House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Emma Dent Coad (Kensington) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
We have set out clear plans within Government to reduce emissions across all transport modes. In my own area of responsibility, this includes last year’s “Road to Zero” strategy for road vehicles and, most recently, our future of mobility strategy specifically focused on creating cleaner and greener transport.
Bill Esterson
Nuclear, solar, tidal, offshore wind, onshore wind: all are forms of renewable energy that have been cut on this Government’s watch. Forty thousand people die prematurely each year as a result of poor air quality, and we all face the threat of climate change. This reckless approach to emissions must stop, so when are the Government going to end their reliance on fossil fuels and make the switch to electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles?
Jesse Norman
I am grateful for that question, and delighted by Labour’s recently rediscovered interest in emissions. The hon. Gentleman will know that many of the areas that he mentions—I say this as former Energy Minister—have been colossal successes. In the offshore wind industry, for example, the required levels of subsidy have fallen dramatically over time, as have the costs. As I said, we have the “Road to Zero” strategy. We also have the “Aviation 2050” Green Paper and the “Maritime 2050” strategy, all of which are designed to reduce emissions.
Kerry McCarthy
Over the past decade, Bristol has seen a 40% rise in bus use, which is obviously really good, but there is a downside in that buses and coaches contribute almost a quarter of NOx emissions in the city. We have been doing what we can to retrofit the bus stock, but we have just put in a bid for £2.5 million from the clean bus technology fund so that we can retrofit another 170 buses. Will the Government support that?
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that question on an issue of great importance—reducing emissions from buses. We have done quite a lot of that already. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), will look forward to receiving the bid and will carefully examine it with her officials.
Emma Dent Coad
In Kensington and Chelsea, nearly 30,000 children are living with unsafe levels of air pollution. That is repeated across the country. Asthma UK and UNICEF UK tell us that babies born into heavily polluted areas are born with smaller lungs and brains, and are more prone to asthma, while those on steroids will have their physical development curtailed by this debilitating illness. Will the Minister please tackle this national health emergency by setting legally binding limits on particulates across the country, in line with World Health Organisation guidance, and give future generations a chance to thrive?
Jesse Norman
The hon. Lady will know that we are doing an enormous amount through the clean air fund and the other supported funding that we are giving to local authorities, including by working very closely with Transport for London. She is absolutely right to highlight the importance of this issue. However, I was slightly surprised when I carefully perused the shadow Secretary of State’s speech earlier this week, which discussed emissions in some detail, because I was unable to find virtually any mention of cycling, walking or active travel—an absolutely central part of this discussion. I commend that thought to Labour Members.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
While I warmly welcome any initiative that helps to curb emissions, I am slightly concerned that the roll-out of low emission zones across the country will lead to problems whereby motorists, hauliers and delivery drivers are having to comply with different regulations in whatever city they come into. Does the Minister agree that we also need to look into alternative solutions so that we do not just continue to tax the motorist but give them the alternative of buying a new car or paying taxes?
Jesse Norman
That point is very well made: I thank my hon. Friend. We have been talking to the various industry organisations about this issue. There is a concern that there might be a patchwork of permits as between different cities. It is not clear exactly what each city is going to be implementing by way of a zone. We are working very closely to see if we can minimise any disruption and potentially create a national charging infrastructure.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad), 4.5 million children are growing up in areas with unsafe levels of particulate matter. Over 70% of UK towns and cities have levels that are above the limit recommended by the World Health Organisation. When will the Minister protect our children from toxic air? Under his existing plans, they are likely to persistently face that for another 10 years.
Jesse Norman
I am slightly surprised that the hon. Lady, as Chair of the Transport Committee, is not aware of the very considerable funding—hundreds of millions of pounds—and the very specific and close work we are doing with cities, many of them Labour cities constructively working with Government on reducing this problem. It is a complex and multifaceted issue, and we are taking it very seriously.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
This week the chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change said that tackling climate change
“requires the strongest leadership in the heart of government.”
But with the Government set to miss their emission reduction targets, it is clear that the Transport Secretary has failed to provide the leadership required. I have a straightforward question for the Minister: do he and his boss believe in man-made climate change, and if so, why are they refusing to act?
Jesse Norman
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I am very much persuaded that many of the effects of man have been deleterious to the environment in many different ways, including relating to climate. Of course I share his concerns, but I am surprised that the Labour party is not taking this issue more seriously. How can he make a speech that discusses wide-ranging issues and not merely fails to mention issues of diversity or disability but barely focuses on cycling and walking—a critical set of interventions in which we are investing heavily across the country?
Andy McDonald
The Minister said there was nothing about that in my speech. I will send him a copy. He needs to read it again, because it was there.
Talk comes cheap, and what matters are actions. The Transport Secretary and his team have totally undermined carbon reduction measures by slashing subsidies for electric vehicles, scrapping rail electrification, gutting local bus services, allowing fares to soar and underfunding cycling. Will the Minister give an unequivocal undertaking to reverse those damaging cuts and embark on a programme of rapid decarbonisation of transport, or alternatively, will this Government instead go down as the one who chose not to act to protect the planet for future generations?
Jesse Norman
Far from having failed to read the hon. Gentleman’s speech, I have scrutinised it with almost rabbinical closeness. It is a rather interesting mixture of the good, the incoherent and the baffling. I quite liked some of the stuff about land value capture— I thought that was sensible—but it misunderstands the nature of carbon budgets, the entire purpose of which is to allow the whole of Government to make decisions about how carbon budgets, which we are presently meeting, will be addressed. It is also incoherent in wishing to nationalise the rail service, while also somehow removing Whitehall from the process. I look forward to further details and updates for the House.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am delighted to announce that we are making available from today £21 million in new funding to support the national cycle network. I have agreed with Sustrans that it will work with High Speed 2 and Highways England to integrate routes wherever possible and to use the money we have provided to leverage further investment from other sources.
Huw Merriman
I warmly welcome the extra funding from the Minister. Two weeks ago, the Select Committee on Transport took its active travel inquiry up to Manchester, where we met Chris Boardman, the walking and cycling commissioner. He told us that they are unable to introduce certain safety measures in Manchester, such as mini pedestrian crossings, due to being discouraged by the Department for Transport because those are not recognised interventions. How can the Department do more to devolve safety improvements to local authorities, so that we can eradicate some of the less safe areas of our streets?
Jesse Norman
That is such an important question. We are working closely across all parts of the Department for Transport to think about improving road safety. I have huge respect for the work that Chris Boardman is doing in Manchester. I have met him on several occasions, as well as Brian Deegan, his chief designer, and we have specifically discussed that issue. There is a tension between national standards and local innovation. We are keen to ensure that both are met in the right way. I will certainly take this up again, because it is an important issue, and we want to see more innovation, particularly in support of road safety.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Cycling and walking are good for the environment and they reduce congestion, support the public health agenda and are great fun. Chris Boardman is doing an excellent job in Greater Manchester, and I am about to appoint an active travel commissioner for South Yorkshire. Will the Minister meet my new active travel commissioner and me to discuss how we can work together to encourage more people to cycle and walk?
Jesse Norman
It is absolutely right to celebrate what is being done in Manchester. It is also important to celebrate what is being done elsewhere in the country. If Sheffield is taking a lead, that is fantastic. Great work is also being done in Birmingham by the Mayor there, who has just appointed his own west midlands cycling champion, which we welcome.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
Many millions of pounds have rightly been spent on providing cycle highways and cycle routes, but there is no requirement for cyclists to use them. Should it not become an offence for a cyclist not to use these highways where they are provided?
Jesse Norman
The answer to that, I think pretty clearly, is no. The roadway is for all users. Cycling infrastructure is used to try to preserve and protect cyclists. If that had the effect of forcing people into cycle lanes, it might have all kinds of road safety consequences that we would like to avoid.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
While I am a big fan of cycling, I am a bigger fan of walking, particularly for my disabled constituents, who tell me that they are really fed up with cyclists on pavements. We do need improvements to cycle lanes, to be sure, but what can the Minister tell us about improving safety for pedestrians, particularly disabled pedestrians?
Jesse Norman
I think the hon. Lady is absolutely right, and I very much salute her support for disabled people. She can have a word with the Secretary of State and, on her side, the shadow Secretary of State on the issue of disabilities. Walking is a very important part of the same issue. We are in the process of working very hard on a pavement parking review—it is coming towards the end of its work—and we are also working on the question of micro-mobility and how we regulate that. Both those issues are going to bear very closely on the question of how we think about enforcement against cyclists and other users of pavements who make life difficult for walkers.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
With the disappointing news in the last couple of days that Oxfordshire County Council has had to remove the B4044 cycle path from its housing infrastructure fund bid, first, will the Minister comment on what he is doing to work across Departments, particularly with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, to provide cycling as a way of helping with new housing; and, secondly, will he commit to working with me and Oxfordshire County Council to provide the B4044 bid as a stand-alone bid, so that we can get the cycle path we need?
Jesse Norman
I am happy to look at that. I met Oxford City Council, including its cycling champion and the leader of the council, just recently on these issues. Let me make one other point, which is that the advent of e-bikes—the Department is supporting them, and further news about them has been given this week—will also open up further housing opportunities around the country in a way that can only be good both for housing and for future personal health.
Mr Speaker
I apologise to the Minister, because as a consequence of his looking at the hon. Gentleman who questioned him, I did not hear him, but I think he floated the concept of an e-bike. Did he say e-bike?
Mr Speaker
Well, I look forward to further illumination in due course. I am not familiar with this nostrum, but I have a feeling that I am soon going to be. I must say that it sounds very exciting.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
At the weekend, I had the pleasure of walking the new South Loch Ness trail with a group of friends, one of whom is getting married, and we managed to get lost only once, which was pretty good given that there was a blizzard. That trail was only made possible thanks to funding from the European agriculture fund for rural development, so what steps are the Government taking to make sure that that kind of funding continues to exist for investment in rural infrastructure that promotes health and wellbeing after the United Kingdom leaves the European Union?
Jesse Norman
I do not know the particular circumstances of the route the hon. Gentleman is talking about, but I am sure he will join me in welcoming today’s news of the work on the national cycle network, which is precisely designed to target the kinds of cyclists and walkers he is describing.
Mr Speaker, on the issue of e-bikes—there is a somewhat “Not the Nine O’clock News” quality about this—an e-bike, m’Lud, is an electronically or electrically powered velocipede, either a pedal bike or a moped, which are differently regulated by the Department in each case.
Mr Speaker
I am genuinely grateful to the Minister. One learns something new every day, and I am now better informed.
Mr Speaker
Well, the hon. Gentleman says that we have not learned anything new for months, but I have learned something today—that little titbit from the Minister—and I am deeply obliged to the hon. Gentleman.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I am delighted that the Minister is encouraging more walking. May I urge him, as a Herefordshire MP, to spend some of his Easter holiday on the Long Mynd in the Shropshire hills, an area of outstanding natural beauty, so that he can promote walking to citizens while enjoying our beautiful Shropshire countryside?
Jesse Norman
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I have actually walked Long Mynd on several occasions, and I have also paraglided from the top of Long Mynd. I very much encourage him to contemplate that as a perfectly splendid additional mode of transport enabled by walking.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Based on what the Minister had to say about walking, cycling, e-bikes and all the rest, when will the Government get rid of their ministerial cars and have e-bikes instead?
Jesse Norman
I welcome that question. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I am a keen cyclist to and from work. Sometimes cars are required for security and other reasons, but I barely use a ministerial vehicle, and I encourage all colleagues to enjoy the benefits of cycling and walking.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
Walking is the most basic form of transport, and a 10-minute walk offers huge benefits to our health and our communities by easing congestion and air pollution. Areas where footpaths and pavements have been improved have seen increases in trade at local shops and a stronger sense of community, but nevertheless, millions of journeys of under a mile are still made by car. When will the Government properly fund their cycling and walking strategy, because the money that the Minister has announced today simply will not cut it?
Jesse Norman
In 2010 the funding levels that we inherited from the previous Government stood at about £2.50 per person, and they are now about £7.55 per person. We would like to get that spending a lot higher if we can, as we fully agree about the merits and benefits of cycling and walking. However, funding is now three times the amount that we inherited from the Government who had governed for 13 years.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Local bus journeys remain central to transport choices, accounting for around 59% of all public transport journeys. Numbers of local bus passenger journeys in England have been falling since the 1950s, and they fell by 1.9% in the year ending March 2018.
Judith Cummins
Bus services provide essential independence and freedom to people with disabilities, yet disabled bus passes allow free travel only after 9.30 am, despite the fact that most people start work before then. Will the Government commit to providing the funding necessary to lift those time restrictions on disabled bus passes?
Ms Ghani
The hon. Lady raises an important point. Bus passengers and disabled passengers have a close link, and it is right that someone’s ability to jump on a bus is about not just economics but social inclusion. That is why we launched the inclusive transport strategy last year. The concessionary bus budget is around £1 billion, which supports about 10 million passengers. That funding is concessionary and down to local authorities, which have very different packages up and down the country.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) made an excellent point, and on this Government’s watch the number of bus journeys is in freefall. Bus funding has been cut by £645 million a year, yet for many people bus services are a lifeline. When will the Government finally reverse those deeply damaging cuts?
Ms Ghani
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that bus services are a lifeline because, as I said earlier, not only do they get people to school and work, but they also tackle issues linked to loneliness. He is wrong about funding, however, because around £250 million is paid into bus services, and about £43 million of that goes directly to local authorities. We must understand what is happening up and down the country. In Reading, for example, just like in Bristol, Brighton and Liverpool, bus passenger numbers are up. That is why it is important to understand the powers in the Bus Service Act 2017, which enable local authorities to work with local bus companies and ensure a focus on the services that local passengers want.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
In 2018, 292 million passengers flew to or from a UK airport. That figure was almost 3% higher than in 2017, and 24% higher than in 2008. The feedback that I have received from airports this year suggests that they expect that growth to continue. The one thing that could bring that growth to a grinding halt is Labour’s plan, which was announced yesterday, to hike the cost of going on holiday.
David Duguid
On 8 February easyJet ended its service between Aberdeen and Gatwick, which was the latest in a succession of cuts to flights between Aberdeen and London. British Airways has reduced services between Aberdeen and Heathrow in recent months, and that is making life more difficult for businesses and individuals across north-east Scotland, including in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss the impact that those service reductions are having on the north-east economy, and say what can be done to help alleviate the situation?
Chris Grayling
I will be very happy to meet my hon. Friend. He knows my concern about the need to guarantee enough capacity for regional connections. It is one of the reasons we have said there will be a bloc of new capacity at Heathrow airport, when it expands, set aside for regional connections. That is fundamentally important to the future of aviation in the United Kingdom.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State highlights the projected increase in passengers, particularly at Heathrow. In recognising that and planning ahead, does he agree that a new southern rail access to Heathrow serving Surrey and southern markets and going, hopefully, via Feltham in my constituency, will be a positive contribution, increasing the speed at which passengers reach Heathrow and reducing congestion?
Chris Grayling
I absolutely agree: we need both western and southern access to Heathrow. That is an important part of ensuring that the airport can expand in a sustainable way, but it will also make a real difference to the hon. Lady’s constituents who work at the airport.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Air passenger duty not only puts UK airports at a competitive disadvantage, but is a particular challenge to domestic carriers, where passengers end up paying the duty twice. Will the Secretary of State join the “A Fair Tax on Flying” campaign and encourage the Treasury to cut air passenger duty on domestic flights once we leave the EU?
Chris Grayling
I know how strongly people in regional airports feel about this issue and the intense pressure from around the United Kingdom on the Treasury to look at this again. I know my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken careful note of all those representations. Of course, the one thing that would not help Newquay airport and others is Labour’s plan to hike air passenger duty.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Which? reckons that, if we have a no-deal Brexit, British passengers may well face more than five hours’ wait in airports in this country and on returning to the UK. It recommends that people should take with them not only water and food, but nappies. Does the Secretary of State recognise that there is a real danger in a no-deal Brexit for British passengers? Has he considered yet using the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 to make sure that passengers are protected?
Chris Grayling
We of course continue to look very carefully at all the potential implications of different Brexit scenarios. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that passengers from this country go on holiday around the world, not just in the European Union, and they do not end up waiting for five hours at airports. The reality is that those countries and those airports want British tourists and they will work to make sure that that is possible.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
To encourage passenger numbers flying out of Scottish airports, why will the Secretary of State not guarantee public service obligations for additional slots for the new runway at Heathrow?
Chris Grayling
I have been very clear that the Government will, using the tools at our disposal, ensure there is guaranteed capacity for regional airports at Heathrow. That is absolutely clear Government policy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The passenger numbers at Belfast City airport and Belfast International airport have been exceptionally good, but connectivity is key. Will the Secretary of State outline what connectivity can be brought to benefit Belfast City airport, Belfast International airport and Londonderry City airport?
Chris Grayling
I have had regular meetings with both airports since becoming Secretary of State. They have great ambitions to expand their route networks. The commitment I give to the hon. Gentleman is that my ministerial team and I will do everything we can to support their ambitions to attract more international routes and better connections within the United Kingdom.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
The rise in passenger numbers has obviously led the Government to become complacent. Long-haul connections from UK airports have not kept up with our European competitors and many airlines are feeling the pinch. Is it not time for the Government to commit to road and rail investment to strategically important airports, so that they can compete effectively?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman clearly has not been following too closely what has happened. We have, for example, just opened a new road alongside Manchester airport. We are in the development phase of western rail access to Heathrow. We are taking HS2 to Old Oak Common, creating new opportunities for accessing Heathrow airport, and there are more things happening around the country. I absolutely share his view that we need to improve connections to airports. [Interruption.] He says, “Heathrow”. We have just funded new trains for Newcastle-upon-Tyne Metro, which of course connects to the airport. The Government are investing in connections to our airports.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
Flights between the United Kingdom and the European Union will continue whatever the outcome of EU exit. The Government will continue to work closely with the UK aviation sector as we negotiate our future relationship with the EU, including to maintain the leading position of the sector.
Mr Bailey
In the event of a no-deal Brexit, flights between the EU and the UK would be capped at 2018 levels, which could result in the cancellation of up to 5 million flight tickets. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the financial impact on the air travel industry, and of consumers’ ability to emulate the Prime Minister in her ability to walk on water?
Chris Grayling
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong, because a new regulation is now in place that guarantees aviation between the UK and the EU in all circumstances, and it does not include any kind of cap.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Chris Grayling
We had done a lot of work on ensuring that we had good plans for bilateral arrangements, were they to become necessary, but I can tell the House that in the past few days the European Council has confirmed and ratified a regulation to ensure that across the whole European Union flights will continue as normal this summer. That means people can go ahead and book their holidays with impunity and enjoy a good time in their normal destinations.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Wherever people fly in Europe, they have always been protected by good relationships and good air safety, but the Secretary of State must be aware of the scandalous situation in which people are frightened to fly on a certain type of Boeing aircraft. There are leaks indicating that there are real problems that Boeing has not faced up to. It has not grounded the 737 fleet. Planes are crashing and people are dying, and Boeing should be brought to book. Is he going to do something about it?
Chris Grayling
As the hon. Gentleman knows, this country was one of the first to ground the 737 Max aircraft, which was absolutely the right thing to do. There are clearly some alarming circumstances surrounding the two accidents that have taken place. It is something that Boeing clearly has to deal with. Unless and until the problem is solved, I cannot see countries such as ours allowing those planes to fly again.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Regardless of when we leave the European Union, we must continue to apply the highest environmental standards around our airports. What will the Secretary of State do to continue to reduce the noise footprint around airports, particularly those in very built-up areas, such as London City airport?
Chris Grayling
We have now appointed the head of the new aircraft noise body, which will monitor noise levels at airports and inform the Civil Aviation Authority when it needs to step in and use its enforcement powers. Of course, with the transition to a new generation of lower noise, lower emission and lower fuel consuming jets, the noise footprint around our airports is now considerably lower than it was a few years ago.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
My Department is working closely with the transport industry to ensure that businesses and passengers are prepared for EU exit. We engage frequently with stakeholders to understand their needs, and we have taken action to ensure that we are prepared for all possible outcomes. We have agreed contingency regulations with the EU to ensure that flights continue and that hauliers have access to the EU marketplace in a no-deal scenario. We have also set up new UK safety certification regimes so that we have proper safety standards and rules in place in all eventualities.
John Spellar
Unfortunately, the Secretary of State did not refer to the manufacturing industry in that answer. As Brexit looms, his civil servants will no longer have their lame excuse that they are unable to prefer trains built locally—an interpretation of European regulations that is not shared by any other major country in Europe. Even when a firm built a factory in the north-east, it disgracefully lost a contract to a firm that will build the great majority of those trains abroad. Will this Brexit-supporting Secretary of State finally show some backbone and instruct his civil servants to buy trains made in British factories by British workers?
Chris Grayling
Of course, the contract to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, which was won by Siemens rather than the other bidders, including Hitachi in the north-east, was in fact let by the current Labour Mayor of London.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
When it comes to support for planning, it should be noted that, earlier this month, the chief executive of the Road Haulage Association said:
“It’s obvious that government has lost its way…tens of thousands of UK hauliers… are still in the dark. Because of government ineptitude they are simply not ready.”
In a similar vein, can the Secretary of State confirm that the no-deal ferry contracts do not allow for a delayed start date? If so, what will be the cost to the taxpayer and his Department of this latest blunder?
Chris Grayling
If the hon. Gentleman had been listening a moment ago, he would have heard me say that we have now completed interim arrangements. The European Union has introduced interim regulations to ensure that hauliers will continue to have access to the European market, which is the right thing to do. We do not want businesses to be disrupted, and those firms will be able to continue to travel to and from the continent in the coming months, doing the work that they do now.
Alan Brown
If the Secretary of State listened to the question, it would be much more helpful than listening to the answer.
A spokesman for the road freight industry has stated:
“Our pleas for clarity have been constant—yet none has been forthcoming.”
He also said:
“We have never shared Mr Grayling's optimism”.
Given the £33 million settlement payment to Eurotunnel, a reported £28 million compensation payment to the ferry companies in respect of the no-deal contracts, a shortage of some 60,000 HGV drivers that will be exacerbated by Brexit, and the loss of transport industry confidence, surely the best boost for the industry would be the Secretary of State’s stepping aside.
Chris Grayling
In the light of the conversations that took place yesterday and the statement from the President of the European Council, I am quite glad that we will have provision in a week’s time—if it is necessary, and I hope that it will not be—to ensure that essential supplies and medicines can come into the country. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman does not want a no deal, his party could climb off its high horse and support the Prime Minister’s deal.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
The Department’s call for evidence, issued on 7 February, seeks views on how we can seize the opportunities to build on the success of light rail. I am grateful for the response that the hon. Lady sent to the Department highlighting the potential merits of extending the Metro system to Washington, and we will ensure that her comments are taken into full consideration.
Mrs Hodgson
Residents of Washington often feel like the town is an island compared with neighbouring cities and towns. It contains 70,000 of my constituents, 70% of whom use their car to get to work. Does the Minister not agree that investment in transport infrastructure—such as the extension of the best light rail system in the north-east to Washington—would be the perfect way to encourage people out of their cars, reduce congestion, improve air quality and reduce the nation’s carbon footprint? What’s not to love?
Andrew Jones
As ever, the hon. Lady has made a strong case for the original Washington. We are keen supporters of this local transport system. We are investing £317 million in the Metro renewals and refurbishment programme and a further £337 million in renewing the fleet, as the Secretary of State said a moment ago.
I am aware that Nexus has identified a number of opportunities to expand the Metro network. It is up to Nexus to build a business case and to seek funding accordingly, but I support the hon. Lady’s basic argument, which is that transport investment is a driver of economic growth and environmental improvement. That is why we are investing so much in our networks across the country.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
Network Rail’s proposed investment in the rail network in Wales during control period 6—between now and 2024—is £1.34 billion. That builds on the £900 million invested throughout control period 5 since 2014. That constitutes an increase of just under 50%. That investment will build a bigger, better railway for Wales.
Chris Elmore
Wales contains 11% of the UK railway network, but since 2010 it has received only 2% of the overall funding. Last year it received £177 million, while north-west London alone received £669 million. That is not acceptable. When will the Minister start investing in the Welsh railway network and end this chronic underfunding?
Andrew Jones
I am keen to see investment in the rail network throughout the United Kingdom. The budget for control period 6 is a record £48 billion, and, as I said a moment ago, the Wales budget for the next five years is £1.34 billion. That is just to tackle the infrastructure; we are also investing in tackling the new franchise—which is run by the Welsh Government—and in rolling stock.
Mr Speaker
Order. Although the hon. Gentleman represents Cleethorpes, which if memory serves me correctly is in north-east Lincolnshire, he is also a noted parliamentary celebrity in that he chairs the all-party group on rail and therefore we are interested in his thoughts on this matter.
Martin Vickers
Thank you for the introduction, Mr Speaker.
If my residents in Cleethorpes wanted to access the Welsh rail network, the first part of their journey would be to catch the TransPennine Express from Cleethorpes to Manchester and, if they did so, as they were leaving Cleethorpes station they would pass over Suggitts Lane level crossing, which as the Minister knows from his recent visit to my constituency is under threat of closure by Network Rail. Could he use his best endeavours to influence Network Rail to look at all other safety measures rather than closure?
Andrew Jones
I can see, Mr Speaker, why you referred to my hon. Friend as a parliamentary celebrity; that was properly ingenious. I will of course do all I can to help with the Suggitts Lane level crossing issue, and I much enjoyed my recent visit to his constituency and thank him for arranging the roundtable with local businesses.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Whether it is the line down to Wrexham or indeed the north Wales coast line, railways in Chester are hampered by the blockage that is the Hoole bridge in my constituency, which the Secretary of State knows about because he visited it during the 2017 general election. During the next control period, will Ministers make money available to improve and rebuild Hoole bridge?
Andrew Jones
I am not quite as familiar with the geography of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency as he is, so I will have to do some investigation work and then report back to him.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The welcome investment in the Halton curve has meant that train services from Liverpool to Wrexham will very shortly recommence for the first time on a direct service, but will the Minister investigate with the Welsh Assembly Government and the local authorities the possibility of extending that service up the north Wales coast to Flint and other stations in north Wales for tourism and business purposes?
Andrew Jones
I will certainly investigate the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman. The £16 million investment in the Halton curve has enabled that new hourly direct service between Lime Street and Chester, therefore making it easier for constituents he serves and others across north Wales to travel, so I will see what we can do to make that easier.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
As my hon. Friend will know, Highways England is spending a lot of time and effort thinking about improving the strategic network around the midlands through its investment strategy; smart motorways and junction improvements on the M5 are part of that. I am sure he will also join me in celebrating the recent announcement of our large local major schemes, including the A4440 at Worcester-Carrington bridge.
Nigel Huddleston
What plans does the Department have to improve the A46, a vital artery that is key to unlocking economic growth, jobs and housing right across the midlands, and how is the Department working with Midlands Connect in achieving those goals?
Jesse Norman
My hon. Friend will be aware that we are already investing in the A46 link road phase 1 at Stoneleigh junction and in junction improvements around Coventry. We have also funded Midlands Connect to carry out a full corridor study designed to look at potential improvements, and that is an important piece of work. We expect to receive its corridor investment strategy later this year and will be taking it very seriously.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Will the Minister join me in urging Midlands Connect to have a balance of schemes in the east midlands and not just the west midlands? Perhaps he will commend to Midlands Connect the M1-A38 link road and Codnor bypass as it will be a perfect scheme to prove its commitment to the east midlands.
Jesse Norman
I thank my hon. Friend for registering that point in the most public way possible. I am not aware of any particular bias in Midlands Connect; I do not think it has one. We work closely with it on any of the schemes that it brings forward.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
The Government have frozen regulated rail fares in line with inflation for the sixth year in a row. In addition we announced the launch of a new 16 to 17-year-old railcard, with up to 1.2 million young people eligible for a 50% discount on rail travel to coincide with the new academic year. Fares revenue is crucial to funding day-to-day railway operations and the massive upgrade programme we are delivering, all of which benefit passengers.
Mr Hepburn
The Office of Rail and Road says that the train operating companies have paid out £1.3 billion in dividends since 2014. Would it not be better to use this money to cut fares, rather than paying fat cats in the private sector?
Andrew Jones
I should point out that 98p in every £1 paid in fares goes back into investment in the industry. The argument about nationalising the railways is one that we have had here before, and I think it is the wrong approach. The approach that we have taken for the past 25 years has led to a record growth in passenger numbers, a record number of services on our network and a record level of safety across our network. The hon. Gentleman’s suggestion would simply move us back to the 1970s and to a model that failed.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
I was very pleased to be in Dawlish last month to kick off the next stage of our programme to make the railway line there resilient against storms and floods. The £80 million investment in the new sea wall south of the station should mean that the line does not get blocked by high tides as it has done in the past, and I look forward to that work being completed later this year. Further work at Dawlish will follow, and we have also completed work around Exeter to provide greater resilience in that area. It is a real priority for this Government to ensure that the rail network in the south-west does not get disconnected by storms and bad weather in the future.
Kevin Foster
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving me such a positive answer. The news of the £80 million funding for the new sea wall was very welcome for the whole region. As he knows, when the Dawlish line is cut off, the whole of Devon and Cornwall is cut off from the network. Can he confirm that, if the local council gives planning permission for the work, it will be started very quickly, to deliver this much-needed scheme?
Chris Grayling
I very much hope that the work will commence within a matter of weeks. We will then need to go on and deal with the cliffs, which are a significant issue and will require longer development and consent processes because of the extremely sensitive environment around them. It is my view that we need to sort out the cliffs as well as the sea wall.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
The Department monitors operator performance closely through the franchise agreement. If performance falls below a predetermined level, we can require the operator to incur expenditure to improve performance for passengers. If an operator delivers consistently poor performance, the Department can intervene to act in passengers’ best interests, and this can include removing the franchise and acting as the operator of last resort.
Tom Brake
The Minister will be aware, as will anyone here who is a Southern commuter, that for the past three years Southern has been let off the hook again and again. He will also know that, from next month, train operators will switch to “on time” as a target. Southern is currently hitting that target only 72% of the time. At what point will he call for the company to be sacked?
Andrew Jones
The right hon. Gentleman is not correct to say that action is not being taken. We have held Govia Thameslink Railway, which is part of the bigger franchise, to account for its role in the disruption last year. I recognise that the quality of service that he expects for his constituents has not been delivered over the past few years, but GTR will not make a profit in this financial year and we have capped the profit that it can make for the remaining years of its franchise. GTR is also paying £15 million into a fund for tangible improvements, in addition to the £15 million that it contributed towards the special compensation scheme.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Further to the question from the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), not only should GTR not be making a profit; it should be making a whopping loss for the appalling pig’s ear it has made of our service. After all those sanctions and penalties, how on earth can the Minister justify GTR still having that franchise?
Andrew Jones
I recognise the frustration that people have experienced in parts of our network, but just bringing the franchise to an end could cause further and unnecessary disruption for passengers and therefore be an inappropriate course of action. The question should be how we can improve our network, and that is the action that we are taking. We are seeing this coming through in performance improvements.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Poor performance is not just down to the operating companies. Peak-time trains between Sheffield and London are running slower than they were a year ago because of the botched timetable changes that the Department brought in. When is the Minister going to reverse those changes so that the journey times for peak-time trains between Sheffield and London can get back to being less than two hours, as they were a year ago?
Andrew Jones
The hon. Gentleman makes a point about Sheffield, so I will highlight the amount of work happening on the midland main line to improve journey times and passenger experiences up and down the network, including Sheffield.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
People in East Dunbartonshire experience an appalling rail service, particularly on the Milngavie line, where only 28% of trains arrive on time. Does the Minister know of any other train line on which performance is quite so poor, or could the Milngavie line be the worst in Britain?
Andrew Jones
The operation of the rail network north of the border is a matter for the Scottish Government, so I am not as sighted on the matter that the hon. Lady raises. If I start to become very excited about the issue, I may be treading into devolved territory, which may be inappropriate. However, I am aware of lines up and down the country on which performance has not been good enough, which is why we are investing at a record level to improve that performance.
Mr Speaker
Surplus excitement is undesirable. The Minister has an exciting enough life as it is, gadding about the country on a variety of different train services, and we are indebted to him.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
Trains to planes, Mr Speaker. The Aviation Minister has held discussions on remote air traffic control tower operations with several organisations, including the Civil Aviation Authority, NATS, operators of airports such as Cranfield, Highlands and Islands Airports, and the Western Isles Council.
Mr Carmichael
Highlands and Islands Airports and the Scottish Transport Minister seem determined to drive the centralisation of air traffic control across the highlands and islands, despite the legitimate safety concerns expressed by its staff and socioeconomic concerns expressed by communities across the region. If they are not going to listen to us, will the Secretary of State ensure that the CAA certainly does when it comes to the sign-off of any scheme?
Chris Grayling
I know well the team that runs the CAA, and I can give the right hon. Gentleman an undertaking that they would not sign off anything that they believed was unsafe.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
I am pleased to announce today that I have approved more than £54 million of funding for the north-west relief road in Shrewsbury. It is an important route that will take cars away from the town centre, reducing congestion, cutting journey times and improving air quality within Shrewsbury, and it forms part of a £1.8 billion programme in the midlands alone to improve motorways and major roads.
Nigel Mills
May I take the Secretary of State back a year to when he came with me to Alfreton station in my constituency and saw the need for level access to the south-bound platform? Now that the new funding period is starting, can I get an update on when money will be released to deliver that improvement?
Chris Grayling
I am aware of that issue, which my hon. Friend and I saw together, and I will ask the rail Minister to give him an early update.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
There are just eight days until the UK leave the EU. No deal or plan is in place; there is simply chaos across the Government. However, it is the chaos across our borders that is my concern today. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the Prime Minister, in making her case to the European Council to avoid a no-deal Brexit and about how essential it is to extend article 50, highlights that a border between the EU and the UK will harm trade and the flow of goods, food and medicines and be catastrophic for the logistics sector?
Chris Grayling
As the hon. Lady and the House will know, we do not want problematic arrangements at the border. Indeed, the deal that the Prime Minister has reached with the European Union would prevent such problems. The hon. Lady is right to say that there are only eight days left, so why does the Labour party continue to put party advantage ahead of national interest? Labour should support the deal next week, so that we can move forward with a constructive partnership with the EU.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
As my hon. Friend will be entirely aware—he is a tireless campaigner on this issue, on which we have met—Highways England is reviewing plans for the A27 in light of feedback from the public consultation. We will hopefully have a chance to review and discuss it with Highways England and, in due course, with my hon. Friend. I look forward to it, but I cannot tell him exactly when it will be.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
Chris Grayling
As I indicated in a previous statement to the House, this is being looked at carefully by the National Audit Office, which will publish all the information in due course.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
Jesse Norman
I recognise my hon. Friend’s expertise and understanding, and I thank him for the question. Of course drivers deserve to know how secure their cars are. The taskforce brings industry, police and the Government together to see what more can be done, which includes reviewing public advice on how owners can secure their vehicles, as well as addressing new and emerging threats. We look closely at what it is doing, and we will continue to do so.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
Chris Grayling
The haulage industry is, of course, a commercial business, and we expect it to provide training for new employees. The Government have put in place a wide variety of support for training through the apprenticeship levy and through other work by the Department for Education and the skills sector. It is for commercial businesses to deliver the training their staff require, and the Government will always provide whatever support we can to help them do so.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
Jesse Norman
This is obviously a very serious matter. I thought my hon. Friend would raise the announcement of the preferred route for the Air Balloon roundabout, but this is even more important. He will be aware that the cycling and walking investment strategy safety review includes consideration of horse riders. As it happens, the Department’s Think! campaign has only just launched a new “learn the ways of the road” campaign, which includes looking out for vulnerable road users, particularly horse riders. The point is well made, and I will talk to DEFRA colleagues about this issue because, as he says, getting horse riders off the road is the best way to keep them safe.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Some of the people of Knowsley are having real problems getting to work. On the one hand, they regularly face cancellations on Northern Rail and, on the other hand, if they have to use the Mersey Gateway to get to work in the morning, they have to pay £900 a year. The Secretary of State has done absolutely nothing to address any of these problems. Is it not about time he moved out of the way and let someone else get on with it?
Chris Grayling
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have been working hard with Transport for the North to improve the performance of Northern Rail. As he will also know, the Mersey Gateway bridge and its infrastructure were done in collaboration with Halton Borough Council to enable a substantial additional facility to be put in place for the north-west.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Through the next east midlands franchise, passenger services on the Derby to Crewe corridor will benefit from increased capacity, which means that trains will operate with at least one extra carriage to help satisfy local demand. This will be supplemented by additional early and late services, and improved Sunday services. The bids for the next east midlands franchise are currently being considered. Ministers just do not see those bids during that stage of the process, but as soon as there is news, I will share it with him. Of course, we will be delighted to meet him, as I always am. I cannot promise to bring my cheque book just at the moment, but I look forward to discussing the issue further with him.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Dockless bike hire schemes could have been transformative, but too many of those schemes have crashed and burned, leaving a trail of destruction behind them. Despite repeated calls from across this House, the Government have not regulated. Will they soon act?
Jesse Norman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. Of course dockless bikes are a source of interesting innovation, and it has been important to see how that innovation is playing out. They can be regulated under a variety of local government powers. As we see further developments, we will continue to look at this. They will also potentially be subject to the discussion in respect of the micro-mobility review we are doing at the moment, through the future mobility strategy.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Will the Minister update us on progress on Access for All funding bids, specifically the one I made for Upminster station in my constituency, which would help disabled people at this busy hub to connect to Crossrail in Romford and which has the full backing of the Havering Association for People with Disabilities?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
My hon. Friend has made multiple representations on behalf of her constituency. The Access for All funding is about £300 million, and the decision will be made public in due course, around April.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
In response to the question from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), the Secretary of State committed the Government, on Heathrow expansion, to support regional links. Will he confirm where he expects that support to come from—the Government, local authorities or, in Scotland’s case, the Scottish Government?
Chris Grayling
There are two points to make. We have various tools at our disposal, including the public service obligation system, to protect routes and sometimes to support them. However, as Heathrow expands and as demand for air travel grows, I do not expect most of those routes to need Government support. This is a question of making sure that the capacity is available for routes that will be commercial.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Headcorn station, in my constituency, is used by more than 600,000 passengers each year, yet it has no step-free access, making thousands of journeys more difficult for disabled passengers. Will the Minister update me on whether Headcorn will receive funding from the Access for All programme?
Ms Ghani
My hon. Friend raises an important point; a lot of our rail infrastructure is incredibly old, even though 75% of journeys are step-free. The decisions on the £300 million that has been allocated for step-free access are taking place at the moment. I am afraid that I cannot tell her about this right now, but the decisions will be made public in April.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
We know that the settlement for the next rail investment period has been underfunded, and my constituents want to see a train station at Parkhead. So when looking at future rail investment, will the Minister agree to look at the case for Parkhead and fund it properly going forward?
Chris Grayling
This is nonsense; the investment going into our rail network in the next few years is at a record level, and the money coming to Scotland, thanks to the generosity of this Government, goes beyond what the Scottish Government would be entitled to under the Barnett formula. I suggest they use that money wisely, to provide the kind of additional facility the hon. Gentleman is asking for.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Network Rail has demolished the Leyland bridge, with no short-term plan to put a temporary structure in place so that we have not got the inconvenience and great disruption being caused to local residents and businesses. Will the Minister intervene to make sure that Network Rail urgently reviews this and finds a temporary solution to this pressing problem?
Chris Grayling
I am aware of the issue; my hon. Friend has raised it with me. I simply say to him that I have asked for this matter to be looked at carefully. I do not want improvement works to be done at the disadvantage of his constituents.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
Which is the greatest danger to the Secretary of State’s Department—no deal, or no Brexit?
Chris Grayling
My Department will prepare for all eventualities and we are doing so.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Recent vegetation management alongside the railway has destroyed huge swathes of the Erewash landscape. Will the Minister outline what further steps have been taken to ensure that Network Rail does vegetation management responsibly and does not take the drastic measures it has taken throughout my constituency? It is really affecting the wildlife, as well as my constituents’ wellbeing.
Andrew Jones
We have been reviewing Network Rail’s environmental performance, and the consequences of the recently published new environmental strategy should follow through all areas of Network Rail’s work. We obviously need to maintain a safe rail network, but we also want to see the embankments and all the Network Rail land deliver environmental benefits. The two are not incompatible. I do not know about the specific area around my hon. Friend’s constituency, but I am happy to look at it. As regards the overall picture, we have seen some real change and progress in this policy area, and it will be a priority for the future.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Electrification is clearly the optimal solution for intensively used rail lines, and the Railway Industry Association has shown that it can be delivered at costs that are 33% to 50% lower than those for past projects, if it is part of a rolling programme. Why will the Secretary of State not electrify the midland main line and give Nottingham the cleaner, greener and cheaper services it deserves?
Chris Grayling
I am sure the hon. Lady will welcome the fact that under my stewardship, in the past three months the Department for Transport and our transport system has opened three times more electrified railway than the Labour party did in 13 years in office, so I am not going to take any lessons from the Labour party. We continue a programme of modernisation of our rail network, which includes electrification and extra capacity and gets cars off the roads and people on to the railways.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State update the House on when he expects Crossrail to start running? What investigation has been carried out into the scandal of its finances and budget and the overspending that has taken place?
Andrew Jones
The new management team at Crossrail is working through the project and will be advising everybody next month, I think, as to when there will be a target opening date. I do not think that information will come soon enough—I know that Londoners, including those represented by my hon. Friend, are hungry for it—but the scheme will be fantastic for London and the rest of the country when it opens. On the financial performance, the budget is managed by Transport for London, and the London Assembly has done some investigation work. In terms of the Department’s role, TfL and the Mayor came to the Department seeking a loan to help with the delivery of the project, and we were happy to help them. A further £2.1 billion has been made available, and that should be enough to see the project through to completion.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
My train home on Monday night was cancelled and the train that I was trying to get in on yesterday was advertised as 20 minutes late when I gave up on it. That is just two of the seven trains I have caught so far this week, and it is a regular experience for my constituents. I raise the issue in the Chamber regularly. Will someone just come to the Dispatch Box and tell me, “We hear your pain” and that Ministers are going to do something about the Southeastern rail franchise?
Andrew Jones
I am acutely aware of the service levels of all our rail franchises throughout the country. I am also aware that 2018 was a difficult year and that some of the problems have continued. At the same time, it is fair to point out that we are seeing a service that is delivering more passengers and more services, at record levels of safety. In respect of the individual services that the hon. Gentleman tried to use, if he drops me a line I will look into them, take the matter up with the rail franchise and find out why the services were cancelled.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
We must make the most of all the transport links that we already have. The Cotswold line is in urgent need of further upgrades, including further redoubling, to help with reliability and capacity. Will the Minister meet me so that I can make the case to him?
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
May I press the rail Minister again in relation to the Pencoed level crossing in my constituency? I have been asking for almost three years now for Transport Ministers to engage in getting the level crossing closed. The Labour-led local authority and the Welsh Labour Government have put forward funding for a transport plan. Wales Office officials are attending these meetings to close the level crossing. Will the Minister commit to sending officials to the next meeting to work towards closing one of the most dangerous crossings in Wales?
Andrew Jones
I will certainly make sure that officials are fully engaged on this issue.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was said by the Minister, the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), that I had made no mention of cycling in my speech to the Institute for Government yesterday. I made five mentions of it, and there were 300 words devoted to the subject. The Secretary of State then added that yesterday Labour announced hiking the cost of going on holiday. Mr Speaker, I do not want to stray into using unparliamentary language, but that is not true. I seek your guidance as to what we can do to ensure that Ministers come to the Dispatch Box to correct the record.
Mr Speaker
Well, the Secretary of State appears to wish to say something. [Interruption.] Order. We are not going to continue the debate. If the Secretary of State wishes to correct the record or to explain in a sentence why he does not feel any need to do so, that would be acceptable.
Chris Grayling
I simply refer to the section of the hon. Gentleman’s speech where he says that air passenger duty has been frozen. He goes on to say:
“This is not a sensible approach to transport policy.”
So it is exactly what he says.
Mr Speaker
Well, very well. The matter will have to rest there. I simply say to the shadow Secretary of State that I might well have been intrigued to read the speech anyway, but in light of the fact that there are these five references, which he has just advertised to the House and the nation, I am now impelled to do so. It sounds a diverting read and it will form part of my late-night consumption in the days and weeks ahead and I am deeply grateful to him.
Northern Ireland Assembly Election
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement regarding the extension of her power under the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018 not to hold an Assembly election.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)
I am grateful for the opportunity to update the House on my progress towards restoring the Northern Ireland Executive and the other institutions established under the Belfast agreement.
In recent weeks, I have met the Northern Ireland parties and the Irish Government on a number of occasions. In those discussions, all five main parties reaffirmed their commitment to restoring a power-sharing Executive and the other political institutions set out in the Belfast agreement.
Although we have not yet been able to start a formal talks process, I believe that the five main parties and the Irish Government would be in favour of taking forward a short, focused set of roundtable talks to restore devolution at the earliest opportunity. Any such talks process will involve the UK Government, the five main parties and the Irish Government taking place in full accordance with the well-established three-stranded approach.
As you know, Mr Speaker, the period for Executive formation was extended by the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018, which lasts until 26 March this year. I am incredibly reluctant to extend that period. The people of Northern Ireland deserve strong political leadership from a locally elected, accountable devolved Government and I am absolutely focused on achieving that outcome. But as we stand here today, there are only three options before the legislation expires next week. The first is an Assembly election, which is a costly exercise that would be highly unlikely to change the political dynamics. The second is an alternative approach to decision making in Northern Ireland, such as direct rule, which I do not believe is in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland—certainly they tell me that it is not what they want.
The third option is to extend the Act. This gives the political parties more space to come back together in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland. It also provides the Northern Ireland civil service with the certainty and clarity that they need to continue to deliver public services in the absence of Ministers.
I have today laid before Parliament a statutory instrument to extend the period for the Act from 26 March 2019 to 25 August 2019. This means that from 26 August this year I will fall under the duty to propose a date for an Assembly election. Both Houses will have the opportunity to debate the instrument in the usual way, and the instrument cannot remain in force unless actively approved by both Houses.
Tony Lloyd
I thank the Secretary of State for her initial response, but I remind the House that it is now well over two years since the Stormont Assembly last sat. In previous periods, we have sometimes had direct rule, but we have most certainly had Secretaries of State and Prime Ministers actively engaged in bringing the parties together.
Before the passing of the Act last October, the law required that the Secretary of State call an election. There were cynics who said that the reason for the legislation was that the Secretary of State wanted to avoid judicial review and being dragged through the courts to explain why she had failed to call the election. Operating on the bipartisan principle from which all Governments have benefited in the 20-plus years since the Good Friday agreement, we reluctantly accepted last October the need for the legislation. We did that, however, only after consultation and after the Secretary of State had let us know her plans. During the passage of the Act, she promised that she and the Prime Minister would spare no effort to bring the five parties together and get the Stormont Assembly back in operation. In October, it seemed incredible that it would not happen before this March, but five months on I discover through social media—it is unacceptable that consultation takes place through social media—that she plans to extend the period of the legislation.
I am bound to put this first question to the Secretary of State: has she given up on bringing the parties together? Nobody in Northern Ireland—none of the political parties—says to me they believe she has been sincere or energetic in her determination to get the parties together and the Stormont Assembly back up and running. The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) said in The House magazine that
“her basic policy approach has been flawed in the sense that she has decided that Northern Ireland could just stand still, leave it to the civil servants. For that, that’s a glaring failure on her part.”
Many people agree with that assessment.
Does the Secretary of State now accept that nothing will happen until after August and that we will drift along once again? If not, and given that she has so little credibility among the political parties, how does she now plan to drive the talks process forward in a meaningful and consistent way, and in a way we have not seen before? What will her best endeavours be, according to the needs of the Good Friday agreement, to move the situation on and bring the five parties together, and how does she intend to involve the authority of the Prime Minister in a way that previous Northern Ireland Secretaries have done with previous Prime Ministers?
I do not like ever to personalise politics, but I have to say to the Secretary of State that she has seen a massive haemorrhaging of trust in her role in recent weeks and months, because of inadvertent remarks she has uttered and her lack of energy in bringing the five parties together. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has to be a figure of both trust and authority. If she is not part of the solution, she becomes part of the problem, so my last question is this: does she honestly believe that she can regain the confidence of the five parties and the people of Northern Ireland and drive Northern Ireland forward?
Karen Bradley
I have to say I am very disappointed by the hon. Gentleman’s tone—he is someone I respect and have enormous time for.
I was incredibly disappointed when I saw that my conversations with political parties yesterday had been put out in press releases and ended up on social media. That was not the intention. I made this decision having consulted all five main parties—I spoke to them all yesterday, either face to face or over the telephone—and I also spoke to the Irish Government, and when I had consulted all those parties and said that I was minded to extend the legislation, but only if there was any prospect or possibility of the parties coming together, and they confirmed to me that that was the case, I contacted the hon. Gentleman. I, too, am disappointed that information was on social media before I had had the chance to contact him, but I assure him that I contacted him at the very earliest opportunity after I had made my decision based on my conversations with the parties.
I do meet the parties regularly, I do speak to them and I do hear from them. I brought the parties together in five-party talks to see whether we could find a way to get a process in place. Parties tell me that they want to do that, so I intend to spend the next few weeks working with them on actions that can be taken so that, when we are able to start a formal talks process, we are able to do so in a way that gives us the best chance of success.
The hon. Gentleman is right that two years is too long for the people of Northern Ireland to be without Ministers. I know that the parties want to find a way to go back into Stormont, and I want to do everything in my power to ensure that that happens. That is why, extremely reluctantly, I have laid the instrument today—an instrument that he will have 90 minutes to debate on the Floor of the House, and can vote against if he disagrees with it.
The hon. Gentleman says that he wants to see devolution restored in Northern Ireland, yet he consistently undermines that position by demanding that decisions are taken in Westminster—the very opposite of devolution. He also says that he wants to see Northern Ireland protected in Brexit, but he consistently votes against the only position that protects the Belfast agreement—the deal that is supported by his sister party in Northern Ireland, which would ensure that Northern Ireland does not move into chaos and would not wreck the prospects of any devolution in Northern Ireland. If he wants to start taking actions that match his words, he should do the right thing for Northern Ireland and vote for the deal next week.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I fully understand the need to table the written ministerial statement, but it states quite clearly that the proposed talks should be “short” and “focused”, and I assume that that is more than rhetorical. However, my experience of talks in Northern Ireland is that they are neither short nor particularly focused. Will the Secretary of State explain a little bit more about her thinking on the matter, as what she has written seems to suggest that there is a specific bone of contention within the current impasse in Northern Ireland that can be resolved through the short and focused talks that she envisages?
Karen Bradley
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, whom I also notified of the decision yesterday. The reason for the comment about short and focused talks is that I genuinely believe that there is a will to re-establish devolved government. A number of issues need to be resolved, but we will ensure that work is done before the talks start. Let me be clear that I do not want to mislead people in Northern Ireland to think that a talks process will have success if I do not believe that it will. I will therefore only call that talks process if I believe that there will be success, but I believe that the issues can be dealt with through a short, focused process, and that is what I intend to bring forward.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I will call the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) now, but I am sensitive to the needs of all those who have flights to catch; I will bear that very closely in mind.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement this morning. Talks collapsed more than 12 months ago, and Scottish National party Members want to see their immediate re-establishment. The Secretary of State has told the Chamber many times that restoring devolution is her No. 1 priority, and I am sure the House will hold her to that. Will she therefore give the House a date on which the new, inclusive talks will begin, and tell us why she has presided over such an unacceptable delay? Can she also give us a commitment that the talks will be fully inclusive, including all the communities and parties involved; and what role does she see for the Irish Government in the process? Has she given some thought to appointing an independent mediator to assist in making the process fairer and faster?
Finally, does the Secretary of State accept that the wider instability caused by her Government through the Brexit process is the general reason that it is so difficult to restore this approach in Northern Ireland? Once we get through this madcap Brexit process, are we going to see faster progress in returning devolved democracy to Northern Ireland, instead of dictatorship from this place?
Karen Bradley
There is definitely not dictatorship from this House towards Northern Ireland. I am completely committed to devolution and all the institutions established under the Belfast agreement, and that is what we want to see restored as soon as possible. I would expect the talks to be five-party talks, because the best thing for Northern Ireland is for the five main parties to be involved in the talks and then to be able to form an Executive. In terms of a date, as soon as there is more information I will of course return to this House to update it, as I always do.
The hon. Gentleman is right that there is a very strong role for the Irish Government. It is quite clear that the two Governments have been involved in all talks processes that have been successful, and we would of course ensure that they were involved. On an independent mediator, I rule nothing out. I am looking at a number of options as to how we might restart the talks in such a way as to have the best success.
The hon. Gentleman talked about Brexit being a distraction. I think that perhaps the bigger distraction in Northern Ireland at the moment is the local elections, for which we will be going into purdah next week.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I think the whole House will want to see a return to devolved government in Northern Ireland, and we wish the Secretary of State well in these discussions. What would the consequences have been had she not taken the difficult but required decision to lay this statutory instrument to enable her to continue the powers that she has?
Karen Bradley
The reason for the legislation in the first place was that we need to ensure that there is some political cover for civil servants taking decisions. We want to make sure that public services continue to run and that civil servants can take decisions. They cannot change the law and they cannot take major policy decisions, but it is very important that they are able to take decisions on infrastructure, funding for schools and hospitals and so on. The alternative to extending the legislation is, as I set out earlier, one of two things: either a fundamental change in the way that decision making takes place in Northern Ireland—a step that I do not believe is in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland—or the requirement to call an election, which is a very costly exercise that I do not think would see any fundamental change to the political dynamic there.
Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for the consultations that she has had with us on this matter. Of course, this is the right thing to do in the circumstances. Regrettable though it is, it is the only possible course at the present time. However, could I suggest that she does something a bit more radical to take the initiative a bit more? What about calling the Assembly together? What about putting it up to the parties as to who is prepared to go into government now and who wants to sit outside? My understanding is that four of the five parties in Northern Ireland would go into government tomorrow, so why not put it up to people? Instead of all the talk about wanting devolution, let us see who will actually vote for it. Please do that.
Karen Bradley
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I am aware that he probably has an aeroplane to catch, so I will not detain him any longer than need be. I am looking at what we can do over the next few weeks to get the parties together to start the dialogue and to make sure that when a talks process does start, it has the best possible chance of succeeding.
Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)
I understand the reasons for this decision, but we are in a continued appalling situation where decisions are either not being made or being made by senior civil servants without any democratic accountability. What can the Secretary of State do to encourage the head of the civil service to put in place guidance on the transparency of those decisions and of decisions that are delayed or not being made, and on ensuring some consistency in who they meet and how they meet stakeholders and members of the public with concerns?
Karen Bradley
As the hon. Lady knows—she pushed very hard for this—there is transparency on decisions through reports laid in this place on decisions that have been taken. However, I will look at the points she has made and see whether such further work can be done.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for what she has said so far. Her decision not to hold the Northern Ireland Assembly elections is understandable, but it leaves Northern Ireland in uncertainty. School budgets are in crisis and waiting lists for operations grow. There is a need to target specific moneys across all Departments in Northern Ireland, but particularly towards Health and Education, as she said. What steps will she be taking to enable financial restrictions to be eased, including on the confidence and supply moneys that my party secured from her party to enable better government and better possibilities and strategies for Northern Ireland?
Karen Bradley
With specific reference to the moneys secured under the confidence and supply arrangement, those moneys are being released as appropriate by the Treasury, and they are included within the Northern Ireland budget. We legislated two weeks ago to put the 2018-19 budget on a statutory footing, and we will of course do so for the 2019-20 budget later on. Clearly this is not a good situation, and none of us wants to be in this situation, but it is the least worst of the options that are available to us.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has a difficult job, and I know that the Prime Minister is very busy with other matters, but the reason I was the last direct rule Minister for Northern Ireland is that the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and the Taoiseach put the parties in St Andrews hotel in Scotland for an intensive period to come to a conclusion and to do what the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) said—to ask “Are you in Government, or are you not?” The answer out of St Andrews came, “Yes, we are.” The challenge is for the Secretary of State to bring the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach and the parties to the table and to put that deadline to them.
Karen Bradley
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman; I want him to continue to be the very last direct rule Minister for Northern Ireland, and I am determined that we achieve that. But he will know, from his great experience, that St Andrews was the culmination of work that had happened with the parties to bring them together. A lot of work happened before that short, intensive period of talks. I am looking at what work we can do before we bring together the parties in that short, focused talks period.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
With the extension that has been announced, the breach of women’s human rights in Northern Ireland will carry on and not be addressed. How long do women in Northern Ireland have to wait for the Secretary of State to do the right thing by them?
Karen Bradley
The hon. Lady has campaigned on that matter for many years. She has introduced a private Members’ Bill, ten-minute rule Bills and so on, and I know she feels very strongly about it. An amendment was made to the legislation on guidance. It is clear that the civil service in Northern Ireland has a duty to monitor the situation with regard to changes in human rights laws and international law, but I continue to monitor it myself.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Further to what has been said about the importance of talks to get the Assembly up and running again, and the point made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman), does the Secretary of State feel that it will be vital to have an independent facilitator to chair the process, because the UK Government—rightly or wrongly—may appear to be compromised by their current arrangements in this place with the DUP?
Karen Bradley
As Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I am independent of what happens with regard to relationships on voting—those are a matter for Whips—but I am looking at all the options for how we can have success. When I have seen a willingness and a desire to restore devolution, I do not want to bring the parties together and fail to do so. We need to ensure that we have the best chance of doing it, and I will look at all options to ensure that that happens.
Point of Order
Mr Speaker
Indeed. Yes, I think I will indulge the right hon. Gentleman because of his natural courtesy.
Sir Edward Leigh
I do not want to be too courteous, Mr Speaker, because Quentin Letts may accuse me of being your toady and crony.
This is a serious point of order. You may recall that I asked you on Tuesday about your ruling on the Government not bringing back the same motion and whether, if they change it substantially, with a unilateral declaration, that will change something. I read all over the media last night that some people called “Cooper-Boles” are bringing back an amendment. Apart from the presumption that you would select that amendment, surely under your ruling, it would have to be substantially different, would it not?
Mr Speaker
I tried to explain to the right hon. Gentleman before that I will deal with these matters in the particular when there is a substantive matter for me to consider. Let me absolutely clear: what I am not going to do is to pronounce before it is necessary to do so on the hoof, on the back of a colleague, however distinguished and much loved, for whom the matter is at that moment especially material. That is not the way to do business here. I will rule as and when it is necessary to do so, and that moment—I say it with all courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman—is not now.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Getting away with blue murder.
Mr Speaker
I am not going to comment on that, but I am always grateful to the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). He referred to newspapers. I really do not take any notice of them—for goodness’ sake, I am trying to concentrate on doing my duty. I am not preoccupying myself with newspaper reports or people who scribble columns. That really is of no significance or concern to me whatsoever. It never has been, and it certainly is not now.
Business of the House
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
The business for next week will be:
Monday 25 March—Debate on a motion relating to section 13(4) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
Tuesday 26 March—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Offensive Weapons Bill, followed by a debate on a motion relating to section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.
Wednesday 27 March—Motion to approve the draft Food Additives, Flavourings, Enzymes and Extraction Solvents (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, followed by a motion to approve the draft Protecting against the Effects of the Extraterritorial Application of Third Country Legislation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, followed by a motion to approve the draft Animal Health, Plant Health, Seeds and Seed Potatoes (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, followed by a motion to approve the draft Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2019.
Thursday 28 March—General debate on beer taxation and pubs—[Interruption]—during which beer may need to be served, followed by a general debate on permitted development and shale gas exploration. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 29 March—The House will not be sitting.
Further to this business statement, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, she has written to Donald Tusk seeking an extension to article 50 until the end of June. Any extension requires the unanimous agreement of EU member states and must be agreed by the European Council. The Government will seek to amend domestic legislation to alter the exit date set out in the withdrawal Act in line with any such agreement once it is reached, and will bring forward a statutory instrument accordingly. I will therefore make a further business statement next week, as necessary, to provide time for consideration of the legislation to alter the date of exit.
Similarly, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, the Government continue to believe that the UK should leave the EU with a deal, and we intend to bring forward proposals for a third meaningful vote. The precise nature and timing of this debate will, to some extent, depend on the outcomes of this week’s European Council. I shall therefore make a further business statement next week, as appropriate, to provide time for consideration of a further motion under section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, we stand in solidarity with the people of New Zealand, following the appalling attack in Christchurch. I was also horrified to hear that several mosques in Birmingham were attacked last night. This rise of Islamophobia in the UK and across the world is deeply concerning, and we must stamp out this kind of vile hatred wherever we see it. We also send our thoughts and deepest sympathies to those affected by the cyclone in Mozambique, Malawi and Zimbabwe, those killed and injured in Utrecht and those caught up in the terrorist incident in Stanwell.
Yesterday was the International Day of Happiness, and I do have a number of items that I hope the House will be genuinely happy to hear about. First, the review of the independent complaints and grievance system has officially been launched this week, and I know Alison Stanley will bring her considerable experience to bear as the chair. Secondly, the Joint Committee looking at the draft Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill has published its report today, and I am very grateful for its hard work, and particularly for the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman). Thirdly, the first newly restored clock face of Big Ben has been uncovered, and the stunning original blue colouring can now be seen. Fourthly, all parliamentarians will, I hope, be proud and pleased of their efforts with their private Members’ Bills. I can report that 10 have now received Royal Assent in this Session, which is the joint highest total since 2003.
As a magnanimous rugby fan, may I very much congratulate Wales on winning the six nations grand slam, Scotland on retaining the Calcutta cup in a breathtaking game at Twickenham on Saturday, and last but by no means least—I am sporting my Northampton Saints jacket today—my own local team on winning the premiership rugby cup? Finally, I would like to wish those celebrating it a very happy Nowruz.
Valerie Vaz
The Leader of the House read out the business for next week, but that is not really next week’s business, is it, since she will come back to the House with some emergency business motions? This is a contempt of democracy and parliamentary democracy. The Prime Minister said she would come back to the House with a meaningful vote—it will actually be meaningful vote 4, because she pulled the vote in December, when Parliament should have had the chance to debate a meaningful vote but did not.
How will the Prime Minister negotiate with the EU if she does not know the will of the House? What was the point of the statement yesterday, other than to set up a hostile environment between the Prime Minister and the House? The Leader of the House says that the House will not sit next Friday, and that there will be further business. Will she confirm to the House, honestly, whether we will sit on Friday, and whether we will debate the statutory instrument that extends the date of us leaving the EU?
Last week I asked about dates for Opposition day debates, and the Leader of the House said that there was “incredibly important” business for the week ahead. Opposition days are incredibly important business, and they are central to our democracy. On Monday, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) raised a point of order, and you responded, Mr Speaker, by saying that
“colleagues would think that it was a democratic and seemly thing to do to ensure that the principal Opposition party had the requisite allocation of days”.—[Official Report, 19 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 788.]
That is why we take great exception to the Prime Minister’s comments that we are not interested in other matters.
Week after week I have stood at the Dispatch Box and asked the Leader of the House not just for Opposition days, but for statements and debates on local government, the NHS, social care, education, and cuts to our police services. My colleagues have asked for urgent questions on issues that affect our country. It is not us in Parliament who are contemplating our navels—I have never heard such unparliamentary language about hard-working colleagues from all sides of the House. We sit on Select Committees and Delegated Legislation Committees—that is what we do.
Let us remind ourselves: the Government had Lancaster House, Mansion House, Florence and Berlin. Each time we begged the Prime Minister for clarity on the negotiations, and each time she said nothing—“I don’t want to give a running commentary; Brexit means Brexit”. She should have given us broad heads of agreement right at the start, so that she could understand what Parliament wanted. The Chequers agreement was put to the Cabinet in July, but the Leader of the House and some of her pals preferred to have pizza parties instead of supporting their Prime Minister. Secretaries of State have resigned—we are now on our third Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. Ministers have resigned. This is a crisis of the Government’s own making, and the Cabinet is divided.
Last week, bizarrely, I was in the Lobby with the Prime Minister, but the Leader of the House and seven of her colleagues were in another Lobby—they voted against the Government’s own motion. That included the Brexit Secretary, who wound up the debate by saying:
“It is time to put forward an extension that is realistic.”—[Official Report, 14 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 628.]
He then voted to reject his own argument. Does the Leader of the House agree with Cabinet responsibility, and could we have a debate about what it means? It is no good her rounding on her colleagues in Cabinet, and then rounding on my colleagues in the Chamber, saying that she does not agree with them.
Let me again raise something that is not about contemplating our navels. Interserve, which employs 45,000 staff in the UK and works on £2 billion of Government contracts, has been put into administration. Tussell data shows that Interserve was handed public contracts worth hundreds of millions of pounds in the run-up to its collapse, despite announcing a series of profit warnings—[Interruption.] It is not funny; it is people’s lives. The Government are failing to ensure the viability of their outsourcing contracts.
Last July the Public Accounts Committee described the NHS’s outsourcing to Capita as a “shambles”, and the National Audit Office found that the £495 million contract to provide recruitment for the British Army had been beset by problems. The probation service has been described as “in crisis” since it was partly outsourced. That is what the public are tired of. A third of Government spending goes on external contractors and suppliers. When can the House have proper scrutiny of the failure of Government outsourcing contracts?
Last week, the Leader said that children should be in school. Some 1.4 million children and young people took part in the school strike against climate change. They disagree with her. I do, too. This is about education and citizenship. What to do to influence decision makers is vital. This is what 16-year-old Greta Thunberg said:
“You cheat when you can because all that matters is to win…We need to start co-operating and sharing the remaining resources of this planet in a fair way.”
While the Government have sat contemplating, they could have invested in the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon and in solar power, ended the cuts to feed-in tariffs and initiated a scrappage scheme for diesel cars. That is going to affect climate change.
I want to mention the funeral service of our dear colleague Paul Flynn tomorrow. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has managed to secure a service in St Mary Undercroft. We thank the chaplain, Rev. Rose Hudson-Wilkin, and you, Mr Speaker, for indicating that you will be there.
On the second anniversary of his death, we remember PC Keith Palmer and those who died on Westminster Bridge. We think of the amazing people who protect us and who give their lives up to do so.
I, too, want to echo the words of Prime Minister Ardern. It is up to all of us to reject racism and hatred of anyone who is different. To the people of New Zealand, we are you and you are us. Rest in peace.
Mr Speaker
Before the Leader responds, and in the light of what the shadow Leader has said about the second anniversary of the death of PC Keith Palmer, I can inform the House that I intend that there should be a one-minute silence tomorrow in the Chamber, supported, I would hope, by people observing our proceedings. The intention is that that minute’s silence will take place at 11 o’clock.
Andrea Leadsom
First, I share the hon. Lady’s tribute to PC Keith Palmer. I was delighted to be at the memorial recognition of his great sacrifice and the unveiling of the memorial to him. She is absolutely right to pay her own tribute. I also share in her pleasure that there will be a memorial service for Paul Flynn, a much-missed colleague. I echo her words about the appalling atrocity that took place in New Zealand. It is absolutely horrendous. We all hope that the communities in New Zealand can come together, as they are doing, and we support all those who have been so tragically affected.
The hon. Lady asks about the meaningful vote next week. She will recognise that, as I said in my business statement, this is a fluid situation and we are waiting for the response of the EU27 to our request for an extension, which the Prime Minister has taken to them in response to the requirement of this House that she do so. As soon as we have a response from the EU Council, I will be able to update the House on when we can bring forward a meaningful vote and a debate next week. But it is certainly the Prime Minister’s intention to do so. Likewise, in terms of bringing forward the statutory instrument, hon. Members will know that, under the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018, it is required that that statutory instrument be approved by both Houses. It is therefore vital that we find time for that as soon as we can.
The hon. Lady asks about Opposition days. We have debated a range of secondary legislation this week. I have announced important business for next week, including the section 13 debate on Monday and Lords amendments to two important Bills, the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill and the Offensive Weapons Bill. This week, we have had debates on two statutory instruments requested by the official Opposition. I will, of course, continue to consider her requests for further dates.
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that all Members right across the House have a huge interest in matters outside of Brexit. There is no doubt about that. I think the Business question every Thursday demonstrates the range of different interests across the House. All of us share a desire to be able to talk about things not Brexit-related that are so important to people, so I completely agree with her there.
What I will say about the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday is that what she was seeking to invoke among all parliamentarians was just the absolute reality that in a hung Parliament it is for every Member to seek to support good governance. I think that we can all be proud of the fact that in this Session alone we have introduced over 50 pieces of primary legislation, more than 40 of which have already received Royal Assent. In a hung Parliament, that demonstrates the House’s ability to work together in order to reach consensus, agree concessions and act in the national interest.
What the Prime Minister is seeking is for all individual Members to recognise that her withdrawal agreement and future declaration offer the means by which we can leave the European Union, in line with the will of the people as expressed in the referendum, but at the same time the significant minority of people who want to remain in the EU will also have their concerns met by a very close future economic and security partnership. I therefore urge all colleagues, right across the House, to consider the Prime Minister’s deal very carefully.
The shadow Leader of the House asked whether I believe in collective Cabinet responsibility. Of course I do. I have totally supported the Prime Minister’s desire to get a vote through this place. I have always been absolutely clear—in the press and in this Chamber—that I support a withdrawal agreement and a political declaration that deliver the will of the people, but that at the same time continue a close, collaborative relationship with our EU friends and neighbours.
The hon. Lady asked about Interserve, and she was absolutely right to do so. The Government certainly welcome the announcement that Interserve made last Friday regarding its refinancing, which will not affect the operational part of the company. It will bring the company the stability required to allow it to compete for future business and to continue to deliver good-value public services for the taxpayer. It is in the taxpayer’s interests to have a well-financed and stable group of key suppliers, so we welcome the actions that Interserve has taken.
The hon. Lady asked about schools and climate change. Let me say again that I absolutely welcome, support and endorse the determination of young people to do everything they can to support all those experiencing the negative effects of global climate change. We should do everything we can to support our environment around us. The United Kingdom ratified the Paris agreement in November 2016. More than 50% of UK electricity came from low-carbon sources in 2018, making it a record year for renewables, under this Conservative Government. We have cut the use of plastic bags by 86%, through our plastic bag charge. We have reduced emissions faster than any other G7 nation. The latest figures show that we have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 23% since 2010. There is obviously a lot more to do, but I commend all young people who show their passion for the subject. At the same time, I reiterate that education is the best gift that a society can give its young people.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
W. B. Yeats said:
“Happiness is neither virtue nor pleasure…but simply growth. We are happy when we are growing.”
We should therefore all have more to smile about, because the UK has indeed grown, according to the world happiness index—we have gone up the table. Yet so much of our discourse here is either doom-laden or dull, and Government perpetually risk being meanly managerial or meekly mechanistic. So will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate that will enable us to measure Government policy in terms of the difference it makes to quality of life; to gauge the difference it makes to wellbeing? We here must make it our mission to inspire and our duty to enthral. We must dare to dream.
Andrea Leadsom
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. I think that his analysis is absolutely right. If I may say so, I think that all hon. Members, right across the House, come to this place to try to make the world around us a better place. It is vital that we occasionally take the time to consider how well we are doing against that challenge.
I think that there is much to celebrate. We should celebrate our economy, given that employment is at a record high. We should celebrate the tackling of inequality, given that the real-terms wages of the lowest paid are growing faster than those of anyone else. We should celebrate the Government’s determination to tackle loneliness, to consider more suicide prevention measures, and to invest significant sums in our NHS to support people with mental health problems. I think that what we should seek to do, across the House, is support each other sometimes, and celebrate our achievements.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the almost fantasy business for next week.
Following the Prime Minister’s statement last night, we shall have to have an emergency debate about Members’ security, because I am pretty certain that a few of us are feeling just a little bit more insecure this morning. It was the height of irresponsibility for the Prime Minister to pitch public against Parliament in the current climate, on the back of real issues of intimidation and threats against Members in all parts of the House. This is her Brexit, designed, administered and delivered by her Government. An ugly environment has been created in the last couple of years because they chose to divide the country on this toxic issue to try to resolve tensions within their own party, while refusing to consider any alternatives to their own singular approach. How dare the Prime Minister blame Members of Parliament for this mess? I will never stop fighting for what my country and my constituency voted for. I will stand by them, regardless of the “them and us” climate that the Prime Minister is trying to create.
I will tell the House what undermines democracy and erodes trust in Parliament: it is this Government ignoring agreed outcomes in the House. We vote again and again for something and it is then casually dismissed, or we continually reject something only for it to be brought back again and again. For example, where is the legislation that will take no deal off the table, which the House has agreed to twice? Democracy does not mean that it is the Prime Minister’s way or the highway.
We will be out of the EU a week tomorrow unless something is done. We do not know on what basis that will happen, and we do not know whether there will be an extension. The EU has said that it will grant an extension only if the House passes the dead, defeated deal. When will it come to the House—it will not be on Monday; that is just part of the Government’s obligations—and how will it be significantly different in order to meet your ruling, Mr Speaker? How will it be designed in that respect? This must happen next week, because we are supposed to be out of the EU by next Friday.
The situation is totally unbelievable. This disaster is part constitutional crisis, part farce, but 100% Tory. How dare the Government try to blame us for this mess?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I do not share his view at all. Let me say again that this House has a duty to decide what it does want. The hon. Gentleman asked, “Where is the legislation to take no deal off the table?” He knows that the House voted to leave the European Union on 29 March. That is the legal position. How does he suggest that we legislate to take no deal off the table unless it is by agreeing a deal? You cannot legislate to take no deal off the table. The House has already rejected a customs union, a second referendum and a no-deal Brexit, and it has rejected the Prime Minister’s deal. The House has said a lot about what it does not want to do; it needs to say what it does want to do.
Let me quote the hon. Gentleman’s words back to him. He said that he would never stop fighting for what his country voted for. His country voted to remain part of the United Kingdom.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
With regard to the meaningful vote which we are going to have apparently next week—
Sir Edward Leigh
Or not. May I urge the Government to be bold and decisive in order to comply with your ruling, Mr Speaker, and to change the wording significantly so that we can have the vote that we all want? May I suggest that one way forward is by way of the unilateral declaration? A unilateral declaration can of course be changed unilaterally: we do not need the EU to agree. I suggest that we should try to persuade our colleagues in Northern Ireland that, by beefing up this declaration, we can ensure it is not necessary to prove bad faith; we just have to prove that negotiations have broken down and then we can exit the backstop. Also, it should be conditional; we sign up to this treaty on condition that the declaration is not refused by the EU. All we need to prove is that it does not ratify. So let’s be bold, let’s be decisive, and let’s get this vote into Parliament.
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his very helpful suggestion and I know this is something he has long campaigned for. As I have said to other Members, the Government will bring back the meaningful vote next week and it will be within terms necessary to enable the House to take a further view on it. But I do really from the heart urge all Members to just consider the fact that we as a House have agreed to undertake to leave the EU and the Prime Minister’s deal enables us to deliver on the referendum while at the same time taking careful account of the 48% of the people of this country who did not want to leave the EU. So what it also delivers is a close economic and security partnership with our EU friends and neighbours. So it really is having our cake and eating it and I urge all hon. Members to give it their very careful further consideration.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
This is a day when I do not like being away from home, because back home my friends, neighbours and my whole Haredi Jewish Orthodox community are going bonkers because it is Purim. So may I wish my whole Orthodox Haredi Jewish community a very happy Purim, because they love it; it is a great time of year for them?
If any Chamber time should become available at short notice, the Backbench Business Committee has applications that would readily fill any void for the use of time. We have just had an application for a debate on the definition of Islamophobia, which I think would be very topical, and there are other applications on the stocks for debates about financial exclusion, the future of access to cash, the closure of courts and the effect on access to justice, reducing the use of physical restraint on children in educational and health settings, which also would be timely and important, and school funding, which is a heavily subscribed application. If any time becomes available even at very short notice we will happily fill that void.
Andrea Leadsom
As ever I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for prior notice of some of the very important topics that Back Benchers would like to speak about. I think that goes to the shadow Leader of the House’s point that parliamentarians are keen to talk about a huge range of topics. I absolutely support them and pay tribute to them for that. I will of course consider giving the hon. Gentleman time.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
On Sunday I again hosted the Contact the Elderly Brechin community afternoon tea at Farnell church. It was a fantastic event at which people put the world to rights—and we also had far too much cake potentially. Will my right hon. Friend join me in celebrating the fantastic work of Irene Heron and Jean Malcolm, two local community champions, and may we have a debate in this place about how we can all work collectively to combat loneliness?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises a very important issue. I congratulate her on doing so and on the great charity work going on in her constituency, and I join her in paying particular tribute to Irene and Jean.
Loneliness can cause significant ill health, yet up to a fifth of the UK adult population feel often or always lonely. To tackle this pressing public health issue we have established a cross-Government fund dedicated to a cross-Government strategy that has almost 60 new policy ideas from nine Government Departments. So the Government are determined to tackle this. My hon. Friend and many other hon. Members do their own support in their own constituencies and deserve great credit for doing so.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Leader of the House aware that yesterday was the 102nd birthday of Dame Vera? [Hon. Members: “Lynn.”] Yes, Lynn. Sorry; I had a senior moment there. One of her most famous tunes was “Coming in on a Wing and a Prayer” and I have to say that many of us, on all Benches, are a little upset about the Prime Minister’s remarks yesterday. We spend every minute of the day—every waking hour, and stay awake at night—thinking about this dilemma and to undervalue parliamentarians’ dedication and commitment is not good at all for the current discourse.
May we have an early debate? Many of my constituents want to know about the secret sources of power. They thought they knew about the Cabinet and collective agreements, and about where power lay in the Conservative and Labour parties, but they do not understand why something called the European Research Group is now wielding immense power behind the scenes. They do not understand what the pizza club is and how it can wield such power that it can stop an extension of the period before we leave the European Union. May we have an early debate on this, because going home on a wing and a prayer is not good enough for the future of this country?
Andrea Leadsom
I did not know that it was Dame Vera Lynn’s 102nd birthday, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that. However, I did know that today is World Poetry Day. I was tempted to come up with some of my own poetry, but I did not think that the House would be in the mood for it, so I did not bother. I am sure that hon. Members will have their own views on that. The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point, however. I do not believe that the Prime Minister was in any sense seeking to denigrate MPs’ commitment to the issue. She was urging colleagues to consider the duty to make an active decision about what they want to see. In a hung Parliament, that is the challenge that faces us. A Government with a big majority will, on the whole, be able to get their business through, but in a hung Parliament, all right hon. and hon. Members have to give great consideration to good governance. The Prime Minister is urging all Members to consider her deal again, because the reality is, as the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has pointed out, that the legal default position remains that this House voted to leave the European Union on 29 March and the only way we can avoid that is either by extending article 50, as the Prime Minister is seeking to do, or by this House coming up with an alternative solution, which it has so far been unable to do.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
I know that there will be a debate on knife crime in Westminster Hall next week, but I wonder whether the Leader of the House could arrange for a Home Office Minister to make a statement about the repellent rise of knife crime? Clitheroe, in my constituency, must be one of the most idyllic and wonderful towns to live in, yet last night, two youths with a knife, one of whom was 16 years old, stabbed another one that they knew. The police inform me that the injury is not life-threatening, and we pray that that is the case, but none the less, if this can happen in a place such as Clitheroe, this tells us that we need to do a lot more, whether through schools, through parents, through greater police numbers or through stop and search. All I know is that if we do nothing, knife crime will rise even further.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises an important issue that is often raised at business questions and at other times. We have had several debates on it in the House over the past few weeks, and it is quite right that we do so. He will be aware that the Chancellor announced an extra £100 million in the spring statement for a short-term intervention to ensure that more police officers could be made available through overtime measures to tackle this. We have a serious violence strategy and a serious violence taskforce, and we are bringing in the Offensive Weapons Bill, which will make it harder to get knives. It will contain provisions for a knife crime prevention order, which will be absolutely vital. We are also extending stop-and-search powers and having a landmark review of drug misuse. The Government are taking action at every level, but ultimately we also have to look at prevention, and perhaps the most important part of that is the Government’s commitment to trying to ensure that young people are not tempted into a life of knife crime.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Just before I call the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), I hope the whole House, and everybody present in the Palace of Westminster, will want to join me in congratulating the right hon. Lady on her birthday.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Has the Leader of the House noticed the alarming headlines about the unprecedented drug shortage linked to Brexit? The chief executive of NHS Providers has reported a shortage of 300 different drugs in one English trust alone. Hospital chiefs are reporting shortages of hundreds of different types of medicine, including drugs used to treat cardiac problems and high blood pressure, so can we please have a debate on the issue? Our constituents need some sort of explanation of how Brexit is affecting the supply of medicines, when previously we had no problems.
Andrea Leadsom
First, I wish the right hon. Lady a very happy birthday. Secondly, I hope I can reassure her that the issue with a potential no-deal Brexit would be one of capacity at the different borders. Since the UK is still a member of the European Union, there are no problems with borders and accessibility, but she makes a serious point. I am afraid that I am not aware of those reports, but if there are shortages of medicines, that is a serious issue. We have Health and Social Care questions on Tuesday 26 March, and I encourage her to raise the matter then, but I hope that I can reassure her that borders are currently fully open, so I cannot see that the issue would be in any way related to Brexit.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
The United Kingdom has a proud tradition of entrepreneurial spirit, and I am sure that it will continue to flourish as we leave the EU. May we have a debate in Government time on the confidence that entrepreneurs have in this Government’s policies?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Entrepreneurs’ confidence in the policies of this Government should be celebrated by everyone. The number of business ventures started in 2018 rose by 4.7% to over 640,000; there have been 1.2 million more business start-ups since 2010; exports are at a record high; and we are cutting corporation tax to the lowest rate in the G20 and cutting business rates, which is worth more than £13 billion to businesses. Our economy has grown for 24 quarters in a row and is now over 18% bigger than it was in 2010. This Government are dealing with our debts, keeping our economy strong, investing in public services and keeping taxes low for working people.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Hate is on the march. Last night, mosques across Birmingham were attacked, including the Slade Road mosque in Erdington. Fear stalks the Muslim community, but so too does a determination never to surrender to the forces of fascism. I pay tribute to the different faiths across Birmingham that are rallying in support of the Muslim community. Can we have a debate on the importance of celebrating our diversity, standing together in national unity and rejecting anyone who fans the flames of prejudice and division?
Andrea Leadsom
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I said earlier, our hearts go out to those who were affected by the attacks on mosques in Birmingham last night. It is absolutely unacceptable to see any form of religious or racial prejudice in our free and open society. I know that many Muslim communities are feeling vulnerable and anxious, but they should seek comfort from knowing that the Government are doing everything we can to tackle hate and extremism. One practical thing that we are doing is doubling next year’s places of worship fund, with the Home Secretary this week boosting funding for protective security to £1.6 million to reassure communities and to safeguard mosques and other places of worship. In addition, a new £5 million fund will provide security training. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman we must stamp out this type of vile abuse.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
This week we have seen record employment numbers, with especially great opportunities for women, for those with disabilities and for young people. I think of the brilliant young apprentices I recently met in Chelmsford when I say that we should never forget that, less than a decade ago under the last Labour Government, there were 1 million young people not in employment, education or training. May we please have a debate in this House on the brilliant opportunities for employment under this Conservative Government and how that compares with the disaster under Labour?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises an important point, and there are now 429,000 fewer young people out of work than in 2010, which means that the number of young people out of work has almost halved since the Conservatives came into office. Nearly four fifths of jobs created since 2010 are full time, with 2.6% of our workforce on zero-hours contracts—a reduction over the last year. Employment is expected to be higher than forecast over the next five years, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, which forecasts 800,000 more jobs to be created by 2023. Those are real reasons to be proud of the success in our economy and the prospects for our young people.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I know that the Leader of the House believes that Members of Parliament should be able to perform their duties without fear for their safety. In recent weeks, like many MPs, I have been accused of being a traitor, and I have received Facebook posts saying that, along with the two other Hull MPs, I should be shot and hanged.
Does the Leader of the House agree with the Prime Minister’s statement last night, in which she pitted Members of Parliament against the general public? May we please have a debate in this House about patriotism and about how Members on both sides of the House love our country and want to make sure that we get the very best for our country? There is much more that unites us than divides us.
Andrea Leadsom
I completely agree with the hon. Lady that colleagues on both sides of the House—she is a perfect example—all want to do the best for our country and our society. I totally endorse her thoughts that MPs need to be treated with respect and given the opportunity to represent their constituents and their country in alignment with their own beliefs and with doing the best they can possibly do. I pay tribute at all times to all Members of Parliament, and I will do everything I can to ensure that we are all able to go about our business and do a good job for our constituents and for our country.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Leader of the House for what she said in response to that very powerful inquiry from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). I have said it before, in the light of some extremely ominous coverage of Members some months ago, but I will say it again, because it brooks of no misunderstanding or contradiction: none of you is a traitor and all of you are doing your best.
This should not be, and I am sure it will not prove to be, a matter of any controversy whatsoever. From the Chair, let me say that I believe passionately in the institution of Parliament, in the rights of Members of this House and in their commitment to their duty—I use the word “duty” in the singular advisedly. The sole duty of every Member of Parliament is to do what he or she thinks is right. There is nothing, in my judgment, to be added.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I would like to introduce you to another anniversary, Mr Speaker, but it is not a particularly pleasant one: this is the fifth anniversary of the annexation of Crimea by Russia. Will my right hon. Friend allow us a debate so that we can consider this issue and also continue our condemnation of Russia for its annexation of that part of Ukraine?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises a serious issue, and I know that the House and the Government have condemned the annexation of Crimea. It hardly seems possible that five years have already gone by since those terrible events. I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate or a Back-Bench debate so that all hon. Members can express their support for resolution of this annexation.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The principles that underlie the role of MPs were set out 250 years ago by Edmund Burke: not only to be accountable to and listen to our constituents, but to observe our own conscience and judgment. Those principles were seriously undermined last night by the Prime Minister, in one of the most contemptuous statements that I have ever heard—it is up against some stiff competition. May I ask the Leader of the House, again, whether she agrees with what the Prime Minister said last night?
Mr Speaker
Order. Let us grow up. Do grow up, for goodness’ sake. This is not a matter of party political hackery. Let us have some seriousness of purpose and mutual respect. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) is an experienced Member of the House. He has asked an honest question, to which I know the Leader of the House will honestly reply. For goodness’ sake, let us raise the level.
Andrea Leadsom
Mr Speaker, may I just say that your response does not raise the level? I will leave it there.
Mr Speaker
Order. Resume your seat, Leader of the House. My response sets out the constitutional position that has applied to Members of the House of Commons over generations, and I cannot for the life of me see or believe that there is anything remotely controversial about what I have said.
Andrea Leadsom
In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), what I wanted to say is that I will speak for my own views when I say that I have the highest regard for Members from right across this Chamber. All hon. Members do exactly as they think is right for their constituents and for their country, and it is absolutely right that they should continue to do so. What I think the Prime Minister was urging upon all hon. Members is to recognise that in a hung Parliament it is incumbent on us all to ensure that there is good government, because, by definition, it is important that we all participate in ensuring progress for our country, as indeed we have done through more than 40 pieces of primary legislation in this Session alone, where we have been able to come together in the national interest to make progress on certain areas of legislation, ranging from counter-terrorism to tenants’ fees, all manner of automated vehicles and so on. We have been able to work together to come to a conclusion and make a positive statement about the way the country should go. I think that the Prime Minister was seeking to urge all right hon. and hon. Members to look carefully at the reality, which is that there is a means by which we can deliver on the referendum, while ensuring we keep a close and collaborative relationship with our EU friends and neighbours. Alternatively, the legal position that this House voted for is to leave the EU on 29 March without any other arrangements. What the Prime Minister is seeking for this House to do is to come together to support a way forward. The House has not so far done that.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
For inclusiveness, let me say that it is currently not only the festival of Purim, but the Hindu festival of Holi.
This weekend, we will have the national hospital radio awards ceremony, so may I send my best wishes to Radio Harrow, which has been nominated for eight awards? It comforts patients at Northwick Park Hospital, where many of my constituents have to go. I also send best wishes to Radio Mount Vernon, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary. May we have a debate in Government time on the wonderful work done by volunteers in our hospital radio stations, who provide comfort to patients at the time when they need it?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to pay tribute to the amazing work done by volunteers in hospitals. He raises the particular issue of those who run hospital radio stations. Having visited local hospitals myself, I have absolutely seen at first hand the warmth and support that they give to people—and, frankly, the distraction that they provide for people who are undergoing painful procedures—so I am happy to join my hon. Friend in thanking them and paying tribute to them for all the good work they do.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Last night, the Prime Minister told the people of the United Kingdom “I am on your side”, but presumably she was not speaking to anyone who voted to remain, such as the majority of the people of Scotland; she was not speaking to Europeans living and working in the UK; and she was not speaking to those who are dissatisfied with her deal. Will the Leader of the House make a statement setting out her views on whether she thinks it is wise or healthy to set Parliament against the people, reject any notion of personal responsibility, and ignore the genuine concerns about Brexit in this House and throughout the UK?
Andrea Leadsom
The Prime Minister’s deal absolutely does seek to resolve the issues and concerns for EU citizens living in the UK and for UK citizens living in the EU. It seeks to reassure those who wanted to remain in the EU by securing a close economic and security partnership with our friends and neighbours in the EU. Very importantly, it also delivers on the will of the people expressed in the referendum, which is something that the House has voted to do. My own assessment is that the Prime Minister’s proposal—the withdrawal agreement and the future political declaration—does seek to achieve the very complicated balance of bringing all sides together. We can all point to parts of her deal that we do not like—every single one of us can do that—but it is a compromise that really does seek to provide something for everyone and the best possible combination of outcomes that enables us to deliver on the will of the people.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Almost every week in the Chamber, we hear Members raising issues to do with bank closures in their constituencies. Over the past two months, Santander and now Barclays have announced that they are leaving Cleethorpes. People need financial advice as well as access to banking services. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate in which we can explore ways to create financial hubs in town centres, to which people can go for advice and to obtain banking services?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises an important point about the issue of the last bank in town and access to financial services, which has come up in the Chamber many times, and he is quite right to raise it. Obviously, we recognise that the way people access financial services is changing, with more people going online and so on, but the industry’s access to banking standard requires banks to carry out a number of steps before they close any branches. Some are coming forward with innovative ways to deliver ongoing banking services, and of course the Post Office now delivers access to banking services, very often at more flexible times—for example, at weekends and so on—than a bank was previously able to offer. My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate to talk about the issues in Cleethorpes.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Leader of the House has said that we should seek a cross-party consensus on the way forward, and I agree with her, which is why I wonder what thought she has given, in respect of her role, to the House voting on options in parallel, so that we can end the game-playing and move forward.
Andrea Leadsom
I completely understand the hon. Lady’s desire for many more varied options to be brought forward, and I hugely respect the hon. Lady and her views, but the House has already rejected a second referendum, a customs union, the meaningful vote and leaving without a deal. It is vital that the House comes forward with a proposal that it can support. What the House did support was an extension to article 50, and the Prime Minister is acting on that request and seeking to fulfil the will of the House. I am sure that if hon. Members feel there is a majority for another type of solution, they will come forward with those proposals.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Yesterday, I met some people of Christian faith from Cuba, who expressed concern over the Cuban Government’s attitude to church congregations. Christians represent some 20% of the population in Cuba, and the congregations are continuing to grow. They are now a significant religious minority and group in that country. These people also informed me that the Cuban Government have failed, and refused, to return church properties to Protestant Churches, which is totally unacceptable. Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement or a debate on this important matter?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman always raises matters of freedom of religion and he is absolutely right to do so. The situation that he raises around Cuba is very concerning. The UK does, of course, promote tolerance and acceptance of different faiths and beliefs within our own country, but it is also something that we want to see right around the world. We have Foreign Office questions on Tuesday 2 April and I encourage him to submit a question, or to seek an Adjournment debate, so that he can raise this matter directly with Ministers.
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
The knife angel, a sculpture created from confiscated knives, has again gone on display in Coventry. The sculpture is a stark reminder of the surging levels of knife crime that have infected our city and wrought such devastation on individuals, families and communities. More than anything else, the knife angel symbolises our city’s commitment to tackle violent crime and to encourage all those who carry knives to turn away from violence and aggression and towards peace and reconciliation. Will the Leader of the House join me in encouraging other towns and cities to offer to host the knife angel, and will she arrange a debate in Government time on knife crime and the impact that cuts to public services have had on our ability to tackle this increasing scourge?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady makes an excellent suggestion and challenge to other hon. Members to seek to have the knife angel hosted in their own areas. I know that there are many local police and crime commissioners who are really focused on resolving this appalling issue of the rise particularly in knife crime. She will be aware that the Government are introducing a £200 million youth endowment fund to try to prevent young people from being attracted to a life that takes them down that path of knife crime. The Government are doing everything that we possibly can to try to prevent this, and it is right that all hon. Members seek to do what they can to highlight their concerns about it.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
May we have an urgent debate in Government time on the continuing problem of the awarding of personal independence payments to people who are disabled or who have long-term health conditions? I have experienced some appalling decisions in recent weeks in my constituency. The Government have promised to try to get a grip on this, but they still have not. May I have an urgent debate on the matter?
Andrea Leadsom
I am genuinely sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman has had some difficult constituency cases. If he wants to raise a particular case with me, of course I will take it up with the Department on his behalf. He will be aware, however, that since personal independence payments were introduced in 2013, some 3.7 million decisions have been made—all made with the desire to help people to lead a more independent life and to be able to choose the kind of support they need. The total number of complaints received is less than 1% of all assessments, and nearly nine in every 10 PIP claimants are satisfied with their experience. We are constantly seeking to review and improve the system. If the hon. Gentleman has specific proposals to make, I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can raise them with Ministers.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
As a prefix to my planned question and further to the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), I must tell the House that last week, in common with many other Members on both sides of this House, I received a message, among lots and lots of other messages, saying that my head should be chopped off. I apprehended the Prime Minister last Thursday evening and begged her to “dial down the hate”. I told her that it was in her power to do so. People are frightened not just in this place, but in the country as a whole. The Prime Minister must show some leadership; it is within her grasp. I implore the Leader of the House to pass on that message.
I have been contacted by many constituents over 75 concerned about the prospect of losing their free TV licence. As the Leader of the House knows, loneliness is a major issue, and for many people the television is, sadly, their only company. The retention of free TV licences for over-75s was in the Conservative manifesto in 2017, so may we have a debate or statement on the Government’s intentions?
Andrea Leadsom
First, it is appalling that the hon. Lady, or any other Member, has received such abuse. I can only repeat that I genuinely believe that all right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to do the best they can for their constituency and their country, and I pay tribute to everybody who works so hard for their constituency and country.
The hon. Lady raises a specific issue about free TV licences for the over-75s. I completely agree that often for people who are lonely the television, as well as a source of entertainment, is a link to the outside world and a way to find a friend in watching friendly programmes. I share her concern, therefore, and encourage her to seek a Westminster Hall or Back-Bench debate so that she can raise it directly with Ministers.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming the decision by FirstGroup to buy five British-built Hitachi inter-city trains? It is great news for jobs in north-east England. Will she also facilitate a debate on the importance of every British-based company, including Transport for London, buying British-built trains?
Andrea Leadsom
I am delighted to join the hon. Gentleman in commending the decision to buy British. I am a big fan of doing that wherever possible. Obviously, in return for our being able to export our great British products, we also recognise the need for our own producers to be competitive, which is why we do not always buy British; nevertheless, I absolutely agree with the thrust of his proposal. I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate to talk directly to Ministers about what more we can do to promote great British products.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I have raised previously with the Foreign Secretary the case of Luke Symons, a constituent of mine being held captive in Yemen. There is some hope that the International Committee of the Red Cross might be able to get him out, but he needs to get somewhere where there is a British embassy so that he can apply for a visa for his wife and bring his son back to the United Kingdom. Can we have a statement from the Foreign Office about this case? Barring that, can the Leader of the House pass on the message to her ministerial colleagues that that is what we need and that we need it swiftly?
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising his constituency case again in the Chamber—he is absolutely right to do so—and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be looking into it. If he would like to write to me with more details, I can take it up directly on his behalf, or he could raise it directly with Ministers at Foreign Office questions on 2 April.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Last night, the Prime Minister gave a deeply divisive and undignified speech trying to shirk her responsibility for prematurely triggering article 50 without a plan. In response, a petition to revoke article 50 has now been signed by more than 800,000 people, including 3,500 of my own constituents. When will the Government respect the intelligence of British people, admit we have the unilateral power to revoke article 50 to prevent further damage to our country and provide time to debate this crucial issue before 29 March?
Andrea Leadsom
It is the policy of the Government—and indeed of Parliament, which voted to trigger article 50 —to leave the European Union, in line with the result of the 2016 referendum. I say again to all hon. Members that I genuinely think that the Prime Minister’s proposal for the withdrawal agreement and future political declaration offers the compromise we want between leaving the EU in line with the democratic decision taken in 2016 and keeping a close and collaborative relationship with our EU friends and neighbours.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Last week, I met year 10 geography students from Myton School in Warwick. The Leader of the House will be aware that many young people across the country, and indeed the globe, are extremely concerned about climate change. Since I met them, we have had extreme weather events such as Cyclone Idai and flash floods in Indonesia, and reports from the head of the Environment Agency that within 25 years we could have severe water shortages here. I understand we had a debate a few weeks ago, but it was held during the recess week and was poorly attended, because we all had various other commitments. May I urge the Leader of the House to arrange another debate in good time so that we can explore the serious issues of climate change?
Andrea Leadsom
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s young constituents for their commitment to tackling global climate change; they are absolutely right to do so. I am sure that he will acknowledge the UK’s strong record and efforts to tackle global climate change, whereby we have reduced emissions faster than any other G7 nation. The latest figures show that we have reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 23% since 2010. In November 2016, we ratified the Paris agreement, which was the first truly global, legally binding agreement to tackle climate change. Of course there is much more that we should and can do, and I am sure that there will be further opportunities given the clear push from young people right across the country. I will take very seriously the hon. Gentleman’s request for a further debate on global climate change, and see what can be done.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I reckon that I have worked out where everything has gone wrong over the last couple of years in this Parliament. We have discovered today from the Foreign Secretary, and now from the Leader of the House, that a new and rather dangerous doctrine has been developed in the Government that, when there is a hung Parliament, it is the duty of MPs—broadly speaking—to support the Government, even if they do not think that it is a very good idea. That is the essence of it, isn’t it? Actually, it should be the other way around. In a hung Parliament, the Government must listen to the whole House.
I have a solution, and I think the Leader of the House can help. When Government Ministers are given their copy of the ministerial code of conduct, they should all also be given a copy of the 1936 book, “How to Win Friends and Influence People”. Clearly the Prime Minister did not have a copy last night—not least because it guarantees the reader that it will “increase your popularity” and:
“Help you to win people to your way of thinking.”
I am sure that if the Leader of the House could leave here later, pop over to the Prime Minister and give her a copy, she would manage to solve everything, because the key to the book is to always smile and never get cross.
Andrea Leadsom
Well, where to start? I may as well cut straight to the chase and say that I actually agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am not for one moment saying that all parliamentarians in a hung Parliament should do exactly as the Government say. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that people in a hung Parliament work together. I gave the example of 51 Government Bills having been introduced in this Session, 41 of which have already received Royal Assent. As hon. Members will know, that has happened as a result of great discussion, a huge number of concessions and close collaboration right across the House in order for the Government to achieve a consensus that the House would then support.
My point is not that parliamentarians have to do as the Government say at all, but that parliamentarians should be looking for what they can agree to. I am advocating the Prime Minister’s deal on the very clear grounds that it offers departure from the European Union, but a close and ongoing relationship with our EU friends and neighbours. That seems the right kind of compromise, which all hon. Members could get behind. Nevertheless, should we get to the point of introducing the withdrawal agreement Bill, which is the piece of legislation that would put into law the decision of the House, I have absolutely no doubt that there would be very close collaboration, and many concessions and discussions, in order to get the legislation through. So I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As Parliament’s voice in Government, it is my great pleasure that I often find myself pleading with Government Ministers to listen to the view of Parliament, and I will continue to do so.
Mr Speaker
And us all. The Leader of the House says that she is Parliament’s voice in Government. Although that is constitutionally the position she holds, she is certainly Government’s voice in Parliament. I think that we have always been very clear about that as well, and we acknowledge that part of her responsibilities.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I have a constituent who only found out after the death of her husband that she could actually get additional state pension based on his national insurance contributions. The Department for Work and Pensions had notified her husband but, for whatever reason, he had not taken action. This means that, although she is now claiming the additional money, she is limited to a maximum 12 months’ backdated claim. Rather than the outdated assumption that the man controls the household finances, can we have a Government statement confirming that the DWP will now always notify both husband and wife, and look at changing the law on the length of period for which such pensions can be backdated?
Andrea Leadsom
I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that it should never be assumed that one half of a partnership controls the finances for the other. He raises an important constituency case, and I encourage him to write to me so that I can take the matter up with the Department on his behalf.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I ask again: when will the Timpson review of exclusions be published? Last week, I joked with the Leader of the House about how soon it would be, but it is actually no joking matter. When there are undeniable links between exclusions and youth violence, it is crucial that we get this report and that it is published now.
Andrea Leadsom
I completely agree, and I again pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her commitment to the issue. I will ask again when the review can be published, and I share her desire for it to be brought forward urgently. She may have seen this morning the suggestion of the Secretary of State for Education that exclusions are not necessarily directly the major cause of some of the knife crime problems that we have seen, and that truancy may be an even bigger issue. It is vital that we look across the piece at what is causing this issue, and that we seek to put measures in place. The hon. Lady is right to chase the report, and I will see if I can do more to push for its publication.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I am afraid to admit that I have been glancing at the internet during these exchanges, and I have to tell the Leader of the House that the website for the Brexit petition to revoke article 50 has now crashed. I wonder whether she can help me to help more of my constituents sign the petition, which had reached 800,000 signatures the last time I looked.
Andrea Leadsom
I was made aware this morning that there were some technical problems with the Petitions Committee website that people are working quickly to restore, so I can reassure the hon. Lady that the website will be back up and running as soon as possible. I can also assure her that, should the petition reach more than 17.4 million signatures, there would be a very clear case for taking action. However, it is absolutely right that people have the opportunity to put their views, which can then spark yet another Brexit debate.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
My constituent Paul McDonald suffers from macular degeneration, and was given the opportunity by a private company, the London Eye Hospital, to have a new treatment, which the hospital claimed would improve his condition. Having got himself into considerable debt, he has now unfortunately found that his eyesight has become worse as a result of the treatment. The company has gone into administration, and it turns out that dozens of other people feel that they have been mis-sold this treatment. Can we have a debate on what we can do to avoid a repetition of the situation and get some justice for the people affected?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises a really serious issue. I am very sorry to hear about the problems that his constituent has had. Health questions are on 26 March, and I encourage him to raise the matter directly with Ministers then.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Ind)
Can we have a debate on the urgent need to bring new hi-tech industries and highly skilled jobs to areas such as the Black Country that have lost their traditional industries? This would enable me to set out the case to develop in Dudley not just a new institute of technology, but a hi-tech campus to provide more apprenticeships, degrees and better-paid, secure jobs in areas such as low-carbon technologies, advanced manufacturing, digital technologies, autonomous vehicles, very light rail, computing and software development.
Andrea Leadsom
I commend the hon. Gentleman for standing up for Dudley, as he absolutely would do. As part of the UK’s industrial strategy, we have already agreed 10 sector deals with a range of industries including the aerospace, construction and offshore wind sectors. These deals bring together Government, industry and researchers to ensure that we can build on our success and exploit future opportunities. The Government are doing their bit, sector by sector, to promote the huge opportunities that lie ahead, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can talk to Ministers about the opportunities for Dudley.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
The primary 7 pupils at Prestonpans Primary School in East Lothian, where I used to teach, had a debate on Brexit, and it was very friendly and goal-oriented. Indeed, one of the children undertook to write to the Prime Minister, and I know that in due course he will get a response. Given their attitude to that debate, and given the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) about what young people can do with regard to climate change, could we have an urgent debate on what we can learn from our young people?
Andrea Leadsom
I would absolutely welcome such a debate. There is a huge amount we can learn from young people, right across a whole range of topics. I pay tribute to the school pupils in his constituency for their commitment to talking about Brexit. In fact, there was also a debate about Brexit in my daughter’s school, where she was required to stand up for a second referendum. She rang me for some suggestions about what she could say, which I was of course very happy to provide. Many hon. and right hon. Members have provided me with plenty of ammunition in support of that. I do take seriously what the hon. Gentleman says, but in the meantime he might like to seek a Back-Bench debate, because I am sure that lots of hon. Members would like to commend the work done by young people in this country.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Before I ask the Leader of the House a question, Mr Speaker, may I put on the public record how often I am told by the people of 30 nations with whom I often interact how much they admire our opportunity to have a Speaker who stands up for Back Benchers, who defends the standards of Parliament, and who represents the best of British way of doing things with fairness, openness and transparency? Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mrs Moon
Scotland is currently consulting on non-time-limited guidance for clinicians to assess access to terminal illness benefits. Can we have more sitting Fridays in order to debate my private Member’s Bill that looks at amending the current time-limited access to terminal illness benefits to bring it into line with Scotland’s proposed, more compassionate guidance?
Andrea Leadsom
I certainly commend the hon. Lady for raising this very important issue. She will be aware that the decision to ensure that people did not have to go through constant assessments when they have a terminal illness was based entirely on compassion. She will also be aware that we have Health and Social Care questions on Tuesday 26 March, and I would encourage her to raise her specific point then.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)
I wonder, Mr Speaker, whether you can imagine the scene at the great Scottish home of the UK’s nuclear deterrent, Faslane naval base, on 29 April 1969, when a crew of submariners slipped out in one of the Barrow-built R-class submarines and thus began Operation Relentless, which has, 24 hours a day, for every single minute, protected the UK from the threat of nuclear blackmail. As the Leader of the House will know, because I know she can do her maths, on 29 April it will be 50 years to the day since Operation Relentless began. Does she not think that there should be a debate in Government time to commemorate this extraordinary achievement? No matter what one thinks of the nuclear deterrent, I know that Members across the House will want to thank all those involved, from the shipwrights across the United Kingdom who built the submarines to the submariners who have served in them. I have already made a conditionally successful application to the Backbench Business Committee. However, the scale of this achievement surely deserves Government time, given the amount of attention that the Navy is giving to this issue over the coming weeks and months.
Andrea Leadsom
I am so pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised this very significant milestone and also given us the opportunity to thank all those who have served, for coming up to 50 years, in protecting our United Kingdom around the world from, as he says, the threat of nuclear blackmail. When I was 13, it was the risk of a nuclear war that made me decide that I was going to become a Member of Parliament, so this very issue has been with me for an extremely long time—longer than I care to think of. I will certainly take his request very seriously and see whether we can find Government time, but I am very glad to hear that he has already got his request in to the Backbench Business Committee.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
People in my constituency who formerly worked at the Hoover factory in Merthyr Tydfil are rightly concerned about their reduced pension fund. Given that the Government removed a significant surplus from this pension fund in the past, does the Leader of the House agree that they have a responsibility to support such funds in times of deficit too? Can we have a debate on this issue and the wider issues arising from the Government removing large surpluses from pension pots?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important issue for his constituency. I know that the profit share that has been agreed with Government in different pension pots has regularly been an issue of concern for Members. I would encourage him to perhaps seek an Adjournment debate so that he can raise his specific concerns directly with Ministers.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
In a recent answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), a Minister of State at the Foreign Office told him that the UK Government did not normally disclose how they intend to vote ahead of United Nations Human Rights Council meetings. However, this morning, writing in the Jewish Chronicle, the Foreign Secretary has confirmed that they intend to vote against all proposals under item No. 7 relating to the occupied Palestinian territories. Does the Leader of the House agree that if Ministers are telling Members of this House that the Government do not disclose their voting intentions, it is therefore completely inappropriate for them to announce those intentions elsewhere? Will she help to secure an urgent statement tomorrow from the Foreign Office on the Government’s voting intentions at this crucial meeting?
Andrea Leadsom
I would certainly agree that it is always preferable for Ministers to come to this House, as is the convention, to make any important statements in the Chamber. I am not aware of the specific circumstances of what the hon. Lady mentions, so I cannot comment on that. However, we have Foreign Office questions on 2 April, and she could certainly raise the matter there, or perhaps seek an urgent question if it is something of a more urgent nature.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I think it is in the interests of the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) that his Chief Whip be called before him. I call Mr Patrick Grady.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can assure you and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that Whips always smile and are never cross.
I want to press the Leader of the House on the issue of the House sitting on the Friday, and potentially the Saturday, of next week. I found it quite astonishing that there had never been a plan for us to sit on what was supposed to have been Brexit day. Given the possibility that we could have crashed out at 11 o’clock next Friday, it is astonishing to think that we might have to wait until the following Monday to respond to that. So are there contingency plans in place? This is particularly important for the staff who help to keep this place running. That is also true of the Easter recess. I am quite happy to sleep in the Lobby if need be to get this mess sorted out, but it is simply unfair to keep the Clerks, the security and catering staff, and everybody else who makes this place work waiting to find out whether there is going to be an Easter recess. When will we get confirmation of these dates, if at all?
Andrea Leadsom
I totally share the hon. Gentleman’s desire to make sure that people are given as much notice as possible, but equally to make sure that we do not stand people up unnecessarily. Clearly, there is a fine balance between me announcing that we are going to sit 24/7 for the next three months, just in case, versus me coming back with an announcement as soon as possible should it be necessary. Of course, there would be usual-channels discussions should it be necessary to sit, for example, next Friday. However, I do take his point very seriously. We always seek to ensure that we take full account of the impact on the staff of this place—those who support Members of Parliament but also those who support the smooth running of the House.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I hope that the Leader of the House can help me with a debate on the question of Government consultations. The Home Office issued a consultation on air rifle misuse in October 2017. It closed in February 2018. In the answer to a parliamentary question from me this week, I found that there is still no date for the publication of a Government response to that consultation. I have constituents who have lost people due to the misuse of airguns, and they just want to know what is the Government’s view. Can we have a debate on what is an acceptable period between the end of a consultation to the Government responding to it?
Andrea Leadsom
I am very sympathetic to the right hon. Gentleman’s request. If he wants to write to me after the business question, I can ask the Department on his behalf. He will be aware that we have Home Office questions on 1 April, and he could equally raise it then, should he wish to do so.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Can we have a statement from the Government on what “in due course” means? Since January, the Government have been supposed to conclude their review into the provision of parental leave for parents of premature and sick babies. I have lodged numerous written questions, including pursuant questions, and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), just keeps saying “in due course”. Is that “in due course” as in, “I’ll go and cut the grass in due course”, or as in, “We’ll have a meaningful vote in due course”? This is a serious point. Today, babies will be born prematurely, and parents are still not getting the support they need. Can the Leader of the House arrange for a statement on what “in due course” means and ensure that we support the parents of premature and sick babies?
Andrea Leadsom
I know that the hon. Gentleman has a deep personal interest in this matter. I completely understand that he would like a specific date. I can say to him, from the heart, that these things can be quite complicated. When we are seeking to change a law or give a different dispensation, there are often quite a lot of consequential impacts that require consultation, further research and so on. When Ministers say “in due course”, they genuinely mean as soon as all the various aspects can be finalised. Often it is impossible to give a specific date, but if he wants to write to me, I can certainly chase the Department on his behalf.
Points of Order
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice. The Government are supposed to be tackling violence with a public health approach, so I was astonished when my question to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care asking what progress his Department has made on the implementation of a public health approach to tackling violence was transferred to the Home Office for a written response. My question was genuinely meant for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, as I am keen to know whether he endorses a public health approach and what action his Department is taking. The public health approach can be successful only if it is genuinely adopted across the whole of Government.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Lady has done me the great courtesy of telling me in advance that she wished to raise that matter on a point of order. The short answer, but it is not the only answer, is that it is for Government to decide the Minister and Department answering a question—that is to say, the matter of transfer from one Department to another is within the exclusive cognisance of Ministers. That said, if it is the clear and explicit wish of the hon. Lady to explore the issue from the vantage point that she has described, I think it would be helpful if the Department of Health and Social Care respected that.
The hon. Lady may find that a direct approach to a Health Minister—a private chat over a cup of tea or on the telephone—would help. If that does not avail her, or if she prefers another approach, I suggest that she goes to the Table Office to explore the options, where the brilliant and dedicated staff will seek to help her. She will not be surprised to know that this is not an unprecedented situation—there have been many such examples over the years—but if she follows my usual advice, which is to persist, I think she will find a way through the thicket.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Over two weeks ago at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister said that she would be hosting an emergency summit in Downing Street on knife crime “in the coming days”. As far as I am aware, no invitations have gone out and no summit has been held. Have you been given any indication of a statement to the House about the Prime Minister’s intention to hold such a summit on the urgent and crucial issue of tackling knife crime?
Mr Speaker
I have received no indication that a Minister plans to make a statement on the matter. I note what the hon. Lady says about a past prime ministerial commitment. To be fair, the Prime Minister has many matters on which to focus at the moment, and I cannot say whether the organisation of this event is in train or not. I note that the hon. Lady is indefatigable and remorseless in pursuit of this subject, which is absolutely right and proper, and she will have opportunities to air the issue in the Chamber in the days to come, especially if she is dissatisfied that the event that she anticipated has not yet been arranged.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you have been approached about the security arrangements for Members of Parliament—something I know you take very seriously, as does the Chairman of Ways and Means, who is in the Chamber—following the Prime Minister’s remarks last night, when she seemed to set Parliament against the people on the issues of Brexit. I have noticed a more belligerent tone in some of my communications since last night, and I am sure that other Members of Parliament are starting to experience the same issue. Given the darkening mood that has been created by what the Prime Minister said last night, is there anything else we should be doing to ensure that we take care of our own security?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I will make two points. First, if he has concerns of either a personal or wider nature, it is open to him to approach the parliamentary security director, Eric Hepburn, who will be well known to colleagues; indeed, I would encourage him to do so. Secondly, wholly unrelated to any comment or statement by any Minister or other parliamentarian, I have today a long-arranged meeting with security advisers. That meeting will take place very shortly, and if it is a service to the hon. Gentleman, I will relay the concern that he has expressed and some of the concerns that other Members from across the House have articulated about this matter. If there is a further or better particular that I have to share with the House, I will say so. Otherwise, if he wishes to approach me again next week to seek details of the substance and outcome of my meeting, I will be very happy, as is proper and appropriate, to brief him. I hope that that is helpful.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not know whether many people in the Chamber are aware, but I am sure you are, that at this moment the 50th Special Olympics are taking place in Abu Dhabi. Shannon McGhee and Jamie Kearns, two former pupils of Kilpatrick School in West Dunbartonshire, where my younger brother went, are part of the UK national team. Can you advise me how we can highlight to not only Shannon and Jamie but the entire team how fantastic we think their endeavours are? More importantly, how can we highlight to the state broadcaster and other broadcasters that receive public funding that their coverage of a truly elite sporting activity is woefully inadequate?
Mr Speaker
The truth of the matter, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, is that he has achieved his objective. As an experienced parliamentarian, he has registered his point with skill, eloquence and panache.
Leasehold Reform
Mr Speaker
The Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), will speak on his subject for up to 10 minutes, during which I remind the House that no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, the Chair will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and call the hon. Gentleman to respond to those in turn. Members can expect to be called only once. Interventions should be questions and should be brief. Those on the Front Bench may take part in questioning.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for making time for this statement. Last Tuesday, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee published our 12th report of this Session, following a six-month inquiry into leasehold reform. I thank all the members of the Committee, who agreed the report unanimously; several of them are in their places today. I particularly thank Nick Taylor, our Committee specialist, for his excellent work on this technically challenging subject.
We are grateful in particular for the work over many years of the all-party group on leasehold and commonhold reform, which has helped to highlight the multitude of issues of concern among leaseholders. It was extremely helpful to have public evidence from the joint chairs of the group, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who I see in his place, and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). I also see in his place my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). We also had written evidence from my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), who during his time on the Committee strongly advocated such an inquiry—he is also in his place—as well as from my hon. Friends the Members for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), and for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), and the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson).
The Committee has never undertaken an inquiry that has had such an overwhelming response from individual members of the public. We received over 700 written submissions, mostly from leaseholders who wanted to tell us about their personal experiences. It is clear there is a great deal of dissatisfaction: onerous ground rent terms; high and opaque service charges; unfair and excessive permission charges; alleged mis-selling of leasehold properties by developers; imbalanced dispute mechanisms; and unreasonable costs to enfranchise or extend leases. In the worst cases, people have been left trapped in unsellable homes. More common are leaseholders with opaque service charges and poor levels of maintenance who have no reasonable means to challenge or query how their buildings are being managed. The Committee concluded that
“too often leaseholders, particularly in new-build properties, have been treated by developers, freeholders and managing agents, not as homeowners or customers, but as a source of steady profit.”
At the very start of our inquiry into leasehold reform, we invited 50 leaseholders to meet us in Parliament to talk about the issues that most concerned them. We listened carefully to their concerns, and when at the end of the session we asked them what they wanted us to recommend in our final report, they responded nearly unanimously, “Abolish leasehold”. We have listened. Leasehold is an inappropriate tenure for houses, and we support the Government’s proposals to prohibit leasehold development of new build houses. With regard to flats, we are unconvinced that professional freeholders provide a significantly higher level of service than what could be provided by leaseholders themselves. There is no reason why the vast majority could not be held in commonhold. Only the most complex mixed use developments and some retirement properties may continue to benefit from some form of leasehold ownership. We call on the Government to ensure that commonhold becomes a primary model of ownership of flats in England and Wales, as it is in many other countries, and to create incentives—and remove the disincentives—for developers and freeholders to ensure that this happens.
It is right to consider tenure for the future, but much of our evidence was from existing leaseholders who want their concerns to be addressed now. During our inquiry, we heard several accusations from leaseholders, particularly of houses, that they had been mis-sold their properties. A particular concern of a substantial number relates to their accusing developers of reneging on promises made by the sales teams to allow leaseholders to purchase their freeholds at an agreed price after two years. Leaseholders told us their freeholds had been sold on to third-party investors who are not willing to allow leaseholders to purchase their freeholds at the same price as previously offered. One leaseholder told us that the price of purchasing her freehold had increased from £3,000 to £13,000, and another that it had increased from £5,000 to £40,000.
Developers denied they had deliberately misled leaseholders, but the number of near-identical stories reflects a serious cross-market failure. We have called on the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate mis-selling in the leasehold sector and to make recommendations for compensation. We know the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has already called on the CMA to do this, and it has refused. We hope our call will act as pressure on the CMA finally to act in the interests of leaseholders.
It was concerning to hear several reports from leaseholders that they had been advised, incentivised or required by the developer to use a specific conveyancing solicitor who subsequently did not advise them of onerous terms in their leases. We heard that developers had offered free carpets, free lawns, discounts or other financial incentives to use a preferred solicitor. Leaseholders were told that their sale would fall through if they did not complete within 28 days, and that only the solicitor recommended by the developer could be certain to hit the deadline. Consumers must be able to access independent and reliable legal advice when purchasing a property, so we have called on the Government to prohibit the offering of financial incentives to persuade a customer to use a particular solicitor.
Concerns were raised about onerous ground rents. Ground rents bear no relation to the level of maintenance or the quality of service provided to leaseholders; that is the function of the service charge. Some developers had imposed 10 to 15-year doubling ground rent terms in the leases of new build flats and houses. Taylor Wimpey has apologised and set up a remediation scheme, albeit with limitations, but others have not. Redrow told us that it had introduced 10-year doubling ground rents on 347 properties, with an average starting ground rent of £400 per annum, which would rise to £12,800 in the 50th year, but it has no plans to remedy these leases.
There is a growing trend for mortgage lenders to refuse to lend on leasehold properties where the ground rent exceeds 0.1% of the property or will do so. The options for leaseholders with onerous ground rents are limited. We are not convinced by voluntary offers, so what more can be done? One option is to use legislation to amend existing leases. The Government told us initially that they were not able to use legislation in these circumstances. The Secretary of State said that
“the nature of contract law means legislation cannot change the terms of leases that have already been signed.”
However, we found that it would be legally possible for the Government to introduce legislation to remove onerous ground rents in existing leases and retrospective legislation could be compliant with human rights law. Indeed, the Government propose to reduce the premium payable to enfranchise, which will in effect buy freeholders out of a contractual income stream at a discount. There is little difference in principle between altering the terms of enfranchisement and altering ground rents, and both are likely to be equally justifiable in human rights terms. Freeholders would probably need to be compensated, but that compensation need not necessarily be at full value. Our view is that existing ground rents should be limited to 0.1% of the present value of a property up to a maximum of £250 a year.
On future leases, the Government initially said that they would require those to be set at a peppercorn or zero financial value, but they have since proposed making £10 per annum a standard cap. It is unclear what value there is for the leaseholder or freeholder in requiring a ground rent of £10. We therefore recommend that the Government revert to their original plan to require ground rents on newly established leases to be set at a peppercorn or zero financial value.
Although it is fair that freeholders should be able to pass on reasonable costs arising from a change initiated by a leaseholder, many of the permission fees we heard about were plainly excessive and exploitative. Charges such as £3,500 for permission to build a conservatory or making a charge to fit a new doorbell are clearly ridiculous. We have called for permission fees to be limited to the true administrative costs incurred by freeholders. The Government should require this in the lease of new build properties, and legislation should be introduced to restrict such fees in existing leases.
Furthermore, the growing practice of imposing permission fees in the deeds of new build freehold properties and enfranchised former leasehold properties is an unjustified intrusion on homeowners that many campaigners have rightly referred to as “fleecehold”. We have made recommendations to deal with “fleecehold”, including that the Government should require that permission fees be only ever included in the deeds of freehold properties where they are reasonable and absolutely necessary, although we noted that we could not think of any circumstances in which this would be the case. We have also called on the Competition and Markets Authority to exercise its powers under section 130A of the Enterprise Act 2002 to indicate its view about whether onerous leasehold terms constitute unfair terms and would therefore be unenforceable. Where leaseholders have paid unreasonable fees or ground rents over the course of their leases so far, they should have them refunded by freeholders with interest.
Our report has made many other recommendations, and we welcome in particular the work being done by the Law Commission on a number of matters, such as enfranchisement, commonhold and other matters.
Mr Betts
We feel it is necessary not simply that we have a number of individual recommendations, but that the Government now call on, invite and fund the Law Commission to conduct a more comprehensive review of leasehold legislation as a whole. We have made many other recommendations that I do not have time to go into today, but we look forward to the Government response to our report. Given the weight of evidence we have had from so many individual people—our constituents—up and down the country, we urge Ministers to take our recommendations seriously.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
May I say that I own a leasehold flat? In a few years’ time, I may own another one, but I have not had any problems.
The Chair of the Select Committee, and his colleagues and advisers, deserve enormous thanks and congratulations. In just three months, they had the innovation of the roundtable—I recommend the conclusion of that roundtable to the BBC, and others, who do not yet seem to have covered the detail of the report.
The hon. Gentleman picked up on issues raised by the National Leasehold Campaign, as well as the knowledge of Bob Bessell, a trustee of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, who has developed more than 1,500 retirement properties with no ground rents. He knows, as do we, that ground rents pay for nothing that is of benefit to those in their homes.
The report’s suggestion of lease-rental is good. Leaseholders should not think that they actually own anything, because they do not. They are effectively tenants, and as we saw with the Grenfell-style cladding, they were supposedly left carrying the cost of replacing that cladding, which is not good enough.
On behalf of the all-party group on leasehold and commonhold reform, I welcome the campaign to ensure that costs are made equal and that freeholders are not able to put the costs of unsuccessful legal actions on to leaseholders, who then have to pay even though they won a dispute.
It is important that all recommendations in the report are debated in full, and if we have more such reports, the work of those who have campaigned on this issue, particularly the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick)—he is currently in a meeting about leaseholders, but otherwise he would have spoken today—will be carried through to the benefit of leaseholders.
Mr Betts
The point about the costs of legal action not being recoverable from leaseholders is made in our report, and I welcome the idea of a longer debate on that issue—perhaps once the Government have published their response, so that we can take that into account. We ought to pursue the idea of lease-rental more clearly, because people do not wholly own their properties in the way they think they do.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
As my hon. Friend knows, I am particularly concerned about older people who have been somewhat duped into these schemes. Does he agree that the Competition and Markets Authority could quickly consider that issue and deal with problems in the sheltered accommodation sector?
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman—I shall call him my hon. Friend—on his chairmanship of the Committee and on steering us towards this excellent report, in which I was pleased to participate. One point that he did not mention, given the time available to him, was the scandal of companies such as Bellway that sell the freeholds of properties to financial companies two years after they built them, without even notifying the leaseholders. Will he urge the Government to close the legal loophole that allows companies to sell properties to subsidiaries or other organisations without even notifying leaseholders and to ensure that leaseholders can buy the freehold at the same price that would be paid by any subsidiary?
Mr Betts
Absolutely. It is a complete scandal, and a number of developers have blatantly admitted that they sold on the property and did not tell the leaseholders what was being done. Ultimately, banning new houses from being built as leaseholds solves the problem, but immediately there ought to be a right of first refusal for leaseholders to buy their freehold at a clear and regulated price. The Law Commission is working on that issue, and we support that.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
On behalf of the National Leasehold Campaign, I congratulate the Chair of the Select Committee and its members on an excellent, comprehensive report. There is, I think, a sense of vindication among all those who have campaigned on this issue, not least myself, the National Leasehold Campaign, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), because the Committee has picked up on all the issues that were of great concern to us. When considering the report, I hope the Government will note that the Leasehold Reform Bill is still on the books, which would make the process of enfranchisement simple and easy. Did the Committee come to a view on the agreements that have been reached between some developers and leaseholders for changing the terms of their lease from ground rent doubling to RPI?
Mr Betts
We did consider that, and we said that although such voluntary agreements might be a step forward, they were not sufficient and they were not as good as our proposals to restrict leases on existing properties to 0.1% of the value, or £250. Legislation would overturn the current arrangement, and provide a better one for leaseholders.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The scandal of new houses being sold on leases, often to first-time buyers, is present in my constituency in Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard, and involves builders such as Galliford Try, which trades as Linden Homes, Taylor Woodrow and Persimmon. I am concerned about how we get speedy and affordable redress for people caught in that situation, including those Taylor Woodrow victims who are not the original purchasers and to whom Taylor Woodrow is offering nothing. The report states that the Law Commission is not due to provide its final report until later in 2019, and the Committee recommends implementation of these measures within 12 months. That cannot come a day too soon. This scandal should never have been allowed to happen, and I say to my good friend the Minister that we need urgent action please.
Mr Betts
The word “scandal” is absolutely right to describe the way some of these developers have behaved. Hopefully action will follow quickly from the Law Commission’s report, and the Committee will keep an eye on that and press for action, as I am sure will other hon. Members. We must keep reminding ourselves that the companies who have done this are hardly hard up. In the last financial year, Taylor Woodrow made profits of £800 million and Persimmon of £1 billion. Those companies are not relying on that money to keep themselves afloat.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, for standing up too soon—just when I begin to think I know what I am doing, I realise that I really do not.
I congratulate the Chair of the Select Committee and its members on an excellent report, as well as the all-party group on leasehold and commonhold reform, and the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). They have managed to deliver cross-party consensus, and the need for reform is clear. Does the Chair of the Committee agree that following the Law Commission’s detailed work into enfranchisement, it is important that a simple formula is set for leaseholders to buy the freehold of their home, based either on a multiple of ground rent, or on a percentage of the capital value of the property?
Mr Betts
We need something simple, and the Law Commission has been asked to consider that issue because something as simple as a multiple of ground rent might not be fair. The freeholders who would get the biggest benefit from a multiple of ground rent will be those who made the largest ground rent charges, and it would be perverse if those who behaved the worst were to benefit in that way. We want the Law Commission’s report as quickly as possible and a formula that is as simple as possible but also fair.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I, too, thank the Select Committee for its report, which is long overdue. My constituency has a particular issue with elderly constituents who have moved into blocks for independent living and found that their assets have depreciated hugely. They are not being managed or looked after, but the service charges keep going up, and people cannot afford to leave. They are trapped. Something needs to be done to help those vulnerable constituents, and it seems to me that we need to open up the market for management service companies. Did the Committee consider whether it would be possible to allow leaseholders to set up their own community interest company and take on those responsibilities? Leaseholders would not rip themselves off in the way that they are currently ripped off by some of these unscrupulous companies.
Mr Betts
There are circumstances where leaseholders can do that—ultimately, they could move to a form of commonhold, although that requires substantial agreement among themselves, and many elderly leaseholders might not want to go down that road without lots of explanation and help. One of our concerns was that there is not much help or publicity about that process, and that issue could be looked at. Service charges are often terribly opaque, and proper information is not provided. The right to challenge is not explained, and challenge through a tribunal is difficult. Another thing that would help is a simpler housing court system, which we hear the Government are going to introduce. The quicker they do that, the better.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Select Committee on the report, which is incredibly hard-hitting. My constituents, such as Pamela Rose Canales and other Camellia House residents who contributed evidence, greatly appreciate it. I believe the report is a game-changer. This issue has been bubbling away in this House, and we now have a real opportunity to fundamentally review and change legislation in this area. May I pick up on three very brief recommendations he has made, and ask how quickly he thinks they could be taken forward?
The first relates to the prevention of the ability of landlords to recoup their legal fees from those against whom they lose their case. Secondly, in my experience, paying the service charge has not been the issue. People are happy to pay a fair service charge. As my hon. Friend says, the issue is the lack of transparency and justification, and the unpredictable nature of additional charges that can just appear throughout the year. Perhaps with the housing court that he mentioned, changes could come in quickly.
Finally, how quickly could the Law Commission be asked by the Government to undertake a comprehensive review, bearing in mind that it could take 12 to 18 months? We want the legislative changes to be introduced as quickly as possible.
Mr Betts
On the first point, if a leaseholder at a tribunal asks at the beginning for a ruling that, if they win, costs cannot be passed on to the freeholder, the tribunal can so rule. The problem is that many leaseholders do not know about that requirement. The Government could do an awful lot immediately to publicise that.
Secondly, on service charges, we recommend that a standard format should be brought in, so that all leaseholders know what to expect and all information is given to them in a proper manner. The Government could publish guidance without having to wait for primary legislation. We hope that they will look at doing that very quickly.
On the Law Commission, I do not know how long it would take it to report, but the Government could make an immediate decision to ask it to produce a report. However, the Law Commission made it very clear to us that it currently does not have the resources in its budget to do that. It would need the Government to offer, and provide, sufficient funding.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The whole system of leasehold and ground rent is a racket, and it has gone on for centuries. It was invented by aristocrats who had stolen all the land from the monasteries in the 16th and 17th centuries. It is a scandal that we, and successive generations of politicians, have continued to allow the thing to exist. Funnily enough, when it came to a moment when there was a dire shortage of housing, the house builders saw an opportunity. It is no wonder that we have ended up with the position we are in at the moment. Would it not just be simpler to scrap the whole system?
Mr Betts
I am tempted to say yes. What we said in the report was that we need to move to a whole new approach, where commonhold becomes the default option for flats, we abolish leasehold for houses, and if we put the sorts of restrictions on ground rents and permission fees that we have been talking about, there will not, ultimately, be any incentive for freeholders and that will drive it out of the market. I think the issue is twofold: stopping it on new properties and removing the incentive for freeholders, so their income streams, which are wrongly obtained now, will not be available in future.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Select Committee on an excellent report. Like many other colleagues here today, I have many constituents who are affected by this terrible scandal. The Committee rightly addresses how people can get redress and compensation. Clearly, there is still a lot of uncertainty. For those who have already been hit, how they get redress and compensation is a big issue. During his presentation, my hon. Friend said that he does not think retrospective legislation should in any way conflict with human rights legislation. Can he say a bit more about that?
Mr Betts
We took evidence on that. There are caveats and conditions on human rights legislation. If there is a general good to be obtained, that can outweigh the particular interest of private owners of property. The Government have already got around that on enfranchisement. They have asked the Law Commission to recommend a simple enfranchisement that could mean that the freeholder receives less compensation when the leaseholder enfranchises. In that case, the Government are already considering reducing the value of enfranchisement to freeholders. That is no different from a recommendation to reduce the value of ground rents to freeholders in principle. That probably needs further work, but we had advice that it is possible. There will be a requirement for some compensation, but it need not be full-value compensation.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I, too, would like to thank the Chair and his Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) who have raised this issue consistently in this House, certainly since I have been here.
The Leasehold Knowledge Partnership has been very helpful to leaseholders and to us on the legal issues. I am really pleased that the report says, rightly, that the balance of power is weighted against the leaseholder. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said that this is the modern equivalent of the racket that followed the dissolution of the monasteries. Does the Chair not agree that this is indeed a modern racket, whereby developers, solicitors and financiers, many of them offshore, are deliberately running a racket and organising conferences to share knowledge on how to rip off leaseholders?
Mr Betts
Yes. I too thank the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership for its work. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Houses are being mis-sold in the first place. Then, when people are in a leasehold situation, they are being charged ridiculous amounts for permission fees for things that should be done anyway without the requirement of the freeholder to say yes. Service charges are put in for services that are often not delivered. Freeholders are making money out of that. We heard examples of freeholders contracting for insurance on the property and taking a percentage contribution out of the money they paid over. Those things are completely wrong. The sooner we can change the system, the better.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I would like to put on record my thanks to the Chair of the Select Committee, every Select Committee member, the all-party group and the campaign. Many of my constituents in the Northwich and Runcorn parts of my constituency have been affected, as people have rightly said, by this mis-selling scandal affecting leaseholders. What more can the Government and the Select Committee do to press the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate and recommend levels of compensation? We need action now.
Mr Betts
Absolutely right. I will take that up, and I think we can write directly to the CMA as well. Obviously, the Government will get a copy of the report and will respond. We will make sure that the CMA gets a copy as well and responds to it. This is a scandal. Many people’s lives are being blighted by this situation. We need to do everything we can as quickly as we can to rectify it.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the report. It is a national scandal—that is clear. These people knew exactly what they were doing. These have been sold as financial products. People are making a lot of money out of this and they are preying on many first-time buyers who are keen to get into their homes. We have already heard about the lawyers who were recommended at a discount. People were hoodwinked. They now tell me that it is difficult to sell their homes. They have told me that they do not feel that they actually own their home, but that somebody else owns it. I recognise that it is difficult when people have signed contracts, but that does not mean that we should not do something about it. We need to sort out this scandal for existing homeowners.
Mr Betts
Absolutely. We have said that we think there ought to be retrospective changes to the permission charges and the ground rents where they are clearly onerous. The Competition and Markets Authority ought to look at whether those contracts are enforceable, because they are, in many cases, unreasonable. There are two ways we can and should approach that. I am pleased to see that the Minister has sat through this statement on the Government Front Bench, because in the end she is the one who is going to have to deliver a lot of these changes. I think she is hearing very clearly from across the House that there is a real demand that this whole matter be addressed properly by the Government and that they implement the Committee’s recommendations.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It has been an honour to serve on the Select Committee, and may I say how well chaired it is? I thank the APPG for its contribution, and indeed all those who have campaigned on the matter for so long. I was the victim of leasehold many years ago, when I found myself in the straitjacket of the costs of the freeholders. What was clear from the evidence we received was just how far-reaching the problem is. What has been going on is a national scam—the words “racket” and “scandal” have also been used—so we absolutely must get to grips with it as quickly as possible.
Over the past two years, buyers on one of the recently built estates in my constituency have been told by the salespeople that they would not have to pay as much council tax as others because they would be paying a separate charge for their verges to be looked after. Local authorities now have a responsibility to address that issue with those estates.
Mr Betts
We made it clear right at the beginning of our report that there should be a clear explanation from the seller of what extra charges there might be for the future maintenance of areas of open space that have not been taken over by the council. If they are to be managed by a private company, its service charge should be open and transparent, but all that information should also be provided right at the beginning. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this is a scandal. I referred to 700 pieces of written evidence, but every day we are continuing to get leaseholders writing to us, having seen our evidence sessions on the television or read about them on the website, saying, “Me too; we have been badly treated and we want something done about it.”
Sir Peter Bottomley
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I first say that the House greatly welcomes the way the Chair has run this Select Committee statement, because all the Members who could be here today have managed to get in?
There are many other Members representing the 10 million people living in the 5 million homes affected by leasehold, so perhaps the Government would consider making an oral statement next Monday or Tuesday so that others can contribute.
The Government might wish to talk about how they will continue to fund the Law Commission’s work and the extension recommended by the Committee.
None of this would have happened without the work of Sebastian O’Kelly and Martin Boyd of the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, so I think that we ought to pay our debt to those outside this House as well as congratulating ourselves inside it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Obviously, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a point of order for the Chair, but he has certainly put his comments on the record and thanks have gone to the rightful place, because I do not think there is a constituency in the country that is not affected.
Backbench Business
Services for People with Autism
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered services for people with autism.
Every year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan), in her role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on autism, moves a motion along the lines:
“That this House notes that World Autism Awareness Week runs from 1 April to 7 April; observes that autistic people continue to face a number of barriers to full participation in society; notes that it is 10 years since the Autism Act became law; and calls on the Government to improve support for children and adults on the autism spectrum, and ensure that the Autism Act is fully implemented across the country.”
My right hon. Friend cannot be with us today. She has asked me to explain that a close family member is critically ill and that she cannot leave their side. Though you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I send the love of this House to our right hon. Friend. She is a formidable champion of this cause, and someone to whom many of us have turned in our own hour of need. The best tribute that I can pay to her is to deliver the speech that she prepared and would have made today. These are her words:
“I welcome the Minister to the Front Bench and look forward to hearing what she has to say. My thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate as we look forward to World Autism Awareness Week, a full seven days when people across the UK take part in activities to raise awareness of autism. I also thank the National Autistic Society for its ongoing support for the all-party parliamentary group on autism.
Hon. Members will be aware of my long-standing commitment to improving the lives of people on the autism spectrum, most notably through my role in spearheading the introduction of the Autism Act 2009—which has now been on the statute book for 10 years.
I was proud to introduce that Bill that became the only Act—which is the only Act dedicated to improving support and services for one disability. It was a landmark in the battle to improve the lives of autistic adults and their families. As a result of the Act, there has been a fundamental shift in how policy is developed and delivered for adults on the autism spectrum. For the first time, legal duties were placed on councils and the NHS to provide support to autistic adults in their local areas. In addition, the Act placed a responsibility on the Government to produce the national autism strategy, to set out its vision—and, importantly, to keep that strategy under review.”
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Like my hon. Friend I pay huge tribute to our right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) and all that she has done on the issue for so long. I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend’s excellent speech, and I wonder what he would say to a constituent who wrote to me about her son. She writes:
“My son is 21 years old and since leaving education has had nothing to do. He is not disabled enough to qualify for benefits but he is not able to compete for a job. He is caught in the middle.”
What more does my hon. Friend think we can do to help people like that young man with their future?
Huw Merriman
I thank my hon. Friend for his words and for championing his constituents. As he rightly says, some autistic people tend to fall through the gaps. Of course, all local authorities have a responsibility to take note when it comes to autism. We see individuals who are on the autism spectrum but are not receiving help because they might be outside a defined period. The extension of plans up to the age of 25 will go some way towards addressing that, but we still see people falling through the gaps. I will touch on some of the other areas that might address his concerns, or I will at least make calls to those on the Front Bench.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham continues:
“This year, it falls on the Government once again to review its strategy and identify what more needs to be done.
Each of us has about 1,000 people on the autism spectrum in our constituencies and it affects one in 100 people. We each will have many autistic people and their family members contacting us to ask for our help on areas from education to adult support, diagnosis to employment...”
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
The excellent speech mentioned the Government’s strategy. A perennial problem—it crops up all the time in my constituency—is the speed of diagnosis. The fact is that so many children with autism simply do not get an education. Surely the strategy must try to address that in a much better way than it has in the past.
Huw Merriman
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Time and again we see that young people have to fail before they can be given the support they need. There are many examples of young people clearly failing when they go to a pre-school, but then they still have to move on to a mainstream school, where they will fail, before they can be given support. It should be blindingly obvious, and councils should look at those plans before children have to start primary school. Often councils say that they are not required to do that, but perhaps they do not know what their obligations really are.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman is indeed making an excellent speech. He also referred to parents. What is his view of the extent to which the needs of parents and family members should also be part of the strategy, not least because sometimes they do not understand the experience of their children and how best they can help? Family members also needs respite provision, for example, because of the demands of caring for children with autism. We should also recognise the amazing work that many specialist schools are doing to ensure that children with autism, who also have amazing talents, can express and develop their abilities.
Huw Merriman
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. A couple of years ago I was very proud to co-author the “Autism and education” report, which she also worked on. It showed many worrying statistics. For example, one in two teachers just did not have the confidence to teach autistic children. Unsurprisingly, 50% of autistic children had a miserable time at school and were not looked at.
The hon. Lady is right to give credit to the parents, who are on an incredible journey and are struggling themselves. Battling for the support that they need at the same time as providing care is emotionally draining. We all work with those parents, and we have so much respect for them.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) on all the work that she has done on this issue.
The hon. Gentleman is making some important points, but does he share my annoyance about the fact that, unfortunately, autism seems to be one of those invisible disabilities? Many parents talk about the way in which others judge their children, saying that they are just being naughty. That failure of understanding goes to the heart of the problem faced by autistic children and adults, whose contribution to our communities is enormous, individual and highly important. We should be able to open our eyes to all the strengths that they bring to us, and make a space in which they can be understood through the services that the hon. Gentleman is talking about.
Huw Merriman
The hon. Gentleman has put it beautifully. As he probably knows, a recent survey showed that 50% of autistic individuals and families were scared to go out, and did not go out, because they were worried about how they would be judged. That isolation is a huge challenge for us.
Huw Merriman
I will take two more brief interventions, and then I will make some progress.
Wera Hobhouse
I am pleased that the debate is taking place in the main Chamber. We had a very moving debate some months ago in Westminster Hall, but this is such an important issue that it needed to be raised here. Unfortunately I shall have to leave soon. The debate was meant to start about an hour ago, according to my diary. I am so sorry not to be able to stay, but I am so pleased that the hon. Gentleman is raising the issue now.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I do not know who told the hon. Lady that the debate would start at that time. Someone must have misled her, because there was no set time for it to start.
Wera Hobhouse
In that case, Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise.
My local authorities have some excellent care providers and support services, including Parent Carers Voice. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that services for children with autism should be financed through council budgets rather than the responsibility being pushed on to struggling families?
Huw Merriman
I think that we all face a real challenge. At a time when local authorities are themselves having to watch their budgets, it is the altruistic services—the support services—that tend to go. The challenge I face is that as authorities look just at their statutory obligations, they may end up spending more money to deliver those than they spent on some of the support services beforehand. I have every sympathy with the point that the hon. Lady has made.
Dr Drew
May I pay my own tribute to the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan)? The hon. Gentleman is doing a very good job of reading her speech.
What parents find most frustrating are instances in which a care plan has been agreed and is in place, and the local authority then tries to renegotiate downwards the sum that has been agreed. That causes problems for the parents and, obviously, for the person with autism, but is also causes problems for, in particular, specialist units. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is unfair, and the wrong way to go about dealing with this whole problem?
Huw Merriman
I certainly do. The challenge is to ensure that care plans are flexible enough to be built on, while also including an element of prescription so that there is a proper guide. What must not happen is plans being effectively reneged on when care and support are still needed. The hon. Gentleman made his point very forcefully. He also said that I was doing a good job reading the speech; I will carry on doing my best.
I was talking about the impact on services, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham puts it,
“from education to adult support, from diagnosis to employment, transition to transport. We know the many ways that an autistic person may turn to the state—and to us—for support, and how vital it is to make sure it is there to meet their needs.
The last national strategy ‘Think Autism’ in 2014 included wide-ranging actions. This was underpinned with revised statutory guidance, setting out clear duties on councils and the NHS to deliver on these actions—but we know that many local areas are not meeting all of their obligations. There are also questions about whether the Act goes far enough. As we reach the 10th anniversary of the Act, now is an appropriate time to ask these questions.
The All Party Parliamentary Group on Autism, which I am proud to chair, is spending this year doing just that. We are holding an inquiry into what has worked, what happens now and, most importantly, what needs to change. We are looking very broadly, to reflect the needs of autistic people,”
including in health and mental health; children, education and transition; employment; access to justice; adult support; and public understanding.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I welcome the APPG’s inquiry, and, in particular, the fact that it will look into the way in which adults with autism interact with the criminal justice system. I think that is an area in which the work of the Act could be extended. I pay tribute to the families who set up an organisation called Autism Injustice, and recommend its website, autisminjustice.org, to other Members and to people watching our debate who are interested in that interaction between autism and the criminal justice system.
Huw Merriman
The hon. Gentleman has referred to adults, but I remember going on a trip with the APPG to a young offenders institution that had tried to establish a wing that was autistic-friendly, and hoped to roll it out across the estate. He is right: a big cohort of the prison population are on the spectrum, and face particular challenges that need to be looked at.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Huw Merriman
I will give way one more time, but I really should make some progress.
Bambos Charalambous
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the issue of employment, which is vastly overlooked. Many employers do not know what adjustments they should make to become more autism-friendly, and people with autism are deprived of work as a result. Will the inquiry be looking at that issue?
Huw Merriman
A few years ago, Ambitious about Autism produced a big report looking looked at that specifically. I am fortunate to have in my constituency an organisation called Little Gate Farm, which takes people who have finished their education and makes them work-ready. However, it requires employers to give them a chance, and I am always writing to employers urging them to do so.
Let me give some examples. One young lad was obsessed with washing cars. We matched him up with a garage, and that is exactly what he does. Someone else was given a job in a bookkeeping firm. The big challenge there is ensuring that that young person takes time off, because they have become so used to the routine. The initiative has become so successful that people are throwing themselves into work. We must do all that we can, as Members of Parliament, to pair and support people.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham says that we in the APPG
“will hold the Government’s feet to the fire to see those recommendations reflected in the new strategy.
Our need to act is clear. Too many people”—
as we have just discussed—
“still have to wait too long for a diagnosis—more than three years in some parts of the country. Getting a diagnosis can be a crucial milestone, helping to unlock vital support. Delays in being diagnosed can result in people developing more significant needs, or mental health problems.
National guidance from the health watchdog NICE state clearly that children or adults suspected of being on the autism spectrum should start their diagnostic assessment within three months of being referred to their local autism team. But we know there is a postcode lottery in waiting times for appointments, with many parts of the country falling far short of the three-month target. Alongside the National Autistic Society, we have been pushing progress on this issue in this very chamber for several years. Valuable research”—
carried out by the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb)—
“on behalf of the APPGA shone a further spotlight on these long waits and called for a mandatory minimum waiting time standard. I am pleased to have him on board again leading our inquiry on health and mental health, which heard evidence last week.
We also know that autistic people too often don’t get the physical and mental health care they need. They face high levels of health inequality, and evidence suggests that people may die early as a result, which has been highlighted by Autistica. It’s vital that all health and care staff receive autism training to ensure that our health service meets their needs and makes the changes and adjustments that it needs to—a key part of the Autism Act. I welcome the Government’s current proposals on mandatory training in autism and learning disability to all health and care staff following the dogged campaigning of Paula McGowan, a mother who tragically lost her son Oliver. It’s vital that this proposal is taken forward and that its impact is monitored. I hope the Minister will devote some time to make sure that this programme makes a difference.
I also welcome the inclusion of autism, alongside learning disability, as one of the four clinical priorities in the NHS 10-year plan to improve health services. This is a great step towards ensuring that the NHS supports autistic people as well as it supports everyone else. It sets out actions to reduce children’s diagnosis waiting times, reduce the number of autistic people inappropriately under section in mental health hospitals, and making sure that reasonable adjustments are put in place. But we need more details on how these, and other commitments in the Plan will be delivered (and how they will be funded). I would appreciate if the Minister could update the House on when we can expect to see this much-needed detail.
I am pleased to see the Government already thinking ambitiously about the future of the strategy. I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to extending the autism strategy to include children and young people, as well as adults, for the first time.”
Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an exceptionally powerful speech, and I applaud his role as chairman of the all-party group. It is particularly impressive that he has been able to pick up the role in this debate of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) in her absence.
Returning to the question of education, my hon. Friend touched on the subject of young people a moment ago. Does he agree that the Government’s recent announcement of an additional 37 schools across the country to provide special needs support for people, including those on the autistic spectrum, is a welcome recognition of the challenges presented to our education system by the increasing prevalence, regrettably, of autism across our communities?
I would like to highlight one story in my constituency that points out the need for such schools. It involves a mother of two autistic children, both of whom have to be schooled over 100 miles away from Ludlow, in the heart of my constituency, where she lives. She has campaigned with a local charity and not-for-profit group to open a new school—Overton school, just outside Ludlow, which is currently awaiting its Ofsted accreditation—partly so that other families who have to deal with the same circumstances will not have to travel 100 miles to visit their children.
Huw Merriman
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I know how much he campaigns to deliver the solution he talks about because I am fortunate enough to share an office with him. He is a great champion of his constituents, and it is welcome news that more schools will be funded. The Minister will have heard his powerful pitch for his constituency. I can also reassure all Members that I am only temporarily sitting in for my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham; she will continue to be the chairman of the all-party group. I will now make progress, as I know others wish to speak.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham continues:
“For many families of autistic children, securing the right support for their child at school is a very difficult task—much harder than it should be. I am sure we have all been contacted by constituents who are struggling to get the school provision and support their autistic children need—this may be a place at a specialist school, or support to enable them to thrive and make progress in a mainstream school…
There’s one other very important issue that I want to draw to the attention of the House and the Minister. That is the continued inclusion of autism in the Mental Health Act as a mental disorder.
What this means is that autistic people and those with a learning disability—particularly those who have behaviour that is described as ‘challenging’—can be detained under the Act when they do not have a treatable mental illness. When this is twinned with a lack of appropriate support, particularly crisis support, to prevent someone being admitted to hospital, we see the numbers of autistic people in these hospitals increase.”
I would like the Government to address that challenge and issue.
I will conclude—I have failed to deliver my right hon. Friend’s entire speech, but she will be delighted that we have had a debate about this and raised awareness, so I finish on the following note. She says:
“Autistic people—children and adults—need the right support, at the right time, in their local communities. The wider community needs to have a much better understanding of what autism is and how it affects people. There are things that all of us can do to make our society a more inclusive place for everyone—in World Autism Awareness Week and beyond”,
that should be our goal.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Many Members wish to speak, so there must now be a six-minute limit. I would also like to say that our thoughts are with Dame Cheryl, and she has been missed today but she has certainly been well represented.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure and an honour to follow the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) and, in spirit, the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan), who we truly salute today and all of this year as we mark the 10th anniversary of the Autism Act 2009. Both he and she will agree with me that there is still a lot to be done. I am proud to be one of the all-party group’s officers chairing one of the commissions marking that anniversary and measuring progress; the one I am chairing is on employment and autism and that will be the subject of my remarks today. I also thank my staff Mike Davies and Ravina Shah, who lead for me on autism, and the work of the National Autistic Society, particularly our regional rep Henry and the Bristol Autism Spectrum Service.
According to a recent report by the National Autistic Society, only 16% of working-age people with autism are in full-time employment, and only 32% of people with autism are in any kind of paid employment. That contrasts with the fact that 47% of working-age disabled people are in employment and 80% of working-age people without disabilities are in employment.
Thangam Debbonaire
I am sorry, but I am going to try to stick to the time limit. A lot of Members want to speak.
The 2017 Tory manifesto pledged to see 1 million more disabled people in work by 2027. However, I am not sure that the Government are currently measuring the employment gap for people with autism, so I ask the Minister whether she is able to record the number of autistic people in work in the labour force survey and if not whether some progress can be made.
More than half a million people in the UK are on the spectrum, which is more than 1% of the population. More and more people are being diagnosed, with a twenty-fivefold increase in recent years. People often, although not always, need specific help to be able to find and keep a job, so I ask the Minister to urge Jobcentre Plus to provide adequate autism awareness training.
The National Autistic Society campaign “Too much information” launched in 2016 was the UK’s biggest ever campaign aimed at improving public understanding of autism. The campaign’s report found that 77% of unemployed autistic people want to work and that 40% currently working part-time wish to work more hours. People with autism want to work in a wide variety of roles and respondents to the survey found that ideal work environments vary hugely, from the arts and museum work to scientific research and development. We need to break stereotypes about autism and employment and recognise that the underemployment of people with autism is an issue as well as unemployment.
More needs to be done to improve the lives of people living with autism. I have changed my own employment practices by altering job descriptions to be more accessible, and I am very proud of the two fantastic members of staff I have employed as a result; they are brilliant. I was also, I believe, the first MP to hold a surgery specifically for people on the autism spectrum. I know others have followed suit, which is fantastic, and no doubt they have done a better job. I am committed to making Bristol an autism-friendly city; I made that commitment when I was first elected.
My constituents tell me that many people on the autistic spectrum encounter barriers to finding employment. It is right that we do everything we can to end social isolation. One way of doing that is to ensure that autistic people have the same access to employment as everybody else. Employers, trade unions and public services can all play a part in this. Unfortunately, that exclusion leads not only to autistic people feeling left out but to us missing out on their skills and qualities. They have potential which is too often untapped. This is also about their families and the wider economy. We should all pledge to do everything we can to increase the employment of people on the spectrum.
However, employers say they feel under-equipped and the National Autistic Society survey found that 60% worry about getting it wrong and do not know where to go for support and advice about this. As an officer of the all-party group on autism chairing the commission on employment of people with autism, I will be involving people with autism but there will also be discussions for us there about practical measures and the ways to get people with autism into employment that make sense and fit their potential, but do not discriminate.
I will continue to campaign for Bristol to become a truly autism-friendly city. I am delighted that so many of Bristol’s employers are so keen to join me in achieving this goal. I have spoken to many employers over the last year or so about that. Every single one I have met has taken various steps to make their employment practices more accessible. So may I ask the Minister what the Government will do in turn to help to close the autism employment gap? If she is not able to answer that today, will she consider coming to our commission inquiry to discuss it further?
I thank all those people on the autistic spectrum who have not just inspired me but helped me, taught me and frequently challenged me on how I as a politician and an employer can do better. Autism is in my family. My autistic teenage nephew is doing really well and has so much to offer and many talents, but he is going to need employers to understand his autism and that may in turn mean that they need help. So I want every one of us here to take that away from today’s debate: the need to help employers to do better to close the autism employment gap.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my south-west colleague, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), in this important debate. The National Autistic Society says that there are around 700,000 people on the autistic spectrum in the UK, which is more than one in 100. This means that autism is part of daily life for around 2.8 million people, when we include their families. I therefore welcome this debate on services for people with autism, and I would like to raise two specific points in my contribution today.
First, at my surgery last week, I had the pleasure of meeting a chap called Tigger Pritchard, who is the champion for the National Autistic Society in Cornwall. He is running a great campaign to make Bodmin in my constituency the first autism-friendly town in Cornwall, following the example set by the town of Aylesbury in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington).
Tigger has been sending letters to businesses in Bodmin telling them of the opportunities that they have to help people with autism and their families to become less socially isolated. For example, if shops were to have a period of time in the day when they turned their music down or off, dimmed their lights, reduced till noise and developed staff knowledge of autism, people on the autistic spectrum would have more access to their services. Tigger has had a great response from businesses in Bodmin in the weeks coming up to April, which is Autism Awareness Month. My team and I will be meeting him again so that we can learn a bit more about autism. Should Bodmin manage to become an autism-friendly town, I hope that it will inspire many other communities in Cornwall and across the UK to become more autism friendly.
The second issue I would like to raise relates to the inquiry into the detention of young people with learning disabilities that is being undertaken by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member. Following the 2011 Winterbourne View abuse scandal, the Department of Health and Social Care’s policy response, “Transforming Care” declared that hospitals were not places where people should live. The “Transforming Care” policy regrettably missed its target to move those who were inappropriately placed in hospital or mental health care to community-based support no later than 1 June 2014. I welcome the renewal of the Government’s efforts to ensure that people with autism are not inappropriately placed in hospital care, and NHS England’s efforts to ensure that a similar scandal does not happen again.
On 9 January, the Committee heard evidence for its inquiry from the deputy chief inspector of hospitals at the Care Quality Commission, as well as from NHS England’s national director for learning disabilities and its current national clinical director for learning difficulties. In my view, we need to improve diagnosis and help people as quickly as we possibly can, and I welcome the new approach that NHS England has brought to its complaints procedure. It is called “Ask Listen Do”, and it allows feedback from people with autism and their families to be given and received by organisations more easily, and provides opportunities to improve the experiences of people with autism, but there is still more work to do. There is a long-standing problem of families and carers being excluded from care decisions and not given appropriate information, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman). Moreover, data from the Assuring Transformation collection shows that, although by the end of October 2018 the number of people in learning disability and autism in-patient settings was down from March 2015, the number of under-18s in those settings had more than doubled, to 250.
I encourage people to submit written evidence to the inquiry, so that we can explore how and where we can improve services for those on the autism spectrum. I also want to take this opportunity to encourage all my colleagues in the House to use Autism Awareness Day on 2 April to learn more about autism and to encourage change in their communities to accommodate people on the autism spectrum and their families better. Tigger has kindly offered to come into my office in Cornwall and give us a half-hour training session so that my office can be much more autism aware, and I hope that colleagues will take similar opportunities.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann). I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) on opening today’s debate, and I join him in paying tribute to the fantastic work of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan). I join others in sending our very best wishes to her and her family today.
I want to focus on children with autism. We know that, from the outset, families face an uphill struggle to obtain the help and support that they deserve, and I pay tribute to the work of a relatively new organisation in Liverpool called Autism in Motion, which seeks to provide a voice for parents. It was set up by three Liverpool mums of children on the autistic spectrum. National guidelines state that people should start their diagnostic assessment within three months of being referred to the autism team, but statistics obtained last year by the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) revealed a postcode lottery in waiting times for an initial appointment, with many parts of the country falling woefully short of the three-month target. In some parts of the country, it can take years to receive a diagnosis of autism.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful to many families and indeed professionals who are challenged by these circumstances if the Government were able to put more resources specifically into initial teacher training and in-service training to help staff in schools to understand autism better and to better support children with autistic spectrum issues?
Stephen Twigg
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I shall refer later in my speech to the Abbotts Lea special school in Liverpool, which is a shining example of the very best practice that exists in our education system.
Delays in diagnosing autism mean that many autistic people do not receive the support that they need, which can really harm their life chances. For too many families, securing the right support for their child at school is a hugely difficult task, and can become an all-consuming battle. The passport to receiving this extra support is an education, health and care—or EHC—plan, which is intended to bring together a child’s different needs in education, health and social care. Autism is the most common type of special need for school pupils who have an EHC plan. However, as budgets have been reduced, local councils often struggle to respond to demand, leading to EHC plans being refused or delayed well beyond the 20-week cut-off date by which a decision on whether to approve an EHC plan should be made.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an important point. In my experience—and, I suspect, that of others—the delays in getting an assessment are resulting in some parents having to pay between £2,000 and £3,000 out of their own pocket because they cannot afford to wait such a long time for their children to be assessed.
Stephen Twigg
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. This is one of the many aspects of this challenge that makes life very difficult for the families of children with autism, and we really need to do better by them.
Even those families who do get a plan are often not given the support they need. A report published by the all-party parliamentary group on autism found that only one in 10 parents was very satisfied with the process of agreeing an EHC plan for their child, with 60% saying that they was dissatisfied. In Liverpool, a recent Ofsted inspection into how Liverpool City Council and the local clinical commissioning group catered for children with special educational needs and disabilities found “significant concerns” and “long-standing issues” in local practice. In particular, the inspection found serious weaknesses in the EHC planning process as well as in the quality of the plans that were being made. In response to these concerns, the city council is required to submit a written statement of action to explain how Liverpool will tackle the areas of significant weakness identified.
I am pleased that the council is responding with the urgency that that report demands. It has responded positively, but we know that Liverpool is far from unique. In fact, a majority—more than 50%—of the SEND area inspections nationally have resulted in the requirement for a statement of written action. This is a huge national challenge.
Across the country, devastating cuts in local government funding have contributed to a crisis in funding for children with special education needs and councils are struggling to meet their statutory duties for children with autism. Data from freedom of information requests and council reports show that councils are overspending massively. Overspending on SEND has trebled in the past three years, and it is continuing to increase, with councils having to raid their overall schools budget for millions to respond to demand. Cuts to local authority budgets have further reduced the kind of support that used to be in place for social activities for children with autism and additional support for their families.
Despite this challenging environment, there are brilliant examples across the country of great support for autistic children and their families. In Liverpool, we have some truly outstanding special schools, and it is not just me saying that: Ofsted says that they are truly outstanding, too. They include three in my constituency—Redbridge, Bank View and Ernest Cookson—which serve children with autism.
I want to focus on Abbot’s Lea School, which is in fact in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle). The school caters for over 250 students from three to 19 years old, and its philosophy of education is the ASD model. I pay tribute to headteacher Ania Hildrey, who told me this week that she focuses equally on academic progress, specialist therapeutic support and development of life skills. She has transformed its curriculum, and she unapologetically aspires to be the best special school in the world.
Like so many other specialist schools, however, Abbot’s Lea is being held back from being able to provide the very best service, because local government funding does not go far enough to meet the demand for specialist placements or mainstream support. Ania told me that some of the welcome reforms in the Children and Families Act 2014 have not been implemented as planned, leading to poor school planning and a lack of joint commissioning. Delays in autism diagnosis often mean that schools receive referrals much later than they would like, and that limits schools’ ability to transform pupils’ lives.
Abbot’s Lea is keen to engage with both Government and the local authority to help shape the provision of education for children and young people with autism. I urge the Minister and her colleagues in the Department for Education to listen and engage with the concerns of brilliant headteachers such as Ania and with families in Liverpool and elsewhere and to work on a cross-Government basis to improve outcomes for children with autism. We urgently need to improve the quality of services provided to children, young people and their families, but that can be achieved only with proper resourcing and by ensuring that the barriers that still exist between our health and education systems are broken down. If we are truly going to make the progress that we all want to see, it is incumbent on us to listen to children and young people with autism, to their parents and families and to professionals, such as Ania Hildrey, who are working so hard to deliver the best in schools in Liverpool and around the country.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
I am proud to be a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on autism and to have served as a governor at a special school in Dudley that had a particular focus on autism and Asperger’s. Ten years have passed since my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) steered the Autism Act 2009 through this House as a private member’s Bill, so it is a good time to reflect on not only all that has been achieved, but all that still needs to be done truly to deliver on the promises of that legislation to improve support and services for people with autism and their families.
In the time available to me, however, I will focus on issues that relate to children with autism. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) said, nearly five years after the Children and Families Act 2014 became law, progress on implementing the new SEND system is still patchy at best. According to the National Autism Society, 42% of families are being refused education health and care assessments when they are first requested and more than 70% are waiting longer than six months for support at school.
As of January 2018, there were 825 pupils in Dudley’s special schools. That compares with, according to the Department for Education, 119,910 pupils with autistic spectrum disorder in state-funded schools in England. Of those, more than 70% were being educated in mainstream schools, and that has huge implications for teachers and teacher training. That is why it is so important that, since 2016, the new teacher training framework has made supporting children with special educational needs, but particularly autistic children, a core part of the initial teacher training. That training and support needs to be stepped up, so that everybody can be confident that every teacher in every school up and down the country is competent and confident working with children with autism. If teachers do not currently have a child with autism in their class, they will at some point, probably very soon in their career.
The issues of working with, supporting and educating autistic children are very real. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) suggested, the behaviour of children with autism can be perceived incorrectly. Children on the autistic spectrum can often find themselves being chastised for not behaving in exactly the same way as other pupils. By not behaving in the way that teachers would expect, they can be punished in a way that may be appropriate for the class as a whole, but completely inappropriate given the special educational needs and medical condition of such children.
Government figures show that autistic pupils are four times more likely to be excluded from school compared with pupils who have no special educational needs. Clearly, there is an ongoing debate about the impact of exclusions, but there can be no doubt that the fact that autistic pupils are far more likely to be excluded has a severe impact on the life chances of children whose life chances are already impacted by their medical condition. That effect is most obvious in opportunities for future work and for training.
In many cases, the Government are making good progress on the target of getting a million more disabled people into work. However, the employment gap for people with autism is far wider. Just 16% of autistic adults are in full-time work, so it is essential that Jobcentre Plus staff and work coaches properly understand autism and that employers have the full range of support and advice they need to employ autistic people confidently.
I will conclude as I have done in similar debates by reflecting on the words of Natalie, who was one of the parent-governors at the school where I was a governor. Natalie said of her son Will, who attended that school:
“Autism is only a small fraction of our son. It is not everything he is. Will is so much more than the label society has given him. We want him to be accepted, and for him to be accepted equally as a citizen of this country as his peers are.”
That is what all parents want for their children. In this 10th anniversary year of the Autism Act, we have a responsibility to do all that we can to make that wish a reality.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood). I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) for all her work over the past decade, and I send my best wishes to her and her family at this difficult time. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) on starting this debate in her absence.
My interest in autism comes from the many constituents who have had cause to contact me. Some have autism or have a child or family member with autism and have faced a battle to secure the support and access to services they need. Too often, autistic people and their families face significant battles over a long period and across a range of public services, including education, health, housing and the welfare and benefits system. I have supported many families who have had to battle for assessment and diagnosis. Even when they succeed in getting a diagnosis, they often do not receive additional support. I have helped constituents with autism who are struggling to access the benefits they need, because DWP assessment processes are simply not fit for purpose for people with autism. Most heartbreakingly of all, I have supported constituents whose loved ones are in institutions, long-term hospital care or, as in one case, supported housing where their needs are not being met and where they have in fact suffered abuse and neglect.
Autism is not a learning disability and it is not an illness; it is a form of neurodiversity. I commend the work within my own party by Neurodivergent Labour, which is working to ensure policy commitments to create a society that works for everyone living with autism and other forms of neurodiversity. Autistic people often have very special gifts and talents, like the young man who spent time doing work experience in my office after his GCSEs last summer and who completed the most brilliant analysis of crime statistics in my constituency I have ever seen.
My experience is that autistic people are too often being let down across many public services, because schools are often not well enough equipped to meet their needs, because health services are not arranged to be accessible and because there is insufficient supported housing in small community settings, so far too many children and adults with autism are still in long-term hospital accommodation.
We must call out the impact of austerity on school provision for children with autism. Teaching assistants have a vital role in providing additional support in the classroom for children with autism, in helping to shape curriculum content to meet their needs and in helping to explain and mediate to manage their anxiety. Schools that are being forced under this Government to make teaching assistants redundant will run a greater risk of failing their students with autism.
Understanding that challenging behaviour in people with autism is often a symptom of anxiety not a sign of misbehaviour and that the route to addressing it lies in de-escalating and managing fear and anxiety rather than in greater discipline would be transformative in the classroom and prevent many exclusions. The Government have introduced new training in autism awareness for trainee teachers, but there is a huge knowledge gap in the existing workforce that needs to be addressed with properly resourced training for teachers and support staff.
Austerity is also contributing to increased difficulty with diagnosis and in accessing support post diagnosis. Many local authorities are being forced to raise the threshold for support because, across both child and adult social services, they are struggling to discharge even their basic statutory responsibilities. We need additional resources to be put into diagnosis and post-diagnosis support.
It has long been reported that there is a very significant under-diagnosis of autism in women and girls, and there is now emerging evidence that, for far too many women and girls, an autism diagnosis happens only after they have been admitted to hospital due to severe mental illness, whether an eating disorder, depression or an attempt to take their own life. This is simply unacceptable. What practical action is the Minister taking to address under-diagnosis in women and girls and to stop a lack of support on living well with autism resulting in an unnecessary deterioration in mental health?
It is astonishing that, eight years on from Winterbourne View and with “Transforming Care” due to end imminently, we are still living with the scandal of people with autism, a learning disability or both living in long-term hospital accommodation, where far too many of them are still subject to human rights abuses, including prone restraint and neglect.
This Government have failed to implement “Transforming Care”—there is no denying it and no escaping it. Private psychiatric hospitals, which are no place for any young person with autism to live, have been allowed to expand at huge cost to the public purse, while there has been paltry investment in delivering community-based supported housing in which we know people with autism can thrive. Will the Minister commit to renewed funding to deliver “Transforming Care” today?
Finally, my constituents Isabelle and Robin Garnett, whose son Matthew I have mentioned many times in this Chamber following his detention at St Andrew’s Hospital, Northampton under the Mental Health Act 1983, where he suffered appallingly, have launched a new campaign this week. #HumanToo is a campaign to give visibility to people living with autism in our community and against the abuse and neglect that far too many have suffered. Such a campaign should not be needed, but, shamefully, it is. I ask the Minister to support this campaign, not just with words but with meaningful action to ensure that every person living with autism has access to the support, services and understanding they need to live well and to fulfil their talents and potential in our communities.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who opened by saying that autism is about neurodiversity. Autism should probably be included on my list of interests, because I talk about it so often. My son is about to turn 20, and he has been diagnosed with Asperger’s. He is in his first year at university, and he is thriving precisely because, along with his personal courage, he had the great fortune to have teachers who took the time to learn how they could help him stay in a mainstream school. He has proved it is absolutely possible for these mostly young men, but some young women too, to thrive in adulthood and be everything they are born to be.
I want to raise three points. First, autism is classified as a mental health disorder in the fifth edition of “The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders”—an American diagnostic tool that is used globally—which is simply wrong. The Government need to take on that global network of conversations by saying it is unacceptable.
I have a particular beef about mental health, as everyone knows. Mental ill health is where medicine needs to come in and support people, because mental health is something we all have every day of the week—sometimes it is in good order, and sometimes it is not in such good order. Mental ill health is something specific. Those who are autistic do sometimes suffer from mental ill health because of the pressures put on them by situations they find too difficult to cope with, but they are not suffering from mental ill health by being autistic. Will the Government please do more to take on this international classification, which is simply wrong and drives all the wrong outcomes?
The visible symptoms of autism include difficulty with social interaction and, indeed, a lack of interest in social interaction. There is some interesting research going on at Stanford University’s school of medicine into why that might be, and there is a particular brain pathway, the mesolimbic reward pathway, that causes people to enjoy social interactions. If the pathway is not stimulated, it may not develop at all.
There is also work to identify neurological activity between the left and right sides of the brain, and those who are autistic seem to have much less interactivity between the two sides of the brain, which also reduces the social skills that we consider to be neurotypically normal. It is important we tackle this, because we need to get the classification of autism right. If we identify where autism sits in relation to the bit of us that is not like the rest of us, we will start to make policy that fits those with an autism diagnosis.
Secondly, I am proud to be a member of the all-party parliamentary group on autism, and I am working with the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) on employment, specifically in the military. I am trying really hard to get the Ministry of Defence to let me do some work on why having an autistic spectrum disorder is currently an automatic disbarment from applying to the military in the United Kingdom. I have not looked at whether that is the case globally, but it is a fundamental failure on our part.
There are many senior members of our military who are clearly on the autistic spectrum, and they are brilliant leaders in their field. Many more young people are now being diagnosed, thank goodness, but they are being disbarred because they are listing themselves as having an autistic spectrum disorder, which should not be the case. We are losing the opportunity to employ the brilliant minds with extraordinary focus that we need in some areas of our military for the nation’s good. I challenge the Minister to help me break through that Main Building wall to see whether we can make some progress.
Thirdly, like everything, if we get this right at the beginning, we can make better progress. The diagnostic system is just not good enough. I paid a very large sum of money to get my then eight-year-old boy, James, diagnosed through the private system, which gave him and us a tool with which to work. We were very lucky to have great teachers, too, but that diagnosis gives parents a sense of power that they can look after their children.
We keep struggling on how to make progress, and I raise it again. Will the Minister please sit down with me and others to think about how we could have regional diagnosis centres? It is difficult to ask every single one of our 150 councils to have great teams of psychiatrists and healthcare professionals to get this right. Why do we not have regional centres?
When pre-school teachers see that young children who are not neurotypical have particular attributes and socialisation issues, and so could clearly be autistic, we could send those children to get a diagnosis very early. That would reduce the huge costs of mental ill health and school exclusions that often result, which the state is picking up. By the time these children are 18, they are often unable to interact with society in a constructive way because they have been battered for too long.
Can we please consider having regional centres of excellence for diagnosis to ensure we scoop up these young people much earlier and to ensure that we get the very best out of them? Alongside my son, I see many extraordinary young men and women who will bring great value to our country. We need to make sure that we do not lose any more of these children along the way.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
May I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan), who, sadly, cannot be here because of that family situation, on her speech? I also congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman). I think he would agree that he proved that, as the old song says, there’s nothin’ like a Dame, but he did an admirable job in delivering her speech and in answering interventions from colleagues from across the House.
I take an interest in this subject, as do many Members, through constituency casework, and I have particularly focused on adults with autism. Understandably, there is often a lot of debate about children with autism, but those children grow up to be adults, and often many of the difficulties can arise when that cliff edge comes and children with autism become adults. Sadly, this often ends up with adults with autism coming into contact with the criminal justice system, as happened in the case of one of my constituents, whom I will not name for obvious reasons. The trait of stimming is shared by many people with autism, but it is not generally understood by the general population. It is the repetitive behaviour of some with autism in order to calm a situation, but it can be misinterpreted sometimes as a criminal action. In the case of my constituent, that led to his being arrested on two different occasions by the British Transport police when he became nervous travelling on public transport. This ended up with his being inappropriately cautioned and that remaining on the record, despite the fact that that caution was later withdrawn, in recognition of the fact that he had not been given the appropriate support that adults with autism are supposed to get when they come into conjunction with the criminal justice system.
Tonia Antoniazzi
What has been highlighted is that travel is also traumatic for people with autism. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Cardiff airport on training its staff to support children and adults with autism when they are travelling through the airport?
Kevin Brennan
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating Cardiff airport on that. Going through an airport, with its security and everything that comes along with it, is a stressful enough situation for anyone, so the fact that the airport is doing that is very much to be welcomed.
Lord Bradley, a former Member of this House, produced a report in 2009 on how not only people with autism but other individuals with mental health issues come into contact with the criminal justice system. At the end of last year, he and I, along with some families of adults with autism, arranged to meet the new head of the new Independent Office for Police Conduct to talk about the way the police often deal with adults with autism when they come into contact with them, and with the complaints that then come when those adults with autism have been treated inappropriately and not according to the guidelines originally envisaged by Lord Bradley back in 2009.
Michael Lockwood, the IOPC’s new head, is to be given some credit for engaging seriously with this issue. We can see a sea change in attitude on this issue from the new IOPC when compared with the former Independent Police Complaints Commission. For example, he has agreed to meet and engage with the families of those who have had cause to raise complaints with the IPCC and the IOPC, and to involve them in designing the ways in which the IOPC will respond. There is a recognition that often these sorts of inquiries can be confrontational, whereas what is really needed is to get to the heart of the matter and the truth, and to make sure that lessons are learned and spread throughout the criminal justice system, particularly in the police force.
One thing that is being done by the IOPC, which I welcome very much and think should be done in other organisations, is that it is recognising that employees in these organisations will often have children with autism or relatives with autism, and that they can bring some expertise to the organisation when they are interacting with those with autism. For example, the IOPC recognises that many members of its staff are from families that have experience of autism and that they can bring an expertise within the organisation when looking at these cases where complaints are raised. I welcome that, because that sort of learning is what needs to take place across the police, the courts, the prison system, adult and children’s services across the country, and the NHS.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), who is no longer in her place, was talking earlier about what was going on in Bristol. In the case of my constituent and a couple of other families, I welcome the fact that, as I understand it, adult services in Bristol have agreed to review some of the cases they have dealt with in recent years, with a view to publishing a report, appropriately anonymised, that can provide lessons learned to people right across the country. That is very much to be welcomed.
My constituent has got together with other families to help set up an organisation called autisminjustice.org. I recommend that Members look at the stories on the site about the way in which these families have come into contact with the criminal justice system. The organisation’s long-term aims are to ensure:
“That criminal justice and care professionals are aware of and follow existing guidelines and policy relating to autistic people in a way that properly safeguards them.
That these professionals, as well as the general public, understand autism so that autistic people’s appearance and/or behaviour is not misunderstood and misrepresented in a way that puts them at risk of serious harm.”
Those are very laudable long-term aims.
I appeal to the Minister to engage with those families, with that organisation and with other Departments across Government to make sure that government is working in a joined-up way on this. Those of us who have been Ministers understand that it is not always easy to get out of the ministerial silos that Whitehall imposes upon us, but government works best when Ministers from different Departments get together with a common purpose. Surely on this issue of all issues, where there is cross-party support in this House and general agreement on what should happen, we should in no way be inhibited by Ministers not being able to work together. I urge the Minister to do as much as she can to work across Whitehall on this issue.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I, too, wish to start by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan), and I am glad that all our thoughts are with her.
In my constituency, I am very fortunate in having numerous institutions, be they charitable or, as it were, full-time, and individuals who do a lot to take things forward, examine them and do the research on autism. I wish to make two mentions to start with. First, it was through this issue that I was introduced to Dame Stephanie Shirley, whose work in this area is phenomenal. She has spent a huge amount of her own money taking forward research in this area, and she is a beacon when it comes to providing a focus on dealing with autism and showing us what to do. Secondly, I would like to mention a charity called Music for Autism, which was set up with the Orchestra of St John’s. It uses music to influence the lives of those with autism. Those who have seen it in operation will know that it is a fantastic experience to see how members of the orchestra lap up the opportunity to work with those with autism and help enrich their lives. That is a great achievement.
I wish to concentrate on three areas. First, I want to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) in commenting on the treatment of those with autism in the justice system. That needs to be concentrated on in three areas in particular: the police; the courts; and among prison staff, if it eventually comes to that. Only two things need to be done to take this issue forward in a big way. First, we need to identify those with autism at a very early stage, because as the hon. Gentleman said, that helps to make sure that we do not end up in a whole lot of disputes at a later stage. I am aware that the courts have put a lot of effort into making sure that they are autism-friendly for people appearing before them. I am also aware of a number of prisons that support people with autism; I think there is a pilot scheme, and I hope it will be rolled out across the prison system and that we can learn the lessons from it.
The second issue I wish to mention is education. Several Members have already mentioned education, but I wish to cover a particular aspect: the involvement of people with autism in designing training for teachers. Several Members have hinted at that point, but I do not think anyone has tackled it as boldly as I am going to. The involvement of people with autism in the training of teachers is absolutely essential. They can provide help with training and influence how it is devised in many ways, all of which will lead to more choice and to our paying special attention to the needs of those with autism.
Finally, I wish to comment on autism and jobs. Last year, I was appointed a special envoy for an autistic charity called SPACE—I am never good with acronyms, but I think it stands for Supporting People with Autism into Continued Employment. I became the envoy for that charity to promote the idea of Members taking on staff with autism in their offices. As a way of demonstrating that, I enthusiastically took on a young man from Hornchurch who has autism. When it came to saying goodbye to him at the end of his period with me, I really regretted that he was going. He had been an outstanding worker and made an outstanding contribution to my office. It had been a great experience, not only for him but especially for me and my staff. If we can encourage more of that, we will have a much better way forward for those with autism.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), whose contributions are always well worth listening to. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to have this debate, of which I was happy to be one of the co-sponsors. I also thank the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) for setting the scene on behalf of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan), who would have been here had she not been detained elsewhere.
The National Autistic Society definition of autism sets the scene:
“Autism is a lifelong disability which affects how people communicate and interact with the world. There are approximately 700,000 autistic adults and children in the UK.”
Without the right support or understanding, autistic people can miss out on an education, struggle to find work and become extremely isolated. As an active constituency Member of Parliament, every week in my office I deal with and try to help people who have autism and their families, including on benefits, educational assessments and family issues and pressures.
The National Autistic Society’s “Too Much Information” campaign highlighted how, in spite of increasing awareness around autism, there is still a significant lack of public understanding, and there genuinely is. Research shows that although 99.5% of people in the UK have heard of autism, only 16% of autistic people and their families think that the public really understand them. Half the autistic people and their families said that they sometimes do not go out because they are worried about the public’s reaction to their autism.
All that is certainly true, but I was also sent a link to a few blogs by a parent in Strangford, who said:
“I don’t have the words to explain it but this is how I feel:”
It read:
“I am not a warrior mom. I am not a superdad.
I am tired.
I just want what everyone else has—time to enjoy my kids, without the constant, mind-numbing terror of worrying about their future.
I don’t WANT to be an activist. No-one does.
Nobody woke up one day and said ‘Hey, I want to take time and energy away from my family to fight for someone’s rights.’
Plus, I want to feel the positive effects NOW! I ain’t doing this just for other people, honestly, I am doing it so that I too can benefit from the changes.
So instead of patting me on the head, shaking my hand, congratulating me on how selfless I am, blah di blah blah blah…help a brother out…give a sister a break.
Do SOMETHING DEFINITE to help change things, NOW and for the next generation. Ask me, I have ideas.
Otherwise, miss me with the…platitudes, please.”
That is a heartfelt request from one of my constituents. I want to help this father who contacted me and who feels like that, and all the parents like him. We have a duty not to offer platitudes about rainbows and sunshine or individually unique snowflakes, all of which are lovely and touch the heart emotionally. We have a duty to provide physical support and practical advice. We have a duty to provide respite for parents who are on the brink of a breakdown, and for siblings who feel invisible as they strive not to add to their mum and dad’s concerns because they are dealing with enough. We have a duty to provide respite to the child and to introduce them to people outside their circle in a controlled and helpful way. I do not believe that we are fulfilling our duty.
In Northern Ireland, we are certainly not fulfilling our duty in the way that I would like us to. A number of families with children with challenging behavioural problems—children who have met the criteria to be considered for overnight care, which is so important—have been told that they will have to wait several years before they can access overnight respite care. According to the Northern Ireland Health and Social Care Board statistics for 2014-15, there were 4,031 children in need, known to social services and with a disability, and 1,210 children with a disability who had received respite care. There are 10 respite facilities across Northern Ireland, each of which has between five and eight beds that can be used to care for children overnight, but more than 1,200 children are trying to access those beds.
In my previous job in the Northern Ireland Assembly, I was pleased to be a member of the all-party group on autism. We fought a campaign over a period of time. The Autism Act (Northern Ireland) came into law in 2011, after I had left the Assembly, but I would have had some input into the process through the all-party group.
In the limited time I have left to speak, let me outline what the autism strategy has done in Northern Ireland. The autism strategy for Northern Ireland runs from 2013 to 2020, and the action plan ran from 2013 to 2016. We focused on the following issues: awareness; accessibility; children, young people and family; health and wellbeing; education; transitions; employability; independence, choice and control; access to justice; being part of the community; and participation and active citizenship. We published a progress report on the autism strategy for 2013 to 2020 and the action plan for 2013 to 2016. It is a pity that we do not have a functioning Northern Ireland Assembly, because these issues would fall under the remit of that Assembly, rather than here. The Assembly still has that responsibility, even though it is not functioning in the way it should be.
It would seem that we have got to the breaking point, which concerns me greatly. It would seem better to have in place a preventive scheme for the families of those who struggle and live the daily autism battle, so that they do not have to reach the breaking point. I am particularly pleased to see the Minister in her place; we will have a positive response from her, as we always do, and I look forward to that response. The overwhelming feeling that I get is that parents are weary—weary from lack of sleep; from fighting the same battles with the child every day; from dealing with people’s expectations of how their child should behave; from fighting to get recognition for their child and to have adequate support in place to reach their potential; and from knowing that their other children are not getting the attention they need. They are just weary, and they need more help, right now.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) after a rare opportunity to hear him contribute to a debate. His contributions are always well thought out, passionate and well structured on behalf of his constituents. I definitely agree with him about the need at some point to get the Northern Ireland Assembly back up and running, doing its job again and tackling the issues that need to be tackled on behalf of Northern Ireland. Just ramming business through this place in a day is not what any of us really wants to see. We want to see the politicians who were elected to serve Northern Ireland doing so.
Let me come to the main substance of the debate. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) not only for securing this debate, but for the passion that they bring to this issue. Obviously, our best wishes go to my right hon. Friend, who is facing a family situation.
This is an interesting debate. When I was about 12, I sat the Mensa IQ test and got a reasonable rating.
Kevin Foster
Yes, thank you—and I like the shadow Minister, too!
That was interesting, because at that rating you are not that far off the autism spectrum. A lot of people forget that the dividing line is not very big. Many people around that mark will show some traits. For example, if we go to a talk on this matter and find someone very interested in politics, when we ask them what party they support, they say, “I don’t really support a party, but I love analysing election nights, with all the statistics.” I asked such a person to reel off election results in the local area—I was in Coventry at the time on the city council, and they were absolutely able to do that, because that was their special interest. They were very passionately interested in politics, but when they were asked, “Which party are you thinking of joining with all this interest?”, the answer was, “Well, I’m not really into that. I’m into the analysis of politics.” That was their special interest.
This is about having a real understanding of autism. What started changing some of my perceptions about people with autism was when I had a volunteer activist who struggled slightly socially in certain scenarios. However, when we were carrying out—of all things—a telephone canvassing session with an automated dialling system, this guy was an absolute star. The rest of us were struggling. The rest of us were finding the whole process very difficult, but he absolutely engaged with it. It was pushing his mind to run slightly faster, and he had ability enough for the whole team. He was given a script, which enabled him to engage brilliantly with people on the phone. That was where his ability came through. In fact, what would normally be seen as a disability became a huge ability. That is why, as a Member of Parliament, I became very keen to challenge perceptions—for example, as has already been touched on in this debate, when someone is seen as naughty. We need to make it clear to employers that, when it comes to people with autism, it is about how they are supported when they enter employment.
I remember doing some work on this with a team when I was deputy leader of Coventry City Council. We looked at why people had left particular jobs—in programming or in engineering. Their skillset was there, their knowledge was there and their strengths were all in that area. What we found was that they were struggling with things such as the lunch room and the office environment—places where they had to interact with people. Everyone else assumes that such interaction is quite simple, but the perceptions of how these people would deal with them were different.
I welcome the fact that support is being provided, but I would be interested to hear from the Minister how much further we can go. We are talking not just about an employer doing a favour, but about an employer sometimes bringing in an absolutely unique talent who may be able to address a job in a way that, bluntly, most of us in this Chamber would struggle with. Sometimes the way an autistic mind works can become a massive advantage in engaging in areas such as IT and tech.
That all means that we need the appropriate levels of support. I do have some concerns over the pressure on higher needs funding in Torbay. I recognise that the Government recently provided some extra funding, but there has been an issue in Torbay. I do not think that we are unique in this, as some of the other smaller coastal unitaries face an issue with the deficit. Traditionally, their funding levels are lower than other areas, which makes it harder for them to deal with such issues. They are paired up with larger—bluntly, more wealthy—counties.
We also need to be clear that this issue is not just about learning, but about having fun. I welcome the fact that support services are available in the Bay. For example, the ASRUS Group meets at the YMCA in Dartmouth Road, Paignton. It is not just about providing education support, but about providing social support to build skills.
This has been a worthwhile debate. I have enjoyed sitting through most of it and listening to the contributions. It will be interesting to hear from both Front-Bench speakers what their thoughts are on this subject. Some people who have absolutely unique talents and some of the greatest minds on this planet may be just on the autistic spectrum, or only just below it. That is where we need to change our perception. It is not about someone with a disability, but about someone who may have a unique ability that we could unlock with the right support.
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), who made many powerful points. I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) for securing this important debate ahead of World Autism Week and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) for his outstanding representation of her in the Chamber today. I also commend the all-party group report, “Autism and Education 2017”, which was written in partnership with the National Autistic Society.
I am a member of the Education Committee, which is also looking into the needs of children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. The autism APPG’s report contained some shocking statistics. The one that really upset me was that fewer than half of the children and young people on the autism spectrum going to school say that they are happy. It says that a lack of understanding from their peers and their teachers is the main reason for such unhappiness. The thought of any child or young person not looking forward to their day at school is, to me, so incredibly sad and utterly avoidable. We need better understanding and a co-ordinated resourced approach.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)
I do not wish to take up much of the House’s time, but has the hon. Lady had a chance to meet my constituent, Deborah Brownson, who has created extraordinary facilities through the online autism plan to help parents and children who are facing difficulties? If she has not met her, she should and join the campaign to get Government support for what Deborah is doing.
Trudy Harrison
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I have not met Deborah, but I absolutely look forward to doing so. May I task him with connecting us?
Almost immediately after I was elected to this House two years ago, calls for my assistance arrived from families living with autism. They have told me about living with the daily fight for support, for a diagnosis, for professional advice, for an education and health care plan, for the necessary resources to actually carry out the recommendations in the plan, for reasonable adjustments in school and for flexible working arrangements with parents’ employers. As one of the many parents who responded to my call for information ahead of this debate said, “Everything is a fight. To get help is a fight and to find anything that you are entitled to is a fight.” Each family I met said the same thing over and over again. Families talk of the agonising wait for a diagnosis, in the hope that a diagnosis will bring some certainty and a joined-up forward plan but, all too often, it does not.
We in Copeland live in a rural and remote community, so one may have expected self-sustaining groups to form to support each other; it is what we do. Groups such Shine for Autism, Autism Around the Combe, the West Cumbrian Autism Society and the award-winning Sellafield Site Autism Support Network have been formed out of absolute desperation and in recognition of the fact that so many people are living with autism and these groups could make a real difference. And they do. I pay tribute to all the volunteers and parents who selflessly support others. The resilience and concept of helping each other make me so incredibly proud of my community, but it is not fair or right, or sustainable in the long term, because the parents I speak to say that they are “at the end of their tether.”
This fight is resulting in relationship breakdowns and mental ill health conditions, and in parents having to reduce their hours, or having to give up work altogether because of the lack of childcare for families with autistic children. Autistic children are three times more likely to be excluded from school for a fixed period than children who do not have any special educational needs and, with just 16% of autistic adults in full-time work, the UK is missing out on talent and much-needed skills. Child and adolescent mental health services came up time and again as being a critical but under-resourced source of help in Copeland and across Cumbria. Too many children and young people are being left without education, mental health support or any reassurance of a plan.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham introduced the Bill that became the Autism Act in 2009, and 10 years on it is time to recognise the calls for training for school staff, for reasonable adjustments in schools and for guidance and resources for local authorities to provide the full range of educational provision and support. I am delighted that the Academy for Autism will be opening in West Cumbria in September and that the outstanding Mayfield specialist school in Whitehaven will move into its brand-new facility later this year, too.
The Department for Education increased the total high needs budget across England from £5 billion to just under £6 billion in 2018, and funding is set to rise above £6 billion in 2019-20, so there has been much progress, but I urge the Minister to consider a different approach in rural and remote areas, as we are missing out, our children are missing out and the country will miss out on the abundance of talent and skills, which are so desperately needed. My call to the Minister is: please help me to find a way to better help these dedicated groups in the vital work they do.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I place on the record my sincere thanks to the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) and pay tribute to her work. We, like others, are thinking of her at this time. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) did an excellent job of putting that on the record and should be very proud.
It is a pleasure to sum up the debate on behalf of the Scottish National party. It has been an excellent debate, despite the time pressure. It is incredibly annoying to sit through debates knowing that people are having to pack so much in, so I hope that we can have more of these debates. We have heard excellent contributions from the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle, for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), for Dudley South (Mike Wood), for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), for Henley (John Howell), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) and for Torbay (Kevin Foster). All made very powerful speeches, either about their constituency casework or their experience with family members. I was particularly moved by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, who spoke about her 20-year-old son and how he is thriving. We all wish him well.
On a personal level, I want to thank a constituent of mine, Aileen Orr, who lobbied me to attend this important debate. She was right to say that, as has been backed up today, there is still not enough knowledge about autism and many people can still be quite ignorant about it, which is a point on which we must all reflect. World Autism Awareness Week is a good opportunity to give this issue the focus it deserves. Particularly in a Parliament so dominated by Brexit, such debates remind us that there are other issues that people want us to focus on, and there is a lot of unity in here today.
As Members would expect, I want to focus on the situation in Scotland. We have made good progress, but there is still a lot more work to do, as I will come on to. Last year, the Scottish Government refreshed their strategy for autism, which runs from 2018 to 2021. The review was a good opportunity to listen to people and to look at where we could improve, and I am grateful to our Mental Health Minister, Clare Haughey, who just two days ago announced a complete review of mental health legislation and autism legislation—the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed made a point about the two things being treated separately. It is good to see that recognised.
Among the themes arising from the review were the need for professionals across various areas to get more training in autism—that point has been made today—and issues of work and employment. The 16% figure that the hon. Member for Bristol West mentioned makes it clear that a lot more work needs toIt was not lined up for this debate, but on Monday I had the pleasure of visiting Aultmore Park Primary School, in my constituency, which is celebrating its 10th birthday this week. There is a language and communication resource on the school complex that works very closely with the school to make sure that the children attend from primary 1 to primary 7 and access the excellent opportunities. There was a lovely and exciting atmosphere in that school on Monday. It is such a pleasure to have it in my constituency.
On education, I know from my constituency caseload that we still have a lot more to do to support families. Like many other Members, I remain incredibly frustrated about the waiting times—in Scotland, they are often between one and two years, which is far too long—and in that regard I pay tribute to East End Carers, based in Shettleston, and the Happy Club, based in Provanhall. So often it is these voluntary charities that provide emotional and practical support for families, particularly in the period immediately after a diagnosis.
Part of the reason for the long diagnosis process is a lack of educational psychologists, which is a major issue in Scotland. There is only one university—Dundee, I think—where people can train to be educational psychologists. I encourage our Ministers north of the border to look at that.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Not enough is being done for schools. Teachers can study psychology. Some people teach and are also qualified psychologists. Is that not something that should be looked at?
David Linden
The hon. Gentleman is right to put that on the record. I am married to a primary school teacher and, although aspects of her teacher training dealt with autism, she would probably feel that she has not been given enough support. More often than not, she will be able to say, anecdotally, “This child in the class might have autism but has not had a diagnosis yet.” So he is right to put that on the record.
More often than not, a lot of housing associations do not have a proper understanding of autism. A lot of families come to me and say, “I need a house with a garden so that my child can play safely”. This chicken-and-egg situation, which I see regularly, can be quite frustrating.
I am conscious of the time—there is a heavily subscribed debate after this one—so I will round off by saying that it is of fundamental importance that autistic people and their families are understood and welcomed in their own communities and can be supported to be as independent and active as they wish to be. I thank all hon. Members who have participated in this debate. I hope that, when we debate it next year, we will be able to celebrate some progress because, if we have learned one thing today, it is that we still have a lot further to go.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Our thoughts are with the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan), who is a true champion for those with autism. I also thank the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) for securing today’s debate and his excellent speech, which set the tone for a very constructive debate.
This is a timely debate not just because it comes in advance of World Autism Awareness Week, but because this year marks the 10th anniversary of the Autism Act 2009, passed under the last Labour Government, which put a duty on Ministers to publish and regularly review their autism strategy and to produce statutory guidance to implement at a local level. We have heard from several hon. Members on the all-party group on autism, which is holding an inquiry into the Act’s implementation ahead of the Government’s review. Ahead of that formal publication, I hope that the Minister will give us the Government’s views not just on the changes that we have seen over the past 10 years, but on what more can be achieved in the years ahead.
I am sure that the whole House will want to thank the National Autistic Society, Autistica and Ambitious about Autism—and all the other charities that represent and serve people with autism—for the work they do, the support they give and the services that they provide to all those people. There is a charity in my constituency called The Whole Autism Family, which is run by Martin and Anne-Marie Kilgallon in Mirfield, who do phenomenal work. They have two sons with autism, but the support they provide to other families is simply phenomenal and I am very grateful to them for their work.
In responding for the Opposition Front-Bench team, I think it is important to note that, although I am shadow Minister for mental health, autism is not a mental health condition, as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) also mentioned. I hope that we all aspire to a society where people with autism have as good mental health as the rest of the population. Unfortunately, however, we are very far short of that aspiration. It is estimated that up to four out of five autistic people develop mental health problems such as anxiety and depression, and four out of 10 children with autism have multiple mental health problems.
In the worst cases, autistic people end up in mental health hospitals, which are usually not appropriate, and they are sometimes there for extended periods. The transforming care programme was aimed at tackling that problem, but we have heard evidence that it has fallen far short of its aims. The NHS long-term plan sets a target for reducing the number of autistic in-patients in mental health hospitals by 2023-24. But if we are to achieve that, there must be investment in better community mental health support that is appropriate for people with autism. The need to tackle this issue has been thrown into stark relief by the appalling cases of abuse of people with autism that have had significant media coverage in recent months, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) mentioned.
There are still more than 2,000 people in totally unsuitable in-patient settings, when they should be supported in the community. That is not only unconscionable; it is exorbitantly expensive, with the average package costing £3,500 a week. The Government announced last year that they would be asking the CQC to conduct a thematic review into the seclusion of people with autism in in-patient settings, but this will take far too long to tell us what we already know—that these placements should be ended. Will the Minister today finally commit to ending placements in assessment and treatment units and to working with her colleagues to provide the kind of community-based support that people with autism deserve? The Minister will also be aware of the call to reform the Mental Health Act 1983, which defines autism as a “mental disorder”, allowing autistic people to be sectioned without having a separate, treatable mental health condition. Perhaps she can tell us what plans there are to address the legislation, as well as to provide the right kind of support services.
Perhaps the obvious starting point regarding support for people with autism is getting a diagnosis in the first place, and a number of hon. Members have quite rightly spoken about that today. The quality standard on autism recommends a maximum three-month period between referral and the first diagnostic appointment, but it is clear that the standard is not being met anywhere near widely enough, with reports of delays of years rather than months. I have certainly experienced that issue in my constituency surgeries.
When I spoke on this subject a year ago, I noted that we were about to implement new standards on data for waiting times, which had been patchy until then. We are now nearly a year on, and we should therefore have data for the first full year next month, with publication due this summer. The long-term plan also contained a welcome and specific commitment to reducing diagnosis times, so I hope that the Minister will update the House on any early findings, on when the final data will be published and on the Government’s plans to make improvements.
Similarly, in previous debates, we have heard about the need for better data on who is being diagnosed. The National Autistic Society found that over three quarters of those using their adult services are male, and there is a concern that the lack of recognition for women with autism may be partly behind those numbers. There are also age effects, given that autism was not a recognised condition when many older people with autism were growing up. In previous debates, the Minister has said that the Department expects GPs to include autism in the primary care register and will be working with NHS Digital to achieve that. Perhaps the Minister could update us on the progress in that regard.
Too often, there are significant barriers to accessing the right services after diagnosis. One recurring theme is the need for better training, which the guidance states all staff should have access to, but the reality sometimes sadly falls short. Last month, the Government launched a consultation on mandatory training, which is welcome, but for this to work it must be co-designed and co-delivered by people with autism. Can the Minister tell us whether this will be the case and, perhaps more importantly, whether her Department will provide funding so that the autistic people providing their experience to this training receive a proper wage for their labour?
Early intervention services are key for communication and language skills, which are closely linked to life chances for people with autism. In education, too, services for children with autism and other special needs have been first in line for cuts, as we have heard from other hon. Members. With the Government taking billions out of the schools budget between 2015 and 2017, I know all too well the pressure that schools in my constituency are under. As the vast majority of school budgets are spent on staff, this is the area of greatest pressure. For example, the support staff, who are so vital to children with special educational needs, are often the first to go, and one-to-one support for children becomes impossible when the money simply is not there. Thousands of children in England with approved education, health and care plans are still receiving no provision, and that proportion has increased fivefold since 2010.
If we let children with autism down in education, the impact is felt when they become adults seeking employment. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) spoke with great knowledge about the challenges of employment for those with autism. There is an urgent need for improved in-work support services for disabled people across the board, and the autism employment gap is even wider than the disability employment gap. Over the past 10 years, there has been no real change in the numbers of autistic people in full-time work, and the National Autistic Society found that less than a third of autistic adults are in paid work, even though more than three quarters do want to be in a job.
The NAS has called for an autism employment pathway, an awareness programme for employers and targets for getting people with autism in to work. I hope that the Minister can tell us the Government’s response and address points such as making sure that Jobcentre Plus staff understand autism and responding to the call for autistic people in work to be recorded in the labour force survey. Apprenticeships and other specialist schemes could also provide a route into employment, with tailored support for people with autism. Will the Minister update the House on progress in implementing the recommendations of the taskforce chaired by the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) and on what steps the Government have taken to expand the Disability Confident scheme?
Finally, there are the services aimed not just at people with autism but at the rest of us to ensure that we are aware and understand the condition. The research has long shown that most people with autism feel that their condition is not understood, as was recently highlighted by the National Autistic Society’s “Too Much Information” campaign. Only 16% of autistic people and their families think the public understand autism, and half of autistic people and their families are sometimes afraid to leave the home because they are worried about the public’s reaction. The contributions we have heard from Members across the House today show just how much more there is to be done to provide the services that people with autism need. I hope that the Government have heard that message and will now act on it.
The Minister for Care (Caroline Dinenage)
I would like to start by adding my voice to those paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan). It is thanks to her pioneering autism private Member’s Bill that we now have an adult autism strategy. This year, it will be 10 years since that Bill passed into legislation as the Autism Act—10 years during which she has been the most fantastic, steadfast and passionate champion for autism and autistic people. I think that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that we all send our love and our thoughts both to her and her loved one.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) for so beautifully representing my right hon. Friend and her words today, and indeed all the other Members who have contributed to the debate, as well as the Backbench Business Committee for selecting it, particularly in the run-up to World Autism Awareness Week next month. Several Members have made some excellent points. I will try to get on to as many of them as possible in the time allowed, but I will write to anybody I miss out.
Much progress has been made to improve the lives of autistic people since the first cross-Government autism strategy. There is now improved diagnosis and greater awareness, and more organisations are ensuring that they make reasonable adjustments. However, 10 years on, it is very clear that there is still so much more that we can do to ensure that public services meet the needs of autistic people. The autism strategy was updated in 2014, but this year we are undertaking a comprehensive review, “Think Autism”, to ensure that it remains fit for purpose. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, it is so important that young people and their families feel supported. We want our autism strategy to work for autistic people of all ages, and that is why, working closely with the Department for Education, we will be extending our strategy to include children. That refreshed cross-Government strategy will be published towards the end of this year.
People with a learning disability and autistic people continue to face significant health inequalities. This must be addressed. It is absolutely that right that learning disability and autism are both now clinical priorities in the NHS long-term plan. Autistic people must be at the heart of any improvements we make to their care and support. That is why last week the Government launched a national call for evidence to hear the views of autistic people, their families and their carers, as well as those of professionals. We want to know what is working, but also what needs to be done to transform care and support. In the week since that call for evidence, we have already had 875 responses. I would urge hon. Members across the House to share our call for evidence in their constituencies and via their social media networks.
I am delighted that so many Members across the House have taken the opportunity to highlight some of the amazing work and fantastic organisations in their communities. Autism-friendly communities such as the one in Bodmin that my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) spoke about—he wins the prize for the most intriguingly named constituent: Tigger Pritchard—sound like a way to support people much better.
As many Members have said, raising awareness is not enough. It is acting on that awareness that makes a real difference. We recently launched a consultation on mandatory training on learning disability and autism for health and care staff and will report the findings in the summer. Crucially, that applies to not only medical professionals but all health and care staff. For example, we all know that a negative encounter with a receptionist or front of house staff can immeasurably change our experience or perception of services. Work is under way in other sectors such as education, employment, prisons and transport to raise awareness of autism and adjust services to make them more accessible.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) and many others talked about the importance of early identification and timely and accurate diagnosis of autism. No one should have to face a long wait for an autism diagnosis, but we hear far too often that the NICE recommendation of a wait of no more than three months is exceeded. There is a geographical disparity, and this postcode lottery must end. The NHS long-term plan commits to testing and implementing the most effective ways to reduce those waiting times. Critically, we are collecting data to support that, which will be published later this year for the first time. This will mean that each area can be held to account and action can be taken.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) said, it is not just getting a timely diagnosis that matters but having timely information, support and services after that. This summer there will be new and improved guidance for health and care commissioners and a best practice toolkit, to improve diagnosis and post-diagnosis services for autistic people. Health Education England is also developing an autism core skills and competency framework for health and care staff and staff in organisations with public-facing responsibilities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) and a number of other Members highlighted the particular challenges that autistic children face in schools. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle said that children have to fail before they get the support they need, and that is why including children and young people in the autism strategy for the first time is so important.
The SEND reforms that the Government introduced were intended to support all young people to achieve their potential in education. Since 2014, we have invested £391 million to help implement those reforms, but we know that there is more to do. We have funded the Autism Education Trust to provide autism awareness training for more than 195,000 school and college staff—not just teachers, but administrators and support workers—which I hope will go some way to helping diagnose women and girls, who we know are very much under-represented in the diagnosis statistics. We also know that a disproportionate number of autistic children are excluded from school; my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South mentioned that. Edward Timpson is currently reviewing how schools use exclusions, so that we can better understand why that is the case and what we can do about it.
The hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) and many other Members highlighted the need to do more to support autistic people into employment. It is a lost opportunity all round that only a relatively small number of autistic people are in work either full time or part time. Through the Disability Confident scheme, we are helping employers to promote the talents and abilities of autistic people, and Access to Work has a hidden impairments group that gives guidance to employers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) spoke about the huge value of these people in the workplace. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) told me something I did not know—that autism spectrum automatically disbars someone from the military. I will be raising that with the Minister for the Armed Forces, not least because I fear her infinitely more than I fear the Minister.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and many others spoke about some of the tragic cases where autistic individuals have not received the right care and support in mental health in-patient settings. We are committed to learning from those and working harder than ever to improve how care and support is provided. Some people will need access to time-limited in-patient services, but this should be as close to home as possible for as short a time as possible, with discharge plans in place. When people do need to go into hospital, they must be safe from harm and abuse, and they should never be subject to inappropriate or restrictive practices.
The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) spoke about improving the criminal justice system. In the initial police learning and development programme, police officers are already given training, and many police forces have developed their own. Liaison and diversion schemes are being rolled out with 100% coverage expected by 2021. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed also spoke about how autism should not be classed as a mental disorder. We will be keeping this very closely under review, as she made a very good point.
The Government are fully committed to improving the lives of autistic people, but there is much more to be done, and Autism Awareness Week is a great reminder of that. Our refreshed cross-Government autism strategy, which we will publish later this year, will help to deliver this and provide the route map for the years ahead.
Huw Merriman
Thank you for chairing us this afternoon, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I have heard it said that Parliament is not delivering for the people. May I send a message and invite everybody here to join me in sending a message to people with autism or Asperger’s and their families? With the voices of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan), the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood), the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), the hon. Members for Glasgow East (David Linden) and for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff), my hon. Friend the Minister for Care—I thank the Minister for all her commitments this afternoon—and the many others who intervened, the message is that we understand the challenges autistic people have to go through every day, and we will be by your side and will do our best to make sure that you have the services you deserve.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered services for people with autism.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am sure that the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) would have been very proud of all the contributions to the debate today, and I hope that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) will send her our best wishes.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you advise me, first, how we can get on the record that over 1 million people have now signed the petition calling for the revocation of article 50 as the best way to stop the Brexit madness that seems to be engulfing the country, and secondly, whether you have had any indication from the Leader of the House—she said this morning that if it got to 17.5 million signatures, she would start to consider it seriously, so only 16.5 million more are now needed—that she is planning to make a statement to the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I have not received any indication from the Leader of the House that she intends to come here today. He will know that, under the e-petitions system, the Petitions Committee will consider any petition that receives more than 100,000 signatures for a debate. It is a matter for that Committee when such a debate is scheduled. I am sure it will be looking at this petition in due course, and I am also sure there will be ample opportunities in the coming days for the hon. Gentleman to make his views known. In the meantime, those on the Treasury Bench will have heard his request.
NICE Appraisals: Rare Diseases Treatments
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that NICE appraisal processes do not properly address the medical treatment needs of people with rare diseases such as muscular dystrophy, phenylketonuria and cystic fibrosis; and calls on NICE to urgently review the appraisal process.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), who is chair of the all-party group on muscular dystrophy, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is chair of the all-party group on cystic fibrosis, for their help in securing this debate.
My constituent Archie McGovern is 12 years old. He is bright and lively, and full of beans now, but it has not always been like that way because Archie has PKU— phenylketonuria. Putting it simply, PKU is a genetic condition that means Archie and others are unable to handle phenylalanine, which is found in protein—so no meat, no fish and no dairy products. There is a whole range of other things that we would not think had protein in them: the list is endless. On top of that, he has to take a protein substitute drink—if we can call it that, as it is very unpleasant—to keep the balance right.
At present PKU is not curable, and a hugely restrictive diet is the only way of controlling the condition throughout childhood and adult life. The condition is picked up by the pinprick test at birth, and for those identified as having PKU that is the start of a difficult lifetime of dietary control. For children that is especially difficult, but it is also very important because failure to control the condition can lead to serious neurological problems.
That is how it was for Archie until quite recently, but there is a treatment that can help to control PKU. It is called Kuvan, and although it was licensed 10 years ago and is widely available in many countries in Europe, and further afield, it is not available to patients in the UK. Not everyone with PKU responds to Kuvan, but it is believed that more than 20% of people will respond well and see a significant improvement in their life.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
The hon. Lady makes an important point about Kuvan and PKU. As she will know, last year I and other Members—including the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin)—took part in the MPs’ PKU diet challenge, so I am well aware of the restricted diet that is required for those who suffer from that condition. The way that NICE evaluates Kuvan does not take into account the social costs associated with the alternative treatment for PKU. That highly restrictive diet impacts on families and wider society, and NICE should consider that point.
Liz Twist
Like the hon. Gentleman, I took part in the PKU diet for a day challenge. It was indeed very restrictive, even though I knew it was only for one day.
Archie is one of those who responds well to Kuvan, and last year, his parents took the difficult decision to pay to buy him the drug. That took a great deal of soul searching on their behalf, and it cost them dear—£25,000 a year, even though Archie is currently on just half a dose. They know that for many people with PKU, or for parents with more than one child who has PKU, it is simply not possible to self-fund, and they are acutely conscious of the unfairness of that. The difference that Kuvan has made to Archie is real and significant: increased concentration and energy, so that he can make the best of his education; no recurring mouth ulcers, which were a real problem; and a chance substantially to increase the number of exchanges he can have, and eat a more normal diet. For Archie, Kuvan has made a real difference.
Archie’s case, and those of many others in other constituencies, prompted us to form the all-party group on phenylketonuria, and to consider how Kuvan could be made available to those who would benefit from it. Nearly 10 years after Kuvan was approved, that treatment does not seem to have been an appraised, and in England it is still not available on the NHS. Since we set up the group, there has been a move for Kuvan to be appraised by NICE, and discussions have been held with NHS England about a managed access agreement. We were disappointed to learn just before Christmas that no agreement had been reached on that managed access agreement, and that the NICE appraisal was to be via the single technology appraisal route, and not the highly specialised technologies programme. I understand that following a legal challenge, the Department of Health and Social Care is again considering the appropriate appraisal route, and the all-party group has made representations on that point.
When talking about the NICE appraisal system it is easy to get lost in technical details—QALYs, and everything else, that means nothing to people on the street—but what really concerns people is whether or not there is a fair chance that the drugs they need will be fairly assessed and made available on the NHS.
Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. One of my constituents suffers from Batten disease and is receiving cerliponase alfa on compassionate grounds. However, NICE will not now recommend that treatment, which in part is due to cost. Does my hon. Friend share my view that allowing patients on to clinical trials when there is no funding to deliver the treatment, places them and their families in an incredibly difficult and uncertain position regarding their future?
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
I have certainly found that NICE sometimes says that the pool of people is not big enough to evaluate, but the clue is in the title: these are rare diseases. NICE cannot carry on doing that, particularly in cases where it is clear that the drug has a really positive effect.
Liz Twist
I agree with my right hon. Friend. Indeed, that is the burden of my speech.
As I was saying, I am not going to get into the fine detail of the process. It seemed to us in the all-party group that many conditions, as my hon. Friends have said, face the same problems. The all-party groups for muscular dystrophy and for cystic fibrosis are two that come to mind, but there are many other rare diseases, as we have heard, that do not have all-party groups but face exactly the same difficulties. Since this debate was announced, some other organisations have contacted me to ask me to make sure that we do not forget their concerns.
We found that there are a number of aspects of the NICE appraisal system that are problematic in assessing Kuvan and many other rare drugs. The existence of just two appraisal routes for treatments to be assessed by NICE results in the likelihood of two or more treatments being stuck in the middle by not meeting the restrictive criteria of the highly specialised technology route and therefore being assessed under a single technology appraisal route. Some of them are rare but not rare enough. As we have heard, the majority of treatments for rare diseases are likely to be assessed within the single technology appraisal, which is designed for non-rare treatments. This impacts on both the cost threshold and the approach to evidence, which are all designed for more common diseases.
On lifelong chronic conditions, NICE’s approach values the lifelong cost of treatments. It looks for near future benefits as well. That means it is difficult for chronic diseases such as PKU and treatments that produce lifetime and life-enhancing effects to get access to new treatments. NICE cost appraisals assume that patents do not expire. NICE will assume the existing price of the drug will stay the same. That is illogical as, particularly with older drugs such as Kuvan, the drug will soon go off-patent. This affects the benefits assessment. On non-health costs, NICE performs its calculations based on costs paid and saved by the NHS. That ignores the wider cost to society and individuals caused by diseases like PKU.
I do not seek to criticise NICE staff. They work within a system that we have given them, but it is clear from the many questions to Ministers, debates in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall, the creation of all-party groups, and correspondence with Ministers about individual cases that there is a very real issue here which must be addressed. That is why we are asking, in this motion, for NICE to review its processes to reflect the current issues we face.
Many drug companies have been in touch since this debate was granted to send me briefings. They have been keen to explain their side of the argument and to point out what they see as the problems in the NICE appraisal process for their drugs. There is some overlap with patient concerns, but I am here today to speak on behalf of the community of people with rare diseases, not on behalf of the drug companies. Let me be clear, the fact that this debate is about NICE appraisal processes does not excuse the pharmaceutical companies from their responsibilities. There is a balance to be struck between their need to recover the cost of the development of drugs and make a reasonable profit, and a huge responsibility on them to make their drugs affordable for our NHS.
In this debate, I have focused on PKU and Kuvan. With another drug treatment for PKU on the horizon, Pegvaliase, there is a real worry that even with a drug that may produce really life-changing results for a wider group of patients, those with PKU will again be left without the treatment they need, even when it exists. There are treatments for other rare diseases, too: Spinraza for spinal muscular atrophy and Orkambi for cystic fibrosis, which are not only life-improving but life-extending.
This is quite simple. There are drugs available that can drastically improve the lives of those affected by rare diseases. When I hear that NICE’s appraisal process is an obstacle to improving lives, I feel really angry. We are reducing the lives of children and adults to a cost-effectiveness analysis. We need to find a way forward to amend the appraisal system so that we do not let people fall through the cracks or fall behind. The drug companies must also do their bit to ensure that their drugs are affordable for the NHS, especially when early access via a managed access agreement is being discussed.
That is why today we are calling on NICE to review its appraisal processes and make the necessary changes to stop people falling through the cracks and make available these drugs, which can make such a difference to patients—to people such as my constituent Archie McGovern, whose mum Barbara set me on this path as a new MP.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. There is obviously some pressure on time, so we will start with an eight-minute time limit.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I am delighted to support the motion standing in the names of the hon. Members for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon). This is a life-changing issue for thousands of our fellow citizens who simply do not have time on their side. A number of my constituents, including the parents of my young constituents battling with cystic fibrosis, have brought to my attention the weaknesses in the current NICE appraisal model. I look forward to reinforcing the arguments of the hon. Member for Blaydon with some details that they have provided.
NICE’s appraisal model has led to a horrendous block on life-changing cystic fibrosis drugs being made available to those young people. Vertex’s three approved medicines and investigational triple regimen may be able to treat the underlying cause of cystic fibrosis for up to 90% of patients. There is currently no cure for cystic fibrosis, and half of people with the disease will die before they are 31. I recommend that my hon. Friend the Minister instructs NICE to review its current single technology appraisal, which is used to appraise inherited rare diseases, in order to come to a solution that can work best for all parties. The current model, which specifically affects Vertex drugs such as Orkambi, is fundamentally flawed. It directly affects the lives of not only my young constituents suffering from cystic fibrosis, but those with spinal muscular atrophy, Batten disease and PKU, to name but a few.
NICE’s single technology appraisal has been used for the past 20 years, and although it served as an important new way to assess the cost-effectiveness of new treatments, it has failed to keep pace with advances in science. No model should be biased towards favouring specific medicines, but there remains an unwillingness to accept that new precision medicines that treat the underlying cause of disease and have the potential to extend life are fundamentally different from the medicines that existed when NICE’s processes were first developed. The idea of working on an innovative new model for appraising rare diseases is also supported by the Genetic Alliance.
When performing a single technology appraisal, NICE applies the same methodology and cost-effectiveness criteria regardless of whether it is appraising a single-use medicine for an acute condition or a lifetime medicine for an inherited, progressive, incurable, life-limiting disease. The current evaluation process turns on the incremental cost-efficiency ratio, measured in quality-adjusted life years. With acute conditions resulting from shorter-term treatment, the ICER is moderated even if the drug is very costly. Conversely, with chronic and lifelong conditions, the drug must be taken every day for life, and the cost of lifelong treatment prevents downward moderation of the ICER. That means that, when evaluating medicines that extend life, those that treat conditions from which patients would die within a short period are favoured over those that would extend life far into the future.
That unfairness is doubly compounded by the fact that, when computing the number of quality-adjusted life years attributable to a treatment, NICE usually applies a “discount rate” of 3.5% per annum, based on the Treasury’s Green Book, on both the costs and health effects of the medicine by reference to how far into the future those life years will be added to the patient’s life. In essence, the longer a patient lives, the more expensive they are to the system and the higher the cost per quality-adjusted life year.
Let me give an example. If a treatment were projected to extend the life expectancy of a six-year-old cystic fibrosis patient from 47 to 57 years, the “present value” of those additional 10 years would be less than two once they were discounted. By comparison, an oncological orphan medicinal product may add five life years, starting immediately, to a patient’s life expectancy, so discounting would reduce those five years to 4.66 for the purpose of calculating quality-adjusted life years. That approach cruelly fails to account for the fact that every year of additional survival, regardless of whether it is gained in the short or the long term, will be valued equally in the mind of a cystic fibrosis patient and his or her family.
To add insult to injury, NICE currently does not take into account the fact that when medicines lose their market exclusivity after patent expiry, their cost to the NHS falls dramatically, typically by 80% to 90%. It is unrealistic to assume that a medicine would remain at its currently listed price over the entire model horizon, particularly when that can be upwards of 40 years. There is no reason why NICE could not model the effect of a post-patent expiry price reduction by reference to available evidence from the pharmaceutical market. That is yet another example of NICE’s discrimination against treatments for chronic and incurable conditions in favour of those for acute conditions.
Finally, while NICE recognises that medicines for very rare diseases—ultra-orphan medicines—need a higher threshold and more discretion in the way in which they are appraised, it does not allow cystic fibrosis medicines to be judged against that threshold. That is because, although cystic fibrosis is a rare disease globally, its prevalence in England is such that NICE insists that it is appraised via the conventional approach.
Vertex is not the only manufacturer of precision medicines for rare diseases to experience challenges with NICE. Both the Bioindustry Association and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry have, on behalf of their members, repeatedly highlighted the need for NICE to be reformed, to
“take a broad view of the value of new treatments and innovations to the health service”,
and to incorporate a wider range of factors and flexibilities, beyond the standard cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. It is right for us to ensure that NICE processes are modern and up to date with the evolution of precision medicines.
My constituent Sharon Cranfield is a bit disappointed with a letter sent to the Minister by the Chairman of the Health Committee, outlining the conclusions of the Committee’s public hearing on 8 March. She says that the points that I had raised on her behalf
“appear not to have been considered and the findings of the Committee seem to lie with continuing to defend the NICE model that has been used for the last 20 years and an unwillingness to accept that they need to be re-evaluated to reflect the current and near term developments in precision medicines.”
I understand that the Committee may have advisers who were associated with the setting up of NICE. I think that Ministers, NICE, and everyone who is engaged in this should look forward to a model that will actually work for the people whom we represent.
NICE must re-evaluate the way in which it values rare disease medicines. I sincerely hope that following today’s debate, it will do more to achieve alignment on value, evidence and price for the sake of patients, and will address, once and for all, the limitations of the current NICE STA process for diseases such as cystic fibrosis. That would also benefit all the other patients who already suffer enough after being diagnosed with a rare disease.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt).
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to the debate. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), who is, as she said, my fellow member of the all-party parliamentary group for muscular dystrophy. She made a lucid and compelling case for the review of the NICE appraisal process.
I have had the honour of chairing the APPG for several years. It works closely with our secretariat, Muscular Dystrophy UK, and with patients and carers, on a number of issues that affect the lives of those with muscular dystrophy and other neuromuscular conditions. Perhaps one of the most important issues that we consider is the ability of patients to access treatments for their conditions.
For more than a year, access to the drug Spinraza, manufactured by the company Biogen, has been the focus of the APPG’s concerns about, and frustrations with, the NICE appraisal process. Spinraza is the first and only treatment for patients with spinal muscular atrophy, a rare inherited neuromuscular condition that leads to the gradual loss of the ability to walk, move, breathe and swallow. It currently affects about 2,000 adults and children in the UK. There are several types of SMA, with type 1 being the most severe, usually resulting in the death of infants before they reach their second birthday. However, clinical trials of Spinraza have had amazing results for many of the patients who have tried it. It has been so positive for children with type 1 that over two years ago Biogen opened its global expanded access programme to provide the drug free to type 1 patients.
Spinraza is currently available across 24 European countries and in the US, but for patients in this country access to the drug is being held up by lengthy delays to the NICE appraisal process.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) is right that there needs to be a new model, and more importantly that something must be done about the cost of drugs? We cannot carry on with the escalation of the cost of these drugs because, as the hon. Gentleman said, that affects many families in different ways.
Mary Glindon
That is true, and I think it will be highlighted again and again in this debate.
The delay for patients in this country is made all the more frustrating because the Scottish Medicines Consortium approved Spinraza for children with SMA type 1 last May, and it now has a new ultra-orphan pathway and has speedily reassessed Spinraza, and as a result children and adults with SMA types 2 and 3 will be able to access the drug from next month.
In England the Spinraza appraisal has already been going on for 14 months. In January last year NICE announced that the pathway for the drug would, sadly, be the single technology appraisal, used for common diseases, rather than the highly specialised technology appraisal, which has been spoken about and is used for rare conditions. On 14 August, all hopes were shattered when NICE announced that it did not recommend funding by the NHS as the clinical effectiveness of the drug was not proven and the price was too high.
NICE launched a consultation and held a committee meeting in October to review all responses. There was still no progress for patients. Then, following a previous announcement, on 1 November Biogen closed the expanded access programme for type 1 to all new infants, so although 80 children remain on the programme, any child born after that date with type 1 has no access to this life-saving drug. The process drags on, and NICE had its third committee meeting earlier this month, but as yet no information has been published.
Biogen maintains that the STA process is not appropriate for rare disease medicines, because the smaller patient populations in rare diseases make it inappropriate to expect treatments to achieve the same cost-effectiveness thresholds as medicines in disease areas with much larger patient populations. It has also pointed out that it is very difficult to measure the quality of life in a young paediatric population. However, that is a major determining factor in the STA process, so it is a stumbling block in approving Spinraza. The company still hopes that a managed access agreement can be reached with NICE and NHS England.
The truth is that NICE’s emphasis on cost-effectiveness stands in contrast to the focus on more flexibility and data gathering for future review, which has allowed Spinraza to be approved in Scotland and across Europe. A recent report by MAP BioPharma, “Access to orphan medicines”, highlighted that 75% of rare disease medicines recommended by NICE through an STA between 2013 and 2017 were due largely to rare cancer drugs that are covered by the cancer drugs fund, and none of the only six non-cancer orphan drugs reviewed by NICE through an STA has received a recommendation in line with full marketing authorisation.
The report makes five recommendations for the NICE STA methods review: making changes to the evidence requirements for orphan medicines; drawing from the HST methodology to consider introducing a sliding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio up to £100,000; considering adapting the evidence review group for orphan medicines; embedding formal opportunities for negotiation between companies and NHS England; and considering interim recommendations in line with the cancer drugs fund and the new Scottish ultra-orphan pathway. MAP BioPharma points out that those adaptations would help to level the playing field so that patients, clinicians and companies could be sure that all treatments for rare diseases would be considered under a fair appraisal and that access would not be held back as a result of treatments being referred for an inappropriate appraisal. I hope that those recommendations will be given due consideration by NICE, NHS England and the Department.
Meanwhile, for those awaiting a decision on Spinraza, the anxiety continues. They include families such as that of my seven-year-old constituent, Sam McKie, who has type 2 SMA. Sam loves playing wheelchair football and has played since he was three. He now plays for the Newcastle Magpies wheelchair championship team and is as good as many of the adult players. In fact, he is so good that, in November, the Newcastle United Foundation named him as its disability player of the year. Sam’s dad, Gary, wrote to me, and his words reflect the views of everyone affected by SMA. He said that
“children are facing an agonising and uncertain wait for approval whilst their condition deteriorates. Gaining early access to this drug could see Sam get stronger and gain new abilities. The SMA community would love to be able to access this drug to give our babies and children a chance, a chance they surely deserve. This drug is available now, and timely procedures are stopping our children from accessing it, this is wrong. Please help us.”
Will the Minister hear Gary’s words? Will he take action to ensure that delays do not happen in future? And will he work with Muscular Dystrophy UK and other charities towards making NICE take on board MAP’s recommendations, to help to create a new and fairer system, like that in Scotland, that will deliver for patients like Sam and, as Gary McKie says, give them the “chance they surely deserve”?
Eleanor Smith (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), and I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for bringing the debate to the House.
I first heard of the drug Spinraza last year when Katie Prescott contacted me about her 10-year-old daughter, Heidi. She wrote:
“I have a daughter, Heidi, with a rare muscle wasting disease called Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA). SMA ranges from the very severe type 1 through to type 4. Heidi has type 3 and she is fast losing the ability to walk. She is 10 years old and it’s a devastating prospect for her. For the most severe cases of SMA, life expectancy is only 2 years without access to this drug.”
There is a treatment available for SMA, and it is called Spinraza. It is the one and only available treatment for SMA, and 22 other countries, including Scotland, have approved it. However, NICE is recommending that NHS England should not fund Spinraza for any types of SMA, meaning that thousands of people in the UK with SMA are left without a treatment. This is practically a death sentence for babies diagnosed with type 1, and it means that type 2 and type 3 children are destined for a life of deterioration. The issue is that NHS England and Biogen cannot agree on the costs. We need the Government, NHS England and Biogen to sit down and negotiate an agreement that has the SMA community at its heart.
In January 2019, I wrote to the Health Secretary about this. He replied:
“NICE is an independent body, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on its guidance”.
When I wrote to NICE for clarification, it said:
“I fully accept that we, the company and NHS England have a responsibility to bring this matter to a conclusion quickly. We are working hard to do this through discussions with the company and I am hopeful of reaching a positive outcome.”
I also asked the Prime Minister this question:
“Why can this treatment not be accessible to my constituent Heidi and other children in England with this disease?”—[Official Report, 20 February 2019; Vol. 654, c. 1462.]
She answered that the next meeting between the parties would take place in March. Since then NICE, NHS England and Biogen have met, on 6 March in Manchester, and we now await their next judgment. That comes after 14 months of appraisals, with months between the stages of the negotiation process. What is it about this country that makes it so different from Scotland and the 22 other countries in Europe that have approved the drug? What have they done to be able to do that? How have they negotiated it?
When a child is born with a condition such as SMA, there is hope in every parent’s heart that a cure will be found—that a new drug will be developed to treat it. This is an example of that, but the drug has been denied to children suffering with SMA, and we must find a mechanism to resolve the problems. I understand that there are structural issues within NICE, which means that the treatments of conditions such as SMA end up being assessed in the same way as more common conditions, therefore making it extremely difficult for treatments to be assessed as being cost-effective. In the meantime, Heidi’s health continues to deteriorate. When I met her recently in my office, I was deeply impressed with her bravery and optimism, but her mother said to me:
“It is very frustrating that still no decision has been made. Heidi cannot walk unaided anymore and even then can only take a few steps. To know there is something that can help her, but she can’t access it, is very difficult and Heidi finds that hard to deal with too.”
Up and down the country, families like Heidi’s are fighting for treatment. Surely NHS England, NICE and the company have a duty of care and a moral obligation to give treatment to patients like Heidi when it is available. We must remember that there are human beings behind the statistics—caring families who are suffering because a medicine has been denied in this country.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I will be brief because I have spoken on this topic many times, specifically about cystic fibrosis, but before I get on to that I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on her speech about PKU. I popped into the PKU drop-in event a few months ago purely by accident when I was doing one of those classic MP things where we are asked to go here, there and everywhere to be photographed holding up a sign or wearing a silly hat. I knew nothing about PKU, but I talked to an 11-year-old boy there about his diet. I am somebody who chooses to have a fairly restrictive diet in that I do not eat meat, dairy or fish, but I look for protein alternatives, and I was struck by the sheer difficulty that the boy has in functioning and by the fact that he is unable to enjoy the normal life of an 11-year-old. My heart went out to him, and I do not need to add any more, because my hon. Friend made such an excellent speech.
We have also had excellent speeches about the difficulties of obtaining Spinraza. I do not claim to be an expert, as some other Members are, but constituents have been in touch with me with similar problems. I would therefore support any efforts to get the drug approved, because that would make a huge difference to their lives.
As I said, I am here to talk about cystic fibrosis, and I have a personal interest in that my 14-year-old niece Maisie has CF. She must be the most mentioned niece in Parliament, because she gets name-checked quite a lot. Before I talk about Maisie, I want to mention the recent evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee from Oli Rayner, who lives with cystic fibrosis. He has just turned 40 and had a lung transport around 18 months ago, so he is at the healthier end of the spectrum, and he talked about being quite lucky until he reached his thirties, when his health started to deteriorate.
However, many cystic fibrosis patients are not as lucky. My constituent Lee Partridge lost both his daughters within eight months when they were both in their late teens, and it is common for people to start to deteriorate when they reach their teens. Luckily, my niece is very much at the healthier end of the spectrum, but that does not influence my judgment; I want to make the case for Orkambi to be available not just for her when it is needed, but for everybody else with the condition.
I have been trying to get my head around quality-adjusted life years, how the calculations are made, whether NHS England is doing the right thing and whether NICE is using the right sorts of calculations compared with other countries. NICE says the calculations factor in societal benefits, but it is not clear how they do that.
The hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), who made an excellent speech, spoke about the cost of hospital treatment to society as a whole. If a person has to go into hospital several times a year, there is the cost of care, but there is also the cost of lost work time, the cost of care by family members and even the cost of transportation to hospital if they live in a rural area. There are so many factors. Although NICE says it takes those things into account, I cannot quite see them. Was it Hugh Dalton or Clement Attlee who was called a “desiccated calculating machine”? Anyway, the system seems to be based on desiccated calculations.
It may be incredibly naive of me, but why cannot the system just think of the impact on people’s lives and of the hell they are going through? It is incredibly difficult for teenagers to come to terms with discovering that they have a life-limiting condition, and there is also the issue of the availability of mental health support and counselling.
It is striking that everyone who gave evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee said that the drugs work. There is no question but that this would be of benefit to people. Kalydeco, the first drug, helped only 5% of patients, and it was funded in part because not many people would benefit and, therefore, the costs were lower. We now have Orkambi, and there will soon be a successor that will benefit about 40% of patients. For the future we are looking at triple therapies that will cover about 90% of the cystic fibrosis community. If 90% of people can benefit, of course the overall cost will go up, but the decision should not be made on the basis that we fund one thing because not many people will benefit.
I am concerned that Vertex and other companies would be deterred from exploring further therapies and treatments if they cannot get a commercial deal. The line that jumps out of the Health and Social Care Committee’s letter to Vertex, which it wrote shortly after the meeting, is:
“Vertex appears to have decided on the pricing of its therapies on the basis of the return it wants to make, rather than the value which they bring. NHS England is right to continue to take the wider patient population for whom it is responsible into account.”
The Minister has previously responded to such debates, so can we have an update on where the conversations have got with Vertex, including the Secretary of State’s meeting? There are so many cystic fibrosis patients waiting to hear the outcome. Last time I looked, the petition was up to about 80,000 signatures. Can we try to get some answers soon?
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I am sure hon. Members will not be surprised to hear me talk again about baby Maryam, my seven-month-old constituent with spinal muscular atrophy type 1. Without treatment, Maryam will have only a few more months to live. She is waiting for NICE to announce a decision to allow access to Spinraza, the drug that she and other babies with the condition so desperately need.
I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for securing this important debate; the Daily Mirror, especially Pippa Crerar, for telling the stories of SMA families; the Newham Recorder, the campaigning newspaper, for its continued coverage and encouragement; and the amazing members of the local community in West Ham for their support. Councillor Mas Patel has been brilliant, as has Kevin White and many others who have taken the plight of this little baby into their hearts.
Most of all, I pay tribute to Shakil, Maryam’s father, and all Maryam’s family who have steadfastly campaigned despite knowing that, when we finally get access to Spinraza in England, it could so easily be too late for Maryam.
As we know, SMA1 is an awful disease. It is a progressive muscle-wasting condition, and for a baby it causes difficulties with breathing, swallowing and gaining weight. Babies with SMA1 may not even be able to cry aloud. Spinraza is an effective treatment for SMA. With this treatment, babies and children are living longer; they are even crawling and walking. I am told that by last August, when NICE first met to consider funding Spinraza on the NHS, none of the babies who had been treated with it in the UK had died as a direct result of their SMA. The drug was so effective that the trials stopped early, yet NICE refused to approve Spinraza at that August meeting, or at the second meeting in October or in November.
In November, the expanded access programme, which allowed treatment with Spinraza while negotiations were ongoing, was closed—Biogen, the drug company that developed Spinraza, closed it. So when Maryam was diagnosed in December last year, she had no access to this drug. Even if it could have been afforded privately and even if my community in West Ham had fundraised for it—I can tell Members that an awful lot of people have wanted to do just that—she could not have got it. We are not talking about huge numbers; we are talking about fewer than 100 babies a year. Treating this condition should not break our bank—it could not, surely.
NICE met again two weeks ago—we held a vigil while it was making its decision—but I am told it could be three or more weeks yet before that decision is known. This is callous. Making families, making Maryam and making the other babies wait this long is callous. The NICE approvals process for Spinraza has now taken 14 months. That is longer than many of the babies with SMA1 can be expected to live without the treatment. At the same time, agreements have been reached on Spinraza in the United States and in 25 European countries, including Scotland, Germany, Italy, Lithuania and Romania.
NICE has failed Maryam and all the other babies with SMA, but others are culpable, too. The closure of the access programme no doubt saved Biogen some money, but I am sure that it was closed to increase pressure on NICE as well. I cannot say that that is definitely true, but what I will say is that if it is true, the suffering of tiny babies, and the pain and suffering of their families, too, has been used in the service and pursuit of profits. I now believe that our whole system of for-profit medical research combined with public healthcare encourages this kind of brinksmanship, it encourages delaying tactics and it encourages the exploitation of sick children and their families.
Let us also consider the actions or inaction of the Government. I am sure hon. Members will recall how in the spring statement the Chancellor talked of a
“proud, successful, outward-looking nation, with no limit to our ambition and no boundaries to what we can achieve.”—[Official Report, 13 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 352.]
He bragged about
“the single largest cash commitment ever made by a peacetime British Government”.—[Official Report, 13 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 346.]
This was for the NHS. Surely we can afford to help these babies, too. Currently, we are the fifth richest country in the world, yet we are withholding vital medical treatment from babies. This is medicine that 25 other European countries, including some much poorer than we are, are willing to provide. What does that say about us? What does that say about our values? What kind of a country have we become?
I have asked the Prime Minister to act—twice. I have asked the Health Secretary to act. As far as I can see, nothing has happened. I hope that Conservative Members will forgive me when I say that I thought the Prime Minister’s response to me last week was cold; it was more about defending an outdated process than about understanding and empathising with the desperate plight of Maryam and her family. Let us remember that 25 European countries already have access to this drug, We do not, yet it seems to be nothing to do with the Prime Minister.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a good and powerful speech. Two of my constituents, Mark and Panna Wilson, are in a situation similar to that of her constituents: their son Aadi is only three years old and is regressing every day because he, too, has SMA, which is a terrible condition. They told me that
“without access to new treatments, each and every day is a step, not towards an exciting future, but towards a painful and dark place.”
The hon. Lady is right, and I hope that we will find a new route to the approval of Spinraza in this country. The route it is currently going through is intended for much more generic medicines and it has not been put through the route for rare medicines. We need either to put it through the route for rare medicines or to find or invent a new mechanism so that we can get treatment for these people. As she points out, this is a rich country: we must be able to save these babies and toddlers.
Lyn Brown
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is a political issue—what we are discussing today is political. It is about which of our constituents get access to which medicines, and when; who our public healthcare service helps with our public money; and who we allow to die without help.
Members on both sides of the Chamber have recently urged the Government to use their Crown use licensing powers in the case of Orkambi. Those powers can get around medicine patents when pharmaceutical companies are simply refusing to deal honestly with the NHS, and they are an option. There are always options for the Government if they wish to use them, but they seem to be content with voicing frustration. They do not do anything—they will not even threaten to do anything that might help. If the Patents Act 2004 is not working, as Ministers have said, we need to do something to replace it. Maryam’s family and others want action now. They need Spinraza now; when will they get it?
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who made her case with great power and passion. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) on securing this important and timely debate.
Until recently, I had the pleasure of chairing the all-party group on rare, genetic and undiagnosed conditions, which receives secretariat support from Genetic Alliance UK. The all-party group aims to raise awareness in Parliament about such conditions and to ensure that patients and families can access appropriate care and support. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) has taken over as chair of the all-party group. Unfortunately, she had prior commitments today, but otherwise would have been here to take part in the debate.
My constituency in Liverpool is home to the fantastic Alder Hey Children’s Hospital, which works in close partnership with the University of Liverpool and the charitable sector to provide more research opportunities for children with rare diseases and their families. For example, in the rare neuromuscular diseases, Alder Hey has worked with patient-advocate groups and national charities to increase capacity and resources to offer access to clinical trials of new disease-modifying agents. Since 2016, Alder Hey has opened 19 new clinical trials for Duchenne muscular dystrophy alone, enrolling nearly 100 boys in these important trials. By providing excellent, world-class clinical and research expertise and working in partnership with the charitable sector, Alder Hey has been able to provide more opportunities for children with rare diseases to take part in research studies.
In my role as chair of the all-party group, it was a privilege to get to know the rare diseases community. During that time, the issue that was consistently raised with me by patients and their families, clinicians and pharmaceutical companies was the challenge they face attempting to navigate NHS England and NICE’s appraisal processes for rare disease treatment. As other Members have said, patient access to new orphan medicines in the UK lags behind many other European countries, including Germany, France and Spain. The Office of Health Economics found that the UK is slower at making access decisions and approves far fewer medicines for reimbursement than other European countries. According to the recent MAP BioPharma report, which used data from a four-year period, almost a quarter of licensed orphan medicines have not been appraised at all by NICE or NHS England. This can prevent rare disease patients from having any opportunity to access treatment.
The lack of capacity to appraise orphan medicines is just one of the systemic flaws—we have heard about others—with the current NICE appraisal system. The multiple pathways through which medicines can be appraised create further complications and delays. It is often unclear why one route is chosen over the other, so very similar orphan medicines can be subject to vastly different assessment criteria. We also know that patients are often stuck in limbo waiting for the results of private negotiations about price between companies and the NHS years after the market authorisation of their potential treatment.
It is against that backdrop that the all-party group asked Genetic Alliance UK to propose a method of making decisions about rare disease medicines that would be more effective, transparent and fair. The project is called “resetting the model” and it aims to develop a flexible new vision for getting access to rare disease medicines for the UK, and it will be delivered in the coming months. It is absolutely clear that the current NICE appraisal process is simply not fit for purpose and is acting to restrict many rare disease patients from having the opportunity to get access to potentially life-changing treatment.
Let me address a related issue. NICE has been consulting on guidelines for cannabis-based products for medicinal use. On Tuesday, I had the pleasure of meeting my constituent, Lauren Abernethy, who is the mother of Nathaniel. Nathaniel is 10 months old and has a type of epilepsy that is so rare that when he was diagnosed his doctors told Lauren and James, his dad, that Nathaniel is the only known case with this type of genetic mutation recorded anywhere in the world. For the next three months of his life, Nathaniel was in Alder Hey Hospital undergoing tests, and for most of that time he was in critical care.
Lauren was here on Tuesday as part of the “End Our Pain” lobby of Parliament. Owing to the extremely rare type of epilepsy that Nathaniel has, antiepileptic drugs do not work, so Nathaniel was granted the use of Epidolex, a medical cannabis product. He has reacted positively to the treatment, going from being in a state of continuous seizures to now having, on a good day, as few as three to five seizures. However, despite that progress, he continues to live in great pain. He jerks and twitches continuously, which is known as myoclonic jerks, and has up to 100 of these every day. Access to full extract cannabis oil might offer Nathaniel a better quality of life, which he surely deserves, but like so many other children who are suffering from intractable epilepsy, Nathaniel has so far been denied access to that treatment.
I welcomed the decision last November by the Home Secretary to reschedule certain cannabis-based products for medical use, but the reality for patients such as Nathaniel is very different. Only a tiny handful have succeeded in getting a prescription. Patients, some of whom are as young as Nathaniel, are being blocked from access to medicine, which, as the evidence shows, has at least a possibility of relieving their symptoms. I urge the Minister in his response today to talk about how a policy can be put in place, based on evidence, that enables patients with rare diseases who could benefit from medical cannabis getting access to it.
More broadly, may I echo the comments that have been made on both sides of the Chamber and ask the Minister today to set out what he will do to take this crucial set of questions forward? In particular, will he work with Genetic Alliance UK so that we can reset the model, working with NICE and NHS England, so that patients with rare diseases get the fair access to medicines and treatment that, surely, they all deserve.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this important debate. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) for obtaining this debate, and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
Before I was elected to this House I worked for more than 30 years as a clinical scientist in our NHS. During that time, I developed a healthy scepticism for politicians advising on medical treatments, as it is a field that is best left to clinicians. However, I did want to take part in this particular debate because I know that issues around the availability of life-saving drugs and treatments for rare diseases are important to many people. My constituents have made me particularly aware of the unavailability of Orkambi to cystic fibrosis sufferers and of Kuvan to those affected by phenylketonuria.
Today’s debate is also extremely valuable because it focuses on the way NICE operates and questions whether that operation is appropriate for those suffering from rare diseases. A rare disease is generally defined as one affecting fewer than five people in 10,000, but many people are affected by rare conditions. The UK strategy for rare diseases estimates that, in the UK alone, more than 3 million people will suffer from a rare disease at some point in their life.
Given, however, that relatively few people are affected by a particular rare disease, there are specific challenges in ensuring speedy diagnoses and access to appropriate services and treatments. NICE’s technology appraisal process involves looking at evidence from clinical trials and peer-reviewed research showing how well a medicine or treatment works, including its likely impact on mortality and quality of life; at the economic evidence of how much it costs the NHS; and at the views of clinicians, patients and other stakeholders.
As well as looking at the clinical effectiveness of a treatment, single technology appraisals and highly specialised technology evaluations also assess its cost effectiveness, which, as many speakers have said, is usually measured in terms of the cost per additional quality-adjusted life year, and this is assessed by looking at how many extra months or years of life of a reasonable quality a person might gain as a result of treatment.
Following changes introduced in April 2017, NICE set a maximum additional quality-adjusted life year threshold of £300,000 for highly specialised treatments. Under that threshold, they would automatically be approved for routine commissioning. This is 10 times higher than the standard NICE threshold of £30,000 for non-specialised treatments. Owing to the nature of lifelong genetic diseases, however, the required quality of life improvements are likely to be unobtainable. The charity Genetic Alliance UK highlights that no ultra-orphan treatments—drugs used to treat extremely rare diseases—currently used by the NHS would pass this test.
It is clear that an urgent rethink is needed on these policies, which are focused almost exclusively on price, to the detriment of patient outcomes. Genetic Alliance UK has argued that these policies will halt future access to innovative treatments for rare genetic conditions in England and that they contrast with the stated aim of the UK strategy for rare diseases to ensure appropriate procedures for evaluating the costs and benefits of treatment for patients.
The problem with the current NICE appraisal process is that certain treatments, particularly those designated as orphan medicines, are neither eligible under the narrow criteria of the highly specialised technology process nor appropriate for the single technology appraisal process. The reason could be that the treatment’s patient population is marginally higher than the maximum size considered through the highly specialised technology process, while the single technology appraisal process is inappropriate for most orphan drugs because of limited trial data.
The accelerated access review, which aims to speed up access to innovative drugs, devices and diagnostics for NHS patients, recommends that NICE undertake a review of its methods and processes to ensure that they are fit for purpose, which I think everyone in the Chamber would agree is long overdue. The review warns that
“it is important that no groups of products can ‘fall between the cracks’ and struggle to find a decision-making process”.
We have heard heartfelt speeches today from my hon. Friends that have illustrated that some products are falling through the cracks and that families and young children are suffering.
The views of the accelerated access review are in line with those of the NHS five year forward view, which includes a recognition of a broad measure of value that goes beyond price alone. I have combed through the latest NHS long-term plan, and I cannot find any reference to this important issue. When the Minister responds, I would be grateful if he pointed out to me where the issue is mentioned in the most recent iteration of the plan.
NHS England and NICE need to reconsider how they account for rarity in their assessment process to support the NHS in its mission to provide a comprehensive service that is available to all at the point of need, including to those with rare conditions.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Members for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), and the Backbench Business Committee, for arranging this debate. I am here to speak up for people in Dudley with cystic fibrosis, phenylketonuria—or PKU—and spinal muscular atrophy.
I have been campaigning with others to make Orkambi and other new treatments available for people with cystic fibrosis because I was contacted by Carly Jeavons from Dudley, who took part in the clinical trial for Orkambi, and by Samantha Carrier, whose baby daughter Daisy was diagnosed shortly after birth. Samantha has given up her career and now devotes her life to campaigning for access for these life-changing drugs. While listening to this debate, I have been receiving emails, texts and other messages from people around the country—heroic parents of children with cystic fibrosis who work so hard and campaign tirelessly for the treatments that their children need. I know that the Minister has met some of these parents, and I hope he will have some new answers for them today, because they have worked so hard to raise these issues, which really do need to be sorted out.
Before the clinical trial, Carly Jeavons had to take 90 tablets and do two hours of physiotherapy a day. She had a lung function of around 44% and spent two weeks in hospital every three months. She had to choose between the financial hardship of leaving work or her health being made worse as she struggled on at work. She told me:
“Orkambi has changed my life. My health has remained stable. I only need one or two courses of IV’s per year instead of the four previously, hospital visits have been massively reduced and admissions are non-existent.”
Since having Orkambi, she has been able to go on holiday abroad for the first time with her family, and she has got married. She has also started a business and is employing people, so she is making a much bigger contribution to the economy. The Government need to look at the contribution that people who get these drugs can make to the economy, not just at the costs of providing the drugs. I believe that NHS England and NICE are with Vertex this afternoon for yet another meeting about whether these cystic fibrosis drugs can be provided. But this comes three years after NICE appraised Orkambi. I really hope that the Minister will explain how this situation can be resolved and how other situations like it can be avoided, so that patients can get can get access to these drugs.
Let me turn to the issue of treatments for people with PKU. Some of the people who have been leading this campaign are sitting in the Public Gallery, watching this debate. Again, I hope that the Minister will have some good news for them today. As we have heard, PKU is a rare metabolic disease that leaves people unable to metabolise protein properly, leading to a toxic build-up of material that can cause irreversible brain damage. The only existing treatment is a strict diet of extremely low protein, meaning that almost all normal foods are off limits. The diet is lifelong, and sufferers find it stressful and difficult to cope with. I had never heard about this condition until a woman in Dudley called Kirsty Thornton got in touch with me. Since then, I have met the campaigners and taken part in a PKU diet challenge. I have also joined the cross-party parliamentary campaign led by the hon. Member for Blaydon to ensure that people with PKU get access to the treatments and supplements they need.
It is heartbreaking for parents of young kids with PKU who do not understand why they cannot go to their friends’ birthday parties in case they eat the wrong foods that will make them tired, sick and ill for the rest of the day, or for longer. Students say how difficult it is when their friends are going on nights out, or they move to university and the people they share a flat with are ordering in pizzas and so on, or they cannot go out on a date because they do not know what they are going to be able to eat or not eat. This must be really tough for young people.
Kerry McCarthy
My hon. Friend will probably be aware that the Government are looking at a new food strategy, and one of the things under consideration is better food labelling. A lot of people think that those who make certain dietary choices do it almost to be trendy, or just because it is the fashionable thing to do, but there are people whose lives are at stake if they cannot get the information on food that they need. Food manufacturers and anyone else involved in the provision of food need to be alert to the fact that it is important that people know what they are going to be eating.
Ian Austin
That is a really important point. The PKU campaigners have explained to me that on some occasions when manufacturers have changed the ingredients in food or drinks, that has had a terrible impact because people with PKU have not necessarily known about it, so they have continued to drink or eat things that they have consumed without any problems in the past, but because the ingredients have changed, it has caused them a big problem.
For many people with PKU, taking Kuvan considerably increases the amount of protein that they can safely eat. We are therefore urging the Government, the NHS and BioMarin, which manufactures these supplements, to agree a deal so that people with PKU can enjoy a normal healthy life. I spoke to the National Society for Phenylketonuria this morning, and it told me that the whole PKU community are demoralised. They say that they are working hard but feel that not much progress is being made. What is the Minister going to do today to give these people, some of whom are in the Public Gallery, and others who are sitting at home with their kids watching this debate, to give them hope of this situation being resolved?
My next point is about Spinraza treatment for people with spinal muscular atrophy, or SMA, which affects an estimated 1,300 people across the UK. It can cause irreversible loss of a child’s ability to crawl, walk, breathe and swallow. In the most severe cases, it can cause death. Spinraza is the first possible treatment for those who have SMA types 1, 2 and 3. It can slow its progression and prolong life. From April, this treatment is going to be routinely available in Scotland, and it is already available in 24 other countries in Europe, yet it is still stuck in the NICE process for England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
That is why, in the end, the purpose of this debate is to ask the Government to look carefully at the way that NICE works. New drugs are being developed, and technological changes are happening, so rapidly that the Minister needs to be able to tell us how the way drugs are assessed and licensed, and then approved, will work in future. How is he going to ensure that these ground-breaking drugs are made available to the people who need them, when they need them? In 2016, NICE was not able to recommend the use of Orkambi because of uncertainty around its long-term value, impact and cost-effectiveness. But this drug is available in the USA, across Europe, and, more recently, in Scotland, so when do the Government think patients in England are going to get it? This is really urgent. The system has not worked and patients are being let down.
On PKU, NICE decided to start an appraisal of Kuvan in 2018, but this has since been suspended. NICE is currently reconsidering which appraisal process to use to access Kuvan, and the NHS is considering whether to fund an interim policy for the use of the drug. But, again, this is not enough, and not quick enough. The NICE process sees PKU as rare, but not rare enough. As we have heard, the majority of PKU treatments are assessed by the STA process, which is designed for non-rare treatments. NICE’s approach evaluates the lifelong costs of treatment, meaning that the cost thresholds and the approach to evidence are all designed for more common diseases than PKU. SMA sufferers are waiting for NICE, NHS England and Biogen, which manufactures Spinraza, to come to a deal. I hope we will hear better news on all those things from the Government than we have in the past.
It is my job to listen to people in Dudley who are living with cystic fibrosis, PKU, SMA and other rare diseases, to come down to London and speak up for them in Parliament and to demand, as we are doing this afternoon, that the Government ensure that they get access to the treatment they need and deserve.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I would like to thank my hon. Friends and neighbours from the glorious north-east, the Members for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), for securing a debate on this important topic, and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
I want to focus my comments on phenylketonuria, which is classed as a rare disorder and has stark impacts for sufferers. If left untreated, PKU can result in brain and nerve damage, behavioural difficulties, vomiting, tremors and epilepsy, yet some of the impacts can be mitigated to a degree, if only the NHS would allow the drug Kuvan to be readily available.
PKU sufferers cannot metabolise protein and, as such, are kept on a strict diet and take a large number of supplements to ensure that they do not become deficient in anything that we would normally get from the foods they are unable to eat. Many sufferers also need to take an unbelievable number of tablets each day—tablets that are large and difficult to swallow. My constituent Harvey Parker has PKU. He is 15 years old and takes a staggering 65 of these tablets every single day. Although it is a distant memory for some of us, I am sure we all remember how difficult it is being a teenager, with that want to fit in and not stand out. Harvey told me that Kuvan would help him lead a more “normal” life.
Eating out and sharing food with others is an important part of socialising and something that most of us do without thinking, but many places do not cater for Harvey’s needs, and he ends up feeling “embarrassed”, “isolated”, “angry” and a “burden”. He said that when he has been out with his mates on a weekend, he tells his mam and dad that he has not eaten because he was not hungry, when really it was because he could not find anything that he could eat. Harvey told me:
“I don’t really talk to any of my friends about PKU as I get embarrassed and when I’m with my friends with no tablets to take, blood tests to endure or bland, unpalatable foods then I am just Harvey, one of the lads and not that boy with the rare invisible condition that no one has ever heard of.”
It is clear to see how access to Kuvan and the more relaxed diet that would follow could improve Harvey’s life. It has improved the lives of others who have taken it, so why is it being denied to so many sufferers?
Kuvan is used by more than 2,000 patients worldwide and is commonly used in 23 other European countries, but not England. Some sufferers have had access to the drug on the NHS after costly and lengthy court battles, but most are not that lucky. At an estimated annual cost of up to £50,000, the drug remains out of reach for so many sufferers. An adult with PKU’s protein-restricted diet costs the NHS £12,000 per year. Many sufferers get prescriptions for their food, which has a high price tag: a packet of pasta is £7.20, and a loaf of bread is £7.48. Our NHS was created on the principle that good-quality healthcare and medication should be accessible to all and free at the point of need, regardless of income, but time and again under this Government we are seeing the destruction of our NHS by stealth, with creeping privatisation and a rolling back of that principle.
Constant wrangling led to a situation where, four years ago, NHS guidance said that there was not enough evidence to prescribe Kuvan, and it then referred the issue to NICE to see whether Kuvan could be made readily available on the NHS. As we have heard, NICE has two methods of appraising medicine: the highly specialised technology appraisal for rare diseases, and the single technology appraisal route for common diseases. NICE decided to assess Kuvan using the same route as for common diseases, despite the fact that only one in 10,000 people has this illness—hardly “common”. Thanks to campaigning by the National Society for Phenylketonuria, NICE then suspended the appraisal and decided to reconsider, but the new process has yet to be started. However, as other Members have already noted, the HST route is not ideal for rare diseases, and a whole new different approach is needed.
The NHS also decided to prescribe Kuvan, then changed its mind due to costs. In short, it decided that it was too expensive. That is what happens when privatisation and outsourcing are prioritised over patients’ care and wellbeing. Harvey’s mam, Diane, said to me, “How can you put a price on my son’s health?” I sincerely hope the Minister will let Diane and Harvey know.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), with her passion for the subject matter and on behalf of her constituents, so well done to her. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for enabling this debate to take place. I was very pleased to go along to it with the hon. Members for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon)—two formidable, diligent ladies who have put down their marker on this subject matter. I was very pleased to be the third in the trio involved, and well done to them for giving us the opportunity, on behalf of our constituents, to express our concerns today.
I am sure that, like me, most Members in the Chamber have been inundated with emails from people begging to be helped, and begging for the drug that they need to be made available. Every one of them has said that, and I do not believe that anyone can ignore it. It is not only in the emails, but in the interaction we have with our constituents when we hear their stories face to face.
I want to start with a good story and to say what happened—not, I have to say, through this Minister, but through the Home Office. I fought very hard to see medicinal cannabis legalised for my beautiful young constituent Sophia Gibson, and what a difference that has made in her life, as it has to the lives of others. Her parents had no option other than to uproot their family and move to Holland to get the treatment that Sophia needed. At the same time, they were respectfully knocking on doors and following the system through to a Home Office Minister, the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service, and getting clinical assistance in order to bring about a change. Eight months later, their daughter has been at school more than ever before in her whole lifetime. She has had substantially fewer admissions to hospital, and has attended school parties that were impossible—they were too much for her—without this medication. She is a very different young girl today because her parents, Darren and Danielle, fought the battle in the right way and in the right place. Today, we have all presented our cases for the right battle, in the right place, at the right time and with the right request.
Since that time, I have had many other parents coming to me and asking me to help secure the drug that their child needs. A mother in my constituency has an absolutely gorgeous two-year-old son—Lorcán they call him—whom Orkambi would help. Orkambi is a second precision medicine, which targets the root cause of the disease, and it would benefit about half the people with cystic fibrosis in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Cystic fibrosis is a terrible illness that affects the lungs and digestive system of people with the condition, who have a median life expectancy of just 31 years old.
I say this very respectfully, and I hope it will be taken into account: Vertex Pharmaceuticals, NICE and NHS England must end the protracted negotiations for the drugs Orkambi and Symkevi. We must break the stalemate between the three parties and provide access to these drugs, which could so vastly improve the quality of life of my constituents and those of everybody here, as they deserve. They want and need that drug desperately.
I have often spoken about the need to allow people to access Orkambi on prescription, and I have often been beyond frustrated with the lack of movement between the drug company and NICE. There must be—indeed, there has to be—something that can be done to find a way forward, and I believe that it must be done in this House. Today, we look to our Minister and our Government to give us answers and, respectfully, the answers that we need. We must instruct the Department to negotiate a way forward to ensure that my young constituent and so many others like him can live a better life.
I was contacted by the Muscular Dystrophy Association regarding spinal muscular atrophy—other hon. Members have spoken about that condition on behalf of their constituents, and I will do the same. SMA is a rare inherited neuromuscular condition that affects lower motor neurons in the spinal cord. It leads to the gradual loss of someone’s ability to walk, crawl, move, breathe and swallow, and it requires complex medical support. About 100 children are born with the condition each year, and around 2,000 children and adults in the United Kingdom are living with SMA. Spinraza is the first and only treatment for patients with spinal muscular atrophy. It is meant to increase the body’s ability to produce a protein called survival motor neuron, which is essential for motor neuron health. The treatment is administered through an injection into the spinal canal. It is never an easy treatment, but if it provides an opportunity for better health, people should take it.
For children with SMA type 1, life expectancy is rarely longer than two years. Some children who have received Spinraza have seen their muscle strength improve, and have lived long enough to crawl and even walk. For those children, Spinraza has been a lifeline—perhaps I should say that Spinraza has been life itself, as that is the level we are talking about. Spinraza proved so effective in clinical trials for children with SMA type 1 —the most severe form of the condition—that the trial was stopped early so that all children affected by it could potentially access that treatment.
The Spinraza appraisal took almost 14 months, and currently 25 European countries—including Scotland in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—have already made it available, nearly two years after the European Medicines Agency granted it a licence. Although Translarna was eventually approved by NICE in July 2016, that was more than two years after the European Medicines Agency gave it a licence. Such lengthy delays to a process that could and should be significantly shorter have resulted in frustration and anxiety for many families who see a life-changing treatment within touching distance. They can almost reach out for it, but they can never get it, and that is where frustration creeps in. That group of people see a better life but are prevented from accessing it. There must be a better way of dealing with these issues, and we must find it or instruct the Department to find it.
My heart aches as a father and grandfather who would do anything for his children and grandchildren, and other right hon. and hon. Members would do the same for theirs. The block on life-changing drugs affects not only the child but the entire family. If a child or adult has a physical disability, their family also feel that and live with it every day. Many families in the UK do not have access to life-changing medication, and I wholeheartedly and sincerely urge the Minister and his Department to enter into talks, find a way forward, and do better so that people can live better. The Government have set aside £40 billion for extra health support. I welcome that, as do all hon. Members, and I gently suggest that some of that money should be set aside for life-saving drugs.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and I congratulate the hon. Members for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), and the Backbench Business Committee, on securing this debate.
This is not the first time that I have spoken in such a debate, and I declare an interest because my two-year-old granddaughter, Saoirse Fellows, has cystic fibrosis. We are very fortunate because she is pancreatic sufficient, but it is a real worry for our family. I should also say that I am waiting for granddaughter No. 4 as we speak, so if I am a bit lightheaded that is why. I have never listened to a debate in either Westminster Hall or the Chamber in which so many people have cited Scotland as a great example of how to do things. That is normally my job in these debates, so I am grateful to hon. Members who have already done part of that job for me.
An estimated 7,000 rare diseases affect about 3.5 million people in the UK, and around 80% of those are genetic. It has been reported that 95% of rare diseases have no approved treatments available. The default NICE referral route for the majority of orphan medicines is the single technology appraisal, but many will be close to meeting the selection criteria for NICE’s highly specialised technology programme, which has already been mentioned. Stakeholders are frequently sought to make the case for an HST referral, which is a more appropriate route for orphan medicines.
The Government have maintained the position that it is appropriate for orphan medicines to be considered under NICE’s standard STA and that orphan medicines have been successfully reviewed under the STA programme. However, many Members have said how that is not working for their constituents. The Scottish Medicines Consortium has adapted its processes to increase the input of clinicians and patient group experts in decisions for certain orphan medicines.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am cutting my speech because I want to allow more time for both the Opposition spokesperson and the Minister. Scotland and the SMC has led from the front, and NICE has adopted many of its methods in the past. I encourage the Minister to look again at what Scotland is doing. We are a small country and a devolved nation, but we can do it, so I can see no reason why the England NHS should not be getting the same medicines as we do. We have a higher approval rate: 69% in Scotland to 55% in England. We have a new medicines fund specifically for orphan drugs, which is instrumental in helping to secure access to medicines for rare diseases. That does not exist in the other devolved nations. Both Scotland and Wales have taken a proactive approach to addressing concerns about the applicability of the standard processes for orphan treatments.
The new medicines fund has really helped to deliver better medicines more quickly to Scotland. The fund has covered the cost of orphaned drugs for individual patients where the condition affects fewer than one in 2,000 people. A total of £21 million was made available for the fund by the SNP Scottish Government. The Scottish Government have since made further improvements, reforming access to new medicines by creating the peer approved clinical system tier 2. The system allows clinicians, on behalf of their patients, to ask a PACS panel whether they can access a medicine that has not yet been recommended by the Scottish Medicines Consortium. That is exactly why Orkambi and Symkevi can be used in Scotland. I would suggest it is absolutely imperative that this is looked at in England. Spinraza, which has been mentioned in the debate, is already being used in Scotland. I ask the Minister this: why is it not possible for NHS England to use those drugs in England to the same extent that they are in my own country?
I do not want to bring too sour a note to the end of this debate—there is real consensus across the House, and Members have spoken sincerely and passionately on behalf of their constituents and others across the country—but I worry, and I think many other Members across the Chamber will be worried, that we are heading towards Brexit. No one knows where it is going or the impact it will have on the availability of medicines generally, and, more importantly for this debate, medicines that are not yet even available in England as they are in Scotland.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to take part in this very important debate. I start by thanking my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon). We are part of the north-east massive, so I am very pleased to be joining them in this debate today. I thank them for their very passionate and heartfelt contributions. I should also mention, as part of the north-east massive—it goes without saying—my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck). I thank all other hon. Members who spoke for their excellent contributions. They know who they are and I do not need to name them. They were all fantastic.
Throughout the debate we have heard of the heartbreak experienced by patients and their families when they are unable to access life-saving drugs on the NHS. We have heard of their determination to continue fighting to access those drugs, whether by writing to their MP or even by protesting in Parliament square. I was happy to join my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) there just two weeks ago for the Cystic Fibrosis Trust rally, where people were calling, “Orkambi now!”—they were so loud that we could hear them over the crowds chanting, “No Brexit!” or whatever the shout was at the time.
We must hear patients’ voices in this debate, as it is they and their families who are affected the most by the appraisal process, which is not fit for purpose. The Minister has heard about the real-life experiences of patients throughout this debate, and I am sure that he will continue to listen to them afterwards. I know that he is also in regular communication with patients. In my role as shadow Public Health Minister, I regularly meet patient groups and campaigners, so I know just how important access to these life-saving drugs is to them.
As a constituency MP, I recently met young Riley and his mum Michelle. Riley has phenylketonuria—PKU—and needs Kuvan. He is now 11 and at secondary school. He just wants to blend in with his mates and to be able to go on those first excursions out to the Metrocentre, and perhaps to get something unhealthy to eat from a takeaway, but obviously he cannot do any of that. I asked him about his life and how he felt not having access to Kuvan. He said that it was not fair and that it made him mad. Well, I agree with Riley.
It can take years to get the right diagnosis for a rare disease, so once patients get the diagnosis they are excited and feel that there has been a breakthrough, because they think that they will finally get the treatment they need and deserve. Instead, as we have heard today, they are back at the beginning of the fight, because the life-saving drugs that do exist are not available to them on the NHS. It is one hurdle after another for patients with rare diseases. That is why the Opposition strongly believe that patients should have fast access to the most effective new drugs and treatments. I am therefore pleased to support the motion.
As we have heard, a rare disease is generally considered to be one that affects fewer than five people in 10,000. According to the 2013 UK strategy for rare diseases, it is estimated that in the UK more than 3 million people will suffer from a rare disease at some point in their life. All those patients must have access to the drugs and treatments that they need. However, they are being failed by the NICE appraisal process, which is just not fit for purpose when it comes to assessing the suitability of drugs and treatments for rare diseases.
Patients with rare diseases are squeezed in the middle of two appraisal routes: the highly specialised technology evaluation programme and the single technology appraisal route. The HST evaluation programme is selected for most non-cancer rare disease medicines and is designed for evaluating medicines of that nature, with small patient populations. However, the HST evaluation programme currently lacks the capacity or capability to effectively appraise all new licensed orphan medicines. Since the HST evaluation programme was established in 2013, it has published guidance on eight medicines, which is much fewer than the 45 orphan medicines for non-cancer indications that have been licensed in the same period.
The STA route is designed to appraise treatments for more common conditions and those with existing treatments. This route is poorly suited to considering rare disease medicines, which tend to have small patient populations, a limited evidence base and benefits beyond direct health benefits—something the appraisal process just does not take into account. Some rare diseases are not rare enough for the STA route, and only a handful of medicines are being approved by the HST route. Yes, it is complicated, but it is clear that neither route is working for patients with rare diseases, so patients are missing out on crucial medicines.
Kuvan was licensed in 2008 to treat PKU patients, but it is still not available to patients in England. Orkambi was appraised by NICE in 2016 through STA, but was recommended for use. Three years later, as we have heard, people with cystic fibrosis still have no access to it. That has caused physical and psychological harm to patients and their families. Every day without the drugs that they need makes their condition worse. We must have an appraisal process that captures rare diseases effectively.
Medicines to treat rare diseases are often found to be cost-ineffective, which is why they are not approved for routine commissioning. However, establishing value for money is not straightforward, especially when population groups are small. It does not sit comfortably with me—or, I am sure, with any of us—that cost-effectiveness is prioritised above clinical need, or, as we have heard, the lives of children. Manufacturers want to make a reasonable return on their investment, although some of the figures are huge, but I do not think that that should be a priority. Manufacturers must not hold NICE or NHS England to ransom for their own financial gain.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Brine)
Or the Government.
Mrs Hodgson
Exactly.
Behind profit forecasts are thousands of people and families who need access to life-saving drugs, and they simply cannot wait any longer. We must not put businesses before patients. Because of the NICE appraisal process, patients and their families are being left in an awful limbo. The processes can be long-winded, confusing and difficult to navigate. Some medicines can undergo multiple assessments while others are not assessed at all, and that creates an unpredictable and unattractive system. As a result, patients are left in the dark about when, or if, they will have access to innovative treatments for their conditions.
When a drug is being appraised, patients live in hope that this time it will be approved for use by NICE—as in Maryam’s case, which was described so powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown)—but they are almost always left to feel disappointed and helpless. Patients and their families must be involved in the processes, and the processes must be transparent.
The wait for access to drugs is excruciating, especially when the drug is available in nearby countries, or even—as we have heard—in Scotland. Spinraza is available to patients in Scotland, but not to those in England. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham spoke passionately on behalf of her constituents and their seven-month-old baby Maryam. This sounds blunt, but she is dying, because she has been denied access to medication that could extend and enhance her life.
The pain and anguish that the parents of a critically ill child must feel when they are told that there is medicine available that will help but it is not available for their child are unimaginable. Knowing that if your child lived a few hundred miles away, in Scotland or perhaps somewhere in Europe, the drug would be available is heartbreaking and infuriating. Patients in England should not be left behind. We should be working to find ways to get these medicines to the patients who need them, on the NHS.
I hope that the Minister will consider the motion seriously, for the sake of patients with rare diseases and their families. They cannot be left behind any longer: they must have access to these life-saving drugs now.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Brine)
Let me add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing the debate. I was not familiar with the north-east massive, although I am now. I was familiar with the individual component parts of the north-east massive, especially my shadow, the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), but I have not seen them as a collective before. I must say that they hunt well as a pack.
I know of the work of the hon. Member for Blaydon, who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on phenylketonuria. We have discussed these matters before, in Westminster Hall, and I do not doubt that we will discuss them again.
Other Members have spoken passionately today, on behalf of their constituents, about the importance of access to new medicines. As the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) rightly said, Members are doing their job, and I am doing mine: as requested, I have listened very carefully to the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), and the hon. Members for Wolverhampton South West (Eleanor Smith), for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), for West Ham (Lyn Brown), for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), for Dudley North, for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck)—part of #massive—for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), who speaks for the Scottish National party.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby touched on the subject of cannabis, and I will happily write to him about that in more detail if he wants. As he knows, the all-party group report came out yesterday. I have not had a chance to look at it yet; I am aware of it, obviously. The Government changed the law and specialist doctors can now provide cannabis-based medical products where there is clinical benefit. To support doctors in this—because the politicians are ahead of the clinicians on this one—we asked NICE to develop new clinical guidelines and we asked Health Education England to provide additional training, while encouraging more national research to develop the evidence base in this. I have said before and I shall say again that I am very clear that we need to provide more support and encouragement to commissioners in this space because, as I said, politicians are ahead of the clinicians on this one.
Everyone has spoken incredibly passionately and there has been very little politics in the debate, which has been excellent, at the end of this week. It is very good to hear Parliament discussing something else, which of course it does all the time; it is just that that is never reported— I dare say this will not be, either.
The Government share the view of everyone in the House that it is in the interests of all NHS patients that we have the best system in place for making evidence-based decisions on whether new medicines are routinely available. Of course it is easier when one is on the Back Benches to just say the system is hopeless, but we have to work with the system we have, or change it. We inherited the NICE set-up. It was mentioned in the first Labour Queen’s Speech, in ’97. It was created in 1999 in a Delegated Legislation Committee by then Health Minister of State John Denham, who is a good man. He set it up. When he did so, he said it was set up to make independent, evidence-based recommendations for the NHS on whether drugs represent an effective use of NHS resources.
NICE is widely recognised as a world leader in the field of health technology assessments. Its methods and processes have been developed and continuously refined over the last 20 years through periodic review and engagement with stakeholders. Politicians are not in the middle of those decisions, and rightly so; that is how the system was set up by the aforementioned Mr Denham. Maybe the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton was right to trust her instincts—
Steve Brine
No, because the hon. Lady has had her say and I am going to have mine in the short time I have. If I have some time—
Steve Brine
Mr Deputy Speaker, I think the hon. Lady has spoken on behalf of her constituents a lot today, and very well. [Interruption.] I do not think, given the tone of this debate, we need to get unpleasant in here. [Interruption.] I will address the points in my speech and, if the hon. Lady does not like that, I am sorry, but I do not think anybody watching this, least of all the families affected, need to hear that tone.
As a result—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Whether the Minister wishes to give way is up to the Minister and we must let him finish his speech.
Steve Brine
Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker; some people just cannot help themselves.
NICE operates two separate programmes for the assessment of new medicines. First, there is a technology appraisal programme through which NICE assesses the vast majority of new medicines. Secondly, as has been said, there is a highly specialised technologies, or HST, programme that is reserved for the evaluation of very high-cost drugs for the treatment of the very small number of patients in England treated in a handful of centres in the NHS. Decisions on whether a medicine should be routed to NICE’s mainstream technology appraisal, or the HST programme are taken through an established topic selection process that includes consideration against published criteria and engagement with a wide range of stakeholders. When NICE recommends a drug for use through either route, NHS organisations are legally required to provide funding so that it is made available to patients.
Today, we have heard concerns that NICE’s technology appraisal programme is not suited to the assessment of medicines for rare diseases, with some calls for individual drugs to be assessed through the HST programme instead. We have also heard calls for a third appraisal route for rare diseases not eligible for the HST programme. I have listened very carefully to all of them and will reflect on them all. There is some sense in a lot of what has been said. Indeed, over the last 20 years, NICE has made positive recommendations in 75% of its appraisals of orphan medicines. By comparison, NICE recommends around 80% of medicines for more common diseases.
I shall give the House two recent examples, because of course we only ever hear about the examples that are stuck or refused. NICE has been able to recommend orphan medicines for neuroblastoma, a cancer of the nerve cells that affects children—this has been widely welcomed—and for primary biliary cirrhosis, a progressive liver disease. Moreover, through its HST programme, NICE has to date been able to recommend a further eight medicines for NHS patients outside of the standard appraisal route. In each case, NICE’s recommendation is subject to a managed access agreement negotiated between the drug company and NHS England.
There will always be cases where NICE is unable to recommend a medicine because the price set by the company does not reflect the benefits that it brings. That is a fact. Hon. Members have of course spoken about the rare diseases of people in their constituencies—they are doing their job—but NICE is an independent body and it should be allowed to develop its guidance free from politicians. The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton said that that was her initial instinct before she became a politician. That is the foundation of NICE’s reputation as a world leader in its field, and it is in the best interests of patients that it does that.
The hon. Member for Blaydon, in introducing the debate, raised concerns about Kuvan, the treatment for phenylketonuria. NICE has initiated an appraisal of Kuvan, and officials from NICE, NHS England and our Department have been reconsidering the appropriate assessment route in the light of the new available information that the hon. Lady mentioned. Riley is right: we have to make this fair. I am told that a final decision will be taken promptly—I urge that again from the Dispatch Box today—and with the minimum impact on the timescale for NICE’s assessment.
The hon. Members for Strangford, for Bristol East and for Dudley North have all spoken about the issue of Orkambi so many times and so well. It is incredibly frustrating and disappointing to Ministers, just as it is to them and everyone else, that Orkambi is not available to NHS patients in England at the moment. I understand and share that frustration. This is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State held a meeting with Vertex, NHS England and NICE a couple of weeks ago. I was at that meeting, at which the parties again discussed how best to reach a conclusion. I am pleased to say that they are meeting again today to continue the discussions and decide on the next steps. Decisions about the availability of drugs in Scotland are of course a devolved matter, and that is up to Scotland. I understand that no decision has been taken on routine funding for NHS patients in Scotland, but the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw asked me to look again at the Scottish system. I will do that and I will ask the Minister responsible for this policy area to do so.
The hon. Member for North Tyneside and others raised the issue of the drug Spinraza for the treatment of spinal muscular atrophy. I understand that NICE’s independent appraisal committee met earlier this month to consider its recommendation on Spinraza following new evidence being put forward by the company. NICE wrote to the company and patient groups last week to say that it was not yet able to provide an update on the outcome of the meeting, but that it would provide an update soon. Again, I encourage that to happen even sooner. I recognise that the protracted process in this instance is hugely frustrating for patients and their families and, whatever our differences across the Dispatch Box, of course I feel the deep hurt that the hon. Ladies who spoke on the subject have laid out. I hope they will appreciate that a final decision has not yet been made and that NICE must be allowed to complete its work free from political interference.
I do not have time to go into a huge amount of detail. I have been asked lots of questions during the debate, but I have little more time than the people who have spoken today. I thank Members for speaking so passionately and I hope that they will welcome the forthcoming review of NICE’s methods and processes over the course of this year for both its technology appraisal and its highly specialised technologies programme, which is at least partly what today’s motion calls for. It would not be appropriate to pre-empt the review by commenting in detail on what it should look at, but I will ensure that it is directed towards the motion before us today and to the transcript of today’s deliberations. I now want to give time to the hon. Member for Blaydon, who introduced the debate, to close it in the time that we have left.
Liz Twist
I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not list them all, but I want to respond to the Minister. First of all, Minister, it is not easy for us on the Back Benches to criticise and lobby. It is really difficult for us, because these are our constituents. They are real people who have real conditions. We have tried to be constructive in the debate and said that we have identified issues around the NICE appraisal system that we think need to be addressed urgently. I notice that he mentioned the review and said that our concerns would be drawn to its attention, but will he ensure that there is dialogue and input before the review takes place to ensure that it is not just technical, but addresses the concerns that we have raised?
Valproate Pregnancy Prevention Programme
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I am raising the issue of the valproate pregnancy prevention programme today as a result of tireless campaigning by my constituent Janet Williams. Along with her friend Emma Murphy, Janet, who is here today, launched the Independent Fetal Anti-Convulsant Trust, or INFACT, in November 2012, and they have almost single-handedly kept the issue of disabilities caused by anticonvulsant medication on the political agenda since then. Despite both living in the north-west of England, they regularly travel to and from London to demand action from drug companies, politicians and civil servants, and they simply will not take no for an answer. Mr Deputy-Speaker, you may know that when a woman from Lancashire gets her teeth into something, she is not going to let go. The campaign for justice and to ensure that no families are similarly affected continues, but the fact that progress has been made in recent years is largely down to Janet and Emma.
It may help if I first provide some background to sodium valproate. The drug, a trade name of which is Epilim, is manufactured by Sanofi, among others, and has been prescribed in the UK since the 1970s. Despite its effectiveness for treating certain types of seizures, research has demonstrated that it carries a higher level of risk to the exposed foetus. Around 27,000 women are currently taking sodium valproate in England and Wales. Scientific data demonstrates that around 10% of children exposed to sodium valproate will be born with a major congenital malformation and their IQ is likely to be lower, with 29% requiring additional educational support and 6% being diagnosed with significant social communication difficulties such as autism.
Estimates of the number of children still being affected by this drug vary. In February 2016, the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), the then Minister for Life Sciences, stated that 336 children are exposed to valproate every year. Figures from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink suggest that the figure could in fact be 176. However, even the lower number would imply that 7,000 children have been harmed by valproate since it first came on the market in 1973, with a further 28 a month still exposed to it.
Sodium valproate received its licence to be prescribed in the UK in 1973. The first case reporting the effects of sodium valproate during pregnancy appeared in 1981. By 1987, the damages caused by the drug in pregnancy were recognised throughout the medical professional, being given the title of foetal valproate syndrome in 1995. National Archive documents show that the Committee on Safety of Medicines was aware of the dangers of valproate when taken in pregnancy at the time of licensing, but it decided to inform medical professionals while keeping the women taking the medication in the dark. The patient information leaflet for sodium valproate was only changed to highlight the risks during pregnancy in 2000, and the information was sparse even then.
Women and children have been let down by the pharmaceutical industry and successive Governments over many decades, and I hope that they will one day be compensated for the failures that were allowed to occur. However, I want to focus the remainder of my time on addressing how we can ensure that all women of childbearing age taking sodium valproate today are aware of the risks it poses and are able to make informed decisions about their future.
The valproate toolkit was introduced in March 2016 and gave healthcare professionals the opportunity to inform patients voluntarily of the dangers of taking valproate in pregnancy. Sadly, the toolkit failed to achieve its aims. It took the form of a patient booklet, pharmacy cards that were received on collection of a valproate prescription, a healthcare professional booklet and a checklist for specialists.
INFACT surveyed patients and pharmacists, and the two surveys found that around 85% of patients were not receiving the patient booklet and 90% were not receiving the pharmacy card. In a letter from Sanofi on 27 May 2016, INFACT was informed that the patient booklets were not given to GPs, as had previously been indicated by Ministers, but instead had to be downloaded by GPs from the Sanofi website. In designing the pregnancy prevention programme, what lessons have been learned from the failure of the valproate toolkit?
The pregnancy prevention programme, as a mandatory action, was introduced in April 2018 following the failure of the valproate toolkit, which gave healthcare professionals the opportunity to discuss the dangers of valproate with their patients. It was stated:
“To protect public health, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has changed the licence for valproate medicines (Epilim, Depakote and generic brands). Valproate must no longer be prescribed to women or girls of childbearing potential unless they are on the pregnancy prevention programme (PPP)… Healthcare professionals who seek to prescribe valproate to their female patients must make sure they are enrolled in the PPP. This includes the completion of a signed risk acknowledgement form when their treatment is reviewed by a specialist, at least annually.”
As with the valproate toolkit, the PPP included a booklet to enable patients to understand the risks and a small, credit card-sized information card for pharmacists to provide on dispensing the drug. However, the PPP was strengthened by the addition of an “acknowledgment of risk” form, which was to be signed by the doctor and the patient on the communicating of the risks. For the pharmacist, there was the addition of ensuring that every dispensed prescription of valproate included the patient information leaflet, the credit card-sized information and warning stickers on the white chemist boxes, all of which had been supplied by Sanofi on the instruction of the MHRA.
To get to this stage, numerous meetings had been held over a five-year period to discuss how the information would be designed to be most instructive both to the healthcare professional and the patient, working through the valproate stakeholder network meetings and the expert working group meetings at the MHRA. Following the failure of the first toolkit, patient groups are understandably on guard to ensure they are aware of problems. Worryingly, over a 10-month period INFACT found that the majority of women were not receiving the new pregnancy prevention programme from their doctor or pharmacist.
From December to February, INFACT collected information through a survey of 74 women, which showed: 80% received the white chemist boxes; 40% never received the patient information leaflet, and 41% received it only some of the time; and 78% had never received the small credit card-sized information, with the majority of them never having had warning stickers on their white chemist boxes. During appointments with healthcare professionals, approximately 40% had never discussed the PPP with their doctor, more than 60% had never been asked to sign the “acknowledgment of risk” form, and 73% had never had alternative medication suggested to them.
Those figures indicate that women continue to be failed by their healthcare professionals and pharmacists on the PPP, even though its legislative status has been recognised, with instructions given by the General Pharmaceutical Council to pharmacists and by the MHRA to healthcare professionals.
In the autumn of 2018 proof of the failure, in the form of videos and photographs, was passed to the MHRA and, in turn, to the enforcement agency for investigation, yet we are still awaiting a response to those investigations. The consequences of these findings are deeply troubling. They indicate that women and girls aged between 15 and 45 may still not be being given an informed choice about their medication. They are not being given any information about alternative medications that may be suitable for them, and they are not being asked to sign the “acknowledgement of risk” form by their GP or specialist. On collection of their valproate prescription, they are not receiving any instruction from the pharmacist, nor are they receiving the small credit card-sized information, the patient information leaflet or any warning stickers on the white boxes.
It is worth reiterating that approximately 27,000 women of child-bearing potential are still prescribed sodium valproate every year; that 70% of them have not been offered a change in their medication since April 2018 and the introduction of the PPP; and that approximately 19,000 women are therefore still at risk of becoming pregnant while being prescribed valproate with no instructions from either their doctor or their pharmacist.
In addition to the risks outlined earlier, INFACT has been made aware that folic acid does not have the desired affect when taking sodium valproate and that the dangers to the foetus are no longer dose-related, making it a possibility that all those exposed to valproate in the womb will be affected by it. I would therefore like to ask the Minister to clarify: what assessments have been done to ensure women prescribed valproate receive the PPP and are offered an alternative medication where possible? What assessments are taking place to calculate how many healthcare professionals, including GPs in surgeries and those in pharmacies, complete the PPP with their valproate patients? And what the enforcement agency intends to do to ensure those failing to comply with the PPP have penalties imposed to ensure they do not continue to do so? Finally, I would like to request that the Minister meet me and representatives from INFACT to discuss how we can make sure the PPP works for women, allowing them to make informed choices about their own health and the health of potential future children.
The Minister for Health (Stephen Hammond)
It is a pleasure to respond to this debate on behalf of the Government, and it is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), who has secured an important debate. I wish to pay tribute to her and her constituents from INFACT, whom she mentioned.
The hon. Lady has rightly set out that, as Members of this House will be aware, valproate is a very effective treatment for epilepsy and bipolar disorder. For a few women with epilepsy, it may be the only effective treatment, and she rightly recognised that in her speech. However, its use is associated with serious side effects in children exposed to it during pregnancy; there is a 40% risk of persistent developmental disorders and a 10% risk of physical birth defects. Valproate should therefore be used to treat women of childbearing age only if alternative drugs are ineffective or not tolerated.
In April 2018, strengthened regulatory measures for valproate were introduced. They include a pregnancy prevention programme that aims to rapidly reduce and eventually eliminate pregnancies exposed to valproate. The hon. Lady asked a number of questions about the PPP. The challenge is to ensure that valproate is used by only those who need it, that they are fully informed about the risks in pregnancy and that treatment is closely monitored. Let me emphasise that it is vital that no woman stops taking valproate or any other antiepileptic without discussing it with her doctor.
Valproate has always been known, since the time it was first licensed, to carry serious risks if taken during pregnancy. However, important questions have been raised about the extent to which women have been informed about the nature and magnitude of those risks over the decades. At the time valproate was first marketed in 1974, animal studies had shown that there may be a risk of birth defects. Health professionals were made aware of that and were expected to weigh the benefits against the risks. They were expected to prescribe valproate only in severe cases or those where there was resistance to other treatments. Difficult prescribing decisions sometimes had to be made.
Campaigners have highlighted minutes of a meeting of the Committee on Safety of Medicines in 1973—the hon. Lady referred to that—where it concluded that it would be best not to mention the risk of birth defects following the use of anticonvulsants in the information supplied with the medicine, but that doctors should be informed. At that time, it would have been the doctor’s responsibility to pass on information on side effects. Today, patients and doctors are expected to make decisions jointly, based on open communication about all the risks and benefits of a treatment.
Over the years, warnings have been issued to prescribers by the regulator when new evidence on risks in pregnancy has become available. In 1983 and 1993, communications went out to update prescribers on the growing evidence of the risks in pregnancy. In 2003 prescribers were warned about a possible risk of developmental delay in children exposed to valproate during pregnancy. Warnings were extended to include a risk of autism in 2010, and a further bulletin was issued in 2013. It was around that time that the full magnitude and nature of the risks of valproate in pregnancy first became known, following the long-term follow-up of cases of affected children.
Given the seriousness of the accumulating evidence, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency initiated a major Europe-wide safety review of valproate in pregnancy, which was completed in November 2014. The conclusion was that the balance of the benefits and risks of valproate in epilepsy and bipolar disorder remained favourable in women of childbearing potential only when other drugs were ineffective. The MHRA went further than updating the statutory information, as required by the EU review, and developed the valproate toolkit for healthcare professionals and women, which consists of a set of clear and informative materials. More than 100,000 healthcare professionals have received the toolkit.
As the hon. Lady referred to in her speech, in the autumn of 2015, given the importance of the issue, the then Life Sciences Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), brought together all the relevant healthcare bodies to support the promotion of the toolkit and ensure that co-ordinated messaging was given out to health professionals and patients. The MHRA further developed this group into a 39-strong stakeholder network of health system organisations, health professional bodies, charities and campaign groups, which has been convened 11 times to date, to raise awareness and to help to embed the new measures in practice.
Despite extensive work to communicate the risks of valproate, concerns about the limited impact of the action in the UK and other member states led to a further EU review, which in 2018 resulted in a strengthened regulatory position stating that valproate must not be used in women of childbearing age unless they comply with the requirements of a pregnancy prevention programme. All healthcare professionals who prescribe valproate to female patients must ensure that they are enrolled in the pregnancy prevention programme. That ensures that women must use effective contraception throughout their valproate treatment and have an annual review with a specialist, which includes the consideration of alternative treatments, and must sign an annual risk acknowledgement form.
I am sure the hon. Lady will know that in February 2018 the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), announced that he had asked Baroness Cumberlege to lead the independent medicines and medical devices safety review, which is exploring what happened in the cases of valproate, Primodos and mesh and considering the robustness of processes, the quality of engagement with and response to patients’ concerns, and any wider lessons. As I am sure the hon. Lady does, I welcome that important work and look forward to seeing the recommendations from the review. It is vital, though, not to wait for the outcome of the review. Much work is being done, and will continue to be done, to ensure compliance with the valproate pregnancy prevention programme. We expect the review to report later this year. It has been consulting in a detailed and patient-orientated manner throughout the UK, with patients and relevant patient and healthcare organisations.
The hon. Lady raised a number of issues with the pregnancy prevention programme. The MHRA has monitored the impact of the programme closely since its introduction last year. Monitoring is being done via data from the clinical practice research datalink and national databases, which link data from community drug dispensing and maternity services. The MHRA is also accessing data from clinical audits run by healthcare professional organisations and information on patient experience via surveys.
Patient input and engagement with the patient group INFACT, to which the hon. Lady referred and which was started by her two constituents, has been invaluable throughout the process, as a source of both evidence and feedback on the implementation of action. The data shows a decline in the use of valproate in women of childbearing age, but we recognise that there is local variability. I am also aware of evidence of non-compliance by some healthcare professionals, which is of great concern. Non-compliance with the pregnancy prevention programme is not acceptable, and those concerns are being investigated to ensure that people are brought back into compliance. I can inform the hon. Lady that enforcement action will be taken as and when necessary.
The concerns that were raised in the survey that the hon. Lady referred to have led the UK chief pharmaceutical officers to contact all pharmacists to stress their responsibilities when dispensing valproate. This was reinforced by messages from professional regulators to their members and by articles in the MHRA’s electronic bulletin “Drug Safety Update” in September and again in December, making sure that all healthcare professionals recognise that they need to examine whether they are prescribing in compliance with the new measures.
Achieving full compliance with the valproate pregnancy prevention programme will require concerted action across the healthcare system. I recognise that there is more to do, but I stress again that healthcare professionals who prescribe the drug must make sure that their female patients are enrolled in the pregnancy prevention programme. As I have said, non-compliance is not acceptable.
The hon. Lady asked a number of other questions, some of which I hope I have answered during my speech. My noble Friend Baroness Blackwood specialises in this area and will take the lead in it. I know that she would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady and members from INFACT.
I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting this issue and pay tribute not only to her constituents, but to many other women who have spoken powerfully about the effects that valproate has had on their lives and the lives of their children. Their tireless campaigning has been vital in highlighting the further action that is needed to ensure that women know the risks and are helped to make an appropriate judgment about their treatment. It is vital, therefore, that all healthcare professionals work together rapidly to reduce and eliminate the exposure of pregnancies to valproate.
I hope that the action I have outlined today shows that steps are being taken to ensure that the necessary assessment, monitoring and, where necessary, enforcement action will be taken. In commending the hon. Lady, I hope that she, like me, will look forward to Baroness Cumberlege’s review, which, as I said, should be published later this year. I thank her once again for raising this important matter this afternoon.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Rural Development (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Draft Rural Development (Rules and Decisions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Rural Development (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Rural Development (Rules and Decisions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Mr Goodwill
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. As a farmer myself, and given that my family business participates in an agri-environmental scheme, I should mention my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The two statutory instruments are closely interrelated and I thank the Committee for taking them together. They amend retained EU law to ensure that rural development payments can still be made after exit day. The amendments will maintain the effectiveness and continuity of EU legislation that would otherwise be deficient after our exit. The changes are necessary to enable rural development programmes, particularly those partially funded by the European agricultural fund for rural development—the EAFRD—to continue to operate effectively in the United Kingdom following exit, until their closure after the end of the 2014 to 2020 programme period.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
With his background, the Minister will know the importance of the rural development programme for England. Can he confirm that the effect of the draft instruments will be that that programme will continue unimpeded and unchanged and that there will be proper funding for it if we have a no-deal Brexit?
Mr Goodwill
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his question. I can absolutely confirm that—it is vital if we have a no-deal Brexit. If, as I hope, we do not have a no-deal Brexit—I hope Opposition Members will think about that before next week’s vote—the regulations will come into force when we leave, following the implementation period.
Four rural development programmes operate in the UK—one for each Administration—providing funding for rural businesses, farmers, land managers and applicants who live in a rural community, with the intention of growing the rural economy, increasing productivity and improving the environment. The European fund relevant to the instruments is the EAFRD, which supports the delivery of rural development in the UK and is worth £430 million a year over the programming period.
The UK Government have guaranteed that any projects funded from the 2014 to 2020 allocation will be funded for their full lifetimes, to repeat the point that I made to my right hon. and learned Friend. The changes that the draft instruments make ensure that payments can continue to be made to agreement holders, using domestic funding in place of EU funding. That will provide certainty to individuals and businesses who receive development funding or who are considering applying for funding during the current 2014 to 2020 programming period.
The draft Rural Development (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 amend the EU regulation that provides the general rules and structures that govern support for rural development, provide payments to be made to agreement holders and lay down rules on programming, networking, management, monitoring and evaluation. That includes the countryside stewardship and environmental stewardship schemes, which improve the environment; the countryside productivity fund, which supports productivity improvements in farm and forestry businesses; and the growth programme, which supports rural business development, food processing, tourism and broadband. Let me give examples of the sort of projects that the latter two funds might support. The countryside productivity fund might fund a fruit-growing business to increase the storage capacity of a reservoir to include water security during the summer months. The growth programme might support a company that grows salad leaves and specialist vegetables to invest in new equipment to keep up with demand and grow the business.
The draft Rural Development (Rules and Decisions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 amend the implementing and delegated provisions made under the main rural development EU regulation. They also amend four implementing decisions that approve the rural development programmes for each of the devolved Administrations. We are omitting powers to submit and implement an information and publicity strategy, and actions relating to it. That includes the requirement for agreement holders to publicise EU participation. We have all seen the big billboards around the country where EU funding has been used. As we are no longer using EU funding, putting up those big billboards, with those blue flags with yellow stars on, will no longer be a requirement. I am sure that that will be a great relief to many of those travelling around the country, and will emphasise that we have left the European Union.
I emphasise that the instruments remedy deficiencies in the regulations that are a direct result of the UK leaving the EU, to ensure that they continue to operate effectively when we leave. They do not introduce any new policy, and simply preserve the current regime for supporting rural businesses and environmental land management, among other things. The amendments include omitting redundant references to the European Commission and member states, and replacing them with either the UK or the relevant authority as appropriate. The instruments also make references to “Union law” throughout, so that the relevant EU regulations continue to operate effectively as part of national law. Provisions that are deficient because they are time limited, under which the relevant actions have occurred, have also been omitted—such as the provisions relating to ex-ante evaluations that have already been completed.
One purpose of the modifications is to ensure continuity and clarity regarding which public bodies have responsibility towards the programmes. The obligations and discretions placed on member states will continue to be exercised after exit by relevant authorities in the UK. In this context, “relevant authority” means the Secretary of State in relation to the rural development programme for England, Scottish Ministers in relation to the rural development programme for Scotland, Welsh Ministers in relation to the rural development programme for Wales, and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in relation to the rural development programme for Northern Ireland, where we do not currently have an Administration operable.
As hon. Members are well aware, agriculture is a devolved policy area, and is of special importance for all parts of the UK. We have worked closely with the devolved Administrations to produce the instruments, and they place great importance on them. They have given their full consent for them.
I repeat that the statutory instruments are required for the continued operation of the rural development programmes. Without them, there will be no legal powers to make payments to fulfil the promises that those important programmes will continue.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes.
I am glad that I am with the Minister; he and I spend a lot of time, in one place or another, on SIs. I have to say that, of the many that I have been involved with, this one concerns me the most. As the European Statutory Instruments Committee said in chapter 5.4 of its report in December 2018:
“The Committee believes that the issue has significant financial implications and is of particular importance to rural communities. Although the amendments are required in a no deal scenario to implement the commitments made by the Government on funding, we consider the significance of the instruments and interest in the subject is such that the additional safeguard of affirmative resolution is appropriate.”
That is why we are here to discuss the instruments.
I am glad that the Minister mentioned that this is about £430 million for existing programmes. My concern is what will happen at the end of 2020. There is no clarity at all from the Government on their rural policy, because it does not really have one, despite needing a rural strategy. What will the Government do then? That matters because, as the right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire made clear, a panoply of different schemes are encapsulated within the catch-all of the EAFRD.
The Minister may correct me, but I believe it remains the sad state of affairs that we have never drawn down and match-funded the full amounts of rural development moneys that are available for the UK Government to spend—certainly that is the case for the rural development programme for England. That matters, because there is no other rural programme out there. I have severe concerns that what we are beginning to see here is a programme that is already underfunded, and rural areas need funding—they do not need huge amounts, and they certainly do not need great dollops of money in particular places, but they need some funding.
This particular scheme has been one of the strengths of the EU, partly because, through things such as the Erasmus programme, different higher education institutions—such as the one in my area, the Countryside and Community Research Institute at the University of Gloucestershire—have done clever work across different parts of the EU to allow rural development to work in parallel in so many different countries. Of course, all that finishes. We have nothing left. Now, it is possible that we could do some bilateral work, and a number of institutions are looking to relocate at least some of their offices in order to remain within the EU. I do not quite know how that will happen, but they have gone to those extreme lengths to keep some of those programmes going.
I worry about what is left. When this goes, what is left in rural England? The hon. Member for Dundee West will no doubt have a lot to say about Scotland too. These funds are the building blocks of what happens in rural communities. They cover a huge range of things, from countryside stewardship to support for particular initiatives in villages and other small market towns. I am left with the view that we may well start again, but what are we starting with? We are starting with something that does not exist at the moment.
I am taken, again, by those who have commented; there has been quite a lot of say-so from organisations that feel they have not been consulted, particularly in areas such as this, where there is such a diverse range of organisations that it would be difficult to know who to consult. Because, again, there is no regulatory impact assessment, it is difficult to know who the Government went to in terms of rural consultation. That is important, because it is all about the money. It is about the things we do with the money, but unless we have money, we cannot do the things we want.
Among those who have written to me about this, the Landworkers Alliance has been clear that it is worried that some of the land-based initiatives it is involved in will suffer and that the money for existing services such as schools, pubs and shops, which have hidden subsidies—perhaps not directly, but through good organisations such as the Plunkett Foundation that are able to find ways of helping to keep those services alive in those communities—is now highly questionable. The Landworkers Alliance is very unhappy about some of the things that are currently run on a shoestring, but on a shoestring of which much of the money comes from the European Union.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for noting the situation in Scotland. Much of this is devolved and I hope it will continue to be devolved, but I want to highlight one particular issue about money, particularly the rural economy and the rural support that is needed. Research by the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions shows that the highlands and islands region, which has benefited hugely from EU resources over recent years—as a result of which, the population of Inverness city has actually grown—will miss out on more than £160 million in EU regional development funding for the period from 2021 to 2027. The UK Government have still not brought forward a plan for the proposed replacement fund, and have failed to give any assurances that the funding will be replaced at the same levels. I look forward to hearing the reply, but I wanted to raise that because it is just one example with this Government of where we do not know what the long-term plans are.
Dr Drew
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because in a nutshell that is where we are; we just do not know. One of the sad things about the loss of these moneys is that it has been targeted at particular groups—young farmers, for example, who desperately need investment into the way they come into the farming industry. I do not like to use the term “funny money”, but there have been ways we have been able to fund it through the various different grants that the EU has made available. Where will those grants come from in the future? People of ordinary means cannot, sadly, enter the land, because of the costs—not just of securing the land, but of investing in the way they intend to farm, particularly if they are going to be a livestock farmer. Those are very expensive and punitive impositions on them when they are in the infancy of trying to get on the land.
Before we decide how we vote, it would be useful to hear from the Minister about what the Government’s strategy is. I am aware that we have done very little in this House, which is to our shame. The Lords does a lot more work on rural economies: there is the Cameron report, which came out about nine months ago, and a report that is just about to be released by Lord Foster, which has looked at some of the impacts of rural development.
I am aware of the Rural Services Network’s call for a rural strategy, which I totally support. This is against the background of next year being the 20th anniversary of the then Labour Government’s 2000 White Paper, which was a very good piece of work because it was accompanied by a billion-pound budget. Sadly, it was all frittered away. Such things happen in Government, but many of the good initiatives that were set in place have been lost for good, which is wrong. As the then rural tsar Stuart Burgess talked about, there is £347 billion of untapped capacity in rural England. I know that is a magical, mystical figure, but it shows the capacity there is in rural England—I cannot comment on Scotland, because when I was on the Select Committee I was able to look only at rural England—to do some interesting work.
Sir Oliver Heald
I do not know if the hon. Gentleman remembers the 1995 rural White Paper, which I was quite involved in. It was a very solid piece of work.
Dr Drew
I agree entirely. The problem was that it did not have a budget, which meant, sadly, that it was rather stillborn, but it was a very good piece of work by Lord Deben. It is important that we parliamentarians recognise that the rural economy and society does not get enough publicity, and that we do not do enough to help it.
I have some questions for the Minister. It would be interesting to know the financial framework the Government envisage once the EAFRD offer goes, because I cannot see anything in place. I met a member of the rural team—I know there is one—but I do not know what budget they have to do anything. It would be interesting to know about the financial framework that the Government envisage after 2020 or, dare I say, 2021—whenever we finally leave the EU schemes.
I am taken by some of the things the Green Alliance has been saying recently about the lack of consultation, particularly in the area of stewardship. Countryside stewardship is not in a good place. We are talking about the environmental land management schemes as if they will just roll in on the back of countryside stewardship. The reality is that many farmers—the Minister will know this—are pulling out of stewardship because it is seen be too complicated and is not fit for purpose. Given that at least some of this money came through this budget heading, it would be interesting to know what the Government intend to do.
What is the Minister planning to do in order to consult more widely on how we might get towards a rural strategy? If the Government do not do it at this stage, at what stage do we move towards a rural strategy? Everyone who is involved in this area is calling for a rural strategy. If we are losing money that we have already been able to allocate, and we have not got anything else in place, at what stage do the Government get serious about launching a consultation to find out what we could do to make a difference?
My final question is about the legacy of many of the schemes that we have put in place over a generation. Is anyone going to capture them, to see in what ways we have worked with our EU neighbours and if any of them can be opened up in different formats?
I assume that there are ways and means of looking at different funding streams so that institutions such as CCRI, which I mentioned earlier, can continue to do some research on a pan-European basis. It would be a great tragedy to lose the knowledge that we have without putting anything else in its place. Whatever one’s views on the EU, I cannot find anyone who does not see that as one of the EU’s strengths; there are many weaknesses, but we do not want to throw away all the collaboration that has happened over a long period—between higher education, rural communities and practitioners within those rural communities who do a lot of the groundwork. It is important to know from the Government what they intend to put in place instead of something that will be a loss.
Mr Goodwill
I am very pleased to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s points, which I have to say are precisely the sort of questions that I have been asking as a new Minister in the Department. It is constructive that we seem to be on the same page about the exciting opportunities available to us as we leave the European Union. I will expand on that in due course.
The two draft instruments will ensure that the rural development programmes funded by the EAFRD continue to operate effectively in the United Kingdom following EU exit. As I said, the development fund is worth some £430 million a year, and the UK—I repeat—has guaranteed that any projects funded from the 2014 to 2020 allocations from the fund will be funded for their full lifetime. The instruments provide the legal basis for continuing to make payments to agreement holders, providing certainty to farms and land managers, and for preserving the existing regime for supporting rural businesses and environmental land management, among other things.
The hon. Gentleman started his remarks by saying that this SI is the one that concerns him most. I have to say, there is nothing to see here. These are not changes; this is maintaining the existing situation so that we can continue the current regime. It is business as usual. The debate gives me another opportunity to reassure right hon. and hon. Members that that is indeed the case.
The hon. Gentleman has not fully grasped the opportunities that life outside the European Union may present. Having sat in the back row in the Agriculture Bill Committee, I know of the tremendous opportunities and the innovative new schemes that will come forward. No doubt those schemes will build on our experience of existing agri-environmental schemes. On my own farm, for example, we are planting nectar plants—the first time that we have ever encouraged weeds, rather than killed them. We need to build on such schemes.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
My recollection of the Agriculture Bill Committee is that the right hon. Gentleman disagreed with rather a lot of the Bill. Now he has been promoted to the Front Bench, has he had something of an epiphany so that he agrees with the Government line?
Mr Goodwill
If the hon. Lady analyses everything I said in that Committee, as I have done, it was absolutely in line with the objectives and ambitions of the Bill, and the reassurances that I received from my predecessor established the fact that we are on the right page and that we need to move forward. She must revisit the points that I made—I asked some searching questions during the debate, and I was pleased with the answers that I received. Indeed, I was happy to vote for that piece of legislation.
Kerry McCarthy
I assure the Minister that I have gone through what he said in the Agriculture Bill Committee with a fine-toothed comb. I have a very long list of where there might now be some inconsistencies, but we can return to them at a future date.
Mr Goodwill
I look forward to that robust exchange of views. Indeed, it might be that, given my particular take on some aspects of that Bill, we look at some amendments. Who knows!
The hon. Member for Stroud made a valid point that not all the funds have been drawn down. That is a great disappointment, because the funds are important to develop not only our rural economy but the public goods and the environment that people wish to see. We need to analyse why that was not done. In the case of some of the capital grant funding for improvements to businesses, the EU structure was often very much based on giving money to co-operatives. Many European Union countries have a much wider co-operative structure among their farmers, particularly in areas where there are small farmers, who can work together only if they co-operate. In the UK, we do not have that same history of co-operatives, which in some cases has prevented farmers from applying, say, for better storage facilities.
Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, many EU schemes are complicated and over-bureaucratic. We need to look at how to simplify them. Given the egregious exploitation of schemes in some parts of southern Europe, I can understand why the European Union came to the view, in some cases, that every farmer was out to exploit the system in a way that was not intended. My view is that farmers in this country are much more likely to comply and engage with our common objectives.
I met several landowners and farmers at an event last week. The point has been made that we have not made payments as effectively as we should—there have been delays, particularly in the agri-environmental schemes. Many such schemes involve up-front investment, such as buying seeds or hedging plants, so we need to improve our performance to encourage more people to feel that they can invest in them.
The hon. Gentleman talked about funding. There is the small matter of our contribution to the European Union budget, which we will be able to deploy for our own interests. As net contributors, we will be in a better position to make sure that the money is adequately spent. We will certainly be engaging in the spending review and with the devolved Administrations to make sure that we have a fair share of the available money and that it can be deployed as intended and not top-sliced in some other way.
Dr Drew
Obviously we will not replicate pillar 1 and pillar 2, but is the Minister saying that the pillar 2 moneys will be secured? So far, he has mentioned agriculture and land, but not rural communities. A key thing about the pillar 2 moneys was that they were ring-fenced for particular rural developments, which may have involved farmers and landowners, but did not have to. What will the Government do to make sure that the pillar 2 moneys are secured, as they were under the EAFRD?
Mr Goodwill
As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the direction of travel in policy is to switch funding from pillar 1 to pillar 2, so direct funding will be reduced at the same time as the schemes that the Agriculture Bill facilitates are delivered. I am ambitious and optimistic that we can continue to build on such schemes and that the money will be there, because we will be directing it for the public goods that farmers will be keen to deliver. The general public will also feel more content, perhaps, that taxpayers’ money is being spent in those directions rather than how it was spent in the past.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the consultation. There was no statutory requirement to consult, because we are not making operational changes. We met the Rural Payments Agency industrial partnership group in September 2018 to update farming and land management stakeholders about the Government’s plan for EU exit. A number of stakeholders were present, including the Tenant Farmers Association, the Country Land and Business Association, the Farming Community Network, the Institute of Agricultural Secretaries and Administrators, the British Institute of Agricultural Consultants and the National Farmers Union. A subsequent meeting was held on 26 November 2018.
The hon. Member for Dundee West is concerned about Scottish participation. I spoke to Fergus Ewing last week to reinforce my wish to work with the Scottish Government. Their consultation, “Stability and Simplicity”, which was published in June 2018, invited comments on their proposals for dealing with the implications associated with leaving the common agricultural policy. It explained that the first stage would be for EU law to be retained in domestic legislation. The consultation closed in August 2018 and there were 137 responses. At least so far as that aspect is concerned, the Scottish Government are engaging.
Chris Law
Will the Minister confirm that, when the Agriculture and Fisheries Bills are introduced, the powers that belong to Scotland will be devolved back to it? On funding for the highlands and islands, it looks like we will be £160 million short from 2021 to 27. He might not be able to give me the numbers just now, but will he look into that and write to me about what he will do about that shortage?
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to make the case on behalf of not only his constituents but his nation. We certainly look forward to robust exchanges about the way funding is brought forward, but I repeat that, as we leave the European Union, the money that we previously paid into the coffers in Brussels will be available for us to deploy here. England is embracing the opportunities of leaving the European Union, and the Agriculture Bill is one clear example of that. The Scottish Government need to engage more widely in those opportunities and must not be in Brexit denial. Many of the hon. Gentleman’s right hon. and hon. Friends seem to think that it is not going to happen. It is important that they realise that the result of the referendum in the United Kingdom was to leave the European Union. The Government of the United Kingdom are determine to deliver our promise.
As further changes to the way we deploy and deliver the agri-environmental and other schemes in this SI emerge, we will of course consult. We will evaluate the way that schemes have worked in the past. We will need to see how we can balance and incentivise new schemes, particularly in connection with the environment, to ensure we get the balance right between rewarding those who were in the vanguard of delivering these environmental schemes and incentivising new entrants. Getting that balance right will be one of the important challenges for us.
Dr Drew
Given how small the rural team is in DEFRA—people now just call it “DEF”, because the “RA” has dropped off—who will do this? These schemes, such as the ones through Erasmus, have not necessarily directly involved DEFRA. It may have had some sign-off, but it has not been directly involved with some of the rural initiatives. Who will do that? We are talking about dropping out next week, so this is pretty urgent stuff. What mechanism is in place to undertake this evaluation?
Mr Goodwill
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We will only drop out next week if the Labour party votes against the agreement that will allow us to leave in an orderly way, and allow the implementation period to be delivered. We are preparing for a no-deal Brexit, but it is not a particularly palatable prospect, in terms of turbulence in the land market. The documentation required for, say, fish exports will need to be delivered in a very short time. The Labour party needs to think long and hard about the game it is playing in this regard.
Mr Goodwill
I apologise, Mr Gapes.
As we move forward, we are looking to ensure that these schemes are adequately funded. We will need to consult if changes are to be made in future. The Agriculture Bill is the perfect foundation on which to build new, innovative and exciting schemes that will not just deliver for agriculture and food production, which is the primary role of agriculture, but provide important public goods.
On highlands and islands funding, and Scotland’s missing out on EAFRD funding, we have committed that the Barnett formula will not simply be applied to DEFRA’s agriculture budget in 2022. That means that farmers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will not just be allocated funding according to the population size in each nation, which in each case is significantly smaller than England. I hope that provides some reassurance that we will look at the needs of agriculture, rather than per capita funding.
I hope I have answered all the questions that were asked. These statutory instruments are required for the continued operation of the rural development programme, and will ensure that farmers and land managers are able to be paid after we have left the EU.
Question put.
Ministerial Corrections
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Two of my childcare providers have closed, citing the requirement to pay business rates as the final nail for them. In Scotland and Wales, private childcare providers are not charged business rates. Will the Minister look to see what can be done, because it surely cannot be right that we tax space which is beautiful for young people to grow and be nurtured in?
Nadhim Zahawi
To my knowledge, two local authorities have done the same thing in England, and I urge other local authorities to look into what they can do to help childcare providers to cope with business rates.
[Official Report, 4 February 2019, Vol. 654, c. 17.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi):
An error has been identified in the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman).
The correct response should have been:
Nadhim Zahawi
To my knowledge, two local authorities have done the similar things in England, and I urge other local authorities to look into what they can do to help childcare providers to cope with business rates.
School Funding
The following is an extract from the winding-up speech by the Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb) in the e-petition debate on School Funding:
Nick Gibb
In secondary schools, our more rigorous academic curriculum and qualifications support social mobility by giving disadvantaged children the knowledge they need to have the same career and life opportunities as their peers. I thank the 452,000 teachers—10,000 more than in 2010—who have delivered these higher standards in our schools. I also thank the 263,000 teaching assistants, of which there are 49,000 more than in 2011, and the 263,000 support staff, of which there are 129,000 more than in 2011.
To support these improvements, the Government have prioritised school spending while having to take difficult decisions in other areas of public spending. We have been enabled to do that by our balanced approach to the public finances and to our stewardship of the economy, reducing the unsustainable annual deficit of £150 billion, which was 10% of GDP in 2010, but 2% in 2018. The economic stability that that provided has resulted in employment rising to a record 32.6 million and unemployment being at its lowest level since the 1970s, giving young people leaving school more opportunities to have jobs and start their careers.
[Official Report, 4 March 2019, Vol. 655, c. 298WH.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for School Standards:
Errors have been identified in the response I gave to the e-petition debate on School Funding.
The correct statements should have been:
Nick Gibb
In secondary schools, our more rigorous academic curriculum and qualifications support social mobility by giving disadvantaged children the knowledge they need to have the same career and life opportunities as their peers. I thank the 452,000 teachers—10,000 more than in 2010—who have delivered these higher standards in our schools. I also thank the 263,000 teaching assistants, of which there are 49,000 more than in 2011, and the 145,000 support staff, of which there are 14,000 more than in 2011.
To support these improvements, the Government have prioritised school spending while having to take difficult decisions in other areas of public spending. We have been enabled to do that by our balanced approach to the public finances and to our stewardship of the economy, reducing the unsustainable annual deficit of £150 billion, which was 10% of GDP in 2010, but 2% in 2018. The economic stability that that provided has resulted in employment rising to a record 32.6 million and unemployment being at its joint lowest level since 1975, giving young people leaving school more opportunities to have jobs and start their careers.
The following are extracts from the winding-up speech by the Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb) in the e-petition debate on school Funding.
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove asked about funding for the increase in the employer contribution to teachers’ pensions. That will rise to 23.6%, so 23.6% of the salary will be paid by the employer into the teacher pension scheme.
[Official Report, 4 March 2019, Vol. 655, c. 300WH.]
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester raised the issue of FE funding. We have protected the base rate of funding for 16 to 19-year-olds until 2020 at £4,000 per pupil and we continue to provide extra funding to add to that base rate; an example is the £500 million of funding for T-levels.
[Official Report, 4 March 2019, Vol. 655, c. 301WH.]
Letter of correction from The Minister for School Standards.
Errors have been identified in the responses I gave to the e-petition debate on School Funding.
The correct statements would have been:
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester raised the issue of FE funding. We have protected the base rate of funding for 16 to 19-year-olds until 2020 at £4,000 for 16 to 17-year-olds and we continue to provide extra funding to add to that base rate; an example is the £500 million of funding for T-levels.
Justice
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Cartlidge
Will my hon. Friend the Minister outline what plans he has to increase support for rape crisis centres?
Edward Argar
I pay tribute to Fern Champion, who has been incredibly courageous in speaking out recently about this hugely important issue. We provide funding for 89 rape support centres. From April, we will increase funding by 10% for them all, with a 30% increase in London, and move to a three-year funding settlement.
[Official Report, 12 March 2019, Vol. 656, c. 183.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Edward Argar):
An error has been identified in the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge).
The correct response should have been:
Edward Argar
I pay tribute to Fern Champion, who has been incredibly courageous in speaking out recently about this hugely important issue. We provide funding for 89 rape support centres. From April, we will increase funding by 10% for these services, with a 30% increase in London, and move to a three-year funding settlement.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Evidence-based Early Years Intervention
(5 years, 1 month 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
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Eleventh Report of the Science and Technology Committee, Evidence-based early years intervention, HC 506, and the Government response, HC 1898.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies—for the first time, I think. We are spending this afternoon talking about a subject that has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit, and which I hope might unite us.
Last year, the Science and Technology Committee held an inquiry into childhood adversity and trauma and the early-intervention approaches that can be used to address those problems. As I said in a statement in November in Westminster Hall, following the publication of our report, this issue is of significant national importance. Around one in two adults in the UK has suffered at least one adverse childhood experience. That may include abuse, neglect or growing up in some other difficult situation, such as a household where someone suffers substance abuse or domestic violence.
Interestingly, the website of NHS Health Scotland includes a list of typical adverse childhood experiences:
“domestic violence, parental abandonment through separation or divorce, a parent with a mental health condition”—
often that can have a significant impact on the child in the household. It continues:
“being the victim of abuse (physical, sexual and/or emotional), being the victim of neglect (physical and emotional), a member of the household being in prison”—
again, that has a significant potential impact.
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman’s list. He mentioned that being a child of someone in prison is considered an adverse childhood experience. Has he seen the excellent report published this week by Crest Advisory, which identifies that there are many more children of prisoners than previously expected? It recommends that as part of the criminal justice process, those children should be identified and local authorities should be notified to provide them with enhanced support, because they may be at risk.
Norman Lamb
I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could refer me to that report; it sounds very interesting, but I have not seen it. That prompts the interesting point that many people in prison experienced bad things in their childhood that led to exclusion from school, involvement in the criminal justice system at an early age, low educational attainment and worklessness. There is an awful risk that the cycle will repeat itself. That sounds like a wise set of recommendations, and I would be interested to explore them further.
The final item in the list from NHS Health Scotland is
“growing up in a household in which there are adults experiencing alcohol and drug use problems.”
One in 10 adults has suffered four or more adverse childhood experiences—a disturbingly high statistic that often goes completely unnoticed. I remember visiting Philadelphia and hearing about the impressive work that was being done to confront the problems of trauma that children experience, often as a result of gun crime, in that quite troubled city. Mapping that city shows up areas of concentration where a substantial proportion of children have experienced repeated traumas, which have a clear effect on them.
The trauma that those experiences cause a child is tragedy enough, but we now know that they are also associated with long-term problems such as mental or physical ill health, worklessness and involvement in the criminal justice system. The prevalence of those problems increases with the number of adverse experiences that a person suffers in childhood. Those associated serious problems make the case for tackling childhood adversity as effectively as possible all the stronger.
In last week’s spring statement, the Chancellor said that he was
“in favour of early-intervention approaches where they can be shown to be effective.”—[Official Report, 13 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 370.]
I welcome the evidence-based approach. From the inquiry undertaken by the Science and Technology Committee, which I chair, I know that the evidence for the effectiveness of early intervention to address adversity is strong. I encourage the Minister to make the case for such intervention to the Chancellor, along with other ministerial colleagues. The hon. Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) has written—together with me and the Chair of the Education Committee, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon)—to the Chancellor to ask for a meeting to discuss the clear evidence to support the case for investing in early intervention.
The Early Intervention Foundation—the What Works centre for early intervention that the Government established to promote evidence-based policy in this field—reviewed the evidence for more than 100 early intervention programmes and found that 51 had robust evidence of a positive impact. Several of those have received the Early Intervention Foundation’s highest rating for proven effectiveness, having demonstrated
“a long-term positive impact through multiple rigorous evaluations.”
We have heard from organisations that champion the success of the early intervention programmes that they have delivered locally. One example is the Children and Parents Service in Manchester, led by the immensely impressive Dr Caroline White, who gave evidence to our Committee. Because we were so impressed by the evidence she gave, she ended up acting as an expert adviser to the Committee in the shaping of our report. The service accepts parents and pre-school children with early social and emotional problems. Those parents and children are referred to the service by multi-agency staff from across the early years workforce—for example, by health visitors. The service provides thorough psychological assessment and offers intervention as appropriate.
The service can demonstrate evidence of its positive impact since it started almost 20 years ago, including improvements in child behaviour, parental stress and depression and, critically, the risk that a child will face ongoing abuse or neglect. That is a prize worth grasping. The interesting thing about Manchester is that, despite very strained local government financial resources, it has chosen to prioritise the service. Of course there is an argument about the need to invest more in early intervention, because that is where we can be really effective, but lack of money is no excuse not to target resources in effective interventions. Manchester has shown that it is possible to do that in the most impressive way.
It is of relevance to the spending review that effective early intervention offers the opportunity to save precious public resources and help those who have suffered adversity. Tackling the problems associated with adversity as a child—ill health, domestic or substance abuse, low educational attainment and so forth—costs public bodies enormous sums of money over the course of a person’s life. Imagine someone who has low educational attainment, perhaps after being excluded from school, and ends up as an adult without work and potentially in the criminal justice system. Just imagine the total cost to the public purse of maintaining and supporting that person through their life. Just imagine what they could contribute to society if those problems were addressed at source, stopping the trauma becoming entrenched and giving them the chance of a good, productive life that contributes to the common good.
It is estimated that the annual cost of late intervention is at least £16.6 billion, but that does not capture the economic benefit of people living more fulfilled and successful lives. This is a clear case of investing to save over the long term, but between 2010-11 and 2017-18, local authority spending on early intervention fell from £3.7 billion to £1.9 billion. That coincided with an increase in spending on late intervention, which rose from £5.9 billion to £6.7 billion. It seems daft to me that we spend more on coping with the fallout from children being excluded from school, which of course is associated with the horrific violence we are seeing on our streets. Surely it would be so much better to invest early to prevent those problems from happening in the first place.
Regrettably, we have heard that the provision of effective, evidence-based early intervention is not uniform across the country. Pockets of good practice exist—I mentioned Greater Manchester—but the Early Intervention Foundation told us that there are
“lots of examples where we see a gap between what we know from robust, peer-reviewed literature and what happens in local services and systems.”
Given that early intervention is left to local authorities to deliver, without any clear national support or scrutiny or even data collection, that is perhaps unsurprising.
Bluntly, we have no idea as a nation how substantial sums of public money are spent and whether that has any impact at the most critical stage of a child’s life. We are in an extraordinary position, as a country. We collect lots of data from the point at which a child goes to school, but for their most critical, formative years, we have no national data of any substance that we can scrutinise to understand how money is spent nationally and whether it is having any impact.
That fragmented and unco-ordinated approach to early intervention is why we called on the Government to develop a national strategy—incidentally, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government have already taken that approach—to empower and encourage local authorities to deliver effective, sustainable and evidence-based early intervention. Unfortunately, in their response to our report, the Government largely dismissed our recommendations. I must say to the Minister that we are deeply disappointed by the response from the Department of Health and Social Care. We really hope that a more considered view will be taken, and that the Government will review what we are actually saying and the case we are making. I hope the Minister—as the Science Minister, he is acutely interested in the application of evidence—will champion this issue in Government.
In its response, the Department of Health and Social Care argued that
“local areas are best placed to understand the needs of their local communities”
and
“to commission early intervention services to meet those needs”.
The national strategy we call for would not run contrary to that locally led approach. Instead, a new strategy could raise awareness and ambition among local authorities, provide guidance to them, and describe best practice and establish metrics against which local authorities could be held to account for the early intervention they deliver—without dictating from the centre exactly what each local authority does, because that is not the approach we argue for. Dr Jeanelle de Gruchy, who represents local directors of public health nationally, told us during our inquiry that an overarching national strategy would benefit those working to provide early intervention locally. That is exactly the opposite of what the Government said in their response.
More positively, however, the Government have established an inter-ministerial group to look at how families with children from conception through to age two can best be supported. I really welcome that. Although early intervention can support children of all ages, we know that that early period is critical to brain development. I urge that group to seize the opportunity presented by early intervention. Having highlighted my Committee’s recommendations to all the members of that group individually, I am disappointed that they are not here to respond to the debate. None the less, I welcome the Science Minister and hope very much that he responds positively to what we are saying.
I should also say that I have been encouraged by the reactions of many of the Ministers on that inter-ministerial group. I know that the hon. Member for Stockton South, who led an inquiry of the Select Committee on Health and Social Care into early years, is happy to work with my Committee to find a way of holding an evidence session with members of that inter-ministerial working group about the work they are doing. When does the Minister expect that group to report its findings? How will the Government move forward with its recommendations? Does the group intend to act on my Committee’s recommendations?
Let me briefly set out what my Committee believes a national strategy should contain. First, awareness of the impact of childhood adversity and how it can be addressed could be greater among those who work with children. The early years workforce needs to be defined, and its training reviewed, to ensure it has the knowledge it needs. We spend a lot of time talking about the prevalence of mental ill health among children and young people these days, but we do not spend nearly enough time talking about its causes. If we focused more on the causes, we might be more effective at reducing the prevalence of the problem, which is very disturbing.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am struck by the fact that each of the various counselling organisations in my constituency has stressed to me how much worse children’s mental health has become since we lost the children’s network, particularly in rural areas. Those organisations are picking up a deluge of children who previously would have received at least some early support. That is not there anymore. It is a great tragedy that what we put in place—one of the things I think the last Labour Government did very well—has been lost. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we are seeing the consequences of that?
Norman Lamb
I guess the hon. Gentleman is talking about Sure Start centres.
Norman Lamb
I will come on to that, but the hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. I mentioned earlier that investment in early years preventive services has fallen. That does not seem very wise in the long run.
Dr Williams
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Will he comment on the Government’s prevention strategy? Last November, the Government launched a consultation document on that strategy, saying that prevention was better than cure. Will he reflect on the adequacy or otherwise of the Government’s proposed approach to the kind of primary prevention in the early years that he talks about?
Norman Lamb
I welcomed the fact that the Secretary of State had identified the importance of prevention, although I noted that there was not much reference to mental health in the prevention strategy, and I have raised that with him. As I understand it, he plans to publish a Green Paper on prevention sometime in the spring, although the concept of seasons is elastic in Whitehall. I welcome that, but of course it has to have substance to it. We have to think about the social determinants of ill health, on which there generally is not sufficient focus. Poverty, poor housing and so forth are also critical factors, not only in our physical health but in our mental health.
I was going to mention that the Secretary of State has identified prevention as something that he wants to prioritise. It is up to us to guide and encourage him along a route that could reap real rewards, not only for individuals but for Government, in the longer term.
The next part of the proposed national strategy would be the collection and analysis of appropriate data. We believe that can help to identify families who would benefit from early intervention, to provide insight into how well different early intervention approaches are working, to drive continual improvement and to allow local authorities to be held to account. The national strategy should identify what data should be collected and support local authorities in delivering data-driven services. If a service is based on data and its analysis, it is more likely that evidence will be applied effectively and that we will make better use of public money. If we use public money in a way that is not based on evidence, we waste it; we cannot justify that to taxpayers, for whom the amount that they are expected to pay is often a strain. They demand that money be spent effectively in government.
The strategy should make use of the growing field of implementation science—a point that we were struck by in Dr Caroline White’s evidence. She focused on not taking an off-the-peg evidence-based programme and assuming that it will work effectively, and made the point that any programme should be properly implemented by trained staff who are supervised effectively, and that data should be used to monitor performance. Those factors are critical in ensuring that a programme can be effective in its application.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee for giving way. He is right to make that point. In the report, we have provided vast amounts of evidence that the collection of data is important, but not the end. The final stage is taking the data and feeding the information it provides back to the individuals affected, so the systems that can and have been identified can be rolled out and attuned to the needs of the young people and families who will use them.
Norman Lamb
I thank the hon. Gentleman; it is an enormous pleasure to have him as a member of the Select Committee, when he is not tied up with High Speed 2. He is absolutely right. The point was made that when we train social workers, an understanding and an analysis of data is a terribly important part of the effectiveness of their work. We want to see a central, specialist team set up in the early intervention centre, not to impose anything, but to help local authorities to deliver the national strategy.
The strategy should shift the balance of funding from late intervention, which we know is less effective, to early intervention, which we know can be more effective. The spending review should establish how best this can be achieved. If the inter-ministerial group and the Government more generally reviewed the evidence base for early intervention and took up our call for a national strategy on these lines, it would make a massive difference to children across our country, now and in the future.
Dr Drew
One of the groups that I feel most sorry for now is health visitors. To be fair to Prime Minister Cameron, he identified health visitors as one of the key elements in early years intervention, yet all the health visitors who I talk to say that they are very much under pressure. They are struggling to do their statutory work, let alone some of the other things they do. Would the right hon. Gentleman agree, and did he discover something about that?
Norman Lamb
The hon. Gentleman must be psychic; I was just about to talk about the programmes that health visitors implement. He is right that the number of health visitors is falling after a significant rise during the coalition years. There was a target set for extra numbers, and they were recruited, but those numbers are now falling back.
The Government must also review some of the programmes that support the provision of early intervention. Foremost among these is the healthy child programme, which is delivered by health visitors and under which every child should receive five mandatory health visits before the age of three. However, Public Health England statistics show that only around 80% of children receive these visits, aside from the newborn visit, which means that 20% do not. That is despite the fact that Public Health England itself acknowledges that without health visits,
“it is possible for children not to be seen by any professional until they start school or not at all if they are home educated.”
I understand the importance of the role of the parent, but if a parent is neglecting a child’s needs and no professional is able to identify and pick that up during those critical early years, that is storing up huge problems for the future and massively letting down that child.
The Government’s response to our recommendation to increase coverage was silent on how that might be done; in fact, it was even silent about whether the Government aspired to achieve that at all. The Minister implied that so long as coverage was better in more deprived areas, it was not an issue to worry about too much, but we know that adversity can happen in any family, regardless of affluence. The Government must now set out a clear strategy for how they intend to increase coverage of the five mandated health visits to 100%, and must also make sure that that strategy does not simply increase the strain on the health visitor workforce, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew), diluting health visitors’ impact on each family. I ask the Minister, are the Government really content with the patchy coverage of the five mandated health visits being achieved, and if not, what concrete steps are they taking to improve the situation?
We also call on the Government to address the issue of Sure Start children’s centres—the first point that the hon. Member for Stroud raised. Back in 2015, it was announced that there would be a consultation on the future of Sure Start centres. Four years on, we are still waiting for that consultation to take place, let alone any decision. In the aftermath of the announcement of the consultation, Ofsted announced that it would suspend inspections of children’s centres, so for four years we have had no inspections, either. That is surely a dreadful neglect of responsibility. Local authorities have no idea what the Government’s view is about children centres. Do they support them? Do they believe that they are valuable? Are they choosing to abandon them? Surely it is not unreasonable to expect a decision four years after the consultation was announced.
By now, the Department for Education should have developed an improved framework; it should not have left local authorities to tackle the situation when they do not have any clarity about the Government’s plans for these centres. Delegating quality assessment to local authorities, in the absence of central support or guidance, risks leading to the same fragmentation we see across all other aspects of early intervention. Local authorities are crying out for clarity on the future role of Sure Start centres. Will the Government hold a consultation on children’s centres inspections, or will they not? Sadly, we are seeing a gradual drift of closures around the country. In my county of Norfolk, a 50% cut in funding for children’s centres has been announced, so many of them will close down, without any clear plan of what the alternative should be. Surely that is unacceptable. Is it now established Government policy that the quality assurance of children’s centres has been devolved from Ofsted to individual local authorities, or is that still a stop-gap measure? Are we still waiting for a final permanent conclusion to this?
Returning to the wider scope of my Committee’s inquiry, early intervention used to tackle and ideally prevent childhood adversity can transform lives and reduce costs to Government. That is the great double prize to be won. There continues to be a pressing need for a fundamental shift in the Government’s approach to early intervention, targeting childhood adversity and trauma. The Government should match the ambition of the Scottish and Welsh Governments, and build on the example set by certain English councils, to make early intervention and childhood adversity a priority, and set out a clear, new national strategy to empower and encourage local authorities to deliver effective, sustainable, evidence-based early intervention. The new inter-ministerial group spans multiple Government Departments and has obvious authority. I call on that group to review our report, and to seize the opportunity offered by effective, evidence-based early intervention by making it a focus of its recommendations later this year.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and to speak as a member of the Science and Technology Committee. I pay tribute to our Chairman, the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), for providing the leadership and allowing us to undertake this work on the Select Committee, and to draw conclusions from a wide-ranging gathering of evidence.
I am sure this is not a party political issue. Everyone will agree that it is right to intervene when there are adverse childhood experiences. The evidence, as we have heard today and as we stated in our Select Committee report, is very strong on that point. We know that many of the problems that lead to adverse childhood experiences, whether increasing domestic violence, drug or alcohol misuse, mental health problems or financial stress and money worries, are part of the cycle of harm that can lead to a multi-generational impact of these heartbreaking situations.
In my view—as a member of the Labour party, this is inherent to my political decisions—that is linked to poverty and inequality. That is why, whether on adverse childhood experiences, Sure Start and children’s centres, or any form of investment in the early years, I keep finding myself back in this place talking about those issues, because they are the nub of the cause for many young people, who, through no fault of their own, suffer in their life as a consequence of the poverty in our country.
I congratulate the Chair of the Select Committee on making it clear that evidence, the use of data and investment in prevention are the way to go. I am sure the Science Minister will agree with that, given that he is the Science Minister, but I rather hope that he might share that conclusion with colleagues in his new cross-departmental group.
This is not only an issue of concern to me at a national level; I have a strong constituency interest in the matter, too. Bristol City Council, for example, is leading in innovation in this area of work. On 17 January 2019, my colleagues in City Hall held a conference on adverse childhood experiences in Bristol and how the council’s new vision statement could bring partners together to help tackle the causes. The event was held by the council in partnership with Avon and Somerset police and our clinical commissioning group.
Norman Lamb
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his work on this subject on the Committee. He mentioned the police; I do not know whether he is aware of it, but there is some really good, innovative work going on, linking police to schools. When the police identify a situation of domestic violence overnight, they will alert the school first thing, so that a child arriving at school who has perhaps experienced the most horrific trauma overnight is given proper support and protection the following day, rather than perhaps being told off for being a naughty child, which can easily happen in ignorance of what has happened to them.
Darren Jones
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Partnership working is a phrase that we often hear in local government, and sometimes it is a bit amorphous, but that is a classic example of why it is so important. I have had cases where constituents have told me stories of when they would go to school, albeit a long time ago now, and end up being treated as if they were ill and having to sleep in the nurse’s room at the school as opposed to taking part in classes, because of the experiences they were dealing with at home. As a consequence they missed out on their education, when instead the support should have been put in place at that time to help them in the best possible way.
The involvement of Avon and Somerset police is important because we know, and the evidence shows, that for children who suffer adverse childhood experiences, especially those who suffer multiple ACEs, the outcomes associated with that cycle of harm include mental health problems and drug or alcohol misuse—criminal activity is therefore connected with that. The police have a role not only in tackling criminal activity but, as I said at the outset of my speech, in helping to deal with the causes.
Martin Whitfield
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not a question of simply identifying children who have suffered or are vulnerable to suffering such experiences, but that the real importance and the real financial saving is in the interventions that follow; and that the good practice that has been shown in many areas, if it were shared across the country, would prevent this from becoming a tick-box exercise by professionals that does not address the problem?
Darren Jones
I agree with my hon. Friend; that was why the conference we held in Bristol was so popular—so popular, in fact, with over 400 delegates wanting to come, that they had to run the conference twice, because they could not fit everyone into the setting to do it together. More than 50 partner organisations across education, policing, probation, the voluntary sector, health, social care, public health and the Mayor’s office have signed up to our vision in Bristol.
This is also a question of political leadership, because Bristol knows that multiple ACEs lead to other factors that make for a negative environment in the communities in which we live. We know they will have an impact on problems such as knife crime and gang activity, and that they cause problems with mental health for people and therefore a lack of positive environment in the community, but also problems for economic productivity. That is why, in our “One City Plan” in Bristol, we have a clear and specific target of ensuring that children,
“grow up free of adverse childhood experiences having had the best start in life and support through their life.”
That particular strategic target for the council is linked to other targets, such as reducing knife crime and gang activity, dealing with period poverty and ensuring affordable childcare.
However, the access point is really important—returning to the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield). We cannot just rely on police or a school; we need a way to ensure that intervention, support or just someone being there when you need them are available. I reiterate the comments that the Chair of the Select Committee made about the lack of delivery on the health visitor programme where, as has been said, many people have no intervention or access point for much of their early years.
That is why, in Bristol, we have been able to protect all our children’s centres. The financing has clearly been cut because of austerity funding from central Government, and the services that can be made available have gone down to the bare minimum, but we have kept them all open for that reason. I pay tribute, as I have on previous occasions, to my friends the Mayor of Bristol, Marvin Rees, and the cabinet member for children and young people’s services, Councillor Helen Godwin, for ensuring that sustainability in Bristol.
In a previous debate in this place on the funding of maintained nursery schools, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) made a powerful point about a constituent of hers who said that she was in a domestic violence situation and the only way that she could get access to support was by taking her child to the children’s centre, because it was not seen to be going to the police or going to get intervention for the abuse she was suffering from her partner. She was taking the kids to nursery, but because the services were co-located in that environment, she was able to get support.
Dr Drew
It is good to hear that children’s centres still exist in some parts of the country. In my constituency we only have two left. Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem is that it is locking the NHS in? That may be only a Gloucestershire problem, or it may happen further afield as well. We seem to have failed with the idea that it should be education, police and children’s services in general; it always seems that the NHS is the weak link. Is that true in his part of the world, or is it just a Gloucestershire phenomenon?
Darren Jones
All I know in my part of the world is that the health service and our schools are having to pick up more and more of the work that others used to do in the past. Certainly, if I talk to headteachers in some of the more challenging parts of my constituency, they tell me that they are having to invest more and more in family support staff, who work with families and young pupils in a way that schools were never placed to do in the past. We all know that school budgets are extremely tight, so that particular school is using some of its pupil premium funding to help children in those scenarios. I am pretty sure that the original intention of pupil premium funding was not to offset cuts to children’s centres or local councils; it was to give an extra hand to pupils from poorer backgrounds to get on and do well in life. In fact, it is just covering cuts made from the centre, and is therefore ultimately not having a positive impact on the bottom line, either for individuals or for the country.
However, this is not only about council leadership, because we also often rely on the charitable sector for the delivery of services. In my constituency is the Southmead Project, led by a chap called Dr Mike Pierce, who received an MBE for his work in this space. Mike was born and bred in Southmead and was himself the victim of adverse childhood experiences, and he speaks powerfully on the issue. I have done so before, but I again pay tribute to him. His leadership over the 24 years that the project has supported young people in that area has been quite remarkable.
However, Mike is not optimistic about the future. He relies on generous charitable fundraising, philanthropic donations and sponsorship from local businesses in order to keep his project afloat, in the face of cuts not only to the council but to organisations such as clinical commissioning groups and the police, which previously supported his charitable organisation. At the same time, demand is increasing. The project has a waiting list of young people in households where domestic violence or drug or alcohol misuse—or worse—are present, and it cannot get around to giving those young people the support that they need because it does not have the capacity to do so.
As a consequence—this is often the case when there are cuts to public services—residents end up coming to see their MP because there is nowhere else to go. It really is heartbreaking when constituents are in front of me in tears, with no access to support. Quite frankly, there is very little I can do, as the Member of Parliament, other than raising issues such as this in the House. We must understand that the decisions we make on public policy, funding and national strategies flow through directly to the lives of these young people, whose potential is being lost.
Norman Lamb
We should add child sexual abuse to the hon. Gentleman’s examples of adversity. The Government commissioned an inquiry into child sexual abuse, which is under way. Its prevalence across the country is deeply disturbing, yet we do not really have any confidence that children who suffer from it get the support that they need in order to live a good life. In adulthood, they are often diagnosed with personality disorders or psychosis—horrors that completely change their lives. Supporting them at an early stage might make all the difference.
Darren Jones
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which is timely because the founding purpose of the Southmead Project was to support victims of child sexual exploitation. Its “Wall of Silence” exhibition portrays the impact that ACEs had on many people when they were young, and now. That impact lasts for the whole lifetime, but evidence shows that effective, immediate intervention at the right time—when victims are suffering from sexual exploitation or are in other distressing environments—has an enormous positive impact on life chances. The research is very clear on that.
Whether it is on the basis of stories that we have heard in our constituency surgeries, evidence received by our Select Committee or the statistics that we are offered at local authority level, we all agree that neither young people nor their families should be victims of these distressing and heartbreaking environments. Families who end up in these situations often do so not through their own fault, but as a result of living in poverty. We ought to do much more, not only by providing support to people who need it, but by investing—using evidence and data—in prevention. That is not only the right thing to do; it is right for those individuals and for our country.
I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the response that our Select Committee received from the Government. I look forward to the Minister’s confirming that we will be able to work with this new cross-departmental group, hopefully to elicit a more positive response.
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I wholeheartedly welcome the excellent report by the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and his colleagues. I thank them for their attention to detail and their superb recommendations. I recently chaired a Health and Social Care Committee inquiry into “First 1000 days of life”—it is listed on the Order Paper as a connected report—and I will talk about some of our findings. I also chair the all-party parliamentary group for the prevention of adverse childhood experiences. The debate has real relevance to both.
In my 27 years’ experience of studying and then working in health services, as I still do, I have realised that if our society wants the most effective interventions that improve health and reduce inequalities, we have to act in the early years—particularly in the period from conception to the age of two, but generally the earlier, the better—because the real seeds of health inequalities are sown during that time. Good physical, emotional, social and language development during that time is crucial to building healthy brains and healthy children, which leads to our having a healthier and better society.
The Health and Social Care Committee’s “First 1000 days of life” report, which I recommend to colleagues—they may not get the chance to read it, so I will highlight a few recommendations later—sets the Government the ambitious challenge of kick-starting the second revolution in early years services, as recommended in the 2010 Marmot report, so that our country can become the best place in the world for a child to be born into. Almost all the research into this subject demonstrates that our path in life is set during the crucial early years. Healthy social and emotional development during that time lays the foundations for good physical and mental health.
However, our current political system invests a fortune in reacting to problems later on in life but is currently disinvesting in early years, leaving a gaping void where we should be warriors and champions for a healthier society. During the first 1,000 days of life, from when a baby is conceived until the age of two, more than 1 million new brain connections are made every single second. Imagine that: a million new brain connections made every single second.
Brains are shaped by their interactions with society, but tragically, more than 8,000 babies under the age of one in this country live in households where the trilogy of domestic violence, alcohol or drug dependency and severe mental illness are all present. More than 8,000 developing brains under the age of one—a crucial age—are exposed to that environment. More than 200,000 children under the age of one live with an adult who has experienced domestic violence or abuse. We have already heard powerful arguments for intervening to reduce that cycle of abuse. Two million children under the age of five live with an adult with a mental health problem.
We know that many children who experience such adversity become happy and healthy adults, but adversity in childhood is strongly linked to almost all health problems and many social problems. Children exposed to adverse childhood experiences such as those that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) talked about are much more likely to get physical health problems, such as heart disease. Exposure to ACEs as a child increases the chances of getting heart disease, cancer and mental health problems in adulthood.
Dr Williams
And obesity.
Children exposed to four or more ACEs are 30 times more likely to attempt suicide at some point in their life. They are 11 times more likely to end up in prison. They are even three times more likely to smoke in adulthood than people who did not experience any ACEs. Our politics is currently failing many of these children, and it is failing other families in which children and young people are still living in poverty.
My belief is that we need to devote more attention to and provide more protection during the early years. As we have seen today, many people from across the political divide share that belief, even though we do not seem to have a politics that ends up delivering more resources in this area. It is an area in which politicians should be working together. It was really encouraging to see the announcement last year of the early years family support ministerial group, led by the Leader of the House. That has the potential to take forward some of the Science and Technology Committee’s recommendations.
To conclude, I would like to reflect on some of the parallel and supporting recommendations made by the Health and Social Care Committee following our inquiry. We also, and independently, identified the lack of a long-term cross-departmental strategy for the early years. The lack of strategy means that it is extremely difficult for local authorities to know what they should be doing. That results in some local authorities excelling, and it may well be that they are the ones that most come to the attention of Government, but many local authorities really would appreciate more central direction on this and would welcome it if the Government set some demanding goals to reduce ACEs, improve school-readiness and reduce infant mortality and child poverty. We have to consider all this in the context of increasing levels of child poverty, too.
Our report recommended that a Cabinet-level Minister, possibly the Minister for the Cabinet Office, should have specific Cabinet-level responsibility for the oversight of a national early years strategy. However, it is not enough just to have strong central leadership, although that is necessary; the Government are right to say that all the delivery must be local. The Committee that I chaired heard evidence of fantastic local community collaboration—the NHS, local authorities, the voluntary and community sector, and normal members of local communities working together. They should be the people bringing the Government’s national strategy to life at local level, inspiring improved support for children, parents and families in their areas.
However, that requires money and it requires organisations to pool budgets. We have seen health services and local authorities pool budgets into the better care fund in order to deliver on shared objectives for older adults. I think that we should have a better start fund, whereby local authorities, health services and the voluntary and community sector are pooling all their financial but also human resources around a set of shared objectives for the start of life.
There should also be a named, nominated individual in every local authority who is accountable to Government for that, because without accountability there is a real difficulty in ensuring that every local authority is meeting the required standards. There needs to be accountability and ring-fencing of money. There will always be urgent problems that demand attention and resources. We need to be able to secure this strategic shift from reaction to prevention, from constantly dealing with the urgent problems that are in front of us to investment in tackling the important problems that will reduce the urgent problems in subsequent years.
The Health and Social Care Committee’s report also calls for the existing and very good healthy child programme to be improved and given greater impetus. We think that it should be expanded to focus on the whole family, including fathers, rather than just the child, and that it should begin before conception. At the moment it does not begin until there is a child developing in a mother’s womb, but more work could be done before conception. The science of epigenetics is teaching us that what happens before conception can have a lifelong impact. The healthy child programme also needs to deliver more continuity of care for families. Having a different point of contact every time often leaves vulnerable families feeling isolated and confused. Health visitor engagement should be extended beyond the age of two and a half to ensure that all children are school-ready.
Our Committee heard from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom that had enhanced the healthy child programme. However, as the right hon. Member for North Norfolk has identified, there are many parts of the country where the healthy child programme is inadequate. At the moment there are five mandated contacts, and we heard that for some families that contact involves just sending a letter. How can a mum who is experiencing mental health problems, with all the associated stigma and the difficulty of disclosing that, possibly disclose it in the context of filling in a form rather than of having a supportive and engaged individual who is building a relationship with her? We were also told that 65% of families do not see a health visitor after the six to eight-week check. That clearly is not good enough.
Like the Science and Technology Committee, the Health and Social Care Committee identified the need for much better information sharing. Information needs to be shared among the different organisations. One problem is that there are often many different organisations helping to support a family and they are not talking to one another and do not use the same computer systems. Information governance rules can be an issue. Even though we know that the seventh Caldicott principle—sharing information when that is in someone’s best interests—is often the most important one, individuals working in those organisations often think that they are doing the right thing by not sharing information.
We also need to share information to make it possible for the long-term impact of interventions, perhaps in pregnancy or in early childhood, to be tracked to measure their effectiveness. At the moment, because we do not use a single identifier such as the NHS number, we cannot see whether a pregnancy intervention is having a desired outcome.
Norman Lamb
On the point about information sharing, it always strikes me that the tragedies that happen, such as that of Baby P, often happen because of a failure to share information and never because too much information has been shared. It is vital to change the culture, so that people understand the principle of the Caldicott rules about the importance of sharing information.
Dr Williams
I agree wholeheartedly. The right hon. Gentleman is right to use the word “culture”, because even though the guidance and rules are clear, and there are many circumstances in which it is in a person’s best interests for information to be shared, and actually the public expect us to be sharing information, the culture in health and care services is often one in which very well-intentioned and well-meaning professionals feel that they are acting in a patient’s interests by not sharing information. Perhaps the leaders of organisations are not permissive enough and encouraging enough about such sharing.
Last but certainly not least, the workforce are crucial to this. There must be a workforce strategy to tackle the reduction in the number of health visitors. I do not think that was a deliberate strategy, with the Government saying, “Let’s cut the number of health visitors by 2,000.” I think it has happened by accident. I think it has happened because the commissioning of the healthy child programme for the 0-to-19 age group was taken away from the NHS and given to local authorities, and that happened to coincide with a time when we had a Government who perhaps had less central control of that, and austerity. Of course, austerity was deliberate, but I do not think that anyone ever sat down and said, “It would be better for our country to have fewer health visitors.” Nevertheless, the consequence has been that there are fewer health visitors, and we need to make sure that those massive gaps are plugged.
We also need to make sure that the skills and knowledge of existing health visitors are improved. That is not to say that they do not have high levels of knowledge, but I have met many health visitors in the past year who had only recently become aware of the concept of ACEs, and who perhaps still lacked some skills around motivational interviewing and the ability to put themselves in another person’s shoes—to move towards where people are, rather than following the traditional, slightly more paternalistic approach of health services, which has been to try to persuade people to move to where we are.
If we get early years right, there will be huge benefits for everyone in our society. As politicians we should try to get them right, not just because it makes financial sense, but because every one of us knows that the evidence shows that doing so will create a better society. We should do it because we have a moral responsibility to our country’s children. Every child deserves the best start in life.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, in what has been an interesting, informative and wide-ranging debate. I am grateful to the Science and Technology Committee for its work on the report, and to the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) for opening the debate on the Committee’s behalf. He gave a thorough presentation, particularly on the importance of the data that was used. I am grateful for his reference to the work of the Scottish and Welsh Governments; I will give some Scottish examples later.
The hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) linked the issue to poverty and inequality, which are themes that I will return to. The hon. Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) talked about the parallels with the report of the Health and Social Care Committee on the first 1,000 days, and the importance of early intervention for the child in that period. They are all good lessons that we should take messages from.
As I have mentioned a few times in Parliament, I have never been a fan of acronyms, but I will frequently refer to ACEs. As acronyms go, however, ACE is quite a misnomer, considering the sad catalogue of stressful events that make up adverse childhood experiences, which range from psychological, physical and sexual abuse to a whole range of household dysfunctions.
Earlier, reference was made to the effect that a family member being in prison can have on a child. One thing we have done in Scotland—I am busking here, as the subject takes me back to my council days—is multi-agency working. In those days, the Lothian and Borders Police—but Police Scotland has continued the same theme—worked with local authorities to time their raids on houses so that they could be less stressful, and a support package was in place. That ties in with a presumption against shorter sentences, so that less time is spent in prison for relatively minor offences.
What happens to us as children can have a huge impact on us throughout our lives. We all agree that adverse childhood experiences can have a significant impact on people; indeed, a reasonable body of evidence demonstrates that correlation. We have heard that about half of adults in England have suffered at least one ACE, and while Scottish figures do not exist, they are believed to be similar. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for North Norfolk for pointing out that one in 10 have experienced four or more ACEs, which is truly frightening. I went through the chart of 10 tests, and I am pleased to say that I came up with zero, but many of my constituents did not have as fortunate an upbringing as I did, so there are real pressures out there.
I put on record that the SNP welcomes the publication of the report and will study its findings and recommendations. The Scottish Government have consistently recognised the importance of early years interventions and have prioritised that approach across our public services. NHS Health Scotland says:
“While ACEs are found across the population, there is more risk of experiencing ACEs in areas of higher deprivation. ACEs have been found to have lifelong impacts on health and behaviour and they are relevant to all sectors and involve all of us in society.”
In 2016, the Scottish Public Health Network produced a wonderful report, “‘Polishing the Diamonds’: Addressing Adverse Childhood Experiences in Scotland”, which summarised the research available at the time and set out a number of areas for action in Scotland. The report highlights the link between ACEs and deprivation. The experience of four or more ACEs is reported by 4.3% of those in the least deprived quintile and 12.7% in the most deprived quintile, which brings it home that that is three times as likely in the most deprived areas.
Having looked at the data from English and Welsh studies, the report suggests that the Scottish health and economic impacts and the potential economic savings of reducing health-harming behaviours are likely to be “very large indeed”. Preventing ACEs, rather than dealing with the consequences after the damage has been done, makes sound financial sense, as well as moral and societal sense.
As a result of that report, the Scottish Government set out their commitment to preventing and mitigating ACEs in their 2017-18 programme for Scotland, which highlights:
“We now know through research and experience that preventing adverse childhood experiences where we can and tackling their impact where they do happen, can change a child’s life and, importantly, their life chances.”
The programme committed to
“embed a focus on preventing ACEs and supporting the resilience of children and adults in overcoming early life adversity across all areas of public service, including education, health, justice and social work.”
Sadly, while all children are equal in society, not all have the same opportunities. Tackling child poverty is therefore one of the most effective early interventions, and ensures that every child has the opportunity to prosper. Child poverty across the UK was dropping, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies has recently shown that it is increasing again. England is now at 30%, Wales is at 28% and Scotland, which has the lowest figure, is at 24%. As I say, all were falling, but all are now rising again. Scotland may have the lowest figure of the UK nations because the Scottish Government mitigate austerity and welfare cuts, such as the bedroom tax, and have a Scottish welfare fund of £100 million. The UN special rapporteur, Philip Alston, was a critic of the benefits freeze. As we know, 70% of children who are in poverty have a working parent, so it is not about worklessness. There are some real issues that we need to get to grips with.
The Scottish Government’s “Every Child, Every Chance” plan commits to concrete action from across Government portfolios to tackle the key drivers of poverty, including by providing intensive employment support for parents; using new social security powers in an enhanced best start grant, a carer’s allowance supplement and the development of a new income supplement; and tackling food insecurity during school holidays.
I have no doubt about the ability of early intervention to transform lives while reducing costs to the public purse. It is a truly virtuous circle. Childhood experiences shape who we are and how we respond to events in our lives, especially if those experiences have, unfortunately, been adverse. There is much that we can learn from examples from around the UK of good practice in tackling ACEs, and I am grateful to the Committee for highlighting that and for its considered recommendations. I finish with a lesson from Scotland, however: although it would be good to have more detailed information and data, we should not let that delay action.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I, too, thank the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) for securing the debate. I am grateful to have the opportunity to debate early intervention. We have heard some fantastic contributions.
I particularly note the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) with the Health and Social Care Committee. As a GP on the frontline, he understands the impact that early intervention can have on the outcomes for the most vulnerable. I was blown away by the startling statistic of 1 million brain connections being made every second.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) made a good contribution about partnership working, which is certainly something we need to look at from all angles. My only concern is that, in my constituency, there is the ambition for partnership working but it does not always happen. For example, if a child has seen domestic violence the night before, the school is not told. We need to ensure that there is great partnership working across the board. I will certainly steal his idea for the event, so I thank him for sharing the information about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew), who is no longer in his place, talked about mental health. We need to get on with the Green Paper and see where we are. My hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) said that this was about the data, which is the point of the report. Once we have the data, we can respond.
I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for his contribution. He spoke about child poverty and said that we needed to ensure that combating it is at the forefront of everything we do, because how can we improve a child’s life chances if they go back to terrible housing, unemployment, debt concerns and so on? We absolutely need to tackle child poverty, and there are some excellent pilots and ideas coming out of Scotland and Wales that England and the Government should look at very carefully.
Having heard the contributions, I think it is fair to say that early intervention is a diverse matter and a cross-party concern; it is of great importance to politicians and families. I put on the record our appreciation of the Science and Technology Committee for its work in producing this report. It is thorough and informative, and makes a number of interesting points. In particular, the idea of using data more efficiently—a theme that runs through the report—is certainly food for thought for me, for local authorities and hopefully for the Government, because without the data, nothing will change. That certainly proved true when we were looking at the gender pay gap; only with data, so that we know where we are falling behind, can things change.
Adverse childhood experiences are often linked to an increased risk of health and social problems as adults. Early intervention seeks to resolve problems as early as possible, to stop them happening before they become too difficult to resolve. Although I was very happy to see money going to the police and fighting knife crime, as it should, so many of the problems of the young people affected by knife crime could have been addressed much earlier—when they were under five, even. If we get things right under five, so much else will fall into place for those families and those children.
While it is generally accepted that high-quality early intervention improves a child’s outcomes, programmes are entirely the responsibility of local authorities, and effective national data does not exist. The overall thrust of the Committee’s report about gathering local evidence to support nationwide strategies is welcome, but we must also be sensitive to local authorities’ unique knowledge of their communities and build on that knowledge to create a national strategy.
I will speak to some of the Committee’s proposals that really stood out for me, and will note the response received from the Government. The numbered paragraphs quoted will be from “Evidence-based early years intervention: Government’s Response to the Committee’s Eleventh Report of Session 2017–19”.
In the strongest possible terms, I would like to associate myself with the Committee Chair’s remarks about Sure Start in the report, which are cited in paragraph 10 of the response. The lack of clarity from the Government on Sure Start is nothing short of an outrage. We have been holding on for a consultation, or even an announcement that the consultation has been cancelled, for far too long. Instead of the Government providing that answer at any stage—there have been plenty of opportunities for them to do so through written questions, oral questions, Select Committee questioning and even in their response to this report—they have still not given us a clear, definitive answer.
Today we are joined by the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, who is probably the only Minister in the Department for Education whom I have not asked about this issue. Perhaps he could let us know if it is still the policy of the Department to hold an investigation. Was one ever started and, if so, when was work last done on it?
The loss of so many children’s centres and Sure Start centres is truly devastating for so many communities, and the way that this issue has been bundled and passed around the Department for Education is indicative of its overall attitude towards children’s centres. When I challenged the Minister for School Standards, whom I shadow, he emphasised that this issue should not just be all about buildings. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West made the point that sometimes the building is the point, because people can go in to find a multitude of services on offer to them. Women in crisis, for example, can go to a centre on the pretext of getting their baby weighed, but use the opportunity to talk about domestic violence. Buildings are important.
As for early intervention, these centres had open doors and they were at the heart of their communities, and staffed by professionals. Their ability to ensure that families were aware of childhood experiences and to signpost services, where necessary, was so important. I was very lucky to spend a whole day at a number of the Sure Start centres in the constituency of the right hon. Member for North Norfolk, and I heard for myself about the impact that those centres have had on the outcomes of the children attending them.
I have said before how moved I was by hearing from the people who used the Sure Start centres. There was one woman in particular who was illiterate, but was taught to read by workers at a centre, so that she could read to her children. We know that literacy has a massive impact on the outcomes of young children; it improves their confidence, their articulacy and so on. I weep for the many closures in North Norfolk, and I hope that, under a Labour Government, perhaps that situation will be reversed. These centres do incredible work.
Regarding Ofsted inspections, I would be interested to know why the responsibility for maintaining and ensuring the quality of children’s centres is an issue for local authorities. Why is that appropriate for children’s centres, but not, say, nurseries or colleges? What distinguishes children’s centres from everything else that comes under Ofsted’s remit is not completely clear.
Paragraph 13 suggests:
“The Government should work with researchers and practitioners to examine how new specifications on the free childcare it funds could increase the use of evidence-based programmes”.
That is an interesting point and it deserves further investigation. Funding for childcare hours has been generally very simple; eligible parents apply, and the providers receive the money from local authorities. However, there has been very little obligation on the provider, having provided the hour of childcare, to disclose anything about the families or the children going there. This is an interesting point: is there an obligation on nurseries to collect data on their children and their outcomes?
I caution that the budgets for delivering free hours are already very tight, and having worked with practitioners for some years, I know that training opportunities are reducing, so staff capacity to capture data is potentially limited, so further thought would have to be given as to where the funding would come from to upskill the staff in these centres. Also, at what stage would that training be carried out? I would suggest that it is quite complex and sensitive training. Is it level 3, degree level or somewhere in between?
We need to be honest with ourselves: successful early intervention happens when local authorities are strategic and resource programmes properly. However, we cannot hide from the fact that the climate has been made far more challenging in recent years by savage local authority budget cuts. Early intervention programmes have been cut so severely that often children are referred multiple times before help is offered. Parents who reach out for help go round in circles, desperately asking for support, only to be disappointed.
This firefighting approach is costly; dealing with a crisis is obviously far more expensive than taking preventive measures. Addressing the issue when it first appears would save the Government money in the long term. However, local authorities are under increasing pressure to slash budgets after a decade of austerity.
The National Children’s Bureau has reported that more than one in three councillors are warning that cuts have left them with insufficient resources to support children, and it was recently revealed that 41% of children’s services are now unable to fulfil their statutory duties. These cuts have consequences. Early intervention grants—the very grants that keep children from entering care—have been slashed by up to £500 million, with almost £200 million of cuts still to come. Early intervention budgets are down by £743 million in the last five years. Over 1,200 Sure Start centres have been closed, and other children’s centres have had their offers reduced and hollowed out. The budgets for children’s centres across England have decreased by 42% in the last five years.
In my constituency of Batley and Spen, headteachers have told me how cuts to their school budgets—a part of cuts of 8% across the country—have meant that the staff who would normally do early intervention and spot children’s needs have had to go in staff cuts. The most highly paid member of staff in the building, which is often the headteacher, is the one who has to do the early intervention—who sits with the child who has anorexia to make sure they eat their lunch; who takes the disabled child swimming; or who even helps to get a child out of bed and ready for school. That cannot be right and is obviously not sustainable. We need to reverse these cuts to our school budgets, to support teachers in doing their job.
That is the reality of the situation that local authorities and schools face. For all their talk about local leadership, the Government need to accept that no matter how good that leadership is, funding cuts are tying one arm behind their back. As the right hon. Member for North Norfolk said in his opening remarks, this issue is about political will, and the incentive and commitment to turn around the lives of the most vulnerable.
In conclusion, this report is broad and far-reaching, cutting across many Departments and ministerial responsibilities. I commend the Science and Technology Committee for its tenacity in pursuing this issue, and I am sure that we will all use its report as a basis for our parliamentary questions and interventions. The data in the report is excellent, and I congratulate the Committee on it. It has certainly had an impact on me, and I hope it will have an impact on the Government as well.
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Chris Skidmore)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on securing this important debate on behalf of the Science and Technology Committee. I know this is an area that he cares passionately about, and I pay personal tribute to the work he did in a previous Parliament as Minister of State for Community and Social Care between 2012 and 2015.
I also thank other hon. Members who have participated in today’s debate. Their contributions have shown not only clarity of thought about these issues, but real passion about what is taking place in their local areas. It is a tribute to those Members’ local commitment that they have worked with their communities to address these issues. We have heard from the hon. Members for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), for Stockton South (Dr Williams), for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) and for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin), and there have also been important interventions from the hon. Members for Stroud (Dr Drew) and for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield). I am grateful for the opportunity to set out the Government’s approach to addressing early childhood adversity and trauma, and the actions we are taking to improve children’s life chances through early intervention.
The Government are strongly committed to effective early intervention in childhood. That means not only effective prevention, identification and support for children and families in need, but building a strong evidence base to underpin those things. The hon. Member for Bristol North West asked whether I, as Science Minister, would commit to ensuring that we take forward an evidence-led approach. I passionately believe that the investment we make in research must not only go into healthcare research, but into the social sciences.
Norman Lamb
I appreciate the point that the Minister is making, but does he recognise that without collection and national analysis of data, we have no idea how public money is being spent across the country and whether it is being spent effectively?
Chris Skidmore
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s point, and I agree with what he has said about data collection; I will return to that topic later on. I am also a new Minister in the Department for Education, covering the universities sector. I recently set up a higher education data advisory committee, because I value the importance of such evaluation at both local and national level— for example, when we look at university access and participation. We have also set up the Evidence and Impact Exchange in partnership with King’s College London and Nottingham Trent University, to examine the methodology behind encouraging more disadvantaged pupils to have access to, and opportunities at, university. That is at one end of the scale, but today we are talking about what we need to do at a far earlier stage of a child’s education.
When it comes to scientific research, and early years research in particular, we must ensure that we listen to the scientific community when it comes to neuroscience and cognitive behaviour; that we are careful about how we use that scientific research to make public arguments and develop public policy; and that we work with those scientists. I am sure that they will develop new innovations and scientific research, which may even challenge our understanding of these policies. It is important that we work together as a community, understanding that evidence base and drawing on the good work already conducted at national and local level.
I welcome the recent establishment of the early years ministerial group on family support, which is reviewing how to improve the support available to families in the first two years of a child’s life, identifying opportunities for co-ordination and improving cost-effectiveness. I look forward to the valuable contribution of that group, which will provide specific recommendations to the Secretary of State. I am unable to provide a timetable for that, as the hon. Member for Batley and Spen asked me to, but I will ensure that the group is aware of today’s debate. I am sure that its members will all wish to engage with the Science and Technology Committee regarding specific issues raised in its report, and on any future work that the Committee does. The Government value the work of that Committee and recognise its place in public discourse. As we proceed, we will make sure that we engage with some of the recommendations that the Committee has made.
[Mike Gapes in the Chair]
Turning to the role of Government in early intervention, the model for adverse childhood experiences gives us a helpful focus for action on early intervention. We must also ensure that there is an overarching model for care and support. Fundamental to that is the belief that local areas are best placed to understand the needs of their local communities, and to commission early intervention services that best meet those local needs as part of a whole systems model. We have heard about some excellent examples of local innovation, such as the one given by the hon. Member for Bristol North West, who talked about the work of Bristol City Council. The fact that the council had to hold its conferences twice clearly demonstrates the demand for those services. We also heard about the work in Greater Manchester. It is important that we allow that innovation and creativity to flourish as part of future work, but, importantly, we should not expect local areas to do that work alone. The matter is a serious and complex one, and our approach, which reaches across all Departments and Governments, reflects that.
Our approach is based on a number of principles, which are as follows. First, early rather than late intervention is key; secondly, the role of central Government is to support, facilitate and work with local government and other partners to tackle these issues together; thirdly, our solutions should be focused on outcomes and underpinned by evidence; and fourthly, successful strategies should be identified and shared widely within the sector. With that in mind, we have prioritised three key areas for central Government focus to build resilience to adversity and trauma. Those are: physical and mental health in pregnancy and childhood; protecting vulnerable children through effective children’s social care; and improving social mobility, supported in the early years by high-quality early education settings and learning in the home. That is underpinned at all levels by our work to improve services and partnerships locally, and to build the evidence base for what works.
I will address each of those areas in turn. First, when it comes to supporting physical and mental health in pregnancy and childhood, the Government recognise the serious impact that adversity in early childhood can have on children as they grow up; the hon. Member for Stockton South set out some striking examples. Support must begin as early as possible, and maternity services have a central role to play. The NHS long-term plan will make the NHS one of the best places in the world to give birth by offering mothers and babies better support. It will also expand the provision of quality mental health support for new and expectant mothers and their families. The evidence shows that this is a key opportunity to improve outcomes for mothers and children.
Dr Williams
I thank the Minister for highlighting the importance of maternal mental health, in particular. However, the National Childbirth Trust has identified that half of all women who experience mental health problems during the perinatal period say that they were never asked about their mental health, and that their mental health problems remain undiagnosed. Given what the data and evidence show, will the Minister commit to looking at that issue and making representations to the Department for Health and Social Care? Although the Department has acknowledged the problem, it has failed to adequately adhere to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance, which states that all new mums should have routine assessments in their general practices at six to eight weeks, to better identify perinatal mental health problems.
Chris Skidmore
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, which I am happy to raise with the relevant Minister. I am meeting the Minister with responsibility for mental health shortly to discuss mental health issues surrounding students, and I will make sure the issues are placed on the agenda for my discussion with her.
Tracy Brabin
Although we welcome the recent announcement of 5,000 additional health visitors, can the Minister say whether there will be an opportunity to collect data on how many visits a child has? To increase the number of visits from the statutory five, we need the data to enable us to know whether the extra health visitors are having the impact that I know the Government want.
Chris Skidmore
I will come to the question of health visitors later in my speech, but I will be more than happy to pass on the hon. Lady’s point about the collection of data and look at what evaluations might be possible. I will certainly make sure that hon. Members’ contributions are reflected in my discussions with the Department.
Local authorities are receiving £16 billion between 2015 and 2021 to spend on public health functions, which includes funding to support the healthy child programme and the mandated five health visits, which the hon. Lady mentioned, for children between the ages of nought and five. We are seizing the opportunities presented by such moments with families. A key piece of partnership working between the Department and Public Health England will see the Institute of Health Visiting train up to 1,000 health visitors in 2019 to identify and support children with speech, language and community needs early. The health visitors will then cascade the training to provide even greater reach. It is important to make sure that an evaluation takes place to make sure it is as effective as possible.
On the recruitment of additional health visitors and the quantity of visits, health visiting services are commissioned by local health authorities, and health visitors are employed by the local health service providers. However, the Government will continue to work with partners, child development experts and professional organisations representing health visitors to ensure that the healthy child programme remains an effective and evidence-based framework providing good health, wellbeing and resilience for every child.
On the wider issues around early intervention and making sure it is adversity-targeted among the early years workforce more broadly, it is crucial that early years practitioners are well trained to protect young children from the impacts of adversity and trauma. As part of the early years foundation stage statutory framework, service providers are obliged to ensure that all staff have up-to-date knowledge of safeguarding issues and are equipped to identify and address signs of abuse and trauma. We want to equip the early years workforce to deliver outstanding services, to adopt evidence-based approaches, to learn from best practice and to deliver quality outcomes. The Government are supporting that with a professional development fund and similar programmes, such as the newly established Social Work England, which will ensure that social workers receive the highest quality initial education access and continuing professional development.
Norman Lamb
It is helpful to hear what is happening now. Does the Minister see value in defining a national strategy—the approach taken in Scotland and Wales—to try to drive the good things that he says he wants and make sure they happen everywhere, or does he resist the idea? It is important for us to understand whether there is an opportunity to work together with the Department to try to achieve something that is greater than the sum of its parts. Is he up for that and could he persuade his colleagues, or does he positively resist what we are arguing for?
Chris Skidmore
The right hon. Gentleman has stolen the latter part of my speech. When it comes to the broader point, I recognise that the Committee’s work, for which the Government are extremely grateful, reflects on the development of a national strategy. Currently, the Government do not consider the formal publication of a national strategy to be necessary. However, the Government will seek to review the approach through the spending review and the upcoming prevention Green Paper, which will build on the November 2018 Department of Health and Social Care report “Prevention is better than cure”, and its priorities. Also, we will look forward to the value that the early years family support ministerial group will add to the Government’s approach. Although I cannot commit in today’s debate to taking forward a national strategy, the Government are certainly working on a future Green Paper and the approach might change.
It is important to reflect on a balanced collection of the evidence that demonstrates what works, which will then inform any future approaches as part of the future prevention Green Paper. I realise that my response does not entirely answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question, but I want to reflect on the fact that the present does not necessarily rule out a change of direction in future.
Various Members mentioned children’s centres. The Government believe that children’s centres have an important role to play in early intervention, but it is right that local councils continue to decide how to use them as part of the wider system of local services. As part of our local government programme, local authorities are looking into how early years services can be improved. The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of Ofsted inspections. When inspections of children’s centres were suspended, there was at the time an agreement that they were not fit for purpose. However, children’s social care services and all registered early years prevention, including that delivered in children’s centres, remain subject to robust and regular Ofsted inspections.
When it comes to the consultation that has been mentioned and the delay in moving forward, the Department still needs to understand how local authorities effectively use centres to improve outcomes as part of their broader strategy before we go further. That is why we will be investing in What Works, which I will talk about later in my speech, working with the Education Endowment Foundation and delivering the £8.5 million local government programme. The programmes will inform the next steps in our strategy, including any future consultation. We need to look at the evidence from the programmes before deciding whether a consultation is indeed the correct way ahead.
Tracy Brabin
The Minister probably will not be able to answer this, but is there a timeframe for the consultation on What Works? Is it a two-year strategy? How long will local authorities have to wait to get something out of the Government for their children’s centres?
Chris Skidmore
I will talk later in my speech about issues around evaluation, What Works and the Education Endowment Foundation. As for the timeframe that the hon. Lady asked about, if I am unable to provide an answer in this debate, I will ensure that the Department writes to her and the Committee about it.
On the free hours provision that the hon. Lady mentioned, the proportion of disadvantaged two-year-olds taking up a Government-funded place continues to increase and has risen to about 72%—higher than ever before—so the entitlement is still successfully reaching the families who need it most. The 30 hours provision continues to help a wide range of families, and a lone parent has to earn only around £6,500 a year to access the 30 hours of free childcare. Parents are also eligible if they are self-employed or on a zero-hours contract. We will continue to provide local authorities with lists of potentially eligible parents in order to support them and directly target hard-to-reach families. It is important to reflect on that when we look at the evidence. There is an opportunity for positive data sharing and using data to inform local authorities.
Tracy Brabin
The Minister is being incredibly generous with his time, and I am grateful. I know that this is not necessarily his brief, but I want to flag up that I hear from maintained nurseries that eligibility for access to the 30 hours for two working parents is resulting in a widening of the disadvantage gap between children who access 15 hours as statutory and children whose parents work. Although it is a positive step to provide childcare for working parents, the disadvantage gap cannot be allowed to continue.
Chris Skidmore
The Government’s independent evaluations of early delivery showed that with 30 hours of free childcare about 78% of parents report greater flexibility in their working life, and a quarter of mothers can now work more hours. That is one aspect of the evaluation, but it is important that we continue to monitor all areas of the policy’s impact. We will continue to monitor the impact of the offer closely. I will ensure that the Department reflects on the comments that the hon. Lady has made about the 30 free hours issue.
On the question of protecting vulnerable children through effective children’s social care, we know that many children in need have experienced adversity and trauma, which is why we are strengthening children’s social care to ensure that it is effective and that it protects vulnerable children. The Department for Education children’s social care innovation programme has invested almost £200 million in 98 projects to develop, test and scale new approaches to supporting children in the social care system. We have also committed £45 million to the partners in practice programme, where we are working with 20 of the best local authorities to deepen our collective understanding of what excellent children’s social care services look like, while providing practical support to the sector. We are spending around £3.5 billion in total on our early education entitlements this year alone—more than in any previous year under any Government. We are supporting parents to improve the quality and quantity of adult-child interactions, as positive adult-child relationships are key protective factors against adversity and trauma. Following our successful home learning environment summit in November, we continue to work with businesses and other partners and are developing a campaign to launch later this year.
Looking beyond parents, we know that a skilled early years workforce is also key. Alongside our training for health visitors, we are investing £20 million in our early years professional development fund, which will offer training to practitioners in disadvantaged areas, particularly for the support of early language, literacy and numeracy outcomes. As I have already outlined, local areas have a key role to play in commissioning and delivering effective early intervention services to meet complex and specific needs locally. The Government want to support them in that task, as they should. I will give three examples, the first of which is the troubled families programme, where a multi-agency, whole family approach is advocated, in work with local areas to transform the way services are delivered. We committed £920 million to the troubled families programme between 2015 and 2020; we achieved significant, sustained progress with 130,000 families; and we aim to achieve a similar improvement for 400,000 families by 2020. Forty-nine per cent. of families on that programme have at least one child under the age of five.
The second example is the reducing parental conflict programme, which works with councils across England to integrate approaches and services to address parental conflict. It is supported by £6 million that we are investing to improve the outcomes of children of alcohol-dependent parents, because we know that alcohol misuse has a severe impact on parental conflict and childhood adversity.
The third example is the Department’s early years local government programme, which I mentioned earlier, which will focus on how local services work together across health, education and early help, to improve outcomes at age five. As part of that work, multidisciplinary peer reviews will support councils to identify reforms to services and to our early outcomes fund, which will provide £6.5 million of grants to local authority partnerships to improve the delivery of services. That programme will also look at what works, including effective models of service provision, and spread that learning across the sector.
As I have said, the Government remain strongly committed to the What Works initiative, embodied in three What Works centres—the Early Intervention Foundation, some of whose data analysis the right hon. Member for North Norfolk has mentioned, the Education Endowment Foundation and the centre for children’s social care. To improve the way organisations create, share and use high quality evidence for decision making and implementation, those centres are already producing a diverse range of important materials and support for local commissioners. Part of Government’s funding for the Early Intervention Foundation is being used to establish an early years transformation academy, which will provide a framework for sharing learning, including events and online material for leaders, commissioners and other stakeholders. More intensive academy work will begin in June 2019 and provide further opportunities to pool learning.
The Government will also, as we refresh individual Departments’ areas of research interest, consider including further research into early intervention methods for addressing childhood adversity. Some of the Departments’ published research aims for 2018 and 2019 already seek to tackle issues raised in today’s debate. For example, the Department for Work and Pensions will continue to investigate how best to support families in distress to reduce parental breakdown and separation. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is taking forward work to support effective local government, which is key to delivering effective early intervention strategies. The Department of Health and Social Care is focusing on research on mental health. I have outlined the work that is being done to support children’s mental health and wellbeing in schools, which will help to build resilience to adversity and trauma. Interventions in the health system more generally will be tested to maximise effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Finally, the Department for Education investigates the early years and seeks to foster childhood development for those with disadvantaged backgrounds, who are at higher risk of experiencing adversity and trauma in childhood.
Separately from departmental research budgets, UK Research and Innovation funds research and innovation across all disciplines and sectors, including disciplines directly relevant to this area. Funding for the Economic and Social Research Council has included co-funding a project with the Early Intervention Foundation. UKRI will continue to consider what future funding is most appropriate in that research area.
The right hon. Member for North Norfolk raised the issue of national data collection. There are currently two separate data collection and national reporting systems for universal health visitor review data. Data is collected via Public Health England’s interim process, which is a voluntary submission of aggregate data provided by local authorities that covers universal health visitor service delivery metrics and outcomes. However, that method of data collection is due to be superseded by a record-level collection through the community services dataset, for which NHS Digital has published the information standards and established the technical infrastructure.
It is also important that we reflect on the use and sharing of data at a local level. I mentioned the troubled families programme in connection with co-ordinating local approaches; the programme has also taken forward an early help service transformation model and toolkit, which provide practical advice on service transformation, explaining what it means, how it can be developed and how to measure and monitor progress locally. That will be shared with local partners. The local government programme will also allow local authorities to spend on digital advancements in data collection. As part of the peer review programme, best practice on data collection and sharing will then be disseminated nationally.
As to increasing the use of evidence-based programmes in free childcare, the Government are supporting early years settings to put in place high-quality evidence-based provision. I mentioned the £20 million professional development fund; the Government are also investing £4 million in trials focused on interventions that improve the home learning environment, delivered by the Education Endowment Foundation. Results from the trials will be available over the next two years and will be used to inform future policy for commissioning decisions.
Tracy Brabin
I am very interested in staff training. To return to a question that I asked in my speech, at what point—level 3, university, or whatever—would the relevant training be included? I would be very interested to hear the answer, because high-quality staffing is certainly at the heart of closing the disadvantage gap. It is about not just childcare, but education, so we need to ensure that all staff have all the tools at their fingertips.
Chris Skidmore
I have touched on some of the Government programmes that have been taken forward for staff training. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need to ensure that staff training takes place at every level, from those starting off in the early years workforce right through to continuous professional development for early years workforce leaders. I will have to write to her on her specific point about timing, as well as on the points she raised earlier. I hope that that is satisfactory.
As I mentioned, the Department for Education is reforming the early learning goals at the early years foundation stage. The first stage of these reforms will be followed by an external evaluation of the pilot, helping to generate learning in this area and allow reforms to be refined ahead of full roll-out.
The Government are absolutely committed to What Works and improving how the Government and other organisations create, share and use high-quality evidence for decision making alongside the What Works centres, including the Education Endowment Foundation and the What Works centre for children’s social care.
The Early Intervention Foundation has an important role to play in testing and communicating what works to improve outcomes through early intervention. The EIF has played a key role in bringing evidence and rigour to the early intervention debate. The Government have provided funding of £7.3 million to the EIF until 2020, and the Government will review funding for the EIF in the forthcoming spending review. The right hon. Member for North Norfolk mentioned the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s spring statement, and I am sure he will make representations to the Chancellor. I will ensure that this debate and its text are communicated to the Treasury so that it is aware of the points raised by the Committee in its report and by the debate today about the importance of continuing funding for the EIF going forward into the spending review.
I assure Members that the Government take the Committee’s report and the issues it raises incredibly seriously. I have set out our approach to childhood adversity and trauma, which includes the actions taken through programmes that are run and funded centrally. It is also about supporting local areas to ensure they are commissioning and delivering evidence-based early intervention services.
I have mentioned the specific issue of the strategy. The Government do not consider the formal publication of a national strategy to be the best approach at this time, and I have set out our current approach through the various programmes. The Government are confident that those programmes will bear fruit, but we will seek to review that approach through the spending review and the upcoming prevention Green Paper, which will build on the November 2018 Department of Health and Social Care report, “Prevention is better than cure”, and its priorities, which I set out earlier.
I have also mentioned that the early years ministerial group on family support will add to the Government’s current approach. I am sure that the Leader of the House, given her passionate commitment to this specific area and to taking forward cross-Government work, will take a keen interest in reviewing the contributions made in this important debate.
It is the role of Government to provide guidance on local approaches to early intervention, but there is a fine balance to be struck between local direction and central Government oversight. The Government believe that it is fundamentally for local authorities to determine how their services best meet the complex demands of their areas, not central Government, but we will nevertheless continue with our responsibility to support What Works initiatives and ensure that local systems are working well. The Government will also consider including further research into early intervention methods for addressing childhood adversity as we refresh individual Departments’ areas of interest. The issues that make up childhood adversity and trauma, such as verbal, physical and sexual abuse, parental separation, mental illness and alcohol abuse, are at the core of the work of numerous Departments and major programmes.
We want to ensure that we build long-lasting protective factors against adversity and trauma in the early years. The Government have invested in the early years. By 2019-20, we will be investing around £6 billion a year in early education and childcare support to cover free entitlements, tax-free childcare and the childcare element of universal credit. The Government see effective early intervention as essential to our work to bring about cost efficiency in public services and, above all, to ensure that the human factor is there to improve people’s lives and that children are not put at risk. The factors that Members have mentioned help to ensure that children have strong and healthy lives. As I have already outlined, the Government are putting research funding investment into early intervention initiatives.
Finally, as Members can probably see, I am the Minister for Universities and Science, so I wish to put on record the apologies of the Minister for Children, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), for being unable to speak in the debate. He will happily meet the hon. Member for North Norfolk to reflect on the report and take forward any issues of concern that have been mentioned in the debate.
The Government are keen to continue to engage fully, as I do—wearing a different hat, as Science Minister—with the Science and Technology Committee. We are very grateful for the conclusions the Committee came to in its report.
Norman Lamb
It is very good to see you in the Chair, Mr Gapes, and it is a pleasure to serve under you for the last part of the debate. I do not want to detain people for long, but I thank the Minister, particularly given that this is not his portfolio, for engaging in the discussion. He made an interesting point at the end about the Government’s £6 billion investment in early years. How extraordinary it is that we are making that investment without really having any idea about how it is being spent and whether it will be in any way effective.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin), made the very good point that we are committing more Government resource to children whose parents are both in work than we are to the most disadvantaged children. I understand the value of that from a work perspective, but the Government have to understand that that increases the divide between the most disadvantaged and all the rest.
I thank the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), who has stayed to the bitter end, for all his work on the Committee. I thank the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), and the shadow Minister for their contributions. The striking thing was that everybody who contributed to the debate, including the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew), was making the same points to the Minister.
Perhaps I am being over-optimistic in seeing a little chink of light. Although the Government’s approach is wholly inadequate and passive in response to such significant evidence, I note the point that the Minister made in response to my intervention. He said that we have three key things coming up: the inter-ministerial working group, the Government’s Green Paper on prevention, and the spending review. Combined, they provide us with an opportunity to follow the evidence, to start spending money in a way that applies evidence about what works, and to monitor what is happening around the country. It is not about directing local areas and imposing things on them from the centre, but holding them to account because we have the data nationally to do that.
We have an opportunity that, as has been said, is completely non-party political; it is just about the effective use of public money, and investing at the moment when it is of most value and impact—early, rather than later, when the damage has already been done. There is an opportunity here, and I urge the Minister and his colleagues to grasp it, rather than to continue in a way that fails too many children across our country.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Eleventh Report of the Science and Technology Committee, Evidence-based early years intervention, HC 506, and the Government response, HC 1898.
Written Statements
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Decommissioning Relief Deeds
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
At Budget 2013, the Government announced they would begin signing decommissioning relief deeds. These deeds represented a new contractual approach to provide oil and gas companies with certainty on the level of tax relief they will receive on future decommissioning costs.
Since October 2013, the Government have entered into 92 decommissioning relief deeds.
Oil & Gas UK estimates that these deeds have so far unlocked approximately £6 billion of capital, which can now be invested elsewhere.
The Government committed to report to Parliament every year on progress with the decommissioning relief deeds. The report for financial year 2017-18 is provided below.
Number of decommissioning relief agreements entered into: the Government entered into four decommissioning relief agreements in 2017-18.
Total number of decommissioning relief agreements in force at the end of that year: 87 decommissioning relief agreements were in force at the end of the year.
Number of payments made under any decommissioning relief agreements during that year, and the amount of each payment: two payments were made under a decommissioning relief agreement in 2017-18, one for £41.8 million1 and another for £3.6 million. These were made in relation to the provision recognised by HM Treasury in 2015, as a result of a company defaulting on its decommissioning obligations.
Total number of payments that have been made under any decommissioning relief agreements as at the end of that year, and the total amount of those payments: three payments have been made under any decommissioning relief agreement as at the end of the 2017-18 financial year, totalling £50.8 million.
Estimate of the maximum amount liable to be paid under any decommissioning relief agreements: the Government have not made any changes to the tax regime that would generate a liability to be paid under any decommissioning relief agreements. HM Treasury’s 2018-19 accounts will recognise a provision of £357.1 million in respect of decommissioning expenditure incurred as a result of a company defaulting on their decommissioning obligations2. The majority of this is expected to be realised over the next five years.
1 This figure was later revised down by £11.8 million, with the amount having been fully recovered, together with interest, in the 2018-19 financial year.
2 This figure takes into account payments made subsequent to the financial year covered by this written ministerial statement.
[HCWS1435]
ECOFIN 12 March 2019
(5 years, 1 month 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) was held in Brussels on 12 March 2019. The UK was represented by Mark Bowman (Director General, International Finance, HM Treasury). The Council discussed the following:
Early morning session
The Eurogroup President briefed the Council on the outcomes of the 11 March meeting of the Eurogroup, and the European Commission provided an update on the current economic situation in the EU. Ministers then discussed the location of the InvestEU Investment Committee secretariat.
Excise duties
The Council discussed the directive on general arrangements for excise duty (recast); the regulation on administrative co-operation of the content of electronic registers; and the directive on the structures of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages.
Digital services tax
The Council held an exchange of views on the EU-wide digital services tax proposal.
InvestEU
The Council held an exchange of views on the location of the InvestEU Investment Committee secretariat.
Current financial services legislative proposals
The Romanian presidency provided an update on current legislative proposals in the field of financial services.
European semester
Following a presentation by the Commission on its 2019 country reports, the Council held an exchange of views on the implementation of country-specific recommendations, focusing on investment in member states.
EU list of non-co-operative jurisdictions for tax purposes
The Council adopted Council conclusions revising the December 2017 EU list of non-co-operative jurisdictions for tax purposes.
Status of the implementation of financial services legislation
The Council was debriefed on the status of the implementation of financial services legislation.
Coalition for climate action
The Finnish Finance Minister informed the Council on plans to launch the coalition for climate action in the context of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund spring meetings in April.
[HCWS1436]
Mental Health Workforce Data
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)
The NHS long-term plan set out this Government’s ambition to transform how the NHS supports mental health, building on the work already under way to deliver the commitments in the “Five Year Forward View for Mental Health”.
Our plans depend on having the right workforce in place. The Government, in consultation with NHS England, Health Education England and NHS Improvement, asked NHS Digital to review how it counts the mental health workforce with the goal of providing us with a more accurate possible baseline against which to track progress towards delivering our ambitions.
Previously, several different approaches had been taken, including counting total numbers of staff working in mental health, learning disability and care trusts, which included staff working in other specialisms, such as community health staff who support people’s physical health. NHS Digital has developed a new approach that will improve accuracy by counting only those staff who work directly on mental health, regardless of the type of organisation in which they work. It will also provide a greater level of transparency in relation to the workforce, for example, staff working in priority areas, such as crisis care or children and young people’s mental health services.
NHS Digital will publish its quarterly mental health workforce data under this new definition on 21 March 2019. Because it focuses on staff working directly on mental health in NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts, the new headline figures will show a smaller total number of people working in mental health They do not yet provide a full picture of the mental health workforce. For example, they do not include the very significant number of staff providing NHS-funded mental health services in other organisations such as the voluntary sector, local authorities and primary care settings. We are therefore planning further changes to the data in the future to enable us to better understand these staff numbers and associated patient outcomes.
This new approach underlines the scale of the challenge ahead of us to make the increases we all agree are needed to the mental health workforce and bring about improvements to the lives of the people they are here to support. The Government are committed to meeting this challenge. Following the recent publication of the NHS long-term plan, the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Health and Social Care asked Baroness Dido Harding to develop a workforce implementation plan.
An interim workforce plan will be published in the spring and will include an immediate 2019-20 action plan together with a more detailed vision of how the health and care workforce will transform over the next 10 years to deliver 21st century care for our patients. The plan will build on work already under way to recruit, train and importantly retain more staff to address our most immediate shortages.
[HCWS1433]
Northern Ireland Assembly Election
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)
I am today laying before Parliament a statutory instrument which extends the period for Executive formation under the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018 from 26 March 2019 to 25 August 2019.
This means that from 26 August 2019 I will fall under the duty to propose a date for an Assembly election. I do not consider it appropriate to extend the period for any less than the full five months permitted by the Act. A shorter period could risk not allowing sufficient time for a talks process to conclude.
I have taken the decision to extend this period following engagement I have had with the five main political parties in Northern Ireland and the Irish Government over the past few weeks.
In those discussions all five parties reaffirmed their commitment to restoring a power-sharing Executive and the other political institutions set out in the Belfast agreement.
I also consider that the five parties and the Irish Government would support a short, focused set of roundtable talks to restore all the Belfast agreement institutions.
These will involve the UK Government, the five parties and the Irish Government, as appropriate, and will take place in full accordance with the well-established three-stranded approach.
I am proposing a short, focused set of round table talks to restore devolution and the other institutions at the earliest opportunity.
[HCWS1434]
Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Employment (Alok Sharma)
The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council took place on 15 March 2019 in Brussels. I represented the UK.
The Council agreed a partial general approach regulation on the European globalisation adjustment fund (EGF).
The Council debated the social dimension of Europe post-2020 and the European semester. As part of the semester agenda item, the Council adopted the joint employment report for 2019, along with conclusions on the 2019 annual growth survey.
There were a number of progress reports and information items during the Council. The presidency gave updates on six current legislative proposals: regulation establishing a European labour authority; revision of the regulations on the co-ordination of social security systems; revision of the directive on carcinogens and mutagens (third batch); and directives on work-life balance, on accessibility requirements for products and services and on transparent and predictable working conditions.
The Council closed with information on events and initiatives in the broader field of employment and social policy.
[HCWS1432]
House of Lords
Death of a Former Member: Baroness Warnock
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, on Wednesday 20 March. On behalf of the House, I extend our very sincere condolences to the noble Baroness’s family and friends.
War Criminals: International Mechanisms for Prosecution
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hylton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will make proposals for international mechanisms to identify and prosecute suspected war criminals, in particular in the Middle East, in consultation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other relevant parties.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hylton, and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom helped to secure a Security Council resolution in December 2017 to establish a UN investigative team to support domestic efforts by Iraq to hold Daesh accountable by collecting, preserving and storing evidence of Daesh crimes. The UK also co-sponsored the United Nations General Assembly resolution in December 2016 that established the international, impartial and independent mechanism for Syria, a step forward in ensuring accountability for atrocities committed in that country.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. With the fall of ISIS at Baghuz, and as the investigative team established by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2379 begins its first mass grave excavation in Sinjar, will the Minister say how the evidence of genocide will be used? What consideration is being given to establishing an international or regional criminal tribunal to ensure that the trials are conducted with due process? Will he reflect that it is inevitable that the removal of citizenship from perpetrators will make it even harder to bring those responsible for genocide to justice?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the noble Lord raised the issue of the first mass graves. Some noble Lords may have seen the many images; I have read the reports. It is poignant that those graves have been found where Nadia Murad used to live. She had to go through many tragic circumstances and won the Nobel Peace Prize.
I agree with the noble Lord about the importance of ensuring that, through the passing of Resolution 2379, the first step is collection and preservation. In many cases, prosecutions will be best left to national authorities, and we continue to work with Iraq. I know that the noble Lord is particularly keen to ensure that local or regional justice is served. It may be that in future some form of international hybrid justice mechanism is used to try those most responsible for crimes of international concern. It is too early at this stage to suggest where each crime will be tried, but we are looking at all options.
On the issue of the prosecution of perpetrators of genocide where the removal of citizenship has occurred, I am sure that the noble Lord would agree that we all share the Government’s priority of the safety and security of our own citizens. Those who joined Daesh will face justice, whether in Iraq, once mechanisms are set up, or through international tribunals. If foreign fighters return here, that will be a matter for the CPS and police to judge.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, under the recently passed Magnitsky law, the Government have the powers to prevent impunity of those guilty of grave human rights abuses by imposing visa bans and asset freezes. Will the murderers of Khashoggi be put on the Government’s list?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, in that case, as the noble Lord will be aware, there are ongoing legal proceedings taking place in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. I note the concerns—they are concerns that we share—about anyone who is being tried or is then convicted of crimes. I note the noble Lord’s concerns, but it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on an ongoing case.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the work of the British Council in Iraq is exceptional and it should be further supported in its determination to support the Bar associations under the KRG, the Kurdish Regional Government, and in Baghdad itself, under the Federal Republic of Iraq, given that in most instances local trials swiftly carried out are considerably better than international trials which, however wonderful, may take 25 years? This is particularly so since most criminals in these instances—not just in Iraq but in the Middle East and elsewhere—are nearly always local people.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My noble friend speaks with great insight about Iraq, and I pay tribute to her work. When I visited Iraq, one of the notable features was that we saw some very good co-ordination starting to occur between the KRG and the Government in Baghdad. As I have already said, I share my noble friend’s view that justice is best served locally. If we look at other occurrences of genocides elsewhere in the world, Rwanda is a good living example of how justice was served locally: accountability for the perpetrators was held locally and that country, notwithstanding the many challenges that remain, is moving forward.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, in a week when international law showed its reach once againin Bosnia, is the Government’s commitment to the International Criminal Court as strong as it always was? I hope it is, given the reluctance of the United States, China and others to support the ICC. In light of that, how long does the Minister think it will take, with either an international or a hybrid court, to bring to justice those who have committed alleged atrocities in this region?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, taking the noble Baroness’s second question first, I think we have seen the first steps with the passing of Resolution 2379 and the budget of £90 million for the preservation and the work that is being undertaken in finding evidence against those people who are currently being held. It remains to be seen, but I assure the noble Baroness that we are working with the Iraqi Government to see how local justice mechanisms can be strengthened. As for the ICC, it needs reform and there are challenges, but we remain absolutely committed to the ICC.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
Does the Minister agree that, with the discovery of these mass graves, it is surely time that the Government said that they have prima facie evidence that genocide was committed? Secondly, would it not be helpful if the Government were to say that they would support whichever choice the Government of Iraq prefer—either local trials or a hybrid international tribunal? That would surely be a helpful move; we do not have to say anything about the International Criminal Court, because that will take place depending on whether its jurisdiction exists in Iraq.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
On the issue of genocide, the noble Lord knows that it is very much a matter for judicial authorities to make that case. It is very clear that mass graves are being exhumed and I point out that the UN special representative in that regard is Karim Khan, a British QC, so I assure the noble Lord that we are working very closely with the Government of Iraq to ensure that justice is primary in everyone’s mind. Where local justice can be strengthened, we will do so and we are working very closely to ensure that objective.
Sibling Couples
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to extend fiscal and legal protection to close family members, particularly siblings, who live together long-term in jointly owned property.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, as the nature of relationships between married couples and those in civil partnerships is different from that of cohabiting siblings, the same legal and fiscal protections do not extend to the latter. The Government do not therefore intend to make changes at this time.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Why do the Government refuse to accept that those who live together permanently in platonic relationships, such as sibling couples, are no less deserving and in need of fiscal and legal safeguards than those who marry or become civil partners? Is it just or right that, among other hardships, many platonic family couples should have to endure the terrible anxiety created by the potential loss of the much loved and jointly owned family home because inheritance tax has to be paid when the first member of the couple dies and cannot be deferred until the death of the second? Did the Conservative manifesto not promise to take the family home out of tax?
Lord Bates
My noble friend makes a persuasive case. I appreciate the meeting we had in December, to which he also brought Catherine Utley. It persuaded me that this needed to be looked at again, and I therefore went to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and asked him to do so. He looked at it again, and pointed out in his letter to my noble friend on 6 February, along with the Answer I gave to my noble friend’s Question, that if siblings order their affairs such that they jointly hold the asset, the charge would effectively become liable only on properties exceeding £650,000 in value. If they had difficulty in making that payment, inheritance tax could be made payable over 10 years. That was set against the fact that the average property price in the UK is £225,000. Those were the arguments put forward for retaining the position.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, has a strong point and he has long campaigned on it with great energy and skill. He highlights much unfairness to siblings and other blood relatives who share households. It is not only inheritance tax; there are fiscal disadvantages in a number of areas, and disadvantages in landlord and tenant intestacy. Do the Government agree that while there is not a case—and we agree with this—for equating siblings and other blood relatives with civil partners, there is nevertheless a strong case for a number of reforms? Will the Government agree to establish a cross-departmental working party to look at these issues and consider what specific measures are necessary to address these disadvantages?
Lord Bates
I am happy to do that. The standard response of all Treasury Ministers is to say that government policy in this area of tax is constantly under review. That has a particular meaning at the moment, because the Office of Tax Simplification is undertaking a review of inheritance tax. The issue of siblings will be within the scope of that. It is due to report in the spring, and we will take its findings seriously, but our position is clear—that this reflects an impact on a very small number of estates for which, with careful tax planning, much of the liability can be mitigated.
Baroness Deech (CB)
Does the Minister accept that there would be no loss to the Treasury because it would be only a question of rolling over the inheritance tax? Can he also explain exactly what it is about a short marriage or partnership of two years that would give its participants tax advantages not given to siblings living together for 50 or 60 years?
Lord Bates
There would be a tax consequence, because the spousal transfer in inheritance tax costs the Treasury some £2.5 billion per year. To extend the scope of that would involve a charge, and our judgment is that this case does not merit that.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, given that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has refused on four occasions to come to the Economic Affairs Committee and its sub-committee on the loan charge and shown himself unwilling to look at the evidence of hardship being caused, might my noble friend try lobbying the Chancellor on this matter instead? Could my noble friend acknowledge that this is not about avoiding inheritance tax? This is about people being able to continue to live in the family home. It is unjust. Is the Liberal Democrat policy not absurd—that the ability to live in the family home should depend on having a sexual relationship rather than a caring one?
Lord Bates
My noble friend makes his point. His point on the loan charge was debated here last night, when he and his representations were mentioned in dispatches by my noble friend Lord Wakeham. However, the point remains that we feel that there is a small number of cases. If a property is worth £1 million, and you divide it and take into account the personal thresholds of £325,000 times two, the liability on the death of one sibling will amount to some £70,000 in tax, which can be spread over 10 years.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with a great deal of what the Minister has said. It is right that the Treasury should be concerned about the protection of inheritance tax. After all, avoidance of inheritance tax is basically a middle-class pastime in this country; any lawyer is likely to recommend that people should think about setting up a trust fund to avoid the consequences of certain aspects of the tax. We all have sympathy for the original Question and problem, but it is now, properly, with the Treasury, and I am glad that the Minister is taking the position that he is.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, over the years, speakers from these Benches have completely supported the thrust behind the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Lexden. It is not only a matter for the Treasury and tax, but a matter of justice. If another party gets into power, perhaps the inheritance tax thresholds might even come down in due course—who knows? This does not seem a strong argument for denying an obvious need for justice in these cases.
Lord Bates
On the point of justice, that was tested, rightly, in the courts. The Burden sisters took their case to the European Court of Human Rights in 2008, and it did not find that there was discrimination against them in contrast to married couples when it came to inheritance tax. That was a clear decision. It is open to anybody else to challenge it through the courts, but our position is clear.
Yoga
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will draw up a strategy and campaign for the expansion, particularly in the National Health Service, of access to yoga and its associated health benefits.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, there is evidence that yoga helps to build strength in healthy adults and can improve health conditions such as high blood pressure. The UK Chief Medical Officers recommend muscle-strengthening activities on at least two days a week, and yoga is one of many activities recommended in their report, Start Active, Stay Active.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
I am very grateful indeed to the noble Earl for such a positive response. I am sure that he will agree with the Secretary of State’s statement last autumn that, if the NHS is to survive, we need more social prescribing by GPs, which will help with the financial position. Given what the noble Earl just said, I am sure he will agree that yoga helps people with mental health problems and back pains, those tackling addictions, and people with obesity—a whole range of subjects. Is he willing to meet a group of representatives to discuss how we might take this forward, particularly in the context of the 10-year programme being drawn up to try to offer people greater movements towards better health while saving the NHS money? I declare an interest as the co-secretary of the All-Party Group on Yoga.
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right about the importance of social prescribing—it can be felt right across the population, particularly in relation to mental health. I agree with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State about social prescribing; that is one of his top priorities. The noble Lord asked whether a meeting could be arranged with me, him and other interested parties. I will pass that request on to the Minister responsible so that they can have a useful conversation.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, it is acknowledged that yoga is very beneficial for mental health: it provides mindfulness, an ability to make better judgments, to relax, and to take decisions in a sensible and responsible way. In light of that, does my noble friend agree that yoga should now be made obligatory for Members of the House of Commons?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, my noble friend makes a very important point about the importance of yoga and the great benefits that it gives to everybody. I have unrolled my yoga mat in my office and am waiting for a lesson from my noble friend Lady Barran, who is a teacher of yoga.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, there appear to be particular benefits of yoga for older people in improving balance and muscle tone, NICE estimates that falls cost the NHS more than £2.3 billion a year, and we know that older people often become lonely, so the mental health and social benefits of going to classes also apply. Given those facts, will the Government encourage yoga for older people?
The Earl of Courtown
Yes, the noble Baroness is quite right. The only proviso as far as that is concerned is that more frail elder people should take great care—the noble Baroness makes a hand movement which I think describes her exercise.
The Earl of Courtown
Anyway, deep breath! The noble Baroness is quite right about the importance of social prescribing and yoga being of great advantage to the population.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that East London NHS mental health trust has for seven years been running and evaluating sports programmes—including yoga, but also many other activities—for people with severe mental health problems? I shall give an example: 100% of those involved in its boxing programme for forensic patients—those with severe mental health problems and a criminal history—have achieved a significant improvement in their mental health and well-being. Will he make NHS England aware of the work in East London and issue guidance to mental health trusts across the country that they should all run a range of sports programmes for people with severe mental health problems?
The Earl of Courtown
The noble Baroness is quite right: the importance of those various forms of activity is well felt. I do not know the event that she described, but I know that Haringey CCG has created a better care fund to improve health and social care services for older people, particularly those with long-term health conditions. Strength and balance is one of the programmes funded by that partnership; that goes back to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I will of course make that point to the department, but more and more areas are getting involved in social prescribing, which is promoted by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and is without doubt doing a great job.
Lord Stone of Blackheath (Lab)
My Lords, I have just discovered that you can do downward dog on these Benches: I invite noble Lords to join me. With the evidence showing that yoga and mindfulness can be good for preventing and curing illnesses, both physical and mental, what progress has been made with the establishment of a national academy for social prescribing? Will representatives of yoga and mindfulness practice be on it?
The Earl of Courtown
Yes, my Lords, engagement with stakeholders on the national academy for social prescribing has already begun and they are being consulted. The academy is under development. I have asked the department and NHS England whether representatives of yoga and mindfulness will be engaged in its development.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I can bear witness to the efficacy of workplace yoga, as I attended many of the lunchtime sessions organised by my noble friend for seated yoga before the Christmas break. I enjoyed them very much and commend them to all Members of the House. Noble Lords will be very relieved to know that MPs, Peers and other staff were not required to don their Lycra during lunchtime. Is the Minister aware of the amount of workplace yoga being encouraged for NHS staff for not only their mental but their physical well-being, for those who have to lift heavy weights and so on? That programme should be rolled out across the whole NHS.
The Earl of Courtown
The noble Baroness makes a good point. What she did not mention is how good yoga is for stress, and how to reduce one’s stress levels with movement, breathing and meditation. I know that yoga classes are available in various workplaces, but I was not aware of the NHS programme. I will, of course, bring it to the attention of the department.
Housing: Future Homes Standard
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thomas of Winchester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Future Homes Standard announced in the Spring Statement will include measures to ensure accessible and adaptable standards are met.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
The Government will consult later this year on our plans to introduce the future homes standard for new-build homes to be future-proofed with low-carbon heating and world-leading levels of energy efficiency. Separately, the Government are currently working on a review of accessibility standards for new homes.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. This is so important, because only 7% of our housing stock is accessible and adaptable. Will the Government use this opportunity to ensure that developers are required to build to the more inclusive, accessible and adaptable category 2 standard?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for her continued—and quite right—tenacity in this area. Document M, which relates to the accessibility standards, will be reviewed this year as part of a review of all building regulations, consequent on the Government’s policy and the Hackitt review.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
First, does the Minister agree with the Building Research Establishment that the six years it will take to introduce the future homes standard is an exceptionally long time? Can he tell us why it cannot be done sooner? Secondly, this is an extraordinary opportunity to introduce an integrated set of lifetime homes standards into a set of standards that will hold for ever. This is surely what we need for an ageing population. If our ageing population could stay in their own homes while they grow old and frail, that would help the health service and the care services enormously in terms of costs and benefits. Does the Minister agree that we must not miss this opportunity?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, document L relates to carbon standards in relation to heating and environmental standards. Document M, as she also knows, relates to accessibility. They are part of a suite of documents, and each has to be reviewed separately, consequent on Hackitt, to ensure that we get the programme right. The noble Baroness is right to say that six years is a considerable time. The target is, of course, “by 2025”, so I can offer her the reassurance that it could be achieved within that time, earlier than 2025. But we want to get it right, and it is important to have a thorough consultation.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester mentioned the category 2 standard. Building homes to that standard is currently optional, but it has been adopted in some places. That is the standard that reflects the lifetime homes standard, so does the Minister agree that it should be made compulsory?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am very much in favour of the review, but I do not want to prejudge it; it is important that it be left to take its own course. Picking up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, it is certainly important to examine the durability of the standards with a view to not only people who are disabled but people who are ageing. We have an ageing population, and the Government are very much committed to the industrial strategy grand challenge mission on ageing. That is quite a mouthful, but it means aiming for people to live five extra years in good health by 2035, so it plays into this agenda. However, I do not think that we should prejudge the consultation.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Sustainable Energy Association. We greatly welcome the Chancellor’s move to require housebuilders to up their standards of energy efficiency and carbon-neutral housebuilding. The technique of using building regulations to make housebuilders do things they otherwise would not must apply also to accessible housing. Exhorting housebuilders to do the right thing and produce more accessible homes does not get us anywhere. They are doing very well as it is, thank you. We need those building regulations changed in a compulsory way, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, stated, to do the great things the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, has advocated for so long.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord does much good work in this area, for which I thank him. He makes a powerful case but it is for those reasons that we had the Hackitt review, are holding a review of building regulations and will act as a consequence. Things are moving in that direction. Those are not the only things happening, of course—for example, the ECO places an obligation on energy companies so that energy bills are lower and less carbon energy is used—but they are central. Again, I speak to the importance of document M on accessible housing. The requirement to take account of the interests of people with disabilities and an ageing population is provided for in the NPPF—the planning framework—and the Neighbourhood Planning Act. It is all moving in that direction.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I refer the House to my relevant interests in the register. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that he fully supports the need for future-proofed new homes but does not think we should wait until 2025 to tackle energy efficiency and carbon reduction. In that case, can the Minister explain why the Government scrapped the zero-carbon homes plan in 2015, and in 2016, during the passage of the dreaded Housing and Planning Act, opposed the introduction of carbon compliance standards for new homes, which would have helped reduce carbon emissions and given people lower fuel bills?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, first, it is important to note that the energy standard for new homes has improved by more than 30% since 2010, reducing energy bills by £200 per annum per household on average. That is indicative of the progress made. The noble Lord referred to previous policies; to some extent, they depended on offsetting, which did not have a direct impact. This measure will: it will look at things such as heat pumps, solar panels and the replacement of old gas boilers. That will have a direct impact, unlike the old offsetting principle. To that extent, it is very much to be welcomed.
Materials and Articles in Contact with Food (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Baroness Manzoor
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 4 and 5 February be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 19 March.
Aviation Safety (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 11 February be approved.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B). Considered in Grand Committee on 12 March.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Consequential Modifications and Repeals and Revocations) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 29 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 4 March.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I would like to address a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, during the debate on this SI on 4 March. I am happy to confirm that my department consulted the Scottish Government, and sought and secured their agreement to make the proposed amendments to the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010, as set out in Part 3 of the regulations. My department also consulted the Northern Ireland Civil Service in the absence of an Executive, securing its agreement on the proposed amendment to the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954, as set out in Part 4 of the regulations. Officials in the Scottish Government agreed that the regulations do not require the formal consent of the Scottish Parliament. In November 2018, my colleague, Chris Heaton-Harris MP, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, wrote to Michael Russell MSP, the Cabinet Secretary for Government Business and Constitutional Relations in the Scottish Government, regarding the proposed amendments. No concerns were raised. I beg to move.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for clarifying a point which was left unclear in the Explanatory Memorandum. It is very important that these matters, in dealings with the devolved Administrations, are properly set out and clarified. I am extremely grateful.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on the specific point relating to Scotland. However, I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, really wants to proceed with this SI today, given that yesterday, after the Prime Minister made her astonishing statement from Downing Street, an additional 200,000 people immediately signed up to the petition to revoke Article 50. Now more than half a million people have signed that petition. In fact, so many wanted to sign it that the website collapsed and is now being repaired so that more people can sign. In the light of that and all the other surrounding circumstances, does the Minister think it is wise to proceed yet again with this particular statutory instrument?
Lord Callanan
Unsurprisingly, the Minister does think that we should proceed with this particular statutory instrument and I am sorry that the noble Lord was not able to come along to the committee where we discussed it. If it is helpful to him, I shall set out what it actually does. Perhaps many people do believe that Article 50 should be revoked. That is not the policy of my party and as far as I know it is not the policy of his party. Were that eventuality to come to pass, although I do not think that it will, of course none of these amendments will take effect because we would not then have a leaving date. They come into effect only when we leave.
For the noble Lord’s information, let me summarise briefly what the statutory instrument does. It sets out what happens to non-ambulatory cross-references after exit day and how references made to EU legislation after exit day are to be read. The SI also amends domestic interpretation legislation to ensure that it is adequately referenced and incorporates retained EU law; that is, the new body of domestic law created by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. Finally, this SI repeals and revokes various pieces of EU-derived domestic legislation that will become redundant on exit day. The noble Lord will notice the references to “exit day” in the regulations.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for writing to me on the concern I expressed, which was addressed in the House of Commons when MPs considered the statutory instrument, on the fact that non-ambulatory provisions had been omitted from the original European Union (Withdrawal) Act. However, his response actually missed the point that I raised with him in my letter that was expressed by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my honourable friend Christopher Heaton-Harris, in the other place. It is a very simple question: if this was omitted from the original Act, are there any other omissions of which he and his department are aware that may have to come back to the House in the short time available before 29 March?
Common Agricultural Policy and Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month 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 21 January, 13 February and 4 and 11 March be approved.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A). Considered in Grand Committee on 20 March.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend and with the leave of the House, I beg to move the five Motions standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Food and Drink, Veterinary Medicines and Residues (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 and 14 February be approved.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B). Considered in Grand Committee on 20 March.
Railway (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 25 February be approved.
Relevant document: 17th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, in moving the regulations I will also speak to the Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. These regulations are being made under the powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and will be needed in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal. The regulations fix deficiencies in two sets of domestic railway regulations and EU implementing legislation: the Train Driving Licences and Certificates Regulations 2010, the TDL regulations; and the Railway (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2005, the operator regulations.
As part of the measures aimed at liberalising rail markets, the EU introduced standard documentation for train driving licences and rail operator licences. These documents are valid across the European Economic Area. The Office of Rail and Road—the ORR—is responsible for issuing train driving and operator licences in the UK. Subject to meeting certain criteria, such as medical and competence requirements, the ORR will issue a train driving licence valid for up to 10 years. Train drivers also need a certificate, issued by the operator, confirming that the driver is competent to drive a certain type of train on the infrastructure. Operator licences are issued subject to the operator meeting certain conditions, including financial fitness and having necessary insurance cover. In Northern Ireland the Department for Infrastructure is the licensing authority.
The Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations amend the TDL regulations and three pieces of EU implementing legislation. The regulations will ensure that the train driving legislation will continue to function after exit day by making a number of technical changes. They remove reporting requirements to the Commission, references to member states and functions reserved for the EU Commission and the European Union Agency for Railways. The regulations also amend the definition of a “train driving licence” so it refers only to ORR-issued train driving licences. In addition, changes are needed to ensure that licences issued in Northern Ireland are valid for use in Great Britain and to make corrections to the EU implementing legislation that applies to both GB and NI.
The Railway (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations make similar technical corrections, removing references to member states and replacing references to EU legislation with references to domestic legislation. The most significant amendment is to rename the “European licence” as a “railway undertaking licence”, though the cost, criteria and processes for obtaining a licence will not change. The draft regulations also revoke implementing regulation 2015/171. This EU regulation sets out a standard template for the form of an operator licence and details on the procedure of applying for a licence. These will not be required post exit as this detail is already incorporated into the ORR’s procedures, which are published on its website in accordance with the operator regulations.
Both sets of regulations also make transitional provisions that recognise existing European documentation, issued in EEA states, for a maximum of two years after exit day or until it expires, whichever is the sooner. In short, existing train drivers and operators providing services in Great Britain will not have to take any immediate action if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, regardless of where their documents were issued. There are a small number of drivers in the EU using ORR-issued licences, which will not be automatically recognised in a no-deal scenario. Departmental officials have worked with the regulator and operators to ensure that these drivers are aware of the need to obtain an EU licence. There are also UK operators providing services in the EU. All these operators already have licences issued in the country they are providing services in, so will be unaffected.
These draft regulations support the smooth continuation of cross-border services, such as Eurostar, by ensuring that EU-licensed train drivers engaged in cross-border services will continue to be able to operate in the UK. The Government are actively engaging with a range of European counterparts, including relevant member states, to secure bilateral agreements for cross-border rail services. These discussions include arrangements for longer-term recognition of train driver licences and operator licences. Bilateral discussions are progressing well, and we are confident of having measures in place in time for exit day.
By removing certain administrative requirements, the draft operator regulations technically widen the scope of who can be charged an application fee by the ORR for an operator licence and of who could be captured by the existing criminal offence of driving or operating on the railway without an appropriate licence. Consequently, these draft regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure. In Northern Ireland, the role of issuing these licences falls to the Department for Infrastructure and a separate instrument is being taken forward on behalf of Northern Ireland.
We have worked closely with the ORR and have engaged with industry to provide as much certainty as possible. The regulations are an important part of our no deal preparations, providing clarity for business and certainty for drivers. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for bringing these regulations to the attention of the House. We have only got a week to go, and if we do not pass them today there may not be any trains running after 29 March—so well done the Department for Transport for leaving it to the last minute.
I have a couple of questions on both SIs. On the licensing of railway undertakings regulations—this is not clear to me and maybe this is not part of these regulations—I was talking to a train operator, from a UK company which has a licence in this country and also operates railway services in other member states, who explained that the company was having trouble in finding out whether its UK licence, in other words its licence to operate in the UK, would be valid in other member states after Brexit. Such companies try hard, often in competition with other incumbents, and it is a strain on their business and management set-ups if they still do not know whether they will be able to operate, either under a new franchise or in continuation of an existing one, after next week. I note that in paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum, as the Minister said in her introduction, there is a two-year window for these licences to continue. However, I am not sure whether that occurs in the other direction, and I would be grateful if she could respond to that.
I have two issues on the train driving licences and certificates regulations. Will UK drivers operating in France, the Channel Tunnel or other member states need to take driving tests in France and, if so, when? Is there a two-year window or when will it happen? This concerns not only Eurostar because in the future there might be other companies operating services through the tunnel, as well as rail freight. I declare an interest as having been chairman of the Rail Freight Group. These regulations add a great deal of bureaucracy, and I would be glad to hear what arrangements will be required for drivers with licences from other member states to come here. Is there a two-year window there?
My second comment relates to paragraph 7.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum. This SI removes the duty to inform the Commission on licences and safety matters and, presumably, vice versa. The statement that we do not need to tell the Commission anymore and it does not need to tell us is putting our head in the sand about anything to do with railway safety. Railways are rule-based operations and the more common rules we have the easier it goes. The transfer of information on safety, accidents, driver qualifications and so on, in the widest possible sense, is surely good for the safe operation of our railways. The text of paragraph 7.8 and elsewhere is drafted in a very negative way. Even if there is not a requirement—I think there should be—to exchange data, I hope the Minister will say that the ORR and the European Railway Agency should be encouraged to exchange data and participate in putting it together in common, European co-ordinated, long-term information about the safety performance of railways over the years. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend for tabling this Motion to Regret—
Baroness Sugg
We have not quite got to the Motion to Regret yet. We are starting with the two SIs.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support what my noble friend Lord Berkeley said. I feel very passionately on this subject. First, one of the great things we have seen in the past two decades is the expansion of cross-border rail services. It is important for freight, where in the long term we want to try to take as much lorry traffic off the roads as possible, and it is also very important for expanding passenger networks across Europe and providing a real alternative to air travel, which has damaging effects on climate. I understand my noble friend’s concerns about why we are not promoting the maximum exchange of information and co-operation with our European partners in the event of Brexit.
Secondly, I would like assurances about rail services on the island of Ireland. This is very important to good relations between Britain and Ireland. The development of railways on the island of Ireland is a way of encouraging tourism in north and south. I would like to hear from the Minister that nothing is being done that will in any way be a barrier to the development of that co-operation.
Lord Snape
My Lords, having left the station before the right of way signal, perhaps I can start again and apologise to the House for—mixing my metaphors—jumping the gun. On this occasion, I shall confine my remarks to the train driving regulations and will discuss the other matter later. I presume I will be in order, which will stop my noble friend on the Front Bench again waving at me in a somewhat frantic fashion.
As my noble friend Lord Berkeley says, I do not think we are getting clarification on these matters. I suspect confusion is likely to arise, depending on how these regulations are implemented. Irish railways have been mentioned. Can the Minister say whether the new licences to be issued for Northern Ireland will be specific to that part of the United Kingdom or be valid throughout the United Kingdom and whether they will be recognised on, for example, the Enterprise service between Belfast and Dublin? What discussions have taken place between our Government and the Irish Government about the future of that service?
How long will the new licences last? My noble friend mentioned a two-year interim period, but what happens after that? A lot of discussions need to take place as a result of this wretched decision that the Prime Minister is apparently going to insist upon. Whether she gets it through the other place remains to be seen.
How much discussion has there been about the long-term effect of this change? After all, train drivers are no longer required to retire by law, but they normally stop train driving in their 60s and many of them will have been driving for a considerable period. Will these licences need to be renewed on a regular basis?
Overall, this is another example of the bureaucracy that will be created as a result of this decision. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how many people in her department will have to be employed to issue the licences and check their validity. Perhaps she can also tell us whether the standards that are now commonplace across Europe will continue to be commonplace in the United Kingdom or whether, at the whim of this or some other Secretary of State, the conditions under which the licences are issued will be altered? These are all matters that result directly from the, in my view, disastrous decision that we are about to take.
I will return to the other regulations at a proper time. They will possibly be even more likely to dislocate the railway industry than these regulations. However, there are still some outstanding questions about the licences, and I would be grateful if the Minister could at least take on board our fears and reassure us.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I have sat through a number of transport statutory instruments which have been brought forward in the event that there is no deal—something that none of us wants or expects to happen. There have been dozens and dozens of them in Grand Committee and on the Floor of the House. The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, has spent a lot of her valuable time on them, and we have five officials in the Box—excellent, qualified people—who have been working hard on them. This total waste of time and effort has been caused by the Prime Minister. One of my noble friends said to me earlier that it is not the men in grey suits that need to turn up to deal with what is happening in 10 Downing Street but the men in white coats. I am grateful to him for suggesting that to me. Can the Minister give us an estimate of the time and cost involved in dealing with all these unnecessary statutory instruments?
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I would like to register the concern and disappointment that is also felt on these Benches at people having to apply to drive trains, cars, buses or whatever else across the EU when the UK has led the charge in unifying standards and bringing the countries together. Perhaps I may ask one question. My noble friend mentioned that a small number of drivers have not yet achieved the qualification to drive in the EU if we leave with no deal. Can she tell the House how many drivers are in that situation and what efforts are being made in that regard? She noted that some efforts are being made to inform them about what to do and what the implications might be for those who do not have those qualifications.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I will start with the licensing of railway undertakings regulations. This SI is slightly more like the type of arrangement that we were promised at the start of this gruelling marathon. It is intended to ensure the minimum change.
Currently, there are two sorts of licence in Britain. One is issued by the ORR to a small number of operators, such as Merseyrail, that are separate from the main network, and it is based on 1993 rules. The rest of the operators have a European licence based on 2005 regulations. If you hold one of those, you can provide services in any EEA member state. This is all part of the European programme to establish a single European railway area. That is a very sensible approach that will be a basis for equal access, competition and common rules on safety, which is very important.
This SI allows operators with a licence not issued by ORR to continue for two years after exit day, whenever that may be. Will the Minister clarify that this is a rolling feast—that it will be two years after an exit day on, for example, 22 June? That would be sensible, but I am concerned that the rules on continuity in these SIs are so haphazard: some things finish in September, some finish in December, some continue for two years from whenever we leave, and so on.
After two years, under this SI, operators will need to revert to an ORR licence. The Explanatory Memorandum helpfully notes that only one operator is currently caught by that rule. Importantly, the SI does not provide for long-term mutual recognition of operator licences issued by the EEA and held by cross-border service operators—that is, the Channel Tunnel. Mutual recognition will depend on future bilateral agreements. Can the Minister update us on negotiations on this aspect?
Eventually, after two years, the only type of licence that will be valid in Britain will be issued by ORR. Existing European licences will cease to be valid and operators will instead need railway undertakings licences. Once again, this is a long, tortuous, bureaucratic process to change the name of the licence.
Finally on this SI, I express my delight that there has been a full consultation, which has been reported back to this House in detail, as consultations should be. It was comprehensive in that it included passengers, freight operators, devolved Administrations and so on, and a draft instrument was produced. It is ironic that this SI will involve minor disruption for a relatively small number of large organisations which to some extent are equipped to cope with it. While we have had a full consultation for this SI, in the case of others that involve major changes for people who are not equipped to deal with them, we were told that they did not get a consultation because the changes were not considered significant or to pose a risk. The truth is that this Government are getting away with a massive distortion of the normal rules followed by Governments; ignoring the consultation process is one aspect of that.
I turn now to the train driving licences and certificates SI, which affects thousands of train drivers, as opposed to a handful of companies. While a full consultation has been done on the previous SI, this one apparently is not important enough to warrant one. In the Explanatory Memorandum there is a list of organisations that attended a workshop, but there is no mention of trade unions. Trade unions are very strong and active in the rail industry and a very important group of people. Were they consulted and, if so, what did they think about these changes? If they were not, do the Government have any intention of having discussions with them?
In 2010, the EU regulations established a standardised regime for the licensing and certification of train drivers, with a standardised layout of licences and certificates, which of course is important to avoid confusion about what documents can be accepted. It includes, for example, what rolling stock they are qualified to drive. I cannot stress enough how important it is that there is clarity on qualifications and certification. That is really important for safety. I have a good friend who is a train driver, and he has explained to me at some length the difference between the levels of qualification and how important those differences are for our safety. Standardised criteria for training and examinations are obviously as important as, if not more important than, in many other professions.
In 2015 the regulations created a new standard for language and eyesight tests. Everyone can realise the importance of that. Facility with the language is as important for train drivers as it is for the medical profession, for example, and eyesight is extremely important.
Sensibly, this SI includes a transitional provision for the recognition of European licences in Britain for up to two years. Can the Minister clarify why the phrase “up to two years” is repeatedly used in the Explanatory Memorandum? Is that because the two years is measured from the end of March and we may not leave then? Or is it because the Government have not fully decided what the end of this story is going to be? I am sure that the Minister will understand that knowing exactly how long your licence is going to last is pretty important for those engaged in the profession—and indeed for the people who employ them.
Paragraph 2.11 of the EM says that only,
“a small number of train drivers”,
use European licences. Perhaps the Minister could clarify how many “a small number” is.
I have a real concern about paragraph 2.13, on the removal of requirements to inform the EEA safety authorities if a driver is not meeting the conditions of a licence. There is a discretionary power included for passing information for a transitional two-year period, but there is no obligation. This is something that I have raised time and again: the transfer and sharing of information are at the core of safety procedures, and yet again this Government are playing politics with the safety of our transport system.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, this is about my 60th SI, so I am into some SI fatigue. Previously I have started by saying how much I regret being here because of the Government’s failure to rule out a no-deal Brexit. Unfortunately, the world has changed. If nobody blinks, our no-deal exit is next Saturday and these rules will come in. I therefore have to disagree with my noble friend Lord Foulkes: I think we do have to do this work, for the worst possible reason—because we are in the worst possible place. Brexit itself is bad enough, but the Brexit that is going to be thrust upon us unless sanity reigns—
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Will my noble friend give way? I am going to agree with him: we have to do this. I just regret that we are having to do it because the Prime Minister has taken such a stubborn attitude. If she had understood the position and realised the strength of feeling earlier, we would not now be in the situation of facing the possibility of no deal at the end of next week. I hope that we do not have no deal, but I understand why we are having to do this. I just think that it is a terrible waste of the Minister’s time and staff time, and it would have been completely unnecessary if the Prime Minister had made a sensible decision.
Lord Tunnicliffe
I am glad the noble Lord agrees with me that, unfortunately, it is now a necessity.
Turning to the two instruments, first, I agree with virtually everybody who has spoken—including my noble friends Lord Berkeley and Lord Snape, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson—that the ongoing exchange of information should be a long-term aspiration, even in the silliest position we might find ourselves in. Can the Government come out and say that it will be a long-term aspiration in the rail industry? Exchange of information in the transport sector is one of the key factors necessary to achieve the levels of safety we have come to expect.
Baroness Sugg
I thank noble Lords for their consideration of these draft regulations. I agree with all noble Lords that sharing information is very important, not least because of safety. There will still be a power, rather than a duty, to share information on train driving licences with other member states. That will enable mutual sharing arrangements to be put in place. It is our long-term aspiration to continue to share that information.
On numbers of driving licences, the vast majority of people driving trains in the UK have an ORR-issued licence. There are around 250 drivers in the UK who have licences issued under the EEA. Those licences will be recognised for up to two years. In answer to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, it is up to two years because they may expire before then. If they do, they will need to be replaced. That two years is from exit day, which is currently defined as 29 March, but if that definition changes, it will be two years on from that.
Lord Berkeley
Going back to the Minister’s last comment about sharing information, paragraph 7.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum on train driving licences says:
“The duty to inform EEA safety authorities will be replaced by a discretionary power to provide such information for the two-year period during which European licences continue to be recognised, and then will cease altogether”.
That is not quite the same. I understand what she says about wanting to continue to share information, but that does not appear to be the intent of this document.
Baroness Sugg
I presume that that is the case because we have the two-year implementation period and our future relationship will be subject to negotiations. As I said, our long-term aspiration is to share that information. We think a legal duty is inappropriate, because another authority might refuse to receive information or co-operate, so we would not be able to fulfil that duty.
Lord Deben (Con)
Can my noble friend imagine any circumstances whatever in which the British Government would not want to share such information with our neighbours? Why on earth are we talking about negotiation? Of course we will do that and of course they will want to do that with us. What are we talking about?
Baroness Sugg
As I said previously, it is absolutely our intention to continue to share information. It is important that we do so, not least because of safety. We will continue to have a very close relationship with our European neighbours, and we very much hope to share the information with them. Obviously, they will have to accept that information from us, but our long-term aspiration is to continue to share it.
Baroness Altmann
I know my noble friend is in a difficult position, but it is rather difficult for the House when the SI we are considering says that the exchange of information will cease altogether after the two-year period. I share the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Deben.
Baroness Sugg
I hope that I am able to provide further reassurance that we wish to continue to share information with our neighbours. Obviously, the exact format of that and how we do it will be subject to our future relationship.
On the number of licensed operators, there are 250 drivers in the UK. We are confident that they will relicense with the ORR within the next two years. We notified the industry of this requirement in 2017. Train operators would normally do this on behalf of their drivers in almost every case.
A small number of drivers are using ORR-issued licences in the EU. These will not be recognised in a no-deal scenario, but we have worked with the regulator and operators to ensure that those drivers are aware of the need to obtain an EU licence. I am sorry that the driver who the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, spoke to was not aware of that. If I can get some more information on that, perhaps we can get in contact with them and make sure they are aware.
Following engagement with operators, we are confident that they are aware of everything that they need to do. The technical notices that we published back in October set out the position. We are confident that all relevant operators will have relicensed their train drivers before exit.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the Channel Tunnel. Under EU law, Eurotunnel, as an operator of the shuttle service, is not required to hold and operate a licence. It is a unique cross-border operation and is therefore unaffected by the operator licensing provisions. Eurotunnel engages both UK and French-licensed train drivers to operate its shuttle services. Its ORR-licensed train drivers will be unaffected by these regulations. The Government are working closely with European counterparts, including France, on bilateral arrangements for train drivers operating the freight service and the shuttle service through the Channel Tunnel. The intention is to ensure that the current licensing arrangements are maintained, meaning that Eurotunnel can continue to engage both UK and EU-licensed train drivers in its shuttle operation.
We are also supporting operators with contingency plans. We strongly support the EU’s proposed contingency measures on rail, which will help mitigate any disruption to Eurotunnel shuttle services regarding train driving licences and provide more time for the bilateral arrangements which we expect to be put in place.
The draft regulations from the EU cover UK-issued licences, certificates and authorisations, remaining valid for cross-border rail services for nine months from the date of exit. That will cover both Channel Tunnel services and cross-border services on the island of Ireland. COREPER endorsed this on 20 March. The proposal is expected to be adopted by written procedure tomorrow by the Council of Ministers, and we expect it to take effect early next week. We strongly support those contingency measures. Our future arrangements may well be bilateral, but that nine-month period gives us enough time to get them into place.
Lord Tunnicliffe
I am sure everything the Minister says is accurate and that if I understood the treaty I would understand what she said, but can we translate it into practical terms? By Eurostar services, I assume that she means those to Brussels and Paris—and some intermediate stops which I cannot remember. I think she is telling the House that, on Saturday week, those services will be able to run; and I think she said that the shuttle service would be able to run. But say somebody wants to start a service—as people do aspire to—from London to Milan; is there a bilateral agreement that will allow that to happen or is it one of the many that would have to be negotiated? What if we start running a wider variety of services through the tunnel, such as London to Milan or London to Lyons, through France and into a third country?
Baroness Sugg
The regulation refers to services that are currently running, which will not be affected on day one or after. New services will be subject to separate authorisation and agreements. We hope that our future bilateral arrangements with member states would allow those new services to function, but, at the moment, the proposed regulations cover existing ones.
On the island of Ireland, the draft regulations make provision for licensing arrangements in Great Britain, with the exception of technical corrections to EU-implemented legislation with effect in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. A separate instrument is being taken forward on behalf of Northern Ireland. As with Channel Tunnel services, the UK is engaging very closely with Irish authorities, as well as with the operators of the Enterprise service, to make sure that appropriate arrangements are in place to see the continued smooth function of that service in the event of no deal. Licences issued by Northern Ireland will be valid in the UK and the draft EU regulation will support the smooth running of cross-border services, so that there will be no disruption there.
The Government are, of course, committed to maintaining high safety standards on our railways. We will probably come on to this in our next debate, on future divergence, but we are clear that we will continue to fully engage with industry to look at the impacts—particularly the safety, commercial and cost impacts—of future changes in our railways.
There was a full consultation on operator licences, as part of the consultation on implementing the market pillar directive of the fourth railway package in the UK. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, rightly pointed out that we had a workshop on train driving licences. Unions were invited to attend, but I do not believe that they did. However, there has been extensive engagement between cross-border operators and the unions on arrangements for the licensing of their drivers in the event of no deal. As I have said before, the vast majority of drivers in the UK will be unaffected by this. The Secretary of State has also written to the general secretary of the ASLEF union, outlining our preparations and the actions that industry should be taking in advance of 29 March.
There will be no substantive increase in the ORR’s workload as a consequence of this. On exit day there will be no change to the validity of any existing licences being used. Currently, only one operator providing train services in Great Britain is using a licence issued by an EU member state. After two years, that operator will need to apply to the ORR, but there is no further burden on their resources.
I hope that I have answered noble Lords’ questions—
Lord Tunnicliffe
The noble Baroness has accepted that bilateral negotiations will be necessary in order to extend services through the tunnel to other destinations. Have these started? Is there clarity on who to talk to? Have there been any informal discussions to give us some optimism that there will be favourable outcomes?
Baroness Sugg
Bilateral conversations have indeed started. They have not yet been finalised; we would have been able to finalise an agreement in time for exit day had the EU regulations not come into force. I am not entirely sure whether future services are part of those conversations, but we very much hope we can ensure they can happen after we leave the European Union. We are working very closely with all our European counterparts, including France, regarding bilateral arrangements on licensing and certification, the existing international rail freight services, and passenger services. Given the EU regulations, we are confident of mitigating the disruption to those services. As I say, we are also working very closely with the rail operators to make sure they are prepared and hold valid EU licences where they need them and certificates to continue operating in the EU in the event of no deal.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I was hoping that the Minister would answer my question and give me some indication of how much of her very valuable time she spent dealing with what my noble friend has now disclosed was 90 statutory instruments, and how many officials in the department have been occupied in this task, which might well not have been necessary.
Baroness Sugg
I fear that I have done only nearly 40 statutory instruments in this Chamber or in the Moses Room. The noble Lord has the happy responsibility of covering more than one department, unlike myself. But I agree with the noble Lord that it has taken up a significant amount of my time, my department’s time and officials’ time. I am not able to quantify exactly how many hours that has been. We are hopeful of reaching agreement with the EU, so that we will not need these no-deal SIs. However, until it is agreed by the European Union and the date of our exit is changed by both Houses of Parliament, we will need to continue to put these in place—they are necessary.
These draft regulations will ensure that our train driver and operator licensing system continues to function effectively when we leave the EU. Maintaining the status quo as regards the requirements and duties placed on train drivers and operators is necessary to ensure that the licensing regime remains robust. These SIs deliver the Government’s objective of maintaining the status quo, avoiding uncertainty for train drivers and operators in respect of train driving licensing and certification and operator licensing. I think I have answered most questions, and I will write to the noble Lord on paragraph 7.7. I commend the regulations to the House.
Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 11 February be approved.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B).
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat the Answer to an Urgent Question given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the other place. Before I begin, I would like to express sincere sorrow at the news from the weekend that three young people died in Cookstown following a celebration of St Patrick’s Day. Our thoughts and prayers continue to be with their families.
The Answer to the Urgent Question is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to update the House on my progress towards restoring the Northern Ireland Executive and the other institutions established under the Belfast agreement. In recent weeks I have met the Northern Ireland parties and the Irish Government on a number of occasions. In those discussions, all five parties reaffirmed their commitment to restoring a power-sharing Executive and the other political institutions set out in the Belfast agreement. While we have not yet been able to start a formal talks process, I believe that the five main parties and the Irish Government would be in favour of taking forward a short, focused set of round-table talks to restore devolution at the earliest opportunity. Any such talks process will involve the UK Government, the five main parties and the Irish Government, taking place in full accordance with the well-established three-stranded approach.
As you know, Mr Speaker, the period for Executive formation was extended by the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018, which lasts until 26 March this year. I am incredibly reluctant to extend that period. The people of Northern Ireland deserve strong political leadership from a locally elected, accountable devolved Government and I am absolutely focused on achieving this outcome. But as we stand here today, there are only three options before the legislation expires next week.
The first is an Assembly election—a costly exercise which would be highly unlikely to change the political dynamics. The second is an alternative approach to decision-making in Northern Ireland, such as direct rule—something that I do not believe is in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. Certainly, they tell me that it is not what they want.
The third option is to extend the Act. This gives the political parties more space to come back together in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland. It also provides the Northern Ireland Civil Service with the certainty and clarity it needs to continue to deliver public services in the absence of Ministers.
So I have today laid before Parliament a statutory instrument to extend the period for Executive formation from 26 March 2019 to 25 August 2019. This means that from 26 August this year I will fall under the duty to propose a date for an Assembly election. Both Houses will have the opportunity to debate the instrument in the usual way, and the instrument cannot remain in force unless actively approved by both Houses”.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I join the Minister in extending my sympathies to the families of the three young people who tragically died at Cookstown.
I see the point of the secondary legislation that the Minister described, but I deplore the need for it. Northern Ireland has been without its institutions of government for more than two years. The failure to restore them must rest with the Government, whatever the different views of the political parties in Northern Ireland. It has been one long saga of inertia and inactivity.
I know from personal experience how difficult it can be in Northern Ireland, but I see no evidence that energy and commitment have been effectively applied. Frankly, the Prime Minister has shown little interest; no attempt has been made to appoint an independent chair; there has been no structure to the talks; and suggestions regarding a possible restoration of the Assembly on its own have been ignored. This has to change, since the absence of devolution is a massive threat to the Good Friday agreement and everything it stands for.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I share the noble Lord’s huge concern that we have had to take this step. We were very much hoping that the Assembly would now be up and running again—so I agree with him to that extent. However, it should be made clear that this Government and the Secretary of State have worked tirelessly to get to this point, where we now have a chink of light. We have a chink of light because there has been much engagement with the five main parties. Indeed, in February there was a very hopeful and helpful round table, and there have been several bilaterals since. As the House will know, the Prime Minister has visited Northern Ireland on several occasions in recent months and keeps in touch with all the parties on a regular basis.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I extend our sympathies to the families of those young people who lost their lives in that tragic incident in Cookstown.
This Statement is sadly predictable and could have been foreseen. In spite of the Minister’s reply to the Labour Benches, the reality is that the past five months have not been used to accelerate and move towards a solution. If he is right that there is now a willingness to do so, we have only five months, after more than two years, to get to a practical outcome. It should not be left to the argument that any one of the parties—for whatever political reason—is prepared to sacrifice the interests of the people of Northern Ireland because of wider interests. Is it not time, first, to look for practical measures to get the politicians working together even before the Assembly is fully re-established, and, secondly, to appoint a facilitator who can perhaps achieve what the Secretary of State sadly has not managed to achieve—to knock heads together and make people understand that the people of Northern Ireland deserve better from their politicians? Direct rule cannot be applied if it means that decisions are accountable to this Parliament, where most of the parties of Northern Ireland are not represented and where their voices are sadly missing.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The House will be fully aware of the challenging circumstances that continue to be the status quo in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord will know that these matters are not easy. But I will say again that the Secretary of State and the Government have been looking at all possible practical measures to try to get the Assembly up and running again. That continues, and will continue, despite the Northern Ireland elections. We absolutely do not want to get to the point where there might be direct rule. It is absolutely not the agenda and it is essential that we keep the momentum going. As I said, there is a chink of light and it is very good news that the parties are talking—but we need to get to a point, well within the five months, where formal talks are in the offing.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister accept from me that, while those of us from Northern Ireland fully accept the reason for the Answer that he has made public this morning, there is a growing cynicism among the ordinary people of Northern Ireland, who see their health service, schools and social amenities—a wide field of activity in Northern Ireland—suffering day by day and night by night? That cynicism is largely based on bland statements that efforts are being made to fill the vacuum. I know that there is intent in the Government to be seen to be doing everything possible to fill the vacuum, and I accept that there are difficulties with the local parties. However, I urge the Minister to convey what many of us are saying in the Chamber: the frustration in the community at large is extremely dangerous at this time given the unrest leading up to Brexit.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I can understand the frustration expressed by the noble and right reverend Lord, and I am sure that he expresses it on behalf of the whole of Northern Ireland and indeed this side of the Irish Sea. We all want to make progress. However, as I say, today there is a chink of light. The Secretary of State has been clear with the political parties and the House that she has decided to extend the period for Executive formation only because she has seen some clear progress towards restoring devolution. So the willingness is there, and the Secretary of State’s engagement with the parties over the last weeks have given her enough reassurance that we can see productive talks going forward.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I associate myself with every word that my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen said, and with the comments of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames. This is a dire and serious situation, from the very serious problem of waiting lists for children in the National Health Service in Northern Ireland, right the way through to the lack of a functioning Assembly and Executive, at a time of great crisis in Northern Ireland. It is probably the most serious crisis it has faced in many a long year—and that is saying something.
I want to ask specifically about the date of 25 August that I think the Minister mentioned. Parliament will not be sitting, so I find it an odd date. I stress to the Minister, and through him to the Government and the Prime Minister, that, as many of us have said, including my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen, this problem will not be cracked without the Prime Minister’s personal engagement, not just flying in for an odd hour here or there but convening people together in a conference—if necessary, going overnight, and again—until the problem is cracked. There are solutions to these issues of the Irish language and other questions; attention needs to be focused in a concentrated and personal way, and I am afraid that it is not.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I know that the Secretary of State and the Government are very aware of the date of 25 August, which the noble Lord raised. We want to give the fullest possible time for the talks to have the best chance of success. The Secretary of State is aware of that time, and it is during the Recess, but there will be every chance for the next stages to happen well in advance of that, so that is fine. On the Prime Minister’s role, it must be made absolutely clear again that she is keeping in very close contact with what is going on and, as I said earlier, she has been talking regularly to all five main parties.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his expression of sympathy for the families of Lauren, Morgan and Connor, the young people who tragically died in Cookstown. It is important that the PSNI fully investigates the circumstances, and we trust that those who have been injured will recover and that the young people impacted by this tragedy are given appropriate counselling. The present situation, in which major decisions impacting the lives of the people of Northern Ireland are not being taken, is totally unacceptable. Will the Minister therefore assure the House that every effort will be taken to restore devolved government, and that the Assembly will no longer be held to ransom because of unreasonable red lines set by one party—Sinn Féin?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I can only repeat what I said earlier, which is that the Secretary of State and the Government, very much including the Prime Minister, want to see the Assembly up and running. That is an absolute priority and every effort is being made to achieve that. The noble Lord makes a very good point.
Railways (Interoperability) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
13:36 - Division on Lord Berkeley’s Motion - Ayes: 50 / Noes: 92 - Lord Berkeley’s Motion disagreed.
Lord Berkeley
That this House regrets that the Railways (Inter- operability) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (SI 2019/345), laid before the House on 26 February, will cost United Kingdom businesses excessively in operating a potentially diverging range of safety and other railway standards from those of the United Kingdom’s largest market, and regrets the failure of Her Majesty’s Government to demonstrate any significant benefits; and calls on Her Majesty’s Government to lay new regulations that would enable continued compliance with the activities of the European Agency for Rail to provide the best ongoing business opportunities for manufacturers, rail passengers and freight customers in the United Kingdom; continued and consistent safety improvements; and reduced manufacturing costs as a result of one common set of standards across Europe.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A).
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, the previous two SIs that we debated caused a lot of interest—I am grateful to so many noble Lords for their contributions—but they are to some extent the hors d’oeuvre, because this one is the main course. I wanted to table it as a fatal Motion because I feel so strongly about it, but the timing does not really help and I was told it might be several weeks before parliamentary time was found, which would be after the Brexit date that we had—I do not know whether we still do; that is for discussion.
This is a really serious problem: transferring all responsibility for railway safety and standards from the European railway agency to the Secretary of State in the event of a no-deal Brexit. It is very complex, as noble Lords said earlier, but in this case it is also unnecessary: there is a much simpler solution. My impression is that the reason that so many of these pieces of railway legislation, and those on air travel, are presented as a major change is because somebody in government does not like the word “Europe” in the title. We debated this last week when we were discussing the noise regulations in respect of airports, and I suggested to the Minister that there was a serious conflict of interest here, because if the Secretary of State—I am not being personal: any Secretary of State—is responsible for noise regulation at airports but is also pushing for all he or she is worth the third runway at Heathrow, it is in the Secretary of State’s interest that the noise regulations are as lax as possible. The lack of consultation was discussed then, and I fear the same is happening here.
There is a solution, which I shall come to. The European railway agency goes back a long time: I have been involved in it for probably more than 10 years. It means that there is one set of standards for the manufacture, export, testing and everything in the railway sector across Europe. There is the common requirement for safety, accident and other data, which the House also discussed this morning. It is extraordinary that the Government are introducing this massive change for what I call dogmatic reasons.
I give noble Lords an example of what happened about 10 years ago, which was one reason why the ERA was created. A rail freight wagon was developed in this country to take trucks piggybacked on it—mostly cement trucks. It worked very well. It was developed by a company called WH Davis, and it was so successful that it had an export order to operate in France. When it tried to get approval from the French regulatory authority to operate in France, the changes necessary—which were not that big but were significant—would not allow it to operate in this country. So there could not be a wagon that complied with both countries’ standards at the same time. That is a small example of why it was so important to make a European agency responsible for such things, which would also allow manufacturers in one country to apply to the ERA for approval if they thought that approval in one particular member state was being withheld for reasons that might be political.
There is, I am afraid, another more recent example of the Secretary of State’s involvement, involving station platform heights; I am sure that noble Lords are great experts on that subject. One of the reasons why the Government apparently do not like anything to do with the ERA is that it told them they could not have a certain station platform height for HS2, because it was different from the platform heights on similar high-speed lines on the continent. I am told that that caused a certain amount of anger: how dare Europe interfere? This is interesting, because the station platform height regulation applies to only four stations on HS2. All the other stations that HS2 trains will go into have Network Rail platforms, whose heights are all different anyway.
If the Government think that they are very good at such things, let us consider Crossrail station platforms. The Crossrail stations in the central section allow level boarding between the platform and the train—but unfortunately that height is different from all the other stations that Crossrail trains will go into at each end of the route, at Reading, Shenfield and wherever else. That means that someone in a wheelchair will need help at every station outside the centre: they will need not only a portable ramp, but a staff member to help them on and off the train. When I asked why we could not have one common station platform height for the centre sections and the outside sections, I was told that the European railway agency thought about the plan and questioned it, but because this is a metro service it does not have the wherewithal to challenge the Government. This is what the Government have achieved, which is unclear and will cost everybody a lot of money for a very long time.
It may be surprising, but the whole railway industry is I think in favour of the status quo with the European railway agency. Whether it be Network Rail, the Rail Delivery Group, the Railway Industry Association, the Rail Freight Group—I have already declared an interest as a former chairman of that—or the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport, they all want the status quo to continue. I have talked to them all, and if they have not gone public on this too much it is because many of them have had to sign ridiculous non-disclosure agreements. Let us hope that that will stop as soon as the Brexit debate finishes.
There are strong arguments for staying with the European railway agency. My preference would be to suggest an associate membership, such as the Swiss Government have. I have talked to people in Switzerland, both in railways and in government, and they say that it works fine. They are not on the boards, but they still get things done by talking to people. They mentioned the European Court of Justice. The Swiss do not like it, any more than our Government do. But when I asked whether that was a problem, they said, “No, we just carry on talking about it—but it works”. So I suggest that the solution is something like associate membership of the European railway agency. We should abandon this ridiculously complicated SI—which may get abandoned anyway if we do not bale out.
I hope that in her response the Minister can give me two assurances. One is that, assuming that this SI does not come into force, the Government will consider alternatives to the present idea when they look at it again—which they probably will unless we stay in the EU. The second is that they will discuss with the Swiss Government, the European Union and the European railway agency whether there is an arrangement that could enable the continuation of compliance and information sharing. I repeat: that is what the industry wants. It will save money and provide more export opportunities. It seems to me that there is no downside, apart from the fact that the European railway agency has “Europe” in its name. I beg to move.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I endorse everything my noble friend said. This SI represents a significant change, not just in our relationship with Europe, but as far as our industrial potential is concerned.
For too long, this country has given away to, or allowed takeovers of its major industrial production by, foreign Governments. At the time of nationalisation, back in 1948, there were more than 150 railway workshops in this country. Those of us of a certain age are familiar with seeing that “Made in Britain” sign in railway industries in other parts of the world—for example, on locomotives, rolling stock and signalling systems. I was in Hong Kong in the 1970s. The new rapid transit system there depended on the expertise of GEC Alsthom, which built the first trains for that system in Birmingham. Yet we have thrown away all that expertise and allowed foreign companies to take over our industrial production.
This SI will make matters worse. If we are to have different standards from EU—that will happen over the years—the ever-smaller market of the United Kingdom will continue to shrink. Even as we speak, the signalling systems in Europe are being unified. The French and German Governments have just refused—temporarily, I suspect—the amalgamation of two major signalling production companies to create, in effect, a European monopoly on signalling. Again, if this SI goes through, our prospects of competing in these areas will be diminished. That is what it means.
We are moving away from the European railway agency—the ERA—and placing these decisions in the hands of the Department for Transport and the Secretary of State. The Minister will be relieved to know that I will not indulge in any knockabout about the current Secretary of State; after all, even with his powers of survival, I cannot see him being in the department much longer. We are moving away from European standards and allowing him, or some other Secretary of State, to decide standards for rolling stock and railway materials more generally in this country. That is what we are doing. That is how significant this SI is.
I indicated earlier that there were more than 150 workshops in this country at the time of nationalisation. There were 52 at the time of privatisation. There is a small handful of them now, all of which are foreign-owned. People do not invest in this country because they love the British; they do so for various financial reasons. If we are to reduce our market in the way that this SI will, those companies could decide that it is not worth investing in the United Kingdom in the long term and move elsewhere. That is how significant this SI is. I do not know what the Minister can do other than adopt the associate membership my noble friend Lord Berkeley talked about, but I regret that this Motion is not fatal. Unless the Minister can satisfy us and assuage our very real fears, this barmy piece of legislation ought to be resisted.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friends Lord Berkeley and Lord Snape in their opposition to this measure and add my regrets that we are not pursuing a fatal Motion on this issue. My interest in this is personal. I am a railway clerk’s son from Carlisle and I have always been passionate about the railways. My first job in national politics was as special adviser to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, when he was Secretary of State for Transport, so I have a personal connection. Also, I happened to learn quite a lot about the detail of this SI from being a member of your Lordships’ EU Sub-Committee on the Internal Market, chaired so wonderfully by my noble friend Lord Whitty. The Secretary of State appeared as a witness before us on these questions and it was absolutely plain that the reason he wanted to withdraw from the European agency was nothing more than ideology. He could not stand the fact that standards would be set by Europe. That is what we face all the time from Ministers in this Government. There is no pragmatism about Brexit, so why do noble Lords think we are in trouble? It is because of that absolute absence of any pragmatism.
When we had that hour-long disquisition by the Secretary of State, I raised the issue of the manufacturing plants, which, as my noble friend Lord Snape said, are now foreign-owned but based in Britain. My noble friend Lord Adonis is not in his place but I know that a remarkable achievement of his—one of many, by the way—when he was Secretary of State for Transport was to get Hitachi to establish a plant in Durham that would manufacture trains.
Lord Snape
I hate to interrupt my noble friend in full flow, but may I point out to him that that plant in Durham is not a manufacturing plant, it is an assembly plant? That is the great weakness of British industry these days. We put together materials and trains that are built elsewhere. That is what we are going to do in Durham.
Lord Liddle
I quite accept the point made by my noble friend but it is better than nothing and it provides hundreds of jobs in Durham. While my noble friend says it is just an assembly plant, how could such a plant operate in Britain if we decided to have different technical standards from those on the continent? That would completely destroy the business model on which that inward investment had been made.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful to my noble friend for his words. Is he aware that Hitachi recently bought a firm in Italy that manufactures trains and signalling equipment? Can he imagine what would happen if it had to manufacture in all these places using different standards for the European markets and the UK?
Lord Liddle
As always, my noble friend Lord Berkeley makes an excellent point. I think that the Government have to come up with a better explanation for why we should be leaving these arrangements than the simple, “Why should we bother to be part of some European agency when we have left the European Union?”
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak with some trepidation. I am not as expert in these matters as the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley, Lord Snape and Lord Liddle. However, I share their concerns about what the Government are doing by extricating us from years of integration in Europe in important areas of our national life. This is a perfect example of the dangers of the obsessive ideology which seems to believe that we must leave the European agencies which we helped to establish. Leaving them will impose much greater costs on our country, much more regulation rather than less, and indeed doing so will probably take us back around 10 years in the progress we have made across Europe in these vital areas of our national life.
I support fully the call by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for us to remain at least an associate member of the European rail agency as well as the signalling agency. The transfer of responsibility from these agencies, which have enormous expertise and experience, to the Secretary of State fills one with some trepidation, to put it mildly. It may be that my noble friend the Minister, who I am sure shares some of my concerns even though she is in a difficult position, can provide some assurances that the Government will consider alternative plans that allow us to remain part of these agencies whether or not we leave the EU with a deal. Obviously, I hope that we have no chance of leaving with no deal, but so far the Government have refused to consider the idea of revocation if that is the only way to avoid it.
We need to continue the important activities of compliance and information sharing that are a part of these agencies. Just because there is some link to the ECJ, for example, is not a good enough reason to leave agencies that are so important to many areas of our national way of life, prosperity, security and safety. I urge my noble friend to respond positively with some of the assurances that the noble Lord is seeking.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for bringing forward this Motion, and state that had he had chosen to table a fatal Motion, I would have supported him all the way. It is a supreme irony that Britain, the country that brought the railways to the world, is now insulating itself from world progress on the technology.
As we work through these SIs, they produce a range of solutions to the problems that the transport sector faces. Some of the solutions are relatively neat, while others are pretty clumsy. Then there is this one, which is simply downright stupid. That stupidity has been recognised by all the key railway industry organisations, which are seriously worried about the future. I also draw attention to the fact that the SLSC sub-committee which looked at this SI has expressed its view that an important policy issue is being raised here.
Interoperability means the application of EU-wide technical and operational standards. That applies to the rail infrastructure, the vehicles and the component parts. It is based on technical specifications, known as TSIs, devised by the European rail agency. It is important to note that the UK is very well represented at that agency by its technical experts. We have been a leading member and we have a vote, which of course we are going to give up. TSIs automatically apply to the UK, so we have not had to create our own regulations, but that does not stop us creating our own additional standards. These are proposed by the Rail Industry Safety and Standards Board.
There are a number of key issues about this SI. It is made under powers in the Transport Act 2000, and so would normally be done by the negative procedure. As all of this is very controversial, as I shall set out later, I am concerned that future SIs on this subject should be passed by the affirmative procedure. Can the Minister give us that reassurance today?
This SI cuts us off from the European rail agency, as the noble Lord has explained, and transfers powers to the Secretary of State. I am with the noble Baroness in saying that this does not fill me with confidence, because the European rail agency was set up to harmonise standards to enable the rail industry to better compete with other forms of transport. It effectively shadowed the systems in place for aviation and the maritime industry, and the Government have decided to remain members of those international organisations.
At the heart of the European rail agency is the sharing of data. As I have said many times, data is the key to safety. By leaving the agency we are cutting ourselves off from that data. As I have pointed out, even if you continue to share the data on a good will basis, you tend to get out of step, because standardised methods of collection of that data are a key aspect in it being robust. Once you are on the outside of the system, you can no longer rely on that data. It does not have to be like this. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, pointed out, the Swiss are an associate member. Although they do not have a vote, they participate fully in other ways.
The replacement of the agency as the setter of standards by the Secretary of State is extremely worrying. There is a specific intention in this SI, unlike in others, to diverge over time from EU standards. In other circumstances, in other SIs, the Government have explained that they want to carry on shadowing what exists, but not so for railways. This is a clear politicisation of the railways issue, simply because the current Secretary of State has a bee in his bonnet and wants to diverge whenever possible from EU standards and organisations. We have a very important rail manufacturing industry, supplying a buoyant export market to the EU. It is certainly not in its interest to have to manufacture to two different sets of standards, which would obviously cost more.
The SI talks about consultation with the industry. In my view, that is an empty offer and completely meaningless; the industry has already been consulted and has made it clear that it does not want the divergence. The DfT is already under attack for failing to co-ordinate and lead the rail industry effectively, and here we are heaping more and more powers on the Secretary of State in a series of SIs. That will not improve matters. There is no transparency here, in contrast to the EU processes for the railway industry—there is not even a role for a statutory adviser. We have an inept Government, whose response to the chaos they face is simply to take more and more powers for themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, referred to the visit by the Secretary of State to EU Sub-Committee B. We asked him about his wish to diverge from EU standards, because we had already heard evidence from the rail industry organisations that they did not want that. The only benefit he could come up with was that we could build our platforms to a different height, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has explained. There are two problems with this: first, we already have a derogation on this; and, secondly, it seems we already build platforms to a number of different heights. For example, as the noble Lord said, for Crossrail there will be step-free access in the tunnels from the platform to the train, but not on the existing Network Rail platforms. Someone has come up with the idea of actually building trains with lower floors, so you do not need to worry about the platform heights; I give the example of Merseyrail. Where there is divergence in standards, any new product will be assessed against the UK standard by a UK-approved body. As the secondary legislation sub-committee pointed out:
“As a result, there may be situations where new products already holding conformity assessment documents issued against”,
EU,
“TSIs will need to be reassessed”,
for the UK market. That is stupid. That bureaucracy will cost a lot of money for those purchasing in Britain.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
I first declare an interest as a founding chairman of the RSSB and its chairman for five years. Many of the transport SIs have assigned duties to the Secretary of State, and on each occasion I have asked who will advise the Secretary of State and whether it is a statutory or necessary process. As far as I can see, in this case it is not clear who would advise the Secretary of State, and I think that is deficient. I will not make a long speech, because, broadly speaking, I agree with my noble friend Lord Berkeley—not something I do that often, but on this occasion he has got it absolutely right.
One reason for the affluence we all enjoy today—this has been a truth since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution—is the impact of volume. When you think of it, a small family car costs less than one year’s labour costs for a car worker. Imagine standing there with a heap of coal and a heap of iron ore, and you have to build a car in a year by yourself. How do people achieve these things? It is through volume, research, mechanisation and complexity. Complexity is constantly brought into our lives at very little cost, because of volume. This law of volume means that the £13.50 watch on my wrist, as a one-off, would probably cost several hundred million pounds to develop from scratch. Volume is king, and the curse of the railway industry is that it does not, in general, have volume production. Therefore, it is unable to amortise production costs in the same way as industries such as the automotive industry. The ERA was the basis of allowing volume to be created. This is particularly important with the signalling revolution that is under way in Europe and this country.
I therefore agree with the general approach taken by my noble friend Lord Berkeley. I hope the Minister will produce some warm words about future aspirations. It would be madness not to become an associate member of the ERA, if we are able to negotiate that. I doubt whether this is the right instrument to require that, and therefore I do not support this regret Motion in the absolute sense of how it is written, but I support the general philosophy behind it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for securing this debate and other noble Lords for their contributions. I greatly respect the depth of knowledge and experience that the noble Lord and many other noble Lords have in this area, and I am sorry that there is a strong difference of opinion.
The technical notice published in October set out the Government’s position in the event of no deal and the UK no longer being a member state, and that is that we will not seek formal participation in the European Union Agency for Railways. The reason for that is that this will provide scope in the future for potential convergence should we consider that to be beneficial for passengers and industry. It is likely that associate participation in the agency by third countries will be conditional on their adopting and applying full Union law for railway safety and interoperability, and the Government’s position is that if we leave the EU with no deal it would not be appropriate for us to continue to be compelled to accept rules that we would not be able to vote on. That is the position of the Government on the European Union railway industry.
These exit regulations specifically make the changes that are necessary to ensure that the rail vehicle and infrastructure authorisation regime continues to function correctly. They put in place a domestic rail standards framework that will replicate the technical requirements —the TSIs—in force on exit day. These changes are needed because we will no longer be a member state and those deficiencies will be there if they are not corrected. Therefore, I am pleased that the noble Lord downgraded his fatal Motion to a regret Motion.
The noble Lord’s Motion states that divergence from the EU standards will cause excessive costs to UK businesses, but I can reassure noble Lords that any decisions about potential divergence will not be taken lightly. This SI does not imply that there will be divergence but allows the possibility of divergence to happen. The flexibility to align or diverge will not necessarily increase costs; in some cases, it could decrease costs. The post-implementation review of the railways interoperability regulations found that the inability to diverge is causing excessive costs in some cases. For example, the Private Wagon Federation noted that EU standards prevent the UK from using older freight wagon types that are allowed in some other member states. It is concerned that that is increasing costs for the freight industry. Network Rail has also raised concerns that the costs associated with a rigid approach to the application of EU standards could sometimes outweigh the benefits.
Many noble Lords cited the concerns of the industry on this position. The concern is around future divergence rather than the position itself, and I agree that it is important to get it right. Decisions on divergence will always be made on the basis of consultation with industry and stakeholders, taking into account UK interests, and we would not choose to diverge if this process identified excessive costs to the UK or safety concerns.
I disagree that we have an aversion to the word “Europe”. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, pointed out, we are seeking continued participation in many European organisations. In this area, we will continue to play a leading role in European standards organisations. The BSI will continue to play an active role in the European Committee for Standardization and the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization, for which membership is not an obligation after we leave the EU. We will also continue to be an active member of the Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail, COTIF, which will help us to shape international rail technical standards. This would also allow us to share information when we are no longer a member state. As I said in the previous debate, we are committed to sharing information.
There were a couple of questions in the previous debate on why we would cease to share information. To clarify that, we would cease to share information about non-ORR issued licences from the UK. After two years, we would not have any of those and so we would continue to share information about our ORR-issued licences. We are committed to continuing to share information, and there are plenty ways we can do that outside the European Union rail agency.
We want to continue to work closely with the agency in the development of rail standards. We of course understand the importance and the advantage of working closely with our European neighbours, both for our manufacturers and the infrastructure here in the UK. We understand from the Rail Safety and Standards Board, the RSSB, that there has already been some discussion with the agency on the ways the two organisations will continue working together after exit to share best practice on the development of standards and rail safety. That might take the form of a memorandum of understanding between the two organisations, and we would encourage a close working relationship. However, the exact nature of our relationship with the agency should we leave with a deal will be subject to wider discussions with the EU on a future partnership. This is a statutory instrument in the event that we leave with no deal.
I appreciate that there are concerns about the process for developing these new NTSNs after exit and how we make decisions about the appropriate technical contact. I assure noble Lords that the Department for Transport will work closely with the RSSB as the main UK industry body for the development of the rail technical standards to inform NTSN decision-making. The RSSB has agreed to run consultations on proposed new NTSNs in response to new EU standards. These will be run in parallel with the European consultations as the standards are developed. Those TSIs are published online and there will not be a hold-up in decision-making here so that we can step with the standards. The RSSB will report any identified impacts of divergence from or alignment with the EU standards and make a formal recommendation to the Secretary of State so that the final decision will be made taking into account those views.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. This SI in itself does not give rise to further delegated powers but covers the publication of NTSNs. Future SIs in this area would be subject to the negative procedure because they will be made under the Transport Act. However, there is always the ability to debate them on the Floor of the House, as we are doing with this one.
If divergence is being considered—which, of course, is the main, understandable concern of industry—we will first notify Parliament through making a Written Ministerial Statement before any final decisions are made. That Statement will refer to the report from the RSSB consultation process and outline the nature of the proposed divergence, the rationale for it and set out the potential costs and benefits. As I say, this SI in itself does not lead to further divergence. However, if it is decided that divergence would be to the benefit of the UK industry and passengers, that would be consulted on and clearly set out to Parliament.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned the impact assessment. It provides a narrative analysis rather than a quantified assessment of net costs and benefits to businesses. That is purely because we do not yet know what any future divergence might look like. On day one, we are replicating standards in the EU word for word. We are simply publishing them through the new NTSN process. We do not yet know what, if any, future divergence there will be, so it is not possible to understand what the costs may be. Future divergence would be subject to a full impact assessment, and at that point we will be able to understand the costs and benefits.
Lord Berkeley
Will the Minister say something about what would happen in the event of the Prime Minister’s deal—in other words, not the cliff edge—and whether this SI would no longer apply? Would the Government bring back a similar SI or would they carry on as we are at the moment? What options are open?
Baroness Sugg
If the exit day is changed as agreed, the exit day in this SI would change as agreed. I do not want to predict what is going to happen over the next couple of days or the length of an extension, if there is one. Our position is still that we do not want to seek membership of the European Union Agency for Railways.
I understand noble Lords’ concerns in this area. I will take them back to the department and inform the Secretary of State of the strength of feeling on this. I hope I have provided reassurances on the consultation, the impact assessment and parliamentary scrutiny of any future divergence, which is the main and understandable concern of industry, whether manufacturers, importers, exporters or whatever.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, made a key point about volume. This is not an attempt to diverge from standards; it is simply that if we are no longer a member state, we will not have a vote in the European Union Agency for Railways, so these regulations remove the obligation to take its rules. If we decide to diverge, we will have full consultation and a full impact assessment and we will ensure that we inform Parliament. While this is a no-deal exit SI, the future relationship is always subject to conversation with the Commission and member states, should we get to an implementation period. We will have close conversations with them on this agency and other European agencies in the future partnership agreement.
I am not able to go any further on our future position with the European Union Agency for Railways at this stage, but the noble Lord’s position on it is clear and I will ensure I take it back and discuss it with the department. Given the assurances that there are no set plans to diverge, that we will consult, publish an impact assessment and inform Parliament, I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his Motion.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful to the Minister. She has tried very hard to justify something which is probably impossible to justify. She talked about divergence, as did many noble Lords. Unfortunately, when people say there is going to be no divergence, it happens for political reasons. That is not just under this Government; it has been around since time immemorial. It helps to have an agency which is completely separate from the political process. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, if it can work for air and sea, why can it not work for rail?
It may not matter, but I can see cost, bureaucracy and a loss of business coming from this SI. I very much hope that we do not leave the European Union in the manner that requires this SI to be implemented, but I have not heard what would happen in the event of our agreeing with the European Union another way out or even staying in—that is a different matter because we would stay in the ERA. I also have not heard a good argument for us not staying with the European Union Agency for Railways under associate membership. If Switzerland can do so, why not us? Switzerland has very good railways. We all have a process for derogations. We have been having derogations from the ERA for a long time. I am told that it has stopped giving us derogations, probably because it is so fed up with us at the moment, but that will not go on for ever.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. There seems to be solid support for stating in the European Union Agency for Railways, with the exception of the Minister and my noble friend on the Front Bench—he and I do not always agree on everything, and that is fine. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Common Rules for Access to the International Market for Coach and Bus Services (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 26 February be approved.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, the regulations that we are considering will be made under powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and will be needed in the event of no deal. This instrument amends the retained EU legislation governing access to the international passenger transport market and associated domestic implementing legislation to deal with deficiencies that would otherwise exist when the UK leaves the EU.
EU regulation 1073/2009 establishes the conditions for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus within the EU and cabotage within member states by non-resident EU operators. It covers regular timetabled services and occasional services such as holidays and tours. It establishes for this purpose a system of Community licences, which act as the international bus and coach licences used within the EU, and enables these licences to be issued by the competent authorities of member states.
Section 3 of the withdrawal Act will preserve EU regulation 1073/2009 in domestic law, and Section 2 will preserve implementing domestic legislation, including the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 and the Road Transport (International Passenger Services) Regulations 2018. This SI adjusts the language and references in those pieces of retained legislation, and five other pieces of legislation, to recognise that the UK is no longer a member state.
The SI also amends the retained UK version of regulation 1073/2009 to allow EU-based operators to continue to access the UK market in a no-deal scenario on a unilateral basis by means of the recognition of Community licences and control documents—other than new authorisations for regular services—issued by EU authorities under EU legislation. Existing authorisations for international regular services into the UK will continue to be recognised to avoid any additional administrative burden for operators.
This SI also covers Northern Ireland in its territorial extent. The devolved Administration have to make some consequential changes to their devolved legislation, and that is subject to a separate instrument.
The retained regulation 1073/2011 will apply only to EU-based operators. In the event of no deal, UK operators will be able to continue to access the EU market through accession to the Interbus agreement. This is an EU multilateral agreement that allows bus and coach operators to carry out occasional services between the participating countries—currently, the EU and seven other contracting parties in eastern Europe. At present, the UK is party to the agreement through its EU membership. Although the agreement currently covers only occasional services it is being extended to cover regular services, but this process has not yet concluded.
As part of contingency planning for no deal, the Government have deposited their instrument of accession to the Interbus agreement. This means that the UK will become a contracting party to the agreement in its own right. Due to the way the rules of the Interbus agreement apply, this will happen on 1 April. The Government are currently working closely with the European Commission to agree a way to close the two-day gap if we leave without a deal on 29 March.
In acknowledgment of the fact that the extension of the Interbus agreement to regular services will not be in place by exit day, the European Commission has extended the scope of its measure for an EU regulation on common rules ensuring basic road freight connectivity to include regular passenger services. This regulation was formally adopted by EU Ministers on Tuesday and will apply to UK passenger transport operators running regular services to and from the EU for the first nine months after exit, if we should leave without a deal. The Commission’s proposal is based on the UK reciprocating, and the draft regulations that we are considering today will reciprocate those conditions for EU operators in the UK.
Coach travel provides a low-cost, safe and environmentally friendly way to travel. Coaches from continental Europe bring in some 1.6 million visitors each year, and in Northern Ireland travel across the border is a commonplace daily activity, with 900,000 journeys per annum. These regulations allow for the continuation of EU bus and coach services in the UK and reciprocate the EU regulation so that UK regular services can continue to operate to and from the EU.
These regulations are essential to support our tourism industry and to ensure that international services can continue to run. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for bringing this SI and for her introduction. She has probably answered my question, but from reading paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum it looked as if UK operators would not be able to operate on the continent from 30 March. I think she has confirmed that that is no longer the case because of these more recent agreements. I hope we will be able to see a continuation of this important traffic without any interruption. What the French customs and immigration people do is of course a different matter, but let us hope that at least the services can run. I hope this will continue and that therefore the services that go to many member states across Europe can continue without getting bogged down in too much bureaucracy. As the Minister has said, it is a very important market.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, here is an SI that does not replicate what exists now, yet, astonishingly, there has been no formal consultation on it. The Explanatory Memorandum claims that it makes just technical amendments, but really it does much more than that. We must remember how important this industry is to us. Every year there are 3.6 million journeys to and from Britain by coach and 1.6 million overseas visitors coming to Britain by coach. That is 4% of all foreign tourists who come to Britain, and 83% of that 4% are from the EU. On the return leg, 1.1 million British residents go abroad by coach, of which 99% go to the EU. Looking at Northern Ireland, which is very important as well, there are 900,000 border crossings from Northern Ireland to the Republic and vice versa in a year.
The EU regulation allows reciprocal access for regular scheduled services and for occasional services—we would call them coach holidays. This SI provides unilateral access for current EU operators after Brexit in the hope that there will be reciprocal arrangements. I will turn to that later. The SI was originally recommended for the negative procedure. I was disturbed to see that, because I believe it is sufficiently important to be worthy of the affirmative procedure. Anyway, we are discussing it now.
I have some questions for the Minister. In future, EU coach operators will have to apply to the International Road Freight Office, when previously they received authorisation for coming to the UK from their home state. The DfT estimates that there could be up to 600 applications for authorisation for regular services at a cost to the Government of up to £95,500. Will the Government be charging an extra amount for this service? It did not need to exist before, so any charge would be additional. Is the IRFO being given sufficient additional resources? The Explanatory Memorandum also refers to a separate SI coming through for Northern Ireland. When will that be? Can we expect to see it in the next few days?
Obviously, things will be more complex and bureaucratic for EU operators. What will the Government do to make them aware of what they will have to conform to? What work are the Government doing with coach operators on the continent of Europe to make sure that the industry is fully aware of the change to the processes?
The Government hope to solve this problem in the long term by joining the Interbus agreement. The problem is, first, that the agreement does not allow cabotage and, secondly, that it applies at the moment only to occasional services. This will of course impact specifically on National Express and Translink in Northern Ireland, because they are the companies that provide the bulk of the regular services. Translink provides a lot of cabotage services as well.
In any event, the UK first has to join the Interbus agreement. I gather that the Government ratified it on 30 January. Will the final accession date that we were given of 1 April still apply if Brexit is deferred? Is it the case that we cannot accede until Brexit, or is 1 April a fixed date? At the moment, if we were to leave at the end of next week, there would be a two-day gap when services could not run. That might not seem like the end of the world, but it could be inconvenient and a real problem for the companies concerned. If they tried to run services without that specific authorisation there would obviously be insurance implications for them.
Lord Berkeley
Would the noble Baroness care to speculate as to whether progress would have been so fast if this had been called European Interbus?
Baroness Randerson
I think we have a complete rewriting of the dictionary in Britain at the moment. We are not allowed to use the word “European” in any technical or official sense.
The EU is proposing a regulation to maintain basic road connectivity, which the Minister referred to. Does she share my concern that this is for a very limited period? Part of it applies until December, but only until September in Northern Ireland for cabotage and so on. It is all very messy, and therefore very complex for those operating in that industry. Do the Government intend to publicise this on GOV.UK? I am seriously concerned that while this will not apply to big companies, small coach operators in particular—there are quite a few of them in the industry—will find it difficult to keep pace with the very complex changes that the EU and the Government between them are proposing as short-term solutions. What about progress with the bilateral agreements that the Government are proposing to sign? How many countries have signed up so far to those?
On the publicity to the general public for all this, we are coming up to peak coach holiday season at this moment. Easter will be the beginning of high season for coach operators. Are passengers fully aware that they are in a situation of some uncertainty in relation to the ability of UK coach operators to ply their trade in Europe?
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the explanation given to us about the complicated nature of this SI. I shall speak particularly about the local situation in Northern Ireland. Once more, this is an example of how that part of the UK will feel the full force of Brexit, not only for Translink and the regular services that it provides across the border, which was once simply the border with the other part of Ireland but will now become the frontier with the EU. There is genuine anxiety in the industry about, first, the complicated nature of running regular services across the border and, secondly, the many local employers of small coach services that are frequently—especially, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, as we come into this season—crossing the border, going into the Republic and vice versa.
As the Minister reminded us, there will be a separate SI, but I suggest that there is bound to be an overlap between what this SI covers and the individual SI for Northern Ireland. If Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom there is bound to be that overlap. Can the Minister reassure the House that special attention will be paid to Northern Ireland’s difficulties in this respect, since we will feel the full force of Brexit when it comes?
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, this SI is a little complex. It seems to be about timing. One gets an uncomfortable feeling that the Government had tackled aviation, marine and road haulage when suddenly someone woke up and said, “We’d better do coaches”. As you read through the Explanatory Memorandum, initially it seems to be an asymmetric situation where EU operators get all the provisions that they have now but UK operators do not, and then you turn to paragraph 7.3, which says:
“The EU have proposed a legislative change that will extend many of the provisions of the existing market access Regulations till 31 December 2019”.
Extending “many” means that it does not extend all. Could the Minister spell out which provisions of the existing market access are not allowed under this agreement? Has the agreement become EU law? I believe the answer is yes, but I would like her to spell that out in simple language. If it is the law that I am thinking of, it declines and then expires on 31 December 2019.
Having not declared any interests in coach operations, I confess that I know nothing about the Interbus deal. Could the Minister spell out what it will mean if it is fully ratified, as is implied in the Explanatory Memorandum? Will it give UK operators the same freedoms as they have now? If not, could she spell out the freedoms that they will not have? Will the Interbus agreement supersede the necessity for the special arrangements that I believe the EU has introduced?
Baroness Sugg
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. Turning to the questions on consultation from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I say that the aim of this legislation is to maintain the status quo as far as possible through technical amendments to the existing regime. We have engaged with the Confederation of Passenger Transport, as the main industry representative, and the Federation of Passenger Transport Northern Ireland, the FPTNI. The industry has been supportive of the application to join Interbus, as this will give liberalised, unlimited access to run occasional services in the EU, which covers the vast majority of activity by GB operators. There is little use of cabotage on occasional services, because UK carriers are normally taking the same group of passengers to a destination in the EU, then bringing them back.
We have been working closely with industry to make sure it is informed. While this SI makes technical changes, this SI, the EU regulation and the accession to the Interbus agreement together give maintenance of the status quo. Letters are going out to every operator which holds an international licence, to inform them about future processes. The trade association, the Confederation of Passenger Transport, is making members aware via social media, newsletters and email, and the information on GOV.UK which the noble Baroness referred to.
The noble Baroness asked about the effect on the International Road Freight Office. Relatively few authorisations are required by EU operators. We expect there to be about 150, rather than 600—600 is the top end of the estimation. There is a simple process; operators have to pay only for postage and, possibly, translation. Some operators already apply directly through the IRFO rather than their home member state, so we do not expect there to be a huge effect.
There is an issue with this two-day gap. It might be helpful if I explain why we have it. The Interbus agreement can come into effect only on the first of the month. If we had laid the SI earlier, the agreement would still have come into effect on the first of the month, as the agreement itself specifies that. We cannot become a contracting party until we leave the European Union. We are working closely with the European Commission to find a solution to overcome that gap in provision—
Baroness Randerson
Have I understood this correctly? Suppose we were to leave the European Union on the 15th of the month—I am plucking a date out of the air—we could not access the Interbus agreement until the first day of the following month. Therefore, we should be grateful that it is only a two-day gap, because it could be a gap of about 28 days, if things work out wrongly.
Baroness Sugg
The noble Baroness is right: we are grateful that it is only a two-day gap. Should we not leave on 29 March, we may have a longer gap to contend with. However, we are working closely with the Commission and are very optimistic about getting a solution. Our preferred approach is to deposit a note verbale with the General Secretariat of the Council, stating that we propose that our accession be treated as coming into effect on the first day of exit. Once we have resolved that, we hope that we will be covered regardless of the length of the gap. That is particularly important for Northern Ireland, as I believe there are some major sporting events going on which will require lots of cross-border travel.
The Interbus agreement provides for liberalised occasional coach services—holidays, school trips and private tours between contracting parties. As I mentioned in my opening speech, those parties are the European Union and seven eastern European members. We intend to accede to the protocol of the agreement in our right regarding the international regular and special regular carriage of passengers by coach and bus. The protocol to expand the service to regular services is in progress.
The noble Baroness points out that the process has been quite slow. It opened on 16 July 2018. As of 13 March, no contracting parties had signed the protocol. We need only four contracting parties; obviously we will be able to sign it once we become a contracting party. We think we will see other signatories join but, if it is not in place by 31 December, we could either negotiate an extension for regular and special regular passenger services with the EU, which are covered under the current EU regulation, or seek to put bilateral agreements in place. At the moment, we think Interbus is the best solution to provide regular services, but we have options if that is not the case.
Lord Tunnicliffe
On 1 January 2020, by which time the EU regulation will have expired, and assuming there are a satisfactory number of signatures to the Interbus agreement, to what extent will the situation for UK operators be different from the situation today?
Baroness Sugg
On 1 January 2020, assuming that we have all the signatories that we need and the Interbus agreement is in place, the main issue will be cabotage, as the Interbus agreement does not cover cabotage. UK operators will not be able to provide cabotage in the EU. There would be a separate arrangement for that for Ireland, but UK operators will not be able to do it. There is very limited UK-operator cabotage in the EU; as I said, most journeys go out and come back. However, that is the main implication and the main difference.
Lord Berkeley
Following up on that, I would have thought cabotage was pretty important for coach operators. Does this restriction apply in the other direction for continental operators coming here?
Baroness Sugg
This SI allows EU operators to continue cabotage operations. We do not have figures on how much cabotage takes place. The new EU unilateral regulations allow cabotage for regular and special regular services in the Irish border regions until 30 September 2019, when we will have something else in place. However, other cabotage is not permitted and, as I said, the Interbus agreement does not allow cabotage.
There is little exercise of cabotage from UK operators, because services are usually hired for a group of passengers who return to the UK, such as for a school trip or tour. Regular services allow cabotage as part of an international journey, but all current UK-to-mainland-Europe timetabled services, such as Eurolines, are operated by non-UK companies, so they will not be affected by Brexit.
As we have said, cabotage forms an integral part of cross-border bus journeys on the island of Ireland. Such services are incredibly important for remote communities. We recognise that the provision within the legislation proposed by the EU offers a solution, but that solution is based on reciprocity, which is what we are doing through these SIs.
I suppose that one could say that this is an asymmetric agreement at the moment. We are allowing cabotage within the UK, but these things are of a temporary nature. When we join the Interbus agreement and have future discussions with the EU on our relationship—
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
I am sorry to ask this, because I have not been following the debate, but I am interested in the principle just enunciated. There is asymmetry but there is reciprocity. Is one way different from the other?
Baroness Sugg
I am not sure that the noble Lord was here for my opening statement where I set that out.
Lord Lea of Crondall
I am afraid that I was not. Does that mean that I should not intervene?
Lord Lea of Crondall
All right. I am sorry. I was interested in what has just been said; that is all.
Baroness Sugg
I am very happy to explain again that this SI sets out our position in relation to EU operators coming into the UK; there is no restriction on cabotage in that regard. However, the EU regulations restrict cabotage, which is why they are asymmetric. We still need to reciprocate the access, which is what this SI does.
I hope that I have answered most of the questions raised. If I have missed any, I shall follow up in writing. This instrument is needed to allow the continued operation of international bus and coach services in the event of no deal until such time as fully reciprocal arrangements are in place.
Financial Services (Miscellaneous) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 25 February be approved.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A).
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, as this instrument is grouped, with the leave of the House, I shall speak also to the draft Electronic Commerce and Solvency 2 (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
These two instruments are part of the same legislative programme that we have discussed previously in the House to ensure that, if the UK were to leave the EU without a deal or an implementation period, there continued to be a functioning legislative and regulatory regime for financial services in the UK. Both SIs have already been debated in the House of Commons.
The Financial Services (Miscellaneous) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 revoke a number of pieces of UK domestic law and retained EU law which it would not be appropriate to keep on the statute book after exit. The instrument also makes amendments to a number of financial services EU exit SIs to reflect other instruments that have been laid as part of the wider legislative programme, corrects minor errors identified in legislation, and makes amendments to ensure consistency between EU exit instruments.
The SI has five main components. First, it amends UK domestic law to ensure continuity with other legislation amended under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. Specifically, it makes amendments to primary and secondary legislation that do not fall within the remit of changes made by other instruments. Specifically, the SI will remove references to EU institutions and regimes in four Acts of Parliament; namely, the Insolvency Act 1986, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, the Income Tax Act 2007 and the Corporation Tax Act 2009. These amendments will ensure that provisions that are irrelevant in a UK-only context are not retained on the UK statute book.
Secondly, the SI makes minor technical amendments to 19 statutory instruments, including 12 other financial services EU exit instruments that have previously been debated in this House. A number of those amendments are made in this instrument because they are consequential on other instruments that have been made only recently, such as the Equivalence Determinations for Financial Services and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. A minority of the amendments correct drafting errors and improve the clarity of drafting. For example, a duplicate provision is omitted from the Bank of England (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, as the same amendment is made by the Deposit Guarantee Scheme and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
Thirdly, this SI revokes three UK statutory instruments that relate to EU regimes that will not be applicable to the UK in the event of a no-deal exit given that they implement EU law being revoked at exit day under separate instruments. Fourthly, the SI makes amendments to, or revokes, retained EU law to ensure consistency with other EU exit instruments that have been made and to remove references to EU institutions that will no longer be relevant post-exit. Fifthly, the SI makes transitional and saving provisions to address deficiencies that arise from the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and to limit disruption to the financial services industry if the UK leaves the EU without a deal.
On the substance of the second instrument, at present there exists a regime within the EEA to facilitate greater cross-border e-commerce activity, implemented by the e-commerce directive 2000—or ECD for short. E-commerce refers to commercial activity that takes place online only. This regime allows an EEA firm to undertake online-only activity in an EEA state other than its home state without being subject to regulation in that EEA country. This is on the basis that such firms will be subject to relevant regulation in their home state. In the field of financial services, this means that an EEA firm, excluding Solvency 2 insurers, can undertake online-only activity in the UK without needing authorisation from the Financial Conduct Authority.
In a no-deal scenario, the UK would be outside the EEA and not subject to the e-commerce directive. As a result, the reciprocal arrangement that permitted EEA e-commerce financial services providers to operate in the UK without being regulated in the UK will no longer be valid. The exclusion in the regulated activities order will therefore be revoked to prevent EEA e-commerce financial services providers being able to undertake online-only financial services activity in the UK without the appropriate authorisation from the FCA. With regard to the e-commerce directive, these draft regulations therefore revoke Article 72A of the regulated activities order, where the exclusion from UK regulation for EEA e-commerce financial services providers currently lies.
In addition, this SI revokes the bulk of the regulations in the Electronic Commerce Directive (Financial Services and Markets) Regulations 2002, which gave the FCA rule-making powers pertaining to incoming EEA e-commerce financial services providers. These will no longer be relevant post exit. To help protect the interests of UK customers of EEA financial services firms, and those firms themselves, it is necessary to implement a regime that allows contracts taken out under the current exclusion to continue to be legally serviceable. This instrument will therefore implement a run-off regime to allow EEA e-commerce firms to legally service financial services contracts that were taken out before commencement of the instrument, and which utilised the exclusion in the regulated activities order, for a limited time. Pre-existing financial services contracts taken out under the e-commerce exclusion will continue to be excluded from the scope of regulated financial services activities under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. This will enable EEA providers of e-commerce activity of a financial services nature to wind down their UK operations in an orderly manner. This will provide certainty and fairness to both providers and users of financial services, and demonstrate that the UK remains open for business and takes seriously legal certainty and business continuity.
These draft regulations also make minor changes to a Commission delegated regulation related to the EU Solvency 2 directive and EU securitisation regulation. This delegated regulation sets out the requirements for investments in securitisations that no longer comply with the risk-retention and qualitative requirements. Specifically, these regulations amend the delegated regulation to correct a cross-reference and add references to the UK regulators. These changes are necessary to reflect the UK’s position outside the EU.
In summary, the Government believe that these instruments are necessary to ensure that the UK has a coherent and functioning financial services regulatory regime once the UK leaves the EU, and that the legislation will continue to function appropriately if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period. I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting these regulations. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I have no issues with the first of these SIs. It is another that deals with errors and omissions; I suspect we will see quite a number of them. I do have serious concerns about the second SI, but not with its content or the fact that we need it if we are to take the step of leaving with no deal. I want to understand what happens to the financial services industry as a consequence. Perhaps the Minister can help me with this. He will know that I have been involved, from the earliest days, with the development of fintechs in the UK. An example is crowdfunders, whether they are US ones that have created a core European subsidiary in the UK, or home-grown ones, of which we have quite a few. We have been a magnet particularly for young people across Europe with a tech and finance interest to come here and start their companies. Those companies have, essentially, been pan-European from the first breath that they took. For example, under the e-commerce directive, a crowdfunder has been able to put up a project and seek investments through its online presence—the only way it exists—all across the UK plus the 27.
I understand from the SI that a crowdfunder based in the EEA will no longer be able to seek investments from UK investors unless it goes through the process of registering with the FCA and having its UK activities regulated by the FCA. I suspect that most will not bother. When you have 450 million people you can go to, going to an additional 65 million is probably not worth the effort. It is taking on the burden of an additional regulator just for a small part of the investor base you will be catching on to. If you do, you have only one regulator to deal with, and I assume that this is reciprocal. So if I am a UK-based crowdfunder, do I now have to go to the regulators in every one of the 27 and seek to become registered, certified or whatever else it is, to be able to continue to raise those funds? It is unusual for a crowdfunder based in the UK to raise most of its money in the UK. As I said, these have been pan-European from the day they took their first breath. They think that way, they are structured that way and their employees are designed in that way. Are we, in effect, hearing a death knell for crowdfunding and a whole series of related fintechs that are UK-based but have been reliant for building their investor or participant base from a pan-European, 500 million-person community? If there is this consequence then I am extremely concerned. Perhaps the Minister can explain; I may have it completely wrong.
After having some conversations I am quite concerned about a second point. Is the Minister clear that the UK companies that would find themselves trapped in this position are aware of it? Looking today at websites such as Seedrs or Crowdcube, there are hundreds of projects up on their systems seeking new investors. Those would presumably be grandfathered in this run-off programme, but dozens of new ones go up every single day. Do they understand that, in a week’s time, they may have to stop putting projects up in a way that can be accessed by a pan-European community? If not, are they in a position where they may be in breach and there may be serious repercussions as a consequence?
We are looking at an industry which many hold up as part of the fundamental future of financial services, an area the UK always considered itself a crucial leader in, and which we see as underpinning so much of our future prosperity. Can the Minister help me understand the consequences of what is about to happen?
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak mostly about the first SI, if only to moan a bit. Paragraph 3.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee,
“noted that the legislation proposed to be amended by the instrument includes: four Acts of Parliament; seven ‘pre-EU Exit’ statutory instruments; 12 ‘EU Exit’ statutory instruments that have been considered by the House during the last six months; and several items of retained EU legislation”.
As far as I can tell, there are 36 amendments in this SI which have no themes or interrelationship. To get a feel for how difficult it is to work on the SI, paragraph 2.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum gives up almost altogether and says:
“Part 3 also makes minor technical amendments to correct the following financial services EU exit instruments. Further information on these instruments can be found in the EMs accompanying the instruments on legislation.gov.uk”.
If I threw all that in, it would take hours. Indeed, if one devoted just 10 minutes’ attention to each amendment, it would take six hours to read the thing.
The Minister said, rather grandly, that this had been considered by the House of Commons. I too noted that fact and leapt at the Official Report to give me some help. It told me that the Commons committee sat at 6 pm —that is quite keen—but adjourned at 6.11 pm, having completed its work. Members devoted 11 minutes to this SI. I am sure that, due to their natural brilliance, they scrutinised it fully, but I am rather slower than that.
There is a real problem of how we get proper scrutiny. I sought help from the Civil Service, as one is invited to by the Explanatory Memorandum. As I understand it, the amendments fall into three groups. One group corrects errors; I would value knowing how many of the 36 are error corrections. Another group makes previous SIs compatible with those created subsequently by other departments. So we have one bit of government making SIs that create complications in another; it is a bit brave to consider creating complications in Treasury SIs.
The third group comes from a review of the previous legislation. One worries about that until turning again to the Explanatory Memorandum. The Treasury has been consistent and kept paragraphs 7.1 to 7.8 identical in all its 50 SIs. Paragraph 7.4 says that these SIs,
“are not intended to make policy changes, other than to reflect the UK’s new position outside the EU, and to smooth the transition to the situation”.
Therefore, I want a categorical assurance that in these 36 amendments there is no new policy. If there is new policy hidden among them, will the Minister tell me what that new policy is?
Turning to the second instrument, I found almost the opposite to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. Not that I am suggesting that what she said was not valid, but I thought this was a commendable Explanatory Memorandum. It is a stand-alone document that one could understand and it seemed that it was doing what the SI should do. In other words, it was dealing with inevitable consequences, so I am content with it. I think the essence of what the noble Baroness was saying is that here is yet another bad consequence of leaving the European Union, and to that extent I totally agree with her.
Lord Bates
I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their scrutiny and questions on these points. I shall do this in reverse order because I am waiting for a little further inspiration about fintech—it is arriving. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, is always assiduous in these matters and drifts easily between bus operations in Northern Ireland and financial services across the European Union in his scrutiny of SIs. He raises a very serious point: the first of these documents runs to some 26 pages, and 26 pages of Explanatory Memorandum, while the second has 11 pages and 14 pages of Explanatory Memorandum, so there is an awful lot of detail.
During this process—we are now nearing the end of it—we have worked on some 52 statutory instruments and have been grateful for the way the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have engaged with us very constructively over the past four to five months. During that process, of course, there will be consequential amendments that were not foreseen, because some of the 48 affirmative statutory instruments that have gone through this House were laid after the previous ones were made, and therefore changes need to be made. We envisaged, when we began this, what we call an onshoring process to ensure seamless activity, so that there is no disruption for UK financial services. We always envisaged the need for some instrument such as this at the end that corrected any errors and dealt with consequential changes. All the amendments are being made to ensure a functioning financial services regulatory regime in the UK, in any scenario, when the UK leaves. These amendments ensure continuity and clarity.
The noble Lord asked me to make the very specific commitment that no policy changes are involved in these: that is certainly the case. To make policy changes would be in contravention of the letter and spirit of the withdrawal Act and we certainly would not do it. The approach has been consistent. He asked about the number of errors. Around eight drafting errors in previous EU exit financial services SIs are being corrected in this measure.
The noble Baroness raised some issues around fintech and I appreciate her expertise in this area. Fintech is very much a jewel in the crown of the UK. We have some of the most amazing financial services firms in fintech, including start-ups in places, such as Shoreditch, around the City of London: it is a quite incredible and burgeoning industry and certainly one that we want to see continuing to expand. UK providers of online services to the EEA countries will need to continue to comply with a range of EEA countries’ individual legal requirements relating to online activities. The exclusion we are referring to here is limited to online-only activities. We expect that firms will use passporting rights rather than this exclusion; therefore, we estimate the number of fintech firms will be very small.
Baroness Kramer
Will the Minister, if he has the opportunity, look into this? I know that crowdfunders and many others—I have tried to tell the Treasury a million times—use the e-commerce directive, not passporting rights. It has played a key role. Whether they can transfer from using the e-commerce directive to passporting rights, I am not clear, but it seems at least an issue somebody should look at.
Lord Bates
I was just coming to that precise point, because the noble Baroness raises a serious point which is worthy and very important for us to look into further. I undertake to do that and to write to her, to copy in the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and to place a copy in the Library. It is very important that we ensure that there is no unintended, deleterious impact on such an important sector of the UK financial services industry. With that, I commend the regulations to the House.
Electronic Commerce and Solvency 2 (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 25 February be approved.
Nutrition (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Baroness Manzoor
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 30 January be approved.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument has been laid to ensure that, following our exit from the European Union, the people of the United Kingdom can continue to benefit from the same world-leading standards of safety and quality for nutrition regulation as they do today. Primarily, successful passage of this SI will provide certainty for businesses and the public by ensuring a functioning statute book of nutrition legislation when the UK leaves the EU. It is no secret that both the Government and Parliament have shown a clear preference against a no-deal outcome. However, the Prime Minister has been clear that it will continue to be appropriate to prepare for a no-deal scenario, and this remains a priority for the Government. The EU is stepping up its preparations for no deal and it would be irresponsible for the UK not to do the same.
This SI provides all the necessary legislative building blocks to ensure readiness on exit day in all scenarios, guaranteeing that this aspect of nutrition legislation will continue to operate at the same high standard as it does now long after we exit the EU. The instrument covers the following aspects of nutrition legislation: the health or nutritional claims that food manufacturers can make for the foods they produce; the vitamin and mineral substances permitted for use in food supplements; the vitamins and minerals that can voluntarily be added to fortify foods, such as to breakfast cereals or soft drinks; the content of foods for specific groups, such as young children; foods that are used for special medical purposes, such as those for people recovering from illnesses; and total diet replacement foods for weight control.
Changes made through this instrument are largely technical in nature, amending EU-specific references in retained EU and domestic law which will no longer be applicable when the UK withdraws from the EU. Perhaps the most important change made by this SI is the transfer of powers currently held by the European Commission to the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and, in relation to Northern Ireland, the Department of Health as applicable, ensuring that the UK reclaims full legislative control in this area. The SI also ensures that all applicable registers, annexes and lists will apply effectively in UK law as they stand on exit day. This has the explicit aim of mirroring the existing regulatory system, ensuring minimal disruption to industry and delivering continuity for both businesses and consumers.
Crucially, this SI provides for the transfer of functions in nutrition and health claims applications from EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority, to an expert committee in the UK. To guarantee minimal disruption, my department has been working closely with Public Health England to establish the new United Kingdom Nutrition and Health Claims Committee. The UKNHCC would replace EFSA’s Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens, and assume responsibility for providing independent scientific opinion on any new nutrition health claims submitted for use in the UK to the four UK Administrations. The committee would operate in a similar way to and to similar timescales as the current EFSA process, providing further continuity to business.
I am pleased to report to the House that, since the debate in the other place, excellent progress has been made in establishing the committee. Earlier this month, following the open and transparent recruitment exercise, appointment letters were issued to eight exceptional individuals selected from a number of high-calibre applicants. Further details of these appointments will be available in the public domain at the point the committee is required. With an excellent panel and chair in place, I can confirm that the committee is ready to come into effect if required.
Given the scope of the instrument, the House might ask why food for special medical purposes developed specifically to satisfy the nutritional needs of infants, such as infant follow-on formula, do not appear to be covered. While delegated legislation relating to infants and infant formula has indeed come into force under EU regulation 609/2013 to enable food business operators to adapt to the new requirements, those regulations do not apply until February 2020. As this SI covers only legislation in force and applicable at exit day, it was not appropriate to include them in this instrument. However, I reassure the House that it is the Government’s full intention to bring forward domestic legislation mirroring this delegated legislation as closely as possible at the appropriate time. Until then, the existing compositional, labelling and advertising rules will continue to be enforced by statutory instruments already in place, and will not be affected by the UK’s exit from the EU.
As I stated earlier, this instrument, respectful to devolution settlements, provides for the relevant Commission powers to be transferred to the four Administrations and includes a power for the Secretary of State to make legislation for the whole UK with the consent of the devolved Administrations, which have been involved with the drafting of these regulations at every stage. I am grateful to them for all their efforts to ensure that our high standards for nutrition are maintained after EU exit.
For the purposes of maintaining free trade across the UK and to retain continued consumer confidence, it is important that policy consistency remains where possible, but that the potential for necessary and appropriate divergence which does not disproportionately impact on the UK internal market also remains. This is to reflect or respond to country-specific needs where risk assessment shows this is both necessary and proportionate to protect consumers, such as on public health grounds. Officials have therefore been working collaboratively across the UK to develop frameworks which will deliver a common approach to nutrition policy and ensure that devolved interests are taken into account in the formulation of new policy and future decisions taken within central government concerning nutrition.
Proposals underpinning this SI were subject to a public consultation during December. As no significant changes to the existing regulatory regime were proposed, costs to business were deemed to be below the de minimis threshold. Departments are not required to publish de minimis assessments. However, we conducted an equalities impact assessment and found no impact on any of the protected characteristics as defined in the Equality Act 2010. We are grateful to the broad range of stakeholders that responded to the consultation, including food manufacturers, trade bodies, a local authority and members of the public.
On 25 February we published our response, which detailed how respondents were supportive of our proposals but sought more detail on how they would work in practice. Appropriate guidance, which my department plans to publish via bulletins ahead of exit day, has been tested with industry via the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s business experts group. Having received excellent feedback on the draft, I am confident that it is fit for purpose, clearly communicates any changes in process and provides all the additional information respondents requested.
We know that this is an important area of legislation, with many thriving businesses operating in this space. I again assure the House that it is our overarching aim that the amendments made by this instrument provide continuity for businesses and ensure that, when the UK leaves the European Union, the exceptional standards of safety and quality for nutrition regulation will continue. These draft regulations were passed in the other place on 28 February. With the assurances I have given noble Lords, I hope that they will support this necessary legislation. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly. I thank the Minister for proposing these regulations. I remember several years ago one of the issues we had to deal with in the European Union was that the thriving industry in the UK for nutrition, vitamins, minerals and substances was much more advanced than those of many of our European colleagues. The framework we are now looking at, and will be pulling out of, is very largely of our making. That standards will be transferred intact is not surprising, since we developed them 10 or 15 years ago in the UK; we did so partly because we wanted access to the markets of the European Union for supplements, vitamins and so on.
My first question is this: what will happen to those markets? After Brexit day, what will happen to this industry, where we have been leading in Europe? It is quite clear that the purpose of this SI is to remedy deficiencies in UK legislation relating to nutrition arising from the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union without a deal. The Explanatory Memorandum says, and the Minister repeated, that there would be a,
“low level of impact … on businesses”.
But no impact assessment has been made—although I accept that the results of the consultation came to that conclusion. It also says that some “administrative burden” will be placed on businesses. That is a matter of some concern, and one we would wish to keep under scrutiny. Some of these businesses are not huge corporations but are relatively small; any additional administrative burden is a matter of concern.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward what will obviously be needed as we approach a situation in which no deal might be more likely. I have a number of questions.
My noble friend’s department has used the right language in this statutory instrument, but I am concerned that that language is not being reflected in, for example, the discussions on the Trade Bill that we had yesterday. On food safety, our honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Steve Brine, talked in the other place about retaining high standards and protections for the consumer, and safeguarding public health, as my noble friend did. Can the Minister use her good offices to make sure that all departments are using the same language?
It used to be that, according to the original Article 36 of the treaty of Rome—noble Lords will forgive me, but I cannot remember which article it now is—we could ban a nutrient or any ingredient that was deemed by the European Union to be unsafe on the grounds of public safety. I am at a loss as to why parliamentary draftsmen for one Bill—the Trade Bill—do not accept that the tried and tested, recognised language used by the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs should not be used by the Department for International Trade. If the Minister could make that point throughout, that would be extremely helpful.
Is the Minister able to tell the House this afternoon when the appointments to the committee are likely to be made, and when it is likely to be set up?
On the current exclusion for infant and follow-on formula, I understand that the department will issue further advice on that “once the EU exit position is clarified”. That could take a while. As our honourable friend Steve Brine said in Committee next door:
“The Department will issue further advice on that once the EU exit position is clarified, which is clearly yet to happen”.—[Official Report, Commons, Thirteenth Delegated Legislation Committee, 28/2/19; col. 10.]
I am pleased to see that he has a sense of humour.
What will the position be on sharing with us decisions taken by the EFSA panel—and indeed on access to the food alert system, which will presumably apply to nutrients as well—and the sharing of information and decisions made by the panels which will be set up in this country? I remember going to Denmark when one of the few things that used to be cheaper there was vitamin C. You could buy two or three tubes of it in one go across the counter, until it was put on the proscribed list, which is regularly updated—I had not realised that you could overdose on vitamins C and D, and so on. Many other medicinal products regularly used by women of a certain age were also limited in scope as well. It seems good practice to share the decisions that are taken in the UK by the various panels, and to continue to share information and ask EFSA to let us know what its conclusions are. Presumably, we will wish to rely on the widest possible available scientific evidence.
With those few questions, I welcome this statutory instrument. Clearly, it will be helpful to know when the committee will be appointed and set up, the position on infant and follow-on formula, and the position on best practice. However, my main concern is that all departments should be using this language, not other language that is much less transparent and even opaque.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, people are right to be concerned about food safety and nutrition issues, the integrity of some of the claims that are made and the effects of substances which are permitted for use as supplements for various purposes. People who are presently satisfied by the standards set by the European Food Safety Authority have legitimate concerns about future regulatory approaches and potential changes to them.
The draft nutrition regulations in this SI may provide some temporary reassurance for consumers and businesses using these products, but, as indicated by the Minister a few minutes ago, they do not provide any sort of long-term reassurance about what may happen in future. As she said, regulations in the UK and the EU will be identical on departure day—whenever that might be—but they will inevitably divert in future when different people in different bodies come to different conclusions. Can she therefore indicate what the issues will be when a UK body begins to make different regulations to those determined by the European body?
Can the Minister indicate what additional costs there may be in the long run from setting up new bodies to replace EU regulations with UK ones? Perhaps she can tell us what have been the recruitment costs for the new bodies and what will be the ongoing costs of running them. Before June 2016, many people were led to believe that they would be freed from sharing the cost of things like the European Food Safety Authority. However, what will be the costs of establishing and running these bodies, in particular the new UK Nutrition and Health Claims Committee?
We are told that the processes to be undertaken will be similar to present ones at EU-wide level, but presumably businesses seeking to sell products such as nutritional supplements across the UK and the EU will in future need the approval of both EU and UK authorities. Will this not mean that the burdens and costs of regulation for us outside the EU will be increased, rather than reduced as many people were led to believe? The extra costs and burdens of duplicating UK and EU approval processes will surely hinder future research and innovation.
Most fundamentally, will the Minister confirm that leaving the EU on a no-deal basis would mean that we deny ourselves and the rest of the EU the benefits of sharing costs and expertise on these issues across the UK and the EU?
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, as always, I take this opportunity to thank all noble Lords for their constructive and valuable insights. I shall endeavour to do my best to answer the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard.
I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and am very grateful for her comments. The UK currently benefits from world-leading standards in both the safety and quality of its nutrition regulation and, as I said, we will be closely mirroring the existing regulatory framework. I reassure noble Lords, especially my noble friend Lady McIntosh, that this statutory instrument will ensure that we maintain those high standards if the UK leaves the EU with no deal.
I am also pleased to hear that the department’s presentations are clear, because it is very important that what we are saying in this area is communicated effectively and with understanding. I appreciate my noble friend’s comments.
I say again that this SI ensures a functioning regulatory system for this aspect of nutrition legislation. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, it will ensure minimum disruption to businesses, consumers and the public. We are fully prepared. The UK has a long tradition of close scientific collaboration with EFSA, which we of course greatly value. I say to my noble friend Lady McIntosh that we will endeavour to continue to work as closely as we possibly can with EFSA. However, the SI ensures that in the event that the relevant functions of EFSA can no longer be accessed, the UK is fully prepared to exercise them.
I reassure all stakeholders and noble Lords that it is our policy intention to mirror the existing regulation as closely as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, asked about the future. I understand and appreciate that, and it is a legitimate issue to raise—the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, also raised it—but this is an exit SI: if there is no deal, it will come into play. Everything is open for negotiation once we leave the EU. I cannot guess what may or may not happen in future; all I can say is that, currently, we will mirror current regulation as far as we possibly can and continue to work with the EU on the rapid alert system that my noble friend Lady McIntosh mentioned. If and when we leave the EU, the EU rapid alert system includes a duty of care to inform third countries, so that information will continue to be shared.
On the impact on businesses, I do not want to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that there will be no impact. We appreciate that there may be some additional administrative burdens on companies which have to submit claims to both the UK and the EU authorities if they want to claim in both areas, but we intend that procedures for submitting claims in the UK will closely follow those already in place in the EU. We estimate that the application paperwork should take nominal time—approximately 30 minutes—to complete. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, that costs are not expected to be significant.
Lord Fox (LD)
On a point of order, when the noble Baroness turns away from the microphone, we cannot hear what she is saying.
Baroness Manzoor
My apologies to the noble Lord. I was saying on infant formula, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, that if there are any changes, we will continue to mirror the regulations and, if there are any new initiatives, we will introduce new regulations in the usual way.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh also asked whether we would continue to be a member of EFSA. As I said, the nature of the UK’s future relationship with EFSA will be subject to negotiation with the EU. However, this SI provides for the appropriate expert committee or authority to assume EFSA’s function in a no-deal scenario, and this will guarantee certainty for business.
I hope that that answers most of the questions that noble Lords asked. I conclude by again reassuring all stakeholders that it is our policy intention to mirror the existing regulations as closely as possible. Guidance will be published shortly, and industry should be further reassured that stakeholders who we have consulted believe it covers all necessary aspects of the legislation and is fit for purpose from exit day. I commend the Motion.
Health Services (Cross-Border Health Care and Miscellaneous Amendments) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Baroness Manzoor
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 11 February be approved.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A). Instrument not yet reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I should make it clear that I will not move the second Motion in this group on the National Health Service (Cross-Border Healthcare and Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has drawn it to the special attention of the House, and the House, rightly, will need time to consider its report. I shall speak to the two remaining Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper: the Health Services (Cross-Border Health Care and Miscellaneous Amendments) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the Social Security Coordination (Reciprocal Healthcare) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Government are bringing forward these two statutory instruments under Section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, to correct deficiencies in retained EU law relating to reciprocal and cross-border healthcare, and to ensure that the law is operable on exit day. When the UK leaves the EU, that Act will automatically retain the relevant EU legislation and the domestic implementing legislation in UK law. However, in the event of no deal, and if we do not legislate further, the regulations would be incoherent or unworkable without reciprocity from member states. If we did nothing there might also be a lack of clarity regarding patients’ rights to UK-funded healthcare in the EU.
Current EU reciprocal healthcare arrangements enable people to access healthcare when they live, study, work, or travel in the EU/EEA and Switzerland, and vice versa in the UK. These arrangements give people retiring abroad more security. They support tourism and businesses, and facilitate healthcare co-operation. The UK funds healthcare abroad for a number of current or former UK residents. This includes 180,000 pensioners and their dependents in the EU. We also fund needs-arising healthcare in the EU/EEA and Switzerland for UK tourists and students. There are 27 million EHIC cards in circulation in the UK, which results in around 250,000 claims each year. We directly fund healthcare for 10,000 posted workers and their dependents in the EU/EEA and Switzerland. We also fund around 1,350 UK residents each year to travel overseas to receive planned treatment in the EU/EEA and Switzerland. Finally, around 1,100 people from England and Wales access healthcare through the cross-border healthcare directive route.
The Government’s intention is to continue these reciprocal healthcare arrangements with countries in any exit scenario—deal or no deal—as they exist now, until 31 December 2020. In a deal scenario, the in-principle agreement we have reached with the EU, the EEA and Switzerland is that during the implementation period—that is, until 31 December 2020—all reciprocal and cross-border healthcare entitlements will continue and there will be no changes to healthcare for UK pensioners, workers, students, tourists and other visitors, to the EHIC scheme, or regarding planned treatment.
The Government want to secure a wider reciprocal healthcare agreement with the EU/EEA and Switzerland following the end of the implementation period that will support a broad range of people when they move between the UK and the EU/EEA and Switzerland for leisure, study or work. In a no-deal scenario, our offer to all member states is to maintain the current reciprocal healthcare arrangements for at least a transitional period to ensure that people living in, working in or visiting our respective countries can continue to access affordable healthcare.
The statutory instruments we are considering will support us in maintaining current reciprocal healthcare arrangements for countries with which we have agreed reciprocity for a transitional period lasting until 31 December 2020, and to remove these arrangements in the longer term. The transitional arrangements would not apply to countries that do not agree to maintain the current reciprocal arrangements. Continuing the current arrangements is possible only with the agreement of other member states, and we are in advanced discussions on this issue. We have approached other member states and are prioritising the major pensioner, worker and tourist destinations.
The UK and Irish Governments are committed to continuing access to healthcare services within the common travel area, and both Governments are taking legislative steps to enable us to implement these arrangements by exit day. The two instruments that we are considering are our implementing mechanism. We also welcome the action by those EU member states that have prepared their own legislation for a no-deal scenario, including, but not limited to, Spain, France, Portugal, and Belgium. However, depending on decisions by member states, it is important to acknowledge that people’s access to healthcare could change. Naturally there is concern about what this will mean and what should be done. This is an uncertain situation and I appreciate that that may be difficult for people. I hope I can be reassuring.
All of the 27 EU member states are countries with universal healthcare coverage, and in general people have good options for obtaining healthcare, provided that they take the appropriate steps. After exit, should there be no bilateral arrangements in place, the majority of UK nationals who currently live or work in the EU will still have good options for accessing healthcare. Depending on the country, it will generally be possible for people to access healthcare through legal residency, current or previous employment, or joining a social insurance scheme and contributing a percentage of their income, as other residents need to do. Less frequently, people may need to purchase private insurance. When people travel overseas they should purchase travel insurance, as we already encourage everyone to do. However, I appreciate that this can be difficult for people with long-term conditions, and it is important that people make the best decisions for their circumstances when choosing to travel.
As is the case now, UK nationals who return to live permanently in the UK will be able to access NHS care. If these people return to live in the UK part-way through their treatment, they will be treated by the NHS fairly and equitably. UK nationals who have their healthcare funded by the UK under current EU arrangements and are resident in the EU on exit day can use NHS services in England without charge when they temporarily visit England.
We recognise that this means change, and in some circumstances additional expense, for UK nationals living abroad. It is to avoid this that we are bringing forward these statutory instruments. I would like to reassure noble Lords that the Government have issued advice, via government and NHS websites, to UK nationals living in the EU, to UK residents travelling to the EU/EEA and Switzerland, and to EU nationals living in the UK. This advice explains how the UK is working to maintain reciprocal healthcare arrangements, but that their continuation depends on decisions by member states. It also sets out what options people might have to access healthcare under local laws in the member state they live in if we do not have bilateral arrangements in place, and what people can do to prepare. However, in some circumstances, these instruments will protect individuals irrespective of reciprocity with other countries. That issue was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, during the Third Reading of the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill. I take this opportunity to reassure her again.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations and for clarifying the position on the National Health Service (Cross-Border Healthcare and Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations—I have just taken about four pages out of my speech. I am sure that we will meet at the Dispatch Box to discuss them at some point next week.
The transitional elements allow for all ongoing treatment to continue for a maximum period of a year following exit and for pre-authorised treatments. Similarly, dedicated regulations deal with the special situation in Northern Ireland, where such arrangements are more frequent due to the land border with the Republic of Ireland.
I know that the Department of Health and Social Care regards these regulations as providing temporary provision until what is now no longer called the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill takes effect by allowing for the current system—including the European Health Insurance Card and S1—to continue until December 2020 with individual countries, but only if a memorandum of understanding is in place. I must say, taking at random an article that appeared yesterday, it seems that British nationals in Europe regard the healthcare plans for pensioners as uncaring. They feel that they are being thrown under and a bus and abandoned. They do not regard the one-year undertaking as at all adequate. The Minister and her colleagues will need to deal with the fact that this measure does not reassure many of our fellow citizens who are living and accessing healthcare abroad.
I will repeat what I have said on every occasion during debates on the many SIs we have had to deal with that prepare us for the “crashing out” scenario. It is quite dreadful. I found these regulations particularly depressing, because they affect many older people in many parts of Europe, and there is enormous anxiety. My questions for the Minister are not about the mechanisms being proposed here to deal with healthcare, but about how they are being communicated to UK citizens all over Europe for whom we are responsible.
I suspect that these regulations are needed now more than ever—perhaps even more than when they were first laid. It is a shame that they are needed at all. The Government are lurching in a disorganised fashion towards goodness knows what kind of exit from the European Union. “When?” also now seems to be an open question. These regulations, along with dozens of others, are necessary for a no-deal exit. They provide for a wind-down of UK reciprocal healthcare arrangements with the EU and European Economic Area in the case of a no-deal Brexit. I feel very sad when I say these words, because it feels like we are throwing away something precious—sharing what we have with our European friends and nations.
I think that the Minister can anticipate considerable anxiety about these regulations, which the Prime Minister’s actions and words yesterday have done nothing to alleviate. Entering a blame game when you are the Government and have the power to resolve the situation seems the height of irresponsibility, and I am not surprised that some Conservative MPs have expressed their dismay and shame.
Let us turn to the statutory instruments concerning Northern Ireland. I am very grateful to the British Medical Association for its briefing and for the attention it has drawn throughout our discussions to the benefits of cross border co-operation on health services. I will put on the record some of those benefits, as I have done in the past. I seek reassurance from the Minister that these benefits will remain safe in a “crashing out” scenario.
Health services in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland work separately, but often they do not have sufficient demand to provide cost-effective and highly specialised medical services, so cross-border co-operation on health services with the Republic of Ireland over the past two decades has allowed a high quality of such services to be delivered on an all-island basis. Patients in Northern Ireland no longer have to travel to England to receive care. Between 2003 and 2015, more than €40 million euros was invested in cross-border health and social care initiatives via co-operation and working together, creating a partnership between health and social care services in Northern Ireland and in the Republic.
Additional project applications amounting to €53 million were submitted in relation to acute hospitals, prevention, early intervention, tackling health inequalities and other services. Examples of this include the paediatric cardiology service based at Our Lady’s Children’s Hospital in Dublin, which enables children from throughout the island of Ireland to receive treatment without having to travel to England. The radiotherapy unit at Altnagelvin Area Hospital provides access to radiotherapy treatment for more than 500,000 cancer patients living in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The creation of this unit has had the greatest impact on patients in the north-west and Donegal, removing the need for lengthy journeys to Galway, Dublin and Belfast for treatment.
The cross-border cardiology service at Altnagelvin Area Hospital has enabled patients from County Donegal with diagnosed heart attacks to receive lifesaving treatments. Other services include shared dermatology clinics over four sites along the border; out-of-hours GP services at Castleblayney, County Monaghan and Inishowen in County Donegal; ENT services at Monaghan Hospital and Northern Ireland’s Daisy Hill and Craigavon hospitals. Cross-border collaboration has enabled ENT waiting lists in the Health Service Executive Dublin North East area to be significantly reduced by facilitating ENT consultants from Northern Ireland’s Southern Trust to practise in Monaghan.
Cross-border service arrangements have been established and are providing high-quality, safe care for patients in a range of areas, including primary care, cancer services and paediatric cardiac services. These vital health services should not be destabilised during or after the Brexit process. It is also vital that patient access to these key health services is not jeopardised. How is the Minister able to reassure the House, and indeed thousands of patients in the Republic and in Northern Ireland, that our cross-border arrangements will indeed be unaffected and safe?
I turn now to what was the third instrument, the Social Security Coordination (Reciprocal Healthcare) (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Current EU reciprocal healthcare arrangements enable people for whose state healthcare costs the UK has responsibility, known as “UK-insured”, to have access to healthcare where they live, study, work or travel in the European Union, the EEA and Switzerland—and vice versa for people whose state healthcare costs those states have responsibility for. The EU reciprocal healthcare arrangements give people more life options, and support tourism, businesses and healthcare co-operation, as the noble Baroness explained in introducing the regulations.
What we are talking about here is the European health insurance card. Some 27 million of our fellow citizens hold the EHIC and, as the noble Baroness said, some 190,000 UK pensioners living elsewhere in the EU are registered with the S1 scheme. I decided to go on to the NHSE website to see what, one week away from Brexit, we are being told we need to do. I have to say that it was not encouraging, because the website is still encouraging people to apply for the EHIC even though it may not be valid in one week’s time, and it is very difficult to see what other advice is available.
I tried to follow the route through various parts of the website, but I could not find advice on what kind of cover I would need if I were travelling somewhere in Europe in two or three weeks’ time, post Brexit, particularly if we had crashed out without a deal. I could not find the advice mentioned by the noble Baroness about taking out insurance, and I could not find advice that might be available if I had a long-term condition. That seems to be completely inadequate and it will not do at this stage, when we are so close to what might be an exit without a deal.
My questions to the Minister are very straightforward. How do people know what to do? How will they find out? When will the NHS website be updated? What is going to happen to those people I quoted at the beginning of my remarks, who already feel abandoned, if in just over a week’s time we leave the European Union without a deal and they find that they cannot access clear, unbureaucratic advice on how to keep themselves and their families safe?
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased that the second of the statutory instruments in this group is not being moved now, because the issues involved in that one require more consideration than we might have given them today. The Government should think rather more carefully about some of these issues because it is clear that a considerable number of UK citizens living in other EU countries are incredibly concerned about them. They would be even more concerned if they had heard the remarks of the noble Baroness at the beginning of this discussion on these SIs. The idea that they may have to apply for extra insurance policies, social insurance schemes and so on as soon as a week on Saturday illustrates why it is so important that we do not crash out of the EU on Friday of next week. People are also acutely aware of how the Government at the moment appear to be treating rather differently issues such as the voting rights of UK citizens living overseas and the healthcare rights of UK citizens currently living in EU countries.
Tomorrow the Government will support a Private Member’s Bill in the House of Commons to give permanent voting rights in UK elections to all UK citizens living overseas. However, many of them were denied votes in the EU referendum and now find themselves potential victims of that decision in terms of fundamental changes to their existing healthcare rights. The winding down of reciprocal healthcare arrangements was not really examined in the referendum campaign as a potential consequence of that vote.
On Tuesday the Minister of State for Health, Mr Stephen Hammond, sought to allay some of their fears. But the Guardian today reports on the furious reaction of UK nationals who have retired to EU countries. The offer by the Government to cover healthcare costs for up to one year, if they have applied for or are undergoing treatment before exit day, is a terrible one. One of the people quoted in the Guardian article today says that if a person,
“has paid into the system all their lives and retired to an EU country in good faith, with all the reciprocal arrangements in place, they could be left high and dry if they, say, get cancer after 29 March”—
next Friday. Tuesday’s Written Statement by the Minister said that pensioners will be eligible to return to the UK and get treatment on the NHS under the contingency plans. But another of the people quoted in the article today asks:
“How can pensioners with cancer, cardiac problems or other major issues be expected to make or even afford repeated visits to the UK for regular vital treatment?”
The present system works well and is cost effective, because healthcare is cheaper in many EU countries than in the UK, so the existing system helps save the NHS money. We are losing a benefit and incurring more expense.
Campaign groups such as Bremain in Spain, British in Italy and Expat Citizen Rights in EU have all raised practical problems with the Government’s plans. They are right to criticise the way in which people who have paid national insurance contributions for many years, and may continue to pay taxes to HMRC, may now be deprived of their rights to reciprocal healthcare arrangements where they now live. They may in practice be unable to return to the UK for treatment they need.
Those of us living here who travel to Europe have come to regard the EHIC as a major advantage, and it has helped to keep travel insurance costs within Europe far lower than for the USA, for example. It is welcome that the cards may remain valid to the end of 2020, as opposed to next Friday, but only where a separate memorandum of understanding is in place with the relevant country. From what we heard a few moments ago, I understand that this is not the case with many countries so far. The basis of the statutory instruments relies heavily on the Government’s ability to agree transitional reciprocal healthcare arrangements with EU member states. Few agreements have already been reached, eight days before some people want us to leave the EU. It is hard to see how the new arrangements proposed can be subject to proper scrutiny—particularly without the relative costs of the new arrangements being assessed—together with what appear to be major drawbacks for UK citizens living in or visiting EU countries in future.
Current EU reciprocal healthcare arrangements allow UK citizens to have access to healthcare when they live, study, work, or travel in the EU, EEA and Switzerland, and vice versa. What they get in future may not be nearly as good, and the costs of the new arrangements are not known. The Government have admitted in these SIs that,
“there is a high level of uncertainty around the precise value of the costs and benefits”.
It is also clear that the Government are relying on powers to be given to the Secretary of State via the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill to make any provisions for after 31 December 2020, but we do not know who that Secretary of State will be then, or what it will be possible for them to agree. Does the Minister accept that we cannot give proper scrutiny to legislation when so much is unknown and uncosted? Can she say something about what the costings really are? Does she accept that it is regrettable that the timeframe for consideration of these measures means that there has not really been any proper public consultation about them, particularly with UK citizens living across different EU states?
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, I also want to know what arrangements the Government will make for advising travellers and expats as to their healthcare coverage status if we leave without a deal next Friday. We have seen little preparation for that so far. How will the date of 31 December 2020, outlined in the SIs as the day when all current arrangements with other member states cease, be revised if the Government succeed next week in securing an extension to the Article 50 process?
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, for their valuable contributions to this debate. The effect of these two sets of regulations is to make miscellaneous amendments to EU references in retained EU law relating to reciprocal and cross-border healthcare. I understand the wider points that both noble Lords have made, but am not in a position to comment on those wider points in relation to exit. I am in a position to comment on these SIs. I reassure the House and both noble Lords who have spoken that we are doing everything we possibly can to ensure that we have arrangements in place for reciprocal healthcare with the EU. These regulations ensure continuity of reciprocal healthcare arrangements, where appropriate, for UK citizens living, working or travelling abroad, while removing these arrangements in the longer term, as the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said.
I turn to specific points raised by noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, referred to the common travel area. I reassure her that the UK and Ireland are both committed to continuing the reciprocal healthcare arrangements on a bilateral basis after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. We recognise our unique relationship with Ireland and the importance of the common travel area, and in healthcare, as in other relevant policy areas, we have been working closely with Ireland to ensure that the rights associated with the common travel area continue to be protected, and we have made good progress. Discussions to continue reciprocal healthcare arrangements are under way between the UK and Ireland and, once concluded, these instruments will provide a mechanism to implement the agreement and thereby ensure that there is no interruption to healthcare arrangements between the UK and Ireland for a transition period.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked about the impact the legislation arrangements that are in place will have on an all-Ireland basis. The north-south arrangements to provide healthcare services on the island of Ireland are not impacted by the UK’s withdrawal from the EU or by these SIs. These arrangements operate under MoUs, as she correctly identified, and service level agreements between Irish and Northern Irish health authorities will continue to operate after exit day. The UK Government have made a commitment to ensure that these arrangements continue and that new arrangements can be made. The noble Baroness is aware that healthcare is devolved to Northern Ireland, and this statutory instrument has been brought forward in the absence of a Northern Ireland Executive.
I share the concerns raised by the noble Baroness in relation to paediatric heart surgery and cancer. I reassure her that the north-south arrangements to provide services such as paediatric heart surgery are not impacted by the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and the UK Government have made a commitment to ensure that those arrangements continue and that no new arrangements in relation to those areas are put in place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked what guides are available. The website GOV.UK contains “Living in country guides”, which contain country-specific information on the steps that people can take in relation to healthcare, and is regularly updated. However, I take on board the comments the noble Baroness has made and I will feed them back to the department to ensure that any further information is put in these guides.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, asked about bilateral agreements if there is no deal. I acknowledge that the timescales are challenging. The Secretary of State for Health has written to all Health Ministers in the EU to offer an agreement on a reciprocal basis with other member states that individuals continue to be covered for healthcare under the same terms as now if they retire in, work in or visit the other country. We are currently engaging with member states to see whether these arrangements can be put in place should we exit the EU without a deal. While it would not be appropriate to share details of the negotiations with member states at this stage, I reiterate that our clear focus is to protect healthcare access for people in the EU.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, raised the issue of how we inform individuals of their rights in a no-deal scenario. I refer him to the answer I have just given in relation to the website and the guidelines. If they need to be updated with new information, the department will certainly do that.
One of the final issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, on which I can comment relates to the costs of spend-on arrangements with the EU. The longer-term costs of reciprocal healthcare arrangements are subject to negotiations between the UK and the EU, as the noble Lord will be aware. Expenditure under the current EU reciprocal healthcare arrangements was approximately £630 million in 2016-17, and we expect future expenditure on EU reciprocal healthcare arrangements to reflect current costs. Our intention is that Parliament will have clear and easy-to-access details of public spending on healthcare arrangements implemented under the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill. We have made a government amendment reflecting the suggestion by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and others to provide Parliament with a regular report on payments made using the powers under the Bill. We anticipate that this report will be a baseline. We intend to go further than reporting on payments, but we cannot provide a statutory obligation to do so at the moment.
I think those are the key questions that I can answer.
Baroness Thornton
I hope the Minister does not mind, but while she was speaking I went to GOV.UK to have a look. She is quite right that there is a lot of information there, but if I want to know about healthcare in France or wherever, I will go to the NHS website. That is the first place I would think of going. If I want to know about my passport or that sort of thing, I would go to GOV.UK or the Home Office. There is a really serious communication issue here that the Government must take seriously very quickly.
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, I take the issue very seriously because communication is key, particularly in the healthcare industry where there are very vulnerable people. It is right that we make information available in an easy, clear format. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for checking that out. She makes a valid point. I will feed her comments back to the department and, if we are able to do so, we will put the information on the generic website because I suspect that I, or anyone else, would go to the NHS pages as well. It seems the most logical thing to do. She has seen the webpage, I have not, but I will take her comments back. I hope the noble Baroness is reassured—she is nodding.
These two instruments and the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill will give us the best possible chance of ensuring that there is no loss of reciprocal healthcare arrangements for UK citizens in the EU, the EEA and Switzerland.
Motion agreed.
National Health Service (Cross-Border Healthcare and Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Baroness Manzoor
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 11 February be approved.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A). Special attention drawn to the instrument by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 53rd Report.
Motion not moved.
Social Security Coordination (Reciprocal Healthcare) (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Baroness Manzoor
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 11 February be approved.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A).
Motion agreed.
Chemicals (Health and Safety) and Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Buscombe
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 18 February be approved.
Relevant document: 15th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)
My Lords, this draft statutory instrument was laid before Parliament on 18 February and was approved in another place on 13 March 2019. The Government’s priority is to reach a negotiated settlement with the EU. However, it is our duty as a responsible Government to prepare for all eventualities, including leaving with no deal. This statutory instrument is one such contingency measure to ensure that regulations governing chemicals and genetically modified organisms for continued use stay operable under a no-deal scenario.
I take this opportunity to reiterate that this instrument will deliver on our commitment to protect workers’ rights as the UK leaves the EU by ensuring that health and safety regulation continues to provide a high level of protection in the workplace and for others affected by workplace activities. It will also deliver on the Government’s commitment that standards of protection for people and the environment will remain at least as high as at present as the UK leaves the EU.
Together with ministerial colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we oversee a number of key regulatory regimes that affect the chemicals sector. Since the referendum, our joint programme has conducted particularly intensive work to ensure that there will continue to be a functioning regulatory regime with associated enforcement activity for chemicals under any exit scenario. These draft regulations form part of the work being done to adjust our existing legislative framework in readiness for leaving the European Union.
I appreciate the technical nature of the regulations. They are made particularly complex by being a composite of several different regulatory regimes. It was decided to present these proposals as a single instrument for the benefit of your Lordships’ House in reducing pressure on parliamentary time and ensuring that we are able to deliver an orderly exit. Noble Lords should be assured that the proposals are sensible, proportionate and necessary.
If approved, these draft regulations will make necessary amendments to three retained EU regulations, as well as EU-derived domestic legislation affecting the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. As stated, the purpose of the instrument is to amend the relevant legislation to ensure that there is provision for an independent UK regulatory regime that maintains existing standards and protections. Going forward, the Government’s priority will be to maintain a legal framework to ensure the continued effective and safe management of chemicals in order to safeguard human health and the environment. That framework needs to be flexible enough to respond to emerging risks, while still allowing trade with the EU that is as frictionless as possible.
The first of the three retained EU regulations to be amended is the biocidal products regulation. This governs the placing on the market and use of products that contain chemicals which protect humans, animals, materials or articles against harmful organisms such as pests or bacteria. It is in place to ensure that these chemicals are safe for humans, animals and the environment, while improving the functioning of the biocidal products market. This market covers a wide range of products such as wood preservatives, insecticides such as wasp spray and anti-fouling paint to remove barnacles from boats.
Secondly, the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures regulation ensures that the hazardous intrinsic properties of chemicals are properly identified and effectively communicated to those throughout the supply chain, including at the point of use, partly through standardised hazard pictograms and warning phrases associated with specific hazards, such as explosivity, acute toxicity or carcinogenicity.
Lastly, the export and import of hazardous chemicals regulation implements the Rotterdam convention and requires exports of listed chemicals to be notified to the importing country. For some chemicals, the consent of the importing country must be obtained before export can proceed.
These regimes rely on EU processes to take and implement collective decisions. However, much of the business of these regimes already operates at national level. Decisions at EU level are taken on the basis of evaluations and assessments undertaken by member states or following consideration of scientific opinions reached by relevant expert committees. Under a no-deal scenario, this instrument provides for these evaluations or opinions to inform a national decision, rather than informing UK input into an EU decision.
The Health and Safety Executive currently acts as a UK competent authority within the EU regimes for chemicals regulations; therefore, it already has existing capability and capacity which can be built upon to take full UK regulatory authority responsibility. For example, across the whole of the EU, the Health and Safety Executive currently processes around an eighth of the biocidal active substance approvals and around a third of the biocidal product authorisations.
It is necessary to put in place arrangements for the Health and Safety Executive to recover its costs for work across the wider chemicals regimes, including for plant protection products, which is currently done by EU institutions and for which a fee is charged. This cost recovery approach is in line with Her Majesty’s Treasury policy and is a well-established procedure for charging industry for the various work and advice provided by the Health and Safety Executive, such as applications for approval of first aid training on offshore installations and pipelines, or evaluation of safety cases made under COMAH regulations.
This instrument also contains a small number of technical operability amendments to the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2014. These regulations pertain only to the use of genetically modified organisms in controlled settings, such as a laboratory, and currently refer to a number of European directives and regulations. The references, some of which are the responsibility of other government departments, are now updated with the corresponding repatriated UK domestic law. There are no policy changes or updates to duties, and all existing protections covering human health and the environment are maintained and will continue to work in the same way post EU exit.
The UK chemical sector is our second biggest manufacturing industry and second largest exporter. It is also integral to the provision of essential products and technologies on which society relies. This instrument will provide clarity to the chemical industry and regulators, ensuring that the legal requirements that apply in relation to chemicals regulations are clear immediately after exit and provide certainty to consumers that the use of chemicals in the UK will continue to be desirable and safe.
Before closing, I would also like to stress that the devolved Administrations have provided consent for the elements of this instrument which are considered devolved. I hope that all noble Lords will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument; quite clearly it covers some important ground, albeit in a compendium of different issues.
I am not sure what we have done to deserve the raffle prize of the most coveted slot of the week. I was a little surprised—with all due respect—to see a DWP Minister putting this forward, but the Minister explained the Government’s perspective that worker protection is one of the clear priorities of this legislation, along with human health and the environment, of course. This SI is something of a younger sibling to another one—the REACH statutory instrument, which we will debate on Tuesday. In that respect, I will touch on some issues today, but I expect to deal with them at greater length next week. I do not know whether the Minister then will be the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, or the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner. Perhaps the audience in the “royal box” might carry to the noble Lord some of the issues that I put forward today; it would be good if he could come prepared. As the Minister said, these regulations cover the important chemicals industry, and touch on our research capability through the GMO issues. There is some very important ground for us to consider.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction and explanation of these regulations. I acknowledge the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Perhaps he might see it as a starter for 10 for Tuesday’s main event. He made some important points, particularly on data, and I am interested in the Minister’s response on that.
As should be clear from debate in the other place, we will not oppose the instrument, given its expressed intent to ensure that the regulation of UK chemicals and genetically modified organisms will operate effectively when the UK leaves the EU. We are mindful of other regulations that have been referred to and which have been tabled, including the draft REACH etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which have been the subject of comment by Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Sub-Committee B. Its report has been drawn to the special attention of the House on the basis that the explanatory material laid in support of the draft regulations provides insufficient information on their expected impact and gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House. These regulations have been scheduled for consideration next week and are the responsibility of Defra. I do not propose to stray into this territory this afternoon in any detail, except where there is an overlap with these regulations.
My understanding is that the DWP has responsibility for the regulations before us today as it is the host department for the HSE. The HSE and Defra oversee several regulatory regimes which impact the chemicals sector. When approved, it is understood that the regulations will cover the whole of the UK and provide for an independent UK regulatory regime which maintains existing standards and protections. As the Minister spelled out, this afternoon we are concerned with: the biocidal products regulations, which govern the use and placing on the market of biocidal products; the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures regulations, a single market measure which applies to the supply of chemicals; the export and import of hazardous chemicals regulations, which require exports of limited chemicals to be notified to the importing country, with consent needed for some; and minor technical amendments to the GMO provisions, as we have heard.
Referring to the list in paragraph 2.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum, paragraph 2.7 states:
“If these changes were not made, several chemicals regimes in the scope of the instrument would not be fully operable when the UK leaves the EU”.
Can the Minister expand on that point and give us some specific examples?
The Government have chosen to amalgamate these instruments in one set of regulations and assert that this decision was taken to reduce the pressure on parliamentary time. These are complex issues. If the Government are following this route, it should be incumbent on them at least to produce an impact assessment. It is understood that one is available for the REACH regulations but not for those before us today. It has apparently been asserted that if the direct financial impact of the measure is below £5 million, there is no requirement for an impact assessment. If that is the basis of the claim for there being no need for an impact assessment, perhaps we could see a copy of that £5 million calculation.
Currently, scientific and technical updates are proposed, considered and adopted through the EU’s delegated decision-making arrangements. Under these new regulations, this will be done by ministerial decision following recommendations from a relevant competent authority or agency. Can the Minister give us a list of who was included in competent authorities and agencies for these purposes? Is there a risk that, in comparison to the breadth of the current arrangements, the UK will have a narrower updating arrangement? How can we be assured that best practice will prevail? The Explanatory Memorandum argues for this administrative procedure on the basis of efficiency and speed, and points to the precedent of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. It seems that Defra is pursuing such an option for plant protection products. What happens when the UK advice under these arrangements diverges from the EU advice provided to entities within the EU? Is any process envisaged to reconcile the differing positions to get some impact on the market?
The HSE briefing reminds us that for biocides and pesticides regulations in future, the HSE will no longer be able to act as “lead authority” for active substance approvals and some product authorisations. Who will, and what does the Minister consider the consequences of this to be? How assured can we be that this will not lead to a change of policy?
As for classification, labelling and packaging, it is envisaged that all existing main duties of classification would remain the same and that we would adopt the UN globally harmonised system. This new UK mandatory classification is also to be hosted by the HSE. It is understood that this will involve all existing MCL substances plus new and revised entries as agreed. Can the Minister say something about how the process of agreement in these circumstances will proceed? What enforcement arrangements are envisaged?
We know that the HSE would also take on responsibility for an independent UK system in respect of biocidal products. This would involve applications for approval and authorisation going to the HSE, which would take on the role of ECHA. It is understood—this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox—that active substance approvals and product authorisations would remain valid, but ongoing applications with the HSE for evaluation would need to be resubmitted. At what and whose cost?
Apart from its increased responsibilities arising under these regulations, as the debate on REACH identified, considerable additional responsibilities are envisaged for the HSE at a time when the organisation is going through significant budget cuts—I am reminded that the HSE has been six months without a chief executive. What assessment has been made of the capacity of the HSE to cope, as well as that of Defra and the Environment Agency? I have no doubt about the intellectual capacity of the HSE; it is one of the jewels in the crown of our regulatory firmament, although that is not always acknowledged by some members of the government party.
The Explanatory Memorandum seeks to address the financial position of the HSE. It appears to recite three situations—first,
“fees to recover the full costs of its regulatory activities”;
secondly,
“variable fees and charges dependent on the size of organisation involved”;
and thirdly,
“domestic fees and charges systems … proportionate to the actual cost incurred of intervening”.
The latter are seemingly adopted for these regulations and mean that there will not be full cost recovery. Is this correct? What is the estimated annual shortfall?
The SLSC specifically regrets that a financial analysis has not been provided which identifies the potential cost of the proposed regulatory regime, nor an assessment for the industry of a no-deal scenario. Will the Minister undertake to provide these? Debating these regulations has, if nothing else, reminded us how important the chemical sector is to the UK economy. This must be underpinned by robust and secure regulatory provisions. We look forward to the further deliberations next week.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord McKenzie, for their pertinent questions on this instrument, which is extremely important for the chemicals industry. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I am here as the DWP Minister. The DWP is the lead department for HSE operations. When the REACH regulations—on which the noble Lord has tabled a Motion—are debated next week, it will be my noble friend Lord Gardiner at the Dispatch Box, not me. He is the Minister for Defra, the department which is directly impacted. I will make sure that my noble friend is aware of today’s debate. I hope it will help him prepare for next week’s debate and that we can avoid a fatal Motion.
I will do my utmost to respond to the questions asked. As both noble Lords have emphasised, this is an incredibly important industry. The chemical sector is our second largest manufacturing industry and is vital to the economy and to many other industries, often leading the way in research and innovation. It is not only our second largest export industry but a key component in other important sectors, such as pharmaceutical, automotive and aerospace. We want to make sure that it continues to succeed and will do our utmost to support it.
The Government therefore seek to ensure that any potential new burdens on UK companies are minimised. The Health and Safety Executive is aware of the impacts and cost implications for business of any potential changes. It will, consequently, endeavour to keep such changes as simple and straightforward as possible. The Health and Safety Executive will implement an active communications programme on this point, leading up to exit and following it, to ensure that all stakeholders are aware of any potential changes in their responsibilities.
Both noble Lords asked about capability. This is understandable, because this adds to the already established role the HSE plays. Some of my ministerial colleagues in another place have had numerous, cross-government meetings with the HSE to discuss capability. The HSE, as we know, currently acts as the competent authority, but resources have been reprioritised to meet new pressures and to supplement existing capability and capacity. Under a no-deal scenario, the HSE would look to recruit around 120 additional staff in 2019, with an estimated cost per annum of £3.3 million. It should be noted that currently more than two-thirds of its budget for work carried out by the chemicals regulation division in the HSE is cost recoverable and the expectation is that cost-recoverable work will continue to form a reasonable proportion of its income after we exit the EU. Additional funding will also be made available to the HSE. The HSE keeps its resourcing plans continuously under review and will carry on assessing the impact, including on cost-recoverable work.
Lord Fox
Just to be clear, is 120 extra people the total number expected to be taken on to cover all the post-Brexit requirement? Is the £3.3 million not new money but money that has been moved from one HSE box to another? The noble Baroness talked about money being reprioritised: from which priority has it been moved in order that this becomes a priority? I would like a little more clarity around that.
Baroness Buscombe
I ask the noble Lord to bear with me in case my officials can reassure me on both those points: I would not like to take a punt, as it were, before we close this debate.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for attending a recent meeting to which all Peers were invited, chaired by the then Minister for Disabled People and the lead Minister for the HSE in the Department of Work and Pensions. At that meeting it was helpful to have the opportunity to listen to representatives of the HSE, who were very clear about the pathways forward in the event either of a deal or no deal, and who work extremely well, I have to say, with our department and across government to support its crucial work now and the crucial work that will be placed upon it.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about accountability for decisions. The UK Government are committed to transparency so that citizens can hold the Government to account on how decisions are made that affect their lives. Decisions taken by the Secretary of State regarding chemicals regulation will be subject to the same processes that hold Ministers to account as any other decisions. In addition, for several decisions, the consent of the devolved Administrations will be required.
As for the cost to the industry, the proposed amendments in this instrument relate to the maintenance of existing regulatory standards. Therefore, the instrument has been calculated to have a net direct impact on business or civil society organisations of less than £5 million annually. The Government seek to ensure that any potential new burdens on UK companies are minimised. The HSE is aware of the impacts and potential cost implications to business of any potential changes and consequently will endeavour, as I have already said, to keep these as straightforward and simple as possible.
I can now respond to the noble Lord, Lord Fox. There will be 120 additional staff in 2019 and the £3.3 million is DWP funding for the HSE’s work and REACH is funded by Defra. The cost-recovery work is additional to this funding. I hope that that is clear.
On parliamentary scrutiny, after exit the same UK regulatory scientists will recommend updates to ensure the continued protection of people, the environment and the interests of UK business. This will be for the UK only, not as part of the EU system. When Ministers agree with a recommendation, they will issue a decision to this effect and the HSE will then ensure that the updates are given effect from an agreed date and alert duty holders to changes. Decisions taken by the Secretary of State on chemicals regulation will be subject to the same processes that hold Ministers to account on other decisions, as I have said. This approach is better suited to the volume and pace of the scientific and technical changes involved, and will allow for effective management of the downstream consequences. Enabling the updates in this way ensures that they are dealt with promptly and efficiently, which is necessary to provide legal certainty for UK businesses. The approach also prevents undue pressure on parliamentary time; under the BPR regime, for example, there can be up to 50 active substances approval decisions a year.
On the Biocidal Products Regulation and the active substance review programme, in a no-deal scenario the UK would be outside the EU review programme and responsible for taking on active substance approvals nationally. The UK could however take into account evaluations done by other regulators, and would seek to do so where feasible. This includes the EU, which would continue to work to the same standards as operated by the UK. However, we would also maintain the option to take different decisions from the EU 27. Submission deadlines specified under Article 89 of the Biocidal Products Regulation will continue to apply, allowing the use of products containing active substances that are within the scope of this review programme, permitting them to continue to be made available on the market for a specified period of time. Other rules for participation in and withdrawal from the review programme will also remain similar to those in the present EU review programme.
Lord Fox
I apologise for rising again, but I thought the Minister said that it is perfectly reasonable for the Government to expect that in some cases, if the European Union safety authority decides to ban a chemical for a particular use, the UK would follow that ban without doing its own work and assessment. Is that a correct assumption?
Baroness Buscombe
I said that the UK could take into account evaluations made by other regulators, and would seek to do so where feasible. This includes the EU, which will continue to work to the same standards as the UK. It would also maintain the option to take different decisions from the EU 27.
Baroness Buscombe
That is a yes.
The noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord McKenzie, asked about data. In a no-deal scenario, following EU exit it is not expected that the UK would be granted any permission to access confidential information held by the European Commission or the European Chemicals Agency, so any information previously submitted via these processes would not be available for the Health and Safety Executive to refer to. Such data must therefore be resubmitted to the HSE where necessary for it to continue operating the regulatory regime.
The specific circumstances in which data resubmission would be required are set out in the Biocidal Products Regulation transitional arrangements. The HSE appreciates that the requirement for applicants to resubmit their data packages may result in some increase in cost to business. However, this increase is expected to be minimal, on the basis that any data the HSE requests will be the same information as previously submitted and can be submitted in electronic format.
The technical data requirements needed to support an approval of an active substance or an authorisation of a biocidal product would be the same as those specified under the EU regime. In the immediate period following exit day, the necessary processes will be in place such that applicants can submit data to and correspond with the HSE as the competent authority. Such processes and systems will be sufficient to process applications and permit the necessary communications to take place in the weeks following EU exit, with the intention that a more streamlined, efficient process will be developed in due course. More information on what systems will be used will be made available to applicants as soon as it is available.
As I have been corrected to an extent, I return to a point I made a few moments ago on taking decisions on active substance approvals nationally and whether we would just do what the EU has done and accept a ban. To clarify, we would always make our own assessment of EU conclusions, so we would not just accept them at face value. Perhaps that is helpful.
Lord Fox
That brings me back to the point I made in my speech: there are 488 chemicals to be reassessed if we follow the European Union’s work programme on this. In addition, it will be an extremely laborious, expensive and time-consuming process that will inevitably be slower than it would have been had we remained within the European chemicals regime.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I think I can say confidently that in our discussions with the HSE it has said that it is confident that it could carry out this—albeit laborious—assessment as our competent national, domestic authority were we to leave without a deal.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked specifically about impact assessments. The department has been provided with guidance that the impact of EU exit statutory instruments should be assessed in line with standard practice by following the existing better regulation framework, in accordance with Her Majesty’s Treasury’s Green Book guidance. The proposed amendments in this instrument relate to the maintenance of existing regulatory standards. Therefore, as I said, this instrument has been calculated to have a net direct impact on business of £5 million annually. This approach is in line with published guidance, and departmental chief analysts are responsible for ensuring that the proportionate level of analysis is provided. Costs arising for duty holders will be costs of exit rather than of this instrument, which are not applicable to this assessment. An analysis of the wider impacts of the UK’s exit from the EU was published in November 2018 in EU Exit: Long-Term Economic Analysis.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about transparency. The UK Government are committed to transparency so that citizens can hold the Government to account with regard to how decisions that will affect their lives are made. Therefore, in a no-deal scenario the Government would ensure that regulatory decisions are made with justification, in an open manner, with regular and full consultation on key decisions, in line with the Regulators’ Code, committed to transparency. The UK remains a signatory to the Aarhus convention, which guarantees the public rights on access to information, public participation and justice in environmental matters.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, also asked for assurances with regard to scientific and technical updates. The Health and Safety Executive is a world leader in the regulation of chemicals and will continue to be so following EU exit. The Government will ensure that the best scientific and technical advice is available during the process. Indeed, we have to be proud of the extraordinary expertise and skills we have in this area; we must ensure that the best skills and advice continue to be available and that decisions are transparent and involve the opportunity for public participation.
On fees and cost recovery provisions—I apologise in advance if I am being repetitive—the UK will charge fees in line with Her Majesty’s Treasury’s policy and the Regulators’ Code, which requires regulators to clearly explain the basis on which fees and charges are calculated. Industry will be charged only for the work and advice provided by the Health and Safety Executive. This approach is a well-established procedure for ensuring a 100% cost recovery.
Potential changes to fee levels would require legislation to be passed through Parliament. The principle of transparency underpins any changes to fees, so there would be a wide consultation process. This instrument is a purely formal change of the location of powers. In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, about paragraph 2.7 of the Explanatory Notes, I can say that the situation will not be operable after exit unless we make these changes to ensure clarity about the formal location of powers—that is, powers resting with the HSE.
I think that I am almost there. I think I said that the competent authority involved in scientific advice will be the HSE, alongside the Environment Agency and the devolved authorities’ relevant competent authorities, such as HSENI. It is important to make clear our involvement with the devolved Administrations. All the competent authorities will be involved in decision-making.
There was a question on enforcement. The Government are extremely committed to the protection of workers, the public and the environment. The Health and Safety Executive has sufficient enforcement capacity to police non-compliance with chemical regulations, but enforcement action will be proportionate to the health and safety risks and to the seriousness of any breach of the law, as the HSE enforcement policy statement sets out. HSE’s approach to enforcement will not change as a result of exit. Although some duty holders will have new or different roles to fulfil, depending on their position in the supply chain, the scope of the regulation and the number of duty holders affected will remain broadly the same. HSE has planned a modest increase in enforcement resource to cope with the potential increase in the number of enforcement cases that could arise as a result of increased scrutiny from other agencies, such as Border Force or HMRC.
I think that that covers pretty much all the questions. I hope that noble Lords will bear with me. I put it differently from the noble Lord, Lord Fox: I always call this the graveyard slot. But I want to touch on consultation, because I know that this has been of concern to noble Lords across the House in relation to a number of SIs. We have a very good story to tell about what the Government, working with the HSE, have been doing to ensure that those who are impacted by these changes are aware of what is going on.
Consultation on chemicals was conducted on an informal basis, although, until very recently, this was constrained due to sensitivities arising from the ongoing negotiations with the EU. At the beginning of February, HSE consulted all the major chemical trade associations and it has held a series of workshops and events to discuss changes with representatives of industry and non-governmental organisations. Indeed, in the past month alone, a series of roadshows was held in Belfast, Hull, Cardiff, London, Chester and Edinburgh. In total, across all events since February 2018, HSE has engaged with approximately 1,240 attendees and, since August, the EU exit chemicals regulations guidance pages on HSE’s website have had just under 100,000 views. In the past month, pages with specific EU exit guidance on each EU chemicals regulation have had approximately 3,600 views. So we take the issue of consultation seriously. It is not formal consultation, because there are no policy changes in the legislation, but we believe that it is necessary to ensure that all those who are impacted either directly or indirectly by the regulations and changes associated with our exit from the European Union are aware of what we are doing and the impact of this statutory instrument.
This instrument will provide clarity to the chemical industry and regulators, ensuring that the legal requirements that apply in relation to chemicals regulations are clear immediately after exit, and it will provide certainty to consumers that the use of chemicals in the UK will continue to be desirable and safe. I commend the regulations.