closely to monitor it and ensure that it is efficient, that it works for the millions of people who will use it, that it reaches everyone and that it makes sure that no one who has rights loses their rights.
Resources are relevant to that. It is important to note that Lucy Moreton, of the Immigration Service Union, said that immigration enforcement is not adequately resourced at the moment to deal with illegal immigration. Combined spending on Border Force and immigration enforcement has fallen by £100 million over the last three years. The chief inspector of borders has said that the capacity simply will not deal with numbers. Officials have complained to him about security at southern ports being resourced to—
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Dr Greening: As do we.
Nic Dakin
Q
Lord Green: First, it is quite difficult to set out immigration policy in primary legislation. That is why this Bill is drafted as it is. I have, as I say, some sympathy with the Scottish National party in the House of Lords in saying that this is really very wide. We would like to see something pretty close to the existing tier 2 system, with a salary threshold of the order of £30,000, and the shortage occupation list developed. I think that can deal with a number of problems; it already does nurses, and it could do laboratory assistants, for example. We favour the seasonal agricultural workers’ scheme, which has just been mentioned. We suggest that the way to deal with the lesser skilled—if I may use the term, meaning that middle group—is to have temporary visas for semi-skilled workers, limiting them to three years and having an escalating annual cost of £1,000, £2,000 and £3,000, so that there is a financial incentive for employers to train their own people. For the past 10 years, the training of apprentices and so on has gone through the floor, and it has done so because you can take a plumber or whatever from Poland without bothering to train them. We need to make sure that there is a financial incentive for employers of these skills to train British replacements.
The Chair
If no other colleague wishes to ask a question, perhaps we will give the final opportunity to the Minister.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Lord Green: I think simplicity is important, but effectiveness is more important. If you have a system that is wide open to these middle skills, you will lose control of the numbers. What you have to do, given that you cannot follow everyone around the country to remove them after x years, is to put a financial burden or incentive on employers to train the replacements that we need.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Lord Green: The main flexibility is the free market system, where wages go up and attract people into the places where they are needed. Where you do not have that financial incentive, it does not happen. We should allow the market system to work. Indeed, as Professor Manning said, if your first reaction to a shortage is to produce immigrants, you will never deal with the shortage and you will never improve the working conditions of those who are already in that industry.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Lord Green: Did you say £30,000?
Caroline Nokes
Yes.
Lord Green: Possibly. I don’t know. It depends on what happens. But I think that the £30,000 is a sensible level, and it does mean that you are then dealing with highly skilled people. I would not want to lower it, and there may be a case for raising it as time goes on.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Lord Green: Not always, but it is not a bad proxy. It is probably the best you have.
The Chair
Lord Green, thank you very much for your evidence to the Committee.
Examination of Witness
Chai Patel gave evidence.
The Chair
This final session is even shorter—we have only until 25 past 11. Will our witness kindly introduce himself?
Chai Patel: I am Chai Patel, I am the Legal Policy Director at the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants.
Afzal Khan
Q
Chai Patel: No. I think to some extent that is because of failings in the Home Office and the Government, but to another it is because the issues that were exposed most clearly by Windrush are very deep-seated in immigration law and the way we conduct almost all our immigration system. I would not necessarily have expected the Government to be able to do that in the time that we have had. The problem we face is that we are moving very quickly towards a situation in which between 3 million and 4 million more people’s immigration status or leave to remain in this country will not be as clear as it once was. That is because European nationals will no longer simply be able to show a passport and have everyone immediately assume that they have the right to work, to rent, to access healthcare and to simply live their lives here.
Over a period of years, several Governments have introduced a compliant or a hostile environment where immigration checks are part of day-to-day life and where private individuals have to carry them out, which we know causes discrimination for non-EU citizens. For example in the right to rent, we know that landlords are less likely to rent to people without British passports. We know that in some situations that can cause ethnicity discrimination. We are now proposing that the status of another 3 million to 4 million people should be potentially uncertain because their passport does not mean what it once did.
As an organisation, we do not have a formal position on the continuation of free movement or on exactly what the best political solution is to these problems. We are concerned with the human rights, the procedural rights and the legal rights of all people in this country, particularly migrants. The situation we are in and the way in which the Government have approached the settlement scheme and resolving some of these issues increases those risks.
Afzal Khan
Q
Chai Patel: Absolutely. I think you have already heard evidence that, at the end of the period allowed for people to make their settlement applications, potentially hundreds of thousands of people will not have been successful in doing so. Those people will be undocumented. They will be in exactly the situation that Windrush people found themselves in. If there is no deal, that could happen much earlier because it becomes very unclear what the difference is between the rights of EU nationals who arrived during the transition period and those of EU nationals who were already here. You might start to see some of those problems occurring much more immediately.
Afzal Khan
Q
Chai Patel: At the moment, non-EU immigration law is extraordinarily complex. Supreme Court judges, Court of Appeal judges, immigration experts and immigration lawyers have all said in public that it is almost impossible for anyone to navigate, let alone for people who are expected to do so without necessarily having perfect English or legal aid. To a great extent, the reason why it is so complex is that immigration rules have been made over many years and over many Governments, and they are frequently made in response to political pressures, without very much consideration of the consequences or of the underlying evidence for making them. They just pile on top of each other and you end up with a system that does not work for anyone.
You have that in the context of a Home Office that has been underfunded for some time and which has seen real-terms cuts to its funding over the past few years. It is now about to be asked to move from a system of free movement, which was, as the Minister said, a light-touch and simple system, to one that is potentially very complex. You, as parliamentarians, are being asked not just to approve that move but to approve the Home Office taking complete control over how the new system is going to work at a time when successive Home Secretaries and Prime Ministers have failed to construct a system that works when they have had the power to do so. At this time, Parliament should not be abdicating its responsibility to scrutinise and to decide what the immigration system should look like. At the moment, from everything that we have seen, the Home Office is not capable of administering the existing system.
Afzal Khan
Q
Chai Patel: One of our recommendations is certainly that the Law Commission’s exercise of simplification should be carried out before any substantial changes are made to the position of EU nationals.
Eleanor Smith
Q
Chai Patel: We have a number of recommendations that we would make if the settlement scheme remained an application process, but we think that, by far the simplest, most cost-effective and safest thing to do is to make it a declaratory scheme immediately and for all EU nationals and all relevant individuals who are currently in the UK under the EU treaties to be granted a legal right, as of law, permanently to remain in the UK. They should then be given the opportunity, over a number of years and with no strict cut-off, to register for documents as they need them.
I understand that concern has been expressed about how to encourage people to apply if there is no cut-off. I think that people will need those documents as part of their day-to-day lives and will apply for them when they need to. It is really important that they are not at risk of becoming undocumented because they have not done so. I hesitate to suggest this because we do not agree with it, but at the moment, the penalty for failing to apply is to lose your status. I understand that there are potentially exceptional circumstances or even some good reasons that might mean that you do not lose it, but the default is that you will lose your status. It is not beyond the wit of Government, if they want to, to devise some other incentive scheme that does not involve losing immigration status.
Maria Caulfield
Q
Chai Patel: It might if there were any proposal on the table for such a system, but we have not seen one. We have seen a White Paper that would increase the complexity of the system. There is the simplicity of system but also the simplicity of the ways in which people use the system.
At the moment, roughly half of all immigration to the UK occurs under a very simple system. We are now talking about moving all of it into a very complex system. A proposal to simplify the entire system and, importantly, to do so in a way that does not put EU nationals into the current system for non-EU nationals, which is frankly completely unfit for purpose, brutal in many ways and does not work, is something that might be welcomed, but we have not seen such a proposal.
Maria Caulfield
Q
Chai Patel: In an ideal world, people from all countries would be treated equally under the immigration system. What I would be careful about is the fact that we have heard a lot from people who have suggested that Brexit provides an opportunity for us to move to that, but the Government’s plans in the White Paper certainly do not provide that because it specifically states that, of course, preferential treatment will continue to be given to people where trade deals require that to be the case. So, yes, in theory, but at the same time I would be reluctant to suggest that I think that is going to happen.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Chai Patel: I think that in effect it is the same thing. I might be wrong if there is no cut-off date. What is someone’s legal status at the end of the transition period or the grace period until they apply? If they are in legal limbo at that stage it seems simpler to grant them the legal right as of law, rather than saying they can apply later and be reinstated, because there might then be a question of what their status was in the intervening period.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Chai Patel: I think that will inevitably lead to exploitation. It contradicts the reasons that the Government have given for wanting to reduce immigration in the first place. Of course, we do not accept all of these, but in theory there is an idea—not borne out by evidence—that immigration reduces people’s rights in the workplace, because immigrants can be treated less well. That only happens when immigrants are given fewer rights. If they are put on short-term visas, that increases the potential for exploitation.
We do understand that there is concern about integration and people wanting more integrated and cohesive communities. We do not think there is any contradiction between immigration and cohesive communities. What we do think is that, if people are required to come here for a year and then to leave, they will not be able to make those community links.
It may well be that people are rightly resentful of people who come in for a year and then leave, having left no long-standing mark. I think people welcome immigration whereby people are able to come to this country to live as people who belong to this country and, if they choose, to stay as long as they want to put down roots and build families here.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Chai Patel: I am surprised. The withdrawal agreement clearly sets out that appeal rights will exist. The Government have said that legislation is required to make those appeal rights a reality, which is why we have not got them in the pilot scheme. Therefore, it seems very strange to us that the Bill does not contain that legislation.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Chai Patel: That is certainly a concern. All the rights that have been set out for EU nationals under the withdrawal agreement must be available to them in the event of no deal, if it is accepted that those rights are required. Certainly it must be right that people who are denied settled status have the right to appeal to an independent tribunal, rather than having to seek a Home Office administrative review or a judicial review, which is not sufficient to deal with the merits of their case and is very costly both for the Government and for the person pursuing it. There needs to be a simple and fair appeal system in which an independent tribunal can look at the merits of someone’s case when they are denied the right to stay in this country.
Tracey Crouch
Q
Chai Patel: First of all, our view is that it would be open to the Government to put forward an immigration Bill that did that very simply, but they would need a plan for the new system. No such plan exists; until it does, ending free movement simply cannot be tenable, for the reasons that we have given. We are not saying that it is invalid for the Government to choose to end free movement. We may disagree about precisely what system will replace it or about whether free movement was the best system in the first place, but that is fine. What you cannot do, however, is end free movement overnight, because that will lead to a situation in which between 3 million and 4 million EU citizens were here with no documentation beyond their EU passport, while new EU migrants were coming in with their EU passport plus some other document. We have in-country immigration checks, and people may want to leave and come back, but they will not be able to until they have been registered and a clear new system has been set out. The Government should have put that forward in the Bill.
Tracey Crouch
Q
Chai Patel: I do not see how that is the case. This Bill is premature. If the Government want to deliver that result, they must put forward a system for immigration control that will apply afterwards. They have not done so.
Paul Blomfield
Q
Chai Patel: Unfortunately not. It is important that we also say that appeal rights should be reinstated across all immigration matters. The removal of appeal rights has caused significant problems, which we are seeing in our work—particularly because at the moment, unfortunately, the Home Office is not capable of making decisions correctly. Where people are allowed appeal rights, the success rates on appeal are remarkable: around 50%, or even higher in some categories of case. That should be fixed, and one of the ways to fix it is to have oversight. If caseworkers know that people will be given a right to appeal and legal aid to pursue that right, they will be incentivised to make good decisions in the first place.
Paul Blomfield
Q
Chai Patel: The chief inspector’s reports on administrative review have raised some concerns. Simply as a matter of practical reality, administrative review is the
Home Office marking its own work. If it is not getting decisions right the first time, it is not getting decisions right the second time. The point is that people are trying to get through decisions. The Home Office is understaffed. The people making the decisions are undertrained and struggling to get through huge backlogs and delays.
I am not an expert on the internal workings of the Home Office, but in the decisions that it makes you see that frequently people have not read the papers, or have copied and pasted reasons across decisions. Very minor inconsistencies are picked up in order to make rejections. Those things cannot always be corrected by judicial review, because judicial review is a very restrictive form of court oversight. The court cannot remake the decision that the caseworkers made; it can look only at whether it was egregiously irrational or unlawful.
An appeal to the tribunal allows an independent person to look at the case as a whole and to decide what is fair. That corrective mechanism is a key part of ensuring that the Home Office improves its own systems, because there is an external oversight mechanism.
Jack Brereton
Q
Chai Patel: I do not have any opinion on that, I am afraid. That is beyond our remit as a charity concerned with the human rights of immigrants going through the system.
Afzal Khan
Q
Chai Patel: The Bill is premature because there is no plan for what follows. Our primary concern is the Henry VIII powers given to the Home Secretary to remove people’s rights, without the new system having been clearly set out. I know that there is the White Paper, but I also know that it is contested in Cabinet, and is still subject to intense debate.
The White Paper itself raises concerns about, for example, the one-year visas, which would cause exploitation and problems with integration. It also misses the opportunity to fix many of the problems that we saw with Windrush. There is nothing to address Home Office capacity, with so many new people coming through the system, or the problems with the hostile environment, which remain. We know that it causes discrimination, and we have not seen anything from the Government to roll back those provisions, or to thoroughly review them.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Chai Patel: I think so, yes. Any kind of scheme relating to someone’s rights in respect of continuing work, changing employment or changing the sector in which they are employed will result in exploitation, because they have fewer rights to move between employers than British nationals.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Chai Patel: I would have to think about that. Perhaps we can respond in written evidence later. I am afraid I have not thought that through.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Chai Patel: Yes. The key reason why discrimination happens under, for example, right to rent is not that landlords, or whoever needs to do the check, are prejudiced; it is the administrative hassle of having to deal with it. It is simple just to check a British passport. By not giving people a physical document, you are creating a massive problem for them in terms of having equal access to work, housing or other things that they might need.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the session. Thank you very much, Mr Patel, for the time that you have spent with the Committee.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 12th February 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19 View all Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 February 2019 - (12 Feb 2019)
The Chair
Colleagues, before we continue to take oral evidence, could we turn our mobiles phones off? I think only one went off this morning. I have checked mine. Representations have been made to me about tea and coffee. Unfortunately, until the Panel of Chairs, under the excellent chairmanship of Sir Lindsay Hoyle, changes its view, I am afraid only water is allowed—and we are not even in lent.
We will now hear oral evidence from Universities UK, the Trades Union Congress and the Royal College of Nursing. We have until 3 o’clock to take evidence from these good people. Would the witnesses kindly introduce themselves?
Professor Dame Donna Kinnair: I am Dame Donna Kinnair, acting chief executive of the Royal College of Nursing.
Rosa Crawford: I am Rosa Crawford. I cover migration policy at the Trades Union Congress.
Vivienne Stern: I am Vivienne Stern, director of Universities UK International.
The Chair
Thank you very much. Professor, you may have to project your voice.
Professor Dame Donna Kinnair: I will try.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Q
Rosa Crawford: The TUC is very concerned that the Bill opens up a wide scope for increased exploitation and insecurity among not only European Union citizens in this country, but UK citizens abroad. To focus on the first part of your question, we are worried that the legislation, by removing EU rules on social security co-ordination, paves the way for the Government to bring in plans to restrict EU social security entitlements for EU citizens, such as jobseeker’s allowance.
We have also seen in the White Paper plans to bring in an immigration health surcharge on EU citizens. From a welfare point of view, we are very concerned that that will mean 3.8 million citizens facing increased poverty and having to pay health charges. The TUC absolutely opposes the immigration health surcharge both for EU citizens and for all migrant workers.
Also, in the context of the Brexit negotiations, it seems reckless to suggest that we will introduce restrictions on EU citizens claiming social security entitlements here in the future when we know that more than 1 million British people live in the EU, many of whom now claim pensions, or will do soon. It is expected that EU countries may well reciprocate, with restrictions on British citizens abroad claiming sickness insurance and unemployment insurance and on claiming their pensions abroad, which is obviously a huge injustice. People have paid all their lives in one country and expect to be able to claim in another. We are very worried about the increasing social insecurity and the welfare repercussions for British people abroad.
On the second half of your question, on exploitation, we have said that the Bill will not only make life harder for EU citizens and workers in this country, but have the effect of making conditions worse for all workers. We say that because, by ending EU rules on free movement, and the right to change employers freely that comes with that, the Bill also paves the way for a more restrictive work visa regime, as the Government outlined in the immigration White Paper. What we have seen of those proposals is a recipe for increasing worker vulnerability.
We know that time-limited visas of the kind the Government have said they want to introduce—specifically the 12-month time-limited visa for low-skilled workers—would increase worker vulnerability exponentially by limiting people’s legal status in a country to their employment. If workers have a limited time to move from one employer to another, we know that will be an incentive for them to stay in abusive forms of employment, because of the difficulty of getting another legal form of employment.
If workers leave an abusive employer and cannot find another, legal form of employment, they become undocumented workers and, under the terms of the Immigration Act 2016, they are committing a criminal offence by working. That means that if they are then abused in an undocumented form of employment and go to the authorities, they could face a jail term and deportation as a result of reporting abuse.
We at the TUC are absolutely opposed to those measures, because they just encourage exploitation. As I said, they make it easier for bad employers to use irregular migrants or those with question marks about their immigration status, who accept lower conditions and undercut UK workers on terms and conditions and on pay. We already see that happening in agriculture, distribution and some sections of cleaning and care. The Bill will make it easier for that exploitation to happen, which is why we are calling on MPs to oppose it.
Afzal Khan
Q
Rosa Crawford: The TUC has said that the Government should scrap all the proposals in the Bill and that we should instead continue to have the current system in place for EU workers to come here, work freely and have all the legal protections in place. For any temporary visa migration system, as I said, time-limited visas bring the inherent risks that workers will face further exploitation because their condition of employment is linked to their legal status in the country.
An important change that would mean that all workers were less at risk of exploitation would be to make sure that workers, regardless of immigration status, could enforce their employment rights. That is in line with the International Labour Organisation’s recommendations. Employment rights are human rights—it is not a crime to work and it should not be a crime to try to claim your right at work. An important step would be to roll back the provisions in the Immigration Act 2016 that criminalise undocumented working. As I said, we have grave concerns about the introduction of any temporary visa scheme for EU citizens, because it would just increase exploitation and make it easier for bad employers to commit undercutting.
Afzal Khan
Q
Vivienne Stern: Perhaps I could start with a comment on the tier 2 route? For a long period, we have had some concerns about the way that the visa regime is working for universities for non-EU nationals, particularly the compliance system, the burdens of the compliance system and the overall effect on the attractiveness of the UK as a place to come and work. The extension of that regime to European economic area nationals raises some significant challenges because of the dependence of universities on EEA workers in some areas; because of the really rather significant increase in the compliance burden that could result—although I understand that there may be opportunities to think about how that can be reduced—and because of the impact of the proposed salary threshold on universities’ ability to recruit in some occupations where it has historically been quite difficult to fill roles with UK-domiciled workers.
Professor Dame Donna Kinnair: We would add to that. We think that we, as a country, are dependent on nurses coming from overseas, so we are absolutely dependent on overseas workers. We know that the impact of the threshold would damage our profession if it were applied to it, because its emphasis is on “Agenda for Change”. The £30,000 is an arbitrary figure and we do not understand where it has come from. Most skilled nurses that come into the country from overseas are not getting that.
We know that there have been some exemptions, but the whole process is arbitrary and we think that it would impact negatively on the workforce on which we are highly reliant. The nursing workforce are one of the major planks that this Government are using to fill shortages in the nursing profession, particularly in social care. It is highly important that the unintended consequences do not apply to the profession, because otherwise we will not have the people to care for our patients.
Afzal Khan
Q
Rosa Crawford: The TUC is very concerned about the impact of the £30,000 threshold. We are concerned about it now—it applies to non-EU workers—and applying it to EU workers would have a devastating impact on many sectors. The Government estimate that 80% of EU workers would fall below the threshold. It is not only nursing and other parts of the health service, but distribution, hospitality and many parts of industry, that are heavily dependent on EU workers. There would be a really negative impact on those workers if that threshold was introduced.
The TUC is saying that, in the long term, there needs to be action on pay so that more workers receive a better settlement. The Migration Advisory Committee has suggested that this threshold would be an incentive to improve pay, but unfortunately that is not what we have seen. The pay cap has been in place for seven years, and we are only just moving out of that. The TUC is still calling for a fully funded settlement to ensure that workers are decently paid and that their wages keep up where they have fallen behind for the last seven years. We have not yet seen that.
Unfortunately, there are not enough employers in the private sector paying workers decently, so many million workers are still in insecure contracts and are not being paid a living wage. We want action on pay alongside action to ensure that the workers we need now to fill the critical shortages that Donna has talked about can come in. We need not to have the £30,000 threshold, and we need serious action on pay in the public sector and key parts of the private sector to ensure that everybody is treated decently and that migrant workers and UK workers receive decent pay for their work.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
Q
Professor Dame Donna Kinnair: You will have seen that the RCN has been lobbying for an increase—we lobbied long and hard on “Scrap the Cap” for nurses—but we are where we are. We have a shortage of 42,000 nurses at the moment, and it is predicted that it will rise to about 100,000 in the next 10 years. Those are people who look after our patients. We are where we are.
Of course we need to increase the domestic supply of nurses, and that includes paying them appropriately. We fully support that, and we have been lobbying on that basis. However, the people who gave evidence to the Select Committee about the Government’s plans talked about three areas: international recruitment, return to practice and retention. We know that you cannot have a nursing workforce fit for the needs of the population of this country unless you increase the domestic supply. As you will have heard, we have been lobbying up and down the country. Unless we get the right staff in the right organisations, we will also seek legislation on staffing. We know that if we do not have the right number of people, care falls, and that is damaging to our patients.
In summary, we are lobbying. We do not understand the proposal about low-skilled workers, because who in nursing is a low-skilled worker? What does that mean? The 12-month visa does not allow continuity of care, because by the time someone has got to grips with the culture of this country, they are ready to go. It is also contrary to people being able to bring their dependants into the country. Many nurses have families. Are we going to split up families? Are we asking them to leave their children while they come and provide care for the UK population?
Maria Caulfield
Q
Professor Dame Donna Kinnair: We welcome the fact that there is one system. The less complex a system is, the better it is, because people can navigate it. It has been a particular Government intention to turn to non-EU nurses, and once we knew that we were coming out of Europe, they sought to draw in nurses from outside the EU. We have concerns because we believe in ethical recruitment. We do not believe that we should be raiding countries that require their nurses, despite the risk of not increasing our domestic supply.
Afzal Khan
Q
Vivienne Stern: For the university sector this is primarily a question of access to specific sorts of skills, and competitiveness. Overall, almost a quarter of academic staff in the university sector come from outside the UK, and in some disciplines and roles the reliance is much greater. EEA nationals make up 11% of all staff in universities, and they comprise 17% of academic staff. For staff on research-only contracts, that figure is 27%. In particular subject areas the concentration of EEA nationals can be even higher, particularly in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, as well as areas such as economics, where more than 30% of academic staff come from outside the UK.
Universities require specific skills, sometimes at relatively short notice, and the pool of talent is geographically distributed in some funny way. For example, the University of Cambridge has a world-leading strength in Arctic and Antarctic research, and it requires a pool of technicians who are able to analyse certain sorts of geological data. Quite often, those teams of individuals are deployed at relatively short notice when the climate conditions are right and boats are available, and it all comes together at the last minute. A group of individuals in Italy possess those skills, and historically Cambridge has called on them, and recruited from Italy to staff up those teams when they need those skills. That does not mean that over time we could not generate our own labour force with those specific skills, but in the short term if we moved from one regime to another, would institutions simply be unable to access the specific skillsets they need for one reason or another? Would they be less able to compete effectively and perform their research because they are constrained in that regard?
Overall, our particular concern relates to staff in technician roles, 63% of whom earn below the £30,000 threshold. That is why we propose that the Government should consider a lower threshold. We would like to suggest £21,000 as the level at which the majority of staff—particularly in those technician roles—will be able to continue to come to the UK. That would be a compromise. We also suggest that for staff whose jobs fall under the shortage occupation list there should be no salary threshold. As others have argued, a salary threshold is not a good proxy for skill level.
Afzal Khan
Q
Vivienne Stern: My concern right now is the low level of take-up of that scheme. I think the last I heard was that the Department for Education estimated that something like 20% of the staff who should have gone through that process had done that, so for us right now, there is a communication effort to make sure that staff are aware of the scheme and how to apply. There were some early glitches. There was a bit of frustration about the app in the very early days, but I think those problems were pretty swiftly resolved, and I am not aware of any significant concerns about the operation of the scheme.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Q
Rosa Crawford: I think you can take many things from the referendum result in 2016. What is clear is that we need working people to not suffer as a result of that referendum result. As I have outlined, the provisions of the Bill make it easier for bad employers to use one group of workers to undercut other groups of workers, at the cost of everybody’s rights. We want a Brexit deal that ultimately delivers ongoing protections for UK workers at EU levels of rights, as well as tariff-free, barrier-free trade, and that ensures that there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. For us, probably the best way to achieve that at this stage would be ongoing membership of the single market and a customs union.
Jack Brereton
Q
Rosa Crawford: We want the provisions in place to make sure that we get that kind of Brexit deal. To have the deal that we think would be the best for working people, we would need to follow the rules of the single market, which needs rules that are very close to, if not approximating to, free movement.
Jack Brereton
Q
Professor Dame Donna Kinnair: We have a large proportion of EU workers; 10% to 11% of nursing workers are from the EU currently, and with a backdrop of 42,000 vacancies in nursing, losing any nurse is a problem, so this does have unintended consequences, but what is more, we would be quite concerned about some of the powers that the Bill gives to Ministers. What we want is somebody scrutinising the unintended consequences of the Bill.
Jack Brereton
Q
Professor Dame Donna Kinnair: It has an impact, because actually that has been one of our policy planks, hasn’t it? Instead of growing our own domestic supply, we have relied on international recruitment, so whether we are talking about people from the EU or outside the EU, anything that inhibits that will impact on our ability to deliver care to the people of this country. It has been a major plank of policy that instead of growing our domestic supply, there has been reliance on that by successive Governments, so of course there will be unintended consequences for the care we are able to deliver to meet the needs of our population.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Q
Rosa Crawford: It is important to highlight the vulnerable groups that would be particularly negatively affected by the £30,000 threshold. Of course, women and other groups that are already marginalised are likely to become more marginalised by that threshold, and caught in it.
Regarding your question about the specific thresholds that we would want to set, as I hope my earlier question suggested, the TUC is calling for a future immigration policy that sits with an overall Brexit deal that delivers for working people. For us, that would mean a policy that does not introduce additional restrictions, but rather promotes the rights of all workers. It would have stronger domestic enforcement and stronger regulation of the labour market, which is an important point to highlight, because undercutting is taking place right now. We are well aware of that, and we feel it fuelled some of the insecurities that were taken advantage of during the Brexit referendum. However, it is about domestic labour market reforms and enforcing additional rights, rather than a differentiated migration regime.
We want to address the problems with the current regime, such as the thresholds that are limiting recruitment from outside the EU, and where there are insecurities or certain visas for non-EU workers, such as overseas domestic workers. We would not want anything that narrows down EU citizens’ ability to come into the country, because of what that would mean for overall rights and our overall prospects for a Brexit deal.
Vivienne Stern: There is an argument for differentiating by occupation and by geography, but the problem is that if we introduce a system that is so nuanced, it becomes difficult to explain to people and operationalise. We are really quite concerned about the bureaucracy that will be associated with moving from a system in which, frankly, we do not have to worry about these individuals from a compliance point of view, and they do not have to worry too much about the requirements of applying for a visa, to one in which we have to explain to EU nationals what this all means and help them through the process, just as we do for non-EU nationals.
There is an argument for simplicity, which is why we decided that our position would be to suggest a lower threshold overall. However, the point you make about the potential for this system to be unintentionally discriminatory by gender is an important one. I imagine that we will come on to talk about the impact that this will have on students. One of the arguments we have made in relation to those students who want to stay and work in the UK on the tier 2 regime is that if you are in the north of England and you happen to be a woman, you quite often do not meet the minimum required salary threshold. It is not a policy that is intended to be discriminatory by gender, and you can say that it is not the Government’s fault that there continues to be a gender pay gap—it is a wider issue—but none the less, if this policy does not address that issue, that is its effect.
Kate Green
Q
Vivienne Stern: Overall, yes.
Professor Dame Donna Kinnair: We would argue that it is probably not essential to use salary as a level of determining skill. It does not really work, because nurses will be highly skilled, but £30,000 is neither here nor there. The £30,000 level features too heavily in the debate, and there are better mechanisms for determining skill.
Kate Green
Q
Professor Dame Donna Kinnair: I think that we know what we need in this country. We know that we need nurses, so it might be that we are looking for that skill, as opposed to an arbitrary salary figure.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
Q
Professor Dame Donna Kinnair: My understanding is that roughly 10% come from the EU.
Tracey Crouch
Q
Professor Dame Donna Kinnair: It is 10% of the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s register. We would be using the NMC register. I think that is right.
Tracey Crouch
It would be helpful if we could have some clarification.
Professor Dame Donna Kinnair: We can write to you with that clarification, but my understanding is that 10% of people on the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s register are from the EU.
Tracey Crouch
Q
Professor Dame Donna Kinnair: I thought it was 17%, but I can write to you to clarify that.
Tracey Crouch
Q
Vivienne Stern: Up to a point. Ministers have been saying for many years that there is no cap on the number of students who can come to the UK under a tier 4 visa. That is not actually the problem. The things that have been standing in our way are features of the visa system that, frankly, make us uncompetitive compared with some of the other major destinations that international students choose to study in. A visa system that, for example, restricts the opportunity for international graduates to stay and work in the UK for a little bit post-graduation is, frankly, not that appealing when you compare it with the opportunities offered by Australia, Canada and the US.
There are other things the Government could do to make the system more welcoming. There have been some really quite positive signals in what Ministers have said recently about a willingness to look at the compliance system. We hear from prospective international students that they are put off by a feeling that the immigration system treats them with suspicion from the start, so we should look at things like credibility interviews and how they operate, decision making by entry clearance officers, and some of the compliance requirements on institutions, which require them to interact with international students in a way that can be rather off-putting.
All those things should be looked at, if for no other reason than that there are huge opportunities for the UK as one of the most popular destinations for international students. We are in a hugely privileged position, and at this particular moment in our national history we have the opportunity to open our doors to people at a very early stage in the development of their professional lives, to establish strong bonds and, in many cases, to leave a lasting legacy of affection for the UK. We could do with more of that, not less.
Education is also a hugely important source of export earnings for the UK. Although international students have value far beyond their financial or economic value to the UK, it is not trivial that this is an increasingly important export sector. The Government’s figures point to quite significant growth in our export earnings from education, which are now around £19 billion a year. We should be pursuing that opportunity, rather than tripping over our own feet. The new international education strategy announced in January is a great opportunity for the Government to get their policy aligned with their international ambitions. The visa system has to be part of that. There are some modest steps in the right direction, including in the White Paper, but we really think the Government should go a bit further than that.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Q
Vivienne Stern: There are 442,000 students from all around the world, and just less than a third of those are from the EU. As a proportion of our total student population, that is around 6%. It is a source of significant concern that that enormous pool of talent will find it a bit more difficult to come to the UK after our departure from the European Union.
Paul Blomfield
Q
Vivienne Stern: It is hard to predict. We can see a certain pattern in the response by EU students to previous changes in the UK. For example, with the increase in the fee from £3,000 to just over £9,000, you saw the numbers of EU students decline, and they took quite a while to bounce back. That indicates that there is a certain price sensitivity among EU students. They also have a huge amount of choice in relatively close geographic terms in Europe—other high-quality destinations that they could choose over the UK if we seem to make it difficult for them to come.
My long-term prediction, which is not shared by all our university vice-chancellor members, is that because the UK remains a first or second-choice destination for students who are globally mobile in many countries around the world, over time, we will work back to a position where we are still a very attractive destination for EU students. My real concern is what happens in the short to medium term, where we go from being very attractive, and it is very easy to come to the UK, to putting in place higher barriers in the form of a new visa regime. We could see a significant decrease as a result of that, at least in the short to medium term.
The fundamentals are strong, however. We have a high-quality system, and we offer something that is valuable in the long term. That is what we have to work to communicate to international audiences.
Paul Blomfield
Q
Vivienne Stern: To take one group as an example, if you look at staff who are on research-only contracts, 27% are from the European Union. About 8% of them earn less than £30,000. It is not a huge proportion—those are probably people who are very early in their research careers—but it would none the less be a loss to the UK, if you imagine that those people might otherwise have stayed and made their careers with us. Although numerically it may not seem a significant proportion compared with technicians where the proportion is 63%, it should still be a matter of concern.
The other thing, which is perhaps not a matter for this Committee, is that we do well in competitive grant competitions—for example, in competitions for European Research Council funds. I think more than half those awardees are not actually from the UK, but are European nationals who have decided either to bring their grant to the UK or apply from the UK for that grant. If we lost those individuals—if they decided to apply for those same grants from a German or French institution—it would diminish our research base. So it is not necessarily just a matter of the numbers of individuals who might not be able to get visas. There is a knock-on effect that is quite difficult to predict.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Q
Vivienne Stern: We have done a bit of analysis as Universities UK on the economic impact of international students. The headline figure is that those students contribute about £29 billion to the UK economy through various mechanisms and create 200,000 jobs—I will write to the Committee with the figures, because I am concerned that I will misquote them.
They have a significant effect not only directly on institutions but on the many parts of the UK economy that they touch, such as taxi drivers, corner shops, bars and restaurants. The university sector is distributed right across the UK. There is almost no part of the UK that does not have a university in some geographical proximity. If you think of it as an industry, it is not one that is concentrated in London and the south-east.
I was in Paisley recently and I went to visit the University of the West of Scotland. I got off the train and the thing that pottered through my mind was, “Why on earth would you not want international students coming to Paisley, spending money in the local economy, enjoying Scotland, going and spending money on the west coast—all the things that those individuals can do in terms of attracting their friends and family to come and spend some time with them?” I think there is really good reason to think that this is not just special pleading for universities; these are attractive individuals for a much broader range of reasons.
David Duguid
I thank you for your response; I am only sorry that Mr Newlands was not here to hear you refer to his hometown.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Q
Professor Kinnair, could you just give us what you think the view would be from the nursing profession if the Government, in response to the policy choices we are making now, were required to raise the retirement age to, say, 70?
Professor Dame Donna Kinnair: I will just put in that 11% of our registered nurse workforce in the UK are non-EEA nationals and 5% are EEA nationals. So that is a combination of about 90,000 to 120,000 nurses.
On the impact of raising the retirement age for nurses, nursing is a very physically demanding job. There is an anticipation—people are already talking about this, but I suspect we will have nurses on zimmer frames pushing patients on zimmer frames if we continue to carry on in this manner. Nursing is a very physically demanding job and you also have to be mentally on the ball to give the drugs and the care; it is quite a high-pressured environment. So it sounds very easy—“Let’s just raise the retirement age”—but people physically need to have the stamina to be able to deliver the care to patients, whether it is in their homes or in hospitals.
My view, and I have written about this, is that raising the retirement age is something we do with great caution for the nursing community. One plank is bringing back people who are retired to fill the gaps we currently have, but that can only suffice for a small percentage, because nurses, too, are subject to the long-term conditions and all the other things that the general population is prone to.
Alison McGovern
Probably more so, because they do a physical job.
Professor Dame Donna Kinnair: Yes.
Alison McGovern
Q
Rosa Crawford: I think this just underlines the lunacy of a policy that is about making life harder for the people living here—the workers living here—by suggesting there are additional burdens that they will have to bear, such as working longer hours, or there is the suggestion that we are always presented with, “Oh, why don’t local people want to be the ones living in caravans, five of them living in a caravan, going to pick strawberries from 5 am?” I wonder why people are not attracted to that.
As for the suggestion that there should be more burden on UK workers to do more undesirable work, working in worse conditions, rather than having an immigration policy that supports a joined-up economic and industrial strategy—that strategy is really, to us, what we need and the approach that we need to take. Anything else is essentially pitting worker against worker, saying, “UK workers should pick up the slack and we don’t want the non-EU workers”—or the EU workers now—“to come here.” To us, that is continuing the hostile environment.
What we actually need is a policy that promotes good jobs and good conditions for all workers, and a route to get the workers that we need from outside the country, when there are shortages. However, to build on the discussion earlier, the TUC is calling loudly for there to be an increase in training and in funding for that training. The cutting of the nursing bursaries and also bursaries to other allied health professions has had a really serious cost on the number of workers being trained for those professions. There is a shortfall of about 5,000 people taking up training places for nursing, and in education it has also had a big impact. In sectors such as agriculture, where employers say they face shortages, we are having no increase in funding for skills and apprenticeship training. The onus is also on employers to increase the amount of training.
This all suggests that immigration policy cannot be considered in a vacuum. It needs to be connected with a skills policy, which unions are very keen to be involved in. You are probably aware of Unionlearn. Trade unions are involved with a number of employers across the country delivering courses for thousands of people and developing those skills, but it is not happening enough. Further restrictions on migration are just a form of economic self-harm and will impact on UK workers worse and increase the anxieties that they already have.
The Chair
Colleagues, we have under 15 minutes left and at least four more people wanting to ask questions and I want to allow time for the Minister.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)
Q
Rosa Crawford: We have always said as a union movement that we stand for workers from all countries. We do not believe any workers should be working in degrading or exploitative conditions. That is why I say it is very important that the law allows workers from all countries, regardless of immigration status, to claim those employment rights.
Unfortunately, we have seen the deregulation of the labour market. In agriculture, the example we have been talking about, there used to be an Agricultural Wages Board that provided a floor level of conditions and pay in that sector. That was abolished under the coalition Government and Unite, the union that represents workers in the agricultural sector, has said since that has been abolished, there has been a proliferation of precarious contracts, illegal forms of contract, people in very exploitative conditions, people not receiving the pay they should, and people often not being paid the minimum wage in certain cases.
That form of labour market regulation, the Agricultural Wages Board, is just one example of how the removal of domestic employment protection results in more exploitation and an increase in the number of migrant workers employed in that sector. We know migrant workers are particularly vulnerable to taking up those forms of employment, or ending up in them, often because they need to secure an income quickly, because they have paid money to come to this country. Unfortunately, precarious jobs are the most likely type of job they are going to get, because those are the sectors of the economy that are expanding.
On average, if you arrive in this country needing a job quickly, you are probably going to end up on a zero hours or temporary contract or in a job with an illegal contract. Unfortunately, migrant workers are particularly likely to work in that sector. We have said that is absolutely unacceptable. We want good conditions in those sectors, for the migrant workers who come and the UK workers who are here already. If you improve conditions and pay, restore things such as wages councils, not just in the agriculture sector, but across the private sector, in hotels where—
Mrs Badenoch
Q
Rosa Crawford: I absolutely want to correct that if it was ever the perception. We would say undesirable jobs are undesirable for all workers. No worker should suffer them. All workers deserve to work in dignity.
Eleanor Smith (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
Q
Vivienne Stern: Perhaps I can start. The cost of managing the compliance requirements for non-EEA students and staff for universities is about £66 million a year—a huge cost. I want to make it clear that universities are one of the biggest users of the immigration system and there has never been any suggestion from us that they should not be responsible for working to make sure that the visa system is not abused, but the cost is huge.
If we increase the number of individuals coming through that sort of system by adding EEA workers to the group of people that universities have to manage through the compliance system, the cost will increase, at least in proportion, unless something has changed. We have got a piece of work going on at the moment about estimating the cost of compliance to improve on that £66 million figure. When we have got the results of that, I am quite happy to write to the Committee with a sense of what we think the cost might be.
As I understand it, there is an opportunity now to try and refine the compliance system to make it easier for those sponsors to discharge their responsibilities without it being a massively burdensome and costly exercise, but also make it more appealing for people who are coming into the UK and experiencing it from the other side. I would like to add that the Home Office has said repeatedly that universities are highly compliant. There is a genuine desire to make sure the system is not abused, so I hope we can get to a position where it is a little bit lighter touch.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Q
Vivienne Stern: This is about the criteria you have to meet to have access to the lower threshold. The individuals I mentioned—the population of technicians whose salaries generally fall below the £30,000—would not qualify for the lower threshold level, which would apply, for example, to international graduates who were staying on in the UK for some time post graduation. There is probably a group in the middle who would qualify under those criteria for the lower threshold, but it will not address the bulk of the problem, where we have a large population of workers who would not qualify and yet will not make the £30,000 threshold.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Vivienne Stern: We have not called for the deadline to be extended or scrapped. We feel that there is time for us to get the message out that these individuals need to apply for settled status and we are certainly working on that front.
Our bigger concern is about the possible difficulties created by the no-deal Brexit scenario and by the regime that the Government have set out for an interim arrangement, between the point of a no-deal Brexit and the implementation of the new immigration system, which is currently being consulted on. There is a very significant concern about the time limits that will apply to those individuals who, having arrived in the UK after 29 March or whatever the date of Brexit is, have to apply for the European temporary leave to remain. That will only be valid for three years. A student who is planning to arrive in the UK after 29 March can come for three months—they don’t need anything for that three-month period. After that, we need something that gives people certainty that, if they are embarking on a programme that lasts longer than three years, they will not find they get towards their final year and, somehow, are not able to switch into a category that would allow them to remain in the UK.
It is that inability to say with certainty “Don’t worry, you come, you’ve got a status that will see you through this programme, you can stay to the end” that is tripping people up. Also, we need to be able to say to people “This is a registration scheme. It is not something you apply for and maybe you get and maybe you don’t.” If you have arrived in the UK, and you have started a programme—maybe a Scottish programme that lasts four years—you need to know that you are not going to be kicked out halfway through. If the Government could give some attention to that, we would be grateful. It’s not that we don’t appreciate that three years is longer than the period that would be covered by the withdrawal agreement—we do—but it is a kink and it could be ironed out.
Rosa Crawford: May I add a concern that we have about the settled status programme from those who have already been through the process? Some people are finding that they do not have sufficient evidence from their national insurance records to prove that they have had five years’ continuous residence in the country. Rather than settled status, they are receiving pre-settled status. The Government said that the intention is for pre-settled status to lead to indefinite leave to remain, but it is not a legally watertight guarantee, and we know from the Windrush scandal that any time there is a question mark over immigration status, it can, in the hands of the wrong employer, be used as a means to threaten or dismiss workers.
That is already a problem in the university and health sectors, and now we know that the third phase of the pilot is being rolled out across the economy. As I said, in many parts of the private sector, in distribution and hospitality, people often do not receive any employment contracts at all, so they struggle to provide evidence that they have five years of continuous residence. We worry that they might fall into a legal limbo in which they are unable to demonstrate their legal status, and potentially cannot claim their employment rights and are subject to further exploitation. We want that entire scheme looked at, and for the burden of proof to be taken away from the worker having to prove their five years’ continuous residence, in a more all-encompassing process.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Q
Professor Dame Donna Kinnair: EU and EEA.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Yes, collectively. But if there was ever a measure that restricted the number of nurses coming from overseas, such as the £30,000 threshold, clearly that would have a detrimental effect on the NHS. It is as simple as that.
Professor Dame Donna Kinnair: It is as simple as that, given that one of our major policies is that we recruit from overseas rather than growing our own.
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
Q
Professor Dame Donna Kinnair: I think it possibly would be a solution to that; I think you are right. But we have “Agenda for Change” for a reason: so that we have a national approach to salaries. Why would we then treat people coming in from overseas differently? We know that our salaries are not high enough to live on in this country. Why would we be starting to think that it is okay to lower it to £20,000, £18,000 or some arbitrary sum that people cannot live on in this country?
Caroline Nokes
Q
Vivienne Stern: With free movement there is a distinction between EU nationals and non-EU nationals. The 9% increase is in visa applications.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Vivienne Stern: My comment about making it “difficult” relates to non-EU students. It refers to the visa system.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Vivienne Stern: What I am suggesting is that should EEA nationals find themselves in a system such as the one that currently applies to non-EU nationals, we would be making it less attractive compared with the many other high-quality destinations they could choose within Europe, where there would not be such a visa hurdle.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Vivienne Stern: The White Paper proposals are really welcome. It is great that the Government have acknowledged that we need to create more generous post-study work opportunities, and not only for Masters and PhD students—as recommended by the MAC—but for undergraduates. It does not quite achieve what we suggested needed to be achieved. I may betray my age by saying that this is a Cuprinol test question. When you are a student and thinking, “Do I go to the US, or maybe Australia or the UK”, we believe you ought to look at the visa regimes—
The Chair
Order. I really am sorry; we needed a lot more time. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our three witnesses. We are very grateful for the evidence you have presented to us today.
Examination of Witnesses
Gracie Bradley and Jodie Blackstock gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now take evidence from Liberty and Justice. I welcome our witnesses. We have until 4 o’clock for this session. Please both introduce yourselves.
Gracie Bradley: I am Gracie Bradley, the policy and campaigns manager at Liberty.
Jodie Blackstock: I am Jodie Blackstock, the legal director at Justice.
Afzal Khan
Q
Jodie Blackstock: At Justice we have deep concerns about the potential reach of clause 4, which provides extremely broad delegated powers to the Minister of State in connection with repeal of the current free movement provisions relating to EEA nationals. Of course the provisions have to enable the repeal of those measures after we leave the EU, but it is not at all clear from the Bill what is intended to replace them. We consider that a number of changes are necessary, and we will provide separate detail on those subsequently in our written evidence—I apologise for not having that before you now, but we will provide the detail this afternoon.
First, the primary policy aims ought to be stated on the face of the Bill in primary legislation, so that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise those principles and amend them as appropriate. Those provisions would be to enable the accrued rights of EEA nationals who currently have settled status in this country to remain and for the transitional provisions surrounding those rights to be introduced in a clear way. Currently, the Government have proposals on both issues, and we see no reason why they could not put them on the face of the Bill. I can come back to that in more detail.
Secondly, we consider that the delegated powers set out in clause 4 should be substantially limited. The memorandum on delegated powers that the Government have provided seeks to explain that the two key aims of that clause are to deal with technical amendments to remove references that are no longer appropriate to the EU from legislation and also to protect the accrued rights of EU and EEA nationals. If that is the intended aim, those can be the powers as set out in the Bill, and we would propose that it be constrained in that way, through a provision relating to technical amendments and a power to provide consequential amendments that will give effect to accrued rights.
In our view, there are additional consequences from that relating to section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971, which provides for the immigration rules. In these circumstances, which to a certain extent are unique and will create the biggest change to immigration policy since the Maastricht treaty in 1992, we suggest that the power to make those changes ought not to be left simply to immigration rules but should be set out in the Bill, or the use of section 3 of Immigration Act to do so should be specifically constrained as an alternative to the Bill. If you would like me to go into any of those points in a bit more detail, I can do so, but I wanted to set out our primary concerns about the way the delegated power operates.
Gracie Bradley: Liberty would echo those concerns. We are really quite concerned about clause 4, and particularly the fact that the purpose of regulations under the clause may be not just in consequence of the repeal of retained EU legislation relating to free movement, but in connection with that purpose. In our view, essentially any change to the immigration system for the foreseeable future will be in connection with the end of free movement, and therefore we are delegating a huge amount of power to the Secretary of State, effectively sidelining Parliament in a really significant policy change.
Afzal Khan
Q
Gracie Bradley: The impact of the hostile environment has really been laid bare by the Windrush scandal, and I would like to set Liberty’s comments in that context. We have seen people who had a right to be here made destitute, losing their livelihoods, and potentially being unable to come back into the country that they have called their home for decades. Some people have died as a result of the stress.
That is the impact of the Windrush scandal, but of course the effects of the hostile environment are not limited to Windrush citizens; it reverberates among undocumented people more generally. Those impacts are to do with children being afraid to go to school because of data sharing between the Home Office and the Department for Education, and people, some of whom are supposed to be receiving palliative care, being charged tens of thousands of pounds for medical treatment. We have seen victims and witnesses of serious crime deterred from reporting those crimes to the police. The impact is not just on the fundamental rights of undocumented people; the impact is to warp our public services and turn our teachers and doctors into border guards.
More generally, we see an environment of suspicion towards anybody who seems visibly foreign or who is black or minority ethnic. That discriminatory effect has been evidenced by the research of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants into landlord checks. We see that landlords are less likely to rent to BAME people without a passport as opposed to white people. We have seen incredibly broad and harmful effects of the hostile environment on the rights of undocumented people, people with a right to be here, British citizens and our public services.
Our concern is that the Bill essentially hands Ministers a blank cheque to bring millions more people into that system while doing nothing to remedy the injustices that have been exposed. We recommend that the hostile environment be repealed and that vital safeguards are restored to the immigration system, such as data protection rights and legal aid, and that there is also an end to indefinite immigration detention.
Afzal Khan
Q
Gracie Bradley: It is important to say first that the 28-day time limit on immigration detention is not Liberty’s proposal. The Joint Committee on Human Rights proposed that back in 2006 or 2007. A joint inquiry by the all-party parliamentary groups on migration and on refugees, which I know some of you were involved with, also recommended a 28-day time limit on detention. Why do we think the Bill is the place to implement that time limit? Put very simply, the Bill will most likely make tens of thousands more people liable to deportation, because EEA nationals will come under the automatic deportation provisions in the UK Borders Act 2007.
We know that the Ministry of Justice, in response to a freedom of information request, said that it expects that up to 26,000 people per year could be liable to detention as EU nationals come under domestic immigration law. At the same time, a parliamentary question revealed that there has been no assessment of the impact of the Bill on the detention estate. Of course, we know what the impact of indefinite detention is on people. They tell us that it is traumatic. They tell us that the lack of a time limit in itself is traumatic, because they do not know when their detention will end.
Liberty is not alone in advocating for a time limit. The lack of a time limit has been criticised by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Bar Council and the British Medical Association, and on Second Reading parliamentarians from across the House stood up in support of a 28-day time limit. Given that the Bill is very likely to make more people vulnerable to detention, now is absolutely the time to implement a time limit on detention for everybody and, indeed, to begin looking at taking deprivation of liberty out of the immigration system more broadly.
David Duguid
Q
Jodie Blackstock: It is not something that we at Justice specifically have an opinion on, other than to say that the arrangements that are created must ensure that the acquired rights that people currently exercise as a consequence of their movement between the UK and the EU are protected, and that the process that is decided for those individuals post exit needs to be subject to the scrutiny of Parliament and not decided simply through a delegated power without sufficient scrutiny. That is why we say the procedure ought to be encapsulated in the Bill through a requirement that such a policy must be subject to the scrutiny of Parliament.
There are two schemes that the Government have already implemented and will come to fruition once we leave: the EU settlement scheme for those who are already in this country and are requesting settlement, if they do not already have that status; and the proposal for temporary leave to remain for people coming into the country who wish to remain and work here. Given that one of those schemes is already in the immigration rules and the other is well advanced, so there must be policy for it, it seems to us entirely appropriate that the procedure should be laid before Parliament in the Bill and be subject to scrutiny, rather than simply left to a delegated power that does not provide you with the opportunity to debate the important issues concerning what preferential treatment EU nationals should be given.
David Duguid
Q
Jodie Blackstock: It is not a position that Justice specifically holds. Our concern is ensuring that the procedures are fair and appropriate, and, if it is the view of the country that EU nationals should have preferential treatment, that there is a procedure in place to enable them to obtain it. That should include a right of appeal—one that is clear and open and that they are able to use—which currently is not provided for in the EU settlement scheme.
David Duguid
Q
Gracie Bradley: Liberty would not really have a view, because we do not take a view on the immigration system in general. Our view would be that there should be minimum rights standards below which nobody should fall, related to convention rights, protection from indefinite detention, data protection, legal aid, etc., but on people coming in and out of the country, salary thresholds and things such as that, we do not take a view.
Jodie Blackstock: The frustration with this Bill is that the question you are asking is entirely the right one, but it does not give you the opportunity to debate it, because it leaves the power to the Government to decide.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Jodie Blackstock: I think so, but do elaborate a bit more to ensure that I am answering correctly.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Jodie Blackstock: It does. There is certainly some sense in that argument. What it demonstrates is the difficulty of the gap that will be created with the repeal of these measures. Having a scheme that someone has to apply for means that they have to make that effort, and while their application is being processed, their status is uncertain. Indeed, it may be processed in error, which requires an appeal right, during which their status is also uncertain. We suggest that the transitional arrangements for that group of people should also be in the Bill, with a policy requirement to extend those accrued rights for that group of people until such time as their settled status is determined by way of the scheme.
The reality is that this scheme is currently in a pilot state and only a certain group of people can apply for it until exit day, when it becomes live. At the moment, they have an entitlement to remain here anyway. Even if people were fully able to apply now, they might not realise that they have that right. We have to make provision for that group of people before their status is confirmed. That should be done by way of a transitional arrangement. It could be simply by declaration, but either way, that is a transitional provision that should be clear in the Bill.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Gracie Bradley: I cannot say that Liberty has briefed on this, but I would reiterate that there are basic safeguards that should be reinstated to the immigration system. We should ensure that people have access to legal aid, we should ensure that people have access to data protection rights so that they know on what basis the Home Office is granting or refusing them status, thinking about the automated checks, and we should protect them from a hostile environment. At the minute, the system is not geared towards helping people retain or access regular status, and as such the price that people pay for not having regular status is far too high.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Gracie Bradley: I cannot say that I have looked into that in any detail.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Jodie Blackstock: Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 creates the provision to amend immigration rules, to administer the immigration scheme that the country gives effect to. As with the powers in the Bill, our concern is that that creates a very broad provision for the Minister to amend the rules, to replace the free movement process with something that would not be subject to sufficient scrutiny by Parliament. Our proposal is for an amendment to limit the ability of the Government to use immigration rules to amend the law to give effect to post-Brexit arrangements.
Stuart C. McDonald
Any thoughts on that, Ms Bradley?
Gracie Bradley: Liberty has taken a slightly different approach, recognising that, as you will have seen, the Law Commission has said that the immigration rules are incredibly complex; I think there has been more than 5,000 changes to them since 2010. Liberty is increasingly concerned that the rules are being used to make changes to immigration policy that affect people’s fundamental rights. We are looking at an amendment that stipulates that rules may not be made under that section of the Immigration Act where they risk a significant negative impact on human rights, and that Ministers should have to publish a human rights impact assessment when making changes to immigration rules.
Part of the reason why we are where we are is that we have had thousands of changes to the rules and significant policy changes that should have been set out in primary legislation. The Bill demonstrates a problem that has been running for years in immigration policy making.
Eleanor Smith
Q
Jodie Blackstock: It is very unclear, because the power to arrange the post-exit scheme is left to the Minister. That is our concern. Its impact could be profound or negligible, depending on what policy process the Government put in place.
The proposals for the temporary leave to remain scheme would enable someone to go through a process of application if they wanted to settle in this country, for work or otherwise. The proposals in that scheme, which I have not looked at so cannot assess, ought to be within the Bill, so that the Committee can scrutinise them properly. The problem is that by enabling everything to be done using such a broad delegated power, you are not in a position to know.
With the way we are going, this will be left until post exit to be scrutinised, with the Bill proposing using the affirmative process for the first set of regulations, which we think is wholly inadequate, for the reasons we have given. If the scheme is already proposed, in draft or otherwise, it should be in the Bill, not left until the last minute to be announced, at which point it will not be possible to propose amendments to it. Our view is that it is a very simple step for the Government to bring forward their proposals for scrutiny, and they ought to do so for something that will create such a significant change.
Kate Green
Q
Jodie Blackstock: The Bill does not protect those rights, because it does not set out the principles by which it will do so. It simply provides the structure for the removal of all current reciprocal arrangements. As with the discussion we had on clause 4, it creates the power for not only a Minister but an appropriate authority to replace those current rights with an alternative arrangement.
For us, clause 5 is the most concerning clause in the Bill, as if clause 4 was not concerning enough. Our view is that the clause ought to be entirely deleted, and we say that for a few reasons—not just the extraordinary breadth of power that it creates, but the fact that the provision to remove the co-ordination regulations and replace them is already provided for by way of section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Indeed, there are four regulations that have already been laid, pursuant to that Act, before Parliament and that comply with what are perhaps broad powers, but at least are curtailed far more than the power here; and, because they have been laid, it is possible for them to be scrutinised by Parliament.
Kate Green
Q
Jodie Blackstock: The memorandum suggests that Government require the ability to change policy on social security co-ordination, and that is the purpose of creating a power here. Policy change would arguably not be possible under section 8 of the withdrawal Act, so Government are intending to do something broader here. In our view, it is wholly inappropriate to be changing policy relating to really fundamental provision for people who cross borders. We are talking about pension rights, access to healthcare, maternity and paternity leave—provision that may have built up over a significant number of years while a UK national resides in another EU country. It is simply not appropriate to leave that to a policy change by way of delegated power, but it seems to us, from their memorandum, that Government are expressly intending to do that to get around the limitations in section 8.
Gracie Bradley: I do not have anything to add to that.
Afzal Khan
Q
Gracie Bradley: When it comes to data protection, many of you will be aware that the Data Protection Act 2018 includes a very broad exemption that allows a data controller to set aside somebody’s data protection rights when their data is being processed for the purposes of immigration control, essentially. Liberty notes from the White Paper that automated data processing is likely to be used increasingly in the context of enforcing the hostile environment, and Liberty has, for the last couple of years, been scrutinising what have been relatively secret bulk data-sharing agreements between the Home Office and other Departments, such as the Department for Education, and NHS Digital, as well as ad hoc data-sharing practices between individual police forces and the Home Office.
Essentially, what Liberty is concerned about is the fact that the Home Office is really quite a poor data controller, and yet automated data processing is increasingly going to be the linchpin of implementing the hostile environment. We see, in the most recent independent chief inspector of borders and immigration report, that actually the Home Office is developing a status-checking project that would essentially enable multiple controllers, such as landlords, employers, health services and law enforcement, to check a person’s immigration status in real time.
Liberty is concerned, first, that no mention was made of that project during the Data Protection Bill debates, despite Government being asked repeatedly what they wanted that exemption from data protection law for. Secondly, we are concerned, in the light of the Home Office’s track record on data protection, that this system is going to be implemented in such a way as to leave people without redress and without remedy when the Home Office makes mistakes.
Some of you will remember that, in 2012, Capita was contracted to text almost 40,000 people suspected of being in the UK illegally, telling them to leave the country. Those 40,000 texts were sent, and many people received the texts in error. Veteran anti-racism campaigners who had lawful status in the UK were sent texts telling them to go home. It is one thing to send somebody a text in 2012—I appreciate that will have been distressing for people—but it is entirely another thing for an error on someone’s record to mean that they cannot access housing, lawful work, free healthcare or education. The Data Protection Act immigration exemption stops people from being able to find out what information is held about them by a data processor, and stops them from having the right to know when information on them is shared between processors.
Our concern is that, in the context of the Home Office’s relatively poor track record on data processing, this digitised hostile environment will be enacted and people will be left without redress. Indeed, we see from the National Audit Office report on the Windrush scandal that the Home Office had been asked by the NAO and the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration to clean up its migrant refusal pool, and had resisted all requests to do so. We are concerned about the impact of error on people, but we are also concerned about the impact of being able, at the click of a button, to exclude people from essential goods and services that are necessary for the exercise of their fundamental rights. The hostile environment should be repealed, rather than entrenched using exemptions in data protection law.
You also asked me about legal aid. I do not have a huge amount to say about legal aid, except that for the most part, there is no legal aid for immigration claims. Again, we see from the Windrush scandal what happens when people do not have access to early, good-quality legal advice. There are people in the UK who are undocumented, not because they have intentionally tried to evade the rules, but because they have been unable to retain their status as a result of not being able to access good-quality legal advice—or, indeed, because they have been unable to make the necessary applications because they cannot afford to pay prohibitive application fees. Many of you will know that it costs more than £1,000 to register a child as a British citizen.
When it comes to safeguards, we would say: get rid of that exemption in the Data Protection Act—it is paragraph 4 of schedule 2—reinstate immigration legal aid, because it is a false economy not to give people access to it, and look again at your fees. It should not be the case that the Home Office is profiting from fees when people need to make applications to regularise their status in the UK, or to claim British citizenship—to which children should be entitled in any event. Those are the basic safeguards that need to be reinstated before millions more people are brought into the immigration system.
Afzal Khan
Q
Jodie Blackstock: In principle, there will be. At the moment, we have complicated reciprocal arrangements that require member states to give effect to policy schemes across borders. Without an agreement in place, we could unilaterally make a decision to honour those schemes in this jurisdiction, and that might be seen as a policy change that it is not possible to make pursuant to section 8 of the withdrawal Act. That might be a positive way of protecting the rights of individuals who have access to such schemes at the moment in the UK, or indeed the rights of UK nationals who are living abroad.
If that is the intention of the legislation, there must be—as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has said in the context of the made affirmative procedure—work that has been undertaken already, and proposals that Parliament can consider and scrutinise to ensure that they protect accrued rights. There may well be a policy decision to limit those rights, and for the same reasons we think it is appropriate that Parliament gets to see those proposals. At the moment, the provisions in this Bill, as opposed to the regulations that have been submitted under section 8 of the Act, are just too broad. We propose that there should be scrutiny of those regulations rather than having an unknown power here.
Afzal Khan
Q
Gracie Bradley: Absolutely. There are many things that I would have expected the Government to do before bringing forward this Bill, not least setting out the detail of the future immigration system, so that it could be appropriately scrutinised.
The Law Commission’s proposals are another thing that we think the Government should have looked at, but they have not necessarily looked at. Although I appreciate that the Government have given themselves this very broad delegated power, through which they may be able to implement future changes to the immigration system that take those proposals into account, when it comes to policy making that affects people’s lives, livelihoods and fundamental rights, that is not the right way to make policy.
The Chair
Before I bring the Minister in, does any other colleague want to ask anything?
Paul Blomfield
Q
Jodie Blackstock: The problem with simply relying on judicial review as a mechanism is the difficulty in mounting a judicial review now, as a result of the changes made to access to legal aid prior to permission for judicial review, and the fact that judicial review is not perfect. In order to be successful in a judicial review, you need to demonstrate that the process by which the decision was made was flawed. That does not remake the decision; it sends the decision back to be made again, according to whatever error needs to be addressed. That, in itself, seems to be the most bureaucratic and inappropriate method for what is, as you say, potentially a simple grey area that requires a simple review.
Internal administrative review might be a sensible solution if it was not set against the context of a Home Office that has been struggling, as we know, for the past few years to make decisions in a way that provides public confidence. Without an independent appeal right, we are concerned that that would be all that was available. We are talking about a significant number of people who will apply to this scheme, with every potential for there to be inadequate administrative provision to deal with it, so an appeal right seems pretty important to us.
Gracie Bradley: I agree with that assessment, and I would add that up to half of appeals are successful, so it is all the more vital that people have an appeal right and that they have legal aid.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Jodie Blackstock: We did not respond to it, but we have spoken to the Law Commission in general about the need for simplification of procedural rules for people across the justice system. Our report “Understanding Courts”, which we produced a couple of weeks ago, calls for simplification so that litigants in person—or anyone seeking to use our justice system—can understand the system. The fact that immigration rules can be amended so swiftly and there is no requirement for primary scrutiny of those changes is problematic, but at the same time we accept that the rules deal with an incredibly complex set of arrangements, so some careful thought will be required about how to simplify those rules.
Gracie Bradley: Liberty did not respond to that consultation.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Jodie Blackstock: As I said in response to a previous question, Justice would not take a view on whether it was appropriate simply to remove the free movement process entirely and have the scheme that applies to third countries. Our concern is to ensure that people who are caught in the gap between those two schemes have their rights protected, if they currently exercise such rights, and that they are able to access the replacement scheme, whatever it may be, in a way that is clear and fair, and is subject to appropriate appeal.
Gracie Bradley: In general, it is not in Liberty’s remit to comment on people’s ability to come in and out of the country. Our remit does not really touch on that, and we do not have a view on the end of freedom of movement per se, so I cannot really comment on that.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Gracie Bradley: Yes. I really want to reiterate that Liberty is not opposed to data sharing per se, because that would be a somewhat luddite position. Where data sharing makes people afraid to access the central services that are necessary for the exercise of their fundamental rights, we would say that that is a problem, and that there should be a firewall between those essential services and Home Office immigration enforcement. However, the services that I have in mind are, of course, things such as education, healthcare and the ability to report crimes to the police. I am not really thinking about DWP or HMRC stuff, because I would not say that that is necessarily to do with essential services that relate to people’s exercise of their fundamental rights. We are not against all data sharing, but we are very concerned about some data sharing, where it stops people from accessing their fundamental rights.
The Chair
If there are no other questions, I thank our two witnesses very much for the time they have spent with us and the evidence they have given. We can start our next session a little early.
Examination of Witness
Matthew Fell gave evidence.
The Chair
Welcome Mr Fell. Would you introduce yourself?
Matthew Fell: Good afternoon. I am Matthew Fell. I am the chief policy director at the Confederation of British Industry.
Afzal Khan
Q
Matthew Fell: There are a number of areas where we think there is a challenge. Most specifically, we would be very concerned about the imposition of a salary threshold—£30,000 is most commonly talked about at the moment. When we look at the shape of the economy today, we see a number of sectors—construction, logistics, hospitality—and many regions and nations around the UK where that threshold is significantly out of kilter with median salaries. There are a number of areas where that threshold would lead to a dramatic shortage of skills and of labour availability to meet the needs of the economy today. Although you could envisage a world in which, over time, businesses and other parts of society could adapt, we are concerned about going from the situation in which we are today in a very short period, without knowing precisely the nature of the rules or of the negotiation about what we are going to jump into. That lack of time to adapt is also a source of concern.
Afzal Khan
Q
Matthew Fell: There are a number of areas. First, we fear that that could significantly lead to an increase in the rate of churn of people, which clearly creates problems for business: it impacts on productivity, if you are constantly having to get new employees up to speed, for example, it adds to recruitment costs if you constantly need to bring new people into the organisation, and it has impacts beyond business too. Thinking about societal impacts, it could undermine the integration of people into local communities, and so on.
The second bucket or basket of concerns is around the inability to then switch on to a more skilled visa route. For example, if you invest in the training and upskilling of an individual there is currently no proposed mechanism for them to transfer from a lower-skilled 12-month route to a proper skilled visa route, so there are a number of different concerns about that.
Afzal Khan
Q
Matthew Fell: I think I am right in saying, but I am happy to take a little more detail on this, that the Government have confirmed that even in the event of a no-deal scenario there would be no, or no significant, changes to the administrative burdens on employers before the proposed new immigration system came into play. Clearly, if that situation changed, the administrative burden would be a bigger headache for business.
Jack Brereton
Q
Matthew Fell: The Migration Advisory Committee looked at that heavily in terms of any potential impact on the rest of the economy, society and so on. I think the conclusion it drew was that there was no major evidence of an impact on either jobs availability or wages. I think it highlighted some impacts on public services, and a bit on house prices and so on in certain areas, but I do not think it identified any real evidence of that.
Jack Brereton
Q
Matthew Fell: This is not primarily an issue that we are looking at as an impact on wage levels; it is purely about skills availability. The issue for many sectors of the economy and for many parts of the country that are currently looking at a situation of at or close to full employment, even in parts of the country, is primarily about the availability of the skills and the talent that they need to fulfil orders and so on. It is not in any way, shape or form about wage levels or undercutting wages; it is about having the people to do a job.
Jack Brereton
Q
Matthew Fell: In the UK, there are quite clearly issues around needing to raise productivity. I do not think there is any evidence—I think the Migration Advisory Committee confirmed this too—that that is explained in any way by current approaches to immigration and levels of immigration in the country.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Q
Matthew Fell: I am not sure I agree with that. I will paint you a picture of the current situation in a number of sectors. If you take the construction industry, with two thirds of migrant workers, the median salary is currently under £30,000. If you look at the logistics sector, with about 10% or 20% of HGV drivers, or at the warehousing sector, with about a quarter of all fork-lift truck drivers, the wages for EU workers are quite significantly lower than that. I do not think that just changing a threshold level as a way of driving up wages is a helpful thing to happen in the economy.
Nic Dakin
Q
Matthew Fell: We have a better set of ideas for how you have the right checks and controls in place. If your concern is around whether that is doing any potential damage to local labour markets and local people, first, I do not think the facts bear that out, but even if that was a concern, our suggestions are that there are examples around the world, including relatively close to home in other EEA states, of something akin to a local labour market test where you have to give an initial preference in a simple and quick way. If they were the sort of concerns that you were driving at, there are better ways of doing that than a crude, flat salary threshold.
My other thought on salary thresholds is that, even if they are part of the overall mix of a system design, I venture that, rather than just picking a pure number today that is fixed over time, it would be much better to look at the median salary in the country today or to pick something like the 25th percentile of a particular skill area or something like that, so it adjusts over time and adapts to how the economy evolves. That would feel like a slightly more sophisticated way of going about it than just picking a crude number.
Nic Dakin
Q
Matthew Fell: If the intention is to use a salary threshold, I think it is part of the answer, but I would not say it is the only thing you should look at. If it goes hand in glove with some other metrics, it is potentially part of a solution as a system design, but I would not have it as the sole arbiter.
Nic Dakin
Q
Matthew Fell: I have not looked at the specific proposal. I am very happy to go away and have a look at exactly how that would work. The one thing that that would have in its favour is the point I made about time to adapt. Within reason, if you have time to adapt, you can say “Okay, how do I configure around a particular system?”, if that has a combination of certainty to it and a length of time to adapt. As principles, those are helpful things to have.
Nic Dakin
Q
Matthew Fell: The single biggest area is time to adapt. It is not knowing exactly what new system they propose to jump into. They are completely crystal clear that free movement is coming to an end. The fear is whether a new system will be ready in time, with the promised reforms, streamlining and improvements. Will that be ready in time?
The vast majority of businesses in this country do not use the non-EU visa system at the moment. It is something in the order of only 30,000 firms in the country that currently use it and that tells me that it is a really quite restrictive, complex and burdensome system. If we are not ready with a new system that is ready to go from day one, without that clarity and without the time to transition into it, that, I think, is probably the biggest concern of all.
Tracey Crouch
Q
Matthew Fell: Here are a couple of examples around the sorts of streamlining we have in mind for the non-EU system right now. One of the requirements is around asking sponsor employers to provide evidence of their employers’ liability insurance. Nothing wrong with that per se, but you have to have a hard copy of that and today, most of those are issued digitally, so it is a headache. Another example of a day-to-day burden is that you are required to notify a change in salary for any individual. On those sorts of issues, for example, the check is required to make sure you clear the minimum salary threshold requirement, but there is still a requirement even if you raise an individual’s salary. You still have to notify. Again, when we are talking about simplifying and streamlining a system on a non-EU basis, those sorts of administrative headaches are the things that firms find unnecessarily complex.
Tracey Crouch
Q
Matthew Fell: I would need to check, to be perfectly honest.
Tracey Crouch
Q
Matthew Fell: Many countries around the world have told us that that is quite important when they have negotiated trade agreements with other countries around the world. That is something they expect to be part of that overall trade negotiation. We have heard from India, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. They have all publicly said that if they are looking to strike trade agreements with the UK, ideally they would like to include migration as part of those talks on a future trade deal. When you look around the world and other trade agreements, it is frequently part of those discussions and part of the final deal and our sense was that, if, rightly, we want to seek to strike the most ambitious trade deals in many parts of the world, this is something that should be part of those conversations.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Matthew Fell: Correct, yes, it is of that order.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Matthew Fell: I do not have that figure off the top of my head, no.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Matthew Fell: I would make a couple of observations which may be helpful. Clearly, the example I am going to give is retrospective, which does not apply. My understanding is that the figures are something in the order of three quarters of all EU workers in the UK today. If these rules were enforced with the new system as envisaged, those would be out of scope for the new proposed system. That gives you a little about the order of magnitude of the volume and scope of workers currently here that would be caught by that—that is what we believe.
You ask what an employer would face additionally. Those 30,000 firms are principally focused around the largest businesses in the UK. We know that the non-EU approach is quite complex. You typically enlist significant legal advice—it is sensible to do so—or you develop in-house expertise. While it is an administrative headache for the largest businesses, they are employing a sufficient volume of people to make it sensible and worth their while to invest in expertise and legal advice and so on—at least it is feasible for them to do that. I think it would have a stark impact on small and medium-sized businesses that possibly do not use the system with sufficient frequency that they get familiar with it, and in which the resources would bite even more if they needed to take on outside expertise and advice.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Matthew Fell: That is correct. Some of the admittedly small administrative examples that I just referred to are the sorts of things that you would have to be familiar with and continue to do. While they might be a headache in larger firms with dedicated teams, HR functions, compliance and so on who are able to provide those facilities, they are an even bigger headache for smaller businesses.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Matthew Fell: That is correct. That is my understanding of it.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Matthew Fell: I have not seen that specific report so I would need to go away to confirm that.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Matthew Fell: This is relatively new for many businesses. We have been working with the Government and businesses to help to inform the employer guide. We have been providing some guidance ourselves. We found that the level of interaction with businesses has been quite good, and there has been a spirit of helpfulness to be able to navigate that, recognising that it is a new approach. We are building up more familiarity with it.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Matthew Fell: There is a challenge of awareness. Organisations such as the CBI and other business organisations have a role to play in that, not just in raising awareness for their own employers, making sure they are properly informed about what they need to do and helping them through the process, but by encouraging them to do that with their friends, colleagues and contacts. There is a good role that business can play. That being said, however good the intent, awareness is clearly an issue. I do not have an exact feel for how many would or would not be aware. Ultimately, that is a bit of a judgment call, but that is the risk that would open up.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Matthew Fell: We have not explicitly gone on the record and said that that is an approach we would advocate. My view is that you would hope that pragmatism would prevail. My feeling is that, if an individual and a business are coming forward with good intent and saying, “I am ready to do it and have everything I need,” pragmatism ought to prevail in such situations.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Matthew Fell: The CBI’s natural constituency, if you like, is typically employers as opposed to the self-employed. The self-employed population is a huge contributor and hugely important to the UK economy. It is not an area that we particularly speak about, though, or which I focus on.
Afzal Khan
Q
Matthew Fell: I would be happy to share with the Committee a significant piece of work that the CBI published in the summer of 2018, where we took an in-depth look at a number of business sectors around the economy. The key conclusion was that it is hard to identify any sectors that are not impacted in this way. The reason for that is the interconnected nature of business today.
To give you a small example, we have a huge challenge in this country around house building. In order to build the 300,000 homes a year that we need, we need everything from architects to electricians, bricklayers and on-site labourers. The conclusion we drew was that if you take one piece out of that, the whole project does not get done. Our findings were that you could almost extend that logic to any part of the economy. For example, take the retail sector and its dependence on the logistics sector for distribution, and so on. It is really quite hard to identify any part of the economy where, even if we think it is not directly impacted by these issues, indirectly they do have a consequence.
On the regional aspect, looking at the statistics, we have a piece of work out today that looks at analysis by region. Even if you take a really quick glance at the numbers, median wages today are somewhere between £21,000 to £24,000 in most regions of the UK outside London. That tells you that the impact is quite significant across the country.
Afzal Khan
Q
Matthew Fell: I do not know whether it would further increase inequality. As part of my job I travel around the country quite extensively. I think it would create huge headaches in parts of the UK, not least in respect of the time to adapt. I spend quite a lot of time in Belfast in Northern Ireland and in some of the northern regions in England, for example, where it is really quite significant and they are deeply concerned by it.
The Chair
If there are no other questions from colleagues, I will bring the Minister in next.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Matthew Fell: I do not believe that short-term visas and short-term contracts are linked to exploitation. I think it is more a recognition of the way the world works today. Many businesses are done on a contracting basis, as well as a longer-term basis, so I do not recognise the link between the two.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Matthew Fell: Our starting approach on that has been to say, “Could we look to design a system that works for all parts of the country and for all business sectors?” Working towards that is our ideal goal. That would be our preference before reaching for carve-outs for different industry sectors.
If that aim cannot be achieved—we know that seasonal agricultural workers are very important for the sector—and if that is the best solution that we can arrive at, clearly it has a part to play alongside a reformed and simplified system. However, our preference is to get the overall system right in the first instance in a way that works for everyone.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Matthew Fell: I have made remarks about recognising different wage levels in different parts of the country and so on. I refer people to my colleague who gave evidence in Holyrood earlier today. There will be quite a bit on the record from that evidence session if you would like to tap into the Scottish-specific dimensions to it.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Matthew Fell: Overall, I think we do support the removal of the resident labour market test. I was just illustrating that, if there is a desire to provide a sense of greater control of migration, you can use different mechanisms to provide that control that we think would provide the right balance between openness and the public assurances that are sought on control. It was an example of another mechanism to achieve it, but we do support the removal.
Afzal Khan
Q
Matthew Fell: In the piece of work that we published in summer 2018 we asked, “How do you really build confidence and align that to control?” At the time, we proposed dropping the net migration target, because we felt that continually missing it was undermining confidence in the system. We said that there could be a number of different controls, such as registration on arrival. If you are not in work, in training or self-sufficient after three months, that would be a test of whether you can stay in the country.
We looked at other examples of labour market tests. The other issues that we identified at the time were the better and more rapid use of things such as the controlling migration fund, so that in areas of high immigration where there are clear impacts on public services we could better address and mitigate those concerns. Those were the clutch of proposals that we were talking about at the time.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank Mr Fell very much indeed for his evidence to the Committee.
The final session starts at 4.30pm, so I suspend the sitting.
The Chair
Our next evidence session is with Focus on Labour Exploitation. Could our witnesses both introduce yourselves, please?
Caroline Robinson: Good afternoon. I am Caroline Robinson, the chief executive of Focus on Labour Exploitation.
Meri Åhlberg: Good afternoon. I am Meri Åhlberg, research officer for Focus on Labour Exploitation.
Afzal Khan
Q
Caroline Robinson: At Focus on Labour Exploitation, we have been looking for some time at the risks that immigration control measures, in particular, pose for modern slavery. Obviously, with this Bill—as with all measures regarding Brexit—we have a new risk that a much greater proportion of workers could be undocumented if they do not register under the EU settlement scheme, or because of the confusion that Brexit provides.
We think that there are particular risks arising from measures set out in the immigration White Paper, namely the temporary and migrant worker programmes and the short-term visas discussed in that paper. Our particular concerns are about barriers to the integration of the workers, which could mean that they have limited access to their labour rights. That puts workers at real risk of not understanding their rights in the UK labour market, and at risk of exploitation. There is also the potential for things like debt bondage: if recruitment measures are taken overseas over which we do not have jurisdiction, and workers have to pay high fees in order to come to the UK—whether recruitment fees or just for work permits and travel—that could leave them open to a real risk of debt bondage.
Meri Åhlberg: There is a real risk, for instance, that the 12-month programme will mean a constant churn of vulnerable workers who are not aware of their rights and do not have the chance to build up social networks that could support them. Workers will not have recourse to public funds. Those coming here to work in precarious jobs—for instance, in the hospitality sector, in which they might be on a zero-hours contract and have 40 hours of work one week and two hours the next—will, if they have no recourse to public funds, be very vulnerable.
A lot of other specific migration policy issues make workers vulnerable. For instance, under the seasonal workers pilot, which is also in the immigration White Paper and is being brought in through secondary legislation, workers have no guaranteed hours or guaranteed earnings. If they come here to work in the agricultural sector and are on a zero-hours contract, they will not necessarily be earning enough to cover their flights or visa costs if there is a bad harvest, for instance. Those are the kinds of things that we need to think about.
Afzal Khan
Q
Caroline Robinson: We have had some positive signs from the Home Secretary, who mentioned at a hearing of the Select Committee on Home Affairs that measures would be taken to evaluate the risk of exploitation that the seasonal workers pilot presents to workers. However, we are still quite anxious about the detail and about what it will mean in practice.
We look a lot at the role of labour inspectorates in preventing modern slavery, and we have a particular concern about the limited resources of agencies such as the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, which will need to license labour providers under the seasonal workers pilot, whatever country they may come from. Understanding the legislation of the countries concerned and identifying and engaging with prospective labour providers will obviously be a heavy drain on the agency’s resources, but we have not heard that any extra resources will be provided to facilitate that role. We also welcome the Government’s intention to create a single labour inspectorate, but the detail available at this stage is very limited.
It is positive that the Home Secretary has recognised that there is a risk. We look forward to engaging on the detail of how it will be addressed.
Meri Åhlberg: It is important to recognise that within the discussion about ending free movement and moving towards temporary migration schemes, we need to include labour market enforcement, as Caroline said. The UK has one of the least resourced labour inspectorates in Europe: the International Labour Organisation recommends that there should be one labour inspector per 10,000 workers, but the UK has 0.4 per 10,000. Per worker, half as much resourcing is put into labour inspection as in Ireland. There is a real need for proactive labour market enforcement, especially as more and more migrants are brought under immigration control, given fewer rights and made more vulnerable.
Afzal Khan
Q
Meri Åhlberg: I have already mentioned a few of the features of temporary schemes that make people vulnerable to exploitation. One of the main ones is that allowing people to stay for only six or 12 months means a constant churn of workers who are not necessarily aware of their labour rights, who do not have time to build networks and so on. There are often other restrictions, such as “no recourse to public funds”, that come with temporary contracts and put people at risk of exploitation. Those are the key issues with temporary migration programmes—there is definitely a risk.
Afzal Khan
Q
Caroline Robinson: To allow businesses?
Afzal Khan
To increase fees. You have said in the past that that might lead to debt bondage, so can you elaborate on how that would happen?
Caroline Robinson: Yes, certainly. We have looked quite extensively at other temporary migration programmes around the world and previous schemes in the UK, and we certainly see a risk in relation to recruitment fees. As I mentioned earlier, there is the possibility of elevated fees and also, as Members will be aware, the definition of debt bondage is an increased fee that is disproportionate to the initial fee paid, and using that fee to coerce an individual into an exploitative working condition.
We see that as a real risk in relation to overseas recruitment, but there are also the high fees that people will have to pay for their visa and for their travel to the UK. Obviously, because we know more of the detail on the seasonal workers pilot, we know that people will be coming for a short period of time—a six-month period—and, as Meri said, on zero-hours contracts, so there is no guarantee of a high rate of pay necessarily, and with potentially quite high up-front fees. So the risk is great there.
Also, we have looked at things like bilateral labour agreements. For example, Canada and Mexico have established an agreement on agricultural workers, where clear terms are established in terms of the minimum hours that workers will have, the minimum working week and the hours that people can be guaranteed, so that there are clear terms for workers, and so workers can budget accordingly and not face the risk of a huge debt that they cannot then repay, or, as I mentioned, a debt that increases disproportionately in relation to the initial debt, which is a risk.
Meri Åhlberg: For example, in Sweden they have migration from Thailand to pick berries, and what they were finding was that people would come, and they would pay high costs for flights, and then they would pay visa costs, and then they would come to Sweden and the blueberry season would be poor and they would not be able to pick enough even to cover their flights. So they would come, work for the summer and then leave in debt.
What Sweden has done, for instance, is that there is a minimum guaranteed wage that employers in Sweden have to prove they can pay. It is a minimum of approximately £1,100 per month for these workers, to each worker that they are recruiting, to make sure that people are not coming and not earning enough to cover their visa costs or their flight costs. There are also important protections that could be put in place.
Kate Green
Q
Caroline Robinson: As I said, we work a lot on the role of the labour inspectorates, particularly, while it still exists—as I said, there is a discussion about a single labour inspectorate and the Government have committed to that—at the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority’s licensing being expanded to high-risk sectors, particularly those that are likely to take on a number of short-term workers in the future. Those sectors are already high-risk and then they might have a high proportion of short-term migrant workers. We feel that there is a really strong case then for licensing those sectors—sectors discussed, such as care and construction—where there is a real risk to workers of exploitation.
We have also looked at the Agricultural Wages Board and the seasonal workers pilots, obviously in the agricultural sector. We are lucky that we still have an Agricultural Wages Board in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, but the absence of one in England and Wales is a real risk in terms of setting the standards for workers in the agriculture sector. So I think it would be useful to look at what kind of worker voice could be integrated in setting standards in the agriculture sector, again given the high risk of isolation and exploitation of workers.
Meri Åhlberg: Another important thing would be to grant people access to public funds. If people are coming here on work contracts they are paying taxes, so they are paying for their services. It seems counterintuitive to not allow people access to services they are already paying for, making them vulnerable in that process.
Caroline Robinson: I would mention again these bilateral labour agreements, to have some kind of engagement with sending categories. At the moment the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority has to rapidly try to license labour providers in a range of countries outside the EEA. They have already found it quite hard within the EEA to license labour providers, understanding the different jurisdictions and engaging with workers’ possible vulnerabilities. Having a structure and engagement on the basis of labour rights with a country that sends workers to our country and ensuring labour standards are upheld offers a framework, at least, for enforcing labour rights.
Mrs Badenoch
Q
Caroline Robinson: The visa scheme announced in that amount of detail—and for which we have pilot operators—is the seasonal workers pilot. That is in the agricultural sector. The short-term—as they have been termed—visas in the immigration White Paper, the temporary short-term workers schemes, are for all sectors as far as we can see.
We looked particularly at high-risk sectors in the UK. The most recent in-depth piece of research we did looked at the construction sector. We are also conducting work looking at the hospitality industry, particularly at hotels. Generally we look at sectors that we believe are at risk of exploitation. We are particularly interested in the functioning of the seasonal workers pilot because that is up and running, in so far as we are engaging with the pilot operators. We are talking to the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority about how they will oversee that pilot.
Mrs Badenoch
Q
Meri Åhlberg: Specifically in the UK?
Mrs Badenoch
In the UK. There have been other temporary visa schemes, but I am not aware of high levels of exploitation around them. If there are lots of cases I would like to hear about them.
Meri Åhlberg: We have done research on the previous seasonal agricultural workers scheme, which ended in 2013, and we have also done research on the sector-based scheme, which brought workers into hospitality and food processing. That ended in 2013, but had been slowly being phased out.
In the sector-based scheme it was found that workers were paying up to £10,000 in recruitment fees to come to the UK. They were heavily in debt when they arrived in the UK, and were therefore unable to leave abusive or exploitative situations because they were afraid of not being able to pay back that debt.
In the seasonal agricultural workers scheme, there were a lot of issues around people being unable to change their employer. They had to have permission from the scheme operator to do so, but sometimes the scheme operator and the employer were the same person. In practice it was very difficult to change employers, meaning that if you were in an exploitative or abusive situation you had to either choose to leave the country and leave your source of income, or put up with it. There are a lot of cases of people not being paid the minimum wage, and of people not having guaranteed hours and so not earning enough. There was an over- supply of workers, meaning that employers did not have to provide enough work for people to earn money. There will be a similar problem in this scheme; there are not any guaranteed hours in the seasonal workers programme pilot.
Mrs Badenoch
Q
Meri Åhlberg: That would definitely be better than having to bring in people who had no networks here or no idea about their labour rights. If you have people who can stay for longer periods, over time they learn about their rights, and have a better chance of unionising and, essentially, of gaining employment rights, or enforcing their employment rights.
Mrs Badenoch
Q
Meri Åhlberg: Definitely. Pre-departure training and on-arrival training about people’s rights is really important. Having a multilingual complaints hotline or a 24-hour hotline, on which workers can make complaints is also important, but the most important thing would be to have proactive well-resourced labour market enforcement, to ensure that people were not depending on migrant workers and vulnerable workers coming forward and enforcement being based on reaction to a worker making a complaint. There is a lot of evidence to show that vulnerable workers do not come forward, so what needs to be in place is really proactive enforcement.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Caroline Robinson: We feel like many, I suppose, in the business of protecting workers’ rights in a conflicted situation. We recognise that there will be a shortage of workers in this country after Brexit. Equally, looking at seasonal workers programmes, as we have done over the past year, in great detail, workers in those programmes are more vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. If we were asked to start from nothing, we would not be proposing seasonal temporary workers schemes, but we are trying to engage with the programmes that are being suggested, to advocate for strong protective mechanisms to be integrated into those programmes.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Caroline Robinson: The agreement I mentioned between Mexico and Canada has the function of establishing conditions that workers can expect, but also what employers can expect of workers on the scheme. It is an engagement on the standards that can be expected in relation to the agricultural workers programme in particular. I guess there is a whole range of bilateral labour agreements that are established between sending and receiving countries. We are particularly interested where there is a facility for them to establish terms and conditions for workers, and also where there is a facility to guarantee a set number of hours or a limit on what the payment for the travel to the destination country might be, and a facility for paying that back in instalments on arrival, which we think would provide less of a risk to the workers.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Caroline Robinson: In relation to the previous SAWS scheme, I am not sure, but we can certainly look into it and write to you if that is of interest.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Meri Åhlberg: That is an incredibly problematic visa and has been in the past. I don’t know if Caroline wants to talk about that.
Caroline Robinson: The overseas domestic worker visa had problems, which led to the review by James Ewing, around the time of the Modern Slavery Act. Some measures were introduced by the Government to address the risk to workers on the overseas domestic worker visa. The interviews with workers to engage them on their rights have been introduced, which we have talked about in relation to this scheme as something we could learn from that visa—on the seasonal workers pilot, having an information session with workers when they arrive about their employment rights and entitlements in the UK, which is something to learn from the problems with the overseas domestic worker visa and the isolation that workers felt on that scheme.
Meri Åhlberg: With that scheme, workers were tied to their employer. That was then removed because it was recognised that it is incredibly problematic. If workers were tied to an employer and wanted to leave, they would lose their visa and have to return to their country of origin. Even after that provision was removed, workers could only come for six months, which then meant that if they only had two months left on their visa, it was very hard for them to find new work and to change employers. In practice it was very difficult. Similarly to the previous SAWS scheme, technically you could change employers, but in practice it was very difficult, and in practice is what matters.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Caroline Robinson: From the brief discussion with my colleague from the TUC, I believe she mentioned the illegal working offence, which I think we were talking about during the passage of the Immigration Act 2016. We would certainly support a discussion of the repeal of that offence, which we raised at the time. It places workers at great risk of exploitation. It is recognised by the Government and by the International Labour Organisation that the threat of denunciation to the authorities, regardless of a worker’s status, is a contributing factor to coercion and exploitation. As we mentioned at the beginning, the real risk to workers of the coercive power of an offence of illegal working is extremely dangerous in relation to modern slavery.
I raised at the time the fact that people would be fearful of coming forward to be referred to the UK national referral mechanism because of that offence, that traffickers would use the threat of the offence of illegal working to keep people in abusive and exploitative conditions, and that there is then the risk of criminalisation and detention of trafficked persons. The detention of trafficked persons is something that we have seen recently, and the difficulties of individuals being identified once they are in detention.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Meri Åhlberg: Part of the problem in agriculture is that people tend to be quite isolated in their working environment, because they are often employed on farms that are far from cities and they might not have transport options. That is definitely one of the contributing factors. There are also a lot of other factors. That was recognised in the past when there was the Agricultural Wages Board. In the ’80s, when most of the wages boards were eliminated, the Agricultural Wages Board was kept, because it was recognised that there were specific vulnerabilities in agriculture, for instance the fact that crops can fail or there might be bad weather and workers needed to be protected against not being paid in those cases. So yes, I think there is.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Caroline Robinson: Workers’ protections are best secured through the promotion and protection of labour rights. Immigration policy can serve to undermine the rights of workers—for example, the absence of routes to access justice for undocumented workers, the limitations on undocumented workers coming forward to report abuses and exploitative practices against them for fear of immigration repercussions such as those I have just mentioned, and the offence of illegal working—and there can be an undermining influence from things such as short-term visa schemes. If protections are not put in place, there is a real risk of exploitation.
As I have mentioned, we advocate for the role of labour inspectorates and labour market enforcement in promoting, protecting and upholding labour rights, along with a number of other measures. For example, Meri mentioned access to a complaints line being crucial so that workers can report abuse against them, but we also need strong, proactive labour market enforcement. We have advocated for a 60% focus on proactive operations for labour market enforcement bodies, and a 40% focus on reactive operations. We are very grateful to the Government for recognising that in their response to the director of labour market enforcement’s annual strategy last year.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Meri Åhlberg: As Caroline said earlier, we recognise that if these schemes are being brought in, they need to be made to work as well as possible for workers, and there are definitely protections that can be put in place. One of the key ones is that workers have to be able to change employers freely, under reasonable terms. Wages and standards should be set together in a tripartite way, together with trade unions, Government and employers, so that considerations that are particular to agricultural workers are taken into account.
There is already good work in the agricultural sector, such as the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority licencing labour providers. Anyone who wants to bring workers into the UK, no matter whether they are in the UK or overseas, has to have a licence and to follow specific terms and conditions. Those conditions include, for instance, the fact that they are not allowed to charge recruitment fees. We need to make sure that the GLAA can properly licence overseas recruitment agencies, and that they have the resources and capacity to do so. Currently, for example, if the seasonal workers pilot is being opened to all countries outside the EU, that becomes a monumental task. Making sure that the GLAA is able to do that task, and has the resources and capacity to do so, is crucial.
Caroline Robinson: We also have to recognise the real risks to those workers. That is why I was talking about a complaints mechanism: establishing something like a 24-hour multilingual hotline for those workers, so that we can make sure that we get to those workers who are most vulnerable and in need of assistance, would really help.
Caroline Nokes
Q
Caroline Robinson: The complaints mechanism, or the—
Caroline Nokes
The complaints mechanism, because this Bill is specifically about turning off free movement and the role that immigration policy has to play. Do you think the Home Office is best placed to do that?
Caroline Robinson: You are right that possibly the Home Office is not best placed to do that. It holds a twin role with BEIS hosting the director of labour market enforcement, so it has some engagement in labour market enforcement and oversight. You are right, there could be a BEIS role.
Nic Dakin
Q
Meri Åhlberg: It is difficult to say, for instance, about the 12-month programme because there has not been a lot of information about it. We do not know which countries are lower risk; we do not have a lot of information about those programmes. There are definitely aspects of temporary migration programmes that put workers at risk. Anything that restricts workers’ and migrants’ rights is going to include some level of risk.
I feel as if the Brexit conversation and the immigration conversation has been focused very much on whether we should have more or less migration, rather than on how we make sure that we are providing decent and good work for everyone. Part of that discussion is around regulation. They are so intricately tied to each other that it is hard to separate them.
Nic Dakin
Q
Meri Åhlberg: I mentioned the scheme in Sweden for migrant berry pickers. They have extended a collective bargaining agreement. There is a trade union. They have collectively bargained with employers to decide what the labour conditions should be. The trade unions are allowed to access labour sites and inspect them and make sure that the terms in those collective agreements are being upheld. When an employer in Sweden employs a migrant worker from Thailand, they have to share the contract with the trade union to make sure that it fulfils those terms and they have to provide a baseline salary, which is approximately £1,100. Importantly, the recruitment agencies in Thailand have to have a presence in Sweden, so that they are under the jurisdiction of Sweden. If they are charging recruitment fees, they can be held accountable in Sweden for doing that. That is one example where there have been successes in dealing with the exploitation of workers.
Afzal Khan
Thank you Chair. Let me say, first of all, that throughout this day your chairmanship has been excellent. We have got through a lot of evidence. My final question—
Afzal Khan
Q
Meri Åhlberg: I’m sorry, the fees for the workers or fees—
Afzal Khan
Yes, for the employer. The suggestion was employers have to pay higher fees for the second year and higher even for the third.
Meri Åhlberg: I would have to think about that and get back to you. In terms of having longer than a 12-month period, I have already said that I think that would be important. The danger of these temporary migration programmes and of having temporary workers who are not integrated into UK society is that you are creating a two-tier employment system where you have migrant workers in low-wage jobs with poor protections and with fewer rights. They also do not have the right to vote and they do not have any say over the conditions or the laws governing them. Also, they are being changed every year, so they do not have a community, they do not necessarily unionise and so on. It is a dangerous system and I do not see why we would have to limit it to 12 months.
The Chair
I thank our two witnesses, who stepped in early and accommodated the Committee. Thank you very much for the time you spent with us.
Westminster Hall
(5 years, 9 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
Missing Persons Guardianship
(5 years, 9 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
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered missing persons guardianship.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
Imagine that someone you love went missing out of the blue. Try to imagine the anxiety, the shock and the sadness, and then imagine not being able to sort out any of their affairs in their absence. That frustration, confusion and hurt is exactly what my constituent experienced.
My constituent came to my surgery in May last year to tell me about her missing brother. She told me that he was an experienced traveller who was used to travelling alone. He had gone to visit the Galapagos islands, and it was from there that he vanished. He was last sighted on 11 March 2017 and never returned to his hotel room. He was a keen photographer, and his last photograph was taken on the island of San Cristóbal. Despite extensive searches on the islands, he was never found. My constituent was very close to her brother, who would contact her regularly when he was abroad, so when she had no contact with him for more than 10 days, she suspected that he was dead. No body was ever recovered.
After the shock and grief of her brother’s disappearance, my constituent set about trying to manage his affairs, but she came across a number of problems. She discovered that banks and other financial institutions would not directly engage with her, as she could not prove that her brother was dead. During that time, mortgage payments and utility bills went unpaid, and direct debits continued to be withdrawn from her brother’s bank account. She found the situation incredibly frustrating, and it caused her even more anguish after she had just come to terms with the fact that her brother was missing and, in all likelihood, dead.
Shocked by my constituent’s experience, I told her that Parliament must legislate to stop it happening again. Imagine how disturbed I was when she told me that Parliament had already done so. I promised to look into the matter further, and I was staggered to discover that the Guardianship (Missing Persons) Act 2017, which dealt with my constituent’s exact circumstances, had received Royal Assent on 27 April 2017 but had not yet been implemented.
With time against her and options running out, my constituent was forced to go down the presumption of death route to get an order allowing her to deal with her brother’s affairs. However, although she applied for a presumption of death order, she was not certain to get one, due to the provisions of the Presumption of Death Act 2013. That Act makes it clear that if the missing person has not been missing for seven years, the court has to be convinced that they are dead. If it is not, it can refuse to make an order. That is the route the family of Lord Lucan had to go down 42 years after his disappearance, with no body ever having been recovered. They were easily able to satisfy the Act’s seven-year threshold, whereas my constituent could not. Although she was ultimately successful, she should not have had to go down that route for her brother, who had been missing for just over a year, when there was a more straightforward alternative.
The charity Missing People estimates that more than 1,000 people go missing for more than 12 months in the UK each year. The families of those who go missing suffer the distress and anguish of not knowing what has happened to their loved one, which is compounded by the powerlessness of not being able to manage their affairs. Family members have to make futile telephone calls to banks, building societies and utility companies, which will not co-operate with them due to fears of data protection breaches and fraud.
All the while, arrears accrue. If things escalate, the family may have to deal with bailiffs and lawyers to stop their loved one’s home being repossessed. They will also be unable to stop direct debits from draining that person’s account. If it is a joint account, that makes matters even worse, since financial institutions often insist on getting both parties’ express consent to change anything. Financial institutions are among the strongest supporters of the 2017 Act, as it is their staff who are forced to say no to the families of loved ones. An order declaring that someone has a right to deal with their loved one’s affairs makes it far easier for all concerned and removes the additional stress and worry from the equation.
At an event organised by Missing People, I had the privilege of meeting Mr Peter Lawrence, the father of missing person Claudia Lawrence. He told me about the challenges he faced in dealing with financial institutions in the aftermath of his daughter’s disappearance. I am pleased to say that Peter is here with us today. Peter is a remarkable man, and I have nothing but admiration for his ongoing efforts to reform the law. It was partly due to his campaigning and raising of public awareness that the Government eventually decided to legislate for the guardianship of missing persons.
In preparation for the debate, I read transcripts of previous debates about guardianship for missing persons. I note with some disappointment that the very same points I have made so far today were made by the hon. Members for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) and for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) in March 2016. In that debate, there was criticism of the Government’s failure to progress legislation they had consulted on in 2015. The Minister closed his remarks by saying:
“It is vital to get the reform right, given that it creates a legal power over another’s assets. We are committed to proceeding as swiftly as we can, never forgetting for a moment the scope that it offers to ease…the pain and suffering endured by the families who have lost loved ones.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 596WH.]
I am sure that that debate had a bearing on what happened next, as a year later the Guardianship (Missing Persons) Bill had been drafted and was making progress. On 6 April 2017, when that Bill had its Second Reading in the other place, the Minister said that it
“is unlikely to come into force earlier than one year after Royal Assent, but the Government will endeavour to keep any delay to an absolute minimum.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 April 2017; Vol. 762, c. 1188.]
The Bill passed all its stages and received Royal Assent on 27 April 2017.
The 2017 Act is a good piece of legislation. It defines what guardianship orders are and who can apply for them and in what circumstances. It covers the scope of the orders and their duration, and provides for their revocation. It was supported in Committee by all political parties. It was one of those rare pieces of legislation that transcended party politics and had genuine cross-party support. At a time of division in the country, it was something that everyone could sign up to. Unfortunately, since then, there have been a number of false dawns and dashed hopes with respect to when the Act will finally be fully implemented and when people will be able to use it. Some 21 months have passed since the Act received Royal Assent, and it has not been possible to apply for a single guardianship order.
I accept that there may be complications with getting the judiciary to familiarise themselves fully with the provisions of the Act, and no doubt some technical measures need to be properly scrutinised and overcome. I also appreciate that Brexit continues to take up significant time in Departments and that the Ministry of Justice, which has had significant cuts to its budget over a number of years, is probably very stretched. I cast no blame on the Minister, whom I have always found to be true to his word and helpful in my dealings with him. But the fact remains that the current state of affairs just is not good enough.
Since the 2017 Act received Royal Assent, the Ministry of Justice has introduced two more Bills to Parliament, both of which have passed all their stages and are now Acts—the Civil Liability Act 2018 and the Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Act 2018 both received Royal Assent on 20 December. I do not suggest for one minute that those are not important pieces of legislation, but I am concerned that they managed to leapfrog the 2017 Act and will in all likelihood be implemented before it. How is that possible? I suggest that the 2017 Act has not received the priority it deserves. Time and again, it has been put to the bottom of the pile while other things have taken precedence.
In my first and only question to the Prime Minister, on 28 November 2018, I asked about that delay. I am relieved that, since then, things have started moving. On 19 December 2018 the Ministry of Justice launched its consultation on the implementation of the Guardianship (Missing Persons) Act 2017, which among other things covers the code of practice, rules of court, practice directions, the registration and supervision of guardians, and fees—I note that, by some strange coincidence, that consultation ends today.
I have received assurances from the Ministry of Justice that the 2017 Act will be implemented fully by July 2019, but that is still five months away, and although I very much welcome that commitment, I am concerned to avoid further delays. I therefore ask the Minister to give a commitment that the Act will be implemented by July this year, and that if there is any delay, he will explain the reasons for it and allow hon. Members to question him.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this timely debate on an emotive subject, which he is dealing with properly and appropriately. Does he agree that, in advance of the legislative change in July, there will be an expectation—hopefully as a result of this debate and other pressures—that financial institutions will consider these matters practically and sensibly when dealing with families?
Bambos Charalambous
I entirely agree, and one of the biggest areas of distress for people is dealing with financial institutions. If measures can be introduced to enable things to run more smoothly, I would strongly support that, as, I hope, would the Minister.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
As we know, the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who first promoted the Presumption of Death Act 2013 as a private Member’s Bill, is now the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. I wonder whether the Minister discussed this emotive issue with him in the hope that we can bring the financial services to the table.
Bambos Charalambous
I was not aware of that, and my hon. Friend makes a good point. I hope the Minister will hold such discussions with the Economic Secretary, if he has not already done so.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I agree with everything he has said so far, and it is important that the 2017 Act is implemented by July. He mentioned the figure of 1,000 missing people, but perhaps the Minister could give some indication of what the number would be if we included all those who are in the pipeline for an application.
Bambos Charalambous
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. One thousand people go missing a year, but some people have been missing for many more years, and the figure will obviously be far higher than the 1,000 I mentioned.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I promoted the Guardianship (Missing Persons) Act 2017, and in my experience the financial services are keen on its provisions. They wish to help and to take a different approach when these tragic situations occur, but the difficulty is that they are tied to the law on such issues. We therefore need this change so that they can provide more assistance to those who face such difficulties.
Bambos Charalambous
I entirely agree. If a person dies, probate can be granted to financial institutions and used as a way of allowing the executor to access a person’s accounts. More needs to be done, and financial institutions need to be protected in that area.
I hope the Minister will agree that those who have a missing family member should not have to endure the indignity of being unable to deal with their loved one’s affairs because they cannot prove death, especially when they should not need to. The 2017 Act needs to be implemented as soon as possible, because no one should have to endure the anguish endured by my constituent. The Act will make a huge difference to the lives of the families of the missing. It will bring closure to some of them, as well as some comfort following the suffering and anguish they will have endured not knowing what fate may have befallen their loved one. This is a great opportunity for the Minister to show Parliament at its best, with Members coming together to make a real difference and doing something that we all agree on and that will make a positive change to some people’s lives.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) on securing this debate and keeping up the pressure to ensure that the Guardianship (Missing Persons) Act 2017 is implemented to help the many people in need. The Act is vital because around 2,500 people waiting for such measures have already been affected when someone they know has gone missing—perhaps a relative or loved one—and it must be implemented as soon as possible. I am delighted that the Government have nailed their colours to the mast by providing a date of July for the implementation of these measures, rather than saying “shortly” or “in due course”, and that those who face such devastating circumstances will be helped from July this year.
This issue came across my desk early in my parliamentary career, because my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) and I co-host the Lawrence family in our constituencies. Being a local person, I was aware of the tragic and mysterious disappearance of Claudia Lawrence, which will be 10 years ago on 18 March this year. Despite the fact that it is 10 years on, Mr and Mrs Lawrence still need this Act, and I wonder how many other people it will help. It is vital.
I promoted the Act as a consequence of Peter Lawrence pushing me to push Ministers to raise the issue up the political agenda, which we managed to do. The Government were always supportive of the Act, but even in easier times parliamentary time is not easy to secure. I pay tribute to Peter Lawrence and to many others, as well as to the charity Missing People, which has kept up the pressure and highlighted the issues caused when people go missing and in the aftermath of such tragic circumstances.
The Act is referred to as Claudia’s law, to recognise the 10 years that Claudia has been missing. I was lucky enough also to sponsor the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill, which was called “Will’s Bill”, after my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) and another tragic circumstance. Many people stood up in those debates—including me, as a father of four children—to say that the worst thing that could possibly happen to any parent would be to lose a child. I wonder, however, whether it is actually even worse to have a child who goes missing, because of the anxiety about what happened. People want to know and they hope not to receive terrible news, but they probably accept that such news will be the inevitable consequence if somebody has been missing for some time. Just as the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate outlined, when a person goes missing, although people know that something tragic has happened they do not know what, and that is probably even worse than a bereavement. It is therefore right to move this issue forward as quickly as possible.
Thousands of people go missing annually, and the Government estimate that the 2017 Act will help between 50 and 300 people a year, with a mid-range estimate of about 100 people. Those 100 cases affect thousands of people—their loved ones and friends—and this Act is vital. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, in the aftermath of someone going missing many things need to be dealt with, including direct debits, rents or mortgages, and the Act will introduce measures that are similar to the power of attorney. It is a simple measure, and based on a well tried and tested formula. The Act has been well drafted to meet those requirements, and we have learned from our experiences with such legislation over recent decades.
It can certainly be argued that the legislation has been a long time coming. It was first talked about in the Justice Committee in 2012. The Government consulted on it in 2014, and the private Member’s Bill started, probably, with Peter Lawrence pushing me to push the Government, in 2015. It started with a ten-minute rule Bill, and not many of those become legislation, so I am delighted that we were able to use that route. We did so, of course, with Government support. Ministers were always supportive. The process from drafting and First Reading to the moment the Bill passed through the House of Lords—the last day before Parliament prorogued, so it was pretty tight—took 11 weeks. That shows what cross-party support and consensus there was for the legislation. I am grateful to Members on both sides of the House, and to Ministers and shadow Ministers of all parties who helped to get it through. I am also grateful to others who acted, not least the Missing People charity, and the all-party parliamentary group on runaway and missing children and adults.
The finish line of July 2019 is now in sight. Of course it is not the finish line for the loved ones—the people who face such terrible tragedies. However, it will make life just a little easier. I again thank the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate for bringing forward this important debate and the Minister for doing a tremendous job in making sure that we get over the line in July. He is a great fellow. I thank other Ministers as well—Lord Keen and successive Justice Secretaries—and many officials, not least of them Paul Hughes, who did a brilliant job of drafting and has been supportive from day one. The Act is vital legislation and it will help thousands of people. Let us get it into operation as soon as possible.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), who brought the matter forward, as well as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and other Members who have attended to speak. I look forward to hearing the speeches of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), and the Minister. He is of course ably supported by his Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair), who will keep him right—although that will not be hard to do.
The issue is important, and that is why I am here to give support. It is always good to speak on issues that affect our constituents. I am sure that I am not the only person who was touched by the Missing People choir in “Britain’s Got Talent”, when TV gave an insight into the issue. That was in 2017, which is not that long ago. As we get older, the years go by more quickly than we would ever have imagined. I admit that, like others, I shed a tear as the photos flashed up showing clearly how many people there are in this country every minute of whose days is affected by a missing person. That made it clear that there is a real issue. The pain of not knowing—rooms that remain untouched and lives that are unled—lost in the realm of waiting, is nothing short of heartbreaking. I rejoiced when I learned that one of the missing persons linked to the choir had been found. Yet that happy ending is not a normal ending in such cases; that is a fact. The 2017 Act was passed to help families and enable them to deal with financial and other issues that arise when someone has gone missing, although it will never help to ease the pain and suffering.
The Police Service of Northern Ireland has a website that displays photos of those who are missing, in an attempt to enable people to give others peace of mind. However, I believe that we must have a UK-wide national register of missing persons to provide a snapshot of live missing persons incidents across police forces throughout the UK, as a way of finding missing people if possible.
In the provincial papers back home, such as Sunday Life, there are unfortunately regular stories about people who have been missing over the years, with a renewed plea for people with evidence to come forward. It is always good to publish such information. I do not go to America every year, but I recall seeing, when I was there on holiday, that Walmart stores had pictures up of children who had gone missing. There were pictures galore on the wall—a wee timely reminder of the losses that happen. The children in those pictures are always smiling. Each missing person case is a story of loss and heartache, and the pictures resonate with everyone who looks at them.
I support legislation to make life easier for the families of missing people. I should make it clear that it is not an issue that affects only a small number of people. In the United Kingdom there is a report of someone going missing every 90 seconds, and 180,000 people are reported missing every year. There are 340,000 missing person incidents every year. Children are more likely to go missing than adults—that really creates grief and strain. One in 200 children and one in 500 adults go missing each year. Research has shown that stress is one of the most common reasons for adults to go missing. In up to eight out of 10 cases of missing adults, diagnosed or undiagnosed mental health issues are the reason. Relationship breakdown is responsible in three out of 10 cases. Dementia is another cause, in one in 10 cases. Four in every 10 people with dementia will go missing at some point. Those people do not intend to go missing, but they do. That has happened in my constituency in the past couple of years. Both people were found in time, thank goodness, and had no knowledge of where they were or recollection of how they got there.
Whatever the reason for someone going missing, the pain is the same. The Government were right to pass the legislation and now, at the close of the consultation period, it is time to implement the measure that will make so many things easier for waiting families to deal with.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful argument about the ways that people go missing. Does he agree that it is positive that we are moving towards the endgame, in July, for this important Act? However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) mentioned, 2,500 people are still waiting for the measure to be implemented. A thousand people go missing every year and, as has been said, they all have families. Must we not use the debate to make sure that the timescales for implementing the Act do not slip further?
Jim Shannon
I agree wholeheartedly. We look to the Minister now to encapsulate our thoughts and give us reasons why we are having this debate. Now is the time. We cannot wait longer. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate mentioned that it is the last day of the consultation, and we look to the Minister for reassurance.
Every one of us can understand the families’ uncertainty. I agree that there must be a long waiting period before a declaration of presumed death can be made; yet there are issues that should not have to wait that long to be discharged. That is what this legislation is about, and it is on that matter that we want the Minister’s reassurance. It will be helpful if a path can be set out for family members left without the financial support they need and expected, or unpaid creditors who must turn to insolvency procedures. It will be helpful also in the case of mortgages and repossession procedures. It is relevant to problems that arise when banks and other financial institutions are unable to release the missing person’s assets, or even information about them, to those left behind. In such cases the missing person’s money can be wasted by automated payments. Direct debits go out every month with no control and cannot be stopped. The person’s assets decay for want of repair. Those things happen at the moment, and that is why the urgency of the matter cannot be emphasised enough.
There has been much consideration and the time has come to implement the law right away. Many hon. Members realise that there is a need to fill a void, and to look after those who have lost loved ones, so that they can continue their lives in a way that enables them to remember. The pain of families left behind will of course never go away, but the Act will enable us to look after them.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. It is rare to be in a debate in Parliament where we feel that the whole House is coming together on an issue that affects nearly everyone. A quarter of a million people will go missing each year. Many of them will be found, but the families left behind are in no man’s land.
I will start with a bit of history. As it did for the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), this issue came to the fore with me very early in my parliamentary career, when I met Rachel Elias, the sister of Richey Edwards of the Manic Street Preachers, who went missing in 1995. The funny thing is that before we meet people and learn about the story, we sometimes think of it as a mystery and we forget that these people are real and leave behind lives. With Richey Edwards being a high-profile guitarist and songwriter with the Manic Street Preachers—one of my favourite bands when I was a mad indie fan as a kid—we forget that these people are real. When I met Rachel, I discovered the devastation that his disappearance had left behind: mortgages unpaid, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, direct debits unpaid and a kind of no man’s land.
It is hard for people to accept, when someone has gone missing, that they may have died; they do not want to recognise that. I pay tribute to the Missing People charity for its hard work to bring this issue to the fore. When I met the charity, I was told that the law at the time was like crazy paving, with no certainty about what happens when someone goes missing. I think the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton will agree with me that that was the best way to describe it.
I was interested at the time in the Presumption of Death Act 2013. I will do something strange for a Labour Member and commend the Government, because from the beginning of my involvement in this campaign the Government got this, and I believe they got it right. When I was on the Justice Committee in 2011, I asked the then Chair, Sir Alan Beith—now Lord Beith—to look into the matter, and he did. We had the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), who was then a Minister at the Ministry of Justice, before us, and he said that the Government were supportive of a presumption of death Act but did not have parliamentary time.
That legislation was introduced as a private Member’s Bill, which I mentioned in my earlier intervention, by the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who is now a Treasury Minister. I was delighted to be part of the Committee that ultimately brought about the Presumption of Death Act, which came into force on 1 October 2013, but I always felt that that was just part one of solving the problem. Yes, presumption of death was right—as the hon. Member for Strangford said, it is correct that we give a certain amount of time for people who have gone missing before they are pronounced dead. That is absolutely right because, sadly, we have seen high-profile cases where people have come back—I am thinking of the famous canoe man.
The second part, and the original point that Rachel brought up with me, was about still being liable for debts, direct debits and, in particular, mortgages. Banks, having no recompense, may have to look into liquidation. The financial pressure that families face is huge, at the same time as they are going through the emotions of losing and missing someone, so I was delighted when the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton introduced a private Member’s Bill that became the Guardianship (Missing Persons) Act 2017.
However, for all the good work done on this by the coalition Government and the present Government, I feel that they dragged their heels a little, and I am disappointed by that. It is pertinent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) mentioned, that today is the end of the consultation. I think we have dragged our feet a little too much on this, and I look to the Minister to ensure that the Act comes into force in July. Too many people are left in limbo and need help, not in July, but now. If they have the banks on their back and everything else, the pressure on them is immense.
As I said in my earlier intervention, the hon. Member for Salisbury has been elevated to the Treasury team—he is on to great things—but he has responsibility for financial services now, as the Minister will know, and I hope that they have had discussions. I know the hon. Member for Salisbury enjoys a good relationship with the financial services sector, and I hope he will be heavily involved in ensuring that the banks and other financial services come to the table and talk about this to ensure a smooth transition as the Act comes into force in July, so that the financial pressure is taken off families.
I also understand the problems with the Act: we are asking someone to take on the affairs of someone else, and I know there has to be sensitivity around that. When the Minister responds to the debate, I hope he will touch on that sensitivity of someone else taking on responsibility for someone who is missing and does not know that they have got hold of their financial affairs. As we always worry in these cases, despite all the many genuine cases, there is always potential for fraud, so I hope the Minister will talk about how the Act will deal with that.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford, who I think is setting the record for the number of Westminster Hall debates that he speaks in. He spoke very well, as he always does, and he mentioned something that I had not thought of before: whether a central database of missing people had been created by the police. I hope the Minister will have conversations with the Home Office about bringing that about. It is interesting that when we travel to America, if we buy a carton of milk, there are often pictures of missing children on there. The Government could speak to supermarkets about bringing that about, and I hope that will be thought about.
Of course, I pay tribute to Peter Lawrence, who I am delighted to see here today, for his dignified campaign. Anyone who has met him knows his passion to ensure that no other family should have to go through what he has been through. I share his sadness that it is now 10 years since Claudia went missing, and I hope beyond all hope that one day he gets some positive news, because he deserves it.
I also pay tribute to my constituent Rachel Elias for her high-profile campaign, especially through the popular press, to ensure that Richey’s tragedy is still talked about 24 years later. I met her mother Sherry and her father Graham, and I find it sad that they passed away without knowing what happened to Richey. Again, I hope that they find some closure in that case and that there is some positive news about all this; but I will say of Rachel that, in the midst of all the negativity, she has found something positive and she has campaigned very hard. My heart goes out to everybody who has someone who has gone missing. I pray and hope that they find closure and hear some positive news eventually.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
We now come to the Front-Bench speeches. If the Front Benchers split the time between them, they can have up to 25 minutes each, but it is not compulsory.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
Do not worry, colleagues, I will not take up that kind offer. It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) for securing the debate and to everybody who has contributed to it—the hon. Members for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), and my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans). We have heard some powerful and moving speeches. To say that I enjoyed listening to them would be to use the wrong word, but certainly I have been moved by every speech I have heard today.
Let us take a moment to imagine someone we love dearly—a family member, spouse or child—going missing without a trace; how frantic and traumatised we would feel at losing them overnight and how we would cling to the hope that they might return, even as days, months or even years went by, all the while swinging between hope and fear of the worst. Let us imagine having to experience that rollercoaster of emotional turmoil while simultaneously battling with legal and financial institutions to save the home we shared, watching the life that we hope that loved one will return to fall apart. Let us imagine being stuck in legal limbo, unable even to grieve the loss of the missing loved one, who we still hope will return, unable to manage the finances and practical affairs of the absent family member, feeling helpless.
That is the reality for families of missing people, who are still waiting on Ministers to move on this vital legislation and allow them the legal right to become guardians of their loved one’s affairs 90 days after they have been declared missing. Without the legal authority to act on a missing relative’s behalf, families can face great difficulty engaging financial and legal institutions to keep their loved one’s affairs in order. Whether it is banking, mortgages or insurance, benefits or utilities, the list of foundational elements of their relative’s life that they are unable to manage due to bureaucratic barriers is endless.
Families find themselves unable to make changes to missing relatives’ mortgages or cancel direct debits that are clearly no longer needed. The worst-case scenario is that the missing person’s finances are damaged beyond repair and that their home is lost altogether, which, unless a presumption of death certificate is gained, is the only option for some families.
However, quite understandably, many people do not want to believe that their loved one is deceased. While the presumption of death route suits some families, it does not suit many others. Imagine having a missing person declared dead when firmly believing, or at least hoping against hope, that they are actually still alive. Forcing families to declare their loved one dead just so that they can take control of a spiralling financial crisis seems an almost dystopian level of cruelty. Where is the humanity in such a system? There are examples of people who have been missing for years later returning. Who are we to deny suffering families the hope that their loved one will one day be back to resume the life they left behind?
The simple solution, as laid out in the 2017 Act, is similar to arrangements that exist for appointing people guardian of the affairs of someone who is mentally incapable of managing their own affairs. This is a humane and practical route to giving families the peace of mind and the autonomy to deal with financial quandaries that they would otherwise face.
The Government have dragged their feet on implementation of the 2017 Act, to the extent that they are still consulting on it, despite the Act receiving Royal Assent and the support of both sides of the House. This totally unnecessary consultation finishes today, with weary families watching as we continue to engage in a talking shop about the blatantly obvious and already agreed solution to their ongoing trauma. The legislation has been debated and agreed and has received Royal Assent. Why on earth are we making traumatised families wait any longer? Charities that work with the families of missing people are seriously concerned by the continued delays. Missing People says that families it works with currently face increased financial hardship, despite hoping that they would now be able to manage their missing relative’s affairs.
Claudia Lawrence is still missing after nearly 10 years. There is no evidence of any crime being committed against her, nor of her having made any contact with those close to her. Her father, Peter Lawrence, has spearheaded the campaign for changes to guardianship laws and has come so far, seeing Claudia’s law grow from a ten-minute rule Bill into a fully formed Act thanks to his brave campaigning. However, he and the rest of Claudia’s family still have no closure or ability to manage her affairs.
More people are going missing, and the latest figures show that fewer people than the Government expected have been declared as presumed dead, meaning more families being forced to face unnecessary challenges due to the Government’s slow progress on implementing the legislation. Claudia’s law passed its Third Reading in the House of Lords on 27 April 2017. It was welcomed in both Houses by all parties and passed through Parliament unamended in just over three months. It should have been fully enacted in May 2018, when we expected families of missing people to be able to start applying for guardianship powers.
However, despite initial assurances that the law would be brought into force one year after Royal Assent, in April 2018 the Government made the heartbreaking announcement that delays would ensue, preventing the necessary secondary legislation from being enacted. We are still waiting, nearly two years down the line, while families watch their finances fall apart and the burden of stress mount ever higher. All Members who have spoken have made the same plea: that we must not drag our heels any longer. Why do these delays persist? When will the Minister give these families the reassurance they need of a solid, immovable implementation timetable, and what does he have to say to them by way of apology for their prolonged pain and suffering?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) on securing a debate on this important subject. He and many other Members of both Houses, some of whom are here today, have campaigned long and hard for the implementation of the Guardianship (Missing Persons) Act 2017. The hon. Gentleman spoke very movingly, with his customary decency and power, on behalf of his constituent, whose brother went missing in the Galapagos.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who is my friend, for his work on and success with his private Member’s Bill. He mentioned that parliamentary time is hard to come by and that getting a private Member’s Bill through is harder still. I have to say that he has exceptional skill in doing so, having done it not once but twice. I commend any colleague wishing to succeed with a private Member’s Bill to seek his wise counsel and guidance, or indeed his golden touch, in this space.
My hon. Friend rightly highlighted not only the support for the 2017 Act across the House, but how he got it across the line just in time. I have to declare an interest: I was proud to be in the Chamber that day to hear his speech. On that occasion he highlighted the case of Claudia Lawrence, who has been missing since 2009. Her father, Peter, is here today. While tributes to colleagues are important, I must pay the greatest tribute to him for his bravery and dedication in securing action by Parliament on this important issue.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), made a powerful speech, as ever. It is always a pleasure to work with her. As she knows, when I say that I will do something, I tend to stick to that, and I intend to do so today. I know that she, with her customary courtesy but firmness, will hold me to account on that—she has today administered polite but firm prods to Her Majesty’s Government along those lines.
I am conscious that Members are frustrated, as they have expressed courteously but clearly, that the Act has not yet come into effect. As a Member who was in the Chamber that day, I share that frustration. I am pleased to reaffirm on the record the commitment made by my ministerial colleague, Lord Keen, that the Government are determined to implement the Act in July this year. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate asked what will happen should there be any delays or problems. First, should there be any, I will ensure that Parliament is fully informed. However, it is my determination to make sure that there are none and that we bring the Act into operation in July.
Julian Sturdy
The Minister is making a genuine point, and I know from speaking to him and from asking questions of him in the House that he is determined to drive this forward. I am absolutely delighted about that, but will he give a commitment to all Members in the debate—looking around, they are the same ones who have been involved in these debates for years—that he will write to us to keep us updated and to make sure we deliver on that July timetable?
Edward Argar
I am very happy to give that assurance and to write to all Members who have participated in the debate, as well as to others who could not be here today but who have taken a close interest in this issue. My hon. Friend pre-empts my mentioning him, but I put on the record my appreciation and, I know, everyone else’s, for his work in furthering this important cause.
Today is a significant marker on the route to implementation, not only because of our debate, but because it is the end of the consultation period, which began on 19 December last year with the publication of our consultation paper on the implementation of the Act. While I hear the shadow Minister’s points on that, I think it was right that we consulted. We are taking a novel approach to a new area of law, and it is important that we get it right.
I emphasise that the Government recognise and fully support the need for this legislation. I think it was the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) who put it very clearly, saying that, prior to the Act, the law and provisions in this area were essentially a bit like crazy paving. He is absolutely right. The need for the legislation was therefore clear.
We understood that several families each year had no legal process to turn to in order to resolve urgent property or financial affairs for a family member or friend who had gone missing with no evidence of what had happened to them. That was set out by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate and, indeed, by my friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who set out with his customary passion, determination and detailed research the vital need for this legislation to come into force. As ever, his constituents and the House are lucky to have him.
We understand that the terrible emotional distress and anxiety that families are already going through is increased as they seek to deal with everyday financial issues regarding their missing loved one. They cannot access bank accounts, savings or property transactions to intervene as they see those financial affairs potentially spiralling out of control. The creation of the new legal status of guardian of the property and financial affairs of a missing person will provide a structured way of dealing with financial affairs and property in the missing person’s best interests, under a legal process that builds in safeguards for all involved.
The consultation paper, to which I referred, set out the Ministry of Justice’s proposals for implementation of the Act. The Government are grateful for the comments we have received—both formally, in writing, and in numerous meetings that officials have convened in the past few months with a wide range of interested parties, following the commitment in the consultation paper to engage fully with stakeholders. Of course, we must now consider the views expressed to us. We intend to do that quickly and to publish the Government’s response to the consultation in early April, setting out the detail of the proposals for implementation.
As the consultation paper set out, there are several aspects to implementation of the Act, and all of them need to be completed successfully for it to come into force and work as intended. As I have mentioned, guardianship in this context is fairly novel; indeed, it is a significant change, so it is important that we get it right, with safeguards, but also ensure that the raft of complex legal and regulatory changes work as intended.
The first aspect is developing the rules of court and related practice directions for guardianship proceedings. Guardians can be appointed only by the High Court. Their appointment will be by a court order setting out the scope of their authority in relation to the property and financial affairs of the missing person. As I have said, the court to be designated for the process is the High Court. The decision on the court was made by the Lord Chancellor, following the required statutory consultation with the Lord Chief Justice.
Our intention is that applications to the High Court for a guardianship order will be made to the chancery division or the family division. This arrangement is modelled on the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 and the Presumption of Death Act 2013. This approach enables many of the existing rules of court and practice directions to be followed, so guardianship proceedings can be commenced under existing part 8 of the civil procedure rules, and applications after a case has started can be made via part 23. We will decide where to draw the line between the different rules over the coming months in considering the response to the consultation. However, although we can follow precedent, we are not obliged to do so, and if there are good reasons to create a new provision to cater for a particular feature of guardianship—for example, its limited duration—we are willing to look at that.
I can give an update: the work on the draft rules of court and practice directions is progressing well and efficiently, particularly through consultation with members of the judiciary and court officials who will be handling cases. The draft rules and practice directions will of course have to be considered and approved by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee. We intend to submit the drafts to the meetings of the committee in April and May. Once the committee has signed off the rules, they will be made and laid before Parliament for approval under the negative resolution procedure. The rules will be given effect through administrative procedures that will have to be created by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. Work is already under way in preparation for that.
The second major aspect of implementation is the making of regulations to enable the Public Guardian to register and supervise guardians. These regulations will be made under section 58 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We expect that they will be similar to those applying to deputies who are appointed by the Court of Protection to manage the property and financial affairs of individuals who lack the mental capacity to do so themselves. These regulations will provide a legal framework, but the Public Guardian will also have to develop procedures to provide a supervisory and registration service. That work is also well under way, and good progress is being made.
This Act provides for the Public Guardian to establish and maintain a register of guardianship orders. The Public Guardian will also be responsible for supervision of guardians. We propose that a guardianship order will specify when the guardian is to report to the Public Guardian. The Public Guardian will deal with complaints about the conduct of guardians, including safeguarding concerns, but will also be able to offer advice and guidance, which we think will provide considerable assistance to guardians, as the equivalent advice and guidance does for deputies at the moment.
Deputies usually have to provide a security or surety bond or proof of adequate professional indemnity insurance to the Public Guardian. We anticipate that there will be similar arrangements for guardians under this Act. The Public Guardian will receive the bond and hold it against any risk of a missing person’s estate being misused and facing financial loss through the actions of the guardian.
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Public Guardian and his office for their work to date in preparing for implementation of the Act. More broadly, ahead of his retirement later this year, I pay tribute to the Public Guardian, Alan Eccles, as an exemplary public servant who has done much to bring this issue to the fore and into greater public consciousness during his term of office.
The third aspect on which we have consulted is the fees for the new service. These are of two types. The first is court fees, and the proposal in the consultation is to adopt the existing fees in the High Court’s two divisions for the procedures concerned. This mirrors the approach taken for fees under the Presumption of Death Act 2013. The second type of fee is that levied by the Public Guardian for registration and supervision of guardians. These will be new fees, but the expectation in the consultation is that the approach will follow that taken by the Public Guardian in relation to existing fees for deputies. For both these types of fees, we expect that there will be the usual exemptions and remissions.
I have to say that this is not a simple process, because the fees are currently calculated to strike a balance between being affordable and covering the costs of operating the system. Obviously, for something new, it is difficult to estimate both what the costs will be and what the volume of cases will be, but it is important that we strike the right balance between ensuring that costs are covered and not allowing a situation whereby, in the initial months, when there may be only a few applications, people face a prohibitive fee. We need to strike an appropriate balance.
The fourth and final aspect on which we have consulted is the content of a draft code of practice offering guidance to guardians and those considering whether to make a guardianship application. The Act requires the Lord Chancellor to issue a code of practice, and we intend to do that when the Act comes into force. In drawing up the draft code, we have been at pains to make it as accessible as possible to the layperson, and it features a glossary of terms and a number of examples of scenarios that may be faced by the family and friends of missing people. However, we know from the comments that we have received that we can make further progress towards that objective.
The draft code explains key concepts underpinning the Act and goes into some detail on the broad range of duties that guardians will carry out. The aim is that it will assist guardians to understand their responsibilities and equip them to meet their duties. It also aims to explain their powers and the limitations of those powers, as well as where guardians can turn for help. Once the content of the rules and regulations has been settled in the light of the consultation responses, we will include them in the code of practice. The code will be an important resource for guardians and people dealing with them. We intend to lay a draft before Parliament at least 40 days before it is issued, but in the meantime we intend to publish a revised draft in response to the consultation.
I will now address one of the points made by the hon. Member for Islwyn—my pronunciation of the name of his constituency will get better one of these days—in respect of relationships with financial institutions, both in the lead-up to the Act and once the Act is fully in force. Financial institutions are already getting engaged with this process and getting on board with these changes. Officials are ensuring that there is strong engagement directly with financial institutions to discuss setting up new systems for the process in guardianship cases, to ensure that it is as simple and efficient as possible for those who have to go through the pain of this situation.
The designation of the High Court, which I mentioned, will require a statutory instrument.
Jim Shannon
I want to refresh the Minister’s memory about one the requests I made to him, on the back of which the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) came in as well. The Police Service of Northern Ireland has a statistical central catalogue of all the missing people, and it periodically publishes their names in the provincial press to remind people. I know it is not the Minister’s direct responsibility, but could he ask the correct Minister about having a central location for a catalogue of those who have gone missing across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? That would ensure that people could look at it whenever they want. Would he also take on the idea suggested by the hon. Member for Islwyn about having copies of a photograph of these people? That could be done in conjunction with a person’s family. It would highlight missing people on a regular basis, and may jog people’s memories to give a bit of evidence, which may make a difference.
Edward Argar
The hon. Members for Strangford and for Islwyn—if I keep saying it, I will get it right—have both made powerful points, which I am happy to explore with ministerial colleagues.
The designation of the High Court will require a statutory instrument. I hope that when we get to the stage of having to lay those pieces of delegated legislation, we preserve a bipartisan and non-party political approach, to ensure that we get the regulations right and get them through as swiftly as we can.
Before finishing, I place on record my thanks to the charity Missing People, which has continued to engage with the Ministry in the preparation of the consultation and the draft legislation, and which has kindly acted as an intermediary to collect and collate responses to the consultation from families it knows who have been directly affected by people going missing.
In conclusion, I thank the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate for bringing the topic of guardianship of missing persons before us today. I thank all the hon. Members who have taken part and who have pursued the issue, both today and over many months and years. I also thank you, Mr Hollobone, for chairing the debate. The Act is not only needed and practically important, but quite simply the right thing to do. There is still more work to do to implement the Act in July, but I and the Government know how important this legislation is to many families, who do not have any legal recourse at the moment, and I will do everything in my power to ensure that, in July, we make the ambition and intent of this Act a reality for our country, our communities and those who suffer the dreadful pain of a loved one going missing.
Bambos Charalambous
I will be brief in my remarks. I thank the Minister for giving details about the next steps and how the matter will progress from here. I look forward to getting updates in the near future about how things are progressing. He has given a commitment that the Act will be fully implemented in July, and I look forward to that. I thank him for being so candid.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered missing persons guardianship.
Non-surgical Cosmetic Procedures: Regulation
(5 years, 9 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
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered regulation of non-surgical cosmetic procedures.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and I am grateful to lead this debate on an issue that I believe affects all our constituents.
We live in a time when there is a certain desire, especially among the young and impressionable, that one must always look one’s best, or in fact look different to how we may really be. There is nothing wrong with that; we live in a country that gives all citizens the ultimate freedoms over their choices and their own bodies. However, we in Parliament have a responsibility to the people, and our responsibility includes ensuring that those who wish to change their appearance and their body have all the information they need to make a fully informed and rational decision and, importantly, are able to trust those administering treatments and to have peace of mind that those treatments will be carried out correctly, with minimal risk to their health.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Does this matter not come down to a fundamental issue, namely that if something goes wrong, who do we sue? Is that not the nub of what my hon. Friend is trying to get at?
Alberto Costa
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Yes, that is one of the core issues that I wish to raise today. The mark of a professional in our society is somebody who is regulated, who is trained, qualified and licensed, and who has ongoing regulation and development. However, in addition to that, in the private sector they must carry professional indemnity insurance, so that people do not sue men or women of straw and so that they have someone to sue when things go wrong.
My experience of non-surgical cosmetic procedures does not extend to Instagram celebrities or Kylie Jenner. Instead, I wish to inform you, Mr Hollobone, of the case of my constituent Rachael Knappier. First, I thank Rachael, her mother and her friend, who are all attending this debate here in Parliament. I also thank Rachael for her tremendous bravery and willingness to talk openly about the terrible injury that she sustained as a result of a botched non-surgical cosmetic procedure. I think Rachael has been a role model for hundreds, if not thousands, of people across the country who have read the articles in the British media about her trauma. They responded with sympathy, but most crucially an understanding of her experience, because—sadly—experiences such as Rachael’s are not confined to the few. Many hundreds of our constituents have suffered such botched procedures.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I congratulate him on bringing this issue to the House. This debate was supposed to be held a few weeks ago, Mr Hollobone, but unfortunately it did not take place then, so I have looked forward to this opportunity today.
Very recently, I was contacted by one of my local councillors on behalf of a registered nurse in my constituency who is asking for regulation of non-surgical cosmetic services to be made compulsory and not voluntary. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must understand the belief of someone who sees the terrible effects of these treatments carried out by those who are not medical professionals, and that we should put legislation in place to address this grave concern? Whenever nurses or my councillors come and tell me their concerns, there is a real need for legislative change.
Alberto Costa
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree that regulation is required and that legislation should underpin that regulation; there should not be voluntary regulation. Indeed, I would go further and say that, although I do not profess to know what type of expertise somebody should have to carry out these procedures, the regulator should identify the training, the expertise and the qualifications required and what products should be permitted in the market.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I am sure my hon. Friend will be aware that Sir Bruce Keogh conducted a review of the cosmetics industry and its unregulated nature earlier this decade, and he made exactly the points that my hon. Friend is making. Sir Bruce also made the point that if someone is going to perform operations on the human body, they should have the requisite knowledge and training to understand the anatomy involved and the consequences if something goes wrong. Far too often, unregulated practitioners do not have the skills or knowledge to understand what can go wrong, or indeed the skills or knowledge to advise people about the potentially adverse consequences of a procedure. I therefore agree with my hon. Friend that it is time for proper regulation of what are sometimes cowboy practitioners in this sector.
Alberto Costa
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The idea that anyone who is wholly unregulated and without any medical expertise whatsoever can inject people with foreign substances is shocking, to say the least. Again, however, it would be for a regulator to determine what type of qualifications and expertise one should need, whether that is medical expertise or otherwise. I would leave that matter in the hands of an appropriate regulator.
Several hon. Members rose—
Alberto Costa
If hon. Members do not mind, I will make some progress and then give way again.
My constituent Rachael told me that a beautician had attended a party intending to administer some treatments to those in attendance. The beautician in question did not have any medical training, nor, to the best of my knowledge, did she have any formal recognised training in administering this type of injection. Rachael received, as many thousands of our constituents do, a lip filler injection while she was attending a social engagement with friends. As a direct result of the beautician’s mistake—it was not Rachael’s mistake—lip filler was incorrectly injected into Rachael’s artery, causing her lips to swell severely, requiring her to seek urgent medical attention, before being treated privately after the NHS was unable to help. Again, I commend Rachael’s bravery in talking so willingly about her experience, providing a multitude of younger people and others with a message of understanding and empowerment.
These types of procedures, which have been popularised by Instagram celebrities and reality stars such as the Kardashians, have experienced a huge rise in popularity, with more and more people seeking them.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although the vast majority of beauticians undertaking these procedures do so in a professional setting and manner and are concerned about the reputation of their businesses, maintaining that professionalism requires some form of regulation, which would stop these Botox parties where things go horribly wrong and people have no redress, and would improve the whole industry?
Alberto Costa
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She is right to use the word “professional”, but the mark of a professional is somebody who is regulated, and in the private sector it is somebody who has professional indemnity insurance behind them. It is easy for someone to call themselves a professional, but a real professional is someone who is regulated. I am a solicitor and I am regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and behind me there is professional indemnity insurance. If I give advice negligently, a consumer has redress against the insurance product. We want a healthy, thriving industry in non-surgical cosmetics, where people can freely choose these procedures, but we have a duty as MPs to protect the health and safety of consumers, enabling them to make informed choices when seeking treatment from professional beauticians.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Regarding the training that those administering these sorts of treatments need, I recently spoke to a father whose 19-year-old daughter had received Botox injections, to which she had suffered a severe allergic reaction. This is the realm of medical practice. Anyone administering Botox should be aware of the possibility of those receiving it having an allergic reaction and should know what to do if they do. That is an area that regulation needs to address.
Alberto Costa
The hon. Lady is exactly spot-on. It is beyond belief that somebody can inject someone else with a foreign substance and have no medical expertise whatsoever. That is the nub of the problem.
We see more and more young people seeking these types of procedures, and at younger ages. It is incumbent on the Government to act swiftly and decisively to ensure that proper regulation and protection are in place for our constituents, of all ages, before the situation spirals out of control.
According to data from Save Face, a Government-approved voluntary register of accredited practitioners, there has been an alarming rise in reports of botched cosmetic procedures in the UK. The number of complaints about unregistered practitioners of treatments such as lip fillers and Botox reached almost 1,000 last year, showing that there is a large gap in safety and proper process that must be bridged.
Further, there is a separate but inextricable link between the rise of non-surgical cosmetic procedures and the pressures that young people in our society feel. Members may have seen Sky News this morning about social media, selfies and changing one’s image. That is clearly a major issue, particularly among the younger generation. Social media also has a responsibility regarding advertisements for non-surgical cosmetic procedures that are particularly targeted at minors. Although it is a person’s prerogative to undertake any treatment they wish, they should be able to do so through the prism of an informed decision, and with the peace of mind that the treatment they receive has been tried, tested and regulated by a professional body.
Colleagues might have seen the news about Superdrug a week or so ago, in which NHS England’s medical director strongly criticised the trusted high street retailer for not conducting “medically responsible” checks before customers receive their treatment. Similarly, NHS England’s chief executive sternly warned ITV about screening advertisements for these types of treatment in breaks during programmes such as “Love Island”, which is hugely popular with young people. Many colleagues will be shocked, as I was, to find that anyone can carry out non-surgical cosmetic procedures, with no regulation or expertise whatsoever.
A multitude of small businesses, and even individuals, spread across Facebook and, especially, Instagram, offer their services to impressionable young people. Many of them have no corporate responsibility or regulation and there are therefore absolutely no safeguards for consumers. Although I appreciate that many colleagues may have never seen an episode of “Love Island”—I confess to being in that category; I do not even have an Instagram account—
Alberto Costa
Dreadful, shocking. [Interruption.] Resign? With immediate effect. Members may also inexplicably not even know the different between their Kylie and Kendall Jenners, but there can be no doubt that most of our young constituents do. Those things are staples of the young generation, and are prevalent reminders, and in some cases advocates, of these types of non-surgical cosmetic treatment.
The Times recently conducted an investigation in which an Instagram account was created purporting to be that of a 13-year-old. Almost instantly after the account had followed social media influencers and celebrities, posts promoting such procedures appeared in the app’s “explore” feature. That reveals the shocking ease with which our younger constituents can be exposed to these types of treatment, under the guise of their being the new norm in today’s society.
In addition, young people’s physical access to the treatments is of tremendous concern. Although the law rightly restricts tattooing and the use of sunbeds for those under 18, there is no age-related restriction for either surgical or non-surgical invasive cosmetic procedures. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics recommends that children and young people under the age of 18 should not be able to access cosmetic procedures unless there is a medically relevant reason to do so. With the prevalence and exposure of the procedures specifically aimed at the young and impressionable in our society, action is required to protect children.
Turning to the industry itself, I have repeatedly said that non-health professionals who provide non-surgical cosmetic procedures are not regulated in an appropriate statutory manner. There is, however, an independent voluntary Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners, which has launched two new registers, one for practitioners who meet the clinical standards required to provide the treatments and another for accredited education providers. In the absence of an obligatory statutory register, as a minimum there should be clear public information about the need to seek a practitioner who is, at the very least, registered with that independent voluntary regulator. Nevertheless, a voluntary independent register, however laudable, does not go far enough. Dermal lip fillers, as one of the more popular non-surgical cosmetic treatments, are a good case in point regarding the total lack of standards in respect of the administered products.
I am mindful of time, so will make a few closing remarks. It was mentioned that the Keogh review, undertaken by the coalition Government, expressed huge concern that nothing prevented entirely unskilled practitioners from offering invasive treatments using unregulated products. The review stated that
“dermal fillers are a crisis waiting to happen.”
Despite the Minister at the time of the review’s publication advocating that its recommendations be taken forward, sadly this is, apparently, not happening. I therefore ask both the Minister, who I know has been a champion of ensuring appropriate health and safety standards for consumers, and the Government to at least consider setting out a cohesive and comprehensive plan to properly regulate the non-surgical cosmetic industry.
My constituent Rachael has been forthcoming, and willing to discuss her experience, but many hundreds out there have suffered botched treatments and are embarrassed or unable to come forward. As Members of Parliament, we have a duty to our constituents, and indeed to all others who may consider these treatments, to provide public information and to ensure that the procedures are administered by trained, qualified and regulated individuals. We also must ensure that, yes, those individuals are able to work in a thriving and competitive industry, but also that consumers have choice and that professional indemnity insurance is obligatory, so that our constituents are protected when things go wrong and the taxpayer is not burdened through the impact on the NHS.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) for introducing this extremely timely debate. It is good to see so many colleagues showing an interest. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), who made a start on regulating what is a growing industry. These days, we are all concerned about our body image. We all want to look good, and the industry has grown very rapidly. However, it is important to ensure that the public understand the risks associated with the procedures, and we need to do our best to improve standards throughout the industry.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that as well as looking at regulation we need to celebrate the beauty industry, which is led predominantly by women, predominantly employs women, and contributes hundreds of millions of pounds to our economy?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I am happy to endorse that point. It is worth bearing in mind that in wishing to regulate the sector we do not want to undermine its dynamism and competitiveness. What we really need is to ensure that consumers are properly educated, so that they can make informed choices about where they seek treatment and can protect themselves. Medical professionals are equipped to deliver some of the treatments, but we do not necessarily want that as a monopoly. Provided we have an appropriate system of regulation with everyone signing up to the same expected standards, such a system can be embraced.
We have had reference to Sir Bruce Keogh’s invaluable review, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich. The Government have acted to improve the regulation and registration of those performing cosmetic interventions, but we clearly need to make much more rapid and substantial progress if we are to protect consumers properly. The industry is ever-expanding. We have heard that treatments are now available on the high street in places such as Superdrug, but this is not like going to have a haircut. When things are injected into a person’s face, if it goes wrong, it takes a lot longer to fix than letting their hair grow again would. We need to be sure that we are properly looking after consumers, including their safety.
Dr Poulter
I welcome what the Minister has said about wanting to go further with regulation. Historically, the challenge has been other Government Departments pushing back against the position of the Department of Health, which has wanted to protect people—seeing them as not just consumers but people who would be considered as patients in other capacities—and put in place adequate regulation of this sector. I hope that, given the Minister’s interest in this topic, she will be able to take the challenge to other Government Departments, and overcome the out-and-out free-market instincts that are putting people at risk.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right: the priority for us in the Department of Health and Social Care has to be the safety of people undergoing these procedures. Aligned with that, I was pleased to see in the challenge to Superdrug a recognition of the fact that people’s seeking these sorts of treatments can be an indication of dysmorphia and an underlying problem. We need to make sure that all practitioners in this field have the ability to recognise those problems.
Liz McInnes
I also wanted to raise the issue of dysmorphia, which strays into the area of mental health. I am concerned that we seem to be accepting that it is okay for people to want to change their appearance. The issue of body dysmorphia illustrates that people may be asking for these procedures for the wrong reasons, and I question whether somebody on the high street who is not a qualified mental health practitioner is able to determine whether somebody is suffering from body dysmorphia.
Jackie Doyle-Price
The hon. Lady goes to the nub of this issue. We need to achieve an appropriate balance between allowing consumers to choose to embark on procedures that will enhance their appearance, and identifying whether the issue is something deeper. Again, it comes down to how we regulate those practitioners, the codes of conduct that they will sign up to, and the policies that they will put in place themselves. To an extent, the hon. Lady is right: dysmorphia can only be diagnosed by a medical professional. However, there are signs that can be taken into account, that can lead to the person’s being asked, “Do you really want to do this? Is this an appropriate procedure for you?” Perhaps there should be cooling-off periods, with bookings being made properly, and customers being advised about the risks that such treatments involve, so that they can make an informed choice. The hon. Lady is right to highlight the growing issue of dysmorphia, which we need to be very alive to.
Melanie Onn
This is a really important point. Even in the realm of plastic surgery, which is a regulated industry, we see grotesque transformations of people’s bodies and faces: people having ribs removed, leaving their external organs exposed, or having their entire appearance amended to make them look like a human Ken doll. We know that regulation in that sector is not really working, so can we make sure that in the currently unregulated sector of Botox injections and dermal fillers, we keep a closer eye on such things?
Jackie Doyle-Price
The hon. Lady makes an extremely good point. The worst thing is that the media representation of those quite grotesque transformations encourages us to look on them as entertainment, yet the person we are looking at has no idea, because those transformations are symptomatic of dysmorphia. The media have to be a lot more sensible about their portrayal of these things. My hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire mentioned the adverts during “Love Island”; these artificially enhanced images of people are becoming entertainment. I am delighted that in this country we have banned the Brazilian butt lift, which aims to make people look like one of our friends the Kardashians, but even so, people still aspire to look like that.
We can discuss regulation and ensuring that consumers understand the risks, but there is a wider challenge to society in how we celebrate learning to love ourselves. We have talked generally about the pressure that social media creates, which is becoming much more intense, but there is a hell of a lot more to do. Sadly, we could probably debate this issue for quite some time—we do not have the opportunity to do so today—but the debate about cosmetic regulation and making cosmetic procedures safe brings out these questions, which we as a society need to be better at addressing. If we do not address them, these issues about dysmorphia will only get worse, because our young people are faced with an intensity of images that make them want to change their bodies. It is just not good for them.
As there is limited time left, I will bring hon. Members up to date about what has happened since the Keogh review. Sir Bruce Keogh’s report identified several areas for change: the principles that underlined it were those of high-quality care, using safe products, administered by skilled professionals and responsible providers to an informed and empowered public. We still have a long way to go in both empowering the public and ensuring that all such procedures are administered by skilled practitioners. I wholly endorse the demand by my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire that such practitioners should have professional indemnity insurance. It is important that the NHS has the opportunity to recover the costs of repairing procedures carried out by those practitioners, who should bear the risks. As I say, this is not like going to the hairdresser’s for a haircut: there are risks associated with such procedures, and those engaged in them should bear those risks.
Updated guidance for doctors about this area has been issued by both the General Medical Council and the Royal College of Surgeons. We have introduced a voluntary certification scheme for surgeons working in the cosmetic sector, and Health Education England is developing a training and qualification framework for providers of non-surgical interventions. A key outcome of the Keogh review was setting standards that anyone who wishes to perform non-surgical cosmetic procedures should meet. To that end, the Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners was established, and in April 2018 it launched a register for both medical and non-clinical cosmetic practitioners. That register will provide a framework for regulation, but we need to do much more to encourage non-clinical cosmetic practitioners to sign up to it.
Alongside the Cosmetic Practice Standards Authority, the JCCP released an updated competency framework last September, and launched its education and training register. To receive accreditation on that register, providers offering education and training in these procedures must meet rigorous standards set by the JCCP. We need to work closely with the JCCP to develop hallmarks that people who wish to undergo these procedures can look for, so that they can be sure that they are obtaining treatment from a regulated practitioner. We have heard references to Save Face, which also holds a register for clinical cosmetic practitioners who provide non-surgical cosmetic treatments. Some 600 practitioners are currently covered by these registers, but I am sure that hon. Members from across the House will appreciate that significantly more than 600 practitioners offer these treatments. There is some way to go in ensuring that all those involved in this industry perform to the standards that we can legitimately expect, and that those who are not doing so exit the industry. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire will agree that those registers are major steps forward in enabling consumers to make informed choices about cosmetic procedures.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend’s constituent for coming forward and telling her story, because probably the best way of helping consumers protect themselves is to have a visual illustration of the risks and someone who can demonstrate their experience. I am very grateful to her for her courage in sharing her story. We need to do much more in the area of public education, to ensure that consumers fully appreciate that there are risks involved in injecting substances into one’s face, and to ensure that the person doing so has appropriate qualifications. Botox is obviously a prescription drug, but the person injecting it does not have to be the person who obtained the prescription. That is another thing that we need to address. I can also advise my hon. Friend that we will be making dermal fillers a regulated medical device, which will remove some of the risks associated with them. However, as I have said, there is plenty more to do.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Funding
(5 years, 9 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
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Before I call Sir Vince Cable to move the motion for this important debate on special educational needs and disabilities funding, I can report that 12 colleagues have put in to speak from the Back Benches. Therefore, after Sir Vince’s speech, there will be a voluntary time limit of three and a half minutes. Please try to contain yourselves a little in interventions; otherwise, we will go well over time.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered special educational needs and disabilities funding.
It is a privilege to speak on this subject, which is of immense concern to a large number of us and to our constituents, and that is reflected in the demand to speak. It is rare that we get a Brexit-free zone in Parliament at the moment, but this is one, and it is right that we pay attention to it. Far too many Government problems have been squeezed out by the attention given to a single issue, but how we treat children with special educational needs will have enormous implications for decades to come.
Essentially, I will speak about the conflict between two sets of pressures: an irresistible force and an immovable object. The irresistible force is, of course, the demand of parents of children with special needs, who have been led to believe, by the very progressive Children and Families Act 2014, that their children’s needs will be met and their full potential realised through education, health and care plans. The immovable object is money, manifesting itself now in a serious financial crisis for local authorities, which are expected to meet statutory obligations, but find that demand is rising and becoming much larger than the funding available through the special needs block. In some cases, those local authorities are in extreme difficulty.
I will introduce the debate by quoting a parents’ group called Richmond SEND Crisis, which wrote to me yesterday, describing the problem from the parents’ point of view. The group said:
“The crisis in funding has consequences. It means more stress and mental health issues for both parents and children, parents being forced to give up work, increased levels of family break up, increased levels of children being disruptive in school, failing in school or not being in school at all. It means that schools and the wider school community suffer, as children without proper support tend to absorb a disproportionate amount of time from school staff and may be disruptive in class.
All of these consequences inevitably hit the most vulnerable… families the hardest.”
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one significant change is the growth in home-school education? Given the amount of time it takes to get an assessment, parents are now just taking their children out of school. That cannot be a good thing.
Sir Vince Cable
Indeed. That is happening on a growing scale, and is augmented by the fact that many children are being excluded because of the lack of support. That, in turn, contributes to home education, which may be inferior.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the crisis in funding is about not only the overall sum of money but the distribution? Government policy means that schools have to absorb up to £11,000 of the cost of meeting an EHCP. Schools that do the right thing and accept children with special educational needs are therefore punished, and those that do not are rewarded. Does he agree that that is an unfair and wrong distribution?
Sir Vince Cable
Indeed. In addition to the problem facing local authorities, schools in effect pay a £6,000 penalty. Many schools that were committed to inclusion now find that increasingly difficult and are shying away from their obligations.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I fully agree with him about funding for special needs schools. Hereward College in Coventry has struggled with funding for a number of years, and does an excellent job. Another dimension is that children who have mental health problems often go home to a disruptive family life. That is not conducive to their education or mental health. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that something should be done about that?
Sir Vince Cable
Yes, I do. By mentioning mental health, the hon. Gentleman reinforces the point that I will go on to make. When we talk about special needs pupils, we are talking about significantly different classes of people with fundamentally different problems. Of course, they are all individuals, but we are talking about 1.2 million people altogether in the SEN system—up by about 0.5 million since 2014. About a quarter of them, according to Mencap, have learning difficulties. That actually understates the problem, because Mencap estimates that about 40% of children with learning difficulties are never identified at school.
About 120,000 children are on the autistic spectrum, which is the most rapidly growing and difficult group to accommodate. About 300,000 have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Others have a physical disability. I have had correspondence with those with visual impairment problems, who lack equipment, and other groups such as deaf children, who are not included in the SEN categories at all.
We are dealing with large numbers of very different categories of people, but what they have in common is that demand for EHCPs is growing rapidly: it has grown by about 35% over the four years since the legislation was enacted, which is about three times the growth of the school population. It is also three times the amount of funding available through the Government grant allocation.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (Ind)
I thank my right hon. Friend for securing this important debate. He will be aware that one of the successes during the coalition was our insistence that disabled children need to be educated up to the age of 18. That has been a real game-changer; however, the Government did not make it clear that transport for those children should be paid for; they left it discretionary—some county councils pay for the transport, and others do not, which essentially means that those children have to stay at home. Does he agree that that is an anomaly that the Government need to rectify? Otherwise, thousands of disabled people aged 16 to 18, who should be going to school or in training, because that is what we want them to do, will not have that chance.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that interventions should be brief.
Sir Vince Cable
My hon. Friend is right; that is one of many anomalies. Many such issues were not properly accounted for and are not being fully funded. I will come to others in a moment.
The consequence of the growing demand is that many local authorities, which are genuinely trying to do their best in most cases, are accumulating large financial deficits. The Local Government Association, which has done lots of research on it, believes that there will be a gap of about £1.6 billion at the end of the next financial year. That is unaccounted for at present.
Some London authorities—I speak as a London MP, but I know that other parts of the country have similar problems—have a shortfall from the high needs block of about 7%. For about six boroughs in London, it is more than 10%. For my borough, Richmond, it is 20%, and I think three others are in an even worse position, including the borough of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey). For his borough, I think it is 40%.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
My right hon. Friend is right that the situation for Kingston is the worst of any London borough. We are spending more than 40% above our allocation, with a potential knock-on to the budgets of schools across the board, and potentially even the solvency of the local authority. Given how serious that is, does he agree that Ministers need to take action now and that we need to talk to the Department of Health and Social Care? The health service is often not paying for the health part of EHCPs.
Sir Vince Cable
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: those are both key parts of the solution. For example, I have discovered that there are children whose need for wheelchairs—clearly a health requirement—is treated as an educational need. There are many such cases in which the finance sits in silos and is not sensibly dealt with.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
My right hon. Friend is being very generous with his time, and I congratulate him on securing this debate. My constituent Sally Foulsham, who runs a parent group called SHIFT, is in contact with more than 100 parents. She reports that what most frustrates them is the lack of funding for child and adolescent mental health services, which is a major block to unlocking the funding that should be available for EHCPs in the first place. Does my right hon. Friend agree?
Sir Vince Cable
Yes. The decline in CAMHS has led to a lot of children not being properly helped at an early stage and requiring greater special needs provision as a result.
To conclude my point about finance, a large number of local authorities are in serious financial trouble, and not just in London—even those that are doing their best and are perfectly competent. Consequently, they have a large financial deficit sitting on their balance sheet. One of their main sources of anxiety is what will happen with respect to Government legislation that treats them as requiring special measures if they do not sort out the problem. At the moment, they are not sure whether to deal with the problem immediately. Perhaps the Minister could advise us what conversations her colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government have had about how to deal with the problem.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. My council, Hartlepool Borough Council, will have a shortfall of £621,000 in its high needs block funding for 2019-2020. Does he agree that our children and schools need a dedicated schools grant that is sustained and reflects local need?
Sir Vince Cable
I am sure that that would be sensible. The hon. Gentleman represents Hartlepool—a very different kind of community from mine in Twickenham—but his helpful intervention illustrates that the problem is felt across the board.
Why has the problem arisen? Why is there such rapid growth in demand, and why is it not being met? There are good reasons and bad reasons. One of the good reasons is that the 2014 Act extended entitlement to special educational needs provision from 18 up to 25. That was a progressive step, but nobody thought about how it would be paid for. Another big biological change is that perinatal and natal mortality has been reduced; that has been a great step in medicine, but it means that there are now many more children who are much loved by their parents but who do need extra help. We are also getting more successful early intervention and diagnosis, meaning that children with special needs are being identified but then have to be helped.
Those are the good reasons. One of the bad reasons is the decline in CAMHS that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) referred to. Another is the pressure on schools, partly as a result of the minimum £6,000 requirement, and partly because they are having to dispense with teaching assistants—in my area, certainly, cuts are reducing schools’ capacity to handle children with behavioural problems. There is also a rapid rise in exclusions. All those things are bringing pressure to bear on the system.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
I have just received figures from my local authority, Derbyshire County Council, that show that children who have special needs but no statement or EHCP are five times as likely to be excluded as children without special needs, whereas those who have a statement or plan are more than 12 times as likely to be excluded. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is a shocking indictment of what we are delivering for children with special needs?
Sir Vince Cable
It is a shocking indictment, but it brings to the surface the dilemmas that many local authorities face when they are forced into a position of rationing. They are not allowed to describe it as rationing, because they would be admitting to a legal offence that could be held against them in a tribunal, but we all know that rationing takes place.
Rationing happens in several forms. One, which relates to the hon. Lady’s intervention, is that local authorities drag their feet with what were once called statements but are now called healthcare plans. I believe that the National Autistic Society says that 50% of parents with autistic children wait more than a year for those plans to appear. In other cases, provision is cut to well below the necessary standard: the Young Vision Alliance draws attention to the fact that one of the casualties of the recent rationing has been the issuing of aids to children with visual impairments, which is becoming a serious problem.
Another device that authorities resort to, although of course they do not present it as such, is refusing residential places. In most cases, inclusion in mainstream schools is much the best course of action, but in other cases residential schools are more appropriate. Yet, authorities refuse to agree to them, so the parents have to become carers while the children sit at home, become socially isolated and are never able to develop properly into adulthood.
The main consequence of the conflict between supply and demand is that more and more parents are having to go to tribunal. There has been a 20% growth in tribunals in each of the past few years, and 86% of parents win them, although perhaps “win” is not the right word—in some ways it is a lose-lose situation. Nevertheless, that is an extraordinary figure. It indicates that many local authorities are pushing parents to tribunal, knowing that they themselves will lose, incurring significant costs—about £34 million a year, I believe—simply as a way of holding off demand that they are legally required to meet.
My concluding section is about solutions. How do we deal with this? First, there is a broad acceptance that children should be kept, as far as possible, in mainstream and maintained schools rather than in more demanding provision elsewhere. That is true for educational reasons—inclusion is a good philosophy and has good results—but it is also more economical. The figures are striking: in mainstream and maintained schools, the cost is about £6,000 more for SEND pupils than for non-SEND pupils, while for maintained special schools the cost is about £23,000 more, and for private special schools it is about £40,000 more. In many cases, the private special schools perform a very important function and are of very high quality, which is clearly why people seek them out, but there is certainly some evidence that those schools are exploiting monopoly provision and taking advantage of local authorities. In some cases, they should be referred to the Competition and Markets Authority.
Notwithstanding that issue, the differential suggests an enormous demand for specialist provision that the maintained sector should cater for, but the trend is in the opposite direction. Last year, for the first time, the majority of special needs pupils were not catered for in mainstream maintained schools—a big backward step that reflects the pressures that I have described.
The second clearly undesirable mechanism being used is shifting the burden to other schools, which unfortunately is happening in my own borough. The council is deeply regretful, but it has had to ask the Department for permission to raid the schools budget because the special needs block is grossly insufficient. That is bad not just in itself, because schools are under financial pressure, but because it sets mainstream pupils against special needs pupils. It is quite wicked, actually—it creates resentment in an area in which we should be united in compassion.
Layla Moran
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the practice is now ubiquitous throughout the country? In Oxfordshire, we have a bizarre situation in which the heads board has refused the extra transfer of money, yet the council is now going to the Secretary of State to override what the heads of local schools believe is the right thing for everyone else. There is an inherent tension around where the money will come from. In the end, it should just be more money.
Sir Vince Cable
Indeed. My hon. Friend graphically highlights the dilemma that I am describing: people acting with very good intentions are now being forced into conflict, in a very damaging way.
That point brings me to the crux of the problem: the Government’s role via the high needs budget. I acknowledge that the Government have taken some action—I do not want to be completely grudging. There was an increase of £250 million in the 2018-19 and 2019-20 budgets, part of the special provision announced last year, and that is welcome. However, the LGA has run its ruler over that and has computed that it accounts for about a quarter of the deficit. It is a small step forward. A much bigger step is required.
The second thing the Government can do within existing budget constraints was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton. Some money should be diverted to special needs school provision from within the large increase in cash that is being made available to the health service.
We cannot avoid the conclusion that, in the spending review ahead, the Government are simply going to have to review the weight they give to special needs provision as opposed to the normal school funding block, and to be substantially more generous in respect of special needs provision. They have announced that we have come to the end of austerity. Some of us are a bit sceptical, but this is one area where they can prove it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Order. I see a few more people here indicating that they wish to speak, so I remind Members of the three-and-a-half minute speaking limit. I call Priti Patel.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Thank you, Sir Gary. I commend the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) on securing what is a really important debate. It is a real privilege to be here today among colleagues to cover the issues of funding. Local authorities, including Essex County Council, are facing real pressures in meeting the needs of pupils, especially those with special educational needs and disabilities. There is no doubt that all of us who visit our local schools and engage with parents and pupils understand where the real pressures lie.
It is important to recognise that the Government have announced additional funding for high needs of £125 million, which is welcome. For Essex, that means another £3.3 million for this and next financial year. The reality is, however, that that is not enough, because of the new pressures caused by the increase in pupils who have additional needs, adding greater burdens and pressure to a local authority that is in a budget-setting cycle at this very time, as all local authorities are. With that comes the challenge of the overspend in special needs funding that Essex County Council is experiencing. A new banding matrix for funding pupils with SEND in special schools is causing a £2.3 million overspend. Increased growth in education, health and care plans is driving an overspend of more than £700,000. In addition, the number of young people in the EHCP category has gone up by 22%.
Local authorities are of course desperately trying to meet their statutory obligations and to find innovative ways of doing so. That obviously includes working across health budgets, which is the right thing to do, and looking at ways in which they can integrate support for care and educational provision.
In total, Essex County Council anticipates a £15 million overspend on the high needs block by the end of 2019-20. The council is investing through its capital programme in new schools, including planning a new autism special school in Witham, which we all welcome and support. In addition to plugging some of the funding gaps, the council has recently asked the schools forum if it would agree to transfer 0.5% of the schools block allocation—approximately £4.3 million—to SEND. Quite understandably, that is going to cause tensions and is causing concern among local schools, and the council has asked the Secretary of State to approve the transfer. Rather than encouraging tensions and anger within our local schools, and leaving the schools and council at loggerheads, I encourage the Minister to take the opportunity to intervene and review the situation, not just by encouraging more financial support, but by encouraging a better way of working so that we can address some of the long-standing issues.
I hope that the forthcoming comprehensive spending review can support local authorities to come together and look at how we can invest in new provision, join up networks and increase integrated provision, so that we can bring education and health more closely together, wrapped around the needs of each pupil. While more funding is needed and is absolutely welcome, we want to maximise the benefits through greater integration of working across local authorities and Government Departments, so that we can give young people the best start in life and so that they can fulfil their potential.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
When I was elected to Parliament in June 2017, the problems of children with special needs and the struggles that their parents face became one of the major issues in my casework almost immediately. The problems are with the system, which has been framed around funding that does not meet its needs.
In High Peak in Derbyshire, the county council will not look at applications either for graduated response for individual pupil, or GRIP, lower-level funding or for EHCPs until children are at least two years behind academically. Parents and schools who struggle as best they can to support children are punished for doing so if those children achieve and make progress. By the time they get two years behind, they are usually in year 4 or year 5, and then the process of trying to get additional funding from the county council starts. In Derbyshire, that process is taking up to two years, largely because of a lack of educational psychiatrists, who have been cut and cut again.
Schools have to put an enormous amount of time into preparing applications, often for very small amounts of funding. They have to put in £6,000-worth of funding themselves before they even start. One secondary school in my constituency says it has 125 children with special needs who should qualify. They would have to find three quarters of a million pounds from their budget to apply for additional funding for all those children. The school cannot find £7,000, let alone £750,000, after four years of school funding freezes and increases in its costs. Parents are becoming increasingly distraught, seemingly caught in a fight against schools, which are reluctant to put in applications for funding because they know that the majority are refused even after days of a school trying to put a case together as best it can.
In Derbyshire, there is a £727,000 shortfall in our high needs block funding. Our Conservative county council suggested that the funding it got for road mending, at the end of the winter, when it could least be used, would have been more helpful for the children’s services budget and education. That might be a case that the Minister could make. Ultimately, we need more funding. I pointed out earlier the number of exclusions that children with special needs are facing. This is a system that is failing them, as well as schools, teachers, and parents.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) on securing this important debate. In my three minutes, I will touch on school funding, school choices and another area that I passionately support.
On school funding, I ask the Minister to focus particularly on recent changes to the allocations between school block, early years block and high needs block. Previously, it was a notional figure that could be switched across blocks, and now the limit is just 0.5%. I am concerned about the knock-on effect, as it creates a perverse incentive for mainstream schools to see children moved out of mainstream into specialist schools. Previously, they would have complained that they would be salami-sliced and would have to pay for that—now, they would not have to. I ask the Minister if it would be possible to see data on whether that is actually forcing more young people out of mainstream into specialist schools. Mainstream should be where we start. It is where these young people will return to after they have finished school, in their communities and workplace. Anything that creates an incentive away from that is a concern to me.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Balcarras School in my constituency takes a number of SEND children—more than 20—yet because of a quirk of the system that means it has to pay the first £6,000, it is disincentivised from doing the right thing. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful if the Government looked constructively at changing that funding arrangement?
Huw Merriman
I do indeed. My constituents living in east Sussex are less likely to be in a maintained mainstream school than children living in any other county around us, so I absolutely agree. The difficulty is that we have received a 3% real-terms cut to school funding in my constituency of Bexhill and Battle. We are at 4,334, whereas the figure is 5,157 in Birmingham, Edgbaston, and 5,123 in Nottingham North. I am afraid that my constituents are worse off living in my constituency. I have some fantastic primary schools that do an amazing job with young pupils with EHCPs, but in reality they are now reaching into a deficit. If it costs an extra £8,000 to £10,000 for those schools to educate those pupils, the incentive is moving away from their doing so.
On school choice, I absolutely support the belief that mainstream is best, but I am very concerned that my constituents are reporting that they almost have to fail in a mainstream in order to get to the school of their choice. As I think has been touched on, there is real difficulty in having a system in which the local authority is incentivised financially to put the child in a mainstream school, the mainstream school is incentivised financially to put them in a specialist school, and independent schools are incentivised to have the pupil in that particular setting. It is no wonder that we end up in a tribunal system as a result. Surely through reform we could have more independent assessment at the very outset, perhaps more informally, rather than waiting for a tribunal.
Finally, I am grateful to the Department for Education for accepting the recommendations of “Autism and education in England 2017”, the report of an inquiry that I co-chaired last year. We made some recommendations, and the Government have listened and announced that they will extend the autism strategy to young pupils in education. That is a great step forward—it is all about the training of staff. My last ask is whether it is possible for every new specialist school to be built within a mainstream perimeter, rather than having the apartheid system that we have at the moment.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. This debate could not be more important, because—like all hon. Members—in every surgery I have held since being elected, I have met the parents of children with SEN. Without exception, they are dedicated to their children’s future, and many have sacrificed their jobs and careers in order to navigate the labyrinthine systems, which they often feel have been deliberately designed to prevent them from accessing the support that their child is due. They include the parents I saw last week, whose eight-year-old son has a variety of complex needs but has not been to school for three years, the 12-year-old with autism spectrum disorder, processing disorder and anxiety, who has been out of school for 16 months, and the child who has selective mutism as part of his ASD, whose school is, in his mother’s words, “supportive”, but frequently uses informal exclusions when short-staffed, as it cannot provide one-to-one support.
None of these types of cases will be unfamiliar to us, and they are all the more heart-breaking in their familiarity. We are normalising the mistreatment of children with special educational needs and, without a shadow of doubt, funding is the primary issue. Sheffield City Council has a deficit of £6 million for the high needs block, out of a total deficit of £8 million for school funding this year. That underfunding manifests itself in a number of ways. First, mainstream schools have less additional and specialist support in place and so are unable to cater for children with SEN. I have had reports of parents going to schools in my constituency and being told explicitly, “This is not the school for your child if he has autism.” As there are not enough spaces, more and more parents are choosing to educate their children at home, not truly out of choice, but out of desperation. The cuts to the local authorities have left teams so short-staffed that the availability, quality and consistency of EHCPs is really poor.
There are other issues beyond funding. A recent Ofsted inspection of Sheffield found that
“High levels of fixed-term and permanent exclusions result in children and young people with SEND not achieving as well as they should…Good outcomes for children and young people with SEND are compromised by the widespread use of partial timetables for lengthy periods. At the time of this inspection, 70 pupils with an EHC plan and 118 with special educational needs support were on these partial timetables.”
When can we expect the Timpson review, and does the Minister recognise the vital role of Ofsted in making our schools much more inclusive?
Finally, navigation for parents needs to be much simpler. Parents need clearer pathways and an understanding of their rights. They absolutely do not receive clear or timely information on the support available for their children and how to access it. One parent said to me, “It is so very wrong that a child who needs more educational support than others gets none at all. The lack of provision is a total disgrace and has created a sub-group of children with special needs and no schooling.” Sadly, that is the picture that many parents and children now face. Who could disagree with her?
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I commend the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) for securing this debate and giving us the opportunity to speak on such an important issue. On most Fridays, I take the opportunity to visit a local school. Across west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, I see great schools. Among those are schools that excel because of their support for SEN. As a result of doing such a great job—we have heard this already—they find themselves attracting more and more parents and their children, and they are then presented with all sorts of funding issues.
There are two things that I want to bring to the Minister’s attention—things that I have raised before, but to which I have not had satisfactory responses. First, we have heard about the £6,000 that needs to be found once the educational plan is in place. Secondly, there is a bizarre situation in which a school will be counted—the register will be taken after 1 October, and this will settle the funding for the following April. For a time, a school that has taken in new children will not have any funding for those pupils, but will still have to find the £6,000. If children arrive after 1 October, there will not be any funding for them until up to 18 months later, and the school will still have to find the £6,000 as well as pay for the normal education costs that are incurred. I have asked the Department over and over again to look at how that funding follows the individual child, whatever their needs might be, so that schools really can provide the very best education and the best start for their children.
There are arrangements in place with local authorities and with those who support the funding of academies, but schools are not fully aware of them. I know that schools are not getting the funding to which they are entitled when new children arrive. We must simplify the way that school funding is distributed, particularly for children with special needs. Despite tremendous effort from our schools, I fear that we are at risk of failing many children. They will not be able to live full lives, and their life chances will be curtailed. As others have said, funding for schools and for this aspect of school education should be addressed properly and enthusiastically by the spending review when the opportunity arises.
I want briefly to mention some positive signs of movement towards a proper, sensible approach to the education of children with SEN. Ofsted recently launched a consultation and said that it is now prepared to look more at teaching rather than school results. The consultation finishes on 4 April. I encourage everyone to take part, so that Ofsted can genuinely recognise good schools, even though their attainment might not be quite as good as it could be, in view of the children that those schools support.
The 10-year health plan commits to accelerating assessments for children with SEN. Can the Minister provide us with more detail about that? We would appreciate more detail about how it can be delivered. The 10-year plan also says that there will be the right care for children with learning disabilities. Again, we would appreciate a bit more detail from the Minister about how the 10-year plan will be able to deliver that and what resources can support it.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Gary. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) on securing this debate. It is an important subject and has not had enough attention in the House in recent times. I declare my interest in this matter, as my wife is a cabinet member for children and young people on Cheshire West and Chester Council.
Like other hon. Members, I know how much anxiety this issue causes the families who I see in my surgeries. Too often there is a delay in agreeing that an education, health and care plan is needed at all. When it is finally put in place, too often the plan is not delivered in full because the school has funding pressures elsewhere. The situation is distressing for all parties. Parents feel like they have to fight to get a plan for their child and then, once it is in place, fight again to ensure that the funding and support is adequate to meet the needs of their child, which is simply not right. It worries me even more that there are probably other parents out there who do not have the time, money or information that they need to keep fighting for the support for their child, which means that there are vulnerable people across this country who are simply not getting the support they need.
Not every child with SEND has an EHCP; the proportion of children with SEND who have an EHCP remains low. Hon. Members have already talked about Ofsted. I do not always agree with everything that it says, but given that the chief executive acknowledged last year that something was deeply wrong when parents were repeatedly telling inspectors that they had to fight to get help for their children, we know that we have to act. Ofsted concluded that support for children with SEND was too disjointed and too inconsistent, and that diagnoses were taking too long and were often inadequate.
As we have heard, the number of exclusions among children with SEND continues to rise, with the Department reporting that pupils with SEND are up to six times more likely to be excluded, accounting for almost half of all permanent exclusions. That should be a mark of failure. The number of pupils with SEND without a school place has more than doubled in recent years, up to 4,050, whereas it was only 776 in 2010. Perhaps that is why, as Members have asked, more children are being home-schooled—up by more than 40%. Are schools perhaps suggesting that a particular child should be home-schooled to avoid an exclusion or that the school environment might not be the best place if the child has SEND? In short, are parents being forced down that route because they have no real choice? It is a serious question because we now find ourselves in a situation in which many parents of children with SEND feel that the only way to ensure that their child receives the specialist education that they are entitled to is through legal action.
Thousands are taking their local authority to tribunal. In a staggering 89% of cases, the tribunal found in favour of parents, costing local authorities around £70 million since 2014. Such a high success rate at appeal throughout the country ought to send a warning to the Government that something is fundamentally wrong. The situation has got so bad that one group of parents has now launched a High Court legal challenge against the Government’s SEND funding policy, demanding that children have access to the specialist educational provision that current budgets are simply not able to fund. There can be no greater indictment of the crisis than the fact that legal action has been sought and a judicial review commenced.
Education is a fundamental right for every child. We should not aim for anything less and should not accept anything less, but I fear we are doing that by default. When will the Government take action and ensure that all our children are able to benefit from a full and inclusive education?
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I will start with my four recommendations to ensure that I get them out in time. This is my first request to the Minister: when the Department looks at the high needs block formula, can it look at the historical element, because there is no justification for the allocations? They have simply come from history. Some of them are clearly unfair and my local authority has certainly been hit. Secondly, can the Minister speak to her education colleagues to ensure that capital funding is provided for a new special school in Kingston when the announcement is made shortly? Thirdly, as I said in my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable), can we look at the way the NHS contributes to the cost of EHCPs? I have spoken to many headteachers and Achieving for Children in Kingston and it is clear that the health component is coming out of the education component to deal with things such as physio, testing for diabetes, and members of staff in the classroom dealing with the child’s health needs, not their educational needs. The bills that the NHS is not meeting run into hundreds of millions of pounds across our country.
My fourth recommendation relates to looking at special needs education and health again in a cross-party way. I speak not only from the experience of looking after my constituents and their children, but as the father of a special needs child who has attended two special schools, and who we now educate at home. In my experience of dealing with the schools and with EHCPs and the process, there is a huge amount of waste, which is a scandal when children are not getting the service that they should, such as CAMHS and so on.
I speak as a governor of a local school. I am very impressed by how maintained state schools are properly held to account for their budgets; but some of the voluntary or private schools, which might be very good, are not properly held accountable for the money that they spend. This might be controversial, but in my experience some of them do not provide the quality of care with the money they are given, partly because special needs are extremely difficult to look at. It is much more difficult to get a proper distribution and proper comparisons because special needs are so broad and heterogeneous, and it is difficult to get a proper statistical analysis, unlike with mainstream schools. It is also difficult because Ofsted does not analyse well enough what special needs schools are doing, so I urge the Minister to look at that problem.
In my constituency in the Royal Borough of Kingston we have a crisis in special needs schools. If I could show the Minister the graph of the London boroughs and their overspending on their allocated formulas, she would see that we are a long way to one end—more than 40% above our allocated funding. If we do not bring that overspending under control—it is partly our job to do so, but we need patience and help from the Government—it will call into question the solvency of the council.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
The love and care of parents and families with special needs children is humbling; we have all seen that. However, it has come to something—and we have to question ourselves as to how it has come to this—when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) mentioned, in December’s Ofsted report the chief inspector said that something was deeply
“wrong when parents repeatedly tell inspectors that they have to fight to get the help and support that their child needs.”
I get told that regularly; there is no need to be an inspector. All hon. Members present today, without exception, will have taken up cases for constituents. Sometimes we get improvement, sometimes not. I say to the Minister that as a country and as a society, it cannot go on: it simply is not good enough.
By the end of 2020, Nottinghamshire County Council will have a £9.2 million shortfall in its high needs budget. I can cite that. Other hon. Members have quoted other figures, and those figures are real in balance sheet terms. But what does it mean for each and every family and each child? I am fairly articulate, as are all the Members here, but finding one’s way through the system and finding the person responsible for making a decision is sometimes an impenetrable task.
There is a funding issue, so the Minister needs to go and bang on the door of the Chancellor, supported by every single Member, and tell him that it is not acceptable for any Government of any colour to be in power with the situation that we have at the moment, when so many families across this country cannot access the support that they need for their child. It is not the sort of country that any of us want to be a part of. We need to do something about it.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I thank the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) for securing this crucial debate. I very much echo what the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) has said, particularly about trying to navigate through such complexity when it comes to special educational needs. I appreciate that time is short, so I shall simply echo many of the points raised by other hon. Members about the pressures on mainstream schools in terms of financing and classroom support, the time it takes to obtain education, health and care plans, and the tensions that can be created between schools and councils in meeting statutory obligations to SEND children.
Since my election I have made it a priority to visit each of the 42 schools in my constituency to get to know the school community and its needs. The pressures on special educational needs services have been one of the most consistent themes in my conversations with parents and teachers, and I have highlighted those concerns to the Education Secretary and to the borough’s lead for children’s services. In Havering we have had the fastest-growing number of children of any London borough for the past few years, and funding has simply not kept up with that changing demography. Redden Court School in Harold Wood, for instance, has three times the national average of students with special educational needs and disabilities. That is more than 50 children with an education, health and care plan. The schools in my constituency are doing a fantastic job at ensuring that SEND children can be educated in the mainstream, but we must take into account the pressure that that can place on classroom staff and resources.
I was pleased by the announcement, before Christmas, of an additional £250 million of high needs funding, of which my borough will get more than £600,000. It is also welcome that the Secretary of State has allocated a £100 million top-up fund for new high needs school places and improved facilities, as well as removing the cap on the number of bids for free schools with special and alternative provisions. However, we must also look at the strain on third sector organisations at pre-school level, which often rely on diminishing local authority funds. Pre-school can be a critical time for getting the right support, and the right diagnosis of any condition, for SEND children before primary education begins. First Step, in Hornchurch, provides many fantastic services to local families affected by autism and other special educational needs. The Prime Minister has indeed promoted that charity’s work on my behalf on her own Twitter account. However, pre-school support for autistic children can be patchy, and new difficulties can arise, within the school environment and beyond, as those children grow older. I should be most grateful if the Minister would advise on what she is doing at pre-school level to ensure that parents and schools are equipped with the right support to help children to make the transition into primary education.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable), but I take issue with him on one point: there is something Brexit-related about the debate, because Brexit is masking a crisis in special educational needs. If it were not for the focus of the media and politics on Brexit, issues such as the crisis in special educational needs and disability would be to the fore. More people would be talking about it, and there would be more pressure in Parliament—particularly on the Treasury—to give the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care the funding they need to make things work.
Frankly, kids are being failed by a system that does not have enough money in it, that is too complex for people to navigate, and that is taking too long to get the support kids need. Councils and child and adolescent mental health services need more money, and I support the call for an increase in the high needs block funding. We need to make that case in the comprehensive spending review, as well as to the Minister here, and to make sure that the fantastic staff in mainstream and specialist schools get the support they need.
We should also support parents. In a debate on children’s social care, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) told most powerfully a story about one of her constituents, who said:
“I am a warrior, but I just want to be a mum.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 1416.]
Parents are fighting every day to get their kids with SEND the support they need. They are struggling with it, and that is why so many kids are now home-schooled. The support is not there in mainstream education—not because teachers do not work hard enough to deliver it, but because there is not enough funding. That is why we need it.
Constituents come to my surgery nearly every week to talk about the difficulties. I imagine that the story in Plymouth is no different from the story across the country. There is a crisis in SEND support, and we need to restore the safety net that these kids deserve. If we do not invest in them now, not only will they cost us more in the short term as taxpayers, but we will lose the potential of these young people to deliver benefits in the future; we risk paying more for them throughout their lives. That is why it makes good economic sense to invest in these children and their families now and to make sure they get the wraparound support they need and deserve. We must restore the safety net, and that means funding services properly.
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
I too want to thank the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) for securing this important debate. Every one of us in the Chamber is here because we want to fight for children with special educational needs we have met during visits to schools, and for their parents, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) pointed out. Throughout the country every day parents fight for the best for their child, and we want to help them in that fight.
The situation of special educational needs funding in my constituency is particularly acute. West Sussex has a higher percentage of SEN pupils than the national average. For instance, 25% of the children at Chichester Nursery School have special educational needs or disabilities—a huge figure, considering that just 6% of young children in the general population are identified as having them. Meeting those additional needs has been tough on the council’s budget. For 2018-19, West Sussex has an estimated £4.9 million deficit in its high needs block. The one-time transfer of 0.5% from its dedicated schools grant has helped plug the gap. I think we all welcome the additional funding, as has been mentioned, but one-off payments cannot be the remedy for the funding pressures that schools face.
West Sussex wants to switch to a long-term invest and save model for its high needs block. Provision in the county—particularly for autism-related support—is chronically lacking. Because of this, the council spent more than £1 million last year sending children outside the county to specialist schools with the right resources. That is an expensive short-term response when the right long-term solution is needed closer to home. It is natural that parents want the best possible education for their children. We have all met constituents who battle to get that and to get the council to fund their child’s out-of-county school place. The aim of investing to save is to improve the standards of in-county provision and to avoid costly tribunals and out-of-county referrals. The average cost out of county for West Sussex is just under £44,000 per pupil. The in-county cost is £3,000 to £9,000 per pupil, so the business case is simple. The new centres of excellence will of course incur an initial up-front cost, but that will be offset by the decline in spending on out-of-county provision, which is not even the best provision, as it is so far from home.
West Sussex MPs have already had meetings with the Chancellor and the Education Secretary to discuss a fairer funding settlement for the authority, as well as the benefits of securing additional funding for long-term gains. We look forward to the upcoming spending review, and hope that they will listen to the invest to save plan. It is essential that the funds are available for schools and authorities to support the children who need the most support within the school system. Like many Members, I want sustainable funding, and I hope that the spending review can deliver that.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Last, but never least, I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Sir Gary. It is a pleasure to speak in this Chamber on every occasion, as it has been to hear the wonderful contributions made so far by right hon. and hon. Members. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) on obtaining the debate and giving us the chance to participate.
I am taking part because I take an interest in school budgets and in children. Having been consistently cut, school budgets are unable to deliver in the way they have previously. Classroom assistants are losing hours, and the wait to get a statement for a child is getting longer. Instead of treating the meeting of special needs as an obligation, we should look at it as an opportunity to give such children the best possible education to enable them to overcome difficulties and meet their potential. If that is not something that requires additional ring-fenced funding, I do not what does. I look to the Minister to see what she can do about releasing that funding.
There are 49,000 babies, children and young people with life-limiting or life-threatening conditions in the UK, and the number is rising. Most of those children have complex health needs. They need constant care and support 24 hours a day. Most will also have a special educational need and/or a disability. The success of the system depends on whether there is equitable and sustainable funding for children’s education, health and social care provision. With great respect, that does not seem to be the case.
In the short time I have available, I want to mention a briefing from Together for Short Lives, which says that respite breaks are a part of the system that is not working. Seriously ill children and their families rely particularly on frequent short breaks for respite, which is provided by skilled people, who can meet the children’s often complex health needs. It may be for only a few hours, but it can be overnight or for a few days at a time. It is important because the 24/7 pressure on parents of having a child with a life-limiting condition is immense. Social care is vital to help them relieve the stress, catch up on sleep, spend time as a family and do the things that other families do. Frequent short breaks for respite for seriously ill children combine health and social care. They help to maintain children’s and families’ physical and mental health. Respite care is immensely important. The short breaks provided by children’s hospices can help to reduce stress and mitigate the risk of parental relationships breaking down.
There are some incredible statistics from research involving 17 children’s hospices in England and Scotland: 64% of divorced or separated parents cited having a child with complex needs as a reason for the breakdown of their relationship. Furthermore, 75% had had no access to short breaks, and 74% rated short breaks as having a direct, positive effect. Short breaks are necessary to help families regain some balance in their lives. Couples whose relationships were identified in the research as “non-distressed” were found to have received 43% more hours of short breaks on average from a children’s hospice than those who were in distressed relationships. Quite simply, respite care makes a difference. The facts are clear. If we deal with children’s needs in this way, there will be a lifelong benefit not simply to the child but to the entire family.
Just as they did for adult social care, will the Government review how social care for disabled children in England is funded? Will they address the £434 million shortfall in funding for social care services for disabled children that has been identified by the Disabled Children’s Partnership, by setting up an early intervention and family resilience fund? Intervention at that stage will provide benefits at later stages, and if we invest now to improve the quality of life of those who are most vulnerable and struggling the most, it will be worth every penny.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
I thank colleagues for complying with the voluntary time limit. It is now time for the Front-Bench speakers, but let us remember to leave Sir Vince Cable one minute at the end to respond to the debate.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship yet again, Sir Gary, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) on securing this important debate. Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that I will not reiterate what others have said or mention individual Members, but I will give the Scottish perspective on this issue.
In Scotland, like here, we believe that all children and young people deserve to receive the support they need to reach their full learning potential. The Scottish system focuses on overcoming barriers to learning and on “Getting it right for every child”, known as GIRFEC. Children and young people should learn in the environment that best suits their needs, whether that is a mainstream or special school setting. Some 97% of children in Scotland who need additional support are educated in mainstream schools, and the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 places a duty on education authorities to identify, provide for and review the additional support needs of their pupils. Local government financial statistics for 2016-17 show a 0.3% increase in real-terms spending on education, and £610 million of that was on additional support for learning—a real-terms increase of 2.3%. Teacher numbers have also increased, as have numbers of support staff.
Despite challenging circumstances, children and young people continue to achieve, and in 2016-17, 87% of school leavers with additional support needs had a positive follow-up destination—a 5% increase on 2011-12. The Scottish credit and qualifications framework highlights an interesting statistic, because 69% of school leavers with SEN left school with one or more level 5 qualifications. That is important for people with special educational needs, because such achievements help their employment possibilities and give them and their parents a far better sense of worth.
The 2004 Act places a duty on education authorities to identify, provide for and review the additional support needs of their pupils, including those with dyslexia. The Scottish definition of dyslexia has been developed by the Scottish Government, Dyslexia Scotland, the cross-party group on dyslexia in the Scottish Parliament, and a wide range of stakeholders.
Members have mentioned autism, and in 2018 the Scottish Government published “The Scottish Strategy for Autism: Outcomes and Priorities 2018-2021”. That document sets out the priorities for action to improve outcomes for autistic people, including support for improved educational outcomes for children and young people with autism. The SNP understands the importance of autistic people and their families being understood and welcomed within their communities.
The budget passed recently in the Scottish Parliament helps with concessionary travel schemes that allow disabled people to access education and employment opportunities, and Companion Cards are given to parents or carers to help with that.
With new powers over disability benefits coming to the Scottish Parliament, a Scottish social security agency—Social Security Scotland—has been established, with dignity and respect at its heart. The Scottish Government will maintain disability benefits, not cut them, and ensure that they remain universal, rather than means-tested. In Scotland, the carer’s allowance supplement is available to those who care for people who are sick or disabled, and it puts an extra £442 into carers’ pockets, which is important for parents who have children with special needs. I received an interesting briefing from the Association of Educational Psychologists, which is concerned that local government funding and changes to school funding arrangements are preventing it from doing its job as well as it would like.
I am a member of the Education Committee, and we are conducting an inquiry into special educational needs and disabilities. I have listened to the concerns raised by hon. Members this afternoon, including on issues that have been considered by the Committee. We have taken evidence from children and parents, local authorities, schools and other interested parties, and we look forward to more input from hon. Members here today. I look forward to the eventual publishing of the Committee’s report and recommendations, and to an effective Government response. In that regard, I urge the Minister to look at the good work being done in Scotland.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary, and I thank the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) for securing this debate, and all hon. Members who have spoken today. Children and adult learners with special educational needs and disabilities are being failed by this Government. Competition instead of collaboration has harmed our education system, and the fragmentation and marketisation of education has left gaping holes in provision, accountability and support. The crisis in our education system of recruitment, retention and cuts across the board is impacting everywhere, but nowhere more starkly than in the arena of special educational needs and disabilities.
That view is shared by an army of parents, carers, children, learners, schools, colleges, universities, teachers, healthcare professionals, local authorities and a number of cross-party groups in the House. The reforms that led to this shambolic and damaging situation are rooted in the early years of the coalition Government, and summed up well by the then Education Secretary, who stated that the aim was to remove the “bias towards inclusion.” In other words, it was a move no longer to consider special educational needs as an intrinsic part of every learning environment—even though that has been proven to improve learning outcomes for disabled and non-disabled learners alike—but to start treating them as an add-on.
It is little wonder that in 2016 the United Nations expressed concern that for the first time in 25 years, more children with special educational needs and disabilities are being educated outside the mainstream, and that the Government have developed a dual education system that unnecessarily segregates children with disabilities to special schools, rather than providing for them sufficiently in mainstream schools. The following year the United Nations stated that this Government were guilty of
“grave or systematic violations of the rights of persons with disabilities.”
The cultivation of that hostile environment has had dire, lasting effects on children and learners with SEND. The rushed reforms introduced in the Children and Families Act 2014 have created a postcode lottery of variable provision, and many children with SEND continue to be let down. During the passage of that Act, Labour Members warned that unless the proposed reforms were properly funded and proper demographic modelling carried out, the reforms would fail—and fail they did.
As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), Her Majesty’s chief inspector of education, children’s services and skills concluded last year that overall provision remained
“too disjointed and too inconsistent”.
That inconsistency comes from the lack of adequate funding. Schools have had £1.7 billion cut from their budgets since 2015. In a recent survey by the National Education Union, 94% of respondents confirmed that the cuts were having a negative effect on the support that schools are able to give to SEND pupils. The £365 million announced in December 2018 to help local authorities create new places or improve facilities for SEND pupils is a one-off cash injection, not the sustainable funding that people are crying out for, and it does not close the shortfall in local authority funding for SEND support that the Local Government Association identified at £472 million.
Recent steps to ring-fence SEND funding represent an inflexible policy, as the strict rules mean that only 0.5% of a school’s overall budget can be transferred to the high needs block. The policy isn’t working, as evidenced by the 43 local authorities that have appealed, asking for it to be relaxed to meet their local need. Can the Minister explain why a large majority of the successful appeals have been in Conservative-led authorities? This is a toxic combination of a misguided policy direction and savage cuts across the board to health and other support services. A recent survey from the National Association of Head Teachers found that 83% of heads are not receiving any funding from health and social care budgets to support pupils with SEND statements, and 94% have reported that they are finding it harder to resource the support required to meet the needs of pupils with SEND than they did two years ago.
The best intentions, will and desire of parents, local government, teachers and health professionals to do the best for learners with SEND are not being matched by the Government. In 2017, more than 4,000 children with SEND were left without a school place. Nearly 9,000 children have had their existing statement or education and healthcare plan taken away from them—not because they have moved school or have left school, but just because they have been denied the support that they were previously deemed in need of. The number of children with SEND statements in alternative provision has increased by more than 50%, and the number of children facing fixed-period, permanent or even illegal exclusions remains disproportionate compared with their peers. They account for half of permanent or fixed-period exclusions.
Some are lucky enough to get a plan, often at the end of a difficult and fraught process for them and their parents—a point made articulately by my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak (Ruth George), for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard)—but many of those plans are flawed or substandard. Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission found that access to therapy for children in adolescent mental health services was poor, and progress was minimal in implementing a co-ordinated service for those with SEND.
After the SEND reforms, the number of costly appeals against education, health and care plans rose to more than 4,000, and the number of tribunals almost doubled to 1,600, but that is likely to be only the tip of the iceberg. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) noted, many parents do not have the time, energy, financial support or the opportunity to navigate that difficult legal action. The fact that almost nine out of 10 appeals are successful at tribunal confirms that there are serious flaws in the system.
It is not just children who are being short-changed. College principals have also warned the Government that support for learners over 19 is now being met by already stretched college budgets and is completely unsustainable. Some 16 to 19-year-old students with SEND are being charged up to £1,500 a year for their transport. Since 2015, university students have been required to pay a £200 contribution towards the cost of essential equipment for their study.
Behind all those statistics and figures are children and learners who just want access to education, which should be a fundamental right for all, no matter who they are, where they are from or what their circumstances are. Hopefully, when the Minister answers my points and those that other hon. Members have made, she will explain why, under her Government, that fundamental right does not apply to those with special educational needs and disabilities.
The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills (Anne Milton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) on securing this debate, and I thank him for the constructive tone that he adopted in his opening remarks.
Provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities, and the support available for their parents and families, has been a particular concern for me since I was elected in 2005. Governments of all political persuasions have struggled to get it right.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the success of the Children and Families Act 2014, and pointed out some of the issues that have arisen. I was a Minister in the Department of Health when we were doing the early work on it. Much of what was done at the time was the right thing to do, but we must now resolve some of the issues that have arisen from that. Many—but not all—of the issues relate to funding. Many local authorities and schools are having to work very hard to make the best use of the resources available, particularly in supporting those children and their families.
I want to put on the record some of the things that we have done. We have prioritised funding for schools, and increased funding for high needs from £5 billion in 2013 to £6 billion this year—a 20% increase over five years. In December we allocated an additional £250 million funding for high needs, and in the next financial year we will ensure that every local authority will get a share of that additional funding. Across England, funding for high needs will rise to £6.3 billion in 2019-20. We have also announced an additional £100 million of capital funding to create new places and improve facilities for children and young people. That will take our total investment between 2018 and 2021 to £360 million.
We will invest in more of the new special schools that are needed locally. Sixty-five local authorities have applied for funding to build special and alternative provision free schools. We are currently looking carefully at those requests and will go ahead with all bids that meet the criteria and are of good quality, so that local authorities have the specialist provision they need. We are hoping to notify local authorities before Easter. I recognise that although that additional support is welcome, it will not provide a complete answer to the funding pressures that local authorities are reporting to us. We are preparing for the spending review with that in mind.
We have reformed the funding system and have introduced a new formula allocation to make the funding for those with high needs fairer. We introduced the national funding formula after extensive consultation. It marks an historic change to the way that we distribute education funding—one that previous Governments have long avoided. The formula that we use to allocate high needs funding uses a range of factors, including low attainment, deprivation and health factors, to direct funding to where it is most needed.
The formula ensures that the funding changes from year to year and takes account of changes in the overall population of young people and children, which the system it replaced did not. The formula also includes a substantial element of funding based on local authorities’ past spending, to reflect the fact that there are factors driving costs that depend on local circumstances and cannot be linked directly to the population and other characteristics represented in the formula. The formula also includes a funding floor to guarantee an underlying increase in high needs funding from this year to next year, subject to population and pupil or student number changes. Although the national funding formula is a significant improvement in the way that we distribute high needs funding to local authorities, we will keep it under review.
Sir Edward Davey
Is the Minister able to tell me, either today or in writing, how the historical spend factor in the formula was set? I understand what history is, but it needs a justification.
Anne Milton
I will make sure that the right hon. Gentleman gets a letter on that point.
We want to ensure that the design of the funding system works in mainstream provision. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) raised the issue of perverse incentives, as did my hon. Friends the Members for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) and for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), who has raised this issue with the Secretary of State. There is an expectation that mainstream schools pay for the cost of SEND support—up to £6,000 from their core budget—before accessing additional top-up funding from the local authority. We are very aware that that arrangement is deterring schools from meeting the needs of pupils with special needs.
A number of issues were raised in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) talked about the life chances of those young people and referred to proposed changes in Ofsted inspections, which are very important. I am the Minister with responsibility for post-16 further education, and I know what a brilliant job further education colleges do. As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said, getting education right early in a child’s life saves money and, in some instances, much heartache further down the line.
I point out to the shadow Minister that discretionary bursaries are available for transport, although I know that that is an issue for some local authorities. I do not recognise all that the shadow Minister said, which is disappointing, bearing in mind the consensual tone of the debate. I think that we all share and acknowledge the problems that families and their children face. There is no one system that works for every child. I remember that when I was elected in 2005, the whole issue of inclusion was much debated. Inclusion is positive, but it is not always the right answer for children or their families.
Home schooling is without doubt the option that some parents choose if their child’s needs are not being met. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) mentioned increase in demand for EHCPs and the issue of transport costs, while the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) raised the issue of the NHS not paying for the health part of the EHCP. When I was a junior Minister, bringing health and care together was at the heart of discussions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) talked about wraparound provision, which is exactly what the changes to the 2014 Act were meant to ensure.
The hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George) talked about the fight that parents face—as if they do not already have enough to manage. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley talked about navigation of the complex system. It is a complete nightmare for parents who, as I said, already have a lot on their plate. There are right hon. and hon. Members present who are members of the Government—my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) is one—and who have an interest in this subject. If House convention had allowed it, they would have raised particular points, because this issue is shared by many.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education—
Anne Milton
I will finish because I do not have much time. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education indicated that, alongside our announcement of additional funding for high needs in December, we will shortly launch a call for evidence to build our understanding of the current arrangements and the problems that they create. Money matters, but how it is spent matters as well.
Anne Milton
I do not have time, sadly.
We have established a new special educational needs and disabilities system leadership board. Effective joint commissioning is key to meeting some of the challenges of high needs funding, and the board will focus on improving local joint working and strategic commissioning to help address some of the problems highlighted in Dame Christine Lenehan’s review into the experiences and outcomes of children in residential special schools and colleges.
Drawing on good practice, the Local Government Association has done good work and has published a report from the Isos Partnership that highlights how local authorities can work collectively and collaboratively with families, schools, colleges and others to make the best use of the available resources.
As the term suggests, children with special educational needs are indeed special, as are their families. I have dealt with some very poignant and tragic cases in which the family simply felt unable to continue to care for their child. The impact of care can often be very difficult for siblings in those families, and we have heard that marital breakdown often ensues. There is additional investment, but the call for evidence is much needed, and I am sure that hon. Members will want to contribute to it. The Secretary of State is determined to get this right. The invitation from the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton for cross-party work is well made and much welcomed, particularly in the light of his personal experiences of caring for a child with special needs.
The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) talked about the humbling experience of hearing stories from parents. Before I leave the remainder of the time to the right hon. Member for Twickenham, I would just like to say that I feel exactly the same. It is humbling to hear the stories of parents who struggle to navigate the system and who often have to fight local authorities. We know that in some areas provision is better, and that local authorities are doing a good job.
Finally, collaboration and joint working between health, care and teaching is what will make this work. There will always be funding constraints, so it is extremely important that we make sure that those collaborations are in place, to stop the parents of those children from facing such a terrible fight.
Sir Vince Cable
I thank the 13 Members who have contributed to the debate, which was very rich in content. They all pointed in pretty much the same direction, regardless of region of the UK or political party. We heard plenty of examples of the extreme tensions that parents face because of the pressures of special needs, and how so many of them have been disappointed.
I was struck by the example that the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George) cited of children being kept waiting and falling two years behind in their learning before they are even assessed. There are many similar cruelties and disadvantages of that kind. We also heard many examples of the pressures on schools. The Minister acknowledged the point raised by several hon. Members about the £6,000 hurdle—the perverse incentive—and although I did not hear in her speech whether she was going to change that, she at least acknowledged the problem and recognised that much of it is hidden by home schooling, which is growing rapidly.
Several Members from different parties mentioned how their councils—of different kinds—are being put into serious financial difficulties as a result of the problem. Worst of all, councils, schools and parents are reduced to fighting and blaming each other for what is actually a collective problem. The aim of the 2014 Act was to deal with all this in a consensual way, and to focus on the needs of pupils, but the issue has become a cockpit of conflict—manifested in the tribunals system—which is growing rapidly and becoming increasingly costly, both emotionally and financially.
To conclude, I wish to acknowledge some of the constructive thoughts in the debate. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) talked about creating an intermediate triage system for picking needs up early before the formal assessment process is completed. The hon. Member for High Peak and others suggested that we could focus on getting more information to parents about their entitlements, to avoid their missing out or finding out too late in the day, and on changing Ofsted’s terms of reference, so that it incentivises rather than penalises inclusion, as is very often implicitly the case in its rating system. We also heard suggestions from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) and others about how the funding formula should be changed and how we could make more use of flexibility between health and education.
All that ultimately comes back to—I know that the Minster is painfully conscious of this—more money and the spending review. I know just how fraught that process is because I have been the head of a spending Department, but I can do no more than wish the Minister well and say on behalf of us all that we basically want a significant enhancement of special needs provision—alongside schools, not at their expense.
Finally, I will quote what I thought was one of the more memorable phrases. The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said that parents just want to stop fighting and get on with being parents. I thought that was a very good way of summarising what we are all trying to say.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
May I break a few rules by saying from the Chair that I strongly support the broad thrust of the debate? I very much hope that our Government will sort this out in the next 12 months. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That is the end of me chairing.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered special educational needs and disabilities funding.
Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme
(5 years, 9 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
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the seasonal agricultural workers scheme.
I represent a particularly urban part of one of the UK’s biggest cities, so why do I want to talk about agriculture? That is because the issue, as much as it is about food and food security, especially after Brexit, is about slavery.
Since my election in 2017, I have been proud to play my part in highlighting, combating and working to eradicate the appalling scourge of modern slavery. I work alongside Members from all parties on the Select Committee on Home Affairs, hon. Friends from the Co-operative party, colleagues from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and friends at FLEX—Focus on Labour Exploitation—the Human Trafficking Foundation and the rights lab at my alma mater, the University of Nottingham. I have been proud to use my place in the House of Commons to do so.
I am joined in the Chamber by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), the chair of our all-party parliamentary group on human trafficking and modern slavery. We will continue to raise the issue, because slavery is a disease, pure and simple. It is much more widespread than people would ever countenance, it is appalling and it impacts on and blights lives throughout our communities, but all too often it is hidden from view by a deadly combination of fear, shame and circumstance.
Nevertheless, despite the scale of the challenge, I remain confident that we can achieve the goal of stamping modern slavery out in its totality by 2030. That will necessitate identifying, challenging and eradicating sources of slavery at home and abroad. It is also vital that, as we fight existing sources of slavery, we do not unwittingly create new opportunities through decisions that we make. That is why I am in the Chamber today.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the immense amount of work that he and our hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) do on modern slavery and preventing it in this country. Does he agree that the seasonal agricultural workers scheme proposed by the Government could, because of the way it is set out, create greater opportunities for modern slavery to exist, and that one way to tackle that properly would be to ensure that every worker brought into the UK under a seasonal scheme is given access to a trade union, and clear and comprehensive knowledge of what their rights are and how to enforce them?
Alex Norris
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for his commitment to this agenda. I share his view, and it will not surprise him to hear that I will address that shortly. As he said, it is vital that we do not inadvertently create new opportunities.
As formulated, the seasonal agricultural workers scheme, or SAWS, presents a significant risk of creating slavery. In theory, SAWS offers fruit and vegetable farmers a route to alleviate labour shortages during peak production periods by employing migrant workers for up to six months—but that is a tale as old as time, frankly. The pilot will start this spring and run until the end of 2020. For migrant workers, it represents a chance to improve their lives, but it carries the risk of workers being treated as a disposable asset, creating a recipe for exploitation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
My constituency has a large agri-food sector, which has a real need for agricultural workers coming in to bring in the vegetables so that the factories can process them, selling them throughout the United Kingdom and further afield. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need some sort of scheme in place to provide that important protection and, in doing so, enable the factories in my constituency and others to do the job that they want to do and export their products?
Alex Norris
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. After Brexit, we have a chance to reform our migration system, but we have to ensure that we still meet the needs of our growing industries. I am about to highlight the fact that the soft fruit production industry has doubled in size over the past two decades. We have to move and to keep pace with that, building in the regulation to make things work.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He is right to express legitimate and long-standing concerns about modern-day slavery. Wilkin & Sons is an outstanding soft fruit production company and manufacturer in my constituency. Does he agree that other businesses, and in fact the Government, could learn best practice from how such businesses have conducted their own seasonal agricultural workers schemes in the past?
Alex Norris
I very much recognise what the right hon. Lady is saying. Only this morning, during Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy questions, I mentioned the example of Hermes and the GMB which, while untangling the difficulties in the so-called gig economy, have gone ahead of the Government and this place by building their own regulations, which work for both employer and employee. That is wonderful and where it happens, such as in the example she suggested, we should highlight and be proud of it.
To be clear, I do not wish to prevent the seasonal agricultural workers scheme from running—it is important—but I want to ensure that we get honesty in the debate and that the workers who will be at the heart of the scheme get a fair deal and are heard. I feel that I ought to use my place here in support of that.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making a hugely significant point. I agree with him that the scheme has great benefits, but does he agree that, as well as risking potential slavery, a six-month scheme is so restrictive that many people will simply choose to go underground? The Government are setting themselves up for that to be a serious problem. Does he also agree that for many other industries—the 10,000 people working in hospitality and tourism in Cumbria, for example—that kind of option is neither available nor even proposed? That will have a huge impact on the economy in communities such as mine.
Alex Norris
Many of the technical points about the scheme, such as those that the hon. Gentleman has made, will be seen in the pilot. We will have to test that and see the evaluation. I am interested to hear from the Minister how much that evaluation will be shared with all of us, so that we can have a say. Moving beyond agriculture, I know that other Members have an interest in the tourism sector, so if they wish to intervene at any point, I will be happy to accept.
There are real dangers in the scheme. Looking at history, a seasonal agricultural workers scheme ran from the second world war until only six years ago. It was not perfect: there were examples of abuse, the minimum wage being dodged, workers being misled about available work and recruiters purposefully over-recruiting. I have pressed the Home Office on this, so I know that
“ensuring the protection and wellbeing of participating migrant workers is of primary importance”,
but part of this debate is about wanting to know how that will be so and what safeguards and accountability will be in place.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying about workers’ rights, but is he aware that in 1961 this country signed a treaty produced by the Council of Europe to give all workers the proper rights within their countries? That is still in force, despite the wealth of European Union legislation that has come in since. Will he hang on to that as a hope for the future?
Alex Norris
Those protections are in place, although we have seen that they have not been enough in the past. In the 50 or so years since, it is important that we have built on them.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman might be aware that I have a significant soft fruit industry in my constituency. When I visit my farmers, I see migrants who have come over year after year. I met someone in a packhouse who had been there for nine years consecutively, working their way up into their role. If the conditions were particularly hard, people would not come back year on year.
Alex Norris
I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting that and for adding to the debate with her experience back home. Those are exactly the sort of things that we should weave in to how we proceed in future.
To put ourselves in the place of people who wish to enter the scheme, and so seek insecure and relatively low-paid work in this country, it is reasonable to expect that they would not have ready access to funding or the hard cash to pay for, for example, a visa, their flights, any recruitment fees, medical costs and other associated fees. The likelihood is therefore very high that, in order to get a better income for themselves and their families and to start a better life, they would be forced to seek a loan—
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way—although I did not mean to interrupt him mid-sentence. I have one point to make. Those of us with significant soft fruit farmers in our constituencies are calling for a seasonal agricultural workers scheme to ensure sufficient labour. At the moment, one of the challenges for the industry is that workers have choices of where to go, so we are competing with other countries to attract them. Workers will therefore only come to this country if there are good opportunities and working conditions for them. It is important for us to offer good working conditions and extend the hand of welcome to seasonal workers who come to the UK.
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
Order. The Member in charge is being very generous in allowing interventions from a number of people, but I warn him that I want to give the Minister the chance to give a comprehensive response to the debate. Could he please bear that in mind? I notice that he has a number of papers in front of him that he may wish to go through.
Alex Norris
A couple of them are just for you to autograph to put on eBay, Mr Owen. I am sure the Minister will not mind my gobbling a little of his time so his colleagues may make interventions.
The point raised by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) makes my heart bleed a bit. By raising our standards—whether on pay, accommodation or the nature of work or management—to ensure that we attract those workers, we would make Britain a beacon that would attract the best. That can be only a good thing. It would mean the market was working well, and I would be keen for that to happen.
I worry about sources of money. People like us go to banks to get loans; too often our constituents go to loan sharks. The people we are talking about are likely to enter debt bondage. A recruiter offers the chance to enter the scheme and says, “Don’t worry about the upfront cost and your flights,” but that turns into an inflated or artificial debt that people never actually work off. That happens around the world, but in our country, too, there is a very live risk. It cannot be right that about half the victims of forced labour in the private economy are in some sort of debt bondage, according to the International Labour Organisation. We must not defer our responsibility as a country for ensuring that that does not happen to whichever recruitment firms we work with. We cannot give away our responsibility.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about slavery and allowing gangmasters to flourish in any migration system we create. To temper that, among Ayrshire vegetable growers there is a great relationship between the employer and the migrant worker on accommodation and rates of pay. Surely, we need to encourage a system to ensure that that continues to thrive, for the benefit of the industry and the individuals who choose to work in the UK.
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman gives an example of something else that we should seek to build on. We should not think that the fears that I am raising apply across the industry to all employers—far from it—but where it does happen, it is exceptionally serious and we should want to tackle it. The scheme that ran until 2013 would cost workers often more than £10,000 for their jobs. Overcoming that challenge is a matter for the state and not just about good commissioning or contracting.
The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority will play a very important role. As colleagues have highlighted, the GLAA has 123 members of staff in the entire country, who are tasked with licensing gangmasters in agriculture, horticulture and shellfish gathering. They oversee the entire labour market to protect workers from modern slavery. Those 123 people must be very talented. There is no proposal to increase the number of staff as part of SAWS. They will be expected to license and monitor overseas labour agents from anywhere outside the EU. How are they likely to be able to do that? I hope the Minister will address that in his reply.
Under the previous iteration of SAWS, workers reported utter deprivation due to low hours, bad weather affecting their work, and being paid less than the minimum wage and being unable to afford to fly home. That situation cannot be repeated, because workers in the scheme rely on their employer for all their necessities: accommodation, transportation, food and information. They will not have access to public funds. People may face a choice between remaining in an abusive situation and becoming destitute. None of us would want to be in that situation. The Government need to ensure that individuals who enter the scheme will have access to support to leave their situation if they are being exploited.
Debt bondage and entrapped workers are the two risks that I am most concerned about, but there are other issues, too. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) said that, because migrant workers by definition are here for a short time, they are less likely to know their immigration and employment rights. Therefore, they are less likely to be able to identify abuses. We will all have heard extraordinary stories of car washes, where individuals who are liberated from their slavery find out that the minimum wage is three or four times what they are paid. They did know they were being exploited; they just thought that was what happened. The only information they had access to led them to think that was the case.
We should draw on the trade union movement. I thank Unite for its support in preparing this speech; it has proposed a series of things to work well alongside the scheme to help to organise these workers. I hope the Minister will look at that. Not speaking English puts people at risk of abuse, and those who are not here for long are not likely to develop language skills. Let us make sure that rights advice and support is available in the UK beyond the current limited multilingual support.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
Very often, the people who abuse workers are from the workers’ own communities. This is as much about ensuring that police have access in the ways the hon. Gentleman describes, as it is about talking to those communities.
Alex Norris
Slavery operations are incredibly sophisticated, while also being simple: people from the same place who speak the same language take a person from home and exploit them, cutting out all the other links in the chain, so that they do not know that they are in an exploitative situation. As constituency MPs, we all know that our labour inspection regime in this country is predominantly reactive and relies on workers’ complaints. How would a catchment of workers who have not identified their own abuse be able to say that is the case? We ought to be mindful of that.
I have laid out a number of real challenges in the scheme that none of us would design legislation to support—quite the opposite. We know that after we leave the European Union we will face a defining moment for our country, when we decide where we want to be. We have heard a lot in the Chamber in recent weeks about being a high-standards country, especially when it comes to workers’ rights. Now is a good time for that. I want that for my constituents, neighbours, friends and family. I also want that for the people who come here and make sure we have food on our table. Those high standards must apply to them, too. We cannot use strong language in this place while allowing gaps in our system where abuse prevails.
I am pleased that, through my engagement with the Home Affairs Committee, I have received a commitment from the Home Secretary that slavery will be given due regard as part of the evaluation of the pilot. I would like to know what that looks like, when we will start to understand that and what Ministers will be doing about the agents used as intermediary third parties. The breadth of contributions from Members from every corner of the UK shows the strength of feeling. I hope that we can work collectively to get this right.
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen.
Hon. Members may wonder what the Minister of State for Policing and the Fire Service, who is also the Minister with responsibility for London, is doing here responding to a debate on seasonal agricultural workers. In truth, the Immigration Minister is tied up in a Public Bill Committee and cannot be here. Since we operate the principle of total football in the Home Office, every Minister is meant to be comfortable whatever ball is passed to him or her. Underlying that, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) made the point that the main thrust of the debate has been the determination to protect people from exploitation and abuse.
I am extremely happy to respond to this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) not just on calling a debate that has galvanised 16 Members of Parliament from across the country and across parties, but on his passion and his persistent cross-party work on modern slavery since he has been in this place. One of the great beacons of progress I have witnessed in my time in Parliament is the country’s increased understanding of the reality of modern slavery and our determination as a society to combat it. On the Government side, we are proud of the leadership, particularly of the Prime Minister, but I recognise the cross-party determination essential to make the kind of progress we need.
Gareth Snell
Given what the Minister says about the Government’s commitment to modern slavery, may I ask, cheekily and slightly tangentially, whether he will have a word with the Leader of the House about finding Government time to debate Lord McColl’s excellent Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill, which would give additional support to the victims of modern slavery? That would be another example of cross-party support for tackling modern slavery.
Mr Hurd
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his cheekiness. I certainly undertake to ensure that the Leader of the House is aware of his intervention.
I will seek to reassure the hon. Member for Nottingham North and others who share his concerns that, in proposing the pilot, we are determined not to risk going back in time or creating loopholes for exploitation. I am delighted to have this period of scrutiny, which is incredibly important to us. I hope I can persuade him that we have addressed most of his concerns.
The hon. Gentleman and others were rightly up front about the need to support some of our fastest growing industries. Of course it is right that we do so, but a balance needs to be struck. He mentioned that how we meet temporary labour needs in the agriculture sector is a long-standing issue. We totally appreciate that farming is a long-term endeavour and that UK growers, like most businesses, place great emphasis on certainty when it comes to workforce planning.
Priti Patel
Will the Department write to me and to colleagues about the need for certainty for rural and agricultural businesses, and in particular about looking at examples of other companies and learning from best practice? Can the Minister say how the Department would respond to support the needs of rural businesses should demand exceed the 2,500 places?
Mr Hurd
I am certainly happy to look at giving that undertaking, and I totally accept the point my right hon. Friend makes about the opportunity to learn from best practice. Clearly, she believes strongly that that exists in her constituency.
Let me say this about how the Government have risen to the challenge of supporting some of our fastest growing industries with their employment needs: against the backdrop of Brexit, we have set out clear transitional arrangements that will enable UK growers to continue to recruit from the European Union for up to two years after the UK’s exit. It is important to note that those arrangements will apply regardless of whether we leave with or without a deal.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
The Minister mentioned some of our fastest growing sectors. Will he join me in recognising that the tourism and hospitality sector also has a great need for seasonal workers? We must ensure that we make provision for that sector as well as for agriculture.
Mr Hurd
I certainly note that point, and I quite understand where it comes from, given the constituency my hon. Friend represents. I will ensure that the Immigration Minister takes that on board.
As the House knows, we have published an ambitious White Paper, setting out proposals for our future skills-based immigration system. That includes introducing, as a transitional measure, a new temporary short-term workers route to ensure that UK businesses, irrespective of sector, have the staff they need, including seasonal workers, and to help employers move smoothly to the future system. However, this debate is principally about the two-year seasonal workers pilot, which allows non-EU migrants to work on UK farms for six months, specifically in the edible horticultural sector, and I will use the time remaining to focus on the concerns the hon. Member for Nottingham North raised.
We are very clear that we want to support UK businesses, but it is just as important to us that everyone working in our economy is safe and is treated fairly and with respect. Exploiting people for their labour, subjecting them to horrific conditions such as those we have seen in the past, and denying them basic employment rights is of course a form of abuse.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
That is the fundamental point. We must give people not only the right to complain but the confidence to come forward. Will the Minister consider talking to the Immigration Minister about how to give that confidence to people who come to work on these schemes, both when they arrive and before they leave their countries?
Mr Hurd
I certainly take on board that point and give that undertaking. We are determined to protect workers from abuse and to crack down on employers who try to profit from exploiting people. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 is a world-leading landmark that gives law enforcement agencies the tools to deal with offenders and provides enhanced protection for victims, but we recognise that the nature of labour exploitation continues to evolve. We believe we are keeping pace with that, having introduced further measures to tackle exploitation through the Immigration Act 2016. We have widened the remit of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, giving it new powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to investigate serious labour market offences, including modern slavery offences, in all sectors. Those principles underpin all our immigration employment arrangements.
Let me turn to the clear and robust protections we have built into the design of the pilot, which were central to the line of inquiry from the hon. Member for Nottingham North. At the heart of those protections is our sponsorship system, which will be used to manage the licensing of the organisations—the scheme operators—selected to manage the pilot. The sponsor licensing system places clear and binding requirements and obligations on scheme operators, including robust responsibilities to ensure the welfare of participating migrant workers. Critically, it also gives the Home Office clear powers to revoke an operator’s licence if it falls short in its duties. That will be underpinned by a robust monitoring and compliance regime, which will include site visits by Home Office sponsor compliance teams.
On the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), the Home Office is working closely with the GLAA to share best practice for conducting such compliance visits and to share intelligence about our respective findings. We are absolutely determined to get this right. We have no desire to go backwards. We need to learn from the past.
The tier 2 and tier 5 sponsor guidance published by the Home Office on 11 January sets out organisations’ full responsibilities towards their seasonal workers. Those include ensuring that the work environment is safe and complies with all relevant health and safety requirements; that workers are treated fairly by their employer and are not threatened with or subjected to violence; that workers are paid properly, with time off and proper breaks; that workers are housed in hygienic and safe accommodation, although it is not mandatory for workers to live in accommodation provided by their employer; that workers’ passports are not withheld from them; and that procedures are in place to enable migrants to report any concerns and to move to another employer.
Should either of the selected operators fall short in those duties, action will be taken, up to and including the revocation of their sponsor licences. As a prerequisite for becoming a scheme operator, each organisation must hold and maintain licencing from the GLAA. Should a scheme operator lose its GLAA licensing at any point, its sponsor licence will be revoked with immediate effect.
I understand that the issue of debt bondage is of particular concern to the hon. Member for Nottingham North. Placing someone in debt bondage would constitute a failure to comply with the licensing standards and lead to the revocation of the operator’s licence. That in turn would lead to the revocation of its licence to act as a scheme operator. We therefore believe we have the sanctions in place to tackle that unacceptable practice. It is, however, important that we are alive to that risk and remain vigilant to any risk of exploitation.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the GLAA requires additional resources as a result of the pilot. I reassure him that the pilot is very much business as usual for the GLAA. We believe that an additional 2,500 workers will not place a significant additional burden on it, especially at a time when the sector tells us the overall number of seasonal workers is decreasing.
The Immigration Minister and I would be happy to look at any proposals put forward by Unite, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. I hope he is reassured by the range of protective measures we have put in place and by the clear requirements on scheme operators. We are confident that we have designed the scheme in a way that addresses his concerns.
Question put and agreed to.
Young Carers Support
(5 years, 9 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
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for young carers.
It is a privilege to move the motion with you in the Chair, Mr Owen. One of the special things about being a Member of Parliament is the opportunity we are given to find out more about the extraordinary people in the communities that we represent. Following my election back in 2010, there are few more extraordinary people who I have come into contact with than the young carers I have come to know.
John, for example, is 17 years old now and started caring for his mum when he was 10 years old. She has fibromyalgia. John says:
“This causes her muscles and bones to become weak and most of the time she is unable to walk or even get out of bed. As a young carer, I help my mum with shopping and things inside and outside of the house. I don’t get much time to go out with my mates or have much time to myself. My life is different because I am looking after my mum, making sure she is taking her tablets and eating and drinking.”
John was one of eight young people from Sheffield who I took to meet the Prime Minister last May. I thank the Prime Minister—she has one or two other things on right now—for finding time to sit down for half an hour with us. Another one of the group was Holly. She is now 14 years old but she started caring for her mum and her sister around the age of four or five. Her mum has an underactive thyroid and her sister has a reflux in her right kidney. Holly says of their life:
“I don’t get much time to be a child or to spend time with friends. I don’t mind, but it sometimes gets really frustrating if I can’t sit down for five minutes or so. My life is different to young people who aren’t carers, because I struggle a lot with life and have people to care for. They get to be kids and live their life. I still get to live my life but I have to an adult and I have to be very careful. The highs are that I get to spend lots of time with my mum and my sister. The lows are that I have no other family around, so it is just the three of us. It is very painful for me and very emotional to have to watch my sister screaming in agony.”
Holly and John are the lucky ones, because they have made contact with Sheffield Young Carers, of which I am proud to be a patron. They are getting tremendous support and the opportunity to meet and share their experience with others in the same position, but most young carers are hidden from view. One in 12 children and young people is taking on mid to high-level care for a family member. Their average age is just 12 years old, the average annual income for their families is £5,000 lower than others, 68% are bullied at school, 26% are being bullied about their caring role, 45% report a mental health problem, they achieve nine grades lower at GCSE and they are four times more likely to drop out of further and higher education. The right support is vital, and we owe them nothing less.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
This is such an important issue, and I am glad that my hon. Friend is raising it. He has said, quite rightly, that in many cases young carers are unidentified within the system. Does he agree that it is important that schools and GPs, who will have contact with the people the young carers are caring for, do all they can to try to make sure that young carers are flagged up in the system, so they get the support that they need?
Paul Blomfield
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She anticipates my next point, which is how important it is that we as a society identify young carers. When I sat down with our young carers in Sheffield and asked them what their priorities were, typically selflessly they put that at the top. They were not thinking of themselves but of the others who had not come into contact with the local group. As she points out, schools and GPs are in the best position to play that role.
Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on calling this important debate. There is a charity in my constituency called Be Free Young Carers, which represents over 3,000 young carers in south Oxfordshire and the Vale of White Horse. One of its concerns is that once young carers are identified, the assessment process takes about six months and the help they receive can often be superficial—for example, simply being directed to websites. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the assessment and support for young carers is still inadequate?
Paul Blomfield
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that is a point that I will return to.
The lives of young carers are divided between home and school, so schools can make a huge difference. In their recommendations to the Prime Minister last May, our young carers made two main points. The first was that schools should be required to have a young carers lead. There is nothing special about that—it is there for children with special educational needs and disabilities, and for looked after children, so we would just be following the same approach. The second recommendation was that Ofsted should inspect schools on what they are doing to support young carers and whether they have a young carers lead in the school. In a press release after the meeting, No. 10 said:
“The Prime Minister recently met with a group of young carers who highlighted issues with identification and support in schools and NHS settings and the Government will be undertaking a review to identify opportunities for improvement in these spaces.”
Will the Minister say, eight months on, what progress his Department has made with the review?
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. Will he join me in commending Megan McGarrigle from Glasgow North East Carers Centre, who has being doing a lot of work, going into schools in the east end of Glasgow and talking to young people? That work has identified young people who probably do not even realise that they are carers. The hon. Gentleman is right to touch on the collaboration between local authorities, because in my experience it has been a bit piecemeal.
Paul Blomfield
I certainly congratulate the group that the hon. Gentleman mentions for its work, and indeed groups across the country for their work, but that work is very patchy, and it is patchy in our schools, too.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this crucial debate. I was a young carer in a lone parent family between the ages of 14 and 18. I looked after my mother, who had a debilitating back condition during those four years. At that time there was absolutely no help whatsoever and seemingly no information about any help. Nobody knew where to turn in that regard. Does he agree that when help is framed, it needs to be flexible? It can be as simple as an afternoon off, or as major as to be all encompassing in its scope, to help that person and their family.
Paul Blomfield
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for sharing his personal experience as a young carer. I agree with his point about the flexibility of help needed for young carers, who face many different challenges. It needs to be tailored for individual need.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. In relation to support, does he agree with me and my local Oxfordshire charity, Be Free Young Carers, that charities are often relied upon to deliver all of this support, and that there is little support from other actors, such as local authorities? We need to have that.
Paul Blomfield
My hon. Friend is right. She is reaffirming the point that has been reflected in a number of interventions about how patchy provision is. Charities play a tremendously important role, but more needs to be done by the statutory sector as well.
Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to that point, does my hon. Friend agree that extending commissioning and grant funding is essential in ensuring that the needs of our young carers are met? That is something that was relayed to me by an amazing charity in my area, Wigan & Leigh Young Carers. The problem of sustainability and reliance on short-term funding streams is holding many charities back.
Paul Blomfield
My hon. Friend makes an important point about consistency of commissioning and support for work in this area.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a crucial and powerful speech. I have been working as part of the cross-party parliamentary taskforce on kinship care to try to join all the dots and find a way forward in supporting kinship carers, young and old, through the system. Quite frankly, they save the state a fortune. Does he agree that Parliament needs to take a good look at this problem and start supporting these people in a proper manner?
Paul Blomfield
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The response to today’s debate is extremely encouraging, and shows that there is clearly concern across Parliament, so I hope the Government will pay full attention to that.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is being very generous with his time. Two weeks ago, I was giving out awards at the inaugural Eleanor Marx awards ceremony in Lewisham. Schools were asked to nominate young women for their achievements, and the winner of the award was a young carer, in recognition of the work she did in supporting her mum and younger brother. She was overwhelmed by the recognition she got at that awards ceremony. Does he agree that more needs to be done to recognise the tremendous work that young carers are doing?
Paul Blomfield
It is brilliant that that award was allocated in that way. That sort of recognition is certainly something we should all be looking to, and maybe we can all seek out opportunities in our own areas to help to secure it.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Taking the hon. Gentleman back to the schools situation, does he think that the power that Ofsted is given to look at what the school is doing on this is very weak, and that strengthening Ofsted’s power in that respect would be a great help in identifying those young carers and ensuring that they are looked after?
Paul Blomfield
The hon. Gentleman anticipates my very next point. We will never see consistently good practice across schools until they are measured and assessed on it, and Ofsted’s role in that is crucial. I ask the Minister, in his winding-up speech, to say whether we can look forward to the Government’s requiring schools to have a young carers lead and requiring Ofsted to include the issue in its inspections.
Returning to some of the other points that our young carers from Sheffield made, there were two recommendations for the national health service, which have begun to be addressed in the NHS long-term plan and the commitment to carers, for which I am grateful. I have shared their recommendations and my questions with the Minister, so I hope he will also be able to confirm that the commitment in paragraph 2.33 of the long-term plan, which says:
“We will continue to identify and support carers”,
will include young carers and recognise the special nature of their needs. Will he say whether general practitioners will be required by the Care Quality Commission to hold a register of young carers in their practices and be inspected on it?
I welcome paragraph 2.35 of the commitment, which says:
“The NHS will roll out ‘top tips’ for general practice which have been developed by Young Carers, which include access to preventive health and social prescribing, and timely referral to local support services.”
It goes on to say:
“Up to 20,000 Young Carers will benefit from this more proactive approach by 23/24”,
but does the Minister recognise that that number falls well short of the estimated 700,000 young carers across the country?
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and fellow Sheffield MP for securing this debate. In a previous life, when I was a councillor, I was privileged to chair the children, young people and families scrutiny board, and met every year with Sheffield Young Carers, to whom I say thank you once again for bringing the young carers down to Parliament and letting their voices be heard. It is a shame that we do not celebrate the work they do, because they save the NHS hundreds of thousands, even millions of pounds. I was a young carer. My mother was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis when I was about six, so I had the opportunity to look after her. That was good, but at the same time you are not the same as your mates; you are somebody a bit different. The ask from the Sheffield Young Carers is very small, so will he join me in hoping that the Minister will give those young people hope for a better future? The statistics that we have seen show a high risk of their becoming NEETs—not in education, employment or training—with 67% of young carers being bullied and 45% of young adult carers reporting mental health issues. This is a small group of people who really go the full mile and need some care themselves.
Paul Blomfield
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank her for sharing her personal experience and for the work that she has previously done with Sheffield Young Carers. Our young carers also have some fairly modest recommendations on financial support, which is an issue she touched on, recognising that their families are poorer, that they have higher costs and that, unlike their peers, they cannot get part-time jobs. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on their proposal that they should get some form of carer’s allowance, which is being introduced in Scotland, and free bus passes, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) is spearheading a local campaign. Specifically with relation to his Department, does the Minister agree that young carers should be one of the named groups eligible for the 16-to-19 bursary?
I have one final question, relating to implementation of the Care Act 2014. A key principle of the statutory guidance issued under that Act is:
“Children should not undertake inappropriate or excessive caring roles that may have an impact on their development…their emotional or physical wellbeing and their prospects in education and life.”
Clearly, the evidence demonstrates the impact. In 2016, the Children’s Commissioner published a report revealing a very patchy service across the country, with many young carers remaining hidden and unsupported. One problem is that there is no guidance to define what is meant by “inappropriate or excessive”. Does the Minister agree that there should be national guidelines defining what is inappropriate or excessive care, to better support professionals in assessing and providing for the needs of young carers?
Fourteen-year-old Phoebe, who also joined me to meet the Prime Minister, has been caring since the age of eight. She probably spoke for all 700,000 young carers in the country when she said:
“I never get much time to myself. I worry a lot. I do panic that I can’t look after myself as much.”
She also said:
“This affects my own well-being.”
Should we not be doing everything to ensure that the caring that contributes so much to the family and saves the country so much does not affect the wellbeing of our young people, and that those young carers get the support they need to make the most of their lives?
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing the debate and on the eloquent way in which he outlined the issues.
I will not repeat the catalogue of personal experiences that my hon. Friend has witnessed at first hand. I think anybody who has had any experience of working with young carers in any part of the country would be able to repeat them. My own local authority, Sandwell Council, was one of the pioneers investigating this particular social problem, and published an early piece of work on child carers in 1989 with the specific objective of identifying the number of potential young carers in the borough and supporting charitable initiatives to address the problems they had. Certainly, first as a councillor and then as a Member of Parliament, it has been my privilege to work with the Sandwell Young Carers organisation, which has enabled me to see at first hand the inspirational young people we have in the borough and the work they do not only on behalf of their own families, but in relieving pressure on public services locally.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
As in my hon. Friend’s area, we have Gloucestershire Young Carers, which has just won a tender to remain as the organisation representing young carers in Gloucestershire. Does my hon. Friend agree that a tendering process is the most improper way to encourage those organisations to function properly in representing young carers? It just seems the wrong approach.
Mr Bailey
Absolutely. In fact, there was an earlier remark on the almost haphazard way in which young carer organisations can access funding. The fact is that to provide a proper, long-term service with the capacity to meet an area’s needs requires long-term, assured funding. The continual tendering process does not provide the degree of certainty necessary to plan services effectively for the long term.
In addition to the inspirational young people that I mentioned, there is the chief executive of SYC, Tracey Hawkins, whom I have known for many years. She brings absolute passion to the job—often in very trying financial circumstances—to sustain that service within my local authority. SYC has a record of raising awareness for professionals across the board within the borough to help them identify and support young carers, and it has a contract with the council to do so.
SYC provides lottery-funded academic support—through homework clubs—and educational support for young carers who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central outlined, often face very difficult home circumstances, resulting in their low attainment, and sometimes low aspiration. It also provides publicity and communicates with other community groups and clubs to broaden young carers’ activities, which again is lottery-funded. The problem is that SYC has to continually try to find new or repeat sources of funds to go on providing those services.
The initial survey in Sandwell identified 2,000 potential young carers as needing support, but SYC has the funding and capacity to deal with only about 520 at any one time. SYC also makes an enormous contribution to supporting other public services in the area.
Julian Knight
As a fellow West Midlands MP, I concur with many things the hon. Gentleman says, including on the hand-to-mouth existence that these organisations seem to lead. Does he also recognise that this is not so much about social deprivation or the area of the country where someone lives? I understand from Solihull Young Carers that the wealthier south of my constituency has as many cases of young people in this plight as the north of the borough, which is much more economically deprived. It is actually a nationwide problem.
Mr Bailey
I certainly agree that this problem is not confined to what were historically called deprived areas. By its very nature, the role of a young carer is often so hidden from general view that it is very difficult to make accurate assessments and comparisons. Although I cannot speak up for Solihull, I can say that it is very important that a uniformity of service should exist around the country, because this problem is not confined to specific geographical areas.
I am conscious of time, so I will quickly come to my concluding questions. To repeat the thrust of the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central, I ask the Minister what is being done to ensure that GPs and other health professionals identify, recognise and register young carers within their practice. The Department of Health and Social Care needs to take a more proactive role in raising awareness of this particular responsibility and ensuring that it is carried out. Similarly, what is being done to ensure that local authorities have pathways for young carers to access care and suitably trained, child-friendly staff with knowledge of the Acts covering young carers? What role do we envisage the voluntary-sector young carers projects playing in that pathway?
My hon. Friend also mentioned transport. Many young carers cite difficulties in accessing school transport and transport to young carers’ facilities, which are put on by charities and other community organisations to relieve some of the pressure of their everyday caring responsibilities. There is little point in having those facilities if the young carers who need them have not the wherewithal to get to them and enjoy them.
There is also an issue around the very welcome transitional arrangement policies for carers over 18 now being devised through a joint initiative of the Children’s Society and the Department of Health and Social Care. The 18-year-old barrier is often a sort of cliff-edge for young carers in their receiving care and advice, which needs to be overcome. I welcome the initiatives now being undertaken to address that problem.
However, my concern is that because many young carers organisations have historically not been involved in this particular area, it may provide a market opportunity for organisations that do not have the same community base, experience and sensitivity to actually fulfil that role. We do not want this to be regarded only as a business opportunity. We want to enable those organisations with a long history of providing this service for young carers in their local communities, and which know their local communities, to have the opportunity to build on that expertise and to develop it for the post-18 cohort of young carers.
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
Before I call the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden), I remind Members that I will begin calling the Front-Bench spokespeople at eight minutes past 5. That will give the Opposition spokespeople five minutes each, will protect the Minister’s 10 minutes and will also give two minutes at the end for the sponsor of the debate to respond.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I echo the sentiments already expressed in both interventions and speeches, including the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). If I may say so, responsibility for the questions he posed to the Minister does not sit only in the Department for Education but across Government. If we are serious about this issue, the need to break out of those silos, and perhaps to have a cross-departmental take on all this, is really important.
I will speak principally on the excellent and enormously positive work done in Blackpool, often by our carers centre, which is of long standing. I have had the privilege to work with the centre over my 22 years as the local Member of Parliament, and particularly with its young carers. Over the past 12 months, the centre has supported 666 young carers. Let us bear in mind that this is—I will not say that it is the tip of the iceberg—certainly not the actual number of young people caring for a parent or family member in Blackpool. Various surveys over the years have suggested that the figure is anything between 2,000 and 3,000, which gives some sense of the scale of it.
The other thing about Blackpool, which is also an issue for many inner-city areas and other seaside and coastal communities, is the degree of double transience—of families coming into the town and of people moving within the town, often because of family break-ups or economic hardship. That means that the ability of people who need care to latch on to a local community is much reduced on what it might be in other parts of the country, which puts even more pressure on the work of those young carers.
Nevertheless, the good news from Blackpool is that there has been tremendous progress in the last few years. I have been privileged and very proud to be part of that. In 2016 we all got a little bit of BBC showbiz dust sprinkled on us, because the BBC’s “DIY SOS” programme, which some hon. Members may be familiar with, descended on Blackpool to transform a building, Blenheim House—which is in the constituency of my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), but which serves the whole of Blackpool—into a young carers centre. Literally hundreds and hundreds of volunteers came from across the community, and I, along with some of my councillor colleagues, lent my hod, as it were, by clearing rubble and doing general labouring tasks in the morning. I also pay tribute to the Beaverbrooks Charitable Trust—the local charity and local business that provided the property and has supported the centre very strongly ever since. It is invidious, when one thinks about the work that is done by young carers and the carers associations that support them, to single out lots of individuals, but I do particularly want to single out Michelle Smith, who has done extraordinary things with the centre and everything that has been taken forward from it.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is paying fitting tribute to the organisations in his constituency. Will he join me in recognising the work of volunteers, particularly the volunteers who assist in my constituency, Gloucestershire Young Carers, because it is their contribution that means that the work can reach so much further and change so many more lives?
Gordon Marsden
I am delighted to agree with the hon. Gentleman. Of course, the multiplier factor is very important, but it is also very important that young carers themselves do not get burned out. That is one of the key issues. It did not involve young carers, but I have a family history in this regard, in that my father cared for my mother for nearly 25 years; she had severe osteoporosis. Unfortunately, he would not take advantage of the things that were available, and I saw, in his latter years, how he was absolutely worn down by the process. Young people may not show that, but they have the same sorts of issues. When I tell hon. Members that 48% of those young people in Blackpool are caring for a parent because of substance misuse or mental ill health, they will get a sense of the sorts of issues that young carers have to face and deal with.
Last autumn, very important new research from the University of Nottingham revealed that the number of young people between the ages of 11 and 16 who act as carers has more than doubled since a comparable BBC survey in 2010. I was privileged to discuss those findings with people from the carers centre in my area, but also with two young carers, Caitlin Churchill and Claire Taylor, who had written to me over the summer with their personal experiences as well as with ideas to give young carers more support in the classroom.
The classroom is a key factor in this area. We have heard today about the need for Ofsted to be more forthcoming in this area, but school heads and schoolteachers also need to take the issue on board. They may not even know that they have young carers in their midst, and those young people, who sometimes turn up looking bleary-eyed and without having had a meal, may be disciplined for that, because they do not regard it as a caring thing; they think that it is just something they do for mum or dad or sometimes for an older sister or whoever.
That point is very important, as is the mental health project launched by Blackpool Carers Centre for young carers last spring. There have been workshops on this subject, and it is my experience that sometimes, when we bring young people together outside their school frameworks and put young people from one school or college with those from another, they work more collaboratively and do not feel as constrained. However, we need to ensure that the voluntary efforts and voluntary research by those young people outside school feed into schools and colleges as well.
The role of the local authority is also important. Blackpool is a small unitary authority, and I am sad to say that we have been hit very strongly by cuts over the last six or seven years, but it does support the carers centre.
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
Order. May I just say to the hon. Gentleman that he might want to bring his remarks to a conclusion?
Gordon Marsden
Yes, Mr Owen. The authority does support the carers centre, with a relatively modest amount of funding, so there we have it—a good example of people taking things forward. May I just say one last thing to the Minister? The role of young carers ought to be recognised not just by Ofsted, but in our thinking about bursaries and so on, and particularly when they want to enter higher education and apprenticeships.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) wholeheartedly on securing the debate. He does an enormous amount of work in championing young carers from Sheffield and across the country. Like him, I have met many of the young carers that he mentioned, in part because of the fantastic work of Sheffield Young Carers, which is such an effective voice for those young people, but also because the young people themselves are such excellent advocates, who need absolutely no prompting in describing their experiences and making an impassioned case for change to support the needs of this hidden army of young people, who contribute so much yet receive so little.
I employ a young carer in my constituency office. Gabby has cared for her family since she was four years old and still cares for them now. As a result of that experience, she is an absolutely amazing young woman, who I believe is genuinely capable of anything, but who just needed a chance and some recognition of the obstacles that she faced while growing up that other young people did not have to. That is really at the heart of what young carers are asking for—recognition. I am talking about recognition of the incredible work that they do day in, day out; recognition that as a result of caring for siblings or parents, they struggle to get to school right on time, and that when they are at school, they are really tired; recognition that as a result of their caring, they are much more likely to have mental health problems of their own and risk burnout. Some services do recognise that, but nowhere is the recognition more important than in schools, and I am sorry to say that young carers’ experience in schools is patchy at best. In the words of Sheffield Young Carers, some schools help young carers, but some still do not at all.
It is incumbent on Government to ensure that schools treat young carers consistently and with the respect and recognition that they deserve, so I should be grateful if the Minister would respond explicitly to the recommendations made on education by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central—that schools should be required to have a young carers lead that Ofsted’s inspection framework should cover support for young carers, and that the teacher training curriculum should include information about identifying and supporting young carers.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, I have been working with a lot of young carers over the past year to campaign for free travel for young carers in Sheffield, both while they are in school and outside term time. Understandably, young carers travel much more than their counterparts, going to and from health appointments, collecting shopping and perhaps visiting those they care for. It is absolute common sense that we should recognise that by providing them with free travel.
Just last week, the young carers presented our petition to Sheffield City Council, where they received a standing ovation. Last summer, South Yorkshire passenger transport executive conducted a pilot, but we now need to see it rolled out. If the Minister could commit to raising that with his counterparts in the Department for Transport, we would appreciate it.
These young people ask so little of us, but give so selflessly to their loved ones and save the Exchequer and society so much. It is the very least we can do to make their voices heard in this place and to ensure that sufficient support is in place in their communities.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing the debate. Like several other hon. Members, I declare an interest as a former young carer. I would like to thank both the organisations in my constituency and the other organisations that I worked with across Scotland as a volunteer with young carers services in later years. This issue is close to my heart, and I think it is of paramount importance that we should be having this debate.
Lanarkshire Carers Centre in my constituency works with, and for, carers to develop and deliver services that make a positive difference to the lives of carers in Lanarkshire. The services that it provides include one-to-one carer support, carer support groups, short breaks for carers, and carer training opportunities. South Lanarkshire Carers Network empowers carers with knowledge and information that will allow them to make informed choices about available services. It also aims to identify unpaid carers, develop and maintain a network for those carers and identify gaps in service provision.
Carers not only perform a vital role for the people whom they look after, but ease the strain on our public services, as we have heard from many hon. Members. In fact, this point was well made by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central. I recognise his incredible work and passion as a patron of Sheffield Young Carers. He rightly gives a voice to John, Holly and all the other young carers, who deserve to be heard in this House.
Other hon. Members from across the House talked about their personal experiences, which were heartfelt and touching. It is worth recognising the words of the hon. Members for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) and for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden), who have done a great deal of work in their constituencies over many years. That commitment is recognised here, as well as by their constituents. I also recognise the work of Michelle Smith, whom the hon. Member for Blackpool South mentioned, and the work she has done in his constituency. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) rightly identified that she has employed someone in her office who is a young carer. That recognition and opportunity is vital. Every young carer hopes for a chance and we should ensure that they get one.
Young carers provide a vital service to our economy, taking a huge burden off public services, and addressing the constraints of an already decreasing budget. In Scotland’s case, they save the Scottish economy £10.3 billion, which is close to the cost of providing the NHS service in Scotland. There are approximately 759,000 carers in Scotland, which is 17% of the adult population. When we think about carers we assume that they are adults, but there are an estimated 29,000 young carers in Scotland, which is 4% of under-16-year-olds. Being a young carer has a big impact on a young person’s life.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making an important point. It is difficult to know the exact figures, but substance abuse and mental health issues are on the rise. We have not mentioned the number of young people who are out there caring but are not recognised, even by themselves, as young carers. How do we identify those young carers going forward?
Angela Crawley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that salient point. From my point of view, growing up, I did not recognise myself as a young carer. A poster in school reminded me of the kinds of responsibilities that a young carer might have, which make that young person different from other young people in school. The Department for Education should consider an awareness-raising campaign around the responsibilities of young carers. If they are taking on additional responsibilities, they might not necessarily assume that they are caring for a parent or younger sibling. We need to raise awareness of that.
Many young carers find it difficult to balance their caring responsibilities with their education and social life. It can negatively impact their health and the financial difficulties can impact their stress levels. It is vital that young carers are supported, so that they can not only continue to care, but have a life and childhood of their own and not feel different from their non-caring peers at school.
The Scottish Government are leading the way on supporting carers. They have invested around £122 million in a programme for support for young carers. That carer’s allowance is the same level as jobseeker’s allowance and has been backdated to be paid from April 2018. From this autumn, the Scottish Government will introduce the young carer grant, worth £300 per year, which will be granted to 16 to 18-year-olds who have at least 16 hours of caring responsibility. I hope that the Minister will take that into account when he speaks to his colleagues across all Departments, because this issue is not reserved to the Department for Education.
I am conscious that I do not have much time left. I call on the Minister to consider carefully the important role of young carers, and do more to recognise them and support them financially.
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for securing this debate and for his powerful contribution, which set us off on the right footing.
The latest figures identify close to 200,000 young carers, but it is likely that the real figure is much higher, because many child carers, some as young as four years old, do not identify themselves as carers. All too often, young carers go about their lives managing their caring responsibilities as best they can, unseen, unheard and unsupported. I want to thank the young carers who have allowed their stories to be shared here today, especially the Sheffield carers.
I was a young carer and I know it is not easy. Being a young carer can be a very isolating experience. All chances of childhood are lost. It is hard to laugh with so much responsibility. It is hard to be carefree when you are coming home from school worrying about what you will find, worrying about household bills, because there is no one else to worry about them, and worrying about siblings. Balancing school and caring responsibilities is, to say the least, difficult. There is no time for homework and it is hard to concentrate at school. There are few chances to have a life of one’s own and few chances to socialise; it is difficult.
Children have rights. The United Nations says that all children have a right to education and a childhood, and the right to be protected from the demands of excessive and inappropriate caring. Too often those rights are denied, and children and young people are suffering. One third of all carers aged between 11 and 18 experience mental health problems of their own. Research shows that one in 20 carers miss school because of their caring responsibilities. Young carers are far more likely to have lower educational attainment, less likely to stay on at school and more likely to be out of work in adult life.
There is some support out there. I pay tribute to the Carers Trust for the work it does supporting 32,000 young carers. I recognise and thank Carers UK and organisations such as Rainbow Trust Children’s Charity, which remind us that the siblings of children with life-limiting conditions are also young carers, who deserve the right to regular short breaks. I also thank the all-party parliamentary group on carers for shining a spotlight on these issues.
We are here today because Government support is urgently needed. The Care Act 2014 placed the duty on local authorities to consider the needs of children and young people living in a household where there is an adult with a disability or an impairment. That has not been fully implemented, because of a lack of funds. The Children’s Society worryingly reports that in the last four years the number of young carers has soared by 10,000. It suggests that this may be due to young carers picking up the slack from a shortage of adult social care. It is certainly a fact that adult care budgets have been cut by £7 billion since 2010, and cuts have consequences. Fewer people are now eligible for publicly funded care. Consequently, young family members have to take on more caring responsibilities.
Those young carers need and deserve support. Various promises have been made along the way. Eight months ago, the Prime Minister met some of these brilliant young people and promised to help them. The Government’s carers action plan promised a cross-departmental approach,
“to increase the timely identification”
of carers, to improve access to sport for general health and wellbeing, and to improve educational opportunities and outcomes.
Hon. Members relayed specific and sensible steps that could be taken to support young carers. In terms of health, GPs need to be aware of the caring responsibilities of their young patients. Social prescribing needs to be an option for these young people. In education, every school needs to have a designated lead for young carers. The Government must recognise that funding support is needed. Many young carers live in low-income households, and too often are left to shoulder financial worries. Costs associated with the caring role can be burdensome. Teenage carers often have little time to take on part-time work. Making carers eligible for the vulnerable bursary and free travel arrangements will be a welcome step. Again, I make the plea for funding short breaks for young carers.
Will the Minister go beyond warm words and give us a guarantee on some of the specifics? It is astonishing that the Department of Health and Social Care has published a 10-year plan for the future delivery of services, but does not outline a plan for social care. These issues are so fundamentally interconnected that it is hard to believe that they have not been dealt with in the 10-year plan. When will the long-awaited Green Paper on social care will be published? Will the Minister assure us that the understanding of the needs of all carers will be at the heart of not only the Green Paper on social care, but all Government strategy going forward? Will he guarantee that the Government will ensure that young carers are never forgotten or left behind?
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
I thank the Front-Bench spokespeople and Back Benchers for keeping to the time constraints. I call the Minister.
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Chris Skidmore)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing this debate. I apologise on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), for whom I am deputising. He is unable to be here due to prior departmental commitments.
Young carers do heroic work. They provide vital support to those they look after. We all recognise the enormous contribution that young carers make. The number of hon. Members who have turned up to make interventions or contributions is testament to that. We heard contributions from the hon. Members for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden), for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) and for Burnley (Julie Cooper). They have all made excellent points.
Young carers are likely to need additional support to develop and thrive, and there are many voluntary sector organisations doing inspirational work to support them. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central talked about John and Holly coming to meet the Prime Minister in May. She was impressed by the good work of Sheffield Young Carers, which provides respite and support with education and employment training.
Although I am the Minister with responsibility for higher education, I visited Kingston University earlier this month to see first hand how the university supports young carers to access and succeed in higher education through its dedicated KU Cares team. We recognise that many organisations provide similar services across the country, and we applaud the work they do.
It is important that young carers feel able to have the same aspirations as any other child and that they are supported to meet them. The Government are committed to ensuring that young carers have access to services that support and encourage them to achieve the best educational outcomes.
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
Will the Minister join me in congratulating Surrey Young Carers, which supports 2,300 young carers in the county? It has been pointed out that young carers are 40% more likely to have mental health problems if they are not identified and supported early. That is important, because it is only fair to them and the public purse that they are supported.
Chris Skidmore
I thank the organisation my hon. Friend mentions for its work. I will return to that critical point about mental health. The Department thanks all the organisations that hon. Members have mentioned for the work they do. The time and dedication they give is much appreciated.
On identification, many young people wish to help their loved ones, and find reward in doing so, but young carers often go unnoticed and hidden, and perhaps do not even recognise themselves as young carers, as the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East said. That can put their education, training or health at risk, and prevent them from enjoying their childhood in the same way as other children.
The consistent identification of young carers is challenging, and there are many complex reasons for that, which is why the Department has made sustained progress to tangibly improve identification and support. I was asked about the progress in the past eight months. The Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care have commissioned the Carers Trust to undertake a review of best practice in identifying young carers. That work is ongoing, but its conclusion should give us new insights into how schools, health services and other providers can best achieve that in practice.
Recommendation 3.2 of the cross-Government carers action plan, which was published in June 2018, identified that the two Departments would conduct a review of best practice in identifying young carers. That review will work alongside the Carers Trust work and will involve experts to look at existing best practice and identify what can be done to spread it. It will report back shortly.
We recognise the points that were made about mental health treatment and improving school support for vulnerable pupils. Young carers should receive mental health support if they need it. As part of the NHS long-term plan, there is a commitment to increasing the funding for children’s and young people’s mental health services to improve the support for 345,000 more children and young people to access NHS-funded mental health services in schools and colleges.
NHS England, in particular, is working with the young carer health champions programme to support confidence in using health services. It also focuses on improving support to enable young carers to make a positive transition from children’s to adults’ services. The Department of Health and Social Care will fund a project to identify and disseminate effective practice on that.
On the points made about children in need and about support for them as young carers, when it comes to looking at the impact, which we recognise, we know that statutory support for young carers’ needs is necessary. For that reason, we have implemented the legislative changes that have been touched on, so that young carers have an automatic entitlement to assessment by children’s services. Changes to the Care Act 2014 and the Children and Families Act 2014 have been implemented. The consolidation and simplification of legislation relating to young carers’ assessments has made the rights and duties clearer to young people and practitioners.
There is, however, still work to do on children in need. The Department collects only limited data on young carers through the annual children in need census, which had about 16,100 assessments that identified young care as a factor that contributes to children being in need. We want to do more, which is why the children in need review is identifying how to spread best practice on raising educational outcomes.
Support through social care is reflected in the statutory guidance “Working together to safeguard children”, which clearly states that the specific needs of young carers should be given support, recognition and priority in the assessment process. That process needs to take a whole-family approach to assessment and support.
Like the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, we strongly believe that young people should be protected from inappropriate and excessive caring responsibilities and that we should take that whole-family approach. Local authorities have an overarching responsibility for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of all children in their area. They are best placed to assess the needs and priorities in their area, and thresholds are set locally to allow for the specific needs of local children and families. We agree on the need for consistent, high-quality decision making, which is why Ofsted assesses whether local thresholds are set appropriately for children.
We want a system that responds to the needs and interests of children and families, and not the other way around. In such a system, practitioners need to be clear about what is required of them individually and how they can work in partnership with others. That is why the Department is working with the wider charitable sector to improve access to the support that young carers deserve. We have provided the Carers Trust with half a million pounds to develop and run the project “Making a Step Change for Young Carers and their Families”. Improving access to support for young carers is championed across Government through the NHS England young carer health champions programme, which aims to improve confidence in using health services.
There are clearly benefits for schools in identifying and supporting young carers, but changing the law to make them do so is not the best way forward. It is important that headteachers and governors are allowed the freedom to exercise their wealth of responsibilities in the most appropriate way, according to the individual needs of their pupils. Programmes such as those delivered by Suffolk Family Carers, the Carers Trust and the Children’s Society are important, and the more schools that complete them, the more that other schools will not want to be left behind.
Guidance such as “Keeping children safe in education” asks school and college staff to be alert to the potential need for early help for young carers. That support is evaluated by Ofsted inspections that take into account how schools and colleges meet the needs of the range of children and young people that attend them.
The issue of the financial burdens on young carers was raised. Young carers over 16 can be entitled to a carer’s allowance and carer’s credit to support the financial burden and help with gaps in their national insurance record. They can receive discretionary help from the 16 to 19 bursary fund, which is available to education and training institutions. It is the role of those institutions to determine which young people need bursaries and the level of financial support required to enable those students to participate.
The Department for Education provides schools with about £2.4 billion a year through the pupil premium, which provides £1,320 for primary schools and £935 for secondary schools. Eligibility is based on children receiving free school meals, but roughly 60% of young carers are on free school meals, so we know that they will receive that benefit as well.
When it comes to schools making effective use of their pupil premium budgets, we do not seek to tell them how to use the premium, as they will know best how to spend the grant according to their pupil needs. Crucially, however, schools are held to account for their use of the pupil premium through Ofsted inspections and information in performance tables. Most schools are required to publish details online about the impact of that funding.
On bus passes, it is up to local authorities to decide how they wish to allocate their discretionary budgets, including on providing free transport. The Government have made more than £200 billion available up to 2020 for councils to deliver on the local services that their communities want. I note the South Yorkshire pilot, and I will make sure that the Department looks into that.
I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central again for securing the debate—I am sure we could have spoken for at least another hour—and it has highlighted a crucial issue. Regardless of which side we are on, we are all determined to help those young carers who do so much for our local society.
Paul Blomfield
I am delighted by the number of hon. Members from both sides of the House who have contributed, and I thank them for that—I am sure the young carers they represent will be grateful too. I am also grateful to hon. Members for sharing their personal experience, which underlines the point about recognising only the tip of the iceberg. Four hon. Members described their experience as young carers, which makes an important statement about the number who go without recognition.
The point was made that good work is done by volunteers, and that is absolutely right, but we should not have to depend on them. Their work should be underpinned by good statutory provision, which needs to be consistent across the country if young carers are not to burn out.
I thank the Minister for the answers that he did provide, although I was disappointed by some of them. He spoke quickly and quietly, so I did not catch everything that he said—I will be reading Hansard. I gave the Department four days’ written notice of every question, so I had hoped that I would get fuller answers. In some cases, where he did answer, he tried to shift responsibility away from the Government and on to local authorities and others, which was disappointing.
Finally, I pay tribute to Sheffield Young Carers, which was the inspiration for the debate. I hope that it recognised, in all the contributions, how strongly hon. Members feel about these issues and how far we will not let them go.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered support for young carers.
Written Statements
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
ECOFIN
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) will be held in Brussels on 12 February 2019. The UK will be represented by Mark Bowman (Director General, International Finance, HM Treasury). The Council will discuss the following:
Early morning session
The Eurogroup President will brief the Council on the outcomes of the 11 February meeting of the Eurogroup, and the European Commission will provide an update on the current economic situation in the EU.
European system of financial supervision review
The Council will be invited to agree a general approach on the review of the European system of financial supervision.
Current financial services legislative proposals
The Romanian presidency will provide an update on current legislative proposals in the field of financial services.
Decision making in EU taxation policy
The Council will hold an exchange of views on the European Commission’s proposal to move to qualified majority voting (QMV) in EU taxation policy.
Fiscal sustainability report
The Council will be invited to adopt Council conclusions on the 2018 fiscal sustainability report.
Discharge of the EU budget
The Council will be invited to approve a Council recommendation to discharge to the European Commission in respect of the 2017 EU budget.
EU budget guidelines
The Council will be invited to adopt Council conclusions on the EU budget guidelines for 2020.
AOB—carbon pricing and aviation tax
The Dutch Finance Minister will present a paper to the Council on carbon pricing and aviation tax.
[HCWS1327]
National DNA Database Strategy Board Annual Report
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
My noble Friend the Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) has today made the following written ministerial statement:
The Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) is today laying before the House the annual report of the national DNA database strategy board for 2017-18. This report covers the national fingerprints database and the national DNA database (NDNAD).
Chief Constable James Vaughan has presented the annual report of the national DNA database to the Home Secretary. Publication of the report is a statutory requirement under section 63AB(7) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as inserted by section 24 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The report shows the important contribution that the NDNAD and the national fingerprint databases (policing collections) make to supporting policing and solving crimes. I am grateful to the strategy board for their commitment to fulfilling their statutory functions.
A copy of the report will be made available on gov.uk.
[HCWS1326]
Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
My noble Friend the Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) has today made the following written ministerial statement:
On 20 July 2017, the Home Secretary extended the remit of the National DNA Database Ethics Group (NDNADEG) to cover the ethical issues associated with all forensic identification techniques and renamed the group as the Biometrics and Forensics Ethics Group (BFEG).
To support the Home Office’s strategic approach to data, and to build public trust, it has been agreed to extend the remit of the BFEG further. The group will now also be asked to consider strategic issues relating to the use of large and complex data sets by the Home Office. This will include providing independent oversight of the data ethics governance framework established to ensure balanced consideration of the use of data within the Home Office.
The group will act within the legal framework of the Department on an advisory basis. It will not be in the remit of the group to consider whether the Department has complied with the relevant laws, nor will the Department disclose personal data to the group to enable it to discharge its responsibilities.
The BFEG will continue to consider the ethical aspects of:
the application and operation of technologies which produce biometric and forensic data and identifiers;
ethical issues relating to scientific services provided to the police service and other public bodies within the criminal justice system;
applications for research involving access to biometric or forensic data; and
matters relating to the management, operation and use of biometric or forensic data.
[HCWS1325]
East Midlands Rail Franchise
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
I wish to inform the House that the Secretary of State for Transport, has reached agreement with Stagecoach Group to continue to operate train services on the east midlands rail franchise. This direct award means that passengers from London St Pancras International to Northamptonshire, the east midlands, Lincolnshire, Staffordshire and South Yorkshire will continue to be served by East Midlands Trains until 18 August 2019. If required there is an option to extend this agreement by up to a further six rail periods.
East Midlands Trains has achieved good performance and passenger satisfaction levels during the time they have been operating the franchise and the new agreement will allow for a smooth transition into the next competitively- tendered franchise. In the forthcoming months I expect East Midlands Trains to deliver the following improvements as part of the new agreement:
investment of £150,000 on accessibility improvements at stations;
a simplified application process for Delay Repay.
As a minimum East Midlands Trains will also be expected to continue to deliver the following:
good performance levels and passenger satisfaction;
a mobile app which provides real time information on the operation of passenger services and enables customers to book and pay for travel;
a 4G wi-fi service and provide at least 15 minutes of free access per passenger journey on standard class.
This direct award will ensure a smooth transition from the current operator to the next franchise which is expected to deliver significant passenger benefits including more services and seats across the franchise, in addition to better facilities and further improved accessibility at stations.
[HCWS1322]
Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am today announcing to the House the launching of a consultation on statutory guidance to be issued to taxi and private hire vehicle (PHV) licensing authorities and that the Government have issued their response to the report of the task and finish group on taxi and private hire vehicle licensing.
The draft statutory guidance proposes a range of robust measures to protect taxi and PHV passengers, particularly those most vulnerable. Government and licensing authorities must work together to ensure that, above all else, the taxi and PHV services the public use are safe. The consultation on this guidance will run until 22 April 2019.
The taxi and PHV trade has experienced significant and rapid changes in recent years which have brought with them benefits but have exacerbated concerns over the existing structure of the industry and the environment in which it operates. In particular, many of these changes have highlighted inconsistencies in the licensing standards, and in the rigour with which these standards are applied by some licensing authorities.
The recommendations proposed in the draft statutory guidance are a result of extensive consultation, and in particular learning from the best practice of exemplary licensing authorities. Consulting on statutory guidance is an important first step to reforming the way the taxi and PHV sector is regulated.
In addition to the statutory guidance consultation, the Government are today publishing their response to the report of the chair of the task and finish group. The Government have set out their plans to introduce legislation and bring forward the urgent reforms necessary. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Chair, Professor Mohammed Abdel-Haq, for his report, and the members of the group for their dedication in considering the issues facing the trade and their potential remedies.
The Government will, when time allows, bring forward legislation to introduce national minimum standards for taxi and PHV licensing, reinforcing the consistently high standards that the statutory guidance will bring to the sector. To ensure that drivers are under the same level of scrutiny when operating away from their licensing area we will legislate to enable enforcement and compliance checks to be conducted by any licensing officer against any vehicle regardless of where they have been licensed. Where drivers or vehicles fail to meet the national minimum standards, they will be able to take appropriate action to protect the public. Underpinning these measures will be the introduction of a national licensing database to assist the sharing of relevant information between licensing authorities and other bodies necessary to ensure that all those in the trade are “fit and proper” and warrant the trust that is placed in them by the public. This database will build on the work of the Local Government Association and the National Anti-Fraud Network in establishing the national register of revocation and refusals.
Taxis and PHVs provide a vital community service which is used by many people; helping them get to the shops, see their friends, or go to work or school. We will work with the trade, drivers and regulators as well as passenger groups to meet the challenges the sector is expected to face in the future and ensure that change is not at the expense of a safe and well-functioning market. This work is already under way through the future of mobility grand challenge and the Law Commission’s consideration on enabling autonomous vehicles. I would encourage all to engage on these issues and help shape a successful sector that all can be proud of.
[HCWS1323]
Second Additional Provision to the High Speed Rail (West Midlands – Crewe) Bill
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I would like to inform the House about the introduction of a second additional provision to the High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill, which is currently before a Select Committee.
As part of this Government’s industrial strategy we are investing in High Speed 2, a transformational infrastructure project that will improve people’s journeys, create jobs, generate economic growth and help to rebalance our country’s economy. HS2 is more than a railway and the project’s vision is to be a catalyst for economic growth. It has cross-party support and support from councils, local enterprise partnerships, metro Mayors and businesses who can see the transformational potential.
HS2 is making progress and the benefits are already being seen in towns and cities in advance of HS2 services. Around 2,000 businesses have been awarded HS2 contracts and over 7,000 jobs have been supported, a figure that will increase to around 30,000 at peak.
The additional provision proposes a number of changes to the powers in the Bill for the Select Committee’s consideration. These changes have arisen as a result of requests from petitioners, directions from the Select Committee currently considering the Bill, and further design development, principally in relation to utility works. Those directly and specially affected by these changes may petition against them, and once any petitioners have been heard, the Committee will decide whether the amendments to the Bill should be made. The main changes in the additional provision are as follows:
The lowering of the viaduct at Kings Bromley which reduces environmental effects such as visual impact;
a revised and more simple Handsacre junction layout, where phase one connects to the west coast main line;
a new traction power connection, requiring over 7 km of high voltage electricity lines, from the HS2 line at Newlands Lane to the east of the route. This change ensures the necessary resilience and redundancy required for traction power on a high-speed railway;
temporary and permanent power supply routes to the Whitmore and Madeley tunnels, to support the operation of the tunnel boring machines during construction and later, the operation of the tunnels;
a southward extension of the southern end of the tunnel at Whitmore, to avoid the need for complex surface works where the A53 crosses the route; and
works at and around Crewe station including the extension of platform 5 to accommodate 400-metre HS2 trains. These changes support the realisation of the Crewe hub vision.
The additional provision also includes works and powers related to utilities following detailed discussion with utility companies. Other changes relate to highway safety and capacity improvements.
All of these changes require additional land to be acquired, and/or works to be carried out. In some cases land now affected is at some distance from the line of route. Full details are shown in the plans and sections deposited alongside the additional provision. Affected landowners will receive notification this week, including information on how to petition against the changes, should they decide to do so.
The following amendments are also included in this additional provision:
An insertion to allow easements over land to be for the benefit of a third party (i.e. utility companies) rather than for the benefit of the Secretary of State;
dis-application of some sections of the Building Act 1984 in relation to demolitions which are already otherwise authorised by the Bill; and
increasing the controls on the nominated undertaker in relation to low-volume lorry movements.
I am also publishing an environmental statement setting out the significant effects and mitigation from the changes in the additional provision, alongside a supplementary environmental statement reporting new environmental information relating to the scheme. In accordance with Standing Orders, there is a public consultation on these documents which will run until 29 March 2019. The documents will be put in the Public Bill Office of the House, and will also be made available in locations open to the public in all local authorities and parishes affected by the changes.
In October 2018, I committed to updating the House regularly on the progress of HS2. I intend to make further statements to this House to update colleagues on HS2’s progress during the course of 2019.
[HCWS1324]
Grand Committee
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Offensive Weapons Bill
Tuesday 12th February 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Offensive Weapons Act 2019 View all Offensive Weapons Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 149-IV Fourth marshalled list for Grand Committee (PDF) - (8 Feb 2019)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Rogan) (UUP)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
“(ja) section (Enforcement of offences relating to sale etc of offensive weapons)(5);(jb) section (Application of Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendments to insert new Clauses after Clause 39.
“(za) section (Sale etc of bladed articles to persons under 18)(1);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment to insert a new Clause before Clause 14.
“(ca) section (Enforcement of offences relating to sale etc of offensive weapons)(1) to (4);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment to insert the first of two new Clauses after Clause 39.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 28, line 10.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 28, line 10.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 28, line 40.
“(aa) section (Sale etc of bladed articles to persons under 18)(2);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment to insert a new Clause before Clause 14.
“(ca) section (Sale etc of bladed articles to persons under 18)(1);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment to insert a new Clause before Clause 14.
“(ca) section (Sale etc of bladed articles to persons under 18)(2);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment to insert a new Clause before Clause 14.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, that concludes the Committee’s proceedings on the Bill.
House of Lords
Royal Assent
Tuesday 12th February 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 22 January 2019 - (22 Jan 2019)
Farming: Carbon Emissions
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to achieve net zero carbon emissions in farming.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. Agricultural emission statistics are calculated by a team led by Rothamsted Research. Since 1990, emissions from agriculture have fallen by 16% and overall by more than 40%. We need to go further. The clean growth strategy, 25-year environment plan and the clean air strategy set out specific commitments to reduce emissions. We are working on an emissions reduction plan for agriculture as part of our long-term vision for a lower-emissions agricultural sector.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, and I am very glad to know that work is happening. However, the NFU website states that the challenges of Brexit are as a “drop in the ocean” compared with the climate emergency which is unfolding on our planet and that agriculture is still a large producer of greenhouse gases. Farmers are going to find it very expensive to move over to any sort of zero emissions. What sort of financial incentives are the Government going to offer them?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, in the context of our own emissions, agriculture is about 10%. We clearly need to work with the farming industry on its production of food and its maintenance of the countryside. There are so many reasons why we need to work with the farming community. With the environment Bill and the Agriculture Bill, we will bring forward an environmental land management scheme where mitigation of and adaptation to climate change are going to be so important. Therefore, public money for public good is part of what we are providing, along with specific schemes to reduce, for instance, ammonia.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, while I welcome what the Minister has said, does he agree that it is very important not to impose on British farmers obligations that are not met in competitor countries? Life is going to be hard enough post Brexit for the British farmer. I declare my interest as in the register.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, clearly we believe that the production of high-quality food and enhancing the environment are eminently compatible. I absolutely understand what my noble friend has said. It is essential that, in all that we want to do, we work with farmers because they look after 70% of the land and we want them to help us produce food and enhance the environment.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, the whole food supply chain needs a partnership approach with research to relate to practical outcomes, on a similar model to that undertaken by the 10 sustainable farming groups set up by Tesco to build long-term relationships with farmers. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the UK’s agricultural research is directly connected and translates to on-farm operations, with ambitious climate change measures, enabling farmers and the wider rural economy to benefit?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, research is essential, whether it is agritech or research into tackling endemic disease, which obviously affects livestock. For instance, we want to deal with bovine viral diarrhoea and salmonella in poultry and pigs. All the research will help us to reduce emissions, whether it is through low-emission fertilisers or whatever. In all that, we need to collaborate strongly.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, just as, in the energy sector, energy efficiency is the best way to reduce emissions, surely in agriculture one of the best ways to reduce emissions is by reducing food waste. What action are the Government taking to reduce the one-third of food waste there is in the supply chain, particularly when in this country we have food banks looking for food, for all the reasons that we know?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The noble Lord is absolutely right about another key strand of work, which is reducing the extraordinarily high amount of food waste produced by many households. That is happening with retailers through WRAP and the Courtauld commitment, but we need to change how we conduct ourselves and reduce food waste, because it is highly inefficient unnecessarily to produce food.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the climate change committee’s 2018 progress report to Parliament, in which it states that not enough progress has been made in reducing emission from agriculture and land use in comparison with other sectors of the economy. It particularly highlights the failure of voluntary measures to achieve reductions. Does he therefore agree that in future, if we are to move towards net zero in agriculture, there will have to be more mandatory legislation to encourage farmers to comply?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, clearly we want to work in partnership with the farming community, and we have supported the industry-led Greenhouse Gas Action Plan, but we are waiting to hear from the Committee on Climate Change’s advice, including setting a net zero target beyond our 2050 target. We will clearly need to work with the industry, but it is essential that we reduce emissions from agriculture.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, one point that the NFU made is that our wonderful British beef farmers are already two and a half times more efficient than the world average and four times more efficient compared with the beef from South America, so surely one of the most important things that Her Majesty’s Government could do is to put their weight behind British beef farming. What plans do they have for that sector post Brexit?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is absolutely right about our impressive productivity. For example, in pork, there are 36% fewer emissions; in dairy, 7% fewer. We will continue to work with industry on breeding programmes to improve the efficiency of feed conversion in beef. Clearly, all that and the £90 million investment in the transforming food production challenge is about finding better techniques to ensure that we have great products at home and abroad.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, going back to the original Question, what strategies are the Government using to move this issue forward? Will it go out to consultation? If so, what is the timetable for that? Secondly, I remind the Minister of the great benefit of grass-grazing animals in this country. There is a double bonus there.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, that is undoubtedly true. I have already declared my interest as a farmer. Having grass on the farm is a great way to have diversity in our countryside and produce food. As I said, we need to work with the farming industry to ensure that we can achieve the low emissions we all need and that farms continue producing food. For instance, under the farming ammonia reduction grant scheme, the funding of slurry store covers will reduce emissions during storage by up to 80%, so there is a lot we want to do with farmers.
Yorkshire: Devolution
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to respond to recent proposals for devolution in Yorkshire.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State wrote to Mayor Dan Jarvis and the 18 local Yorkshire leaders today, saying that while,
“the One Yorkshire proposals do not meet our criteria … we are prepared … to begin discussions about a different, localist approach to devolution in Yorkshire”,
for example, by considering proposals by the Leeds City Region, York and North Yorkshire and the Humber estuary, provided the Sheffield City Region deal is completed.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, at last we have an answer from the Government. I hope my Question helped to push them a little. The devolution deals were supposed to respond to local wishes. As the Minister said, the clear position in Yorkshire is that 18 of the 20 local councils, people from all parties, the CBI and the TUC all agree that One Yorkshire recognises that Yorkshire as an economic and social entity makes the most sense. Why are the Government not prepared to work on that basis when they said that they would listen to local authorities in approaching devolution?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for welcoming the clarity of the approach we have announced today, as I believe he did. I recognise that he is not totally happy with our response but this is not just about listening to local authorities, although that is part of the issue. The One Yorkshire deal would not be consistent with our approach to other metro city mayors as coherent economic entities, as I am sure the noble Lord would see if he looked at our approach there. The fact that that makes more sense crystallised the thinking behind the letter that went out today.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be perverse in the extreme for a group of authorities that agreed to a devolution deal and an elected city mayor, then reneged on it and found out that authorities to the north were already talking about working together on their own deal, not to go back to their original commitment and draw down tens of millions of pounds of public money to invest in local services and infrastructure, at the same time as building an incremental approach to any future One Yorkshire deal?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I find myself in total agreement with the noble Lord. I agree that it makes perfect sense for the Sheffield City Region authority to progress. I understand that it is due to meet a week on Thursday to look at this matter; I very much hope that it processes the issue and moves forward because £900 million over a 30-year period is attached to the Sheffield City Region project. I hope it goes ahead and I hope that other parts of Yorkshire follow, in the way I suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, I echo the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. There is a lot of cross-party agreement on the One Yorkshire deal at a local level; it is supported by the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and the TUC. However, is my noble friend concerned that a balkanisation approach in Yorkshire may result in certain parts of that region being left behind? Does he agree that there may be some merit in considering a much broader One Yorkshire deal?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, my noble friend takes a very different approach to the issue. I read the article on balkanisation to which she may have been referring. Many people have addressed this issue, saying that it would be wrong to cut across existing economic entities. For example, the Select Committee chairman, Clive Betts, the honourable Member for Sheffield South East, takes the view that a One Yorkshire deal would be wrong. We need to look at this issue in terms of where economic ties and cohesive agreements already exist and proceed on that basis. I understand the emotional pull of Yorkshire but we must look at the economic issues as well.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I first declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am aware of the letter sent to Dan Jarvis, and I thank the Minister for sending me a copy. Can he give the House some more details of the timescales proposed here? It appears perverse that the Government are straightaway ruling out an option that clearly commands a lot of support in Yorkshire and are prepared to discuss only options that seem to have less support.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord for his comments, but on simply ruling it out he will be aware that copious documents have gone forward from the Yorkshire leaders. Some 100 pages of complex analytical documents on this have been studied, so it is not the sort of capricious decision he was perhaps suggesting. A lot of thought has gone into this. If he looks at the other metro mayors, he will see that they represent much smaller, more appropriate, cohesive economic regions—around the West Midlands, Manchester and Liverpool—than a county. Also, historically Yorkshire has never been a single devolved entity in its administration. As the noble Lord will know, it was split into ridings, for example, so perhaps the Government’s thinking is much more reflective of the economic units that used to be in place in Yorkshire.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I am one of those who have been very much involved in devolution proposals for Yorkshire for a long time now. Can my noble friend confirm that, while there has been a lot of unity of purpose, parts of the region, particularly the southern parts—Sheffield is the city concerned—have not been able to get their act together and have disagreed, originally intending to leave Yorkshire altogether in their proposed union with Derbyshire? Now they have changed their minds about four times. That does not help us get a settlement. Would the Minister urge the South Yorkshire representatives, including the mayor, to get their act together and to come around the table with the other 18 authorities to discuss the matter further?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, in all fairness, I think the mayor has been very keen to get this moving, and his actions have reflected that. He is very much committed to ensuring that we implement the Sheffield city deal. I hope this now goes forward a week on Thursday, when the meeting is due. It is much more complex than some would suggest, in that some parts of the economic entities are outside the historical county of Yorkshire—he has mentioned Derbyshire and the same could be said of parts of north Nottinghamshire, which look towards Sheffield and the South Yorkshire area. Also, looking at Humberside, for example, north Lincolnshire would be an appropriate part of any deal there. So it is not simply a case of looking at Yorkshire and building a deal around Yorkshire.
Police: Recruitment and Retention
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards implementing the recommendations on the recruitment and retention of police officers in the report of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, published in February 1999.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the police workforce is more representative in gender and ethnicity than it has ever been. The recommendations made by the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report on police recruitment and retention have been implemented. However, the Government are absolutely clear that there is more for forces to do to ensure that the police workforce reflects the diversity of the communities that it serves.
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. This month marks the 20th anniversary of the inquiry. There were 70 recommendations but I will ask the Minister about only recommendation 64, which addresses the recruitment and retention of minority officers and staff. It says that the Home Secretary and police authorities’ policing plans,
“should include targets for recruitment, progression and retention of minority ethnic staff”,
that the Home Office should,
“facilitate the development of initiatives to increase the number of qualified minority ethnic recruits”,
and that HMIC should include,
“in a thematic inspection a report on the progress made by Police Services”.
I find it really difficult to find any report giving me an update. Can the Minister give the House an update on recommendation 64 on recruitment and retention since the report was published?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness and all that she has achieved on some of the recommendations that have come out of the report. On the three recommendations she talked about, there are several things going on. She will have seen the race disparity audit, which is published by the Government and continually updated on the government website to show exactly where the disparities lie and where improvements need to be made. Last year, the NPCC produced a diversity, equality and inclusion strategy led by Chief Constable Gareth Wilson. It attempts, across all areas of the police, to increase inclusion and diversity. The superintendents’ association and college have a mentoring and coaching scheme precisely to improve the recruitment of BME staff. The figure has improved, but the noble Baroness is right to ask the question because we have much further to go.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I am told that, recently, almost 50% of all black and minority-ethnic officers of superintendent rank and above in the Metropolitan Police were under investigation of one kind or another. It is also alleged that a recent promotion selection process in the Metropolitan Police contained a test that was known to be culturally biased, and that some BME officers who passed every other part of the assessment were failed because they did not pass the culturally biased part. Will the Minister look into what appear to be allegations of institutional racism?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, these are very serious allegations indeed and I will of course look into them. If officers are under investigation, it may be more difficult for me, but the allegation that 50% of BME staff at superintendent rank or above are under investigation is very concerning.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I support the bid from the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, to increase the recruitment of minority-ethnic officers. By the time I left the Met, one in three of our recruits was from a minority, but I am still worried. For the past three years we have seen no recruitment because of lack of resources. This means there has been a pause in the change in make-up of all our police forces. I encourage the Minister and the Government to consider the Northern Ireland approach, as instigated by the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes. It did not change at all the standards for recruitment—people were offered a place in order of ability, but also in order of their representation in society. In the Northern Ireland context, therefore, unionists got jobs later and Catholics tended to get them earlier. I seriously think it is worth considering this in a UK context, given that we still see underrepresentation in our police service, as in many public services.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I certainly agree with the noble Lord that positive action is absolutely necessary. I take his point about less recruitment happening in recent years. Now is the moment to put that positive action into place and encourage people from BME backgrounds to come forward and apply for roles in the police.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, in recent years television programmes have taken seriously the issue of role modelling: look at the BBC’s “Luther” and ITV’s DS Sunny Khan in “Unforgotten”. But these role models cannot be just fictional. Will the Minister outline the statistics for those in the senior ranks of our forces from a black and minority-ethnic background?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My noble friend points to an area where we are doing very badly: the senior ranks. In 2017-18, 27% of new recruits to the Met Police were from a BME background. To get people from BME backgrounds through to the senior ranks, we need new recruits as the pipeline for the future. She talked about role models, and I take this opportunity to give my good wishes to the brother of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary as he proceeds up the ranks of the police.
Baroness Osamor (Lab)
My Lords, the recommendations in the inquiry begin by talking about:
“Openness, accountability and the restoration of confidence”,
and the need:
“To increase trust and confidence in policing among minority ethnic communities”.
What level of confidence is there in policing among the black and ethnic-minority communities?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, it is certainly something that we have to work on and that the police have to work on. Whether you are talking about a democratic system or organisations such as the police, you need recruits from BME backgrounds because it is important that they look like and are in tune with the communities that they serve.
Prisoners: Acquired Brain Injuries
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ramsbotham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the findings of the Disabilities Trust and Royal Holloway University that 65% of women in HM Prison Drake Hall had suffered from an acquired brain injury, what plans they have to make assessment for such injuries compulsory for all prisoners on reception into prison.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and declare an interest as chairman of the Criminal Justice and Acquired Brain Injury Interest Group.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, all children and young people within the secure estate are screened for brain injury through the comprehensive health assessment tool. If an adult prisoner presents with a significant brain injury, a specialist neurological referral is made. We have formed a cross-government group to develop a more strategic picture of ABI within the criminal justice system.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that somewhat disappointing reply. This is not new; indeed, I have been campaigning for assessment of head injuries for 20 years. In addition to the horrifying figures for women prisoners that the Disabilities Trust has just produced, it has proved that 40% of males and 47% of young offenders are suffering from acquired brain injury. The point about an assessment is that, if you know which part of the head has been hit or damaged, you can predict behavioural outcomes. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister dropped the prisons part of the Prisons and Courts Bill, in which we hoped to have made the assessment of head injuries compulsory. I ask the Minister whether he will make it so.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, the NHS England prison healthcare national standards service specification requires providers to screen individuals where it is suspected that they may have an acquired brain injury. Clearly, we want to take this further in light of the recent report from the Disabilities Trust. We have now formed a cross-government group with the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England and the Prison Service to develop a more strategic picture of acquired brain injury within the criminal justice system. We hope to be able to report to the group chaired by the noble Lord by the end of March.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I am very heartened by the Minister’s response. This shocking finding explains the possible source of many difficult and counterproductive behaviours one sees in the prison population, which can seriously hamper the ability of prisoners to cope inside and outside prison and of professionals to help them. The brain injury screening index provided by the trust is freely available, and its use and effectiveness among prisoners at Drake Hall is tremendously encouraging. Will the Minister agree to add his voice to the Disabilities Trust’s demand that all prisons should adopt it?
Lord Keen of Elie
Clearly, we are reviewing this matter with a degree of urgency, and to that extent I add my voice. There is an issue about the extent to which we can apply particular test criteria in the context of prisoners. These cannot be over-complex because of the nature of the people we are dealing with, so this has to be a matter for further consideration. However, we are looking not just at those already in prison but those who come into contact with the criminal justice system. It is equally important that they, too, should, where possible, be assessed for the sort of vulnerabilities referred to by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Corston (Lab)
My Lords, as I understand this survey, 62% of the women reported that their brain injury was sustained as a result of domestic violence, so these women are not only domestic violence survivors, they are brain-damaged and are locked up for ridiculously short periods. Does that not beg the question of whether they should be there at all?
Lord Keen of Elie
I cannot say that it begs the question of whether they should be there at all, given that the nature of their offences may vary quite widely. But clearly, the findings of the Disabilities Trust are extremely disturbing and give cause for concern. That is why we have made them the subject of a review.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the National Mental Capacity Forum. Do the Government recognise that many people have had head injuries in their pre-offending behaviour? They are in touch with social workers, yet poor social work training does not include functional assessment of them. Ordinary assessments of capacity do not pick up the functional impairment that results in their later offending behaviour.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am not in a position to say what the scope of social work training is with regard to that point, but I quite accept the observation made by the noble Baroness. However, where it is anticipated that someone will be subject to imprisonment, or where they have come into contact with the criminal justice system, NHS England has commissioned liaison and diversion services aimed at identifying those who are vulnerable. It is anticipated that by 2020-21, that service will cover the whole of England.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
Does the Minister agree that much more serious than head injuries is the high incidence in these prisons of obesity? Obesity cannot be blamed on poverty: it is due to prison authorities feeding prisoners too many calories. Will the Government look into that?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am not aware of any serious issue of obesity within our prisons, but there may be some limitations on exercise, including cross-country running.
Air Passenger Rights and Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 28 November 2018 be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations will be made using powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and will be needed if the UK leaves the European Union without a deal. This draft instrument corrects three EU regulations that provide an important consumer protection regime for passengers travelling by air. It also makes some changes to the Civil Aviation (Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing) Regulations 2012, which were amended recently to implement elements of the package travel directive.
The three EU regulations are: Regulation 261/2004, which establishes the rights of passengers, including their right to compensation and assistance if they are denied boarding against their will, or if their flight is cancelled or delayed; Regulation 1107/2006, which establishes the rights of disabled passengers and those with reduced mobility to access air transport, and establishes their right to receive free-of-charge assistance; and Regulation 2027/97, which harmonises the obligations of Community air carriers regarding their liability for injury to passengers and damage to baggage, in line with provisions in the 1999 Montreal Convention.
The package travel directive provides for consumer protection in relation to package holidays and other linked travel arrangements. The directive is implemented in the UK primarily by the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018. Corrections to these regulations so that they continue to work after exit day have already been made through the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
Provisions under the directive relating to insolvency protection are implemented in part through the Air Travel Organiser’s Licence—ATOL—scheme. The directive provides for the mutual recognition among EEA member states of insolvency protection regimes. This instrument makes changes to the ATOL scheme to reflect that this mutual recognition will no longer apply to the UK after exit day in a no-deal scenario.
The withdrawal Act will retain the three regulations I have just listed in their entirety in UK law on exit day. The draft instrument we are considering makes corrections to these retained EU regulations as well as the 2012 ATOL regulations to ensure that the statute book continues to function correctly after exit day. This means that air passengers can continue to benefit from the rights and protections set out in EU legislation.
On Regulation 261/2004, the substantive rights of passengers to assistance, rebooking and compensation in the event that they are denied boarding or subject to long delays or cancellations remain the same. The EU regulation sets out that these rights apply to passengers travelling on a flight departing any airport in the EU, and flights departing an airport in a third country to an airport in the EU, if the carrier is an EU carrier. This instrument makes changes to the scope of the retained regulation to reflect that the UK will no longer be part of the EU after exit day. The retained regulation will apply in relation to all flights departing an airport in the UK and flights departing an airport in another country if the carrier is a UK carrier.
To ensure full continuity on the routes in relation to which passengers can benefit from the rights and protections set out in Regulation 261/2004, the retained regulation will also apply in respect of flights into the EU from countries other than the UK, if they are operated by a UK carrier. It will also apply in respect of flights from third countries to the UK if they are operated by an EU carrier. Other changes the instrument makes reflect that the UK will no longer be part of the EU, and include converting compensation amounts set out in euros in the EU regulation to pounds sterling.
Finally, the instrument ensures that the CAA is fully and effectively able to enforce the retained regulation. It sets out that provisions relating to complaints, and domestic legislation containing criminal offences for persistent breach by air carriers of provisions in the retained EU regulation, apply to the same routes—
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, on a previous occasion, the Minister was not able to say how many extra staff the CAA has taken on to deal with this extra responsibility. Is she now able to give us that figure? How much will it cost?
Baroness Sugg
If the noble Lord will wait, I will come on to CAA resourcing. Obviously, we work very closely with the CAA to ensure that it is sufficiently resourced.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Did the Minister say she will tell us how many extra staff are required and how much this will cost at a later stage in the debate? I did not quite catch that.
Baroness Sugg
I will come on to CAA resourcing at a later stage in this speech, if the noble Lord will give me a minute.
Finally, this instrument ensures that the CAA is fully and effectively able to enforce the retained regulation. It sets out that provisions relating to complaints and domestic legislation containing criminal offences for persistent breach by air carriers of provisions in the retained EU regulation apply to the same routes and air carriers as the retained EU regulation itself.
On Regulation 1107/2006, the rights that disabled passengers and persons with reduced mobility are able to benefit from when travelling by air also remain unchanged. These include the right to assistance at airports without additional charge and the right to assistance by air carriers without additional charge. Once again, this instrument ensures full continuity for consumers by making certain that the retained regulation—Regulation 1107/2006—will apply after exit day to passengers using or intending to use commercial passenger air services on departure from, transit through or arrival at UK airports.
Certain provisions will also continue to apply in relation to flights departing from a third-country airport to the UK if the flight is operated by a UK air carrier. Like Regulation 261/2004, these provisions will also apply to flights into the EU from countries other than the UK if the flight is being operated by a UK carrier and flights from third countries to the UK if the flight is being operated by an EU carrier. These provisions set out that: air carriers and tour operators cannot refuse travel to passengers on the grounds of disability or reduced mobility; that if it is not possible for an air carrier, agent or tour operator to accommodate a passenger with a disability or with reduced mobility on the grounds of safety or the size of the aircraft or its doors, the passenger shall be reimbursed or be offered rerouting; and that air carriers are required to provide assistance without additional charge, such as allowing assistance dogs in the cabin of the aircraft and arranging seating suitable to meet the needs of the individual.
The third regulation covered by this instrument is Regulation 2027/97, which sets out provisions relating to the liability of air carriers in relation to the injury or death of passengers, as well as damage to or loss of baggage. Most of the provisions in this regulation implement elements of the 1999 Montreal Convention, and the changes that this instrument makes to the retained regulation are limited to those needed to reflect the fact that the UK will no longer be an EU member state after exit day; for example, substituting references to “Community air carrier” with references to “UK air carrier”.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is talking about EEA-registered operators that operate in the UK. An issue was raised in the House of Commons about whether there would be full ATOL protection in respect of people purchasing packages in the UK under those EEA-registered operators. The Minister there was not able to give an answer but said that he would write to MPs. I have not seen a copy of that letter—could the Minister tell us the answer to that specific point, which of course will be quite significant if there is no deal?
Baroness Sugg
I hope I can answer the noble Lord’s question. Those EU and EEA companies which sell package holidays in the UK will need to be covered by the ATOL scheme. They will need to apply for an ATOL from the CAA. We believe that there are only about 13 such companies.
Lord Adonis
Is the Minister saying that that will be a requirement under these regulations? Is she saying that there will be full ATOL protection for all passengers and purchasers of package holidays in that eventuality?
Baroness Sugg
Yes, that is what I am saying. As I said, at the moment there are only 13 EEA-established businesses currently selling to the UK that would be affected by the requirement, and the CAA is used to processing around 1,000 cases a year. Therefore, in answer to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, the CAA is confident that it is fully resourced to achieve this.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My question is not whether the CAA is fully resourced. My question—which I asked in Grand Committee a number of weeks ago, so the Minister has had plenty of notice of it—is how many extra staff is the CAA taking on, and how much extra is it going to cost? She said she was going to answer it later in her speech. Could she please answer it now?
Baroness Sugg
I am afraid I will have to come back to the noble Lord on the exact number of staff who have been taken on. As he will understand, this is a moving feast, and the CAA is taking on extra people to deliver all the requirements that will be placed on it in the event of a no-deal Brexit. But I will endeavour to come back to the noble Lord later in the debate with a specific answer on the latest figure for the number of new staff at the CAA.
Lord Deben (Con)
I want to explain to my noble friend why this question is important. Every time we discuss one of these statutory instruments, we do not have the figures for the cost. My concern is that in each individual case it is said, “Well, it is not all that much and somebody is doing some arrangement”, and all the rest of it. But if you start to add them up, you possibly have a very significant cost. That is why it is important that we understand precisely what the figures are.
Baroness Sugg
I entirely understand my noble friend’s point of view. Of course it is important that we understand the full costs of this. The CAA is taking on a number of new responsibilities and functions after EU exit. As I said, we have confidence in its preparations. Regarding ATOL—I mentioned the figures before—we think the current level of staff will be able to provide this service, so we do not expect to see a significant increase in workload from this SI. The latest figure for the number of new staff is around 59, most of whom will carry out safety functions. The House will debate another SI on safety, which will have cost implications. I will ensure that I am able to provide actual cost implications for future aviation SIs. In this case, there are none, as we are expecting only a small number.
The best outcome for the UK is to leave the EU with a deal, and delivering a deal negotiated with the EU remains the Government’s top priority. However, as a responsible Government, we must make all reasonable plans to prepare for a no-deal scenario. This instrument ensures that, in the event of a no-deal exit from the EU, passengers travelling by air can continue to benefit from the same rights as they currently do, and that the aviation industry and consumers have clarity about the regulatory framework which would be in place in a no-deal scenario. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I have two brief questions on this statutory instrument. My noble friend the Minister has stated that compensation will be paid in pounds, converted from euros. What if the pound to euro ratio changes substantially over, say, the next two years? Is this something that her department and the Government are likely to keep under review?
I tried to follow the Minister’s explanation as closely as I could. If I have understood correctly, there is one category of flight that UK passengers will no longer be compensated for. I dealt with this myself when I was an MEP and, at one stage, rapporteur on civil aviation in the European Union. I would just like her confirmation that this category of flight is covered. These are flights where passengers start with a UK carrier out of London Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted, but change at an airport within the EU, such as Amsterdam, to a connecting international flight operated by, for example, Singapore Airlines or Delta Airlines—both of which my husband worked for at separate times—to a destination such as New York or Singapore. Is my noble friend saying that, under these regulations, or in the event of no deal, a UK passenger who is denied boarding that flight in a third-country airport such as Amsterdam will no longer be compensated?
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and my noble friend Lord Foulkes about the costs associated with Brexit. I recall the debate in this House yesterday about Seaborne Freight. The Minister said, and I am sure she is right, that,
“no taxpayer money has been transferred to the company”.—[Official Report, 11/2/19; col. 1704.]
However, the cost of dredging is probably several million pounds. Apparently it was being done by the Ramsgate harbour authority. I do not know where it will suddenly get the money from; I am sure it was not budgeted for. It was mentioned in another place yesterday that Slaughter and May had been paid £600,000 to advise the Government on how to write these contracts, which turned out to be non-existent. The Minister should commit to giving the House the total cost, rather than hiding behind, “We are not paying it directly because the dredging is being done by somebody else”, or something like that.
I should like to follow up on some of the questions the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, just asked because this SI is very confusing. The first question is: who is a UK carrier? Where will companies such as easyJet and British Airways be registered, and does that matter when defining what is a UK carrier—something that comes into quite a lot of these regulations? Could the Minister tell us not just what is happening today but also how the Government will tell members of the public who is a UK carrier—assuming that it matters? It seems to me that it matters.
On these regulations, there seem to be three different parties: the location of the airport, which may be in this country, the European Union, or a third country—maybe it does not matter; the air service or airline, and whether it is registered in the UK, the EU or a third country, as the noble Baroness mentioned; and who the passenger is. Are they a UK resident, an EU resident, or a third-country resident? There then seem to be different rules for whether you are going out, coming in or getting a return ticket. I do not know whether I am making myself clear—it is probably as unclear as the regulations. The Minister will have to tell us how all these different parts of the regulations I have discussed apply to all those different groups and combinations of groups.
What attracted me to this worry was the phrase,
“if the carrier is a UK carrier”,
in paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum and, in reference to paragraph 7.5, the question of who enforces these regulations. The CAA cannot enforce regulations on airlines from third countries that do not fly into this country at all, but if the CAA does not do it, who will? All these things should affect every traveller who will move by air after 29 March, and I can see some of them getting into real trouble and worrying about this unless there is some clarification. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Deben
My Lords, I am sorry to continue this but various people have an interest in this SI. First, there are customers, who I doubt will read this—if they did, I doubt they would get very far with it for the reasons the noble Lord has just adumbrated. Secondly, there are the airlines, and I am very concerned about what our definition will be—not only here but elsewhere—of, for example, a UK-based airline.
I understand that there are airlines such as British Airways which have a direct association—it owns Iberia. British Airways has said that it may well transfer its base of ownership to Spain. I will not make a statement about Brexit—it manifestly gets stupider and stupider as we move on to discuss the matter—but the truth is that this is a real issue. If British Airways decides that that is the decision it has to make because we have been so damaging to our future that that is the best place for it to be, is it any longer a UK-based carrier? We then have a situation in which we are passing an SI that does not actually apply to the largest airline with a single, dedicated terminal at our largest airport. This is a serious issue. I am sure there is a very easy answer to the question, but it is not one that lies to hand in the SI. What happens when or if it changes, and how do we deal with those changes? That also seems important to me.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I do not want to follow the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and his pedestrian metaphor dealing with an aviation statutory instrument, although it was very good. I share his sympathy with the Minister, who has to deal with it, although he might agree with me that she will deal with it far more competently than the current Secretary of State would be able to. I hope she will take that as a compliment.
In the last debate on this issue, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—probably the most loyal of loyalists on the other side—castigated me, my noble friend Lord Adonis and others for taking up too much time with scrutiny. I challenged him on why no Conservatives are asking questions on any of these statutory instruments—with the one exception of the noble Lord, Lord Deben.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I apologise. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is also doing so. My argument is falling apart here.
I asked why the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and others were not doing it. He said, “Because we accept without question what the Government are putting forward”. To do so under normal legislative circumstances would be bad enough, but when they are rushing through statutory instruments by the hundreds, it is even worse. As I said then, what else are we here for? What is the purpose of the House of Lords? Our only substantive purpose is to scrutinise primary and secondary legislation. If we do not do that, then we all might as well stay at home. I am sure that Mrs May, Mrs Leadsom and others would love that.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, spoke about the customers. Any customer or passenger listening as carefully to the Minister’s introduction as I did—this is the second or third time I have heard this explanation—may be as baffled as I am. There are still questions; my noble friend Lord Berkeley has asked some of them, and my noble friend Lord Adonis intervened with some about a whole range of things concerning UK carriers. They arise in particular with British Airways and Iberia. As I understand it, the headquarters of the latter are already in Madrid. I do not know whether they count. My noble friend Lord Whitty, who is an expert on aviation and vice-president of BALPA, is nodding. Iberia is a Spanish company, not a British company. Any passenger listening to the Minister will find it very difficult to know exactly what their rights are and how they will manage to get flights in the event of no deal. It will be chaotic, there is no doubt about that. We saw in the debate about which I have spoken how there will be chaos in healthcare if we leave with no deal. Our 27 million EHIC cards will no longer be valid throughout the European Union. We could go through area after area of problems.
We are going through all these SIs and Bills. I heard Andrea Leadsom, Leader of the House of Commons, say on Radio 4 this morning that, “There will be no problem getting all the legislation through by the end of March”. She was accused in the other place of lying, and the leader of the SNP had to withdraw. But he was absolutely right.
Lord Adonis
If my noble friend will forgive me, is he aware that the Prime Minister said two hours ago in the House of Commons that the Government would enact all the consequential legislation on a deal—if a deal is agreed—by means of emergency legislation? Whatever period of time is left at the end of March, which could be as little as two or three days, it will all be rammed through. Does he share my acute concern at the idea that this House might be faced with emergency legislation procedures to carry through some of the most significant legislation in the history of Parliament? Does he agree that some of us might think this unsatisfactory, and will certainly not be party to such an abuse of the constitution?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My noble friend has stolen my peroration. He is absolutely right and said it much better than me. It is a frightening prospect that if nothing is agreed, nothing is approved, by the end of March we will face emergency legislation.
Lord Deben
I just wanted to give the noble Lord a chance to rewrite his peroration. Can I ask him very simply, is this what he would define as taking back control?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
That is an even better peroration. The whole campaign of the leavers was to take back control—if I remember—to the British Parliament, not the British Government. It is not the Government or even the Cabinet, but one person who seems to be ramming it through with some kind of stubbornness and determination. That was not what it was supposed to be about. It was supposed to bring the power back to this Parliament.
I say to my noble friend Lord Adonis, if they try to push it through by emergency legislation that will be a real test of the mettle of every Member of this House, particularly the Cross-Benchers. Are they going to stand up for Parliament, or be subservient to our autocratic Government? That will be the test.
I think I have gone a little bit wider than the statutory instrument and I am grateful for the fact that the Lord Speaker does not have the same powers as the Speaker in another place; otherwise, I might have been ruled out of order by now. I am sorry to be slightly flippant; it is a very serious matter. Coming back to relevance, this one statutory instrument is illustrative of the kind of thing we face in this Parliament at the moment, and it is quite frightening.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry that I am going to destroy even more the statement from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, by being the third speaker from this side of the House to raise questions. I saw in the paper this morning that apparently, on 1 September 1939, between 6 pm and midnight Parliament passed six pieces of emergency legislation—all three Readings —and rose before midnight, so it is possible to put through emergency legislation. But I wonder whether this is the sort of parallel we would like to draw.
I have heard many justifications for leaving the EU but I have never yet heard job creation as being one of them. However, it seems that virtually every time we come here we are creating more jobs—59 extra jobs, I am told. That must be at least a couple of million pounds on public expenditure. How much of the vast amount of money we were going to save is going to be spent? I suppose that since the Government’s priority is to create jobs, this is a partly a way of doing that.
Lord Adonis
The Minister talked about 59 jobs in the CAA, but about a third of the staff of the Department for Transport are currently working on Brexit-related issues and about a third are clearing up successive messes of the Secretary of State. That leaves very few members of staff actually doing the job of the Department for Transport at the moment.
Lord Balfe
The noble Lord makes a true point. One of the things that I find very unsatisfactory at the moment is the huge amount of public service energy going into this. Indeed, we are told that this SI will be unnecessary if there is no deal. We are told by the Government that they want a deal. I feel very sorry for the civil servants spending all their lives working on something that the Government do not want to happen. That is not a very good way of boosting morale.
What happens when the EU updates the regulations? We seem to think that we are looking at a picture that is static for all time. But anyone who knows how the European Commission and Parliament work will know that there is a constant process of review of legislation. Even if this SI is unnecessary, there will come a point, if we leave, where we will have to take over the legislation.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I am sure the noble Lord has noted that the Government have conveniently—from their perspective—translated the euro rate of compensation into pounds using the current exchange rate. The noble Lord makes the good point that that could become distorted if, for example, we have the kind of significant change in exchange rates that the MP David Davies, for example, referred to last week.
Lord Balfe
I did not raise that point about the translation, but purely because my noble friend Lady McIntosh had already raised it. I was making the point about the change in regulation, which I am concerned about, not the change in internal things within it.
My second point is on the interpretation of regulation. When the European Court of Justice interprets a regulation, if we are following and providing the same rights, and the CJEU makes a judgment which interprets the regulation so that it is no longer in line, to what extent will we accept the judgment of the court? In other words, how real is this alignment when, not on day one but on, say, week six or month six down the line, things have started to diverge? Presumably we will not have an SI every week; what mechanism do the Government see being used to maintain the alignment between our regulation, which they say will follow the EU statute book—that is fine—and changes in the EU statute book? This question will come up, whether it is on this regulation, if we do not leave, but it will also come up if we leave. How dynamism plays its way through the legislative process will be quite a fundamental point for consumer rights, as it will be for trade union rights, which we will come on to in another debate.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, as this debate has unfolded I have watched the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, looking pensive. I suspect he has probably been thinking, “When I finish this job, I might go into travel consumer law”. When the Minister comes to read Hansard tomorrow, she will probably find that she can check off almost every known troublemaker in this House as having intervened. However, that is what this House is here to do: to make trouble when Ministers bring forward flawed or defective legislation.
Listening to the various queries and questions makes one think very hard about the process that we are going through. The Minister had a baptism of fire over drones a few weeks ago, but that will be as nothing compared to a situation in which this legislation proves defective when it comes to the test and we find that all the sweet and honeyed words about the smoothness of the transfer from EU to domestic legislation throw up faults and weaknesses. There is nothing that makes the British public angrier than being interrupted on their holidays. Woe betide the Minister who is left holding that particular baby if that comes to pass. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, is right: we are stronger within the EU, and the protection given to consumers is far stronger when we work and speak from within the EU rather than when the CAA is acting alone.
Has any impact assessment been made on the effect of Brexit on Heathrow as an international hub? We have already heard of the possible British Airways transfer to Spain, but Heathrow is one of our vital assets as a major hub airport of the world. If leaving the EU and operating under CAA rules leaves us open to competition from Schiphol or Paris or others that can give flight operators greater assurances, that is a real downside of what we are doing. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, made the valid point that EU law is not static, but is developing. We must face the fact that in this case, as in so many others, we will not be at the table to speak up for British interests and consumers when that development takes place—so much for sovereignty.
Given the complexities that have been revealed by this, is there any plan for a public information campaign to explain to the public what has happened? They need to be informed about their guarantees and where there are dangers because—make no mistake—good as our travel industry is, we will find scams, additional charges, problems with transfers from the EU, tax put on holiday costs and so on. There will be a need for some concerted consumer protection during this process. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate, and I do not really wish to be added to the Minister’s list of troublemakers. However, I want to emphasise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, at the end of his speech. I do this as someone who always tries to cheer up his Februaries by reading the travel supplements in the Sunday newspapers. This Sunday’s newspapers were glowing about places where, if I hurried, I could actually book the hotel, the flight or even the two flights that I might need to get to the place. These changes might be in separate countries. I scanned through the travel supplements of both the Sunday Times and the Times on Saturday and could see nothing about whether people’s summers might be disrupted in any way whatever.
Lord Adonis
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He probably is not—but he may correct me—a regular listener to Spotify. If he were, he would know that Spotify is now running ads advising people to take precautions in the event of a no-deal Brexit. The precaution that they should take is to log on to the GOV.UK website, where information is available on what arrangements will be made in the event of no deal. In respect of travel, which we are discussing this afternoon, it says that you should check with your carrier. So having gone through the GOV.UK website, you are then expected to go to your carrier. When I logged on to the British Airways website to find out what passengers should do in respect of no deal, it said that you should refer to GOV.UK, on the grounds that the Government are setting up what should happen. I say in response to what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said about a public information campaign that millions are being spent on a public information campaign which tells the public precisely nothing except to be very, very concerned.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I am an old-fashioned ex-Minister who usually used the media to project messages if I wanted the public to read them. We might do something in a newspaper or we might do something on a broadcaster. The only streaming I am aware of is from my nose, sometimes, during the winter, so I am not a great Spotify fan. I was trying to make the point that any member of the public who had read the Sunday supplements and was thinking about booking a holiday and had then turned on the parliamentary channel and listened to this debate might have second thoughts about doing so. The Government do not seem to have done anything to give the public any serious pause for thought before they took out their chequebook or electronically transferred their money to reserve their holiday for this year.
Will the few members of the Minister’s department who are left after dealing with the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, spelled out earlier engage in a proper public information campaign using more of the traditional channels, to tell the people who are booking these holidays—who, in many cases, tend to be from the upper age groups with high disposable income—what dangers they may face in the coming months of 2019 if they peak too early in their summer bookings?
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I think it was Seneca who said that anger is a form of temporary madness, which is an injunction that I usually observe, but it is very difficult when wading through these no-deal regulations not to be genuinely angry at what the British state is about to inflict on the British public if this comes to pass. It is not just the known facts about a no-deal Brexit, which are bad enough; it is, as has come through this debate, all of what Donald Rumsfeld called the known unknowns. We do not know the precise litany of catastrophes and problems that there will be down the line, but we know that they will be there. We know that there will be problems with the exchange rate; there will be problems with dodgy carriers which seek to game the system; there will be problems, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said, with changes in regulations over time. It will be no surprise when all this happens; this is what should be expected in the evolution of legislation and behaviour of private and public sector organisations.
We also know, taking the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and my noble friend Lord Foulkes, that the state machine, even before no deal has happened, is overwhelmed by preparations for Brexit. I can tell the House as a former Minister in the best department of state, the Department for Transport—I know this because people tell me—that most of the staff at the Department for Transport are being allocated to special contingency duties and units in the case of no deal. They are the units that will be needed to keep the ports operating and to deal with the fact that the M20 will become the largest car park in Europe. Can noble Lords imagine what the switchboard of the CAA will be like once any of these contingencies comes to pass?
That point is important for these debates because from what the Prime Minister said this afternoon, it is clear that she will take this down to the wire. Her strategy is clear: she will present the next version of her deal, with some tweaks to the Irish backstop, to Parliament after the European Council on 21 March, offering a “take it or leave it” vote on her deal or no deal. I hope that Parliament will be strong-minded and realise that there is a third option: seeking an extension to Article 50 without adopting her deal. That is the situation we will face.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful to my noble friend. Does he agree that the prudent thing for the Government to do would be to advise people to think very carefully before booking any flight that leaves after 29 March?
Lord Adonis
On the government website, GOV.UK, it does say that. What a message for the state to send out to the people of this country. What advice is that? Does it mean that you should think very carefully and go about your normal business, or think very carefully and not go about it? This is so unacceptable a way for Her Majesty’s Government to proceed that it beggars belief that we could even be having these debates and conversations.
I make no apology for this, because it is a crucial matter. I want to say a few words about consultation. These are huge issues—just those we have been debating in the past 58 minutes, and there are many others—so it is reasonable to expect that the Government would properly consult the companies, the wider industry and the consumer and passenger groups affected. Yet, again, no such consultation has taken place. Indeed, I have noticed—because I am now a connoisseur of the consultation processes that have been gone through on these statutory instruments—that, whereas most of the early statutory instruments had a heading that said, “Consultation” and then usually said something like, “No formal consultations have been undertaken”, that heading has mysteriously been omitted from more recent statutory instruments, I think for the reason that it is somewhat embarrassing for the Government to publish the fact that no formal consultations have taken place. If he is looking for new plotlines, the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, would keep his readers entertained for years on end with the plots and stories that one could write about no deal.
What is happening on consultation is that the Government are now simply omitting to describe the consultation. What we get instead—we have it on this statutory instrument—is simply a heading saying, “Consultation outcome”, which is intended to elide the lack of consultation with the outcome of a lack of consultation. Of course, your Lordships are not fooled by such elision. What is entered under the heading “Consultation outcome” exhibits the fact that there has been no consultation. Paragraph 10.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum to this statutory instrument, “Consultation outcome”, says:
“Department for Transport Ministers and officials have regular engagement with the aviation industry, travel industry and consumer representatives”.
It would be pretty astonishing if that were not the case, though with the current Secretary of State perhaps it does need to be explained that he has some engagement with members of the human race. It goes on:
“Through specific meetings and workshops on EU Exit, and at long-established stakeholder forums, a number of issues related to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU have been addressed”.
Well, what are the meetings, who are the people who have been at these long-established stakeholder forums, and what are the issues relating to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU that have been addressed? What did the stakeholders say and what is the Government’s response? These are all basic questions about public consultation in the Cabinet Office rules on conducting public consultation.
As I look around the House, about a quarter of us have been Ministers of one kind or another and have gone through these as a matter of form. As a Minister, I was once reprimanded by the Cabinet Office for allowing only a 10-week rather than a 12-week consultation. In the case of all these regulations, there has been no consultation whatever. We are expected to legislate for extreme situations, and to understand the impact on the industries concerned and on consumer groups, on the basis that no public consultation has taken place, with no description of the private consultation that has taken place and with no response from the Government to the points raised in that private consultation.
Lord Berkeley
Is my noble friend aware that the next SI we are due to discuss has word for word the same text on consultation as that which he has outlined?
Lord Adonis
It is clearly a cut-and-paste exercise—that is what is going on with most of these regulations. I hope that the statutory instrument committees are drawing attention to this. To be frank, in my view this alone is a reason for your Lordships declining to agree the regulations.
Lord Deben
The noble Lord has not pointed out that, in this particular SI, there is no discussion as to whether the people consulted were “selected” or “trusted”. In previous SIs, some of them were “trusted” and some of them “selected”, but none appears to be both “trusted” and “selected”.
Lord Adonis
As the noble Lord is aware, because we debated it at some length in Grand Committee, in one SI the consultees were “selected” and “trusted”, but that has not appeared in others. It is not clear in this case who did the selection and whether they were trusted—perhaps the Minister can tell us.
I want to pose to the Minister the obvious questions. Who has been consulted on these regulations? What were the “long-established stakeholder forums” which were consulted? What issues relating to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU were raised by the consultees? What was the Government’s response to each of those concerns?
I do not serve on the statutory instrument committees but, when I meet noble Lords leaving those meetings with a haggard expression, they tell me there are hundreds more SIs to come and that apparently they are getting longer—some of them are hundreds of pages. I hope that, in these committees, noble Lords are asking questions of the Government as to what these processes are. It would be very helpful to us if these statutory instruments came to the House with a description of which “trusted” and “selected” groups were privy to the Government’s consultations.
Baroness Randerson
Is the noble Lord aware that, in some of the forums that the Department for Transport brought together to discuss EU and Brexit issues, those who took part were required to sign non-disclosure agreements?
Lord Adonis
So it is not just Seaborne Freight that had to sign a non-disclosure agreement; it turns out that people who turned up to meetings in the department also had to. Perhaps the Minister would like to clarify whether non-disclosure agreements were involved. Indeed, I am told there was an attempt to try to get your Lordships to sign non-disclosure agreements on the ground that, if we debate these issues openly and start expressing our concerns, people might become alarmed—as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said, there are some members of the public who observe our proceedings.
This is worse than deeply unsatisfactory and is no way to make legislation. It is totally unacceptable and should not be happening. There is nothing the noble Baroness can say that will meet the substantial points, but perhaps she can at least give us some basic information on how consultation has been conducted and what the results were.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I have a quick question for my noble friend. I echo the remarks of condolence that she is in this position—I am sure she does not wish to be. Can she clarify how these regulations might relate to passengers on flights that have a code share? Many transatlantic and international flights are code shares. Which of the airlines that are part of that codeshare would be considered the principal airline for the purposes of these regulations?
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I rise wearily to my feet. The first thing I would like to register is my objection to being here. Once again, we are here to discuss a statutory instrument which addresses the issue of what we do if we leave without a deal. It is a deeply depressing pastime, discussing statutory instruments to lead this country into a catastrophic situation.
It is also depressing that the Government, if they wanted to hang on to what might be an intellectually narrow point, that any responsible Government should prepare for the worst scenario, if they had truly believed that, then surely they would have started the process much earlier so that we are not shovelling SIs through this Chamber by the shovelful, for want of a better way of doing it.
One of the problems of the sheer volume is that I certainly am not having enough time to give the level of scrutiny that I think is appropriate. Therefore, one tends to have to use short methods. The first that one is left to have to use is looking at the regulation itself, which is usually impossible. You need a very expensive lawyer to go through the regulations, see what they amend and what the effects are. The only thing a reasonable amateur such as myself can do is to go to the Explanatory Memorandum and see if it makes sense. If one does that, one comes to paragraph 2.3, which is “Why is it being changed?” I will read it because it is so reassuring:
“This instrument makes the changes needed to retained EU legislation on air passenger rights and domestic legislation made to implement the UK’s obligations under the Package Travel Directive. These changes ensure that the legislation continues to function correctly after the UK has left the EU. They also ensure that there is continuity in terms of the passenger rights that apply to air travel and that consumers will continue to be protected if there is no mutual recognition of insolvency protection regimes after exit day”.
Now, I think that says it is going to be all right, but I am required to scrutinise, so I did my best, and I have worked my way through the document. I confess I did not pick up the ownership point, and I look forward to the Minister’s response on that. If that statement is right, one works through the Explanatory Memorandum, and it puts in changes and does things to make that right. If it is right, can the Minister answer this question: in the event of a no-deal situation and this SI then becomes operative, is there any group of passengers or consumers whose rights and protections are diminished or lost after exit day?
The second question I have relates to the optimistic scenario, where there is a deal and this SI will not be required. One constantly looks for a sunset clause in these SIs which would allow that to operate. Could the Minister explain how we will handle this SI and the others that we are going to face today if there is a deal? Experience has taught me that one of the few things you have to go to in these SIs is the commencement provision. That says that Regulations 5(1) and 5(2) will be commenced 22 days after the regulations are made. That, I assume, will be somewhat before exit day. At present, it seems that the decision on whether we have a deal will be very close to exit day, so, if there is a deal, how is this SI going to be stopped from being enacted without a mechanism within it?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their consideration of these draft regulations. I am grateful for the scrutiny provided by noble Lords. These are important pieces of legislation, and it is right that they are properly scrutinised. I would not class the noble Lord, Lord Warner, or indeed any other noble Lord as a trouble-maker. I will attempt to get to all the questions, but if I do not manage to cover them, I will respond in writing.
On the point made by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, the Explanatory Memorandum sets out the exchange rate used to calculate the amounts. It is the average for the year to 31 December 2017, which has been used across the statutory instruments. There are currently no plans to change that.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, let me say that this regulation will cover all carriers with a UK operating licence. That is issued by the CAA, so that is how we define who will be covered by these regulations in the event of a no-deal exit. The requirements of the operator’s licence are set out in the operation of air services regulations, which we debated last year.
On enforcement, if it is a UK carrier—that is, one with a UK operating licence—the CAA will enforce it. If it is departing from an EU member state, that member state will enforce it, and if it is a UK carrier departing from a third country, the CAA will again enforce it. So the example that my noble friend Lady McIntosh used of a flight departing from the UK will be enforced by the CAA, and the flight which then departs from the EU will be enforced by that relevant member state—I cannot remember which member state she referred to.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My question was about those UK passengers who board the next leg of the flight in Amsterdam or what would be a third country with an international carrier. Does the regulation now exclude them from denied boarding rights and other privileges that they would otherwise be entitled to?
Baroness Sugg
I should first point out that these regulations apply to everyone who travels on a plane regardless of nationality, so actually the nationality is not important. The important part is the carrier that operates the flight. In that example, as I said, the flight leaving the UK would be covered by the CAA and the flight leaving Amsterdam, regardless of the nationality of the passenger, would be covered by the existing EU regulations, so that would not change.
Lord Berkeley
Will the Minister explain what would happen in the reverse direction? Say you are flying Nigerian Airways from Lagos to Amsterdam with a through ticket to London with another carrier. What is the enforcement on the compensation rules there?
Baroness Sugg
They will remain the same. The flight operating into the UK from a third country will be enforced by the CAA, and a flight operating into the EU would be covered by that EU member state. I understand that this is a little complex, so I will list exactly what will be covered.
But before doing that, on code sharing, asked by my noble friend Lady Altmann, the carrier operating the flight will be liable under the regulation, irrespective of who sold the ticket.
I will attempt to be a little clearer than I was in my opening speech. This regulation will apply to: all flights departing a UK airport; flights to the UK from a country other than the UK if on a UK air carrier; flights to EU airports from a country other than the UK if on a UK air carrier; and flights to UK airports from a country other than the UK if on an EU air carrier. That applies to passengers of any nationality.
So in answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, about who will be disadvantaged by this, in short no one will be adversely affected. The aim of this SI is absolutely to maintain continuity after exit day. In the event of no deal, passengers will retain the same rights as they have today. In the event of a deal, which will obviously get us to an implementation period, this SI along with many others will be amended or revoked.
I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Deben that all things aviation will not stay the same in the event of no deal. That is why we are trying to avoid that. But in the case of this SI, the rights will stay the same—
Lord Adonis
The Minister says that no one will be adversely affected. I accept that in response to all carriers or travel businesses that are registered in the United Kingdom, but if a UK resident buys a ticket or a package from a company or carrier that is registered only in the EU or EEA, they may well suffer diminution of their rights. Is that correct?
Baroness Sugg
All EEA and EU companies which sell in the UK will be required to have an ATOL scheme licence.
Lord Adonis
If, after a no-deal Brexit, a UK citizen buys a package or flight from an operator which is in the EU or EEA but which is not registered in the United Kingdom, we have no guarantee that there will be reciprocal continuation of ATOL rights.
Baroness Sugg
Each member state has its own version of ATOL, and the companies which sell in that member state are obliged to follow it. In the event of no deal, there will not be mutual recognition; that is simply one of the consequences of no deal. Those companies will be covered by the EU regulations. I said that no one is affected, but some of the companies which sell into the UK will need to get an ATOL licence. However, for air carriers, airports and passengers, there is no change to the routes on which the regulations apply. After exit day, in the event of no deal, the combined scope of UK and EU legislation on air passenger rights will be the same as under the current EU regulation. I hope that is a slightly simpler explanation than the one in my opening speech.
My noble friend Lord Balfe is right that, in the event of no deal, this simply takes a snapshot in time. I agree with him and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that what happens in the EU in future will affect the UK, whether that is a change in currency exchange or EU law. However, that is something for the future; it may well depend on a future aviation agreement, if we end up with no deal. I am afraid I cannot predict the future, so I cannot say how we may respond to any future change in EU law. What I can say is that this statutory instrument does not contain any powers to make further SIs, and any future changes are likely to require primary legislation and would therefore have sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. However, I take the noble Baroness’s point that changes in the EU regime will have an effect on us.
On the issue of confidence in booking flights, we are completely focused on ensuring that there is no disruption of aviation, as this would be in nobody’s interest. In our technical notices last summer, we confirmed that we envisage granting permits to EU carriers to operate in the UK, and we have seen the EU take similar steps to avoid disruption. There were Commission communications on the EU’s preparedness in November and it has said it intends to bring forward measures to allow UK air carriers to continue to fly to the EU. Most recently, this includes its no-deal contingency plan, which was published on 19 December. Detailed EU regulations are being discussed in the Parliament and the Council at the moment. We welcome those proposals, which will ensure that flights between the UK and the EU are maintained. There are a number of pieces of clear evidence that both sides in aviation are determined to ensure we maintain air connectivity.
We work very closely with the aviation industry, which shares our confidence that arrangements will be in place to avoid disruption to flights. I take the point from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that many conversations about aviation—those that he has had and those that others will have in future—take place at a European level and, indeed, an international level, at ICAO. We hope to continue our close relationship on aviation with all our European partners, regardless of how we leave the European Union.
On the noble Lord’s point about consultation, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was quite right to say that the same text is used here and in the next SI. As you would expect, I meet people from across the aviation sector very regularly, whether from airlines, airports or industry groups such as the Airport Operators Association and Airlines UK. We have not had meetings specifically about single SIs—there are quite a few of them—but we are discussing our SI programme with the aviation sector and sharing our plans with it. Throughout our SI programme, and certainly in aviation, we are replicating the current situation so that there will be no change. The compensation is perhaps not universally popular among our airlines, but they accept that the important thing is to maintain continuity, so that passengers and airlines understand what will happen. That is what we have been trying to do.
On communications, I agree with the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Warner, that it is really important that we keep consumers informed. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, highlighted one of those adverts on Spotify; there are others. We have a cross-government campaign putting out the information that is available on GOV.UK, and we are also working very closely with airlines and consumer groups to ensure that the right information is available. For example, Thomas Cook has a very good Q&A section around Brexit on its website. We are trying—
Lord Warner
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Just to go back to my earlier exchanges with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, the government website seems to be telling people to be careful about making bookings after 30 March. However, in this debate the Minister is spreading balm and harmony about the fact that people would not have any of their rights and protections diminished. If there is no diminution of rights and protections, why does the Government’s website urge people to be careful about making bookings after 30 March?
Baroness Sugg
I am not sure that the Government’s website uses the word “careful”. As I said, we are confident that flights will be maintained. There is an EU regulation going through the EU Parliament and EU Council at the moment to confirm that. In the same way that this statutory instrument has not yet been passed, that regulation has still not been passed. We are confident that flights will continue, but we say that customers should contact their air carrier and check their terms and conditions in order to ensure they are fully aware of all the information that they need.
On the rights and protections, as I have said, this SI continues them; we are confident that, should noble Lords choose to pass it, we will be able in the event of no deal to ensure that consumers still have the same protections.
While we are working to agree a deal with the EU that is supported by Parliament, we think it is responsible to continue to make preparations in the absence of an agreement so that there is a functioning statute book. This SI, and the others that we will debate later and in the coming weeks, are a key part of those preparations. Both the UK and the EU have set out their clear intention to put in place arrangements to ensure that planes can continue to fly to and from the EU in the event of a no-deal exit. Both sides want to avoid any disruption to flights, as that would be in no one’s interests.
Our contingency preparations, of which these regulations are just one element, should provide reassurance to industry and consumers that, even in the event of no deal, passengers will continue to benefit from the same rights as they currently do. They ensure that our legal and regulatory framework for aviation is set up for flights to continue, whatever the outcome of negotiations. I beg to move.
Cairncross Review
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I see that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, has decided to take flight. With the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend Jeremy Wright, the Secretary of State for DCMS:
“With your permission, I would like to make a Statement about the publication of the Cairncross review. I would like to thank Dame Frances Cairncross for leading the review, along with the expert panel and officials who have worked with her to develop it.
This review comes at an important time. In her report, Dame Frances paints a vivid picture of the threat to high quality journalism in this country. There are now around 6,000 fewer journalists than there were in 2007. Print circulation of daily national papers fell from 11.5 million in 2008 to 5.8 million in 2018.
In this same time period, circulation for local newspapers has halved. As the review makes clear, there are many reasons for this, but the main driver is a rapid change in how we consume content. The majority of people now read news online, including 91% of 18 to 24 year-olds. As this shift takes place, publishers have struggled to find ways to create sustainable business models in the digital age. As the review sets out, between them, Google and Facebook capture the largest share of online advertising revenue and are an increasingly important channel for the distribution of news content online. Not only this but they hold an array of data on their users that news publishers cannot possibly hope to replicate, which further strengthens their position in the digital advertising market.
This combination of market conditions threatens to undermine the future financial sustainability of journalism. Even publications that have only ever been online are struggling, and this should concern us all. Dame Frances notes that, while high-quality journalism is desirable, there is one type of journalism that society and democracy cannot do without, and that is public interest journalism. This is the type of journalism that can hold the powerful to account and is an essential component of our democracy. It helps us to shine a light on important issues—in communities, in courtrooms in council chambers and in this Chamber. This type of journalism is under threat, especially at the local level. The review cites numerous examples of what happens to communities when a local paper disappears. So Dame Frances’ report comes at a vital time, and I welcome her focus on public interest journalism.
This is clearly an important issue and I wanted to set out to the House today how the Government intend to respond. There are many substantial recommendations in this review. There are some areas where we can take them forward immediately, and other more long-term recommendations on which we will be consulting with stakeholders about the best way forward.
First, I will deal with the recommendations we are able to progress immediately. Online advertising now represents a growing part of the economy and forms an important revenue stream for many publishers. But this burgeoning market is largely opaque and extremely complex, so it is at present impossible to know whether the revenue shares received by news publishers are fair. The review proposes that the Competition and Markets Authority conduct a market study into the digital advertising market. The purpose of this study would be to examine whether the online marketplace is operating effectively, and whether it enables or prevents fair competition. It is right that policymakers and regulators have an accurate understanding of how the market operates and check that it is enabling fair competition, and I have today written to the CMA in support of this study. I will urge Professor Jason Furman to treat the review as additional evidence as part of his ongoing inquiry into digital competition in the UK, which is due to be published in the spring. I also recognise that online advertising has given rise to a wider set of social and economic challenges. My department will therefore conduct a review of how online advertising is regulated, starting in the coming months.
The Cairncross review also cites concerns from publishers about the potential market impact of the BBC on their sustainability. They argue that the BBC’s free-to-access online content makes it harder for publishers to attract subscribers. The review also questions whether the BBC is straying too far into the provision of softer news content, traditionally the preserve of commercial publishers, and suggests this might benefit from the scrutiny of Ofcom. Let me be clear that the Government recognise the strong and central role of the BBC here. As the review states,
“the BBC offers the very thing that this Review aims to encourage: a source of reliable and high quality news, with a focus on objectivity and impartiality, and independent from government”.
However, it is right that the role of the BBC, as a public service broadcaster, be appropriately transparent and clear. The review recommended that:
“Ofcom should assess whether BBC News Online is striking the right balance, between aiming for the widest reach for its own content, and driving traffic from its online site to commercial publishers, particularly local ones”.
Of course, some of these questions were addressed as part of the charter review process, but I have written today to ask Ofcom to look carefully at the review’s recommendations and identify if there are any new concerns deserving attention. For instance, there may be ways in which the BBC could do more to drive traffic to commercial sites, particularly the local press.
Another recommendation from the review was a proposal for two separate forms of tax relief for news publications, one of which is intended to bolster the supply of local and investigative journalism by enabling it to benefit from charitable status. The review noted that in the USA, philanthropic donations provide, on average, 90% of the total revenues of non-profit news publishers. Although we have a different media landscape, as the review sets out, charitable status could reduce the costs for those producing this essential public interest reporting, and pave the way for a new revenue stream through philanthropic donations. I recognise that this avenue has been explored previously and that some hurdles will have to be cleared, but I believe we should pursue it, so I have written to the Charity Commission and look forward to hearing how it can help move this forward.
As I set out earlier, there are also areas where we will need to consult further and respond in further detail. First, Dame Frances recommended the establishment of an institute for public interest news to promote investigative and local journalism. The review proposes that this institute would act as a convener for those organisations with the means to support public interest news, including the BBC and online platforms. It would also be tasked with generating additional finance for the sector, driving innovation through a proposed new fund, and supporting an expansion of the BBC’s Local Democracy Reporting Service. This BBC-funded scheme is a shining example of what can be done. The first of its kind in the industry, it has embedded 150 journalists within local publishers to produce local democracy reporting, particularly relating to local councils. I met some of these reporters last week and they have produced 50,000 stories so far between them—all stories that may not otherwise have been heard. The Government will explore, with others, what more can be done here.
The review also calls upon the Government to do more to incentivise the publishing industry’s transition to digital. It proposes extending the current scope of VAT exemptions so that they apply to online payments for all news content and not simply print news content, and new tax relief for public interest news providers. I am aware that there is passionate support for this within the publishing sector, and we share its ambition for a healthy and sustainable industry. As this House knows, the Government always keep taxes under review, and any decision to amend the UK tax regime is, of course, a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer as part of the annual fiscal cycle. I will be discussing this matter further with industry and my colleagues at the Treasury.
I want to highlight two recommendations in the review that cover similar ground to work already taking place within government. One is the review’s sensible proposal that the Government develop a media literacy strategy, working with the range of organisations already active in this space. Evidence suggests that there is also a correlation between media literacy and greater propensity to pay for news, so improving media literacy will also have an impact on the sustainability of the press. Making sure people have the skills they need to separate fact from fiction is the key to long-term success in tackling this issue, and I welcome the focus that Dame Frances has placed on it. We welcome this recommendation, which relates closely to the Government’s ongoing work to combat disinformation. Last month, my honourable friend the Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries hosted a round table on media literacy, and the Government are actively looking at what more we can do to support industry efforts in this area.
The other recommendation is the review’s call for the creation of new codes of conduct between publishers and the online platforms which distribute their content. These would cover issues relating to the indexing of content on platforms and its presentation, as well as the need for advanced warning about algorithm changes likely to affect a publisher. The development of these codes would be overseen by a regulator.
The review also proposes that regulatory oversight be introduced as part of a ‘news quality obligation’ upon platforms. This would require that platforms improve how their users understand the origin of an article of news and the trustworthiness of its source. Dame Frances recognises that platforms are already starting to accept responsibility in this regard. These two proposals deserve the Government’s full consideration and we will examine how they can inform our approach. This includes our work as part of the online harms White Paper, due to be published shortly.
This report sets out a path to help us put our media on a stronger and more sustainable footing. However, Dame Frances is clear that her review is just one contribution to the debate. We cannot turn back the clock and there is no magic formula to address the systemic changes the industry faces, but it is the role of any responsible Government to play an active part in supporting public interest journalism. We will consider this review’s contents carefully and engage with press publishers, online platforms, regulators, academics, the public and Members of this House as we consider the way forward. I remain open to further proposals that may go beyond the recommendations or scope of this review.
I know that this issue is of great concern to Members across the House, and today’s review is an important milestone. At the heart of any thriving civil society is a free and vibrant press. The Government—and, I have no doubt, the House—are committed to supporting it through changing times and ensuring that it can continue to do its job. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement and I guess we begin with the remark at the very end, which indicates that the genie cannot be put back into the bottle: we are where we are and we must look at this matter from here. I cannot, for my part, look at a consideration of this kind other than from the point of view of small local communities whose service—the service they receive from local press—will be radically affected by recent developments; indeed, it has been already. While the genie cannot be put back into the bottle, we should not hide from view, or fail to prioritise in our consideration, those communities whose cohesion is being reduced by the developments we are talking about.
Dame Frances has done a splendid job. I went to one of the consultation sessions she held here in Parliament and it is clear that she has these concerns too. Written journalism, in print or online, supplies the largest quantity of original journalism and is most at risk: the figures have been quoted. The reduction in public interest reporting, which again was particularly concentrated on in the report and in the Statement, seems to have an effect on community engagement, and that concerns me greatly. Local democracy, such as voter turnout and the accountability of local institutions, has been particularly undermined. The operation of the market that has taken so much advertising away from traditional local newspapers can easily be identified as a contributing factor—indeed, an overriding factor—in this demise. The report sets out some concrete proposals about how we might look at the question. I have not yet found myself able to intellectualise what can be done about the fact that advertising is being taken away through these platforms, even through the BBC’s local news availability projects, and how it can be restored, other than perhaps finding some way of taxing, controlling or regulating the way the market is operating—and we know that that is a difficult concept for many people.
The digital revolution has not just affected how people arrive at news online; it has also changed their habits and their attitudes to news. This, of course, is the problem. As it says in the report, people now skim for their news or scroll for their news; they passively absorb news. An increasing percentage of those who take news in whatever form are worried about “fake news”. People read material shown to them by platforms largely based on data analytics and algorithms. There is something terrifically unnerving about that. In this and other debates, week after week, we have heard concerns of this kind expressed from a number of directions.
We are told that editors no longer pay attention to how stories are ranked. They no longer take much time to consider how to display stories on their homepage. Instead, they are led by the study of the market, habits, customs and conventions. They let their news follow the way things are in the marketplace. In addition to that, mergers and acquisitions by digital giants have meant that more than half of all digital advertising revenues are now hoovered up by just two companies. In the light of all this debilitation—and there is so much more that could be rehearsed—I ask the Minister how we can redress the balance.
I began my working life as a reporter on a local newspaper. Every week, I was responsible for the front page of the Burry Port Star. It was an organ of considerable influence—
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port
Now your Lordships are rising to the bait, which I appreciate. It was, of course, the same newspaper in Llanelli—and in Llangennech and Llwchwr—but the front page was different. When somebody had moved out of a house, a boat had sunk, somebody had passed the 11-plus or there was to be a flower-arranging display in one of the local chapels, it was my job to tell the community about it.
Community cohesion is undergirded by an active press. None of us should simply take for granted that its disappearance will not have effects. How can the Government address this? The BBC has embedded reporters into local areas, which is brilliant. How much more of this can we hope to do? What about the idea of a regulator, which was picked out from the report by the press this morning? How effective will such a regulator be? What will his or her terms of reference be? Will there be teeth to the job that that person is asked to do?
There are so many questions, but above and beyond them is a very real concern. This is a matter which belongs to Parliament as a whole—and to bipartisan approaches—and is a real problem at a local level. I conclude my remarks by emphasising once again the levels of concern, the health of communities and the need for instruments such as a local newspaper to forge an identity for a locality. Burry Port was never Llangennech, and Llwchwr was never Llanelli, because the press helped us give expression to a real sense of identity. How on behalf of the Government will the Minister—and how will we as a Parliament—make practical proposals to achieve these noble ends?
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, paints a romantic and nostalgic picture of the local press, and he is right to do so. But, in trying to solve the problems that face us in somehow helping the Burry Port Star, we must beware. The press owners have come with a begging bowl. They earlier proclaimed their resistance to any government interference, but quite ready to dip their hands into the public purse are very large and rich companies, many of which have delivered redundancy after redundancy to local papers in favour of their shareholders.
That is one of the reasons why local journalism is in the state that it is in. I also suggest that the National Union of Journalists might be added to the list of people to consult that the Minister read out. There is a serious challenge to local media. Dame Frances set it out very bleakly in her report and the Minister repeated it. There is massive technological change and that impacts on how news is received and—particularly with the under-25s—how it is digested.
I welcome some of the actions announced by the Minister to refer some of the recommendations to relevant bodies. However, the ambitions of the Government and newspaper proprietors would be more credible if they had not been so eager to bury the Leveson report and ignore its call for the establishment of a regulator set up by royal charter which could do many of the tasks called for in this report.
As I said, freedom from Government does not seem to stop the press barons from dipping into the public purse. Therefore, although I welcome the recommendations on digital and media literacy, online advertising and news quality obligations, we should be hard-nosed about how and where tax relief and innovation fund money is spent. It is not there simply to line the pockets of Newsquest, JPI Media and Reach, which are all big, profitable companies that have taken the lion’s share of the existing Local Democracy Reporting Service, which costs the BBC £8 million.
Some of the powers advocated in this report could be taken on by the Press Recognition Panel, the independent body established by Parliament under royal charter. The recommendations on how to bring the FANGs within the rule of law go wider than the issues covered by this report but its recommendations on new codes of conduct for online platforms are to be welcomed.
But what do we find in the report? As usual, it is a quick dive to try to weaken the BBC. In almost 40 years of being involved in this I have explained to various media proprietors that 90 years ago a Conservative Government had the common sense to nationalise the BBC as a public service broadcaster with a mandate that consciously distorted the market in favour of public service broadcasting. They want to have a go at the BBC online because it carries the same credibility and weight as the broadcast BBC. I hope that although the Minister has asked Ofcom to look at this, Ofcom will be very sceptical about trying to weaken one of the strongest public service journalism outlets in this country, one which should be defended.
I hope also that the Minster will use his good influence to secure a full day’s debate in this House. This is an important report; so is the one published today by the Press Recognition Panel. This is an ongoing debate and the knowledge that exists in this House would be of benefit in taking a very wide agenda forward.
Lord Keen of Elie
I thank the noble Lords. I entirely concur with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, and the emphasis that he laid on local journalism and its impact on and importance to local democracy and indeed to wider societal issues that arise at a local level. To that extent, I believe that we are all pleased with the steps taken by the BBC with regard to the Local Democracy Reporting Service, which has been effective. The conundrum now is how to redress the balance. I believe that a starting point is for the CMA, which has experience and expertise in this area, to look at how the market is working. That will not be a solution in itself but it will give us a starting point from which we can work. As regards a regulator, that is a medium-term or longer-term ambition. Again, we will have to look at how we can develop that, but we are conscious of its importance.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, made the perfectly valid point that many of our printed press corporations remain profitable. The difficulty is the disparity between the profitability in some areas and the poverty in others, as illustrated recently by the demise of one of the largest publishers of local newspapers in the country. In so far as the press industry seeks to, as the noble Lord put it, put its fingers into the tax pot, it is fair to say that he can anticipate that the Treasury will be pretty hard-nosed about that. We will seek to ensure that any benefits that can be provided go to the right place for the development of public-interest journalism.
I do not see this as an attempt to weaken the BBC, although there might be issues there that we will look at. I appreciate the importance of the BBC as a source of reliable journalism, but perhaps there are areas where it goes where it would not have gone before. I am not sure that it is necessarily in the public interest to have “Love Island” news online—although I may be corrected by some. It seems to me that these are areas where, for example, more commercial enterprises might be allowed into the market. I will just raise that as an issue.
I welcome the comments that have been made. We will want to review matters. The noble Lord raised the question of a debate. Of course, we have the forthcoming White Paper as well, and it may be that, in the light of that, a wider debate will be appropriate.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I spent much of my career in broadcast journalism in a period characterised by high-volume, high-quality journalism, well resourced both in broadcast and in print. There is still some good journalism in all media, but let us recognise that the bus left long ago and that there has been a vast reduction in the volume of quality journalism and a vast reduction in the necessary resources that are always needed to produce journalism of high quality.
In the last hour or so I have quickly scanned this ambitious report with its far-reaching conclusions and recommendations, not all of which immediately strike me as right. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said. There are few matters as important for this House as those set out in this report, and this issue cannot be dealt with here in a few moments of questions and answers—so I too ask the Government to consider setting aside a serious and substantial amount of time to deal at length and properly with these issues.
Lord Keen of Elie
I thank the noble Lord for his contribution. As I have already indicated, I understand why this House is asking for further time to consider the detail of this report. It appears to me that that might be appropriate once we have the White Paper that I referred to earlier and when we have made progress on the initial stages of implementing the recommendations of the report, perhaps setting out a plan for how we intend to take forward its longer-term recommendations. However, I am sure that those responsible for the time of this House will have heard the observations. It is beyond my pay grade but I am confident that they will have listened.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I join my noble and learned friend in congratulating Dame Frances on producing a compelling report, which sets out both starkly and boldly the real commercial pressures which are facing all publishers. I declare my interest as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group. Given the scale of the challenges and the punishing pace of change in the industry, which come over so clearly in this report, does my noble and learned friend agree with me that speed is now of the essence and that the most important thing is to move urgently to implement, where possible, some of the review’s major recommendations, particularly in areas such as VAT and taxation, which could bring immediate commercial benefit and allow publishers to invest in the quality investigative journalism that the report highlights?
In other areas, there is much for the CMA and Ofcom to undertake. Does my noble and learned friend believe that the CMA has the capacity to deal swiftly with issues surrounding the advertising market in view of its post-Brexit responsibilities, and does Ofcom have the powers needed to review the BBC online without the need for further legislative change?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I can advise that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has written today to the chair of the CMA, inviting him to respond as quickly as possible as to whether it is the view of the CMA that it can take on these issues, and he has also written today to the chair of the Charity Commission—so we are intent on taking these issues forward as swiftly as we can.
Leaving the European Union
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the Government’s ongoing work to secure a Brexit deal that honours our commitments to the people of Northern Ireland, commands the support of Parliament and can be negotiated with the EU.
On 29 January, this House gave me a clear mandate and sent an unequivocal message to the European Union. Last week, I took that message to Brussels. I met President Juncker, President Tusk, and the President of the European Parliament, Antonio Tajani, and I told them clearly what Parliament wanted in order to unite behind a withdrawal agreement: namely, legally binding changes to the backstop. I explained to them the three ways in which this can be achieved.
First, the backstop could be replaced with alternative arrangements to avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. Yesterday, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union met with Michel Barnier to discuss the ideas put forward by the Alternative Arrangements Working Group, comprising a number of my honourable and right honourable friends. I am grateful to that group for its work and we are continuing to explore its ideas.
Secondly, there could be a legally binding time limit to the existing backstop or thirdly, there could be a legally binding unilateral exit clause to that backstop. Given both sides agree that we do not ever want to use the backstop, and that if we did it would be temporary, we believe it is reasonable to ask for legally binding changes to this effect. As expected, President Juncker maintained the EU’s position that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement, and I set out the UK’s position, strengthened by the mandate that this House gave me, that this House needs to see legally binding changes to the backstop, and that can be achieved by changes to the withdrawal agreement. We agreed that our teams should hold further talks to find a way forward, and he and I will meet again before the end of February to take stock of those discussions.
So our work continues. The Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are today in Strasbourg, and last week the Attorney-General was in Dublin to meet his Irish counterpart.
Following my visits to Brussels, Northern Ireland and Ireland last week, I welcomed the Prime Minister of Malta to Downing Street yesterday, and I will be speaking to other EU 27 leaders today and throughout the week.
The right honourable gentleman the leader of the Opposition shares the concerns of this House on the backstop. I welcome his willingness to sit down and talk to me and I look forward to continuing our discussions. Indeed, Ministers will be meeting members of his team tomorrow.
I think there are a number of areas where the whole House should be able to come together. In particular, I believe we have a shared determination across this House not to allow the UK leaving the EU to mean any lowering of standards in relation to workers’ rights, environmental protections or health and safety. I have met trade unions and Members from across the House, and my right honourable friend the Business Secretary is leading work to ensure that we fully address all concerns about these vital issues. We have already made legally binding commitments to no regression in these areas if we were to enter the backstop, and we are prepared to consider legislating to give these commitments force in UK law.
In the interests of building support across the House, we are also prepared to commit to asking Parliament whether it wishes to follow suit whenever the EU changes its standards in these areas. Of course, we do not need to automatically follow EU standards in order to lead the way—as we have done in the past under both Conservative and Labour Governments. The UK has a proud tradition of leading the way in workers’ rights, while maintaining a flexible labour market that has helped deliver an employment rate almost six percentage points above the EU average. Successive Governments of all parties have put in place standards that exceed the minimums set by the EU.
A Labour Government gave British workers annual leave and paid maternity leave entitlements well above those required by the European Union. A Conservative-led Government went further than the EU by giving all employees the right to request flexible working. I was proud to be the Minister for Women and Equalities to introduce shared parental leave, so that both parents are able to take on caring responsibilities for their child—something that no EU regulation provides for.
When it comes to workers’ rights, this Parliament has set a higher standard before and I believe will do so in future. Indeed, we already have plans to repeal the so-called Swedish derogation, which allows employers to pay their agency workers less, and are committed to enforcing holiday pay for the most vulnerable workers—not just protecting workers’ rights, but extending them.
As I set out in my Statement two weeks ago, the House also agrees that Parliament must have a much stronger and clearer role in the next phase of the negotiations. Because the political declaration cannot be legally binding and in some areas provides for a spectrum of outcomes, some Members are understandably concerned that they cannot be sure precisely what future relationship it would lead to. By following through on our commitments and giving Parliament that bigger say in the mandate for the next phase, we are determined to address those concerns. The Secretary of State has written to all members of the Exiting the EU Committee seeking their view on engaging Parliament in this next phase of negotiations. We are also reaching out beyond this House to engage more deeply with businesses, civil society and trade unions.
Everyone in this House knows that the vote for Brexit was about changing not just our relationship with the EU but how things work at home, especially for those in communities who feel they have been left behind. Addressing this and widening opportunities is the mission of this Government that I set out on my first day as Prime Minister, and I will continue to work with Members across the House to do everything we can to help build a country that works for everyone.
One area where the right honourable gentleman the leader of the Opposition and I do not agree is on his suggestion that the UK should remain a member of the EU customs union. I would gently point out that the House of Commons has already voted against this. In any case, membership of the customs union would be a less desirable outcome than that which is provided for in the political declaration. That would deliver no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions across all sectors, and no checks on rules of origin. Crucially, it would also provide for the development of an independent trade policy for the UK that would allow us to strike our own trade deals around the world—something the Labour Party once supported.
On Thursday, as I promised in the House last month, we will bring forward an amendable Motion. This will seek to reaffirm the support of the House for the amended Motion from 29 January—namely, to support the Government in seeking changes to the backstop and to recognise that negotiations are ongoing. Having secured an agreement with the European Union for further talks, we now need some time to complete that process. When we achieve the progress we need, we will bring forward another meaningful vote, but if the Government have not secured a majority in this House in favour of a withdrawal agreement and a political declaration, the Government will on Tuesday 26 February make a Statement and table an amendable Motion relating to the Statement; a Minister will move that Motion on Wednesday 27 February, thereby enabling the House to vote on it, and on any amendments to it, on that day. As well as making clear what needs to change in the withdrawal agreement, the House has also reconfirmed its view that it does not want to leave the EU without a deal. The Government agree but opposing no deal is not enough to stop it. We must agree a deal that this House can support. That is what I am working to achieve.
I have spoken before about the damage that would be done to public faith in our democracy if this House were to ignore the result of the 2016 referendum. In Northern Ireland last week, I heard again the importance of securing a withdrawal agreement that works for all the people of this United Kingdom. In Belfast, I met not just politicians but leaders of civil society and business from across the community. Following this House’s rejection of the withdrawal agreement, many people in Northern Ireland are worried about what the current uncertainty will mean for them. In this House, we often focus on the practical challenges posed by the border in Northern Ireland but for many people in Northern Ireland, what looms larger is the fear that the seamless border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, which helped make the progress that followed the Belfast agreement possible, might be disrupted. We must not let that happen. We shall not let that happen.
The talks are at a crucial stage. We now need to hold our nerve to get the changes this House requires and deliver Brexit on time. By getting the changes we need to the backstop, by protecting and enhancing workers’ rights and environmental protections, and by enhancing the role of Parliament in the next phase of negotiations, I believe we can reach a deal that this House can support. We can deliver for the people and the communities that voted for change two and a half years ago, whose voices for too long have not been heard. We can honour the result of the referendum and set this country on course for the bright future that every part of this United Kingdom deserves. That is this Government’s mission. We shall not stint in our efforts to fulfil it. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. I listened carefully but I do not think that any of us are any the wiser having heard it for a second time. I am not clear about the purpose of today’s Statement. As we have come to expect, the Government have precious little to report.
Like many noble Lords, I remember the days when Prime Ministers made Statements of substance that genuinely updated Parliament and provided new information—Statements that showed true leadership. In today’s Statement, the Prime Minister has not told us anything that we do not already know. We already know that in opening the negotiations, Mrs May set out a series of unhelpful and unrealistic red lines; for example, in ruling out a new comprehensive and permanent customs union. We already know that she sought legally binding changes to the backstop, replacing it with alternative arrangements to prevent a hard border—but the only reason for the backstop is that the Government were unable to identify any viable alternative arrangements. We already know that the EU emphatically rejected reopening negotiations on the agreement signed by the Prime Minister in November. We already know that Mrs May consistently and irresponsibly refuses to rule out leaving the EU without a deal, even though her own Government’s economic analysis shows that this would be hugely damaging.
Today’s Statement confirms that the Prime Minister has made no progress other than holding a series of further meetings to debate the exact same issues she has been debating for nearly two years. If media reports are accurate, the EU is totally bewildered that she seeks to return to the negotiating table while refusing to budge even one inch from those Lancaster House red lines. How many deadlines has the Prime Minister now missed? The agreement was supposed to have been reached in October; the original vote was pulled in December; and now there is not even a guaranteed vote on the revised deal before the end of the month. Each week MPs are told to expect a meaningful vote the following week, only for it to be delayed again and again.
Having seen off most of the amendments that she considered unhelpful last time, the Prime Minister’s request for another two weeks might just about give her Whips something to work with. But that all too familiar mantra that the only way to avoid leaving the EU without a deal is to support her deal points to a strategy to just run down the clock until the only options are her deal or no deal. As I and other noble Lords have said countless times, that is grossly irresponsible. The Prime Minister tells others to hold their nerve while she engages in her favourite pastime—it used to be played in the playground when I was 12—of kicking the can down the road. While she tells business and industry to hold their nerve, they are losing patience and being forced to make decisions factoring in the worst possible scenario—as we have seen from the Nissan decision on investment in Sunderland.
Part of me really wants to believe that the Prime Minister, a former Home Secretary, is simply too smart and too patriotic to be responsible for a catastrophic crash out of the EU, but we all know—though it is not in the Statement—that intense and expensive preparations are now being made for a crash-landing no deal. Can the Leader remind us of the Government’s budget for no deal? Can she tell us how many meetings she has personally attended with other Ministers and/or officials where no-deal preparations have been discussed? Can she confirm that, despite there being just 45 days to Brexit, with firms hired for no-deal contingencies being stripped of their contracts and police forces hiring personnel for crisis centres, this topic was not even discussed in any detail at today’s Cabinet meeting? Can she tell us why the legislation that the Government tell us is so necessary, deal or no deal, is being held up by the Government? The Report stages of the Agriculture and Fisheries Bills have not even been scheduled in the House of Commons, despite the Government cancelling the February Recess.
The Opposition have provided a clear alternative that we believe could gain the support of a majority of MPs and find favour with the EU. It is all very well the Minister laughing, but his alternative proposals—the proposals from his Government—have been soundly rejected by the House of Commons, and nothing further has come back from the Commons that can gain the confidence of Parliament. This is far too serious to be laughing about the situation.
Let me repeat that. We have provided an alternative that we think could gain the support of a majority of MPs and find favour with the EU—despite the Minister’s smirks. The Prime Minister has ruled out that alternative in favour of her rejected deal and the hopeless aim of reopening a closed legal agreement. This is my final question to the Leader of the House: if the EU 27 refuse to shift and the Prime Minister is unable to get agreement from Parliament for her deal, what will she do then? Will she accept the need to extend the Article 50 period, or will she simply march the country off the cliff edge?
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, given that we are now only six weeks from the date on which we are due to leave the EU, this is a most remarkable Statement. It basically says that, despite her trips to Brussels and Ireland, her hard stare at Juncker and dinner with Varadkar, the Prime Minister has made no progress whatsoever in offering—far less negotiating—credible new terms on which we might leave the EU.
The Prime Minister’s cricketing hero is Geoffrey Boycott, who had a test average of 47.7. By comparison, I am afraid, the Prime Minister’s Brexit negotiations average is close to negligible. It seems that, rather than the somewhat pedestrian Boycott, her real hero comes from Dickens. I wonder when she first read about Mr Micawber and his optimistic but desperate philosophy that disaster would be averted simply by something turning up. This has clearly been adopted by the Prime Minister as her guiding principle. Of a more positive agenda there is no sign, and in two areas in particular this calamitous lack of leadership is seriously irresponsible.
First, it is now clear that it is impossible to get through all the necessary Brexit-related legislation by 29 March. Even if a deal were eventually agreed by the Commons, an extension of the Article 50 period would be necessary, if only to get this legislation through. By all accounts, the Prime Minister realises this. But instead of being open and asking for an extension herself, she is waiting to be defeated on this in the Commons, at which point she will go to Brussels, blame the Commons, and ask for one then. She is adopting the example of the French revolutionary leader, who, pursuing the mob, exclaimed, “I am their leader. I must follow them”. It is a complete and abject abrogation of leadership.
Secondly, there is the impact that lack of any certainty is having on the business community. Noble Lords may have read in the Sunday Times of the Wiltshire-based cheesemaker who sells a third of her product to Canada, and who is now having to suspend further shipments because she simply does not know on what basis they might be allowed into Canada after 29 March. Hers is one of thousands of businesses in the same boat. Talking of boats, there are ships ready to sail to and from the Far East which are not due to reach their destination until after 29 March. What advice on tariffs, labelling and standards are the Government giving those contemplating putting their goods on these ships?
More generally, the impact of the Government’s indecision is crippling the economy. Yesterday’s GDP figures, the fall in manufacturing output, the collapse in investment and the inevitable worsening of the public finances mean that you can forget windy rhetoric about the end of austerity. The public finances will inevitably weaken now, whatever Brexit path is chosen.
The only suggestions which the Prime Minister took to Brussels were either non-negotiable, such as a legally binding time limit or exit clause to the backstop, or non-specific: the so-called alternative arrangements. There was zero chance of these being acceptable to the EU. At one level, therefore, it is no surprise that she is putting off meaningful votes for another fortnight—there is nothing new to vote on. It is, however, somewhat depressing that it looks as though the Commons will not seek to force any of the issues on Thursday of this week. The clock will simply continue ticking, ever louder, for another fortnight. With 29 March so close, this brinkmanship is damaging and dangerous.
The Prime Minister, and I am sure the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, will be well aware that Geoffrey Boycott had a reputation for running out his batting partner in order to save himself. It seems that the Prime Minister is willing to leave the country stranded in order to save the Tory party. It is a demeaning strategy and one which deserves to fail.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. The noble Baroness asked about no-deal preparations. I stress again that this is not what the Government want to do, but any responsible Government must prepare for it. Since 2016, the Government have spent around £4 billion preparing to leave the EU. I have attended numerous meetings—she asked about this—at which preparations for no deal were discussed. That is the responsible thing to do. I have also spent many hours in this Chamber talking about the benefits of the deal that the Prime Minister has negotiated, a deal we continue to work on.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked about legislation. I remind the House that we should not underestimate the amount of legislation we have already scrutinised this Session; in the past fortnight alone, we have considered three Brexit Bills. However, I accept that there is still a significant amount of legislation to be passed. We will continue to work with the House to ensure that it has the time to do that. We will work constructively across the House on both primary and secondary legislation to ensure that that happens.
Once again, the noble Lord asked about extending Article 50. I can only reiterate what I have said on numerous occasions: Article 50 cannot be extended by the UK alone; it has to be done in consultation and agreement with the EU. It is unlikely simply to agree to extend it without a plan for how we are going to prove a deal that it knows can get through the House of Commons. That is the reason the Prime Minister is working so hard to achieve that.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness mentioned uncertainty for business. Again, that is why we are committed to getting a deal and why we have negotiated an implementation period. The noble Baroness specifically mentioned Nissan. She is right that it is deeply disappointing that the extra jobs that would have come from building the X-Trail will no longer be created. However, it is important to remember that Nissan has confirmed that none of the current 7,000 jobs at the plant will be lost and that it remains committed to the United Kingdom. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that the UK is currently enjoying the longest unbroken quarterly growth streak of any G7 nation and has outperformed the OBR forecast of 1.3% growth in 2018.
The noble Baroness talked about the Labour Party’s position. As the Statement made clear, we believe that membership of the customs union is a less desirable outcome than that provided for in the political declaration. The political declaration explicitly provides for the benefits of a customs union but recognises that we can develop our own independent trade policy, which we are committed to doing.
Finally, the Prime Minister is committed to getting this deal through the House of Commons. She is totally focused on getting support. We want a deal. That is what we are working for.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, if I may, I say to my noble friend that this is a deeply disappointing Statement. Instead of asking Parliament to hold its nerve, which is an exercise only in procrastination or party management, surely the Prime Minister should say to Parliament that staying in the European Union on existing terms is far better than any deal she can negotiate. Surely that should be her recommendation to Parliament and to the country in a further referendum. She may fail and she may fall, but if she does that, she would be doing right by her country and would earn a great deal of respect.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The Prime Minister is committed to implementing the result of the 2016 referendum. She has negotiated a deal and we are now seeking legally binding changes to the withdrawal agreement to deal with the concerns on the backstop, while guaranteeing no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, in order that we can get the House of Commons to agree a deal that is in the best interests of both the UK and the EU.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, I support strongly the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. The Statement makes a great deal about a guarantee of social, environmental and other rights. That sounds very good but is it not true that in reality, constitutionally, no Parliament can bind its successor? Further, those of us with longish memories recall how the Government fought tooth and nail against the so-called job-destroying Social Chapter—but when the Labour Government brought it in, we saw a rise in employment and a rise in prosperity.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
We have been very clear that we are committed to improving workers’ rights. Indeed, as the Statement makes clear, we are prepared to commit to asking Parliament whether it wishes to follow suit whenever the EU changes its standards in relation to workers’ rights and environmental standards, which will of course be going forward.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Leader of the House not recognise that it is a bit rich to tell us all to keep our nerve when we are strapped in the back of a car which the Prime Minister is driving towards a cliff? I wonder if she would like to comment on, and perhaps take some remedial action on, the fact that in the whole of this Statement there is not one word about the role of your Lordships’ House—not one word. The Prime Minister says she is reaching out to business, to trade unions and to civil society. She is not reaching out to this House, apparently. She notes that the other place has voted to reject leaving without a deal. She does not seem to have noticed that this House rejected that twice. Could the noble Baroness perhaps exert her efforts to persuading the Prime Minister that we do still exist?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am happy to reassure the noble Lord that the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU is indeed writing to members of the EU committee in the same way that he has written to members of the House of Commons committee to seek views on engaging Parliament in the next phase of the negotiations. I can assure the noble Lord that the voice of your Lordships’ House will be heard. Of course, Ministers regularly attend and give evidence to our committees, which are considered very important. Certainly the views of your Lordships’ House are well heard.
Lord Wigley (PC)
Can the noble Baroness confirm that if, on 27 February, another meaningful Motion is before the House of Commons and is amended to rule out a no-deal Brexit, the Government at that time would be bound by such a decision?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am obviously not going to prejudge what the House of Commons does, but the Motion that will be brought forward will be an amendable Motion, and obviously amendments can be put down and voted on, and we shall see what the House of Commons decides.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, would it not be more honourable for the Conservatives to acknowledge that it was the Liberal Democrats, especially Jo Swinson MP, who championed rights such as flexible working and shared parental leave as well as equal marriage, and that we had to fight like terriers against the Tory Beecroft review, which wanted to even abolish unfair dismissal rights? As for agency workers, what has stopped the Government from announcing the pay derogation before now? Why should anyone believe that the Tories have seen the light and are to be trusted on employment or environmental regulations?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am sorry about the churlish tone that the noble Baroness has decided to take. We are committed to workers’ rights and environmental standards. We have made that clear regularly. Governments of all hues have done a lot of work in this area, and, as I have said, we have plans to repeal the Swedish derogation, which allows employers to pay their agency workers less. We are committed to enforcing holiday pay for the most vulnerable workers. We will continue to ensure that this Parliament champions workers’ rights, and that is something we are all proud of.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, I welcome what the Statement says about the Good Friday agreement. Of course, this is not the first time that the Government have emphasised this point—they have done so many times. But is it not all the more regrettable that Mr Juncker and the Taoiseach saw fit to parade a poster in public saying that Britain did not care about peace in Northern Ireland? Will she join with me in hoping that in future the negotiations will be conducted in a much more constructive spirit?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am happy to reiterate our commitment to the Belfast agreement and indeed the commitment of the Irish Government and the EU. What we need now is to work constructively together. We are at a critical time of the negotiations and have some difficult discussions ahead. I think that we all want to move forward in a constructive manner and make sure that we can get a withdrawal agreement and the changes we are seeking that mean that the House of Commons will approve this deal and we can all move forward to talk about our bright relationship.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, I hope I detect a chink of light in this Statement where it says:
“Given both sides agree we do not ever want to use the backstop, and that if we did it would be temporary, we believe it is reasonable to ask for legally binding changes to this effect”.
Does the Leader of the House agree that if the EU refuses to agree such legally binding changes, that would confirm that it remains in bad faith, and it regards the backstop as a device to stop us ever getting our sovereignty back, even eventually?
If that turns out to be so, why do we not offer the people of Europe continuing reciprocal residence and continuing free trade, but under the WTO, and, if that is not accepted, just go it alone under the WTO anyway, which holds no fears for us?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As both we and the EU have made clear, we do not intend to use the backstop. The Prime Minister, as I have said, is looking at three options in which the House of Commons has expressed an interest. These are alternative arrangements, such as technological solutions, a legally binding unilateral exit clause and a legally binding time limit. President Juncker and the Prime Minister had a conversation and have agreed that further talks will begin, and they will take stock later this month. We look forward to that having a successful outcome.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, is it not clear, despite what the noble Baroness has said, that it is quite impossible for Parliament to pass the primary and secondary legislation needed to have a comprehensive system of law if we leave the EU on 29 March? What is the Government’s proposal for dealing with that?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I say again, we are making good progress. As of today 424 Sis have been laid; we are making good progress. Since we returned in January we have debated more than 50. We have passed numerous pieces of legislation, and, as I said, in the last fortnight alone we have considered three Brexit Bills. Of course, in tabling legislation in this House we discuss it with the usual channels to ensure that we can give this House time to scrutinise legislation as it wishes. We will continue to do that in a constructive manner.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition obviously have a key part to play in this whole business, and I think many of them wish it could be a responsible part. Could we ask, through the Leader of the House, where they stand now? If they are against the withdrawal deal—which they are, and if they are against no deal—which we all are—are they still in favour of bringing the whole thing to a general election, as I think they were earlier on? Could we just find that out?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am not sure that I am the best person to ask, but what I can say is that the Prime Minister in her Statement made it clear that she welcomed conversations with the Leader of the Opposition. I believe that Members on both sides are speaking again tomorrow and will continue to do so. What we want is a deal that has the support of the House of Commons across the House of Commons because we want a future relationship with the European Union that is positive and progressive. That is something that I believe everyone on all sides of both Houses wants to see happen.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I ask the Minister to explain a phrase which I find rather confusing:
“There could be a legally binding unilateral exit clause”.
I am not a lawyer, but I studied international law and I have worked with a number of international lawyers. My understanding is that it is a form of negotiation leading to contract, and just as you negotiate a contract you also have to negotiate the end of that contract. The idea that something could be legally binding in international law but that one of the parties could withdraw whenever it likes seems utterly contradictory, if not nonsensical. How can a unilateral exit clause be at the same time legally binding? If it is legally binding, does it mean that the EU can withdraw from any parts of the withdrawal agreement that it wishes in return?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am sure that the noble Lord will be delighted to know that the Attorney-General is leading on these matters. He is a great expert, and I have every confidence in him.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to a number of statutory instruments which have been laid—400-plus. I draw the attention of the House, having just come from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, to the fact that only 150 or so have been scrutinised, let alone debated in your Lordships’ House. There is a huge amount of work left to do.
The second thing I want to ask the noble Baroness has to do with whether we crash out on 29 March, and time is so short that I am becoming increasingly fearful of this. The DVSA says on GOV.UK, “If the UK leaves without a deal, you might need ECMT permits to transport goods in the EU and EEA from 11 pm on 29 March 2019”. This is our transport industry trying to transport goods, and the supply chain and so forth across Europe. Social media is now running with the fact that people are applying for these ECMT licences and being refused. That will lead to economic instability of a greater nature in Northern Ireland because lorries transport goods across that border on a daily basis.
We know that economic instability leads to political instability and political instability leads to terrorism. We all have to support a process through which we get a backstop which is workable, which will not lead to a hard border and which is flexible. There is no sign that I have heard of how that will work. Can the Minister explain to us how it might work?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I said, the Prime Minister has had conversations with President Juncker and she has seen the Taoiseach to talk about the changes that she believes will be needed to the backstop in order for that withdrawal agreement to get through the House of Commons. Those discussions are ongoing. I am afraid that I have not seen the specific issue that she raises on transport and social media, but I will make sure that the department is aware of it.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, is not the Statement a space filler rather than a scene shifter? On the Irish border, I urge Parliament to stick by the agreements that the Prime Minister made with the European Union on the question of the backstop. It is the only insurance policy available to keep that border open. The Prime Minister has come up with no practical alternative, I venture to suggest, because there is no practical alternative other than both sides of that border keeping the same customs and single market arrangements. Otherwise, it is actually impossible to keep that border completely invisible and open with all the identity issues at stake in the Good Friday agreement. We should say that we agree the backstop because there is no practical alternative, and then seek to negotiate a future trade policy.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I assure the noble Lord that there will be an insurance policy for Northern Ireland. Current discussions are about the form that it takes and how we get an arrangement that gets the support of the other place. It rejected the withdrawal agreement with that backstop in place. But I agree that the backstop that we have negotiated gives the whole of the UK tariff-free access to the EU market without free movement of people, without financial contributions, without having to follow most of the level playing field rules and without giving access to our waters. That is not something that the EU wants to happen. It is a backstop that was negotiated but the House of Commons decided it did not support it, so the Prime Minister is going back to have further conversations to try to get some changes that mean that the House of Commons can support it.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, do you not just love the wonderful whooshing sound that deadlines make when they whizz past all the time, as we hear yet again? We have heard a lot today about the use of the term “boycott” from the noble Lord, Lord Newby. Of course, the term takes us back to a much darker time in our relations with Ireland. The seamless border about which the Statement talks is not just a border: it is part of a growing psychological and emotional union that has come about between our two peoples to put those times of boycott behind us. Could the Minister be a little more robust in joining with the point made by my noble friend Lord Lamont of Lerwick about the extraordinary remarks associated with President Juncker during the week about Ireland? I cannot think of anything more unhelpful to reaching an agreement on these matters than those and it raises the question of whether President Juncker actually wants an agreement.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I believe that both the EU and the UK want an agreement. We want a good deal and a strong relationship going forward. That is what everyone is working towards. Everyone needs a cool head. We need to negotiate and discuss and bring back a deal that the House of Commons can support so, as I said, we can move on to discussing the strong, future partnership that we all want between the UK and the EU.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, this Statement is both vacuous in content and indeed in language. The truth is that the only important sentence is the one that reads:
“As expected, President Juncker maintained the EU’s position that they will not reopen the withdrawal agreement”.
Where is the hard evidence that the European Union is willing to depart from that position? If it were persuaded to do so, what concessions will the Government be willing to make in return?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I have made clear, both sides have agreed to hold further talks to find a way through.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, the Prime Minister visited Belfast last week and I must bring her back to the definition of backstop. The Minister has just been trying to sell and drawing attention to the good parts, as she sees them, of the backstop that has just been rejected. But is the Prime Minister talking about replacing the existing backstop with another one—an alternative—or is she talking about inserting something new into the existing backstop? Or is she talking about a completely different proposal altogether? The one thing that is missing in all of this is that there has been no attempt whatever to use the institutions of the Belfast Good Friday agreement as part of the solution —an Irish solution to an Irish problem. I believe that there is huge potential in there if somebody would pay the slightest attention to it.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
In terms of the three options, one is for alternative arrangements, so something different using technological solutions, for example. The other two are legally binding changes to the backstop, such as a unilateral exit clause or a legally binding time limit. So there are three different options, two of which relate to changing the backstop that exists and one that is looking at alternative arrangements.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, the Prime Minister believes that she will get an agreement even if it is at the eleventh hour. There must be a draft withdrawal agreement Bill. Has the Leader of the House seen the Bill? I am sure that she has. How many clauses and schedules does it have and how will this House deal with it if it comes to us within days or even hours of having to implement an agreement?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Noble Lords will obviously see the withdrawal agreement as soon it is ready and agreed. Obviously, the agreement will go through the House of Commons first and there will be time for noble Lords to look at it before it comes to us. But as I have said, the Chief Whip and I will work constructively with the usual channels across the House to ensure that noble Lords have sufficient time to scrutinise this important legislation. I have heard very clearly all of your concerns, believe me, and we will work together in order to make sure that we can pass this important legislation. But obviously the timing of that depends on the decision of the House of Commons. It is not in the gift of your Lordships’ House.
Air Services (Competition) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 5 December 2018 be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, if it is convenient, I will speak to both the Air Services (Competition) (Amendment) EU Exit Regulations 2019 and the Airports Slot Allocation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. These instruments will both be made using powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and will be needed if the UK leaves the European Union without a deal.
The two draft instruments will correct the following retained EU regulations: Regulation 868/2004, which is intended to provide protection for Community air carriers against injury caused by subsidisation and unfair pricing practices relating to air services between EU member states and third countries; and Regulation 95/93, which sets out the process for the fair and transparent allocation of airport slots—the right to use a bundle of facilities at airports for landing or take off of an air service at specific dates and times; for example, runways, stands and terminals where the demand at congested airports exceeds the available infrastructure.
I turn first to the draft air services competition instrument. The EU regulation sets out the process and requirements for imposing redressive measures in the form of tariffs or fines where it has been demonstrated that subsidies or unfair pricing practices by third-country bodies and air carriers, with respect to routes between EU member states and third countries, have caused injury to the EU aviation industry. This EU regulation has never been used and is currently in the process of being replaced. However, the effect of Section 3 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is that any direct EU legislation which is in force and applicable on exit day will automatically become part of the UK’s statute book. Therefore, the instrument that we are considering today simply makes those corrections necessary so that the version of Regulation 868/2004 brought into UK law by the EU withdrawal Act is, in principle, legally operable after exit day.
This instrument makes only technical corrections to the retained Regulation 868/2004, meaning that the substantive requirements for assessing whether there has been subsidisation, unfair pricing practices or injury to industry remain exactly the same. The corrections include ensuring that the scope of the retained EU regulation is correct once the UK has left the EU; for example, substituting references to “Community” with references to the “United Kingdom”. This has the effect that the retained regulation applies where there has been injury to the UK aviation industry. Instead of applying where there are unfair pricing practices by “non-Community” air carriers on certain routes to and from the EU, the retained regulation will apply where “non-United Kingdom” air carriers have engaged in unfair pricing practices on certain routes to or from the UK. Similar changes apply in relation to the subsidisation provisions in the retained EU regulation.
This instrument also transfers functions currently carried out by EU institutions to appropriate bodies in the UK. For example, it transfers the function of carrying out investigations covering subsidisation and/or unfair pricing practices from the European Commission to the Civil Aviation Authority.
Finally, this instrument transfers the function of imposing provisional or definitive redressive measures to the Secretary of State. As the EU regulation sets out that the process for this is through further regulations, this instrument also sets out that any provisional or definitive redressive measures would be imposed by the Secretary of State through regulations.
I turn next to the draft airports slot allocation instrument. The EU regulation applies at congested airports where the availability of adequate infrastructure is insufficient to meet demand. The regulation sets out conditions that must be met for an airport to be “schedules facilitated” on a voluntary basis or subject to “slot co-ordination”. A thorough capacity analysis must first be carried out, which must be done within six months, if air carriers representing more than half of the operations at an airport or the airport authority consider capacity to be insufficient for actual or planned operations, or upon request from the European Commission, in particular if new entrants encounter serious problems in securing slots.
The regulation also specifies that any decision that an airport should be subject to slot co-ordination should be taken following thorough capacity analysis and consultation with users of the airport and that an independent slot co-ordinator should be appointed by the relevant member state. The following airports in the UK are currently subject to slot co-ordination: Birmingham, London City, Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton, Manchester and Stansted; and Bristol Airport is partially co-ordinated for the summer season. Airport Coordination Limited, or ACL, has been appointed as the slot co-ordinator for UK airports, and has been performing this function for some time.
Under the regulation, slots are allocated to air carriers that held the slot in the previous season and have demonstrated use of the slot at least 80% of the time during that season. The remaining unused slots are returned to what is known as the slot pool, alongside any newly available slots; 50% of the slots in the slot pool are available to new entrants. The regulation also makes provision for member states to reserve certain slots for essential domestic services, such as public service obligations, and for slots to be exchanged between carriers or transferred between different routes or types of service.
Finally, the regulation contains provision for reciprocal action, to ensure that Community carriers requesting slots in non-EU countries are treated fairly.
Once again, the draft instrument we are considering makes only minor changes to ensure that the retained EU regulation, Regulation 95/93, continues to function correctly once the UK has left the EU, alongside the domestic Airports Slot Allocation Regulations 2006 which were made to implement the EU regulation. Most of the changes the instrument makes are to ensure that the scope of the retained regulation is correct; for instance, reflecting that the retained regulation will only apply to airports in the United Kingdom after exit day, removing references to “Community law” and EU treaties, and removing or amending references to member states, as these will no longer include the UK after exit day.
Through the 2006 implementing regulations, the UK has fulfilled the requirements for member states to appoint a body or person to carry out functions such as designating an airport as schedules facilitated or co-ordinated, and appointing a schedules facilitator. The UK conferred these functions on the Secretary of State through the 2006 regulations. This instrument corrects the provisions in the EU regulation so they read consistently with the 2006 implementing regulations, reflecting that the UK has already fulfilled its obligation to confer these functions on an appropriate authority. Other roles for EU institutions, such as the European Commission’s role of carrying out investigations, are removed or replaced.
The instrument also makes corrections to some of the definitions contained in the EU regulation; for instance, substituting the definition of a “Community air carrier” with a definition of a “UK air carrier”. For the purposes of allocating slots from the slot pool, the EU regulation defined “new entrant” as including air carriers with few, if any, slots which requested slots for scheduled services between two Community airports where at most two other carriers operate that route. This instrument amends that part of the definition to provide for continuity, so that it captures both air carriers requesting slots for passenger services between two UK airports and carriers requesting slots for services between a UK airport and an airport in an EEA state.
The regulations provide that a proportion of slots can be reserved for PSOs. This SI amends the definition of a PSO in line with the corrections already made to provisions in EU law on PSOs, through the Operation of Air Services (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018. This means that, instead of being open to Community air carriers, “qualifying air carriers” will be eligible to operate PSOs in the UK. This will include UK air carriers and carriers from other countries that have cabotage rights in the UK—the right to fly between two points within the UK. As is currently the case, any PSO can be limited to one carrier by the Secretary of State only after a tender process has been followed. This change has no effect on the PSO routes already operating in the UK.
In terms of reciprocity, this instrument amends the provisions in the EU regulation so that, instead of the Commission being able to take action to ensure that Community carriers requesting slots in non-EU countries are treated fairly, the provisions give powers to ensure that UK carriers requesting slots in another country are treated fairly in the allocation of slots at that country’s airports. This instrument therefore sets out that it is the Secretary of State, rather than the European Commission, who may wholly or partially suspend the operation of the retained Regulation 95/93 in relation to air carriers from a non-UK country, with a view to remedying discriminatory behaviour of that country. The EU regulation currently provides for this action to be taken through a regulation and this instrument transfers that function to the Secretary of State, who could carry this out through regulations.
Finally, this instrument makes some minor changes to the 2006 implementing regulations, for instance removing the requirement for co-ordination committees at airports to invite the European Commission to meetings. It also makes a change to Annexe XIII to the EEA agreement, which requires parties to the agreement to inform the European Commission about serious difficulties encountered by UK air carriers in obtaining airport slots in third countries. This provision will not apply to the UK after exit day in the event of no deal, as we will no longer be a party to the EEA agreement, so it will be removed by this instrument as it will be redundant.
As I said during the debate on the previous SI, the best outcome for the UK is to leave the EU with a deal, and delivering a deal negotiated with the EU remains the Government’s top priority. However, as a responsible Government, we must make all reasonable plans to prepare for a no-deal scenario. These instruments ensure that, in the event of a no-deal exit from the EU, the legislative framework for aviation, in particular relating to the allocation of slots at congested airports in the UK, continues to work effectively, and that the aviation industry has clarity about the regulatory framework in which it would operate in a no-deal scenario. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, this is designed to be helpful, so I hope that my noble friend will not put me in the “troublemaker” category. I will start with a couple of questions on the airport slots allocation. What will happen to the current grandfather rights, in particular those that might be enjoyed by EU carriers? Will they continue to be enjoyed after exit day? If that is the case, and this regulation comes into effect, what will happen to the grandfather rights currently enjoyed by UK carriers in EU airports?
On the civil aviation competition regulations, paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum states—my noble friend clearly said it in her opening remarks too—that it is not expected that this regulation will come into force. That begs a question. I cannot believe that there have been no unfair pricing practices and no cases of subsidy; if there have, what legislation has been used? There are some very worrying issues about this regulation and the European Commission regulation on connectivity which is going through the EU institutions at the moment.
My noble friend raised the question of cabotage rights in the UK currently enjoyed by EU carriers. Of much greater concern is that the market access proposals in the EU regulation currently before the EU institutions set alarm bells ringing, for me and I am sure for many of the UK carriers, when they were set out in December. It is my clear understanding that cabotage rights and fifth freedom rights will be lost.
I declare my interest; I was one of those in the European Parliament at the time who campaigned for years to get cabotage and fifth freedom rights. When I met my husband, who was at the time working for Delta Airlines, my opening line was, “Why will the US Government not allow cabotage and fourth and fifth freedom rights for European carriers in the US?”, which I think is currently not the case. If UK and EU carriers are going to retain only third and fourth freedom rights, how can that be in the interests of the UK airline sector?
I am sure that my noble friend is more aware than anyone of the importance of the UK airline sector. It turns around £52 billion a year, exports £26 billion, supports almost a million jobs and clearly supports the economy, whether it is Leeds Bradford Airport or any of the London airports. All international airports support their local economies as well. Therefore I would be grateful if my noble friend could say what the impact will be on UK airlines of the loss of cabotage and the loss of fifth freedom rights in the EU, whether or not there is a deal, because I understand that will be the position anyway, whether it is this regulation or another regulation going forward.
I understand that there will also be an impact on capacity. Obviously airlines such as Ryanair are currently going through difficulties. I am not a shareholder in any airlines. I almost lost my shirt on British Airways, so I am currently not investing in any airlines, but it is fair to say that Ryanair has the potential to expand, as do easyJet and a number of other UK carriers. Did the Government therefore have any input into the decision that has been taken—namely, that UK carriers will be allowed to operate in the EU only at the level that is frozen to 2018 levels? Presumably what is before us would be a temporary regulation, so that if there is a deal then these regulations would not come into play. However, I am extremely concerned that in future we will be locked into the 2018 frequency levels, affecting UK travellers who desire to travel within the European Union and UK airlines that desire to expand. Is there anything the Government or this House can do to reverse that?
At the end of March, the summer season schedules will be published. What are those timetables for flights going to look like? Will they be as full as they were last summer? Will they be provisional and will they have to be revisited?
There is some toing and froing according to press reports as well, and the Government face a deadline imposed by the European Commission of seven months to decide on the make-up and composition of an EU airline. As touched on in an earlier debate, this has severe implications for this regulation—no doubt it will for other regulations as well. It has ramifications for Ryanair, which we imagine is based in Dublin but which has a large number of non-EU shareholders, but of more concern is the UK flag carrier, British Airways, which is now under the umbrella of the IAG. Are we going to face the fact that British Airways under the IAG might not be recognised as an EU carrier?
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I also have some questions. One of them arises from the comment made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, which suggested that some of this is theoretical or even fanciful rather than real, since replacing “EU” with “UK” sounds like a very simple thing. But it is fundamental to the fact that over the years we have developed a UK aviation industry and an EU aviation industry with open skies and much more flexibility in the choice of airlines operating, which could all be about to come to an abrupt halt.
I have questions in relation to domestic issues as well as international ones if we pass this instrument. For example, on the issue of allocation of slots, clearly at the moment the EU can have some exercise, even on slots operating within the UK and between UK domestic airports. As someone who has flown regularly for over 30 years, using many of the UK’s airports internally and externally, and who has represented an airport, I have been very exercised by slots which come and go, which are offered and then not used and where actual sanctions against the airlines to maintain a service seem to be ineffective.
Let me slightly bore the House with two of my own experiences from the last two weeks. For the first time in the 30-odd years that I have been commuting from Aberdeen to London, I was unable to get a flight that would get me here on time for the sitting of the House, either this week or next week. This was because British Airways decided not to use its full slots, claiming there is not the demand, despite the fact that every flight is overbooked. Indeed, it is telling us two weeks ahead that there are flights which are no longer available, even for wait-listing, because they are overbooked two weeks in advance, yet it has reduced the slots with no sanctions. Does this regulation have any effect on whether or not that could be done? The Minister will tell me it is a matter for the Civil Aviation Authority. It may well be, but I hope the Government will recognise that it is a matter of public interest if people cannot get the flights they would reasonably expect.
On the issue of what will happen to UK airlines seeking to maintain flights to the EU after 29 March, we know that easyJet has already resolved that situation for itself by relocating its headquarters to Vienna. There is a serious possibility that British Airways may have to relocate its headquarters to Barcelona or Madrid, since the EU appears to be saying that it does not recognise the IAG as an EU company because its headquarters are within the UK. I see the Minister shaking her head. I would be interested to know whether she has any updated information as to whether BA can resolve this issue without having to relocate its headquarters out of the UK. It would be somewhat ironic if our flag carrier was headquartered in Madrid or Barcelona.
The other issue relates to when airlines merge. For example, at present we have limited competition between Aberdeen and London, operated by Flybe. Flybe has sold itself for £1 or £1 million—I cannot remember which, but it was a very small amount—although this is being disputed. The question we are left with is what guarantees there would be for those slots if Virgin and its partners took over Flybe. Would it come under UK law? Would there be any EU intervention—or would there have been—and how would it be enforced? So, although the Minister said that the competition regulation has never been applied within the EU, if the UK becomes a third country, could it not then be used by the EU as a discriminatory weapon against us if we are seeking reciprocal rights?
For example, the UK Government may well say that on 29 or 30 March all airlines will be free to continue operating into the UK on exactly the same terms as they do currently. We can do that, but is there any obligation on the EU to reciprocate? If there is not, does this mean that we will be offering free access to all our airports for continental airlines but UK-registered airlines will potentially be denied all access to theirs? Facing this kind of uncertainty is pretty catastrophic 45 days out from Brexit. So of course people are wondering whether they should book flights. I have rashly booked flights to the continent in May and August, mainly because if you do not book them in time they are not available—but they are subject to uncertainties that may or not be resolved.
The Minister needs to answer some basic questions. To what extent will we be in the same situation as we are now? To what extent will the ability to change the rules and regulations unilaterally be open to the UK? If we do it, what will be the implication for our relationship with the EU? Or are we simply saying that we are transferring the law by replacing “the EU” with “the UK” but have absolutely no comment to make on how the EU is going to operate, what sanctions or otherwise it may impose or what redress we may have. I may have read it wrongly, but this reads to me as an entirely unilateral operation by us, with no guarantees that the EU will reciprocate any of it.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, the Chamber is much emptier now than it was for the earlier SI. I am intrigued that we are replacing the air services competition regulations, which apparently have never been used, with an SI which we hope will never come into force. This is almost comedy stuff. The Explanatory Memorandum states that,
“this instrument makes the corrections needed for it to function as domestic UK law after Exit day”.
What is the position regarding the replacement? If negotiations on it are going on at the moment, presumably the Department for Transport is involved in them. I would be interested to hear where they have got to. Are they on the point of producing the replacement or is it some way down the line? If it is on the point of being replaced, do the Government envisage bringing forward another SI to reflect the new regulation? Or will this be the first instance when we are seriously at variance with Europe: in other words, when it adopts a new regulation but we are still working on an old one? This picks up the point I made earlier this afternoon when I asked about divergence between Community and UK law. It needs to be addressed.
One always learns things in these debates. I was fascinated to learn that my noble friend—and good friend—Lady McIntosh began her romantic life by talking about cabotage. I found something else to talk about when I first met my wife, but we do not need to go into that. Looking at the slot allocation regulations, the question that keeps coming to me is: why should any airline stay based in the United Kingdom at all? What advantages are we going to offer them? I can see the advantage in being in a union of 27 countries where there is a common base and common legislation, but what will be the advantage of being a UK airline? I can see none at all. Britain cannot do without airlines. We are not going to stop them flying here, but at the same time we have nothing to offer them that will be better, in any way, than what they will be getting from the EU. The Commission will no longer have a role in relation to airports.
According to the explanatory statement, article 9 says:
“Instead of any invitation to tender to operate a”,
public service obligation,
“route being open to Community air carriers only, this will be open to all air carriers with traffic rights to operate services within the UK”.
Is not the logical corollary that our rights to bid for public service obligation slots in the rest of Europe will be withdrawn? If we are going to open up and say that non-EU airlines can bid for these slots, surely the natural reaction would be to say that we are changing the whole basis of things. So this is not bringing EU law into UK law; it is bringing it in with one quite fundamental change, by opening it up to all air carriers with traffic rights to operate services within the UK. What is the thinking behind this? Why have we inserted this into a regulation that is supposed to bring EU law into line with our law, while making a big divergence by letting non EU-registered airlines bid for these slots? I would welcome the Minister’s observations on why this has been done.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the services SI is about unfair practices. It allows penalties to be imposed on air carriers guilty of unfair practices against the UK industry. Since these powers have apparently never been used at an EU level, it is probably right, just for once, to say that this is purely technical—although the Minister forbore to say so. However, the concept of an EU-wide approach, which is what we are abandoning here by replacing “EU” with “UK”, would be much more likely to be an effective deterrent against such practices than the UK operating on its own. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, has just wondered out loud why an airline would base itself in the UK in future. This is another example of how we are opening ourselves up to being in a much more vulnerable position through our future isolation.
In her introduction, the Minister said that these EU regulations were being replaced. Will she clarify whether the Government intend, in due course, to replace this SI with an updated version when the EU has updated its regulation—or are we going to be stuck in a time warp with outdated legislation?
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly on these two instruments—there is no way we will oppose them. The first one is on competition. One’s enthusiasm for scrutinising in depth was somewhat killed by the first sentence in paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which says:
“The powers in the EU regulation have never been exercised and it is unlikely that they ever will be”.
At that point, I gave up detailed examination. This boils down—if there ever is a dispute in this area—to us having moved from a big gang called the EU to a little gang called ourselves. That is why I am not keen on crashing out of the EU without an agreement, because being part of the EU is, broadly speaking, a good thing when it comes to aviation.
I have some experience of the slots issue. The trouble is that it is 30 years old, so things may have changed, but I doubt it. In a sense, the general public do not realise what an airline is. An airline is, first and foremost and overwhelmingly, a timetable—you attach airplanes, crews and marketing to it, but you start with the timetable. In fact, I chaired one of BA’s internal committees which oversaw the process of developing the timetable, and the slots are a key part of it. They work, frankly, because there is an international consensus between airlines, airports and regulating authorities that the various slot allocation committees at various airlines will be co-ordinated on a worldwide basis to make the system work. This system has been fiddled with, but it has been pretty robust for 50 years. I take comfort from the Explanatory Memorandum, which says, as it should:
“The system relating to slot allocation at UK airports will remain unchanged”,
by this SI. Providing the Minister reaffirms that, it will have my support.
We have heard some comments. These would require policy changes to meet the challenges that the comments are directed at. I remind noble Lords that the one thing you cannot do under Section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is introduce any policy changes. In so far as that is the instruction to government in generating these SIs, I have to support the fact that, as far as I can tell, they have followed that instruction.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their consideration of these draft instruments. On the slot allocation system, we are not moving to operate on our own. The current system of slot allocation, including the EU regulations, is based on guidelines produced at an international level by IATA. Those guidelines are not affected by EU exit. The system for slot allocation at UK airports will be the same after exit day as it is today, except that the role of the EU Commission will no longer apply.
The noble Lord is quite right to point out that slot reform in general has been around for some time, but there is an international consensus around this and we are considering it in our consultation strategy, Aviation 2050: The Future of UK Aviation. We set out a number of potential issues with the current process for slot allocation affecting competition in the aviation markets, such as historic grandfather rights and retiming, but there is a long-standing international system, so we will work very closely with the industry, IATA and countries with which the UK has aviation links to discuss that.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked whether current grandfather rights will be the same. Again, those will remain the same after exit day. As the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, pointed out, this does not change any policy on this and those rights that UK carriers have at EU/EEA airports will also not be affected.
On the point about the replacement of the competition regulation, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and my noble friend Lord Balfe, the UK has participated fully in the legislative process regarding the replacement regulation; it is now ready to be put to the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, and it is intended to serve the same purpose as the current regulation—ensuring fair competition. But the powers, as I said, and as highlighted by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, have never been exercised and it is unlikely that they ever will be. The EU has reviewed the regulation, but the vast majority of our bilateral air services agreements have articles governing fair competition, and these are what we use to ensure that there is a level playing field in the operation of international air services. That is why it has not been used and we do not expect it to be used.
My noble friend Lord Balfe asked, as he did previously, about our future plans. We keep our legislation under ongoing review and will continue to do so after exit day to make sure that it meets our policy objectives and legal obligations. While we would not be under an obligation if we left without a deal, if we chose to implement the replacement regulation it would be through primary legislation. Again, my noble friend is right to point out that, of course, in the event of a no-deal exit the EU’s statute book will continue to move on and we will need to be flexible about ours.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about timetables. Airlines have already published their timetables for flights post March 2019 and tickets are being sold. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked about Aberdeen and the allocation of slots. As I mentioned before, slots are allocated through ACL and the EU: the Government have no role in the allocation of slots and airlines determine how they are allocated on a commercial basis. Of course, if a carrier does not use its slots 80% of the time, they will be returned to the slot pool for allocation. We have the option of PSOs if needed, but the decision about specific slots will be down to the commercial airline.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about the EU regulations. She is right to point out that they were published in December. There has been many a conversation on those, through industry and through member states. We are seeing some proposed changes, particularly on a capacity freeze, as my noble friend pointed out. I agree with her that the aviation sector is incredibly important to this country, which is why we are working hard to ensure that the industry can continue to grow sustainably. She is right that there are issues around ownership and control. We have not seen the headquarters of easyJet move but we have seen easyJet take on a Swiss air operator certificate. There is no immediate issue, as my noble friend pointed out, but, as one might expect, EU carriers are working closely with the Commission on that.
We are seeking continued participation in the European Aviation Safety Agency. That will help us continue trade as well as flights. We have played a significant role in EASA over the years and we very much hope to continue to do so. PSOs will be open to qualifying carriers—those with cabotage rights in the UK—and that has already been fixed in the operation of air services SI. Those carriers with cabotage rights could include those from the EU and other countries, so there will be the same requirements for PSOs going forward.
I hope that I have answered most of the questions. If I have not, I will follow up in writing.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
On the question of the damage to UK carriers arising from the loss of cabotage rights and freedom rights, do we have any estimate of what that will be?
Baroness Sugg
We are working very closely with the Commission on that. Obviously, there are implications both ways. We remain committed to working with the Commission on the regulation to avoid that. Of course, there are UK airlines which fly cabotage in the EU, in the same way that there are EU airlines flying cabotage in the UK. That is another example of how it is in our mutual best interests to ensure that we continue the market access we have today. Those discussions are ongoing and as soon as I have an update on them I will be happy to share it with noble Lords.
While we are working to agree a deal with the EU that is supported by Parliament, we need to continue our responsible preparation. Both the UK and EU have set out their intention to put in place arrangements to ensure that planes will continue to fly; none the less, these instruments are essential to ensure that we have a legal framework, particularly in respect of the allocation of airport slots, that continues to work effectively in the UK from exit day. That will help ensure the continued smooth operation of air services, irrespective of the outcome of the negotiations. I beg to move.
Airports Slot Allocation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10 December 2018 be approved.
Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seatbelts) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 29 November 2018 be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, these draft regulations are made under the powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and will be needed if the UK leaves the European Union without a deal. They amend domestic seat belt-wearing legislation to ensure that it continues to work following withdrawal in the event of no deal. They make technical changes and do not alter policy. In Northern Ireland, seat belt-wearing legislation is a transferred matter. Of course, the Government remain committed to restoring devolution in Northern Ireland, but with exit day six weeks away, and in the continued absence of a Northern Ireland Executive, in the interest of legal certainty the Government will take through the necessary secondary legislation at Westminster for Northern Ireland. This has of course been done in close consultation with the Northern Ireland Civil Service.
Compulsory seat belt wearing has been in place for 36 years. Subsequent obligations have been placed on front and rear seat passengers domestically. The purpose of this statutory instrument is to correct technical deficiencies that would arise domestically if we were to exit without a deal. This will enable us to maintain a functioning statute book and retain the clarity that might otherwise be lost. The instrument maintains the status quo in terms of seat belt and child restraint use obligations and the recognition of medical exemption certificates. It does not diverge from the robust legal framework we already have in place. The current EU Directive 91/671/EEC sets out the requirements for compulsory seat belt wearing. There are exceptions and caveats but the basic position, stemming from the directive and incorporated in domestic law, is that for cars, vans and lorries, seat belts must be worn where fitted. Children must also use a suitable child restraint system, and children under three cannot be transported if there is no safety system in the vehicle.
Drivers and passengers who have a medical condition making it inadvisable for them to wear a seat belt can be issued with an exemption certificate. The Road Traffic Act 1988, The Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1993, and The Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts by Children in Front Seats) Regulations 1993 require drivers and passengers to wear adult belts, including those approved in “another member State”, and recognise child restraints approved in “another member State”. They also recognise medical certificates exempting a person from the requirement to wear a belt issued in “another member State”. The Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1993, and the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts by Children in Front Seats) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1993 have the same effect in Northern Ireland. This draft instrument makes the necessary changes so that the regulatory regime in place after exit continues to operate as it does now.
The regulations remove existing powers and duties in the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which exist to make subordinate legislation for implementing an EU directive. The powers and duties that are being removed relate to the implementation of the EU seat belt directive. Once the UK has exited the EU, it would no longer be appropriate to retain the powers and duties to implement the obligations imposed by a European directive. We will retain existing domestic powers in the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 to enable Government to maintain, and amend where necessary, the existing legal framework governing seat belt wearing. This SI replaces the duty to provide an exemption from wearing a seat belt for any person holding a certificate issued in an EU member state with a power to do so.
The regulations replace the term “another member State” with “a member State” where it occurs in domestic legislation. This is necessary to ensure the law remains clear and continues to have its current effect. Without these changes, the relevant provisions might be rendered ineffective. Changing this terminology will ensure that medical certificates issued to drivers and passengers in EU member states who cannot wear seat belts because of a medical condition continue to be recognised in the UK.
The change in terminology will also ensure that passengers are obliged to wear an adult seat belt even when the only belt available was approved by an EU member state and is not otherwise compliant with use in the UK. That is important because there is an exemption from the requirement to wear a seat belt if a compliant seat belt is not available. If such seat belts ceased to be compliant by virtue of our not making this technical change, then their non-use would no longer constitute an offence. We want to be clear that, in simple terms, if a seat belt is available then it must be worn. After exit day, any lack of clarity over what constitutes a compliant seat belt could lead to confusion, which would clearly be neither a safe nor a sensible policy.
It is similar with child restraint systems. The final effect of the change in terminology is to ensure that driving in the UK with a child restraint system that would meet the requirements of the law of an EU member state, but that would not otherwise meet the requirements of domestic legislation on seat-belt wearing, does not become an offence. That is to try to avoid confusion for any family travelling to the UK over whether that child restraint is legal.
We have in place a robust legal framework in respect of seat-belt wearing which aims to improve road safety. In the interests of safety, we want that framework to continue after exit day. The Government want to ensure that domestic seat-belt legislation continues to work in a way that retains good travel, tourism and business access from EU member states following the UK’s exit. For this to happen, we need to ensure that the legislative basis is sound and that the statute book functions properly. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I will begin by pointing out that Paragraph 7.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum says:
“With exit day less than one year away”.
I keep repeating this because I want to know where these SIs have been all this time. Someone clearly did the work on them a long time ago, and we are now rushing them through this House. Why have they been left to this late stage?
That is my complaint over with. Turning to the issues in this SI, as the Minister has said, it is a simple transposition. But it is an important topic, because hundreds of thousands—probably millions—of British people travel abroad to Europe every year. A very large number of them take their car, and could therefore start off with perfectly legal seat belts only to find themselves in an illegal situation by the end.
This SI basically says “If it is legal in the EU, it will be legal in the UK. If you are exempt in the EU, you will be exempt in the UK”. What about UK drivers going to the EU in the situation I have just explained? Has the EU indicated what it intends to do in the event of a no-deal Brexit? On some transport issues, it has given a fairly clear—if not always desirable—indication. Has it made any comments on this at all?
Those who are in favour of Brexit, including the Secretary of State, want the freedom to develop our own standards. If we do, will we be guaranteed that, when we go to Europe with, say, our child’s bumper seat—which people often take with them on holiday—it will be legal when we get there?
There has been a lot of coverage lately of the end of the EU medical insurance system as it applies to UK residents. Is there a set format for the medical certificates referred to in this SI? Is there a particular form or list of medical professionals who can sign these certificates? My point is, how easy will it be in future for UK citizens to get a certificate of medical exemption that will be instantly recognised as authentic and acceptable, even by someone who perhaps does not speak English? To reverse that, if there is an EU format, then we will clearly be used to it, and the authorities in Britain coming across someone with a medical exemption would know about it. I am trying to tease out the way in which British people will be treated in future when they drive in the EU.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, leaving the EU without an agreement is a thoroughly stupid thing to do, but if it happens, this SI is thoroughly sensible and we will not oppose it. My understanding, which I think is the same as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is that it is not symmetric: that it does nothing for UK drivers in the EU but sensibly addresses the issue of drivers who would unknowingly be breaking the law were this SI not completed. It produces a sensible environment in which friends—as I would call them—from the European Union can drive in the UK.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their consideration of these draft regulations. As the noble Baroness pointed out, these regulations are important—seat belts save lives. In 2017, 27% of car fatalities involved people not wearing a seat belt, and we need to ensure that as many people as possible wear them. That is what these regulations are designed to do.
I take the noble Baroness’s point on the Explanatory Memorandum. The drafting of some of these has been a lengthy process—with consultation, legal checks et cetera—but I take her point, and we will endeavour to do better for future as we get closer in.
Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord mentioned reciprocity. This SI only makes provision for continuity of current practices in so far as visitors from the EU to the UK, and drivers in the UK, are concerned. It does not address what will happen in the EU; that will be decided by the European Union.
There will be no legal obligation on member states to recognise medical certificates issued in the UK. In the event of no deal, we will recognise medical certificates. We think that is far and away the easiest way to do it. But no reciprocal agreement has been confirmed by the EU, so we advise anyone holding such a certificate to check the position with any country to which they intend to travel. There is a current format which we provide to GPs—it is essentially a GP certificate. They are responsible for issuing them, and we will ensure that that format is consistent when we leave the EU. We cannot guarantee that they will be recognised, but we would like very much to think that they would be in the same way that we will recognise theirs, although the EU has not yet confirmed that.
There is no change on seat belts. The EU directive requires drivers and passengers to wear them, if they are fitted, so the position there will stay the same. At the moment, the standards for child restraints are set at UNECE—the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe—which, despite having the word Europe in its name, as we discussed in the Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill, is an international body. It will continue to set those standards, and we will continue to follow them. Child restraints which meet the UNECE international requirements will be recognised by the EU; the vast majority of UK child restraints meet those requirements.
I think I have covered most questions. Again, if I have missed one, I will follow up in writing.
In conclusion, this SI will ensure that the domestic seat-belt wearing legislation continues to work as at present. The point of the SI is to maintain the status quo, both in terms of seat-belt and child restraint use obligations and in the recognition of medical exemption certificates from EU member states. The Government’s objective is to maintain the status quo to avoid difficulties that would be encountered by drivers and, indeed, enforcers if existing legislation remained untouched. I hope noble Lords will agree that this is sensible in respect of laws relating to the wearing of seat belts.
Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Order 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
That the draft Order laid before the House on 19 December 2018 be approved.
Relevant documents: 14th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, this draft order will be made under the powers conferred by the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Act 1952 and is needed in all EU exit scenarios—thus differing from many of the SIs we have discussed—as the UK has ratified the 1968 Vienna Convention on Road Traffic. The order amends the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Order 1975, which sets out the powers of the Government to issue international driving permits—IDPs—to ensure that UK motorists can exercise their international legal right to drive overseas.
As I have said before, the best outcome for the UK is to leave the EU with a deal, and delivering a deal is the Government’s top priority. In the event of no deal, the Department for Transport is working to achieve an agreement on mutual recognition of driving licences with EU member states. If we do not have a deal that will be by far the preferred scenario but, as a responsible Government, we must make all reasonable plans to prepare for a no-deal scenario and prepare in case we do not achieve mutual recognition.
While UK nationals will not be required to purchase an IDP if we achieve those agreements, this amendment is still necessary as the Vienna conventions come into force on 28 March 2019, irrespective of whether a deal is reached. Therefore, the 1968-format IDP is still required to guarantee licences when driving in over 75 countries outside the EU.
The EU is a popular destination for UK licence holders. Millions of UK motorists drive to Europe every year using ferries or Eurotunnel, whether for business or leisure, and many UK holidaymakers want the option to hire cars while abroad. Although we are still in the process of negotiating with the EU, we are committed to minimising disruption to UK motorists following exit and the department has taken the appropriate measures to achieve this goal.
The 1968 Vienna convention facilitates international road traffic and increases road safety through consistent traffic rules. In preparation for exit day, the UK ratified the 1968 Vienna convention on 28 March 2018. This international agreement will come into force on 28 March 2019 regardless. Following exit day, this convention will guarantee the recognition of UK vehicles and driving licences in 23 EU member states, plus Norway and Switzerland, and over 70 other countries globally. The earlier 1926 and 1949 conventions also remain in place, guaranteeing UK licences in four EU member states—different member states have helpfully ratified different conventions—plus Iceland and over 40 countries globally, including Japan and the USA, if the motorist presents the supporting IDP with their driving licence.
The draft instrument we are considering is necessary so that the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Order 1975 continues to function correctly after exit day. This is needed to provide certainty for UK motorists driving in the EU following exit day in case of a no-deal scenario if mutual recognition of licences is not agreed.
This SI will amend provisions of the Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Order 1975 to implement provisions of the 1968 convention. These amendments will extend the 1975 order to the 1968-format IDP, and the power to charge a fee for the issuing of IDPs will extend to IDPs issued under the 1968 convention, in addition to those issued under the earlier 1926 and 1949 conventions. The 1968-format IDP will cost £5.50 and will be valid for three years. This amendment therefore ensures that UK motorists can exercise their international legal rights to drive in the countries party to the 1968 convention. If passed, this statutory instrument will become the main legislation on IDP issuing.
The existing SI on IDP issuing is the International Driving Permit (Fees) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. This temporary measure has been in place since 1 February 2019—it came as a negative SI—and was required to allow charging for the issuing of IDPs under the 1968 convention from 1 February. We brought that in so that people were able to apply before exit day for these IDPs, should they be needed. Once the international circulation amendment comes into force, a separate negative SI will be required to revoke the 2019 IDP fees regulations.
These amendments also provide for the recognition of a 1968 IDP issued to non-UK residents who are temporarily visiting the UK by another country which is party to the convention. While the UK has announced that we will continue to recognise both EU and non-EU driving licences for non-residents driving for up to 12 months in the UK, IDPs may help provide legitimacy if the licence is not printed in the Roman alphabet or is in a different language.
It is also important to stress that even though Ireland is a party to the 1949 convention, UK driving licence holders should not need an IDP to drive in Ireland from 28 March 2019. Ireland, like us, does not currently require IDPs from holders of driving licences from non-EU countries. This means that IDPs will not be required when driving between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
While we are still seeking agreements with member states on licence recognition and exchange, this SI will ensure that we can issue IDPs to provide certainty for UK motorists if they want to travel in the EU following exit day. IDPs have been issued for many years under previous international conventions, so while the concept may not be new, this SI will expand the number of countries that an IDP can be used in and will enable us to issue and charge for this document. The 1968-format IDP actually has a longer validity period and therefore reduces the frequency of reissuing. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend comment on a few points? First, the European Union general safety regulations are expected shortly, before the end of March. Can she reassure noble Lords that post Brexit these standards will be observed and matched by the United Kingdom? Secondly, regarding reciprocal arrangements affecting uninsured drivers after EU withdrawal—and not least if there should be no deal—what protection would there be for a driver insured in the United Kingdom who has a collision in France with an uninsured vehicle, for example? Thirdly, post Brexit the desired aim is to make it as simple as possible to get hold of and use an international driving licence. In response to questions in another place the Government have already undertaken to reduce unnecessary complications, in particular by seeing whether there can be an international driving permit app for mobile phones, thereby avoiding the inconvenience of paper copies. What progress has been made on this?
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, it is important to start by mentioning that a special report by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee drew attention to deficiencies in the Explanatory Memorandum and to the fact that this is an important policy issue. There are many controversial aspects to it, so I am very disappointed that there was no proper consultation. This could seriously inconvenience members of the public. In fact, if they are not familiar with what is now required of them, or could well be required of them in the event of a no-deal Brexit, they could end up with a conviction abroad that could have serious consequences—even for their careers.
As the Minister has explained, there are two sorts of IDP: one based on the 1968 Vienna convention, which the UK Government have only recently ratified and which will come into force on 28 March; and one relating to the 1949 convention. I draw attention to paragraphs 7.2 and 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum. If you read them without full attention—even five times—they are extremely complex and confusing. If that is the sum of the Government’s efforts at explaining the arrangements, the average casual observer is unlikely to understand what is going on.
As a result of reading the Explanatory Memorandum several times, I believe that there are two types of international driving permit. Twenty-three EU states plus Norway and Switzerland abide by the 1968 convention IDP, and Cyprus, Ireland, Malta and Spain abide by the 1949 convention IDP. Of course, you could easily need both to go on holiday. If you want to go on holiday to Spain and plan to drive down through France, you will need both.
Until now, international driving permits have been provided by the AA and the RAC. For no clear reason the Government have decided to abandon that arrangement and to use post offices instead. I am very keen on using the Post Office but I wonder whether now is the time to abandon a well-worn system and to start all over again with a new one. I would feel better about using just post offices if we were going to use all post offices—but the Government will be using only 2,500 of them, and I was not terribly reassured by the point made by the Explanatory Memorandum that most people will be within 10 miles of an issuing post office. Ten miles is an awfully long way to go to get a document.
According to the report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, under the new arrangements Northern Ireland will have only two post offices issuing permits. I would like the Minister to clarify that the Government have had second thoughts about that and that it is no longer the case. My concern is that there is no online system and that the Government have abandoned the previous mail order system operated by the AA and the RAC. Saying that you can get a permit only by going into a post office and queueing up is a really 19th-century approach.
Another point that really concerns me is that there are no arrangements for issuing IDPs abroad. I declare an interest: my son lives and works abroad with his family. What about people like him who are already there? Will he have to come home to collect an IDP from the Post Office in order to continue to be able to drive legally in Europe in the event of a no-deal Brexit?
The Minister clarified one of my other questions, which was the legal basis for the Government taking over the issuing of IDPs on 1 February through a negative instrument.
My other concern is about the lack of publicity. There is something on the government website, but that is for those who spend their leisure time looking through GOV.UK for fun. Publicity is needed that tells people to go to that website to find out which sort of IDP they need. It is no good relying on just putting something on the website. That is where you get clarity once you know that there is a problem. Therefore, what are the Government’s plans for publicity to build up public understanding, knowledge and awareness of this issue? It is not simple; it is complex. It appears that one form of IDP lasts for three years—unless your driving licence does not last that long, in which case it might last for less time—and the other lasts for only a year. Supposing that you go regularly to Spain on holiday, you might be able to plan ahead for three years with one of your IDPs but you will need to apply every year for the other one. This is not a simple situation.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
Well, once again we have in front of us an SI that brilliantly illustrates why we should not leave the EU without a deal. I gather that it rests on two treaties. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for the depth of her research on this issue. Mine was a little more superficial. I quite like the 1968 treaty, which we agreed to ratify 50 years later. I know that it is 50 years because I got married in 1968, and I can tell noble Lords that 50 years is a long time.
The SI creates a messy situation around IDP availability. This will be necessary for UK motorists, so, despite all the caveats, it is sensible that it is being brought forward. It recognises overseas motorists’ IDPs, which, again, is a good thing, and the arrangement is reciprocal.
Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)
I have come to show a proper interest in European matters.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Good. I share the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about the resources that have been devoted to this. I shall be very happy to be told that I have misinterpreted this, but it seems to me that the day after this treaty becomes active—that is, 29 March 2019—we will have a cliff-edge situation. If we crash out without a deal, motorists will arrive in overseas countries illegally. The estimate of 7 million might be too high but, as I read the situation, technically an awful lot of people will need an IDP on the very first day. Can the Minister try to convince us that the processes necessary to meet such a sudden demand, and the plans for publicity so that the motoring public know, can be put in place so that we do not see many British motorists arriving overseas and finding themselves prosecuted?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I thank noble Lords again for their consideration of the draft regulations—the last of ours today. In the event of no deal, we remain confident that we will achieve mutual recognition and exchange agreements for driving licences with the EU and member states. As I said, we recognise EU and non-EU driving licences and very much hope that EU member states will also do so, which will remove the complexity of the system. But, obviously, until we have that agreement we must be prepared for all scenarios, so it is important to ensure that we can issue IDPs under the 1968 Vienna convention to provide that certainty for UK motorists driving in the EU.
I will respond to some of the questions raised. My noble friend asked about uninsured drivers. We intend that the UK should remain part of the green card-free circulation zone, and we are working towards that. We are seeking reciprocal arrangements to ensure that UK drivers who are hit by an uninsured driver, for example in France, can obtain compensation from the French national insurers’ bureau. On safety regulations, we have one of the best road safety records in the world; I am not familiar with the specific document which my noble friend referred to, but I assure him that we will work to continue and maintain that good safety record.
On the IDP format and the idea of an app—a new one on me, but I like the sound of it; you could perhaps called the IDP look “traditional”—the format is specified in the UN conventions, and at the moment an app or electronic document is not applicable. However, I agree with my noble friend that we should consider that in order to modernise and to enable permits to be applied for more easily.
On consultation, obviously this affects a huge number of people. We did a lot of consultation around the 1968 Vienna convention, which brought this in, we have held many discussions with motoring organisations such as the AA, the RAC and the RAC Foundation, and we have also had separate engagements with consumer associations, which are helping us to provide guidance to people.
On the communications point, I agree that the Government’s duty is to ensure that UK licence holders are provided with the correct and sufficient information to make sure that they are ready for the changes. As I say, we hope that they will not be needed. We have published guidance on GOV.UK, which covers everything, such as the type of IDP you will need in each member state—the noble Baroness was right to point out that you will need different IDPs if you are driving from France to Spain, which, just to add to the confusion, are valid for different amounts of time. The Post Office website also provides information on your nearest IDP-issuing branch, and which countries you will need which IDP for, and it will continue to update this guidance as we progress, I hope, with achieving bilateral agreements.
We have a public information campaign that ensures that UK nationals have all the information and advice they need to continue to plan and book their travel to Europe. It includes radio adverts, Spotify adverts and social media. As I say, we are in no way complacent that we will achieve this deal and IDPs will not be needed—that is why we are bringing forward these SIs. However, if we do not get a deal—I agree with the noble Lord that this is a very good example of why we need a deal—there is still the option of the mutual recognition of driving licences, which we are moving towards, especially as we are 45 days out. If we are closer to exit without this agreement and it looks less likely that we get it, I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness that we need to do all we can to ensure that we communicate that.
Baroness Randerson
Can the noble Baroness specifically address the issue of people living abroad—there are millions of Britons live abroad—and how they would obtain an IDP, and whether specific publicity will be aimed at them?
Baroness Sugg
The noble Baroness was right to point out that, sadly, we are not able to issue these abroad, in the same way that we are not able to issue driving licences abroad, which obviously gives expats in particular specific problems. We are working actively with the Foreign Office to communicate with UK nationals who live overseas, using the normal consular routes to provide information on that. We are encouraging UK licence holders already resident in EU or EEA countries to exchange their licences ahead of exit day, which will avoid the potential for them to have to retake tests. IDPs are designed for visitors, not people who are resident in another state, so we are providing clear advice to people who are resident in another state that they should exchange their licences ahead of exit day.
Baroness Randerson
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way again. The concept of “resident in another state” is in itself quite old-fashioned. People go to work for six months, three months, even a year. They will not want to change their driving licence to make life even easier for them in that period of time; they will want an IDP for a short time. Of course, they have not had to bother about all this up to now.
Baroness Sugg
I agree with the noble Baroness. This is why we recognise EU and non-EU driving licences for a period of up to 12 months, for people to drive if they are not resident, because of the changing nature of how people live and work. That is why we very much want to achieve mutual recognition. However, if that is not possible, we will be in a situation where people will have to apply for IDPs before 1 March.
On resourcing, which both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord brought up, as did the SLSC, we have expanded the turn-up-and-go service for issuing IDPs from 89 originally to 2,500 post offices, which means that 90% of the UK population live within 10 miles of an issuing branch. We have also optimised that branch network to ensure that there is a good level of availability at locations that are points of departure for UK motorists, such as ferry ports and airports. The noble Baroness is quite right to point out that there were not enough post offices in Northern Ireland that could issue IDPs; that has significantly increased from two to around 100. We have had confirmation that all the staff have been trained on how to issue all three different formats, and, while this will be demand led, should demand increase, we have the facility to expand the services to an additional 2,000 post offices, which will mean that 90% of the population will live within three miles of an issuing branch.
It is difficult to quantify how many of these we will need, given that we do not have clear data on individual journeys and what licences people who undertake those journeys have. So far, we have issued an average of 2,500 IDPs a day since 1 February—about one per relevant post office per day. The DVLA has printed 2 million IDPs across all three formats to prepare for the increase in demand. However, as I say, if we see an increase in demand, we have the possibility to expand it. On staffing levels, we do not believe that we will need further staff for the Post Office. It takes around five minutes to apply for an IDP and get it issued. I very much hoped to be able to be a mystery shopper and get down to a post office myself, but, sadly, I ran out of time before this debate. We remain confident that the Post Office will be able to deal adequately with this request. Back in the day when tax discs were issued over the counter, it delivered 30 million transactions across 4,000 branches for the DVLA, so we think it has the capacity.
The noble Baroness asked about the change to the issuing of IDPs, as they are now issued by the Post Office and not online. At the end of 2017, we looked at four different options: to continue and extend the existing arrangements, which you could do by post—that was with the AA and the RAC; to give responsibility to the DVLA to issue IDPs, via the Post Office or another supplier; the possibility of an online system but with the physical document provided by someone else; and we looked at a DVLA online direct supplying system. We decided to reject the option to continue and extend the existing arrangements, as it would not have been possible to continue that under the current government procurement rules. There was also considerable uncertainty about the volume which was needed, which continues, and we thought that would be difficult for potential suppliers to be able to quote accurately. We did consider the possibility of an online system, but ultimately that was rejected. We thought that there would be a significant risk of a wasted investment on that. Moreover, such a system would not have been available to the 5 million licence holders who are without a photo card licence—although, obviously, the vast majority have one.
I return to the point that we are hopeful of achieving mutual recognition on this if we do not get a deal, but I agree with the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that this is a complex system—a messy one, as the noble Lord called it. We do not want to be in a situation where IDPs are necessary, and that is why we are trying to achieve a deal with the European Union; I very much hope that we will reach agreement on a deal soon, but the issuing of IDPs is a sensible contingency approach in the event of a no-deal scenario. It is the only way to absolutely ensure and guarantee that our licences will still be recognised after exit in the event of no deal. It relies on the international arrangements that are outside the control of the EU, but we hope to agree a deal or mutual recognition, which is obviously in the control of the EU and we will continue to press ahead with that.
This SI is essential to ensuring that UK motorists will be able to drive in the EU following exit day. The option of purchasing an IDP provides drivers with that certainty for driving in the EU under all potential scenarios.
Motion agreed.
Environment (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 5 December 2018 be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, in line with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, these regulations make technical, legal amendments to maintain the effectiveness and continuity of UK legislation that would otherwise be left partially inoperable. The regulations will also, where appropriate, prevent the otherwise automatic incorporation of EU legislation into our national law. The SI presents no changes of policy.
The regulations consist of three main components. The first set of amendments, in Part 2, are to three environmental Acts: the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Environment Act 1995 and the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999. Because these regulations amend primary legislation, they have undergone additional legal scrutiny by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel.
Regulation 2 amends the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This Act contains references to the UK’s obligations under EU law, which will no longer work legally after exit, and we are replacing them with references to “retained EU law” and “retained EU obligations”.
Regulation 3 amends the Environment Act 1995 and makes similar amendments to those in Regulation 2. It also includes adjustments to powers in the Act to make directions and regulations for the purposes of implementing EU law, so that they can instead be made for the purposes of retained EU obligations following exit. There are also amendments to the power for appropriate agencies—for instance, the Environment Agency, the Natural Resources Body for Wales or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency—to impose charges in relation to retained EU law.
Regulation 4 amends the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 and makes similar amendments to those in Regulation 2. It also adjusts the power in the Act to make regulations under Section 2 of the Act for the purposes set out in Schedule 1 to the Act. That power can currently be used in relation to EU directives, which Ministers designate from time to time. Regulation 4(3) removes this power to designate but lists the directives which have already been designated, preserving our existing ability to change and improve the relevant environmental regulations. If we did not do so, the reduction in the scope of the power could mean that we would have to use primary legislation to make the necessary changes to maintain and update environmental standards.
Part 4 of these regulations addresses existing directions and regulations made using powers under the Environment Act 1995. We are providing for them to continue for what will be domestic purposes. This will ensure, for example, that the recent air quality directions to English local authorities, requiring them to prepare local air quality plans, remain in force.
Part 3 of these regulations makes amendments to three cross-cutting environmental statutory instruments: the Contaminated Land (England) Regulations 2006, the Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006 and the Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) (England) Regulations 2015. These instruments make similar references to EU law to those made in the Acts I have already mentioned, and for the same reason need to be amended. The instruments apply to England only; devolved Administrations are addressing separately any similar issues in devolved legislation. The amendments in these regulations make no changes to policy and these instruments will continue to operate substantively as they do now.
There is a type of EU legislation that is directly applicable. This is law that applies in the UK without any further legislation by our Parliaments, and includes EU regulations and decisions. These will automatically be brought into national law by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, as part of retained EU law. In some cases, however, that is not appropriate. When we are no longer a member state, the UK will no longer be allowed to authorise participation in the EU’s Eco-Management and Audit Scheme—EMAS—or the EU’s Ecolabel scheme. Existing EMAS and Ecolabel registrations with UK bodies will no longer be valid. These regulations do not bring about this change: it is a result of our leaving the EU. These regulations make appropriate legal amendments to reflect the situation.
The EU EMAS regulation establishes the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme. Participation in this scheme is entirely voluntary, and there are only 17 UK-registered organisations. ISO 14001, a similar scheme established by the International Organization for Standardization, has more than 16,000 UK-registered participants. The EU Ecolabel regulation establishes another entirely voluntary scheme, under which producers, importers and retailers can apply for the EU Ecolabel for their products. Again, uptake in the UK has been low. In fact, a European Commission fitness check of EMAS and Ecolabel across member states in 2017 found that the schemes were substantially limited by levels of uptake.
The Government nevertheless attach importance to voluntary schemes that encourage businesses to improve their environmental performance. In our resources and waste strategy, we recognise that providing transparency of information can help those consumers or organisations that want to make environmentally friendly choices to do so. Guidance is also provided on how to look after their products and dispose of them at end of life. We will develop options for domestic eco-labelling before consulting more widely.
In the meantime, businesses holding existing EMAS registrations and Ecolabels will still be able to sell their products in EU member states, and they can apply to rejoin these schemes through other member states offering the service. We have published and circulated information notes on EMAS and Ecolabels to affected businesses. If we do not act, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act will bring EMAS and Ecolabel regulations into our national law. For the purposes of good public administration, and to avoid any confusion for businesses wanting to join such schemes in the future, these regulations stop that happening.
Finally, there are further EU decisions included in the schedule to these regulations, which refer to EU environmental action programmes. These EU decisions are either already out of date or will serve no ongoing purpose after we leave the EU. We will be making these amendments for the same reasons as with EMAS and Ecolabels.
These provisions apply to the whole of the UK and have been agreed between all four nations. The amendments in these regulations will ensure that UK law continues to operate smoothly when we leave. They represent no change in policy and the regulatory impact experienced by businesses and the public will not change as a result of these regulations. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing this section of statutory instruments and have listened carefully to what he said: there is no change in policy. Indeed, it is important that we pass these statutory instruments to maintain the existing regulations that we have been connected with.
My noble friend also talked about sustainability in the long term but recognised that the current audit and labelling schemes will no longer be valid. Perhaps I might press him a little more on that because clearly we will have to introduce a scheme to replace the existing ones. Is he able to tell us a little more about that and how the department will approach it? Also on that issue, I think he said that we were going to be consulting more widely. Again, it is a matter of timeframe: how soon that will happen? Clearly, that would help us in dealing with this statutory instrument.
Lastly, my noble friend mentioned that some aspects of existing EU law have become out of date and we would need to transfer powers to a new set of regulations. Can he give us any indication of how many of the changes taking place are to regulations that are considered out of date?
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, in general, this is obviously a sensible regulation. However, I have a number of queries, one of which is exactly the same as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. There are references to redundant and inappropriate regulations, but there is no list, as far as I can see, of which regulations they are or whether further regulations might be deemed to fall within that category. I may have misread the rather complex way in which the regulations are presented, but there may be a whole batch of regulations which, down the line, Defra officials may decide are redundant and use the power under the Act to take off the statute book.
My other two questions are these. It is true that EMAS and Ecolabel have been a bit of a slow burn, but, nevertheless, there is a degree of consumer recognition and take-up. Is the Minister saying that in no circumstances could we use those terms under British law to continue to reflect the qualities that some consumers have now come to recognise, or will his consultation be directed to providing an entirely new British scheme—which, by definition, will require a further educational and informational period before it begins to be recognised? Even in the more benign context of a deal of some sort, would it not be sensible for some mutual recognition and continued use of the existing labels to operate post the UK leaving the EU?
Finally, I declare my presidency of Environmental Protection UK, one main concern of which has been air pollution and air quality. The Minister referred to that in passing. The problem with the air quality regulations is that, hitherto, the effective enforcement of those regulations has depended substantially on the Commission’s intervention and on campaigners—ClientEarth, mainly, in this case—taking the British Government through the courts on the basis of EU law.
In both those respects, I am not entirely sure what mechanism replaces that. Is it the much-heralded but still unclear new environmental statutory body, which will presumably appear in the environment Bill when we eventually get it, or is it simply to be enforcement of these new regulations, having become British law, or retained EU law, enforceable through the British courts? The problem hitherto has been that it has been government bodies at local and national level which have failed to meet, for example, the provisions on maximum NOx levels for air quality. Unless we stipulate in the new regulations who will enforce equivalent standards to the European standards, we may well have something on the statute book but we will be unable to enforce it.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, clearly this is one of the less contentious SIs under the Defra brief, but important scrutiny still needs to be undertaken. I put on record my gratitude to the staff who, this morning, when I had particular points on which I wanted clarification, were able quickly to reassure me on some of them. I thank them. They were about the Ecolabel issue. I was not clear what would happen if there were not a no-deal scenario.
It is clear from the Explanatory Memorandum what happens if there is no deal and a British company which operates both in the UK and in other parts of Europe wants to continue using the Ecolabel: it can do so as long as it registers in a member state elsewhere. The logo would still be usable in the UK in the event of no deal. I press the Minister on what would happen if we do get a deal. I want to be absolutely clear that if we get a deal with our European partners in the foreseeable future, the scheme, with the very distinctive Ecolabel—which looks very European and, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, is gaining traction among consumers in an important area—the regulations, the processes and the scheme will carry on exactly as they do now, maintaining what is to many of us an important initiative for businesses to help us deliver our environmental objectives.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his exposition of the statutory instrument. I know that it has made his brain hurt, so he is in common with all of us. I will focus on some specific issues and particularly tax him on one of its more arcane elements. This SI is one of those known as a jumbo regulation, because it sweeps up so many provisions in a high-level way, but it has one oddity. Regulation 5(4) dives into the detail of the Northumbria and Solway Tweed river basins. Can the Minister explain this arcanity in his response?
In a more mainstream way, I want to focus on some other issues. The Schedule to the regulations stops the EU legislation on the environmental action programme, EMAS and the Ecolabel from being brought into UK law. Personally, I am sad that we will no longer have the framework of the environmental action programmes, which were, at a minimum, the forum for EU member states to come together to express ambition for the environment. In my experience, EU Ministers and the Commission working together were braver and bolder than they would be individually when they came back home and were faced with conflicting pressures against the environment. That is another loss that we will suffer from leaving the Union.
I turn to EMAS, the European Management and Audit Scheme, of which we will no longer be a part when we leave the EU. The Minister kindly provided a briefing session involving him and a veritable army of Defra civil servants; I think of the £4 billion costs so far of exiting the EU. We were rather surprised to learn at the briefing that, as he outlined, only 17 organisations in the UK have adopted EMAS, compared to 16,000 which perform to ISA 14001, which is the global standard.
The Minister confirmed that the Government are, therefore, not planning to develop an EMAS-type scheme for the UK after Brexit. EMAS has some benefits in its approach which are beyond ISA 14001. It delivers not just continuous improvement in environmental performance and credibility—it is externally validated—but, most importantly, it promotes much greater transparency, with publicly available information on environmental performance by businesses and organisations. I ask the Minister to consider how this virtue of greater transparency could be applied to environmental performance schemes in the UK, post Brexit. What arrangements will be made for promoting continuous improvement in the environmental performance of businesses and other organisations?
At the Minister’s briefing sessions, we also heard that only 50 UK organisations use the EU Ecolabel. Ecolabels—for they are many and varied—help the public make informed purchasing choices in products and services with a reduced environmental impact. The Government made a commitment, through the waste and resources strategy, to look at developing a UK ecolabel. I say commitment, but the strategy actually says that the Government will consult key stakeholders, consult “more widely”, consider whether ecolabelling makes any difference to the public’s buying habits, consider how to encourage the public to use label information in purchasing, then decide whether a statutory scheme is needed at all. Perhaps business could just do it.
This all seems a bit “jam tomorrow”. I know that Defra is the department for food, farming and rural affairs, but tomorrow’s jam is the only food it seems to concentrate on these days. I assume that all this considering and consulting cannot happen before 29 March, so we have another example of a gap in the environmental governance framework post Brexit, with no clear timetable for the introduction of a UK alternative ecolabel. Can the Minister tell us the timetable for the introduction of a UK ecolabel and whether it will cover simply waste and resources issues or the wider environmental impacts of products and services?
Of course, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, it will be important for us to maintain alignment with the EU Ecolabel scheme if we want to trade with our nearest neighbours. What assurances can the Minister give that importers and exporters will not have to operate with different labels for the home market and the export market? In the midst of all that, how will he ensure that ecolabelling is kept as simple as possible for consumers?
While we are talking about tomorrow’s jam, the major hiatus concerns who will monitor, enforce, sanction and handle complaints about the way the new arrangements are carried out by UK authorities. We are not talking about inconsequential matters: this SI alone covers serious environmental issues contained in the Environmental Protection Act, the Pollution Prevention and Control Act, and regulations on contaminated land and environmental noise—to name but a few. The Government promised us the office for environmental protection to fill some of the gaps left by the substantial remedies we currently enjoy as an EU member, which will disappear as we leave the EU. For example, in instances where government and public bodies fail to perform, cases can be referred to Europe, with remedies through the infraction and fining process and, ultimately, the judgments of the European Court of Justice. However, we have no timetable for the legislation needed to create the office for environmental protection—the environment Bill—or its establishment in practical terms. We have no clarity yet about the real weight of its powers.
The talk on the streets is that, bearing the legislative timetable in mind, the OEP is unlikely to be fully operative until the end of the transition period, if we have one. Can the Minister confirm his understanding of the timetable? He very kindly wrote to me to say that there would be interim arrangements in the meantime but that he could not yet tell me what they might be. We are only six weeks away from potentially needing such arrangements. Either Ministers know what they are planning, and arrangements are under way behind the scenes but they are unwilling to be open with Parliament, or they do not know and no arrangements are being planned. Which is worse: being secretive or being unprepared? It is a case of one or the other; I leave noble Lords to choose one.
The environment and the people of this country are at risk from this potentially protracted governance gap. Is the Minister in a position yet to provide a timetable for the permanent and interim solutions? Can he give the House details of, or even a broad clue about, the interim solution? I hope that he accepts these comments and questions as a constructive contribution, as they are intended.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I will say from the outset that I consider all the contributions made in the debate immensely constructive. If I am not in a position to answer any questions concerning precise detail, I will address them in due course. I was struck by the exchanges between my noble friend Lady Byford and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty; I have been in other skirmishes with them when they put their heads together, knowing that they dealt with the water Bill or whatever, so I know that I am in difficult territory. I can confirm that my noble friend Lady Byford is absolutely right that there is no change of policy.
Noble Lords raised ecolabelling and EMAS immediately. As I said, we are not in a position to continue with those schemes because we are leaving the EU. However, if we get a deal, such arrangements and schemes would continue during the implementation period; everyone seems to be working extremely hard on that. Of course, how those schemes could continue would then be open to further phases of negotiation. The question concerns how we would proceed given that, as the EU has conceded, uptake across the European Union for such schemes has been low. I was struck by the number of participants in ISO schemes compared with European ones: thousands of organisations in EU countries are registered with the ISO, but only a comparatively small number are registered with EU schemes. I do not wish to denigrate the EU Ecolabel or EMAS in any way, but it is worth considering that the number of UK-based registrants to ISO schemes is substantial.
A number of questions were asked about our vision. Noble Lords have heard this before but our vision is for environmental standards to be not only maintained but enhanced. Our waste and resources strategy recognised that information transparency is essential. As I said, we will develop options for domestic ecolabelling before consulting more widely. I am not in a position to outline the precise timing for that, but we wish to develop those options as part of our strategy. I suspect that if we get a deal—I hope we do—the ISO scheme, which runs in parallel with the ecolabelling scheme, will continue. I am sure that we would welcome noble Lords’ views about how best to ecolabel.
One issue is particularly important. I sympathise with noble Lords and say that we have a lot of ambition for primary legislation. We wish to enshrine in the environment Bill the 25-year environment plan and the establishment of the Office for Environmental Protection, which will be independent and will hold the Government to account. It is a matter of parliamentary timing. We said that legislation would be brought forward in the second Session, and we are absolutely clear that it will have teeth. It will ensure that all the areas referred to by noble Lords who have concerns about governance are addressed.
I wrote to the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Young of Old Scone, about interim arrangements. I am not in a position tonight to say precisely what they are. I do not recognise what the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said, because we have said in public that we are considering interim arrangements. I am simply not in a position to say tonight. I know that it is being worked on, because it has come from colleagues that this matter is being worked on. I have promised to tell both noble Baronesses, as well as all noble Lords in this debate, as soon as there is some announcement about what the interim arrangements are.
Baroness Byford
I wonder if my noble friend might give way. Is it possible to find out what body or who will be responsible before the new environmental body is set up? The difficulty is that it could be many weeks or months; we really do not know how soon that will come in. Therefore, the natural question is: after 29 March, if things are not going as we hope, where does the buck stop? Who is responsible in the meantime? It may well be that his own department takes that on, but I did not think it was clear in the statutory instruments we have just been debating. I would be grateful for some clarification.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I have to say that that area is not what this statutory instrument is about. I can say that we will bring forward measures so that there is no gap in environmental governance in the event of a no-deal Brexit. We fully realise that the independent environmental body will not be complete; we have to have primary legislation for that. But I can say—I hope it provides some reassurance—that once the office comes into effect it will have the power to review and take action on any breaches that occur from the day of us leaving. There will therefore be no period of time during which government actions cannot be held to account by an enforcement agency. I hope that is an assurance that the Government’s bona fides on this are very strong and that we do not want there to be an environmental governance gap. I am not sure that I can add anything further, but I look forward to the noble Baroness’s intervention.
Baroness Young of Old Scone
I thank the Minister for giving way. I just express a slight nervousness about the provision, which I absolutely recognise is necessary, for the new body to be able to take action on complaints that arise from the day of exit, whenever that is. If we were to leave without a deal and the new body did not come into being for 18 months or two years, which is quite possible under the current timetable, I would not like to think of this growing pile of complaints mounting up as the new body comes into being, so that its first act is facing a huge backlog.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I entirely accept what the noble Baroness has said. It is our duty as a Government, whoever is in office, to ensure that we enhance the environment. That is the whole purpose of the 25-year environmental plan, but I am very conscious of what the noble Baroness has said. In the meantime, I commend this instrument to the Committee.
Environment and Wildlife (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 8 January be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, the instrument before your Lordships makes technical amendments to maintain the effectiveness and continuity of retained direct EU legislation that would otherwise be left partially inoperable, so that the law as of today will continue to function properly following exit. There are no policy changes made by this instrument.
The purpose of these regulations, in line with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, is to provide for public authorities in the UK to exercise a series of legislative functions currently conferred by EU legislation on the European Commission. In each case, the legislative function was conferred on the EU Commission so that it can interrogate the technical details of a specific EU regime and adapt them to changes without the frequent need to refer back to the EU Council and EU Parliament. These powers are clearly defined and strictly limited to technical and administrative matters. They are not the kind of matter for which we would generally, in the domestic context, require primary legislation. Rather, they would be suitable to be dealt with by secondary legislation or administratively.
Examples of these functions include specifying the forms to be used, amending technical annexes to reflect advances in scientific and technical knowledge, and updating annexes to reflect requirements under international agreements. We need the UK authorities to be able to continue to update such technical details for ongoing domestic purposes to ensure that the legislation can keep pace with change, including technological developments and our international commitments, without the need for primary legislation every time a change in such matters is required.
Parliaments and Assemblies in the UK have, until now, had little input into how these powers are exercised. In each case, these regulations set out the procedure for the exercise of these legislative functions in future. With two minor exceptions, the powers will be exercised through secondary legislation that will be subject to the scrutiny of our Parliaments.
This SI makes a number of adjustments. These represent no changes in policy, nor will they have any impact on businesses or the public.
Regulation 2 confers functions under the EU regulation on persistent organic pollutants, or POPs. These include a power to amend POPs waste concentration limits for the purpose of adapting to scientific and technical progress, and to ban, restrict or modify the use of POPs in accordance with international agreements.
Regulations 3 and 6 confer functions under the EU regulations on illegal timber and timber products. These include a power to recognise licensing schemes in partner countries to form the basis of licensing, and to amend the list of timber products to which the licensing scheme applies.
Regulation 4 confers functions under the EU regulation establishing a European pollutant release and transfer register. These include a power to take measures to initiate reporting on releases of relevant pollutants from diffuse sources where no data exists, and to adopt guidelines for the monitoring and reporting of emissions.
Regulation 5 confers functions under the EU regulation on transfrontier shipments of waste. These include a power to establish and amend technical and organisational requirements for the practical implementation of electronic data interchange for the submission of documents and information.
Regulation 7 confers functions under the EU regulation on the Nagoya protocol on access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits. These include a power to establish and amend procedures for monitoring user compliance and for recognising best practice.
Regulation 8 confers functions under the EU regulation on mercury. These include a power to specify the forms to be used for export and import restrictions, and to set out technical requirements for the environmentally sound interim storage of mercury, mercury compounds and mixtures of mercury.
Regulation 9 confers one legislative function contained in an EU directive relating to industrial emissions. The power relates to determining best available techniques for preventing or minimising emissions from activities covered by the directive.
Regulations 10 and 11 confer functions under the EU regulations governing the use of leghold traps and the import of pelts and goods. These include a power to grant derogations from the ban on the import of pelts and other products, and to determine the appropriate forms for certification of imported goods incorporating pelts of listed species.
Regulation 12 confers functions under the EU regulation implementing CITES. These include a power to establish restrictions on the introduction into the UK of listed species, and to provide for derogations from certain provisions.
As I have explained, in future we will exercise these powers through laying statutory instruments before Parliament. However, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the two minor cases where administrative procedures will be used, rather than secondary legislation. These relate to POPs and leghold traps. In the first case, the administrative function being conferred concerns the determination of the format for the provision of information by the competent authority; in the second, it concerns the publication of model forms for use by importers.
In addition, the regulations also amend the retained direct EU legislation in the context of the provisions conferring these legislative functions where that is necessary to make it function properly after exit. An example of such an amendment is changing references from “Community legislation” to “retained EU law”.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, this SI introduces to us a number of important protections which we are presently receiving from the European Union. It is very encouraging that the Government are maintaining parliamentary scrutiny through the majority of SIs. However, I would like just to pick up on the issue of leghold traps.
Can the Minister be a bit clearer, and give a bit more detail, about why we will not be going down the route of parliamentary scrutiny on this issue, which is quite controversial? I appreciate that there may be administrative reasons, but if you look at all the pieces of legislation where it is being suggested that we will be maintaining parliamentary scrutiny, leghold traps are an issue that I think that the public would have a particular interest in. They may know very little about mercury or POPs, important though they are, but quite a few people have a view on leghold traps. They might want to know in a little more detail why they will not be getting the treatment of parliamentary scrutiny through secondary legislation.
The other point I wish to make on this SI, which seems entirely proportionate, is that it brings to the fore the issue of how we are going to align our policies with our partners in future. I particularly cite the issue of CITES—the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species—where it is critical that we have an alignment of regulation, given the huge issue of wildlife crime, to which I know the Government have made some very welcome commitments. I am sure there is nothing in this SI in terms of changing the regulations about how the Government wish to manage that, but it affords me the opportunity to raise the issue of how the Government are going to maintain a very clear alignment with our colleagues in Europe on particularly important issues around wildlife crime.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations will allow UK authorities to exercise legislative functions in the UK after exit day in a range of areas, including, as has already been outlined, persistent organic pollutants, importation of timber products and derogations from certain CITES provisions.
The Explanatory Memorandum says that this statutory instrument does not make any substantive policy changes, but the UK public authorities exercising these newly transferred functions could immediately make changes that would have significant environmental impacts. So these regulations open up the way for significant policy changes. In view of the scale and importance of the powers being transferred to the appropriate public authority, can the Minister give assurances on the following concerns?
Will these powers remain with the Secretary of State and the equivalent in the devolved Administrations and not be delegated further? Bearing in mind the comments made during the debate on a previous SI, on the governance gap and the lack of an oversight and sanctioning body, how will these public authorities be held accountable? How will complaints against their operation of these new powers be handled?
The SI does not include mechanisms for enabling access to the necessary expert and technical advice. Do the appropriate public authorities have access to sufficient expert or technical input, and will that be sought and published on every change proposed? How do the Government intend to access the wealth of scientific and technical expertise and data available across the EU which might not be replicable within the UK? What access will the UK have, during the implementation period and after EU exit, to the EU’s systems for tracking and sharing relevant data?
Turning to the issue of consultation, what commitment will the Government make for consultation on the future exercise of these powers and proposals for changes by the appropriate public authority? The statutory instrument lays out, at Regulation 9(10), limited consultation arrangements in one specific area under the powers to make decisions on best available technique—BAT—but not on any other powers. Can the Minister assure the House that wide consultation will be the norm, with stakeholders, NGOs and the public?
I now turn to devolution. These amending regulations, as the Minister has explained, cover legislation in areas where all four nations are currently bound by the same EU requirements. The Minister very kindly at his briefing session assured us that the regulations have been discussed and agreed with the devolved Administrations, and the degree of devolution in transferring the powers to an appropriate public body has been designed on the basis of whether the matters are reserved matters. That was fine where the policy framework and the standards were EU-wide while implementation was devolved to the four nations. In the future, when policy and implementation are devolved to the nations, divergence in standards could happen quite quickly. This would have an impact on businesses operating across the four nations and on their ability to trade with our EU neighbours.
Let me give an example from Part 3 of the statutory instrument. BAT—best available technique—is one of the foundations of environmental regulation covering industrial emissions and is the basis of the regulation of things such as cement plants, steel works, power stations and chemical works that create emissions. If we have four different versions, potentially, of best available technique across the four nations, how would UK-wide regulated companies cope? How would they trade their technologies to our European neighbours, which might be regulating against a fifth version of best available technology? This cannot be sensible. That is only one example of how diverging standards across the four nations would not be good for British business and possibly not good for the environment as well.
I welcome the confirmation from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 28 January in the other place of the Government’s,
“intention to work towards a common framework for a number of different regulations”.—[Official Report, Commons, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 28/1/19; cols. 7-8.].
Can the Minister tell the House when this common framework will be published and when it will come into effect? What regulations will it cover?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses for their contributions to this debate.
I hope that I can clarify immediately for the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, the issue of leghold traps. Perhaps I should have referred to it, but in my opening remarks I said that Regulations 10 and 11 confer functions under the EU regulations governing the use of leghold traps and the import of pelts. I went on then to talk about the distinct two elements, which are in effect about forms and the format of forms. By way of reassurance, it is not that there will be no requirement for statutory instruments on leghold traps but that, candidly—proportionately—most people would think it unreasonable to have a statutory instrument on the format of a form. I hope that I can immediately take that concern out of the way.
On CITES, we are considered a very strong participant in CITES and we take our international obligations extremely seriously. I was at the conference in London during the passage of the Ivory Bill and many countries there recognised what our country is doing. We are a party to CITES in our own right. We have higher protections than mandated by that convention, and we will comply with all international decisions made at the CITES meeting in May this year. Clearly, it is important that there is alignment not only among us in Europe but across the world to ensure the importance of looking after wildlife around the world. Certainly, our commitment in terms of our international obligations is very strong. Whatever arrangements there are, we will want to work very closely with partners in the EU and internationally.
To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, if this statutory instrument is passed today, we will be in a position through statutory instruments to make changes. These are distinct technical areas that we are taking forward, but more generally I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness and noble Lords that we wish to enhance rather than retreat. There may be changes, but this particular statutory instrument deals with those technical points that we are drawing back.
The issue of expertise is hugely important. The Government rely on the best experts available. We will use our consultation principles requiring relevant expert advice to be sought where appropriate, and those affected by any policy must be properly consulted. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that, in the case of these regulations, Regulation 9(10) explicitly requires the Secretary of State, or DA Ministers as appropriate, to consult bodies and persons likely to be affected. Of course, many of the obligations relevant to these regulations derive from our participation in international conventions such as the Stockholm convention on POPs and the CITES convention and will continue to involve us directly in multilateral expert dialogues. But the noble Baroness is right. Clearly in this area we will want to seek the views of experts and we will want to consult.
Access to EU systems will clearly be a matter for negotiation. We are all working for a deal, but I very much hope that, in terms of access, the importance of mutuality across the continent will mean that we continue to work collaboratively together.
I do not have in front of me a precise note of timings on the common framework, but the noble Baroness is absolutely right. The discussions that we have had with the devolved Administrations on this matter and others show that, for all the political knockabout, it makes sense in so much of this to work together on a UK basis. That is why, although some of the matters are devolved, we have worked extremely collaboratively and productively with the devolved Administrations. The whole purpose of the common framework is to acknowledge exactly what the noble Baroness said. We all agree mutually that any divergence should be the exception in something like this because I am sure that we all—in England in the UK Government and in the devolved Administrations—want to work positively for the environment. As soon as I am in a position to clarify anything further about the common framework I will, but all I can say is that I hear very positive signs of what I think we would all suggest was a common-sense way forward on such important matters.
I will study Hansard and if there are any particular points that I have not covered, I will of course write. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Plant Protection Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 December 2018 be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I will speak also to the Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, with which this instrument has been grouped.
Plant protection products, commonly called pesticides, are currently regulated by means of EU Regulation (EC) 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and the Council, concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and the associated Regulation (EC) 396/2005 of the European Parliament and the Council on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin. These two regimes, on plant protection products and maximum residue level regulatory regimes, are closely related to each other and both rely on centralised EU processes and mechanisms.
These statutory instruments make technical adjustments. There will be minimal modification of the current EU regime and these represent no changes of policy; nor will they have any significant impact on businesses or the public. Although the regime relies on EU processes to take and implement decisions which need to be corrected, much of the business of the regime already operates at a national level. Decisions at EU level are taken on the basis of evaluations and assessments undertaken by member states, such as by our own Health and Safety Executive. In future, these evaluations will inform a national decision, rather than informing UK input into an EU decision. This means that much of the infrastructure and expertise that we need is already in place within the UK. This will provide a good degree of continuity when we implement the UK-wide regime.
On the plant protection product regime, the main corrections made by this instrument include the following adjustments. All decision-making functions and powers are repatriated from the EU to national level, including approval of active substances and a number of other related functions. We will be able to continue to draw on the considerable scientific and technical expertise of the Health and Safety Executive, which will continue to operate as our expert national regulator on behalf of the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. The Chemicals Regulation Division, or CRD, of the HSE already has around 150 staff working on pesticides—a considerable resource. This means we are well placed to operate a national regime that maintains the highest standards.
A mechanism is established to give effect to national decisions by listing approved active substances on a new statutory register, in the form of a publicly available online database. This replaces the EU mechanism whereby these decisions are given effect by a constant flow of EU tertiary legislation. Other EU tertiary legislative powers will be repatriated to national level to convert them into a power to make regulations by statutory instrument, therefore keeping them on a statutory footing, with just minor exceptions where it is more appropriate to undertake very minor or frequent functions administratively.
EU processes set out in the regulations are replaced with new national processes. The functions are retained where they remain relevant in the national context, for instance: consideration of specific technical issues specified in the regulations; public consultation on active substance applications; provision for consultation with independent specialists where appropriate; and final decision-making. National arrangements for independent scientific advice and assurance are in place. We already have existing independent advisory committees of experts and academics—the Expert Committee on Pesticides and the Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food—which are busy preparing to be ready to meet our changed advice needs after exit day. The EU regime’s power to establish a rolling active substance renewals programme will be replaced with a power to establish a national renewals programme. In the meantime, we will be able to take renewals decisions as necessary.
Some elements of the current regime which rely on EU membership will no longer be able to operate; for example, the mutual recognition provisions for fast-tracking product approvals between member states in the same zone are no longer relevant. However, the UK will be able to take account of relevant assessments by other countries’ regulators in our own national assessments.
Similarly, parallel trade permits rely on the sharing of information between member states and will no longer be relevant. Current parallel trade permits at the point of exit will remain valid for a period of two years after exit or until the extant expiry date—whichever is sooner. Transitional measures have been put in place ensuring that changeover to the national regime is smooth; for example, ensuring that all current approvals and authorisations remain valid after the point of exit, and making provision for handling applications which are in train at the point of exit.
The second instrument makes corrections to the pesticides maximum residue levels regime, and many of the corrections repeat the changes I have just set out for the first instrument. All decision-making functions and powers are repatriated from the EU to national level; for example, the setting of maximum residue levels. A mechanism is established to give effect to national maximum residue level decisions by listing them on a new statutory register in the form of a publicly available online database. EU processes set out in the regulations are replaced with new national processes. The functions are retained where they remain relevant in a national context, such as evaluation functions specified in the regulations. As I said, national arrangements for independent scientific advice and assurance are in place with two highly respected expert committees.
The requirement for reviews of EU maximum residue levels to ensure that they are set at appropriate levels has been replaced with a provision for reviews at national level. The power to establish an EU residue monitoring programme has been replaced with an equivalent national power to put in place a national monitoring programme. The current EU programme looks three years ahead, so the UK’s obligations under this programme for the next three years are retained. This will ensure that the same standards of protection are maintained after exit. Again, transitional measures have been put in place, ensuring that changeover to the national regime is smooth; for example, all maximum residue levels in place at the point of exit will be carried over.
There has been a constant flow of EU tertiary regulations on plant protection products and maximum residue levels—typically several each month—giving effect to decisions on active substances and maximum residue levels. Within this regulation on maximum residue levels, which was laid before Christmas, two minor transitional provisions relating to Regulation (EC) 396/2005, which converts EU maximum residue levels into our new statutory register, have become redundant, due to amendments made to that regulation by the EU in January.
We have today laid the miscellaneous EU exit environment amendments and revocations in draft, which, among other amendments, will revoke these two transitional provisions. Both SIs will be made together once the draft instrument laid today has passed the sifting process. This will ensure that our regulations are linked correctly to retained EU law as it is on exit day. The miscellaneous amendments will deal with the fact that there had been a change in the EU in January. Again, I shall ensure that noble Lords are kept in the picture on that, but I wanted to make that clear, as I heard about it only today and did not want any ambiguity or feeling that there had been any secrecy in these matters.
I hope I have expressed sufficiently that the Government take these matters extremely seriously, and that continued levels of protection for human health and the environment, as well as making matters straightforward for businesses to put products on the market, are a given and essential. Without these corrections, the plant protection product and maximum residue level regimes would be inoperable and would not provide a functioning regulatory regime; for example, we would be unable to take action in response to new evidence on environmental or health risks, or to adjust maximum residue levels, approve new active substances or even renew approval of current ones.
These instruments will establish a UK-wide plant protection products and maximum residue level regime and ensure that a stable regulatory framework is in place. I am pleased to report that again we have worked very closely with the devolved Administrations to develop the instruments and they have consented to them being made on a UK-wide basis. These statutory instruments will put in place, when the UK leaves, an independent, UK-wide regime enabling us, most importantly, to protect human health and the environment. I beg to move.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, these two statutory instruments are probably the most important ones we have had from Defra to date. The products are widely used in agriculture and industry and in people’s gardens and homes. As the Minister has rightly acknowledged, they can do serious damage to human health and the environment. It is important that these SIs give people the confidence that, if we are to leave the European Union, the protection is going to be as good, if not better, than what we have at the moment. Reading the statutory instruments, I am not entirely reassured. I have three questions which I will come to in a moment. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer these and to give me more satisfaction, given the importance to the general public of this issue.
These SIs show very clearly what we are losing if we leave the European Union. At present, we have a fully formed, established regime which works and protects human health. If we end up with no deal that will be lost. Equally, there will be significant additional costs to businesses if they operate across the European market both in the UK and on the continent. The impact assessment does not include those costs because it looks only at the costs for the UK regime, but there will be significant costs for most of the companies, such as Bayer and Syngenta, which work right across the continent. I found out what the fees are at the moment in a footnote somewhere. Each individual application costs in the region of £150,000 per product, irrespective of the cost of administering the application. Companies will be expected to find not insignificant sums of money if they have to follow the regime in the UK and also stay within the European regime if they wish to sell the products across Europe.
What concerns me not quite the most but nearly is that the Government’s proposed regime is somewhat sketchy. In the Explanatory Memorandum, they say:
“The EU regime sets out decision making processes in considerable detail”.
The EU has done; I only wish that the British Government had done the same in setting out the proposals before us tonight. There is quite a lot to be taken on trust. They talk about setting up a statutory register, but there are no details. They talk about a process for taking independent scientific advice, but again there are no details. They talk about proposals for a renewal and that is where I get particularly worried. Paragraph 7.7(E) of the EM says:
“We will … establish the national renewals programme in a way which maintains effective protection but enables the UK to ensure it has a manageable and proportionate workload for one country alone”.
That is quite open-ended and does not guarantee the protections that we have at present.
It is baffling that neither the EM nor the impact assessment sets out how many applications the Government would expect to see per year if we have a no-deal situation. I scoured them in detail and could not find any, and yet it sets out, quite clearly, that the EU has 50 additional regulations a year, so how many applications are the Government expecting to process?
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I have a fairly fundamental objection to this set of regulations. I am sure that most of the detail is absolutely correct and necessary and I cannot say that I have read every sentence of these two regulations, but I have long held, going back to my days as the Minister in Defra, that the current regime for the regulation of pesticides, both at British and European level, has been inadequate for a number of reasons, some of which have already been touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. I am rather afraid that the “solution” of leaving the European Union is going to aggravate that position.
Most of the issues I have approached the department on in recent years have related to human health, but it is a much wider issue than that. I believe that the totality of the approach to pesticide regulation does not take into account the widespread effects of misuse of pesticides, the lack of enforcement on the way pesticides are used and the relative ease with which new pesticides and modified pesticides come on to the market. In some cases, the EU regulation has actually been held back by previous British interventions. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, I commend the current Secretary of State on neonicotinoids, but in general it is the Brits who have held back and there has been a lot of pressure—corporate pressure, one has to say—on the totality of the system. This could reinforce that tendency.
I understand, and I have been in some contact with the department about, the need to introduce provisions on chemicals broadly—on REACH provisions. These regulations tend to mirror, in a sense, the broader regulation structure of REACH. In the main, I think it is very sensible to maintain the success of the REACH provisions, but pesticides are different. They are different because they have a serious and often unacknowledged human health impact. More particularly, I want to emphasise tonight the effect they have on the environment in general: the effect of pesticides on the air, the water and the soil.
Soil has been degraded as a result of the overuse of pesticides. Pesticides in the air have affected both human and particularly insect life: this week we have seen very serious effects in the form of the worldwide reduction in insect life, some of which has been caused by pesticides here and elsewhere, and on the water system. One of the successes, to some extent, of the water framework directive has been to reduce that effect; nevertheless, there is still a very serious problem in our water supply, as the effect of pesticides comes through the soil, into the water and has an effect on insect life and on whatever you call those creatures that crawl on the bottom of our rivers—I am sure that my noble friend Lady Young can name them all, but I cannot—and therefore on our diversity. A lot of those are affected by the misuse or overuse of pesticides.
It is true that successive Governments have attempted to rationalise and pinpoint the use of pesticides more effectively in terms of agricultural use. However, unlike the industrial chemicals that will be covered by the transposition of arrangements on REACH, the use of pesticides—this particular form of chemical—is a matter not so much of industrial use but of agricultural use: its effect on the environment, on land management, on soil management and on air quality. I therefore find it somewhat surprising that we are to retain the HSE rather than an environmental body to oversee this. I know that the HSE has access to significant scientific information, and the transfer of a separate pesticide arrangement into the HSE probably was an improvement, but would I argue that if we are going to move to a new regime post Brexit, the appropriate body is actually the Environment Agency, because it has responsibility for agricultural practice and land use; for air, water and soil.
That is where, together with human health, pesticides have an impact. I am therefore disturbed that the whole rationale for these arrangements is to assign that role to the HSE and not to the Environment Agency and devolved environment agencies. I ask the Minister to think about that; it is not necessary, but we are moving into a new era, and the responsibility ought to be with an environmental body rather than with one which deals with the industrial use of other chemicals.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interests as set out in the register. I thank the Minister for his introduction and for his courtesy in meeting us before this debate. I also thank the two noble Lords who have raised a number of important issues about these SIs, all of which I agree with. They both made very powerful points.
These SIs go to the heart of our concerns about the transposition process. This goes right back to our earlier discussions on the amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The use of pesticides is of huge public interest—a point made by the noble Baroness—and they present significant environmental and public health challenges. It is an issue where the use of the precautionary principle is vital—supported of course by strong scientific evidence and detailed scrutiny of the potential impact of the new products.
At the moment, we have in the EU a thorough process of evaluation of products. The responsibilities for risk assessments are shared out across member states. There are clear decision-making roles for the European Food Safety Authority, the rapporteur member state, individual member states and the European Commission. All this is supported and backed up by access to the best scientific advice. While no process is perfect, there is considerable assurance that within the EU a detailed assessment of the risks has been carried out and cross-checked.
These proposals are intended to replace all of this with an assessment by the Health and Safety Executive and a decision in the hands of one person, the “competent authority” as described in the text—otherwise known as the Secretary of State. Under these proposals, full power to make, amend or revoke guidance, principles and regulations for the UK rests with the Secretary of State and the devolved Ministers. There is a major loss of scrutiny, checks and balances, and audit powers.
This really is not good enough. It does not represent an accurate transposition of the current EU provisions into UK law. It also reopens our argument about the need for an independent environment watchdog to oversee the application of these new rules. This is a point other noble Lords have made—my noble friend Lady Young made it very eloquently in the earlier debate. That watchdog clearly needs to be in place from day one. I know that the Minister has said he cannot be precise about the timetable for this, but it would be helpful if he could reassure us again that the watchdog will be in place from 1 April, and that there will be no delay.
There is another big issue about what we will lose when we transpose to the UK. How can it be acceptable that the only reporting mechanism on national decisions for new active substances will be to publish the information online, when the previous EU regime required a report to be made to the EU Commissioner and a proper process of scrutiny and approval?
It also raises once again the fact that, by leaving the EU, we are cutting ourselves off from access to a huge resource of scientific data and analysis. Should we not be taking urgent steps to agree with the EU that we will continue to share this data for mutual benefit? For example, we will no longer have access to the advice of the European Food Safety Authority and will therefore have to pay considerable sums of money to try to replicate its advice. Would it not make sense to negotiate a mutual recognition agreement with the EU so that decisions taken in the EU and the UK continue to be mutually honoured? Can the Minister say whether discussions are taking place to create a shared register of approved pesticides and a mutual recognition scheme across the EU and UK, and what the timescale is for the outcome for those discussions?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. I do not think that I will be in a position to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in that, in the whole process of bringing these matters back, the HSE is deemed to be the relevant body in this country. However, I obviously note his observations about the UK and the EU, and the concern that he raised about both EU and UK regulation. As far as this SI is concerned, I take his general point, but I am dealing with the fact that the HSE is our regulator.
I want to open with the precautionary principle—a matter raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I suspect that, as with a lot of the issues relating to these statutory instruments, one needs a dossier to understand how everything is pitched. However, I reassure noble Lords that the precautionary principle is expressly a part of the plant protection product regime. It is specifically referred to in Article 1 of EU Regulation 1107/2009 as the underpinning basis of the provisions of the regime in protecting health and the environment. This statutory reference will be retained in UK law after leaving the EU. The precautionary principle is not mentioned in this particular instrument simply because it is not being amended, so nothing in our instrument affects it. I am most grateful for the opportunity to give that reassurance.
A number of points were made on the issue of decision-making, which the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, raised. We will be taking our own independent decisions under the UK-wide regime but the instruments carry across all the statutory requirements on standards of protection unchanged. All the considerable body of EU technical guidance which has been officially noted under the EU regulations, and which sets the standards to be met in informing decisions, is carried across by these instruments and will remain the basis for the national regime.
I am parking the point that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made. On the capacity of the regulator, it is important that I should emphasise that the national regulator, the HSE, is recognised across the world as having considerable expertise, and it has a very strong scientific standing. It currently covers a substantial share of the workload under the EU regime and is by some way the best-performing national EU regulator in terms of meeting timescales. For that reason, many international companies have chosen to make their applications under the EU regime via the HSE, due to its excellent record. The HSE’s considerable capacity will be redeployed to deliver the national regime. Much of the scientific work under the current regime already takes place at national level, so there will be a good degree of continuity.
I can confirm to the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that extra public funding will be required from government for the national legislative framework for pesticides, plus the related policy and regulatory capability to operate a UK-wide regime. While budgets for future years have not yet been finalised, this will vary depending on the exit scenario. However, additional costs will be broadly in the order of £5 million per year, with slightly more in the set-up phase over the first couple of years. The costs relate primarily to additional staff in Defra and the HSE to manage the additional responsibilities that will fall at national level but also—I hope this will please the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—to a lesser extent the Environment Agency.
In developing our national renewals programme, we will need to look at issues such as how best to collaborate internationally. Again, I emphasise that obviously so much of these matters may be—we hope it will be—the subject of negotiations and the deal that is achieved, which we also fervently want. But on all these matters, both in the European and UK prisms, collaboration is always best.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, raised a point about independent scientific expertise. Independent advice and assurance are invaluable; in my experience of dealing with these matters, and certainly when we came to the neonicotinoids issue, we relied on the best scientific assessment available. While I have been at Defra, that has been the mantra for all these matters. Perhaps one of the current Ministers is a scientist by background but certainly I am not, so scientific evidence and independent scientific experience is vital.
I emphasise that our existing independent advice arrangements primarily draw on the expertise of the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides. The ECP is chaired by Professor William Cushley of the University of Glasgow and has a broad range of important expertise. Its membership includes academics with expertise in ecotoxicology, toxicology, the fate of pesticides in the environment, and pesticide residues in food. In other words, these are experts who are most vital to providing us with the right advice.
Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 December 2018 be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I raised the same points in the previous debate. I beg to move.