House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Village halls are at the heart of rural communities, and we want to ensure that they remain so for many years to come. That is why, on 5 April this year, the Government launched a £3 million fund to improve them. Grants of up to £75,000, or 20% of the project costs, are available for the refurbishment and alteration of these essential community buildings.
Craig Tracey
Village halls are a vital asset in many rural parts of my constituency, offering a wide range of activities for groups of people of all ages. I know that from personal experience, having served as chair of my local village hall in Shuttington for several years before my election. I welcome the fund, but how are village hall committees being encouraged to apply for it, given that they are often run by a large number of dedicated volunteers?
Dr Coffey
We have publicised the grant scheme on social media and fundraising community websites, and there have been more than 70 expressions of interest. The National Association of Local Councils has been informed, and I am sure that it will use its networks to advertise the scheme. I should point out that the deadline for applications is March 2020. The funds may already have been allocated by then, so we want to encourage as many village halls as possible to get on with their project proposals.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Bassetlaw will be happy to pioneer the green energy policy in village halls, along with the Secretary of State and the Government. We offer all our village halls to the Government, so that, with Government funds, they can work together to become carbon-neutral, and villages can see the benefits—
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Although small, the village of Rushton in my constituency has a church, a pub, a village hall and a village newsletter. Village halls are extremely important. Will the Minister take this opportunity to praise all the volunteers who seek no reward, save to serve their local communities?
Dr Coffey
I certainly will. I am sure that in some of the villages in Buckingham tonight, the villagers will be gathering in their rural communities to watch Arsenal—hopefully—beat Valencia, just as they will have watched Spurs win last night and the mighty Liverpool win on Tuesday. Village halls are places where communities come together for moments of joy, but also for other important purposes such as community activities, and our villages would be poorer without them.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
I welcome the fund, but may I ask the Minister to look again at the eligibility criterion that forbids parish councils from bidding for it? In villages such as Rainford, Billinge and Seneley Green in my constituency, halls run by parish councils are real community hubs, and they would be good umbrella bodies to bid for the money on behalf of their communities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Hundreds of farmers are being treated for mental health issues. What plans have been made to ensure that village halls have a signpost to mental health help for rural communities?
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr Robert Goodwill)
DEFRA is working closely with the Home Office on the future immigration framework as part of the longer-term strategy for labour in the food chain. The seasonal workers pilot is now open, and the first workers have arrived on UK farms.
Antoinette Sandbach
Eddisbury is the home of high-quality dairy farming and produces much of the country’s milk. However, dairy farmers in Cheshire are having huge problems with staff recruitment. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that the £30,000 annual earnings threshold for migrant workers post Brexit will not apply to farm workers?
Mr Goodwill
As I have said, DEFRA is working closely with the Home Office on this issue. The Government are committed to ensuring that a wide range of stakeholders have an opportunity to contribute their views and shape the development of the future immigration policy. That is why the Government have embarked on an extensive programme of targeted engagement with businesses and other stakeholders across the UK.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
In evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee, Archie Gibson of Agrico UK said that if Scottish farmers cannot get the seasonal workers they need to replace EU workers no longer able to come here, two fifths of farmers will cease the enterprise that needs that workforce; furthermore, three fifths will have to downsize. We all here, as the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) pointed out, have to make the not unfounded assumption that the same is true for the rest of the UK’s farmers and growers. Therefore, will the Secretary of State make urgent representations to his Cabinet colleagues that our farmers need migrant workers? They need a ready supply—not a short-term pilot, but certainty of policy that will not leave crops rotting in the ground again.
Mr Goodwill
May I correct the hon. Gentleman? He says EU workers will not be able to come here; under whichever scenario we leave the EU, that will not be the case. Those who are already here will be able to stay. During the implementation period, people will be able to live, work and study as now, and there is a registration scheme. In a no-deal scenario, European economic area citizens will be able to live and work here without a visa for three months and then continue to stay by applying for European temporary leave to remain, which gives them 36 additional months.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr Robert Goodwill)
The Agriculture Bill lays the foundations for farming policy in England as we leave the EU. This new policy will be a system that pays public money for public goods, rewarding farmers for delivering environmental and animal welfare benefits. The protection of our countryside will allow us to leave the environment in a better state than when we found it while we support farmers to produce high-quality food in a sustainable way.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the Minister for that answer, but within that does he see soil health as a public good on its own terms or merely as a proxy or gateway for other benefits such as biodiversity, flood management—so important on the Somerset levels—and food productivity?
Mr Goodwill
Having studied soil science at university, I understand that soil is one of our greatest assets, and indeed the numerous environmental benefits and services that can be derived from activities that enhance soil health will be eligible for public money.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I am glad that the Minister has had a change of heart on that because he argued against my amendment on soil during the Bill Committee, but now he is on the Front Bench. What are we doing to try to meet net zero emissions from farming either through the Agriculture Bill or other mechanisms? The Committee on Climate Change again endorsed that this week. What are the Government doing and when is the target going to be reached?
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Lady makes a good point and, indeed, emissions from agriculture have fallen by about 16% since 1990. However, progress has stalled in recent years, with little change since 2009, and I know from the work we did together on the Environmental Audit Committee that we need to make further progress on that, particularly by looking at methane, which has a briefer half-life than other greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and so needs to be dealt with in a slightly different way.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
As we know, the potential of leaving the EU is creating some uncertainty so can the Minister reassure Cheshire farmers and the National Farmers Union that the current funding schemes that their members are working with will not be phased out until replacements are available to ensure that there will not be any loss of funding during any period of transition?
Mr Goodwill
We have made the decision clear with regard to the 2019 and 2020 schemes, and I remind farmers that the deadline for applications this year is 15 May as usual. I hope that they will get their applications in; sadly, in most years, we get a lot of applications in the last 24 hours.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
NFU Scotland and other farming organisations north of the border are increasingly concerned at the lack of agreement between the UK Government and the Scottish Government to allow a Scottish schedule into the Agriculture Bill. Will the Minister meet me and a cross-party delegation, including the NFU and crofters organisations, to hear from them what the industry would want in that schedule?
Mr Goodwill
I would certainly be happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman. I was in Aberdeenshire recently and met representatives of the Scottish farming unions, and last week I met Roseanna Cunningham from the Scottish Administration and discussed a number of issues.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Where is the Agriculture Bill? It left Committee months and months ago, and given that we are spending an infinite amount of time on statutory instruments updating what the EU Commission is now doing, can we be assured that we will not have to completely rewrite the Bill— although that could be useful in this time of climate change? We just need the Bill back so that farmers can have some certainty.
Mr Goodwill
I am as keen as the hon. Gentleman is to make progress. Perhaps the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman), will be able to help, because as soon as we can clear the logjam and get Brexit out of the way, we will be able to get on with it. She is part of the team that is negotiating an accommodation between the two main parties, so perhaps she can help us to make some progress on Brexit so that we can get on with the Agriculture and Fisheries Bills.
Mr Speaker
I must say to the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) that I have received two approaches about him this week. First, I received a letter earlier this week in my office telling me what I already knew—namely, that he was a splendid fellow—and then I was at a book launch last night, when somebody beetled up to me to tell me that she was a constituent of his and that he was a splendid fellow. I do not know whether this is an orchestrated campaign, but I require no persuasion on this matter.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr Robert Goodwill)
Young people are at the heart of this year’s Year of Green Action. We are working with the Department for Education on the £10 million flagship children and nature programme, which supports children from disadvantaged backgrounds to give them better access to the natural environment. We work closely with the DFE to promote awareness of pathways into food and farming careers.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. One of my constituents, Tom Martin, has set up a fantastic initiative called FaceTime a Farmer, which enables pupils to engage with agricultural and rural issues in the classroom via a video link with farmers out in their fields. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Tom on spearheading this brilliant initiative, and would he be interested in a meeting to learn more about it?
Mr Goodwill
I would certainly like to thank Mr Martin and farmers like him for all the hard work they put into such initiatives. FaceTime a Farmer is an exciting initiative to help children to engage with farming and get a better understanding of where their food comes from, and I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and Mr Martin.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister pass on my congratulations to the Secretary of State on his decision to meet young people to talk about climate change? Unfortunately, the meeting this week had to be postponed for fully understandable reasons. Lola Chirico and 14 others were disappointed not to be able to meet the Secretary of State, because they want to talk about climate change with him. Lola Chirico is my granddaughter.
Mr Goodwill
The Secretary of State is sitting here, so I do not need to pass that on. It is certainly important that young people are leading the way, and I think that many of us are perhaps slightly embarrassed that we have been so slow off the mark. Going back to what my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) said, it is important that young people should be aware of how their food is produced and where it comes from and of the seasonality in this country so that they can understand when different foods are in season. If they buy foods that are in season, they will be able to reduce the carbon footprint of the food they purchase.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
With an increase in the urbanised society and media, I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that the education of our young across all parts of our communities is very important. Against that backdrop, will he welcome and add whatever support he can give to Open Farm Sunday, which is a golden opportunity for young people to see agriculture in tooth and claw?
Mr Goodwill
Having attended a number of Open Farm Sunday events in my constituency, I can commend it and I hope that more farmers will contribute to it so that more young people, particularly those from urban areas who do not understand agriculture and the hard work that goes into producing the food they consume, can attend those events. Perhaps not so much food would be wasted if people understood how much hard work was put into producing it.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Palm oil is an essential component of much of our food production, but unsustainable palm oil production across south-east Asia is wrecking a lot of natural forests. Will the Government join me in congratulating Chester Zoo on its sustainable palm oil campaign? What support can they give to that campaign?
Mr Goodwill
The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who is sitting next to me, is visiting that tomorrow, and we are all certainly aware of the environmental impact of palm oil. There is a perfectly good alternative, in the form of British rapeseed oil, which is produced in places such as Yorkshire and East Anglia.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)
Ministers from across the four Administrations in the United Kingdom meet monthly at the inter-ministerial group for environment, food and rural affairs to discuss the negotiations with the EU. The most recent meeting was on 29 April in Cardiff, and we will continue to work together to secure the long-term profitability of the Welsh fishing industry as we leave the EU.
Liz Saville Roberts
Fishing vessels at Porth Dinllaen and coastal communities around Wales land a whelk catch worth £6.2 million every year. Have the Welsh Government made any specific representations to Ministers to ensure that our fishermen do not face tariffs of 20% on exports to the crucial South Korean market after Brexit? Will he meet with me to discuss the importance of the seafood industry to Wales’s coastal economy?
Michael Gove
I completely appreciate the vital importance of ensuring that the trade in whelks between Wales and South Korea is protected. One of the reasons why the Department for International Trade has prioritised making sure that we have continuity trade arrangements with South Korea is to ensure that Korean consumers can continue to enjoy this great Welsh product. The one threat to that trade would be the election of a Labour Government at the next general election because, as we all know, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) could not run a whelk stall.
Mr Speaker
I think that one probably requires a little bit of work and finesse, but it is only a matter of time. That was a first draft.
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
Welsh fishermen will be particularly interested in the application of the Hague preference since the ability to invoke it and, more importantly, counter-invoke it against the Irish Republic is critical to our interests. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the withdrawal agreement will protect our ability to invoke the Hague preference, because he will understand that it is not part of the common fisheries policy but a political convention that needs to be invoked each year?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We will be able to continue to invoke the Hague preference in certain circumstances, and it is vital that we do so in defence of our interests.
John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
It is important to do whatever we can to recycle as much waste as possible, but waste incineration plants continue to play an important role in generating energy instead of diverting waste to landfill. However, our assessment is that additional residual waste energy capacity above that already planned to 2020 should not be needed if we achieve our recycling targets.
John Grogan
Further to that welcome reply, has the Minister seen the recent report from independent consultants Eunomia? It indicates that we will indeed have enough waste incineration capacity to deal with our country’s residual waste and that if we build more incinerators, the danger is that waste will be diverted from recycling.
Dr Coffey
I have not seen that report, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we discussed this matter in his recent Westminster Hall debate. It is important to say that we are still making progress to ensure that we achieve our recycling targets, but incineration by default is certainly not the answer that we want to promote.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
As the fast fashion trend continues to increase, will the Minister outline both the short-term and long-term plans to tackle the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of clothing that is incinerated every year?
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Minister will know that Wales recycles more than any other part of the UK, with ambitious targets and a new £6 million fund to help businesses become plastic free. Should the Government not learn from Wales, given that they are flatlining on their own targets?
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
As the Minister knows, the level of recycling in England rose from around 7% in 1997 to around 44% in 2011, but it has flatlined since then. Much of the incentive for the increase in recycling during those years came from avoiding the landfill tax, and Government capital grants for increasing recycling were balanced by landfill tax receipts. However, now that most household waste is incinerated, those incentives no longer apply. The “Our waste, our resources” strategy states:
“Should wider policies not deliver the Government’s waste ambitions in the long-term, we will consider the introduction of a tax on the incineration”.
Will the Minister tell us how many more years of flatlining it will take before she is willing to make that consideration?
Dr Coffey
The landfill tax has been important in reducing landfill. As I have just said, we are consulting on measures that build on the resources and waste strategy that we published a few months ago. We have been quite clear that we must ensure that we increase recycling, and we will take further measures if incineration is still proving part of the problem.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr Robert Goodwill)
We have delivered significant improvements to the basic payments scheme in England this year, with 99.7% of the 2018 payments now complete. I am, however, acutely aware that we have much more to do to deliver the stewardship schemes to the same high standards.
Susan Elan Jones
My constituency borders rural communities in Cheshire and Shropshire, and I know there is immense concern in the farming community on this point. In view of the pretty damning report in 2017 from the Public Accounts Committee and the fact that a third of all UK farmers are now aged 65 or over, will the Government act and do something urgently?
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Lady makes a valid point and I do not underestimate the importance of getting this right. That is one of the reasons why we took responsibility for these stewardship schemes away from Natural England and gave it to the Rural Payments Agency, which is performing much better. But we do need to do better, not least because, if we want to incentivise more farmers to participate in these schemes, we need to make sure that we keep our part of the bargain and give them the money they deserve.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Not only is it a problem with stewardship schemes that existing farmers are not getting paid, but many farmers are deciding not to go into those stewardship schemes. The whole of our new agricultural policy will be going in that direction, so it is vital that the Minister now sorts it out. You have had some time—not the Minister personally—and it is time the Department sorted it out.
Mr Goodwill
Point taken. On my own farm I have just planted wild bird seed and a big area of nectar plants, so I will report to the House when my payments come through, although I have insisted to officials that I should be in the last decile of payments—I do not want them to accelerate my payments. I will be one of the last to get paid, so I will keep a careful eye on this matter.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
What regime is planned for soil quality? When are we likely to get it? It is so important for carbon retention.
Mr Goodwill
As I mentioned, many of the public goods we are to deliver will result in better soil quality. We also need to have a debate on the role of livestock on mixed farms because many of the farms I have visited recently on which soil quality is improving are farms that use manures and slurry to improve the soil—we no longer have that in many of the big intensive agricultural areas.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)
Tackling climate change is a cross-Government priority and it is one of a range of issues that I discuss with all Cabinet colleagues. My Department works closely with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to reduce emissions in the natural resources sector, as set out in the clean growth strategy.
Neil Gray
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Of course Scotland leads the way not only on renewable energy production but on the commercialisation of new renewable energy technology. Can he explain how this area is a priority for his Government when they are cutting the subsidies to renewable energy generators? When will he review that process so that Scotland can continue to generate new renewable electricity and export it to the rest of the UK?
Michael Gove
I am happy to congratulate the many entrepreneurs, innovators and others who have been responsible for powering ahead with the growth of the renewables sector not just in Scotland but across the United Kingdom. One of the reasons why subsidies for solar, for example, have been cut is because the price has come down—the subsidies were necessary to kick-start investment. It is a fact that 99% of solar power generated in this country has been generated since 2010—since the Conservatives have been in Downing Street.
Martyn Day
I understand that the Secretary of State sat in close attention when Greta Thunberg visited recently. Following her visit, will he tell us whether he agrees with the Scottish Government that there is a climate change emergency? If so, what does he intend to do to cut emissions from aviation?
Michael Gove
There absolutely is a climate change emergency and a need to act, and Greta Thunberg’s testimony was incredibly powerful. When it comes to aviation, we need to work with the sector to ensure that we balance the need to promote growth and, indeed, the need to promote links across the United Kingdom while moving towards meeting our net zero goal.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
The Scottish Affairs Committee, the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and, most recently, the Committee on Climate Change all agree with the Carbon Capture and Storage Association that carbon capture, usage and storage technology—CCUS—is essential for achieving a net zero emissions target by 2050. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that, in order to tackle climate change properly, we must develop a CCUS cluster such as the Acorn project, which is centred on St Fergus in my constituency? Does he also agree that this cluster approach is far more effective technically and financially than previously proposed carbon capture and storage programmes?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and we are absolutely committed to supporting the work in St Fergus. Technological breakthroughs in institutions such as Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen are also precisely the sorts of work that we should be getting behind.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Today the Environment Agency announced that it is preparing for a catastrophic 4° rise in global temperatures and huge sea level rises. The EA says it needs £1 billion a year for coastal defences, but the Government have allocated only £2.6 billion over six years —less than half of what the EA says is needed. When should we expect the necessary increase in funding and a plan to protect our vulnerable coastal communities?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. First, I record my thanks to Emma Howard Boyd and Sir James Bevan, the chair and chief executive of the Environment Agency, for the leadership that they have shown on this issue. Under this Government, record amounts have been spent on flood defences and record efforts have been made to combat climate change. However, in both cases, more needs to be done. The national policy statement will be forthcoming shortly.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)
It is good to see the hon. Lady back in her place for the first DEFRA questions since returning from maternity leave and the safe arrival of baby James. Congratulations.
Protecting our moorland from wildfires is essential. The risk of severe damage from wildfire on wet, well functioning blanket bog is relatively low. Natural England is working with landowners and land managers through its uplands programme to develop long-term management plans. We are also currently undertaking a wildfire review to ensure that our future land management policies minimise the risks of wildfire.
Holly Lynch
I am grateful to the Minister for that response and for his kind words.
In West Yorkshire alone, there have been three significant wildfires in the past 18 months. The Minister will be aware that, if we manage our moorland and peat bogs responsibly, they will lock in water, which protects us from flooding; they will lock in carbon; and, kept wet, they will also protect us from wildfires. What more can we do to manage those moorlands and peat bogs responsibly?
David Rutley
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that healthy wet peatlands help carbon storage and minimise and reduce fire risk. That is why peatland restoration is an urgent priority. DEFRA is currently funding four large-scale peatland restoration projects across England, involving a £10 million fund, including in the north of England uplands, the Welsh borders, Dartmoor and Exmoor and, of course, the south Pennines: vital work that we need to take forward.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Staffordshire moorlands has some magnificent heathland, but it has been affected by severe fires in the last year. Those are sometimes caused by disposable barbecues. Has the Minister looked at ways of ensuring the more responsible purchase and use of such barbecues?
David Rutley
We work closely with Natural England and the Home Office to see how we can tackle these issues. Operational plans are in place with fire services as well.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Our focus is on ensuring that effective monitoring and protection are in place. Since 2017, we have increased the protection of seabirds by creating five new marine special protection areas and extending a further nine sites. I draw your attention in particular, Mr Speaker, to the SPA at Flamborough Head, which has been extended to protect nesting and foraging areas for a range of seabirds, including kittiwakes and puffins.
Peter Aldous
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. The UK’s seabird population is in serious decline. Will the Minister use the forthcoming review of the UK marine strategy to set out a recovery plan that includes both targets and a timeline?
Dr Coffey
Yes, we will. The plan will include targets to ensure that good environmental status is met for seabirds and set the indicators that we use to assess their status. Of course, we will continue to do other work such as reducing the impact of invasive species, which are damaging seabird colonies; carrying out the UK plan of action on seabird bycatch; and, as many across the House support, reducing marine litter, particularly marine plastic.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Daniel Zeichner
That is very disappointing to hear. We have just heard praise for the Environment Agency, but its staff have seen a 20% cut in real terms over the past decade. The agency is suffering from recruitment and retention problems and, inevitably, low morale. Will the Minister think again and at least press the Environment Agency to reopen the discussions?
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I know this is a topic close to your heart, Mr Speaker.
Large infrastructure projects may require an environmental impact assessment of the likely significant environmental effects. In the case of nationally significant infrastructure projects, the EIA forms part of the development consent order application. Requirements are routinely imposed to ensure that development is delivered sustainably. Projects such as High Speed 2 include environmental minimum requirements and associated controls linked to the EIA.
Dame Cheryl Gillan
I am glad that the Minister brought up HS2. Even before construction has been given the go-ahead, the HS2 enabling works have breached environmental undertakings and assurances. Given that the project will destroy 100 ancient woodlands, how can we ensure that what DEFRA is trying to achieve in preserving our environment is not going to be destroyed by the HS2 construction companies as they desperately scramble to cut corners and cut the costs of this highly expensive and useless project?
Dr Coffey
The environmental impact assessment is an important part of the planning process. The development of HS2 will require a number of protective provisions, consents and licences for work that affects protected sites and species and other aspects of the natural environment. The Environment Agency and Natural England will continue to work with HS2 Ltd to ensure that it complies with the conditions set out by the requirements. I recognise the issue relating to the ancient woodlands, but I am sure my right hon. Friend will join me in celebrating the fact that 7 million new trees will be planted, and planting has already started.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)
First, I thank colleagues from all parties for their support for the Government in giving the Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill its Second Reading. Thinking of our responsibility to the natural world, I extend my sympathy to the family of Guardsman Mathew Talbot. Mathew died working on an anti-poaching initiative in Africa just two days ago. He was a distinguished young 22-year-old solider who was fighting to preserve the natural world. Our sympathies go out to his family, friends and colleagues.
Nigel Huddleston
Vale of Evesham asparagus is the only asparagus with protected geographical indication status. As I am sure the Secretary of State is aware, we are currently in the middle of the British Asparagus Festival, which is held mainly in my constituency. Would he like to join me at that festival and to show his support for great British farmers who grow not only the best asparagus in the world but so much more fantastic, world-class British produce?
Michael Gove
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his drawing attention to the importance of asparagus growers in our broader agricultural export successes. It is not only grown in the Vale of Evesham, beautiful part of the country though it is; we also grow world-beating asparagus in Yorkshire. Overall, asparagus exports have secured £3.2 million for this country. Although I cannot join the festival, I would be delighted to share some asparagus with my hon. Friend at the first available opportunity.
Mr Speaker
We are now considerably better informed about the asparagus situation.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
Last week, the House made history by declaring a climate and environmental emergency. The Labour motion that was passed gives the Government six months to table urgent proposals to restore our natural environment and tackle devastating climate change. That means that the deadline is 1 November. The clock has started to tick. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the Cabinet has met to discuss the urgent nature of the motion? When will he publish a timeline that clearly sets out how the UK can reach net zero emissions by at least 2050?
Michael Gove
I thank the hon. Lady for underlining the cross-party, consensual approach that the House has taken to dealing with climate change and the broader environmental crisis that we face. The House will be updated not only on progress against the 25-year environment plan and not just in response to the recent report by the Committee on Climate Change on how to reach net zero by 2050, but on a broader suite of measures that every Government Department, from the Treasury to my own, is committed to ensuring that we deliver.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
Michael Gove
Having had the opportunity to visit Highland Spring, thanks to my hon. Friend, I endorse wholeheartedly the company’s leadership in providing high-quality products to so many people across the world. It also provides employment in his constituency. Highland Spring, like us, wants to ensure that we have a UK-wide scheme. Although I applaud the ambition of Roseanna Cunningham, the Scottish Government Environment Minister, in taking forward a DR scheme, it is absolutely vital that we make sure it works UK-wide. I hope and believe that the Scottish Government will now put the interests of the United Kingdom ahead of the ideology of separatism that sometimes creeps into some of the things they come up with.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
Michael Gove
That was a typically balanced and thoughtful contribution from the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee. One thing I would say is that sustainable farming, particularly mixed and livestock farming, is a critical part of ensuring that we have a healthy environment. I absolutely take on board her point. One thing we absolutely do not want to do is use a crude taxation intervention when it is much more sensible to work with farmers to raise the quality of livestock. There are things we can do on how livestock farmers operate that can contribute to reducing emissions, while at the same time maintaining high-quality red meat that is available to people at every price point.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I had better answer this with a coat of honey. It is important that this Parliament is open to nature. We have already seen great changes through the Administration Committee and what we are trying to do about elements of plastic. The Department already has a beehive on its roof and I am keen that we should continue to do whatever we can as leaders. I am sure that my hon. Friend will also be very aware of the national pollinator strategy and how important it is to the future of biodiversity and sustainable food production.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Michael Gove
I am frankly amazed at the suggestion that any Minister should indulge in something as prideful as boastfulness. I suspect that my Treasury colleagues were pointing out that this Government combines economic efficiency with environmental stewardship in an unprecedented fashion, which is why we have been responsible for reducing carbon emissions faster than any other G20 nation while at the same time growing the economy over the past 20 years by more than 66%.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Dr Coffey
We are meeting supermarkets on Monday at a big event at the V&A, hosted by the food waste champion Ben Elliot, about how to reduce food waste. The majority of vegetables do not need plastic packaging to extend their life, but some do, which is why we have to take a scientific evidence-based approach. Let me point out to my hon. Friend what we said in the resources and waste strategy: we would like to see more plastic-free aisles in our supermarkets and unnecessary use of plastic must be stopped as quickly as possible.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Last month, I visited Mountfield Primary School in my constituency. The pupils there told me that the No. 1 issue for them is plastics and litter in their environment. Pupils at Canning Street Primary School have also raised this with me. What is the Minister doing to get plastics out of the lives of the children in my constituency?
Dr Coffey
First, let me thank the tens of thousands of volunteers who participated in the month-long litter-picking campaign. It really matters that we try to tackle litter locally, and that is about education and activity. We have given councils extensive new powers to impose fines to try to reduce such behaviour.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
The chair of the Environment Agency has highlighted the need for help in addressing coastal flooding. We need to protect not only houses, but some of the most fertile land in this country, from future flooding. Can we have a real plan for the way forward?
Michael Gove
Yes. I have had the privilege with my hon. Friend, who chairs the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, of visiting the Steart peninsula in Somerset and seeing effective flood management that makes sure that we balance the need to protect nature with the need to preserve farmland. It is vital that we say more, and we will shortly in our national policy statement.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thinking of young people and food production, the primary school in the small village of Inver in my constituency has a polytunnel. I do not know whether the school grows asparagus, but it certainly grows very good carrots and other vegetables to make delicious soup for the pupils. The pupils also sell the vegetables to their parents to make money for the school. Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be very helpful if this idea were replicated in all schools across the UK? Perhaps, Mr Speaker, we could even have a polytunnel for hon. and right hon. Members to grow vegetables here on the estate.
Mr Speaker
That sounds very exciting, I must say—very entrepreneurial. I think it is time that I visited Caithness.
Michael Gove
All I can say is that I associate myself with the words uttered by you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
Well, this is a very welcome trend and should be encouraged to continue.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
What discussions has my right hon. Friend been having with his Cabinet colleagues about cutting vehicle emissions—for instance, by improving the infrastructure of charging points in cities for electric and hybrid vehicles, which is absolutely critical to this aim?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend raises an important point. I have been working with the Secretaries of State for Transport, for Business and for Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that charging points are automatically included in new developments. But there is more that we must do to ensure that we have an infrastructure that allows us to move towards ultra low emissions vehicles as quickly as possible.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Contrary to what the Secretary of State said to me last week, the DEFRA main estimate says that the budget for peatland restoration is unchanged. I am not going to ask for an apology, but the Secretary of State knows that peat amounts to 10% of our carbon dioxide emissions, so when is he going to increase the measly £6 million budget?
Mr Speaker
As much as I would like to continue indefinitely with these stimulating exchanges, I am afraid that we must move on.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Dame Caroline Spelman)
The Church warmly welcomed the decision by the Foreign Secretary to launch an independent review of his Department’s support for persecuted Christians, which is being chaired by the Bishop of Truro. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster made a joint submission to that review, setting out practical recommendations for how the Government could take action to protect Christians facing persecution and to promote freedom of religion more widely.
Diana Johnson
The Sri Lanka terrorist attacks brought home the FCO’s recent review findings that Christians are suffering persecution at near genocide levels. Alongside the growing Christianophobia, there are growing incidents of Islamophobia—such as at Christchurch—and anti- semitism. What more can the Church of England do in co-ordinating international action across all faiths to combat hatred and violence against different faith communities by varied manifestations of the far right?
Dame Caroline Spelman
That interim report, which I recommend colleagues read, is quite a shocking revelation about how extensive the persecution of Christians and other minority religions around the world is. Just yesterday, the Archbishop of Canterbury invited the Foreign Secretary and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to Lambeth Palace to discuss international religious freedom. The meeting included the Chief Rabbi and representatives of other faiths, because, as the Bishop of Rochester said in another place, it is almost impossible to predict when such terrorist attacks will occur and where.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary has commendably authorised that independent report, but does my right hon. Friend agree that unless the Department for International Development also engages with the interim report and with the recommendations in the final report when it is produced, this country will never achieve what it could achieve in addressing this issue internationally?
Dame Caroline Spelman
I do agree. In fact, one of the key points of the Church of England’s submission is that there needs to be a joined-up approach more widely, right across Government, to the challenges of keeping freedom of religion and belief. That is why, with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), I visited the former Minister who was jointly responsible at DFID and the Foreign Office to make sure that civil servants receive the right kind of training so that they really understand the threats that persecuted religious minorities face.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Lady will be very aware of the situation in Sudan at the moment, with such a complex outcome following the removal of Bashir. Will she urge the Archbishop of Canterbury to look at the possibility of an early visit there to make sure that Christians in Sudan are protected?
Dame Caroline Spelman
This allows me to share with the House a bit of good news on a rather serious and depressing subject, which is that the Archbishop of Canterbury, together with Pope Francis, brokered a meeting in Rome of the key players from the Sudanese conflict zone. Those talks made really significant progress in bringing about peace in countries where a war has claimed over 400,000 lives.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
International aid spending to recipient countries needs to be cut unless effective action is taken against attacks on Christians. Do the Church Commissioners agree?
Dame Caroline Spelman
The Church Commissioners are completely supportive of the statutory requirement in our law that 0.7% of our total income as a country should be spent on the world’s poorest people. In fact, DFID’s programmes direct themselves to the support of vulnerable minorities, but obviously the point of the report commissioned independently by the Foreign Secretary is to see how much more effective we can be at tackling the threats to religion and to people’s freedom of religion and belief.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South)
While the commission’s remit does not include increasing participation in elections, it has an important duty to promote awareness of elections. The commission’s campaign for this year’s local elections saw over 570,000 applications, exceeding its target by 36%. Its campaign relating to the European parliamentary elections ended on Tuesday, and it saw a further 539,206 people apply to register. The commission also works to make improvements to the registration system itself. It is supporting the UK Government in their work to reform the canvass, and later this year it will publish the findings of feasibility studies examining how publicly held data could be used to improve the registration system.
Mr Sheerman
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but does she agree that we have seen a serious decline in registration activity? The number of young people registering in time for the Euro elections has been pitiful. The fact of the matter is that we can go digital and do all that stuff, but it used to be about knocking on someone’s door and checking that they were on the register, and that is what really worked.
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend will know that the commission wants as many people as possible to be registered to vote and able to participate in our democracy, but he is right to point out that young people are far less likely to register to vote than others. I will make sure that the commission is aware of his concerns and takes account of what he said as its research work continues in this area.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Can the hon. Lady outline any discussions that have taken place regarding the ability to vote online and any security advice that has been sought with regard to that proposal?
Bridget Phillipson
I am not able to provide any recent updates, but I will ensure that the Electoral Commission contacts the hon. Gentleman to discuss his interest in that area.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington)
Dame Laura made three fundamental recommendations. In response to the first, the Commission immediately terminated the Respect and Valuing Others policies. In response to the second, the Commission has been considering options for the investigation of non-recent cases of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct and expects to put a final proposal to the House before the summer recess. In response to the third, the Commission has agreed the establishment of a working group to consider how the process of complaints against MPs could be made fully independent, and we are in the process of agreeing the membership. Finally, the House service has appointed an independent director of cultural transformation, to translate Dame Laura’s wide recommendations into tangible, meaningful and lasting change.
Justin Madders
I am grateful for the update. It is very important that the House is seen to be acting swiftly on this. Let us not forget that it is more than seven months since the report came out, and it is frankly damning that we are still talking about things happening in the future. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to get on with this and get the justice that victims deserve.
Tom Brake
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I can reassure him that the House of Commons Commission is considering these important recommendations at every meeting, but we have not made the progress that we should have done. These are complex issues, and we hope that the working group will be established soon, to process how to deal with complaints against MPs independently of Members of Parliament.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that response, but I want to push him a bit further. Underlying attitudes—sometimes misogynistic or deeply sexist attitudes—are frequently behind sexual harassment. What plans does the Commission have to implement training or awareness raising that targets people who are unlikely to take it up if they are not required to do so?
Tom Brake
The hon. Lady makes a valid point. She may be aware that training is being made available to staff, and I understand that a trial will be made available for Members. Although the Commission and I are not in a position to require Members of Parliament to attend those sessions, I think it is essential that they do so.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South)
The commission carries out regular assessments of the completeness and accuracy of the electoral registers, including how levels of voter registration vary by demographics such as age and ethnicity. The most recent published assessment found that, across Great Britain, 85% of eligible people were correctly registered, and 91% of entries on the register were accurate. The commission’s next study, on the December 2018 registers, is due to be published later this year.
Chris Ruane
Before every election, the Electoral Commission runs an advertising campaign to get people registered, and it judges the effectiveness by the number of downloads of registration forms. Those advertising campaigns have cost as much as £90 per download. Bite The Ballot, an organisation that recruits young people in schools, can have a 100% success rate in going into sixth forms and getting people on to the electoral register, and it can do that for 25p a time. Will my hon. Friend take that back to the Electoral Commission and ask it to have service level agreements with Bite The Ballot and other organisations that have an effective record on registration?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know has a keen interest in ensuring that people are registered to vote. The commission does not currently have service level agreements with other organisations. Instead, it collaborates through informal partnerships. The commission has a responsibility in law to raise awareness. There is plurality in the system, and that is its strength. However, I am sure that officials from the commission would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss what more can be done in this area.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Has the commission made any assessment of the registration of EU citizens to vote in the European Union elections that are about to take place, and whether it would be appropriate for them to be able to take to polling stations on 23 May the form that they are required to have handed in by 7 May if they want to vote in those elections in the UK?
Bridget Phillipson
Following the 2014 European parliamentary elections, the commission did identify that the law needed to be simplified so that EU citizens from other member states might register to vote in the UK. However, following the EU referendum, the UK Government made it clear that the parliamentary elections to the European Parliament in 2019 would not take place, and therefore the commission did not continue to develop any further recommendations in this area.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Dame Caroline Spelman)
These were appalling and despicable attacks, and those affected were in the prayers of millions right around the world on Easter Sunday. The attacks were clearly directed at the Christian community in Sri Lanka, attacks not just in their churches but in secular environments such as hotels where they were having Easter Sunday lunch. The Anglican Church in Sri Lanka is small but active, and it is working closely with the Anglican communion to build its capacity in the local community and to better protect itself.
Helen Goodman
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that answer. It is indeed tragic that 257 Christians were killed in the attacks directed at them on Easter Day. Everybody is entitled to freedom of religion and belief. Does she agree that the message we should send out from this House is that no faith sanctions conflict against another?
Dame Caroline Spelman
I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. I could not put it better myself.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend pass on to Christians in Sri Lanka just how much we admire their peaceful and dignified response, and indeed that of all Sri Lankans, to this atrocity?
Dame Caroline Spelman
I certainly will pass that on. The Archbishop of Canterbury immediately called the Bishop of Colombo after these attacks, and has offered support and help to bring the perpetrators to justice. The bishop himself has called for
“the safety of places of religious worship and to prevent any individuals or group taking the law into their hands or provoking acts of intimidation or violence against any community or group.”
This remains crucial in that country.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South)
The commission believes that there is an urgent need for simplified and modernised electoral law. It has submitted evidence to the recently announced inquiry on electoral law by the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs. The commission is concerned that a piecemeal approach to electoral law reform will increase complexity and inconsistency. As part of these reforms, it wants legislation to improve the transparency of digital campaigns, to bring greater alignment between party and candidate regulatory frameworks, and to strengthen the impact of its sanctions.
Patricia Gibson
Does the hon. Lady share my concern that electoral law was broken in the EU referendum, the close result of which must now be questioned? Given that the Tories in Scotland were fined £400 by the Electoral Commission over a £100,000 dark money donation in the weeks before the 2016 Holyrood election, does she not agree that penalties for breaking electoral law must be urgently reviewed to ensure that they are fit for purpose and genuinely deter those minded to cheat?
Bridget Phillipson
The commission continues to urge each of the UK’s Governments to introduce legislation to strengthen its sanctioning powers. Its view is that the penalties need to be more proportionate to the income and expenditure of parties and campaigners.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
Electoral law is far too important to play party politics with, in my view. I have the pleasure of serving on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I also served on the independent commission on referendums and their rules, run by the Constitution Unit. In its report, which was very comprehensive, we made a number of recommendations for changes to the law. May I ask the hon. Lady whether she has read that report, what she thinks of those recommendations and whether she, like me, would encourage the House to look at them urgently and pass them into law?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, who raises an important point. Many of those recommendations are in alignment with the views of the Electoral Commission in urging change. She will know that the Government have indicated that they intend to bring forward changes to digital imprints for online campaigning, which will be an important step forward. I am sure that the commission would be grateful for any action she took to urge Ministers to bring forward that legislation as quickly as possible.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Dame Caroline Spelman)
Fire safety is a concern for all historic buildings, and they are particularly vulnerable during renovations or building works. Since the Notre Dame fire, the Cathedral and Church Buildings Division has worked with the Cathedral Architects Association to ensure that its records are up to date. It will continue to work closely on that issue, and a national conference on the matter is being considered.
Sir Desmond Swayne
George Osborne, the former Chancellor, found £40 million for the fabric of our cathedrals. Are we ensuring that that money is spent effectively, and that cathedrals work closely with local fire brigades?
Dame Caroline Spelman
The Church of England was deeply grateful to the former Chancellor for the £40 million of funding on the commemoration of the centenary of the first world war, and it resulted in important repair work to some of our most iconic buildings. For example, Lichfield cathedral was completely rewired, and it might otherwise have had to be closed because of the fire risk it represented.
Daniel Kawczynski
What steps are being taken to support the creation of 3D laser maps to record our notable historical buildings and provide an accurate record of their construction in the event of damage?
Dame Caroline Spelman
I wonder whether my hon. Friend has enjoyed watching the TV programme “Ancient Invisible Cities”, where scanners are used to reveal what lies behind ancient buildings such as pyramids. I must tell the House, however, that such methods are very, very expensive. Lincoln and St Albans cathedrals have done that, but there are many other ways to try to be sure of the data on our cathedrals. We have good archives, maps, photographs and accounts that often give an excellent record of what lies behind those magnificent stones.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman’s impassive countenance suggests that he is not at this time willing to vouchsafe to us his viewing preferences, but they have been hinted at by the right hon. Lady, and perhaps he will update us on the matter in due course.
Refugees in Sri Lanka
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister for Asia and the Pacific what representation his Department has made to the Government of Sri Lanka regarding the safety of 1,193 UNHCR refugees in Negombo, who went to Sri Lanka fleeing religious persecution in their countries, but who now fear for their safety following the terrible Easter Sunday bombings in Sri Lanka.
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
Following the Easter Sunday attacks in Sri Lanka, there have been reports of isolated incidents of violence and of intimidation and discrimination against Muslims, refugees and asylum seekers. In Negombo, a suburb to the north of Colombo where the terrorist attacks took place, 985 refugees and asylum seekers were forcibly displaced from their ordinary places of residence, according to UN figures. Those refugees and asylum seekers, who are mostly of Pakistani origin, are being temporarily housed and protected to meet their immediate security and humanitarian needs.
Our high commission in Colombo, led by our outstanding high commissioner, James Dauris, is in contact with the Government and UN agencies to work towards a more sustainable solution, and the UK is monitoring that situation carefully, along with other partners. The UN is providing basic support for food, drinking water, and immediate medical assistance, and co-ordinating with civil society to provide additional relief items. The humanitarian situation at the police station in Negombo is a concern. The police have so far been very welcoming, but we understand that facilities there are insufficient.
Staff at our high commission are assisting in advocating and co-ordinating with the Sri Lankan Government more generally to identify safe and secure relocation options to ensure the protection of refugees and asylum seekers. We understand that processes are under way for some of the refugees to be resettled in third countries, and 412 refugees are currently in the midst of the UNHCR resettlement process.
Ministers and representatives of the UK Government have met Sri Lankan counterparts over the past three weeks to reinforce the importance of inclusivity and respect for human rights in response to the Easter Sunday attacks, and to underline the importance of Sri Lankans working together to avoid intercommunal tensions. As was brought up earlier, I think we can all be pleased, without being complacent, that over the past three weeks there has been a sense of unity within Sri Lanka as a whole.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Economic Crime visited Sri Lanka on 2 and 3 May, and met the President, the Prime Minister, military and religious leaders and senior Government officials to highlight the importance of those points and to talk more generally about security resilience. Foreign and Commonwealth Minister Lord Ahmad and I have met the Sri Lankan high commissioner over the past fortnight to raise general concerns about refugees and minority rights in Sri Lanka.
I think all of us want to put on the record our grave concern about what happened. These were terrible events and our commiserations go to all those who remain affected and will be affected for some years to come.
Siobhain McDonagh
I thank the Minister for his response. I am sure we all send our heartfelt sympathy to the people of Sri Lanka and to all those mourning the loss of friends and family following the terrible Easter bombings.
Now that the spotlight of the media has turned, another tragedy is unfolding. There are 1,193 UNHCR refugees and asylum seekers, including 174 children, who have fled to three makeshift refugees camps in Negombo: the Pasyala Ahmadiyya mosque, the Negombo Ahmadiyya mosque and Negombo police station. Hostility towards Muslims following the attacks has led to growing violence, leading the refugees and asylum seekers to seek urgent safety. The conditions in the camps are worryingly inhumane. There is a severe lack of food and water, minimal toilet facilities, no medical facilities or basic sanitary facilities, no walls or beds, and not enough space to lie down. Over the bank holiday weekend, a child was born on the floor of one of the mosques. No doctor was present. Just this morning, latest updates indicated that more than one person had been taken to hospital due to illness.
The refugees and asylum seekers are largely from religious minorities who have suffered threats, attacks and persecution in their home countries. Many are Ahmadi Muslims who fled Pakistan, where their religious views may be punishable with death. Ahmadis identify as Muslims, but do not believe that Muhammad was the final prophet sent to guide mankind. This leads many of the refugees to be deemed to be “non-Muslim” in their home countries and to face persecution because of their beliefs. Now, in Sri Lanka, they face an imminent threat to their safety because they are considered to be Muslims.
The welfare of those in the makeshift camps is an immediate and serious concern, as is the possibility that these people will be forced to return to the places they fled from. Will the Minister use all his power to expedite the resettlement of the UNHCR refugees to safe third countries?
Mark Field
I thank the hon. Lady. She is very persistent: this is the third day running that she has applied for an urgent question on this matter. Robert the Bruce would be proud: if at first you don’t succeed, try, try and try again.
The hon. Lady makes a very serious point, not least about the Ahmadi Muslims and the terrible paradox of their situation. They are regarded as outcasts in much of the Muslim world, but find themselves very much at the forefront of tensions. It is important that we do not overstate those tensions. As I said in my statement, the high commission on the ground and our UNHCR partners will do all we can, but it is remarkable that, given the history of intercommunal conflict in Sri Lanka, over the past three weeks there has been relatively little that has led to direct concern. However, she is also quite right to say that housing over 1,698 asylum seekers and refugees, according to UN figures, in three unsatisfactory makeshift camps—the Negombo police station and the two mosques—is clearly not sustainable.
Civil society contacts with whom we are working have reported other incidents of displacement and harassment of refugees in other parts of Colombo. It is important to recognise that we work together with many other high commissions and embassies in the area, including those of the US, Canada and a number of European countries who have a strong Sri Lankan diaspora whom they also wish to represent.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Can the Minister be more specific about the support the Government are giving to the Christian community in Sri Lanka following the Easter Sunday attacks?
Mark Field
I am always touched by the amount of work my hon. Friend does in this regard, not just in Sri Lanka, but across the world. We are of course concerned at reports of minorities being intimidated, and as she rightly says, the focus of the attacks on Easter Sunday was the Christian community in several locations across Sri Lanka. As she will know, we welcome the interim report by the Bishop of Truro on the persecution of Christians worldwide and we look forward to the final report, which is to be published in the summer.
Freedom of religion and belief is clearly a priority for the Foreign Office, and we and our high commission are working to ensure that the threads of the report that are particularly relevant to Sri Lanka will have an impact there. The Christian community in Sri Lanka is of long standing. Part is Roman Catholic and other bits are Anglican, from our colonial times, but we hope to work together with all Christian communities. This is part and parcel of a package that does not represent one religion above others, but ensures that in this melting pot within Sri Lanka, all religions and faiths can live side by side peaceably and in prosperity.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing it. She has been very persistent and is right to draw to the House’s attention the plight of these refugees. I also thank the Minister for his response. I know he is very busy at the moment covering a large number of countries, but he brings a dedication to these issues, for which we are all grateful.
It is a matter great sadness that, despite the surge of national unity led by the Sri Lankan Government in the wake of the Easter Sunday attacks, groups of mindless individuals have instead responded to the attacks with reprisals against the refugee communities from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran. They have responded to an act of sectarian hatred with further acts of sectarian hatred, which ultimately is what the terrorists want. The Sri Lankan Government have as much of a duty to crack down on this violence and to protect those refugee communities as they have to track down the organisers of the Easter Sunday bombings.
On behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition, I wholeheartedly endorse the demands of Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and the other non-governmental organisations about what the Sri Lankan Government must do now to protect the refugees and make sure they are given adequate shelter and care while the situation is resolved. Will the Minister say today that the Government will not just endorse those demands but press counterparts in Sri Lanka to act on them? Will he also tell the House what support the Government are providing to Sri Lanka and whether, if any help is requested by the Sri Lankans, the British Government will respond?
As my hon. Friend said, the bitter irony is that many of these refugees in Sri Lanka are there having already fled religious persecution, and they have done so only to find themselves under attack again. The Government of Sri Lanka must urgently protect them.
Mark Field
I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words about my work. We have been on the opposite sides of this Chamber and other Chambers in this place several times in the past 48 hours, and I thank her for her constructive comments and for the work she does. She is absolutely right that we need to nip in the bud any return to sectarian hatred—something that is well known to anyone who has Sri Lanka close to their heart. The report makes very clear what is expected of the Sri Lankan Government, and we very much hope to work closely with them.
I have been to Sri Lanka as a Minister on three occasions in the past two years. It is a country that we take seriously, and I was very keen for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Economic Crime to go out there in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, not least because we have some expertise to share in the important areas of institutionalised communication and preparedness. It is not for us to dictate that agenda, and obviously there is already important co-operation on the security and intelligence side, but we need to work closely on structures for the future to ensure that any sectarian hatred is nipped in the bud. When my right hon. Friend was in Sri Lanka, he met key national security figures, including the Defence Secretary, the State Minister of Defence and the army commander, as well as the Prime Minister. He also met the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Colombo.
We see our role as not to dictate but, hopefully, to provide useful advice. More generally, I hope that our experience as a result of what has happened in one part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland—can bear well on moving towards the reconciliation that all Sri Lankans deserve.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
The Sri Lankan economy has recently benefited from increased tourism, particularly through cruise ship visits. Can the Minister assure me that he keeps the travel advice for British citizens on Sri Lanka under constant review? How can he ensure that our visitors to Sri Lanka continue to contribute to its economy?
Mark Field
I thank my right hon. Friend for her constructive thoughts; she is absolutely right. To recap, on 25 April the FCO amended our travel advice: we now advise against all but essential travel to Sri Lanka, except for airport transit. Obviously we hope that our advice can be adjusted as soon as possible, when the security situation allows, but given the somewhat chaotic immediate aftermath of the attacks, we felt that it was prudent. However, we understand that cruises and the fledgling but successful tourism industry in Sri Lanka will be very badly affected until we feel it is wise to update our travel advice.
The Foreign Secretary has made a statement to the House about the steps that the Government will take in the aftermath of the attacks. We very much hope to be able at the earliest opportunity to ease the travel restrictions that we put in place three weeks ago, but obviously that will be led by the evidence and the facts on the ground.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker; I commend the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for securing it. I concur with her words and those of the shadow Minister and the Minister of State. We add to those messages of sympathy to the people of Sri Lanka and those who have been caught up in the horrendous terror attacks of Easter Sunday. It is clear that some have heeded the wise words about compassion and tolerance spoken by the Bishop of Colombo, Dhiloraj Canagasabey, in response to the attacks, but that others have not. I hope that those words will now be heeded.
This is a tragedy heaped on a tragedy. Many of those who were caught up in the horrific terror attacks were already refugees: Ahmadis and Christians from Pakistan, Shi’as from Afghanistan, and refugees from Iran who had fled from religious, ethnic and political persecution in their country. What further assistance can the Minister provide to the UNCHR in expediting asylum claims? What assistance can he offer to the Sri Lankan Government? If, for whatever reason, the Sri Lankan Government cannot offer asylum, what can the UK Government and their counterparts do to ensure that these poor people are offered safe refuge as soon as possible?
Mark Field
I know that the hon. Gentleman also applied for an urgent question on the matter; I suspect that he will table more next week on related matters.
Clearly we are working together. The pace at which we are working with UN agencies has increased in the aftermath of the attacks. As I mentioned, 412 individuals are already going through the process of resettlement to other parts of the world. We will continue to work closely with our partners in Sri Lanka; obviously there is a process that needs to be gone through, but we and they will try to expedite it to ensure that those refugees who are entitled to be moved on are moved on as quickly as possible.
I do not want to trivialise these matters, but we are obviously very pleased to see that the Sri Lankan cricket team has arrived in the UK for the world cup, which is imminent. That has some relevance at this point, because the first match of the one-day international series, which I believe will take place on Saturday week, will be against Scotland, of all places. I hope that, in true Scottish national style, the team will be given a very good welcome when they play in Broughty Ferry, or wherever it may be.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The terrorists declared war on civil society and against the peace of Easter Sunday. What support can the Government give the Sri Lankan authorities so that they can take speedy decisions and actions against reprisal attacks, which would only aid the terrorists in their objectives?
Mark Field
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: sectarian hatred needs to be stamped out. That is clearly a matter for the Sri Lankan authorities, but we obviously stand ready to co-operate and assist in any way in which we may be asked to do so.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for asking the urgent question. The Minister said that 412 refugees were currently involved in the UNHCR resettlement process. May I press him on that? How many of those refugees does the UK intend to take, and what more can we do with the UNHCR to increase the number who are resettled and brought quickly to a safe haven?
Mark Field
I hope the hon. Lady will excuse me if I write to her with more specific details once I have them to hand.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend commend the local Muslim communities who have already given many refugees shelter in mosques? What more can this country do to help with those camps, which appear to be pretty unpalatable at present?
Mark Field
As my hon. Friend says, this can only be a short-term, interim measure, and we need something much more sustainable in future. The Government are spending £8.3 million of Conflict, Stability and Security Fund money on interfaith dialogue, reconciliation, police reform and training and de-mining in Sri Lanka, and a large sum on a wide range of other work, but I hope that elements of that can be used to deal with this urgent problem as well.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) has said, these refugee communities belong to religious minorities. Will the Minister make it clear to his Sri Lankan counterpart that there can be no question of their returning to Pakistan, Afghanistan or Iran, where they will inevitably face religious persecution?
Mark Field
I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that when there is a well-founded case for refugee and asylum status, there should be no question of that.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
It is easy to find compassion for people who were persecuted, left Pakistan, came to Sri Lanka and now face further persecution. Will the Minister confirm that he will stand up for the Ahmadis, who have been through so much, and is there anything practical that the international community can do to help the Sri Lankan authorities on the ground?
Mark Field
I hope that I have explained in some detail what we are doing on the ground, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we will do all that we can. The plight of the Ahmadis, which is a global plight, is close to our hearts. As my hon. Friend probably knows, Lord Ahmad himself is an Ahmadi Muslim.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Given that the underlying issue is discrimination, and given that many of these poor refugees come from Pakistan, what representations will the Minister make to Imran Khan to make it clear that the blasphemy laws have no place in a modern world? They have caused not only this problem, but the case of Asia Bibi and, previously, the deaths of Salmaan Taseer and my friend Shahbaz Bhatti. It is about time that those laws were removed. Will the Minister do something about it?
Mark Field
The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that our own high commission, and our excellent high commissioner Tom Drew in Islamabad, have made our concerns very clear. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Asia Bibi case. I think that we were all greatly relieved at the outcome, but obviously the security of her family is still at the forefront of our minds. I do not want comment on further speculation, but the fact that this matter has been resolved is, I think, a tribute not just to the Pakistan authorities but, in particular, to the new Pakistani Government. However, I will endeavour to ensure that our high commission is made fully aware of the specific concerns that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Change UK)
Will the Minister undertake to raise with Sri Lanka the need to seek UNHCR assistance in managing the settlements so that they are not de facto detention camps? Also, further efforts need to be made for the security of these refugees, and Sri Lanka needs to deploy adequate numbers of law enforcement officers to ensure the protection and security of these vulnerable people.
Mark Field
The right hon. Lady makes the valid point that there is a risk, particularly if resettlement takes longer than we would all wish, that the settlements become de facto detention camps, which would be an unsatisfactory state of affairs, to put it mildly. As I have said, my counterpart from the Home Office was in Sri Lanka only last week and I know these sorts of issues were actively discussed. We will continue to make the case to which the right hon. Lady has referred.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Minister will be aware that the Ahmadi community in the UK is very active, including delivering condolence cards to Christian churches here following the attack in Sri Lanka and raising lots of money for charity in the UK and abroad. If that community chooses to fundraise for the refugees in Sri Lanka would the Government be able to match, or indeed better, the sum it raises?
Mark Field
I had better be a little careful because though I have these added responsibilities, I do not have Treasury responsibilities. However, the right hon. Gentleman is right that it would be useful if we were able to match that sum in the way that we have on other occasions; perhaps he could write to me with specific details of that and I will take it up with the Treasury and other Departments.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Vulnerable ethnic and religious minorities in Sri Lanka must be protected, and the Sri Lankan Government have given an undertaking to protect those who wish to worship their God. What has been done to assist those Ahmadis who have fled Pakistan in fear but are now afraid in Sri Lanka and seek somewhere else to relocate to to achieve that?
Mark Field
The hon. Gentleman always speaks for the dispossessed across the world and stands up for the freedom of religious belief. As I have said, we are working closely on the ground to do all we can with international partners, particularly the UN, to make life better for those impacted. I hope to report back either in FCO questions next week, or in due course, about progress in what is happening in Sri Lanka.
Business of the House
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
The business for next week will include:
Monday 13 May—Second Reading of the Non-Domestic Rating (Preparation for Digital Services) Bill.
Tuesday 14 May—Opposition day (unallotted day). There will be a debate on prisons and probation followed by a debate entitled “Health and local public health cuts”. Both debates will arise on a motion in the name of the official Opposition.
Wednesday15 May—Motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (Further Implementation etc.) Regulations 2019, followed by a general debate on serious violence.
Thursday 16 May—General debate on the definition of Islamophobia, followed by a general debate on the international day against homophobia, biphobia and transphobia. The subjects of these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 17 May—The House will not be sitting.
Colleagues will also wish to know that subject to the progress of business the House will rise for the Whitsun recess at the close of business on Thursday 23 May and return on Tuesday 4 June.
The whole House will want to join me in congratulating the Duke and Duchess of Sussex on the birth of their new son, Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor. We wish them a lifetime of happiness together.
I am delighted that the Bill to enable the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster has this week been introduced. In the wake of the tragic fire at Notre Dame, and with clear evidence here from recent fire incidents as well as falling masonry and many other safety issues, this Bill is vital to ensure we safeguard the seat of our democracy for future generations.
Finally, I am looking forward to taking part in one of the first voluntary independent complaints and grievance scheme training sessions for Members of Parliament later today, and I encourage all Members to show their commitment to our new behaviour code by taking part in one of the training sessions as soon as they can. As the six-month review of the ICGS is now well under way, the roll-out of the training for staff and Members will continue to demonstrate our commitment to treating everyone with dignity and respect.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business. I was going to ask her for the Whitsun recess dates, so I am pleased that she has announced them. May I ask for an update on when we are likely to get the list of ministerial responsibilities? I should also like to press her on the summer recess dates. The deputy Prime Minister said that he thought 2 July was the cut-off date for EU matters. It should not be beyond the House to provide those dates.
Members have often raised the issue of Ministers and other MPs visiting their constituencies without giving notice, and it has now happened to me. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) kindly informed me that she was coming to my constituency, in fact getting me an invitation to launch a train—apparently there will be tea and sandwiches in one of my favourite places in the constituency, the New Art Gallery—but I had not even been invited, even though those events were taking place in my constituency. This is the second time that that has happened. The Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies), kindly apologised to me when I was given notice of an event only two hours before she visited. Those Members were actually being quite helpful; it is just that something is going wrong with the offices and the invites. Will the Leader of the House please raise these courtesies and protocols with her colleagues? Members should be told about these visits, and indeed invited to the events.
I am pleased that the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill has been introduced. As we have all said, the skills and jobs should benefit all our constituencies throughout the country, not just a few property companies based here in London. We need to ensure that our constituents are involved. I say gently to the Leader of the House that I am sure the Clerk of the House practically faints when she mentions Notre Dame, because he would never allow people to be in this building if it was not safe. We know that people are constantly firefighting here every day, and no one would be allowed in the building if it was as unsafe as that.
Will the Leader of the House update us on when the withdrawal agreement Bill will be introduced? There has been some debate in the media about that. I do not think it was Faisal Islam who tweeted about it this time, but there has been some suggestion that it could be next Thursday, and I know that a Backbench debate has been scheduled for that day. Are the Government going to bring back the withdrawal agreement Bill next week?
We need certainty on that matter, because the right hon. Lady will have seen the research from the Incorporated Society of Musicians which shows that the uncertainty over Brexit is continuing to cause real damage to the music industry, which is a very important part of our GDP. The ISM has concerns about future work, mobility, visas, transportation of instruments and equipment, and health and social security. The research showed that 63 respondents cited difficulty in securing future work in the EU27 and EEA countries as the biggest issue that they faced because of Brexit. More than one in 10 respondents reported that offers of work had been withdrawn or cancelled with Brexit being given as the reason. May we have more certainty for that sector?
Many Members are trying on the captain’s hat, even though there is no vacancy for the captain of the ship, but as they look through the periscope, they will see that 200,000 nurses have left the NHS since 2010. If there is not a crisis, why are the Government having to recruit tens of thousands of nurses from overseas? It is because nurses are being driven out of the overstretched NHS owing to the lack of Government funding. Why are we seeing the first sustained fall in GP numbers in the UK in 50 years? Why are they leaving the profession? We also know that 30,000 ambulance staff have quit their jobs. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State for Health—when he takes off the captain’s hat—makes a statement on that crisis?
When the Home Secretary takes off the captain’s hat and looks through the periscope, he will see the crisis on our streets. The Prime Minister said yesterday that she had chaired a summit and a taskforce, and there will be a general debate on serious violence next week. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) wanted to raise this matter with the Leader of the House. Will she ensure that the Home Secretary comes to the House next week to report on the taskforce and to tell us exactly what is going to happen to stop people dying needlessly? Our police need their resources. Our criminal justice system also needs resources, and barristers are about to walk out on strike. It was no good the Leader of the House saying last week that it is up to the Justice Committee to respond when I raised the Criminal Bar Association’s strike. She cannot outsource responses to Select Committees; we need to know what the Government are doing.
The Leader of the House kindly said that she would get an answer to Opposition day motions within eight weeks, but exactly when will our climate emergency motion receive a response? The clue is in the word “emergency”. She will have seen the news about the effect of climate change on the unprecedented decline in biodiversity, and I will read out the whole thing so that people know what I mean. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services says that
“1 million animal and plant species are now threatened with extinction”.
We need a response, and I understand that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs did not say when he would respond to our Opposition day motion.
May we have a debate in Government time on their flagship digital identification system Verify, which is failing its users? Only 3.9 million people have signed up, and it will affect those applying for universal credit most of all. Some 25 million users are expected by 2020.
I am pleased that the Backbench Business Committee agreed to a debate today, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), in tribute to John Smith, the former leader of the Labour party, as we approach the 25th anniversary of his death on 12 May. He served as an MP for 24 years, and I am sure that hon. Members will do him justice. I remember the image of Smith and Brown striding into the Commons to take the Government apart with their brilliant arguments. At this time, we think of his widow Elizabeth and his brilliant daughters Sarah, Jane and Catherine. He would have been pleased that today is also Europe Day, which marks peace and prosperity within Europe.
The Opposition also wish Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor and all the babies born this week peace and prosperity for their futures.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises several issues. The list of ministerial responsibilities will be updated in due course, and the summer recess is obviously subject to the progress, so I will announce it as soon as I can.
As for West Midlands Trains, I am glad that the hon. Lady accepts that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) went out of her way to ensure that she was invited. It was a matter for West Midlands Trains and has nothing to do with any Government mission. As a matter of fact, when my hon. Friend raised the issue with West Midlands Trains, she was told that the hon. Lady had in fact been invited but had not checked her emails. I hope that that deals with that query. The hon. Lady should feel free to apologise to my hon. Friend if she wants to.
Turning to the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill, I am glad that the hon. Lady shares my delight at its introduction. I am particularly grateful to her for being one of the Bill’s sponsors. It is important that it is a parliamentary project, so I am delighted by the cross-party support for it.
The hon. Lady asked when the withdrawal agreement Bill will be introduced, but that is obviously subject to the talks with the Opposition. so I am sure that she will able to get an update from her own side. It is the Government’s intention to seek cross-party agreement to get a Bill that the whole House can support. It is absolutely essential that we leave the European Union, and it is utterly unacceptable that we have not done so three years after the referendum. I say to all hon. Members who are worried about the impact on businesses and on people going about their everyday lives that if they support the withdrawal agreement Bill, we can put such issues to rest and get on with the important matters that our constituents are concerned about.
The hon. Lady mentioned GPs, and I can tell her that under this Government the NHS is having its biggest-ever investment, with £33.9 billion in cash terms by 2023-24. There are over 4,500 more paramedics since this Government took office, and Health Education England recruited the highest number of GP trainees ever last year—nearly 3,500. We are committed to increasing access to general practice, which is vital to us all. The hon. Lady raises the issue of serious violence and the serious violence taskforce, and I hope that she noticed that, in response to the many requests from across the House, I announced that we will hold a debate in Government time on serious violence next week. It is my expectation that the Home Secretary will lead the debate—although, of course, that is not a matter for me to determine—and it is for Departments to decide who is the appropriate responder.
On Opposition day responses, I confirmed a couple of weeks ago that, in response to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s recent report on resolutions of the House of Commons, I have shortened the deadline for the Government to respond to motions passed by the House, from 12 weeks to eight weeks, to ensure the House gets those responses faster, while still ensuring that there is time for full and proper consideration of resolutions.
Finally, the Government and all parties agree that climate change is one of the biggest challenges facing the world. To give the hon. Lady a few of the Government’s actions, we have planted 15 million trees since 2010; we are calling for an increase from 10% to 30% of the world’s oceans to be marine protected areas by 2030; we have reduced our greenhouse gas emissions by 25% since 2010; and we have launched a 25-year environment plan with a pledge to eliminate all avoidable plastic waste. Those are just a few examples of this Government’s excellent work, and we are determined to be world leading in our actions, not words, to tackle the global challenge of climate change.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
May we have an urgent debate on the Turkish incursion into the Cyprus exclusive economic zone? The incursion is unlawful and unacceptable, and it is shocking that a NATO ally is responsible. This House needs an opportunity to condemn those actions.
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend raises a serious issue that I am sure she will wish to raise at Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions on Tuesday 14 May. I commend her for raising the importance of such an issue.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. I wish her, most sincerely, all the best in her renewed leadership campaign. I do not know who has better odds—her of becoming Prime Minister or me of succeeding you in the Chair, Mr Speaker. I suspect it might be me, but it now looks like the Gloria Gaynor of 10 Downing Street might not survive much longer as the men in grey underpants set a timetable for her departure. So can we have a debate on cruelty in sport? There are now so many runners and riders that it will be like a dysfunctional grand national, with one Minister saying that few of them know how to ride.
The council elections went well, didn’t they? It is hard to think of an election in which both the Government and the main Opposition party got royally stuffed. We are all now looking forward to the European elections—the SNP certainly is—and we cannot wait to see the Tory manifesto. I bet they will be up all night writing that one. “Chapter one: we want to leave the EU, but the party won’t let us. Chapter two: please don’t vote for Farage! Chapter three: erm, that’s it.” I do not know whether the award for best comedy in a party political manifesto has yet been awarded, but it should definitely be delayed until we see that cracker.
We have not had an answer to the meaningful vote on the withdrawal agreement, but I think that the House deserves one. The rumour is that the Government will bring it back next week, with Thursday being suggested. What are the Government’s plans for the meaningful vote? When, and in what form, will they bring it back? This purgatory cannot go on any longer. Nothing is being done. Important Bills need to be brought back to the House, and we need to get back to work. The House rose early on two days this week, and this place is quickly becoming an international laughing stock. All I can say is that, after 20 years of devolution, we are looking forward to completing the powers of our Parliament in Scotland, and it will be goodbye to this place.
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his, as ever, rather witty, if a little misguided, contribution. The fundamental problem is that his party does not believe in abiding by the result of referendums, whereas the Conservative party does. We had a referendum in 2016, and we are determined to deliver on the result by leaving the EU; Scotland had a referendum in 2014 and, regardless of whether it has another one, the SNP will abide by it only if it gets the result it wants.
As a huge supporter of the United Kingdom, I also welcome the 20 years of devolution, which has been a huge success—except to the extent that the hon. Gentleman’s Government in Scotland have failed to take up many of the powers they have been offered under devolution. It is extraordinary that a party in Scotland that claims to be able to set up within 18 months a new independent country with its own currency, while staying in the EU, cannot even manage to accept powers to take on VAT, welfare or any of those modest little issues. It seems extraordinary to me that the hon. Gentleman is preaching to my party, which is determined to deliver on the democratic will of the people.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
T.S. Eliot said:
“Knowledge is invariably a matter of degree”.
That was brought home again this morning when the Environment Agency predicted that many coastal areas, including much of South Holland and The Deepings, are at imminent risk of flooding. That is curious, given that for at least two decades the Environment Agency has predicted flood risk so inaccurately.
Floods have taken place everywhere, from Tewkesbury to Carlisle and from Stratford-upon-Avon to Gloucester, yet none of those has appeared on the Environment Agency’s flood risk maps. The Environment Agency seems to ignore both internal drainage and the reality of flooding, and it seems to me that its knowledge of real flood risk is a matter of question.
Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on how such agencies can be brought to account? I am thinking of Network Rail cutting down trees, of Natural England ignoring the stewardship of the countryside and now of the Environment Agency alarming and distressing very large numbers of my constituents. These people should be held to account by this House and be answerable to Ministers.
Mr Speaker
Some people think that we have already had the debate, but I always enjoy the mellifluous tones of the right hon. Gentleman and his unfailing invocation of literary testimony. He enjoys it, even more than we do.
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend raises an important issue for his constituency, and I understand his concern about unnecessary scaremongering. However, the chief executive of the Environment Agency does an excellent job; I would say that because I appointed her when I was Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. She is assiduous in ensuring that people are made aware of the risks from climate change.
Having ratified the Paris agreement on climate change in November 2016, reduced emissions faster than any other G7 nation and, in the past year, generated record levels of solar and wind energy, the United Kingdom is leading the world in tackling climate change, but we still have to do everything possible at home to ensure that we protect people and our environment from the impact of global climate change.
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
New data shows that there have been nearly 5,500 hoax calls to the West Midlands ambulance service in the past five years. Hoax calls not only waste hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money, but put lives at risk due to delays in answering calls from patients who genuinely need help. Will the Leader of the House join me in condemning those who make hoax calls to our emergency services? Will she look for an opportunity to have a debate in Government time on the vital work that our ambulance services do and how we can all help to reduce the number of hoax calls for the future?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady has raised a very serious issue. Hoax calls to any of our emergency services are absolutely to be condemned. She will no doubt be aware that ambulance services deal with more than 23,800 emergency calls every single day, and it is totally unacceptable for anyone to waste their time. The Government have introduced a significant increase in paramedic numbers to deal with the challenge facing our ambulance services, but I recommend that the hon. Lady seek an Adjournment debate so that she can discuss directly with Ministers what more can be done.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
To channel the spirit of my inner right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), somebody once wrote:
“Yesterday I was clever, so I wanted to change the world. Today I am wise, so I am changing myself.”
Will the Leader of the House congratulate the 82 Members of Parliament who attended the training programme on autism awareness last week? I was proud that they wanted to change themselves and take on board the learning and exercise. Will she encourage the remainder of our colleagues from all parties to attend the future training courses that are being run by the all-party group on autism and the National Autistic Society? More importantly, will she ensure that people with autism and their families are catered for in the Bill on the restoration and renewal of the House, so that this country can have a Parliament that is the most autism-aware and friendly destination in the world?
Andrea Leadsom
I truly commend my right hon. Friend for her work on autism. It is excellent that that number of colleagues attended the autism training day, and I encourage as many Members as possible to get involved with that training. It is an absolutely key requirement of the restoration and renewal of this place that we do everything we can to make it accessible to those with particular disabilities or challenges, to make this the most person-friendly Parliament in the world when we come back to it in the 2030s.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week, including the Backbench Business debates on Thursday.
I declare an interest: I am the chair of the all-party group on football supporters. In that light, I congratulate both Liverpool and Tottenham on their amazing comebacks over the past two nights. The television has been electric. Those were probably the best two comebacks since Lazarus all those years ago.
Meanwhile, in other parts of the country, football supporters are struggling with the dreadful ownership of their clubs. At Newcastle United, where I am a season ticket holder, we have Mike Ashley and have to put up with everything that he delivers to us. Across the river in my own constituency, we have the situation at Gateshead football club, where Dr Ranjan Varghese and his financial adviser Joe Cala have sacked all the staff, including all the playing staff apart from one who has a contract that runs to June. The club is now talking about leaving the ground, which is owned by the local authority, and moving somewhere else. May we have a debate in Government time about the football authorities’ fit-and-proper-person test for being a club director? Frankly, these people are turning football into a joke.
Andrea Leadsom
I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in commending Liverpool and Spurs for their excellent results. It is great to see an all-English final. I hope that football clubs and managers all across the country listen to what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is vital that the excellent work done to promote sport, particularly football, throughout the country is properly managed and cared for. We have Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport questions on Thursday 23 May, and I recommend that the hon. Gentleman raise the issue then.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Following on from the question from the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), I know that you, Mr Speaker, will of course have been absolutely amazed at what Liverpool did this week, but you will have been even more impressed by what happened last night, when Tottenham came back from an even more difficult situation.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the problems in football, but what has not been noticed is the long-term partnership between Tottenham Hotspur and the American National Football League. Two American football games will be played at the new Spurs ground next year, and this week the NFL announced that it will base its first academy at Barnet and Southgate College, where 80 youngsters will be taken in and given the opportunity for education and character development and to play American football. Premier league sides and the NFL are working together, so it is not all bad news. May we have a debate so that we can discuss these issues and in particular recognise the work that the NFL has done with its academy?
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting forward the good side of some of the work done by football clubs in collaboration with other football leagues. I will certainly take away his request for Government time for a debate. Members often raise their own pet sports—mine being rugby, of course, rather than football, and we all know yours, Mr Speaker—and I will certainly take away that suggestion. We regularly have debates on sport and the contribution that it can make to our national life, and it is right that we continue to consider these issues.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
A recent study of 17,000 police personnel across the UK found that 95% of officers and two thirds of operational police staff have been exposed to traumatic events, with 20% reporting symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder. Will the Government consider making a statement on this health crisis in our police service?
Andrea Leadsom
The report that came out was extremely concerning, and this is an opportunity to pay tribute to the police for all the amazing work they do to keep us safe. The hon. Lady will know that, as part of our NHS long-term plan, mental health and support for mental health issues are a high priority, as is achieving parity of esteem between mental health and physical health. We will see much more support available in the years to come. Nevertheless, she is right to raise the issue. I encourage her to seek an Adjournment debate perhaps to discuss it directly with Ministers.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
As well as congratulating Liverpool and Spurs, I am sure that you will join me, Mr Speaker, in wishing Arsenal and Chelsea all the best for this evening so that we can have a full slate of English clubs in the European finals. On an even more serious point, may I ask for a debate on what one might almost call online economic terrorism against small businesses? Last week, I visited an excellent small business in my constituency that has been targeted over a certain matter, with a particular employee being the subject of that targeting. The business has been asked, or it has been told, that unless it fires that employee it will continue to be targeted. Fortunately, the threats are being taken seriously, but the young woman who owns and has grown that excellent business rightly wants me to raise this in a debate in the House of Commons. I am sure that it is not the only case that Members have come across.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises a very concerning issue about unfair intimidation of a business over whatever the activity is of one of the employees. It is absolutely right that when enforcement is required the police support any business that is trying to defend an employee against unfair accusations. I do not know the precise details, but I would encourage him to speak directly to Ministers about what more can be done.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I wanted to ask the Leader of the House to celebrate Europe Day with me, but I know that is dangerous on her territory. I have been campaigning for a long time about the poison coming through our air, polluting our air, poisoning our children and poisoning pregnant women. It is a disaster. Now we have realised—I asked every Secretary of State to introduce air quality monitors in every primary school, but I was rebuffed. May we have a debate on air pollution and what the Government can do about it before 2040, when 1 million people will have lost their lives to air pollution?
Andrea Leadsom
First, I absolutely join the hon. Gentleman in celebrating Europe Day. European nations are our friends and neighbours and we have a strong and long-term relationship with them. He raises an important point about air pollution and is right to do so. I can tell him that air pollution has reduced significantly since 2010. Emissions of toxic nitrogen oxides have fallen by 29% and are at their lowest level since records began. Of course, we have to take action. We have put in place a £3.5 billion plan to reduce harmful emissions from road transport and, as he points out, we will end the sale of new conventional diesel and petrol cars and vans by 2040. Very importantly, we are implementing our new world-leading clean air strategy, and we will absolutely be tackling the very real concerns we all have about the quality of the air we are breathing.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Yesterday, we wore a white rose for ovarian cancer. We know that it and cervical cancer can be killers, and the Government are doing a great job in trying to encourage more women to have smear tests. Does my right hon. Friend share my great pleasure at the research that came out just last month that showed that, when girls have had the HPV vaccination, that has led to a dramatic decrease in cervical cancer? Given the concerns about measles outbreaks across the world, may we please have a debate in this place on the importance of having vaccinations, because vaccinations save lives?
Andrea Leadsom
I share my hon. Friend’s delight at the dramatically lower rate of cervical cancer as a result of vaccination. She will be aware that we had a debate last week on immunisation around the world and its importance in eradicating some of the world’s most terrible diseases, but she is right to raise again the importance of vaccination. All parents should look very carefully at NHS advice rather than some of the absolute misinformation that can be found online.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Yesterday afternoon, I received an email from Clydesdale Bank telling me that, without so much as a by your leave, it is going to shut its branch in Brora in Sutherland. This is yet another addition to a sickening litany of bank closures across the highlands. I know that I speak for many right hon. and hon. Members across the House when I say that we cannot go on like this; I cannot tell the House how upset my constituents are. Would the Leader of the House consider very strongly the possibility of a debate on the issue in this Chamber, because if we do not take action—if we do not try to do something—we will let down our constituents in every part of the UK?
Andrea Leadsom
I am well aware of the concern of many Members when there are bank branch closures in their constituencies; it is an issue for many people. The hon. Gentleman will also appreciate that banks are commercial businesses and the way that people are choosing to manage their financial affairs is changing. One step that the Government have taken is the access to banking protocol, which banks will consult broadly to ensure that they are not leaving people literally in the lurch. The work that the Government have done on investing in the post office network has been really important, resulting in 99.7% of the UK population now living within 3 miles of a post office branch.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Recent research has indicated that, if British households switched from eating meat for just one day a week, it would result in a reduction in carbon emissions equivalent to taking 16 million cars off our roads. Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for the Environment on the importance of a healthier environment and healthier diets through less meat consumption?
Andrea Leadsom
As my hon. Friend knows, we are committed to ensuring that there is a fair balance between farming and climate change, which is why mitigating climate change is explicitly listed among the public goods in our Agriculture Bill. However, he should also be aware that, although food choices can have an impact on greenhouse gas emissions, at the same time well-managed livestock farming provides environmental benefits such as supporting biodiversity; importantly, protecting the character of the countryside; and, of course, generating important income for rural communities.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Last night I received a Facebook message from somebody I know. I just want to read out a little part of it, if I may: “Dear Paula, I was wondering if you have had any experience of people suddenly having employment and support allowance being suddenly stopped. I get ESA. I’ve been in the support group for a while due to long-term conditions with my arm, bowel and epilepsy following being attacked by a patient at the hospital trust where I worked. I get PIP too. I had a work capability assessment a few weeks ago. Yesterday I got a letter to say it’s been stopped and I’m okay to work. I’m beside myself. I can’t sleep. I have always, for years, scored 15 points and now I’ve got zero. But nothing has changed.” Sometimes I honestly wonder how this wicked Government can do this to people. This is someone working in our NHS who was attacked, and now their benefits have been stopped; she is suffering mentally and physically. May we have a debate on how we can bring this terrible situation to an end and treat people with the dignity that they deserve?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady is raising a very serious constituency issue. As ever, I will be happy to raise that particular case if she writes to me after business questions. However, I have to make it absolutely clear that, since the personal independence payment was introduced in 2013, it has been there to ensure that people had more control over their own lives. Four million decisions have been taken and almost nine in every 10 PIP claimants are satisfied with the overall experience. What the Government are seeking to do is to provide as much support as possible, as flexibly as possible, to people who need personal independence payments. Obviously the hon. Lady is talking about a particular issue that must be looked at, and hon. Members often do raise particular issues, but we must not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The whole premise of the Government, in looking at benefits for people who need them, is to provide support for those people.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Change UK)
It has been apparent for some months that it was almost certain that we would be fighting the European elections, but yesterday the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confirmed it. As a result of the late confirmation, a large number of local authorities have failed to send out forms or adequately ensure that the millions of European Union citizens in this country entitled to vote will be able to vote on 23 May. May I draw the Leader of the House’s attention to early-day motion 2357, tabled by myself and Members cross-party?
[That this House calls on the Government to take immediate steps to ensure that all EU citizens in the UK who wish to vote in the EU elections are able to do so by making the additional form that EU citizens need to complete in order to declare they are not voting in another EU member state - the UC1 form - available at all polling stations on 23 May 2019, by instructing all local authorities to write by first-class mail to EU citizens who miss the 7 May deadline to inform them they will still be able to vote by filling in a UC1 form which will be available at polling stations and by directing local authorities to send polling cards to all EU citizens and not just those who have completed and returned the UC1 form.]
The EDM asks the Government to instruct local authorities to allow EU nationals to have the polling card sent to them, whether or not they have filled in the additional form, the UC1 form, and to have copies of that form available in polling stations, so that they can sign it there and confirm that they are voting only in this country and not in another European country, thereby enabling EU nationals legally resident here, with families here and working here, to vote in these European elections.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman is asking me a specific policy question that is clearly one for the Cabinet Office and/or for the Brexit Department. I would encourage him perhaps to lay a named question so that he can get a direct answer to his specific request.
Danielle Rowley (Midlothian) (Lab)
One year ago this week, Scottish musician Scott Hutchison died by suicide. Scott had been very open in talking about his mental health struggles, and through that, and his music and lyrics, he brought comfort and support to people all across the world. This week, in his honour, his family launched a charity called Tiny Changes to support young people with their mental health. We know that young people are struggling more and more often with their mental health, and with the mounting pressures of modern life, it is unlikely to get any better. So will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Scott, his work and his life and in thanking his family for their work? Could we please have a debate in Government time on young people’s mental health, so that we can come together and discuss this very important issue? Together we can make tiny changes.
Andrea Leadsom
I commend the hon. Lady for raising Scott’s story and I pay tribute to him and his family. It is just the most terrible thing when anyone takes their own life. I can tell her—I see she is quite moved—that a very good friend of my son also committed suicide, and he will also be taking action to try to raise money for those families who are struggling to ever get over this. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this issue. The Government have the very first suicide prevention strategy, and we have many different measures that are being considered right across Departments to do what we can to try to prevent more suicides. She is absolutely right to raise this and I will see what can be done about a debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was not expecting to be called until the end, because I would like to raise with the Leader of the House the situation at Carriage Gates, which is not strictly a matter of the business of the House. I am concerned that the incessant loud noise, which is being made not in the context of specific demonstrations but at varying times, is taking us back to a situation prior to 2010. Not only does it cause distraction, particularly in Westminster Hall, but, much more importantly, it has a huge effect on the police who are guarding the gates and have to be on the alert, as we know only too well, against attack. There are byelaws about this. I do not care which side of the EU argument the shouters are on—probably both sides—but it needs to be stopped. I wonder what the Leader of the House can do about this matter because one of her predecessors, Sir George Young, proved very effective in tackling it with Westminster City Council.
Andrea Leadsom
I regularly meet the director of security in the Palace and the Director General to talk about the challenges we face when going about our everyday work. I have raised the demonstrations going on outside, but not specifically the noise. Since my right hon. Friend makes that point, I will undertake to raise that issue the next time I speak to the DG.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
I have had two yellowing newspaper front pages pinned to the wall in my office for nearly two years now, with headlines saying, “Five years for monsters who harm animals” and “Five years’ jail for cruelty to pets”. A Bill was published and then withdrawn. My constituents and thousands of people around the country have run a fantastic campaign to ensure that those who are cruel to animals are punished with severe sentences, which they are not at the moment. Where is the Bill? No more talk—we must have it in Parliament.
Andrea Leadsom
I completely agree with the hon. Lady that cruelty to animals is utterly unacceptable. We are a nation of animal lovers and want to see perpetrators brought to justice. She is right that it is the Government’s policy to take action to increase maximum sentences for animal cruelty, and that Bill will be brought forward in an animals Bill in the next Session. In the meantime, the Government have improved animal welfare through many different measures, such as making CCTV mandatory in slaughterhouses. We are bringing forward a ban on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses. We have banned online and third-party puppy sales, and our world- leading ivory sales ban demonstrates our commitment to do everything we can to protect animals around the world.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure the Leader of the House recognises the importance of grassroots sports in promoting physical and mental wellbeing in our communities. Will she take the time to recognise the great work that the parkrun project does across all parts of the UK, and particularly in my constituency? The Springburn parkrun, which was set up in the wake of the Commonwealth games in Glasgow with some of the legacy funding, is celebrating its fifth anniversary this Saturday. Every week, people can go along at half-past 9 to run, and it is not against each other, but to improve their fitness and their time each week. Will she recognise that great initiative?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the value of community initiatives such as parkrun in keeping people fit and motivated, with a bit of social company. It is a fantastic thing to do, and I congratulate his constituents on their work.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
My 16-year-old constituent, Jackson Shepherd, has severe special needs, including learning disabilities, very limited communication and an inability to attend to daily needs such as washing and clothing himself. He is a student at the fantastic Riverbrae School for those with additional and complex support needs. However, his dad has been told that Jackson cannot claim universal credit because he cannot undergo a work capability assessment, as he is a student and therefore cannot work. Can we have a debate on this Government’s policies on supporting young adults with additional and complex needs, to ensure that people like Jackson do not fall through the net?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises an important constituency issue, as he often does. I encourage him to raise it directly with Ministers, and if he wants to write to me after business questions, I can take it up on his behalf. He will be aware that the Government are determined to ensure that people with disabilities—in particular, young people—are able to lead fulfilling lives and achieve as much as possible. To that end, we are spending £55 billion a year on benefits to support disabled people and people with health conditions, which is up by more than £10 billion in real terms since 2010.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
The Ministry of Justice’s own policy framework states that all prisons should develop specific multidisciplinary pathways for pregnant and post-natal women. Birth Companions, a maternity rights charity, has raised concerns that current practices are falling short. Please may we have a debate in Government time to discuss maternity services before, during and post sentencing so that we can better improve life chances for mothers and their children?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises a very important issue, and one that is dear to my heart. It is certainly vital in the perinatal period that women, their babies and their partners are given the support they need to get every baby off to the best start in life. I am not aware of exactly where Government policy is on this, but I encourage the hon. Lady to seek an Adjournment debate so that she can raise the issue with a Minister.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Even if the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) had momentarily forgotten the brilliance of his inquiry, the rest of us, thankfully, had not.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Government have failed to increase stamp duty on purchases of properties by overseas buyers by 3%, instead cutting it back to 1%, which has resulted in less money being available for tackling homelessness. This is not just a rough deal on the homeless who have to sleep rough, but a rough deal on young people who want to buy houses that are forced out of reach by house price inflation. May we have a debate in Government time on the Government’s failure to join up housing policy, and its impact on our constituents and people who are facing homelessness?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman started off by saying something about a change in Government policy that I did not fully follow. However, I draw his attention to Treasury questions on 21 May, when he might like to raise his specific question. I can say to him that the Government are doing everything possible to eradicate homelessness. Our Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 means that everyone, not just those who are a priority, can get more support before becoming homeless, which is absolutely vital. There is also our rough sleeping initiative, working with local authorities with the highest levels of rough sleeping, which is demonstrating a 19% decrease in rough sleeping across the areas where it is in place. The Government are absolutely committed to tackling this, but he should raise his specific point at Treasury questions.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Leader of the House has already talked about climate change this morning, and the Environment Agency has produced a report today about flooding. With rising sea levels and river flooding, 55,000 houses in the Humber estuary are at risk. May we have a debate about what new opportunities there are in tackling climate change and flood defences, and where we see it as an opportunity, not a burden, to develop the new industries that the Environment Agency says we need? For example, there is the proposal for a Hull lagoon from the Humber bridge to the port, which is championed by local businesses led by Tim Rix and which would help to protect the Humber estuary and regenerate the city of Hull.
Andrea Leadsom
As ever, I find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with the hon. Lady on a very significant issue. I have visited some of the most at-risk places, such as York, where the new flood defences have created jobs and opportunities for local businesses while at the same time protecting the city centre. I absolutely agree that we should be looking at opportunities to do more to think creatively about how we can protect ourselves from the risk of flooding. We obviously had Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions this morning, so I hope she was able to put her idea to Ministers then. If not, she might like to seek an Adjournment debate.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The Gillen review of the changes required to procedures and laws on serious sexual offences in Northern Ireland has just been published this morning. It contains over 200 important and radical recommendations that would bring our laws in Northern Ireland up to speed, and indeed get the productivity of getting such offences properly tried in Northern Ireland up to speed. What will be done? Can the Government arrange for those procedures to be implemented in the absence of devolution in Northern Ireland, and ensure that nothing is allowed to delay the implementation of the law changes that are required?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman will know that it is absolutely the Government’s aim to bring the main political parties in Northern Ireland together, with the UK and Irish Governments, to bring back a fully devolved Administration in Northern Ireland. That is an absolute priority for the UK Government. In the meantime, we obviously continue to talk about any essential measures that need to be taken. Ultimately, we want to see the talks that commenced on 7 May reach a fruitful re-establishment of the Northern Ireland Executive.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Earlier this week I announced that I am pregnant with my second child. As both my husband and I are MPs, the decision to have another baby was made possible only because of the introduction of proxy voting, and I wish to place on record my thanks to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), to the Leader of the House, and to you, Mr Speaker, for pushing that forward. Parliament has made much progress in recent years, but late-night votes and an archaic voting system that can mean MPs walking around in circles through the Lobbies for several hours on end can be off-putting. May we have a debate in Government time about how we can make Parliament a more accessible workplace?
Andrea Leadsom
I am delighted—congratulations to the hon. Lady and her husband. That is fantastic news, and we all share in wishing her a fabulous pregnancy with no sickness, tiredness, or anything of that sort. She is right to say that proxy voting was an important step as many more new families come to this place, and it is right for the diversity of the House of Commons that many more young parents are coming here as representatives. I commit to doing everything I can to make this place more family friendly. The issues of how we vote and the late timing are matters for the House, and I encourage the hon. Lady to seek either a Westminster Hall debate or a Backbench Business Committee debate so that all hon. Members can share their views. Surprisingly to me and to her, not all hon. Members share our view about making this place family friendly.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Lady will certainly get the Westminster Hall debate, and she should have a word with her hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) about the Backbench Business Committee debate.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Only yesterday, Clydesdale Bank announced that it would close its branch in Largs. That is the latest blow to my constituency, as yet another bank abandons our communities, leading to increasing concerns about financial exclusion, and all the implications that that poses for consumers, small businesses and the future of our high streets. May we have a debate in Government time about the social responsibility of banks, and a proper investigation into banking hubs for every community?
Andrea Leadsom
I am sorry that the hon. Lady is the second Scottish parliamentarian to raise a bank branch closure in their constituency during business questions, and I agree that bank closures are difficult for our constituents. She will be aware of the access to banking arrangements, under which banks must consult and demonstrate that there is no commercial value to be had from a bank branch, and that alternative arrangements are in place to suit the needs of the local community. In many cases those arrangements are provided by local post offices. The Government have invested £2.3 billion in the post office network since 2010, meaning that post offices are open for an extra 200,000 hours a week, with more than 4,000 opening on Sunday. Nevertheless, the hon. Lady makes an important point, and I encourage her to seek an Adjournment debate on the issue.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
You are generous, Mr Speaker, especially because I am a naughty boy and was not entirely in the Chamber when the business question started. I am grateful to you—thank you very much. Would the Leader of the House care to come and visit me in my constituency and perhaps stay overnight? [Hon. Members: “Oooh!”] We have a spare room—it’s fine. She could then see the Cory Band, which is indisputably the best brass band in the country. It won the British open championships last year—it is the reigning champion—and last week it won the European brass band championship. While in the Rhondda the right hon. Lady could also come to the Rhondda Arts Festival Treorchy—RAFT—and see all the great acts that will be put on in the last week of June.
Andrea Leadsom
What can I say, other than that you were clearly tricked by the hon. Gentleman sneaking in under the radar, Mr Speaker? I hope you are not losing your touch. I find that invitation almost entirely irresistible, and I would be delighted to visit the Rhondda. May I commend the hon. Gentleman’s local brass band, the Cory Band, and congratulate it on its superb achievements?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Offensive Weapons Bill seeks to strengthen legislation on weapons such as knives. The Bill is important, but friends in the Sikh community were concerned that it would impinge on their freedom to carry the kirpan, or ceremonial sword, which is an ingrained part of their religious practice similar to wearing a cross. There must always be a balance between freedom and public safety. I am delighted that the Government have considered that balance and amended the Bill to accommodate Sikh religious freedom. That positive result highlights the importance of considering freedom of religion or belief in all Government policy. Will the Leader of the House join me and others in welcoming that decision?
Andrea Leadsom
I am delighted the hon. Gentleman raises this issue. He is absolutely right to point out that the Government fully support religious freedom. The Government were pleased that the issue of wearing the kirpan was brought to their attention, so that the Offensive Weapons Bill could be amended and the protection of religious freedoms of the Sikh community ensured.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Those who claim asylum in the UK as third country applicants are currently waiting up to two or even three years for a decision. The Guardian reported last week that the third country unit was massively overworked and understaffed. May we please have a debate on the very real human cost of Home Office understaffing for those who rely on these decisions?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises a very serious issue, and I encourage her to raise it directly with Ministers. She will be aware that the UK has a very generous commitment to helping refugees who seek asylum. She raises the effectiveness of the arrangements around administering those cases. It is right that she should take that up directly with the Home Office. If she wants to write to me after business questions, I can raise it with them on her behalf.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
May we please have a debate on the application of section 4 of the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991? I understand that Ministers come and go, and that the Government are in a permanent state of reshuffle, but I personally do not think it is right that those who are sacked or forced to resign because of serious allegations get a five-figure pay-off funded by the taxpayer.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. I encourage him to raise it in a written question, so he can get a specific answer to his point.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Earlier this week, I received a letter from Father Liam McMahon, who is the parish priest at St Michael’s on Gallowgate in Parkhead. Like many other ministers and those in the clergy, he is concerned about the changes to tier 5 religious worker visas. May we have a debate in Government time about early-day motion 2362, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), to ensure that the Home Office reverses these retrograde plans that will disproportionately impact parishes right across the United Kingdom?
[That this House notes with concern the decision of the Home Office to remove Ministers of Religion from the eligibility criteria for tier 5 entry visas to the UK; further notes the widespread disappointment about this decision felt by Churches and other faith communities which have previously been able to invite religious ministers from overseas, and particularly developing countries, to provide supply cover for religious services over the coming months; believes this will have a negative effect on the ability of priests and ministers in the UK to take a break over the summer, on faith communities who may experience reduced worship schedules, and on the supply ministers who have used the opportunity to gain experience in the UK and earn some additional income before returning to their home country; and calls on the Home Secretary to meet with representatives of faith communities to listen to their concerns and urgently review his Department’s policy decision.]
I know the Leader of the House is sympathetic and a practising Christian. Will she be a voice in Government to U-turn on this ridiculous decision by the Home Office that will affect parishes all across these islands?
Andrea Leadsom
This issue has been raised a couple of times. Of course, we want to be able to facilitate visits by religious leaders around the world to talk to parishes here in the United Kingdom. There are arrangements—I am struggling to remember, but I think they can apply under tier 2 visa arrangements and that there are some pauses in place to ensure that those visas remain temporary. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman seeks an Adjournment debate, so that Ministers can set out for him precisely how visitors can apply for visas.
Buildings with ACM Cladding
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the remediation of private sector residential buildings with aluminium composite material cladding.
In the wake of the tragic Grenfell Tower fire, the Government acted urgently to address the serious fire and public safety risks exposed by the tragedy. Throughout, the safety of residents has remained our priority. We have from the outset sought expert advice, which together with our own testing programme has highlighted the unparalleled fire risk posed by ACM cladding of the type believed to be present on Grenfell Tower. The Government are clear that the type of ACM cladding believed to be on Grenfell Tower, and present on hundreds of other high-rise buildings, is not safe. This type of ACM is exceptional owing to the high risk it poses as an accelerant of fire. It did not comply with building regulations and should never have been put up.
For many years, building regulations have included a requirement that exterior walls be constructed to resist the spread of fire. Since the Grenfell tragedy, we have taken action to put that beyond doubt. We have amended the law to explicitly ban combustible materials from use in the exterior walls of all high-rise residential buildings, as well as in hospitals, residential care premises, dormitories in boarding schools, and student accommodation over 18 metres. That ban applies to all new buildings in these categories and to those buildings when major works to the exterior walls take place. The long-standing requirement that exterior walls should adequately resist the spread of fire continues to apply to all other high-rise buildings, including commercial buildings, being developed or undergoing major works to exterior walls.
With the support of local authorities and fire and rescue services, we have identified a total of 433 high-rise residential and other buildings with unsafe ACM cladding. All these buildings have been assessed by fire and rescue services and interim safety measures are in place where necessary, and these measures are kept under review by fire and rescue services, but we recognise that residents will have true peace of mind only when unsafe cladding has been removed and replaced with safe materials. In those buildings owned by local authorities and housing associations, we are making strong progress. We have made £400 million available to pay for the remediation of ACM cladding, and remediation has started or been completed in 87% of social sector buildings, with plans and commitments in place to remediate all remaining buildings.
We have also seen some progress in the private sector. Some building owners have acted swiftly and responsibly to put plans in place for full remediation of the cladding on their buildings and committed to protecting leaseholders from bearing the costs. This progress has been supported by the work of a remediation taskforce chaired by Ministers. In addition, where necessary, the Government are supporting local authorities to use their enforcement powers to ensure that building owners take the required action.
That said, too many building owners have failed to take responsibility. Many building owners have been too slow to co-operate to enable the prompt identification of buildings with unsafe ACM cladding and have since dragged their feet in planning for remediation. The result is that, almost two years on from the Grenfell tragedy, an unacceptable number of residents are still living in buildings that, while benefiting from additional safety measures in the interim, will not be remediated fully within an acceptable timescale.
Moreover, many leaseholders face unfair, and often substantial, costs. The Government believe this to be completely unacceptable. Leaseholders find themselves in this position through no fault of their own, and this is not morally defensible. The Housing Minister, my officials and I have all met residents affected by these issues and heard their personal concerns. We all appreciate their anguish and we pay tribute to their resilience and strength. I also want to acknowledge the continued work of Grenfell United, the UK Cladding Action Group and others. Many people told us they lived in constant fear—fear for the safety of their home; fear of the possibility of having to find tens of thousands of pounds for remediation; fear that they could no longer sell their properties and may have to forfeit them if costs are not met.
Where building owners have failed to step up, it is now imperative that the Government act. We must ensure the long-term safety of the people living in these buildings. The Government are therefore announcing today a new fund to unblock progress in remediating private sector high-rise residential buildings. First and foremost, this fund is about public safety. It will allow remediation to happen quickly, restore peace of mind and allow residents living in these blocks to get on with their lives. It will also protect leaseholders from bearing the cost. Building owners or those responsible for fire safety should prioritise getting on with the work necessary to make their buildings permanently safe. The new fund, which is estimated at £200 million, will cover the full cost of remediating the unsafe ACM cladding systems in privately owned high-rise residential buildings. This funding is being provided entirely for the benefit of the leaseholders in the buildings.
Important reforms of leasehold and implementing the Hackitt review’s recommendations on the safety of high-rise residential buildings are already in train. I will update the House on implementation in the coming weeks. When the new system is in place, it will help to prevent leaseholders from being confronted with unaffordable one-off charges.
Several developers and freeholders have already agreed to fund the costs of remediation and not to pass them on to leaseholders. Many of them have already agreed to maintain their commitment. The owners or developers who have made those commitments include Taylor Wimpey, Legal & General, Mace Group, Lendlease, Barratt Developments and Aberdeen Standard Investments. I commend them for the responsible and moral position that they have taken.
The fund does not absolve industry from taking responsibility for the failures that led to the ACM being wrongly put on buildings. As a condition of funding, we will stipulate that building owners must pursue warranty and insurance claims and any appropriate action against those responsible for putting unsafe cladding on the buildings, with moneys to be repaid to the Government.
We will write to all potential fund applicants by the end of next week to start engaging them in preparation for formal applications. We will also make funding conditional on the building owner or responsible person agreeing a contract to start remediation works within a set period. We will provide further details on the application process; I urge those who intend to apply to start developing ACM remediation proposals and costings so that applications can be made and processed promptly.
Everyone has a right to feel safe in their home. We want to see building owners acting to ensure that unsafe ACM is replaced without delay. That is why we are taking this exceptional step today. I commend this statement to the House.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. His announcement is welcome and needed; most important, it should start to relieve the worry of the thousands of people who live day and night in a high-rise block that they know is unsafe. But why on earth have they had to wait for nearly two years? For two years they have had their lives on hold. How long will the thousands more who live in tower blocks with suspect non-ACM cladding have to wait for Government action?
Like the Secretary of State, I pay tribute to those who, with Labour, have campaigned hard for the Government to act: Grenfell United, the UK Cladding Action Group, the Manchester Cladiators, Inside Housing and hon. Members on both sides of the House. But after the solemn pledges made by the Prime Minister and other Ministers in the aftermath of the terrible Grenfell Tower fire, who would have thought that nearly two years later there would still be Grenfell residents in hotels and temporary accommodation, not permanent homes; that Grenfell-type cladding would still not have been replaced in almost eight in 10 blocks; that in over half of them, no work would have started at all; and that no comprehensive testing programme would have been done on the estimated 1,700 high-rise or high-risk buildings with dangerous non-ACM cladding? The Secretary of State says that the Government acted urgently. The sorry truth is that in the face of these post-Grenfell problems, the Government have been frozen like a rabbit in the headlights—too weak and too slow to act at every stage and on every front.
On the detail of the Secretary of State’s announcement, is the £200 million new money from the Treasury to his Department, or will it be taken from other housing programmes? Is the fund simply a bail-out for block owners and developers who will not do their duty to replace dangerous cladding? How will he ensure that they pursue liability claims and repay the public purse? Will he consider emergency legislation to make block owners actually do this work and pay for it?
Is the fund enough? Per block, it seems to be only half the funding announced last year for the social sector. The Secretary of State says that the fund will cover the costs for 170 privately owned blocks that have Grenfell-style ACM cladding. Will he fund the costs for other blocks that are found to have similarly dangerous non-ACM cladding?
I have to tell the Secretary of State that warm words and fresh funding will mean very little to worried residents unless they know that the dangerous cladding on all blocks will be removed and replaced, and that as leaseholders they will not pick up the bill. Will he now set a hard deadline for that work, so that every block and every resident can be made safe?
James Brokenshire
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for our announcement. It is right that the Government have acted, but I underline the fact that the primary responsibility rests and rested with the building owners and with those responsible. We have now stepped in because of the failures we have seen in the private sector, although we acknowledge and recognise the many building owners and developers who have done the right thing by stepping up and agreeing to provide or maintain funding to address the need for remediation.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about urgency and timing. We did act with urgency in terms of the advice given. Indeed, I indicated in my statement the challenges in identifying some of the blocks affected and the work that was done at pace with local authorities. In some cases, local authorities had to take enforcement action to enable us to survey and identify those buildings, working with the relevant fire authorities, to which I pay tribute for their analysis and advice, and with the expert panel that was set up to advise Ministers.
The right hon. Gentleman asked several questions about the nature and manner of my announcement. One question was about non-ACM cladding systems. He will know that a testing programme is under way to assess non-ACM systems. That work is already happening. Advice was provided by the expert panel in December 2017 and updated in December 2018. That has been the focus, but clearly we will act on information and evidence provided as a consequence of the further testing programme. However, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to be careful not to prejudge the outcome or the results that we expect in the weeks ahead.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about funding. We intend to manage funding for the policy through our existing significant programme budgets. To put that in context, if the full amount were used, it would represent something like 3% of this year’s financial programming. We will keep the House updated through the supplementary estimate. The size of the new fund is informed by the public sector fund’s utilisation and drawdown, by the financial support that has been provided by some of the developers and builders, and by the insurance that has been activated for a number of the buildings.
With respect to the follow-through, clearly we want action to be taken to continue with liability claims. That process will be managed as we work with each of the building owners. As I indicated, we intend to start the process by the end of next week, by writing to the owners of the buildings that have been identified based on the information that we have.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman asked about legislation. We have supported local authorities in their enforcement activity through the joint inspection team. We remain ready, willing and able to support local authorities in the enforcement activity that they may determine to be necessary, and we are clarifying rules, regulations and guidance to assist them in that regard.
Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman, however, that I am very clear about the fact that the current regulatory regime needs further significant change. That is why the Hackitt review was undertaken in the first place. In her report, Dame Judith Hackitt presented a very stark picture of the need for responsibility, for tougher sanctions and, indeed, for different regulatory arrangements. I propose to update the House on next steps in the coming weeks, because I hear that message very clearly, and I intend to act.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and thank both him and the Minister of State. I know that achieving this result has required significant legal complexities to be overcome, and I appreciate the fact that the Government have listened. This will come as a great relief to the residents of Northpoint, in my constituency, who, along with many others, have suffered stress as well as financial loss.
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the fund will cover all cladding systems which include ACM cladding? As he knows, some cladding systems consist of a mixture of ACM and other forms of cladding, and it is obviously right for all systems to be subject to this protection.
James Brokenshire
I commend my hon. Friend for his strenuous efforts on behalf of his constituents in relation to Northpoint. I understand the issue that he has highlighted. The fund is intended to provide capital support for the removal of ACM cladding systems, including insulation, as well as the removal and disposal of existing cladding, replacement materials and labour. As part of the process of writing to building owners and of the subsequent work, we will specify that in greater detail to give reassurance.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement. Any announcement of help for those affected by the Grenfell tragedy, directly or indirectly, must of course be welcomed, but as the second anniversary of the tragedy approaches, it is incredible that the public and MPs are still having to push for that help.
The first thing to establish is whether the fund will be enough to help those affected. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the £200 million that has been released will pay for work on all private towers, or are the reports that it will not be enough correct?
The replacement work has been described by the UK Cladding Action Group as a “cladding lottery”, because it covers only ACM panels of the type that helped to spread the fire at Grenfell. Combustible non-ACM cladding, and other fire safety problems such as faulty or missing fire breaks in wall systems, will not be covered. What additional action can the Secretary of State promise affected residents to ensure that these safety measures are completed in a full and joined-up manner?
People have reported losing their life savings on interim measures, being forced to delay starting a family because of the financial uncertainty or turning to drink or drugs, along with serious mental health issues. Does the Secretary of State believe it is acceptable that freeholders and developers have been allowed simply to refuse to pay to make their buildings safe, and does he believe that if changes to the law are required to force them to take their responsibilities seriously, the Government will give that serious consideration?
James Brokenshire
I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming my announcement. I should, for his sake, make it clear that this applies only in England, because, as he knows, responsibility for housing policy and building regulations is a devolved matter.
I have already responded to some of the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised. As I have said, the £200 million represents an estimate of the cost, based on the existing experience of remediation—some of the work that has already been done—and taking account of instances in which developers, or insurance, are already in place. It is there to provide capital support. It is because of the need for urgency that we are taking steps to ensure, as a priority, that there is no need to rely on interim measures, because of both the nature and the cost of such measures.
I absolutely endorse the hon. Gentleman’s broader point about the need for developers and freeholders to stand up and do the right thing: I have stated that very plainly on a number of occasions, and I am hugely frustrated by the action—or lack of action—on the part of a number of those involved. He asked about changes in the law; that issue clearly flows from the Hackitt review, and, as I have said, I will update the House.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
I welcome the statement, but does the Secretary of State share my concern about the difficulties that the Department has had to surmount in order to be in a position to make such a statement, and about the fact that it was necessary in the first place? As he has said, many in the industry have acted responsibly and swiftly, but too many have not. May I encourage him, as he finishes—quickly, I hope—the work involved in responding to the Hackitt review, to apply that learning and the experience of just how difficult it has been for him and his Department to put this programme together, and to reflect in his response the fact that many residents have the same issues, day in day out, with the owners of the buildings in which they live? We should all bear in mind that while those owners are quite happy to take the gains that come with owning a building, they must also take the responsibilities that it brings.
James Brokenshire
I entirely agree with the points that my right hon. Friend has made. I think that she senses my real frustration and, indeed, anger at some of the practice that I have seen. We are taking this exceptional step because of the nature of the material with which we are dealing, but it has also shone a light on some of the wrongful and damaging practice that is out there, including practice in the construction industry. We are continuing to pursue those issues, and will follow through on them in our response to the Hackitt review.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
I very much welcome the money, although I have to say that the Department‘s idea of urgency is not quite the same as mine, two years after Grenfell. I think that the Secretary of State was wise to make his statement just under the wire, before the second anniversary of that disaster. If he will be writing to owners in the next week or so, he presumably already knows what steps he will be asking them to take to comply with the requirement to seek compensation from those who installed the cladding when that is possible. If he knows what steps will be taken, will he share that information with us, and will he also tell us who will decide whether those steps are sufficient?
James Brokenshire
In the case of an individual building, it will be up to the owners to set out what steps will be required. Obviously we will inform them of the nature of the information that we require about, for instance, assessments and the various bids and tenders that we would expect to have been undertaken. The differences between individual buildings, the nature of the system and the extent of the ACM cladding on each building have been very much in our minds in relation to the operation of the public sector fund, and we will apply that experience to the operation of the new scheme. However, I understand that sense of the need for continued pace, given that where substantial works are required, planning permissions will be needed, and given the nature of some of the construction work that will be necessary. It is precisely that work in which we will be engaged.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I think my right hon. Friend is properly fulfilling the words that he uttered on 30 April 2018, when he said that leaseholders would not be left in the lurch. Members in all parts of the House will be grateful for that.
We fully understand why the Minister of State was unable to make a statement of this kind yesterday, at a meeting which was chaired by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and attended by members of the UK Cladding Action Group and many other experts. I hope that what was said at that meeting will be passed on to the Department, because it is important for us to continue to make progress, and we are grateful for the lead that my right hon. Friend has given.
Let me also say to my right hon. Friend that it is vital that he, and his permanent secretary, acknowledge the role of those at Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, who were the first to identify the fact that there was no simple solution. It was they who caused the Government to ask the Law Commission to look into the problems of leasehold. I ask him to ensure that his officials and LEASE, the Government’s Leasehold Advisory Service, respect Martin Boyd and Sebastian O’Kelly, without whom no Member of Parliament would have been able to get as far as we have, together, across the Chamber.
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend rightly points out the contribution of many people in the steps that have been taken and in providing the essential technical and other information to inform and assist in the taking of robust action where required, and we will continue to engage in that. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend: he has been a passionate advocate of the rights of leaseholders and others across the House, and that pressure and contribution has helped to make a difference.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
This bail-out for unscrupulous freeholders and developers is welcome, especially to leaseholders such as mine at New Providence Wharf, so I thank the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues for the money, as will the UK Cladding Action Group, the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership mentioned by the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and Inside Housing—this statement probably guarantees the Secretary of State a splash front page in its next issue, which cannot do him any harm. The steps the Government have had to take show the weaknesses of the unregulated leasehold sector. Can the Secretary of State confirm that his Department will redouble its efforts to fulfil the promises of comprehensive leasehold reform as soon as possible?
James Brokenshire
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and for his campaigning on these issues of fire safety, as well as on leasehold, over many months. Regardless of whether I look forward to coverage in Inside Housing, I recognise the work it has done in assisting and helping to shine a light on a number of these factors. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are programmes of work by the Law Society and other agencies, and the Law Commission’s overarching work on leasehold is a separate programme that we intend to continue. We will continue to engage with the hon. Gentleman and others in relation to progress on that.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State explain how this welcome scheme will work in a couple of respects? Is the list of 433 vulnerable buildings going to be published? How will those who might be living in a building where no work has been done be able to access the scheme, and will any of the money be recoverable from the freeholders who refuse to do the work of their own volition?
James Brokenshire
We are aware of all the survey work and other steps that local government has been involved in, and I pay tribute to local councillors for their active engagement, alongside fire authorities, in enabling us to arrive at this position. As I have said, we want claims to continue to be made against those with responsibility and liability, whether through warranty claims or insurance, and to see that moneys are repaid. There are 175 private residential buildings and 159 social residential buildings where ACM cladding has been identified, and steps and interim measures will be in place to give assurance now. We will continue to engage with the authorities and building owners as we make progress in this regard.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Last March six buildings in the centre of Leeds were identified as still having dangerous ACM cladding. The freeholders of some of them have announced they would meet the cost, but for constituents of mine who live in buildings where that commitment has not been given, today’s announcement will be very welcome, and I thank the Secretary of State for it. Can he clarify the following two points? First, will freeholders who have said they will pay for the work but have not begun it be eligible for the funding? Secondly, as the Secretary of State will be aware, many people have for months and months been paying the cost of waking watches, and those who have been most heavily penalised are those with freeholders who have not lived up to their responsibilities, which is why they are still paying for a waking watch. Who does the Secretary of State think ought to meet those costs? In my view, speaking on behalf of my constituents it should not be them, as this is an unjustifiable expense which is not their fault.
James Brokenshire
The right hon. Gentleman will have heard me say previously where I think moral responsibility lies. It should not be leaseholders who pick up the cost, which is why I am making the statement today in relation to the capital costs and making progress so that waking watches and other interim measures are minimised and foreshortened. On the question of freeholders, in essence the scheme is available to all private sector buildings that fall within its remit, potentially including those where commitments have already been made, but, as I have said, a number of those developers and building owners have said that, notwithstanding that, they maintain their commitment and we are trying to keep this simple and make sure we meet all legal requirements so that there is swift progress.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and his work and that of the Minister for Housing in securing this fund. This was a tough decision, but it is the right decision, and it seems to have gone even further than the Select Committee recommendation of a low-interest loan. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this is a grant rather than a loan and in no circumstances is it repayable by the long leaseholders?
James Brokenshire
I can give my hon. Friend that confirmation, and I pay tribute to him for his steadfast work on the Select Committee and outside in championing these issues. I also join him in paying tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing who has also been steadfast in advancing the issues of concern. We looked at questions such as whether a loan arrangement could work but ultimately, given the complexity, the time that would have been involved and the need for all sorts of different consents, and given that my priority is providing a sense of assurance for leaseholders and getting on with this, we decided to adopt this structure.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his announcement. We in Tower Hamlets have among the highest number of ACM-cladded blocks so it is very welcome, but it has taken two years and people fighting tooth and nail to get here, particularly the campaign groups as well as Members across the House. Although the amount of money is welcome, does the Secretary of State believe that it is adequate to cover the number of properties affected, and will he today commit to look at the 1,700 high-rise and high-risk blocks with dangerous non-ACM cladding so that their residents can sleep at night in peace without having to campaign for a further two years for us to get to this point again? I welcome the work of the Secretary of State and the Minister but we need urgent action on those outstanding properties too.
James Brokenshire
As I have indicated, through the inputs of the expert panel in relation to non-ACM systems, we have already provided advice to building owners, which was refreshed again last December. We have the testing programme that has commenced and we are looking at the results carefully. I do highlight the exceptional nature of the ACM material and the advice we have seen that underlines the exceptional steps I am taking today. I do understand the frustration, strain and stress that so many people living in these blocks have felt and continue to feel. On costs, we have assessed this on the basis of commitments, insurance and the experience in relation to the public sector fund, so it has been judged carefully but we keep it under review.
Dame Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. It is good news for the residents of Heysmoor Heights in Liverpool, a block owned by the offshore Abacus Land 4, where the work has been done but residents have been charged for it. Will the Secretary of State ensure the residents are reimbursed for the amounts they have paid and that any debts some have accrued because they have been unable to pay are wiped off?
James Brokenshire
I hope that I can give some reassurance to the hon. Lady. The scheme is intended to cover situations where remediation work to remove ACM cladding and replace it has already been done but those costs have been passed on to the leaseholders. That is why I made the point that this issue is about public safety but also the residents or leaseholders themselves. I hope that gives reassurance, but I and the Minister for Housing will be happy to remain in contact with the hon. Lady to ensure that the information is properly provided and we see that followed through.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State clarify whether this money is being made available to compensate those freeholders who wilfully refuse to spend money on remedial action to remove ACM cladding unless they are compensated for the leaseholders’ share of the cost of carrying out the work? In other words, are we compensating the worst actors in this situation?
James Brokenshire
It is worth explaining to the hon. Gentleman that, as a matter of law, responsibility and liability effectively fall on the leaseholders themselves—court cases have demonstrated this—and the aim of this scheme is to protect those leaseholders. We want to ensure that we make progress and deal with the public safety issues that I have already described. Yes, we are obviously working with those building owners as a point of contact, but that does not in any way cut against the other points that I have made about those who are responsible, about liability, about insurance and about other factors, which we are obviously building within the scheme as well.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I welcome this announcement and echo the words of support that the Secretary of State has expressed for Grenfell United, the UK Cladding Action Group and others who have campaigned on this issue. Will he clarify one point in relation to his statement? He said that the funding would be conditional on the building owner
“agreeing a contract to start remediation works within a set period.”
Can he say what that set period will be? Can he also tell us what will happen if they do not do it within that set period? Would he perhaps be willing to name and shame those who are unwilling to take their responsibilities seriously?
James Brokenshire
I entirely understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point. He has expressed the frustration that so many of us feel. There are companies that have done the right thing, and I have named a number of companies that are still fulfilling and standing up behind the commitments that they have already made. Equally, however, there are those that have not done so. He asked about the condition. We are trying to find a way of acting as a lever or catalyst. We can say, “Okay, you have made an application and accepted those works, but we need to have a means of staying in contact to get an update to ensure that the work is actually being done.” For me, what matters is seeing that the action is followed through and fulfilled. It is difficult to give the right hon. Gentleman a set period, because of the different nature of the works required on each building. Different cases will require different works, but the purpose behind the condition is to ensure that those buildings are remediated.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I am not sure that the Secretary of State responded to the last question that the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), asked him, which was whether there was a hard deadline by which all the work had to be done and all the cladding removed from private and social buildings. If there is no such deadline, why not?
James Brokenshire
I thought I had responded to the question on timing. We know from experience that the remediation and construction works could take many months in some cases, so it is difficult to set a specific period. Each building and each set of circumstances will be different, and the nature of the works required will therefore be different in each case. However, if the hon. Lady is saying that we need to act at pace and with a sense of urgency, I entirely agree with her. That is why we have sought to construct the scheme in this way, and we will follow through to ensure that action is taken.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
It is almost two years since the horrifying and deadly Grenfell Tower fire, and I find it unacceptable that almost eight in 10 of the other blocks across our country identified as having Grenfell-style cladding have not had it removed and replaced. Why have the Government taken so long to act, after their solemn promise to the nation? Will the Secretary of State now set a deadline by which all blocks have to be made safe? And importantly, if this money is to come from the existing budget, will he tell us what the Government will not be doing?
James Brokenshire
On the latter point, I have already indicated how we intend to manage this, and we will keep the House updated through the normal supplementary estimates process. The hon. Gentleman talks about his frustration—it is also my frustration—that so many private sector freeholders have just not acted. We needed to take action to identify the enforcement action that councils needed to take to determine whether the material was on those buildings. I understand his frustration and the strain that this has placed on so many people living in those blocks. That is why we have taken this exceptional action today; ultimately, the responsibility should reside with the building owners to take the steps that they have failed to take thus far. I judge that today’s action is absolutely necessary because of the pace that we have not seen from them.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Public safety should always come first, and the Secretary of State’s announcement today is welcome indeed, but why is it that, two years on from the Grenfell Tower tragedy and despite the assurances given at the time, not one single penny has been forthcoming to make safe the 213 tower blocks in Birmingham and their 10,000 house- holds? Crucially, this is despite the fact that work has been recommended by the West Midlands fire service on the installation of sprinklers. Will the Secretary of State do what he has quite rightly done in relation to the residents of private tower blocks, and will he agree to meet a delegation of Birmingham tenants from those 213 council tower blocks?
James Brokenshire
I would underline the support that we have given to public sector buildings, the £400 million fund that was committed last year and the progress that is being made on the removal of ACM cladding from buildings on the public sector estate. We are learning from that process in terms of the implementation and the steps that I am announcing today. The hon. Gentleman highlights broader fire safety measures, and building owners obviously have responsibilities in that regard. I note that he has raised the issue of sprinklers the past. We are looking at that in the context of new buildings through what is known as approved document B. Sprinklers can clearly be effective in a number of cases, and we have worked with councils and others to discuss funding flexibilities to deliver on that.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I find it very difficult to squeeze out a thank you for this statement. What a mess this has been! What a rotten time people have had! For two years, many people in this country have had a miserable existence, not knowing what will happen and not knowing how much debt they are getting into or whether they will be able to repay what they have borrowed. When we google “building regulations”, up pops the Department. This Government are shilly-shallying. I do not have one of these buildings in my constituency, but we have them in Yorkshire. The fact is that this Government have looked for scapegoats all the time. They blame the construction industry, the local authorities and the freeholders. The Secretary of State has been doing it this morning. All those people thought they were complying with building regulations; they thought they were complying with the law as it stood. Then we had the dreadful disaster of Grenfell and of course the door opened to disputes. The lawyers came in, and that is always bad news. Ordinary working people have suffered for two years, and the Secretary of State does not get much credit from me this morning.
James Brokenshire
I absolutely understand the pressure and strain that so many people have felt they were under, but actually we have taken steps to work with fire authorities and local authorities in this regard. The hon. Gentleman makes a number of assertions, and he almost seems to suggest that those who wrongly put up this ACM material in the first place and who have wrongly failed to act have no responsibility at all. I encourage him to read the Hackitt review. Yes, it sets out in great detail where the law needs to be changed, and I have accepted that. I have said that we will take further steps in that regard, but there is equally responsibility placed on the construction sector and the private sector. I strongly encourage him to read that report.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
This announcement is long overdue, but it is nevertheless welcome. On a number of affected sites in my constituency, such as the Durkan-owned Babbage Point development in west Greenwich, the building owner has the necessary planning permission but is dragging their feet, with the significant cost of a permanent waking watch being passed on to leaseholders. I noted what the Secretary of State said about the funding being conditional on works beginning within a set period, but may I press him on the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn)? What more is the Secretary of State willing to do beyond appeals to morality to ensure that private building owners, not leaseholders, bear the full cost of the interim fire safety measures that have been necessary, in many cases, because building owners have not acted promptly?
James Brokenshire
The key thing is obviously to make quick progress, and I note what the hon. Gentleman says about that building. Part of the response involves continuing to work with local authorities on enforcement action where different building owners are not taking the steps they should in a timely fashion. I will certainly be interested to receive any more details on that specific case. There are legal liabilities regarding where responsibilities rest, but I want to see progress being made quickly. If there are examples of building owners dragging their feet, we want to hear about them so that that we can work with local authorities to see that action is taken.
Backbench Business
Acquired Brain Injury
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes the report of the All Party Parliamentary Group on acquired brain injury and supports its conclusions; and urges the Government to work through all of its departments to ensure that those who have sustained brain injuries are guaranteed full neuro-rehabilitation as needed.
I rise to speak in support of the motion in my name and those of my hon. Friends, including those on the other side of the House—I see the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) taking his place now.
Sometimes a brain injury is really obvious—jagged bone where the skull has been fractured or penetrated—but often the sheer force of the soft tissue colliding at speed against the hard inside of the skull bruises the brain, leading to a contusion or a haemorrhage that is outwardly invisible. Likewise, blunt trauma, where the head smashes into a windscreen or the road, means that the brain is pulled away from the opposite side of the skull, leading to even worse damage. The same can happen on the rugby, football, or hockey field, in the boxing ring and on the racecourse. Repeated incidents, even minor ones, can lead to chronic traumatic encephalopathy or what is often known as “punch drunk syndrome”.
Injuries can also be caused by stroke, tumours, infection, carbon monoxide exposure and hypoxia—oxygen starvation. These are hidden injuries with complex and fluctuating life-changing effects that strike close to the heart of what it is to be human, to be conscious, to be alive and, in many cases, to want to be alive.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
I am sorry that I cannot stay for the whole debate but, prompted by my hon. Friend’s excellent work in this area, I recently visited the Second Chance Headway Centre in Wakefield, which supports people with brain injuries. I was struck by the spectrum of conditions that the centre deals with and by the dedication of its wonderful staff and volunteers. I encourage all Members to visit a Headway centre in their constituency, and I want to make the House aware that it operates a free helpline, which is driven by nurses, that people can call for advice.
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know that many Members in the Chamber today and others, including Ministers who are unable to participate in the debate due to their ministerial responsibilities, have also visited Headway groups in their constituencies. I have been to the group in Cardiff, which does a magnificent job. This is also about those who work in the NHS and alongside many of the voluntary organisations that do magnificent work. For many people, the work is thoroughly rewarding, because somebody can be taken from complete dependency on others to needing much less frequent support through neuro-rehabilitation, enabling them to stand on their own two feet and have the quality of life that they had before.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend commend the vocational rehabilitation provided to 10 of my constituents by Momentum Skills in Newcastle? The organisation asked me to pass on its massive support for the “Time for Change” report and its recommendations.
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend has done a lot in this field herself. She has met with that group, which has been to see us here in Parliament, and I hope that they will be taking part in our lobbying event in a couple of weeks. Next week is Brain Injury Awareness Week, which is why this is such a timely debate. Tomorrow, I am going with the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) to visit the National Star College outside Cheltenham, which does an awful lot of work.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the damage that long-term exposure to carbon monoxide can have on the brain. He knows that I was one of those who organised the seatbelt legislation 25 years ago. One of the really worrying things that the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety found last week is that we are getting relaxed and that people are beginning not to wear seatbelts and not to put their children in vehicle restraints. If that continues, people are in terrible danger of serious brain injury or death.
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One reason why carbon monoxide exposure matters so much to me is because it involves an element of social justice. Children from poorer backgrounds are four times as likely to have a significant brain injury before the age of five as those from wealthier backgrounds. We do not fully understand why as yet, and we need to do more work on that. However, it is also true that elderly people, who maybe cannot afford to have their boiler checked as often as others or may have landlords who do not check their boilers as often as necessary, may be suffering low levels of carbon monoxide poisoning over such a long period that they are not even aware that they are being poisoned. The memory loss, the fatigue and the problems they are having may be associated with their boiler rather than with anything else. We need to look further at legislation in that area.
The thing about brain injury is that it is often internal and completely unseen. It can add a whole new layer of stigma because people can often misjudge a sufferer standing in a queue in front of them or coming to work with them as being drunk. However, the reason why the person is slurring is because they have had a brain injury. That is why I and others—I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings—wanted to set up an all-party parliamentary group on acquired brain injury to look at the issue, which is a hidden epidemic. Every 90 seconds, someone in this country is admitted to hospital with an acquired brain injury.
The APPG produced a report because we wanted to see more evidence. The Select Committee on Health produced a report in 2001, and some of its recommendations were implemented, but many were not. We wanted to go further, so we produced the “Time for Change” report, which calls for real investment in neuro-rehabilitation. We have major trauma centres that have saved so many lives—I pay tribute to the Government for the brave decision to take them forward—but it is depressing that a quarter of trauma centres still have no neuro-rehabilitation consultant. That means that people sometimes fall between two stools when they leave the acute setting and go back to their home and to their community.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
A great friend of mine suffered a brain aneurysm, and she may not have survived were it not for the Royal London Hospital and its support. My hon. Friend makes a good point about the need for that wider specialism in other hospitals and for transition support to provide much-needed rehabilitation.
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If there is one thing that I have learnt from my experience of melanoma this year—incidentally, the thing on the back of my head is not a brain injury; I am still getting over the melanoma being cut out—it is that I, as the patient, wanted to go to the real expert, and I would travel as far as I needed to do that. Sometimes in politics it is easy to join the bandwagon when people say, “No, everything’s got to be intensely local,” but the decision on major trauma centres was a brave one taken by this Government. The Conservatives are not a party that I support, but it was the right decision for saving people’s lives. We can now save people’s quality of life as well.
The APPG also called for proper return-to-school plans for every child with acquired brain injury, training for teachers, prison officers and benefits assessors, and proper protocols shared across all sports for concussion in sport.
The effects of a brain injury can be profound. Some sufferers have severely impaired physical mobility, and there can be major behavioural challenges. I have heard of patients losing all sense of inhibition, suddenly becoming tactless, using crude and abusive language, divulging private information and becoming impulsive, irritable and aggressive; or, on the opposite side, completely passive, unresponsive and lacking initiative. Others become obsessive, repeatedly checking their possessions or becoming profoundly self-centred.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I have experienced some of the characteristics he mentions within my family—my auntie experienced a riding accident and my cousin experienced a motorcycle accident, and they both suffered brain shears. I also understand it from the experience of constituents.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although trauma centres are very successful in trying to get the right expertise in the right place, they are required throughout the UK? Outreach is also required for subsequent rehabilitation, especially in rural constituencies such as mine.
Chris Bryant
That is one of the key points that everyone on the all-party group wanted to make. It is all very well saving someone’s life but, because we have seen so many miracles done by good neuro-rehabilitation in the community, we need to make sure it is available where people live. Otherwise we are condemning people to a half-life existence when we could restore real quality of life—they might go back to work and be fully independent.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say it is a matter of getting social care to work with NHS and getting all the different organisations to work as a whole. That is why we hope that the Government—there are signs of this, but we would like to see more signs—will not work in silos of departmental and organisational thinking. We have to think across the whole, because this affects nearly every Government Department.
Many patients lose their executive functions, so they find it next to impossible to plan, make decisions, monitor what they are doing or control their emotions—that can make it difficult even to cook for themselves. In particular, a brain injury to the frontal lobes during the teenage years, when that part of the brain is still developing, can turn a charming, ambitious and able young person into an out-of-control youngster. All too often, if the brain injury is missed or misunderstood, they get into trouble, they are excluded from school and they fall into the criminal justice system. I read Edward Timpson’s report this week. It is an important piece of work, but it is a shame that it does not mention brain injury at any point. I will be writing to him about that to see whether it is another element that we need to address if we are to stop exclusions, which are currently so prevalent.
Even a minor brain injury can lead to headaches, dizziness, fatigue, depression, irritability and memory problems. Sometimes the effects last long after the injury, and sometimes they do not even appear until some time after the injury, which makes them particularly difficult to spot.
Partners and family members have a tough time, too. The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) will know from his own family how complicated it is to make sure that people get the support they need. Loved ones have the terrible fear of the unknown. What is going on inside their loved one’s head? Will the anger and frustration they seem to be suffering get stronger, or will it ease off? How much will they be able to recover their former abilities and personality? And how hard will they have to struggle to get the support they need?
In too many instances, families and patients are being pushed from pillar to post when it comes to benefits. Listen to what happened to Jordan Bell, who had a motorcycle accident some six years ago, when he was 17. The accident left him in a coma for six weeks and in rehabilitation for six months before he went home. He had to learn to walk, talk, eat and socialise all over again. I am glad to say that he has made a remarkable recovery and is now a father, but he lives with significant, serious and completely unseeable impairments.
Jordan’s father describes dealing with the welfare system as
“the most demoralising and depressing experience for us all.”
This is a professional family. The initial application for personal independence payment took six months, with interventions from the family’s MP. David Bell writes:
“A year or so after our son’s condition had improved we contacted the relevant department to advise them that he was in our judgement no longer entitled to some elements of the PIP. We were ‘quietly’ advised not to inform them of the changes at all, but as we are honest people we felt duty bound to inform them of our son’s improvement. The advice given to us was correct; instead of adjusting the PIP in what would have been a sensible way the PIP was cut entirely. This then set in motion another six months of huge effort and stress and again the involvement of our MP to get the PIP reinstated. We eventually succeeded. But two years later it was reduced again to nothing.”
I cannot emphasise enough the stress this process puts on people with ABI.
One woman told me:
“I know I should use all my energy to try and get my brain back together. But I end up spending all my energy on forms”—
filling in forms and fighting bureaucracy. An unresponsive, intransigent welfare system is effectively preventing people from healing. I beg Ministers to take this issue seriously and to make sure that all PIP advisers are trained in the fluctuating and unseeable nature of brain injury. After all, one common feature is that patients become over-keen to please people. Often, they will tell the assessor everything they think the assessor wants to hear, because that is part of the condition.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Notwithstanding what I will say later, in casework I find that a surprisingly high number of disability living allowance claimants are having the mobility element carved away as they move to PIP, perhaps because, as the hon. Gentleman says, they have exaggerated their ability to get from A to B or to move into work.
Chris Bryant
That specific point has not been raised with me in relation to brain injury because it is one of the seeable bits. It is the unseeable bits that are particularly difficult for PIP assessors and other assessors to get right, which is why it is important that they all have proper experience and training in assessing brain injury.
I do not want to take too much time because I know that many others want to speak, but I will refer to a few more elements, the first of which is the prisons system. All the latest research shows that a very high percentage of inmates, both male and female, have had a brain injury. One survey shows that 47% of inmates at Leeds Prison have had an ABI, and Huw Williams’s work shows that more than 60% of prisoners at Exeter Prison have had a traumatic brain injury. In both surveys, the majority of injuries occurred before the prisoner’s first offence, suggesting that the brain injury may be a key factor in why they offended in the first place. If we really want to tackle their reoffending, we will have to deal with their brain injury, too.
Research at HMP Send and HMP Drake Hall also finds that the most common way for women inmates to acquire brain injuries is through domestic violence— 45% of injuries. Again, we may be criminalising people who are actually victims. We need to get this right. If we really want to tackle reoffending, we must do a better job of recognising and treating brain injury. That means screening all new prisoners, training prison staff, providing proper neuro-rehabilitation for all prisoners with a brain injury and making special provision for women that recognises the likely different causes of their injury—particularly domestic violence.
I will not say much about education, because I know other hon. Members will. The Government have been good in responding to our report in detail, but the section of their response with which I am most dissatisfied is on education. There is a hidden problem across our schools estate, and we will store up problems for the future if we do not take this issue seriously. In particular, I urge the Government to reconsider our recommendation that acquired brain injury should be included in the special educational needs and disability code of practice.
The final area is sport. I make it clear that sport is good for people’s health, and I do not want to prevent anyone from taking part in sport. I do not want all our sportspeople and youngsters to be mollycoddled and wrapped in cotton wool, but the record on sports concussion is shockingly bad, particularly in football. I am no football expert.
Chris Bryant
All right. I am no expert, but I know about concussion in football. The last season has been especially bad. Mohamed Salah, Jan Vertonghen, David Ospina, Anthony Lopes and Fabian Schär have all been involved in high-profile, very dubious decisions by the on-pitch medics. UEFA rules since 2014 seem clear:
“In the event of suspected concussion, the referee stops the game to allow the injured player to be assessed by the team doctor. In principle this should take no more than three minutes, unless a serious incident requires the player to be treated on the field of play or immobilised on the field for immediate transfer to hospital”.
Honestly, three minutes is nowhere near enough to be able to judge whether somebody has suffered a concussion or any other kind of brain injury. Moreover, FIFA, UEFA and the Football Association have different definitions of concussion and, unlike rugby—where it is now standard that a player should be off the pitch for 10 minutes and can be replaced—football allows no subs for concussion, so all the incentive is to get the player back on and playing as fast as possible and in less than three minutes.
Let me be very clear to the football authorities. Football is failing its players. It is giving a terrible message to youngsters, parents and amateur coaches. Those authorities are putting players’ lives at risk. If they do not get their house in order, they will face massive class actions in the courts and we will have to legislate to protect players from what is, frankly, an industrial injury.
I want to end by talking about my own patch. I am delighted that south Wales will soon have a new major trauma centre at the University Hospital of Wales, but it would be cruel in the extreme to save people’s lives without ensuring that we can guarantee their quality of life. So we must make sure that when the centre opens there are proper neuro-rehabilitation services in Wales and that there is continuity of care once people leave hospital.
There is another issue for us in south Wales. In 2009, Kyle Beere was a typical healthy, intelligent, active 12-year-old—a bit too interested in fishing for my liking, but none the less. That November, he suffered a massive brain haemorrhage that left him fighting for his life. With no paediatric rehabilitation service in Wales, Kyle had to travel to Surrey for treatment. He is grateful for his treatment and his family is working all God’s hours to ensure that he gets all the support he needs. But I would dearly love there to be paediatric rehabilitation services in Wales.
Many medical miracles have been performed over the years, and I pay tribute to the doctors, nurses, scientists, pharmaceutical companies and staff who have constantly experimented and reviewed their work to see whether they can do more. I pay tribute to Chloe Hayward and everybody involved in the UK Acquired Brain Injury Forum. But we need a political miracle now.
The Health Committee produced a great report in 2001, but many of its recommendations have never been implemented. That cannot happen this time—please. We need a champion in Government to instil a real sense of urgency into dealing with brain injury: someone who can bring together all the different Departments and make them work together to deliver a quality of life that is more than just a collection of vital functions. I dearly hope that that champion will be speaking from the Dispatch Box in a few minutes.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and to endorse and amplify his remarks about the Minister. Many people achieve office in this House, but few are more deserving of that opportunity than the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy). We are delighted to have her with us today. We will be even more delighted when she answers some of the questions posed by the hon. Member for Rhondda and gives us an assurance that the Government will continue—for they have begun well—to take this subject seriously and will act on the recommendations in this excellent report, which would not have happened without the initiative, enterprise and energy of the hon. Gentleman. His commitment has been exemplary.
The work of the all-party parliamentary group on acquired brain injury is illustrative of this House doing what it does best: coming together, highlighting a subject, and bringing it to the attention of the wider world and of those who exercise power. We have, I believe, done a good job, but it is only the beginning of a journey. The destination we seek is our recommendations being enacted in full. Perhaps I am being a little ambitious, but at the very least the Government have taken a renewed and reinvigorated interest—I would not for a moment suggest that they were not interested already—in this subject, which affects so many people.
Perhaps that is the place to start. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the definition of brain injury, but I want to speak about the scale of the problem. The number of families affected by acquired brain injury, which, as the hon. Gentleman described, includes anything from traumatic events through to brain tumours, is immense. Hospital admissions for head injuries number 162,544—one every three minutes. ABI admissions have increased by 10% since 2005-06. Although men are 1.6 times more likely than women to be admitted for head injury, the incidence of female head injury has increased by 24% since 2005-06. Families across our nation and in all our constituencies are affected. The challenges are profound, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman described.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I, too, welcome the report. May I add to my right hon. Friend’s list what I have discovered in my constituency? Even babies can acquire brain injuries from contracting meningitis, or during childbirth. I hope he will join me in encouraging the Government to consider that issue as well.
Sir John Hayes
I will—very much so. I have been terribly unlucky, by the way, having suffered a severe head injury as a result of a road traffic accident and, like the hon. Member for Rhondda, contracted bacterial meningitis. We both speak with some authority on this subject.
The patterns that those families endure are similar, one to another. Initially, of course, there is shock—a sense of disbelief—and the question that most people pose in these circumstances: “Why me?” Then there is a gradual realisation of the depth and scale of the effects of acquired brain injury, and an unhappy initial concentration on what the person can no longer do, followed eventually by a reconcentration on what they can do. Most families follow that pattern when they suffer this kind of event, and that is why all that is done beyond the treatment of the initial trauma is so critically important.
Neuro-rehabilitation is vital because of the dynamic character of these conditions. Most people who acquire a brain injury will change. Many will recover fully and some will recover partly, but all that takes place over a long period and is particular to each case. There is an unpredictability about the effects of acquired brain injury; it can affect physical capacity of course, psychology and cerebral function, as well as personality. Families dealing with that must cope with those kinds of changes, which can be terribly frightening for the individuals concerned and those who love them. The point is that a difference can be made by the quality of care that they receive during that rather difficult journey.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I add one more category to those listed by my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)? I am talking about service personnel who were blown up in Iraq and Afghanistan, some of whom, although apparently uninjured as a result of the great advances in vehicle technology that enabled them to survive improvised explosive devices, are believed to have been misdiagnosed with post-traumatic stress injury, when in reality they are suffering from mild traumatic brain injury. I believe that only two scanners in the whole country are capable of identifying mild TBI. There is not yet an adequate programme to make sure that the condition is discovered before irreparable damage is done.
Sir John Hayes
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. The hon. Member for Rhondda talked about the understanding that we need in the welfare system and the expertise that we need to acquire in dealing with the repercussions of a traumatic event. Often, misdiagnosis is part of that problem. Because of the characteristics of acquired brain injury that I described earlier—the changes in personality and the effect on cerebral function—misdiagnosis is all too easy. Part of our mission in bringing the all-party group’s report to the House’s attention, and doing so again in today’s debate, is to get all of Government, including the Ministry of Defence, working together to understand the breadth and scale of the problem. That kind of intergovernmental approach is essential to the recommendations of our report, and I shall say more about it in my concluding remarks.
Before I do that, I wish to say a little about the difference between the initial responses to acquired brain injury, whether acquired through a traumatic event such as a road traffic accident—indeed, many are acquired that way, which is why so many young men are affected—or through the kind of illness that the hon. Member for Rhondda spoke about, such as a brain tumour, meningitis or some other disease. By and large, the initial response is, as is so often the case in the NHS, routinely excellent. People are treated quickly and highly effectively. It is what happens afterwards that is more variable in its effectiveness.
When people leave hospital, invariably having been treated extremely well by our superb NHS, whether their subsequent treatment is effective is a matter of some uncertainty. It can be, and often is; indeed I pay tribute to the good work of Headway—I am a patron of Headway Cambridgeshire and have been for many years—and the other organisations that play a part in supporting families, spreading understanding and sharing good practice, but it is to some degree a lottery. It is partly about where someone lives and how effective the local agencies are; it is partly about how well Government Departments and local government work together and how meaningfully they address some of the challenges that are the inevitable consequences of these kinds of injuries. The all-party group’s report deals with them and the hon. Member for Rhondda highlighted some of them. There are educational effects and effects in the workplace and in socialisation; perhaps there is even the risk of criminality as a result of the consequences of a brain injury. It is the business of neuro-rehabilitation, which we emphasise so strongly in the report, that lies at the heart of what we believe the Government need to do to improve the outcomes for the people and families concerned.
When I was a Minister, which I was for a long time but not for long enough, many people in the House tell me—it is not for me to say, of course—I found that perhaps the greatest challenge Ministers face is in dealing with matters that cut across Departments. It has become almost routine to talk about Departments working in silos, but it is certainly true that the character of the vertical structure of the way we run Government and organise ministerial responsibilities makes it quite difficult for Departments to interact, or sometimes even to interface. On this subject, perhaps as much as on any subject that I know of, it is critical that Departments do just that. We speak in our report of the Departments concerned, and my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) mentioned another, the Ministry of Defence. I urge the Government to continue to explore how we can take a cross-departmental approach. We have had strong support from the Cabinet Office, but I hope that the Minister will take that further forward.
Mr Sheerman
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about cross-departmental working. I am obsessively concerned with road deaths and road injuries; does he accept that getting the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education and the Department for Transport together to push for proper head and brain protection for cyclists, motorcyclists and people who drive cars is very difficult?
Sir John Hayes
Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The hon. Member for Rhondda spoke of, for example, sports injuries. The response we have had from Departments has been mixed. It is certainly true that they have all responded, but it is fair to say that some have done so with greater enthusiasm and clarity than others. The convivial and collaborative nature of this debate forbids me from being more critical than that, but the Minister will want to look at those responses, as we have, and at how those Departments that have been rather slower to take their responsibilities seriously can be brought up to speed.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) is right that cross-departmental working is vital. It is important that we also look at local government and other Government agencies and organisations. Given the breadth of local government responsibilities, of which housing is a good example as well as education, which the hon. Member for Rhondda spoke about and which is critical to our report, it is really important that local government is involved in this work, too. It is therefore not only a lateral challenge but about connecting the local approach to the national one.
Furthermore, it is important that we recognise the dynamic character of individual needs. Governments are quite good at disabilities that are fixed. People have dreadful things happen to them and either acquire disabilities or perhaps start life with disabilities, and the Government can be quite effective and the national health service is highly effective in dealing with those kinds of challenges, but dynamic disabilities are different again, because of course by its nature that dynamism means changing needs and that requires changing provision. It might be in respect of benefits—the hon. Member for Rhondda mentioned support for benefits—or simply a matter of providing additional resource to an individual to allow them to get back to work or to return to education. It might be a matter of ensuring that the teachers, employers and others associated with an individual are well equipped with an understanding of what that dynamic disability might mean and might lead to. It is vital that the Government appreciate that many people have changing circumstances that require a changed approach.
Others wish to contribute, so I shall end by highlighting some of the things we said in the report and to which we would like the Government to respond. First, simply raising awareness is vital, and I hope that the report and this debate have done that. Secondly, I have spoken about neuro-rehabilitation and the need for a joined-up approach across Government. Thirdly, I wish to amplify an excellent point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda about education: it is really important that acquired brain injury is included in the special educational needs and disability code of practice. Fourthly, in the justice system, it is vital that all agencies that work with young people—including schools, psychologists, psychiatrists, general practitioners and youth offending teams—should ensure that the needs of the brain injured are individually and carefully assessed.
I could highlight many other things—our recommendations are broad, and I hope deep, too—but I shall end by quoting G. K. Chesterton, who said:
“How you think when you lose determines how long it will be until you win.”
When someone loses as a result of an acquired brain injury perhaps some cerebral function or the ability to mix and work with other people, or has some permanent disability, how long it is before they again see themselves as someone with a chance to win can be determined by what we here do, and on how the Government allocate their time, energy and resources to fight for, care for and campaign for people so affected.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
First, I congratulate my dear friend the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on securing today’s debate.
Every year, an estimated 350,000 people are admitted to hospital in the UK as a direct result of an acquired brain injury; to put that figure into perspective, that is one person every 90 seconds. Whether that is due to illness, accident or some other form of trauma, the severity of that injury and consequently the rehabilitation they require varies considerably. For those with severe brain injuries, the long-term issues can be vast, affecting their personality, relationships and behaviour. It is quite obvious that early diagnosis and better access to timely and effective rehabilitation will greatly improve a patient’s chance of eventually regaining their independence, but it is essential that we also look at the wider long-term complications of acquired brain injury and particularly at the associated problems that patients face.
At a recent session of the all-party parliamentary group for gambling-related harm, I met George. Back in 2009, George was a typical 23-year-old young man with a bright future. He had a decent job, a supportive family and a strong network of friends. It was on a night out with those friends that his life changed forever. In an unprovoked attack outside the nightclub where he had been spending the evening, George was punched with such force that he suffered lasting trauma to the left side of his brain. After spending several weeks in a coma and months in hospital, George was left with significant psychological, emotional, cognitive, behavioural and physical impairments.
As a result of the severity of his injuries and the complexity of his ongoing disabilities, George was eventually awarded significant compensation, but this only led him to further problems. A friend introduced George to online gambling, something he had no previous interest in, but he now had the time and the money. George very quickly became addicted, making frequent and significant deposits with a wide variety of online gambling platforms. The result is that George has lost all his compensation, as well as money obtained by taking out additional loans and credit cards. At one point, he gambled and lost—this is breathtaking—£67,000 in just 40 minutes. He is now at least £15,000 in debt and, with no income, has no hope of meeting these liabilities.
George is not alone. Research has identified that brain injury survivors are 27% more likely to develop problem gambling or addiction than the general population, and that risk is found particularly among people with frontal lobe damage. Headway, the brain injury association, which celebrates its 40th anniversary this year, is doing a fantastic job supporting people like George, but it has highlighted that much more needs to be done within the gambling industry to protect these vulnerable individuals.
Survivors of a brain injury are prone to impulsive behaviour, lacking in reasoning skills and often socially isolated. Add to this in some cases the fact that they are suddenly in possession of a large sum of money that they are not necessarily capable of controlling independently, and it is not difficult to see how quickly and easily addiction can develop. The gambling industry needs to offer more and to work alongside brain injury specialists to provide support for individuals. The Gambling Commission has said it will be strengthening the requirements of licences to better identify customers and make self-exclusion schemes more effective, but this is not enough on its own.
Brain injury survivors such as George have already suffered so much, with their bright futures indefinitely stolen from them because of the trauma or illness they have experienced. They continue to suffer daily from the lasting effects of their injury as well as the associated anxiety and emotional difficulties. From an early stage in George’s addiction, the gambling platforms were made aware of his vulnerability, but despite this knowledge they continued to allow him to gamble on their sites, robbing him of his much needed compensation, which was intended to give him a stress-free existence after his injury. Brain injury survivors are vulnerable, and at the moment the gambling industry appears to be exploiting that vulnerability.
It is not just about gambling. The consequences of brain injury affect so many people in so many ways, and we have to start looking more closely at this issue. We need better diagnosis, better care, and rehabilitation support, and I am very pleased to be a vice-chair of the APPG on acquired brain injury that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda has established and chairs with such great passion, and I congratulate him.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris).
I note and welcome the valuable work of the all-party parliamentary group on acquired brain injury, including its most recent report. I agree that Governments together need to lend their support and implement, where reasonably practicable and borne out by evidence, the measures that will bring about improved neuro-rehabilitation for those with acquired brain injury. About 1.4 million people in the UK are living with a brain injury. According to Headway Ayrshire and as has been mentioned, every 90 seconds someone in the UK is admitted to hospital with an acquired brain injury, and in 2016-17 some 1,816 people with a diagnosis related to acquired brain injury were admitted to hospital from the Ayrshire and Arran area within which my constituency lies. These are large figures and very worrying statistics.
It has been acknowledged that more persons are surviving trauma to the brain, which may occur after birth or because of disease, an accident, sport, military service or a criminal act. Let me stop for a moment on the question of accidents. Having spent 31 years in the fire service and attended numerous needless road accidents, I commend those who created, invented and install airbags—we have no measure of the number of brain injuries that they have prevented—and the Governments who introduced the compulsory wearing of seatbelts and of crash helmets. The number of people saved from accidents by that is wonderful. I will leave this hanging for a moment, but would it be possible and worth considering the compulsory wearing of safety helmets for cyclists? I am sure that that would reduce brain trauma injuries in the future.
Those people’s survival is to be welcomed, although regrettably some could have a degree of disability and might have a different persona, which can prove difficult for all to cope with. The individual and their families undoubtedly need an informed and readily available bespoke support package. The onus is on us to enable these individuals to regain their dignity, which they so richly deserve, and to have an active role in our society, which is their society as well.
To date, rehabilitation provision for in-patients and those returning to the community appears to have been sadly lacking, or, when it is provided, of varying standards and not always in line with those narrated by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, NHS England’s best practice tariff and the all-important person-centred rehabilitation prescriptions. Those prescriptions are so important to that individual, their family and their carers.
I support the desire for a specialist acquired brain injury rehabilitation consultant who would guide, oversee and co-ordinate matters. Oversight and co-ordination appear not to be as good as they could be. That is not to detract from the excellent work of charities mentioned in the Chamber this afternoon, such as Headway Ayrshire, which is part of Headway, the brain injury association, raising public awareness and working to improve life after brain injury by providing simple things like information on where people go for help. When someone puts their hand out for help, someone has to grasp it, and in many ways Headway does that, providing advice and support to the person, their family and their carers. Having previously sat on that charity’s local board, I have seen for myself how it is able to benefit my constituents and many throughout the UK in other branches of Headway. I thank Headway—its staff, volunteers and those who raise money for it—and welcome the contribution and support it gives individuals.
In 2017, the Scottish Government’s community justice funding enabled Supporting Offenders with Learning Difficulties, also known as SOLD. SOLD was able to assist those with alcohol-related and acquired brain injuries out of the dreadful cycle of reoffending. The prison community often does not understand these issues.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) made an incredibly important contribution—as my hon. Friend is doing—highlighting that many people become involved in alcohol, gambling or some other pursuit, which would never have happened had they not had their brain injury. The Government need to look at that aspect of the issue, because the consequences of brain injury can be as unpredictable as that.
Bill Grant
I thank my right hon. Friend for that welcome intervention. It is easy to identify someone with a physical injury—the leg in plaster or the arm in a sling—but an injury to the brain is not visible, and we need to be aware of that.
Scotland has seen the development of a brain injury e-learning resource, created under the umbrella of the Scottish Acquired Brain Injury Network, with funding and technical support provided by the national services division of the NHS. Glasgow University’s excellent Centre for Rehabilitation Engineering also undertakes work on the neuro-rehabilitation of hand and arm functions, neuropathic pain and the possibilities of retraining the central nervous system after spinal cord injury or a stroke. I should also mention a facility from which I benefited: the Douglas Grant rehabilitation centre, which is operated by NHS Ayrshire and Arran. The centre gives confidence back to people who have been subjected to brain injury or nervous system injury. It also gives them back their ability to find their own way in life, and great credit is due to the staff there.
As was mentioned earlier, the effect of sports injuries involving concussion is not quite fully understood, but it is better recognised, particularly in rugby, but such injuries can also happen in football. There has been great success in football of late. Dare I mention Tottenham Hotspur and Liverpool? Perhaps clubs should invest some of their money protecting their valuable players—not for today or tomorrow, but for later in their life—from the consequences they may suffer. Football still has some way to go on that front.
We may still need to educate the educators to understand the hidden disabilities and lifelong consequences for young people with acquired brain injury. Medical science is leading to a better understanding of ways to address rehabilitation, and organisations are seeking to communicate what is available. However, it is vital that this work is co-ordinated, and that a holistic treatment plan and the functioning needs of acquired brain injury patients are considered and acted on promptly. This should not be delayed, waited for or pushed down the line; we have to respond timeously.
Some patients may reach a plateau, but for others sadly the condition may be progressive, so there is no one-size-fits-all approach for victims of acquired brain injury. We need to continue to build on the Government’s good work in achieving and maintaining specialist centres of excellence and enhanced community support services for persons with acquired brain injury, their families, and—let us not forget—their carers.
I ask the Minister to look favourably on further measures to support those with acquired brain injury, their families and carers, and to ensure that the Departments of all Governments communicate with one another to make contact for these service users easier. Communication and form-filling may be extremely difficult for people with acquired brain injury, as their concentration levels are often depleted. Ease of application—a simple thing—would be a great step forward, with Departments sharing information, instead of individuals repeatedly filling in forms and going back to repeat the process several times. It is, indeed, time for change.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for opening the debate in such an excellent manner and the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for helping to secure it.
Acquired brain injury is often a hidden disability. It is so hidden that, before this all-party parliamentary group inquiry, I had failed to recognise that people I know—family members, friends and colleagues—have an acquired brain injury. Some people may have outward, visible signs of the trauma that they have been through, but for many there are no outward clues. That can mean that, instead of people recognising the disability and responding in a helpful or understanding way, they may be impatient or downright rude, or try to rush those with acquired brain injury. This may not just be the case for people we bump into; it could be the officials of one Department or another who really do not get it. For example, assessors for personal independence payment or employment and support allowance may not have sufficient understanding of the effects of acquired brain injury and fail to recognise that what may appear as a reasonable response can actually hide the reality of the disability.
It has been a real privilege to be involved in the inquiry and the report, “Time for Change”, to reach so many people affected by acquired brain injury, to hear their personal stories, to hear about the positive impact of effective neuro-rehabilitation and, sadly, sometimes to learn where such rehabilitation has not gone so well and people are struggling to cope. At the presentation of our report last year, we watched a very moving film showing people suffering from acquired brain injury describing their experiences. I found it a very moving experience that really brought home the difficulties that people can face.
The practical effects of acquired brain injury affect many areas of life, and our evidence sessions covered neuro-rehabilitation, education, criminal justice and sport-related concussion and touched on the welfare benefits system. The launch of “Time for Change” was well received, and was attended by Ministers, the shadow Secretary of State for Health and many other Members of Parliament. Most importantly, some of those who have acquired brain injury told us their personal stories. Our report made a number of recommendations in each area that we studied and, most importantly, called for Departments to work together to improve services and join things up. It was clear to us, as I am sure it will be to the House, that this is not just a health issue to be left to the Department of Health—although neuro-rehabilitation and physiotherapy, along with many other health services, are of huge importance in recovery and development—but one that needs to be joined up across other Departments.
If we are to make the real change that we have called for, we have to link up what happens in health with what happens at school, in the Department for Work and Pensions and in so many more Departments. Since the report was launched, there have been meetings with a number of Ministers, including the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, to name but two. The Government have now responded to our report, with the Department of Health pulling together responses to our recommendations from other Departments. I will refer to one of those Departments in particular—the Department for Education—and introduce a new area that was not covered in our report but that has been mentioned today.
It becomes clearer and clearer the more we look at it that acquired brain injury and its impact spread into so many different areas of everyday life, but I will focus on education and children. “Time for Change” called for some very specific measures. As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, this condition affects many more people in disadvantaged areas than elsewhere, so it is really important that we get to grips with it. Our recommendations were fairly straightforward. Acquired brain injury should be included in the special educational needs and disability code of practice. All education professionals should have a minimum level of awareness and understanding about acquired brain injury and about the educational requirements of children and young people with this condition—for example, with the completion of a short online course for all school-based staff.
Additional training should be provided for the named lead professional who supports the individual with acquired brain injury and for special educational needs co-ordinators. We recommended that the acquired brain injury card for under-18s produced by the Child Brain Injury Trust should be promoted in all schools, hospitals and local education authorities. Many children and young people with acquired brain injury require individually tailored, collaborative and integrated support for their return to school and throughout their education. As agreed return-to-school pathway is required—led and monitored by a named lead professional—to provide a consistent approach and support for the individual, their family and their teachers. An enhanced education campaign should be implemented in schools to improve awareness and understanding of sport-related concussion, with the support of Departments.
During filming for the launch of the report, I had the chance to talk to a young man from Scotland who had returned to school following an acquired brain injury and who told me about his experience of doing so. Simple things were not happening, like making sure that he had off-white paper because the white paper was far too bright for him to be able to take in. There was also the impact of noise affecting his concentration. They were all quite small things, in themselves, that were supposed to be planned for but actually did not happen. That brings it home to us that it is those small things that can make a big difference to children.
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is making a really important point. There are two other areas where we could do more in exactly the same way. One of those is in prisons, where toning down some of the sounds and noises makes it much easier for those with brain injury, and the other is in our supermarkets. It is great that Morrisons, certainly in my patch, has an hour at the beginning of the day when the lights are a bit dimmer. It would good if all supermarkets had a similar sort of event.
Liz Twist
I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks; I most certainly agree. As I say, we just do not think about these things sometimes, and they can have such a huge impact in improving things for people with acquired brain injury.
I am afraid that the Government’s response in this area was rather disappointing. As in earlier answers to parliamentary questions, the Department for Education seemed just to restate the current responsibilities of schools and governors for SEND—special educational needs and disability. Our inquiry showed that there needs to be a greater understanding, very specifically, of both the presence of an acquired brain injury in young children and the practical steps needed to help staff to support these children with what is often a hidden disability. We also need greater co-ordination between health and education professionals to support children returning to school after a brain injury.
We have recently had much discussion in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall about the funding pressures on schools and the impact that that is having, particularly on special educational needs. We really have to bear that in mind. It is not enough to restate the law and the theory—the thinking—behind special educational needs and education, health and care plans, and then leave it to staff and governors who are increasingly under pressure just to hold things together at school. I would have hoped for a more positive response in this area. I hope that Education Ministers will look at it again and address the need for more practical steps to ensure that pupils have what they need to develop and be supported at school.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Lady is making powerful points. The key is that these plans have greater specificity and quantification so that the development of the response to someone’s needs could be as particular as it needs to be. That means quantifying exactly what happens once the needs and the response to them are drawn up.
Liz Twist
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those comments. I most certainly agree that we need to have very specific proposals on how we can support people and to make sure that the support is actually put into place as well. As we know, there can sometimes be delays in achieving the ECHP, so I hope that more work can be put into that as well.
The Child Brain Injury Trust, which does excellent work in this area, has issued a call for action that includes some quite practical steps. It tells me that professionals across the field of acquired brain injury educational psychology are working hard to achieve the changes needed to support children in education following an acquired brain injury, but this requires all parties to listen and to implement the recommendations of the “Time for Change” report.
An acknowledgement of the support and interventions needed for paediatric acquired brain injury is required to limit the long-term societal costs and impact that this disability can have. Of course, it affects society as a whole, not just the individual. We want to give people the best chance in life, and that is why it is particularly appropriate to look at how we can support children who have an acquired brain injury. There needs to be improved training for newly qualified teachers—currently, acquired brain injury is not covered in that training—and a national campaign of recognition that acquired brain injury affects an additional 40,000 children and young people every year and has a significant impact on society.
The Child Brain Injury Trust says that acquired brain injury continues to be misdiagnosed and misunderstood, and our current system, and lack of knowledge and support, is letting down thousands of families. Funding is required for whole-family support. We need improved training for educators and youth justice teams, because over 60% of young people in custody report prior head injury. As other Members have mentioned, many young people affected by acquired brain injury are excluded from school due to their “inappropriate behaviour” and then go on to commit crime. Therefore, better knowledge of the condition and improved support has the potential to save society huge sums of money otherwise needed for youth justice.
The Child Brain Injury Trust calls for involvement and commitment from the Department for Education to support and fund some of these recommended initiatives. As I said, I hope that the Department for Education will take a more active part in looking after these young people and look again at its response to see how it can be improved.
The other area I want to touch on, which has already been mentioned by a number of Members, is acquired brain injury and carbon monoxide poisoning. This is not something that I had thought of myself. It shows, again, how many areas of our lives and our environment affect people and can cause acquired brain injury. I am a member not only of the APPG on acquired brain injury but the APPG on carbon monoxide, and earlier this year we had a special roundtable meeting chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda. One of the difficulties is recognising when people are suffering from carbon monoxide poisoning, especially the impact that that can have on the brain. The shortage of support is particularly difficult for people with an acquired brain injury caused by carbon monoxide poisoning, as they are less likely to receive specialist treatment if they experience low-level carbon monoxide exposure that results in more subtle neurological effects. To address this, the APPG on carbon monoxide recommends that NHS England develop a specialist clinic for people with long-term neurological effects caused by carbon monoxide exposure. This will help to plug the gap in care provision and enable future studies that will innovate treatment methods.
We must also remember that, as the Government said in their November 2018 health and social care policy paper, prevention is better than cure, and preventing carbon monoxide poisoning will also prevent some of these acquired brain injuries. The APPG recommends that the Government introduce preventive measures, including mandating carbon monoxide alarms in all tenures. I know that the Government are already looking at this in certain tenures, but it should be across all tenures. Carbon monoxide monitors should be provided for those in first-time pregnancy. We must tackle substandard housing that increases the risk of carbon monoxide exposure. We also recommend that Public Health England and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office do more to raise public awareness of carbon monoxide, to encourage risk-lowering behaviours at home and abroad. The special roundtable meeting that we had was very productive. We had a high number of medical people there who were recognising this problem that perhaps the rest of us had not recognised until now. We need some practical steps to improve that.
I have mentioned the Child Brain Injury Trust’s recommended actions, particularly on education. There is so much more that I could say, but much of it has already been said, so I will only mention a few things. We are seeing more people survive severe trauma, and we must give more effective support after they recover from their immediate injury, to help them develop their life.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I have personal experience of this through my brother, who unfortunately had a very severe accident, which left him brain-damaged. Owing to the determination of my parents and family, who took the time to care for and look after him, we were able to give him some sort of an independent life, which is very important. He is happy and safe with his carers, friends and family. Does the hon. Lady agree that more needs to be done to support the families of those with ABI, to give them hope that there can be more than Sunday visits to a designated place—there can be a home life as well—and there is a chance of a semblance of normal life for people with ABI? Intensive care packages are essential to rehabilitation, and funding must be available for them. It is so important to give people who have acquired brain injury a normal life, if at all possible.
Liz Twist
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I certainly agree that we must give more support to the carers and families of young people or adults with acquired brain injury, while allowing the person who is directly affected to have as full and good a life as they can.
I want to mention the “One Punch” campaign. We are becoming increasingly aware of the impact that one punch on a night out, perhaps after a lively evening, can have. It can be devastating, and I am glad to see campaigns around the country aiming to ensure people are aware of that. We have talked about how sports must keep up the level of support and awareness and, if in doubt, sit people out. That is really important. We have also heard about the huge impact on our prison community. We must develop a response to that, so that we can take account of acquired brain injury and how it affects people’s behaviour and development.
Headway has made some recommendations. It says:
“Brain injury can happen to anyone, at any time. Living with the effects of a brain injury creates challenges in almost every area of life.”
That is so true. Headway is calling on Members of Parliament to recognise and support the needs of service users, families and carers, including greater understanding of the complexity and hidden effects of brain injury; wider recognition of the symptoms of brain injury, to ensure rapid and accurate diagnosis; access to timely, specialist rehabilitation and support services; an end to lengthy waits for social service assessments for support funding; changes to disability benefit assessments, which currently fail a large number of brain injury survivors and their families—Headway has a campaign called “Right First Time”—and more effective data gathering across the NHS, to provide clearer evidence of the needs of survivors, around diagnosis, acute care, longer-term rehabilitation and support to regain independence. Acquired brain injury is life changing, and we must do everything we can to support people across all spheres of life.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I praise the remarkable work of the APPG on acquired brain injury for its dedication to this issue and for securing this particularly important debate. Research from Headway, the brain injury association, shows that every 90 seconds someone in the UK is admitted to hospital with an acquired brain injury-related diagnosis. That is approximately 350,000 people a year. If this debate lasts for an hour and a half, another 60 people will have been struck by brain injury while we are in the Chamber. The majority of those people will need at least some form of short-term support or long-term rehabilitation to help them rebuild their lives, re-learn lost skills and regain a degree of independence.
Excellent work is done in the charity sector to support people with acquired brain injury. I am sure that many colleagues across the House will want to join me in congratulating Headway on reaching its 40th anniversary this year. I am proud to say that the charity is based in my constituency and led by my friend and colleague, Peter McCabe, as chief executive. For four decades, it has been supporting brain injury survivors and their families and carers, to ensure that lives saved by significant advances in neurosurgery are lives worth living.
When a brain injury strikes, it is usually without warning. Put simply, it can happen to anyone, at any time. The support provided by Headway starts from the moment brain injury strikes and continues for as long as it is needed. With the introduction of major trauma centres, the chances are that a patient with a significant brain injury will be quickly transferred to a unit that is better equipped to provide specialist emergency care. That can be many miles from the family home. I am sure we can all agree that, if a loved one were involved in an accident or suddenly became seriously ill, we would want to be at their bedside, but for some people—particularly in low-income families—that can be a challenge if the patient is transferred to a unit many miles away.
That is why I would like to raise the importance of the Headway emergency fund, which provides grants to families to ensure that they can be by the bedside of a loved one in a coma. To date, the charity has distributed more than £369,294 to 1,783 families across the UK. In addition, families can receive emotional and practical support to help them to cope with the overwhelming situation and to make sense of what is happening. They can also rely on the charity’s nurse-led helpline, which has seen an increase in demand of 131% over the last 10 years.
Given that there will be many people watching the debate who are working on this issue, I would like to raise the Headway brain injury identity card, which is endorsed by numerous agencies in the criminal justice system, including the Police Federation and the National Police Chiefs’ Council. The House has previously discussed the high prevalence of brain injury among the offender population. This new initiative from Headway is helping the police to identify brain injury survivors at the earliest opportunity, to ensure that they receive appropriate support.
We should all be proud of our national health service, particularly when it comes to emergency and acute care, but a life worth saving has to be a life worth living. Many of my hon. Friends here today will be aware of the excellent work being done by Headway groups and branches in their constituencies. Whether through rehabilitative therapies to improve speech and language skills or facilitate a return to work or education, or social interaction to prevent isolation, the work being done in our local communities by these groups and branches can be a lifeline to families affected by brain injury, helping people to rebuild their lives and become less dependent on costly state support.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I add briefly to that catalogue of virtues the fact that Headway has been reaching out to parliamentarians like ourselves? The reason I am here for this debate is that Jo Hillier of Southampton Headway got in touch with me and asked me to be here. That is why I am learning so much more about this condition than I would otherwise have had the possibility of knowing.
Siobhain McDonagh
That is my experience as well. Had Peter McCabe not called me, I might not be here, and I would know so much less about the volume of people who experience brain injury and the sort of problems they and their families and carers have.
We are very grateful for Headway’s intervention. However, Headway cannot do this alone. Local charities are under incredible pressure. Funding cuts are causing harm to the lives of some of society’s most vulnerable people, who are being cut out of society due to a lack of access to vital support services. For many people, Headway provides a route back to independent living, further education or employment. The reality is that, aside from Headway, most people—particularly those who cannot afford private healthcare—will receive insufficient support or rehabilitation after leaving hospital. Unless action is taken to enable people to access the vital support needed to ensure that these services survive, more and more people will be cut out of society and taxpayers will be left footing the bill for the longer-term care of those without the means to care for themselves. Considering that another four people will have been struck by brain injury during my speech, there simply is no time to delay.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for bringing forward this debate and I compliment all the speakers on their contributions. It would be churlish of me not to say a word of congratulation to the Minister on her appointment. It is a delight to see her in her place. I am going to give the House something of a personal account, which I will try to keep fairly brief. I hope that I can draw from that personal account a number of conclusions and suggestions.
Yesterday and today, several Members have remarked on the fact that this is the 20th anniversary of the foundation of the Scottish Parliament. In early 1999, I was canvassing in north-west Sutherland. I always start canvassing early, but don’t tell the SNP. I pulled up at a phone box at Inchnadamph—this was back in the days when we had phone boxes even in remote parts of the highlands—I tried to ring home and there was no reply. So I carried on. When I got home at 5 or 6 o’clock that night, I discovered that my wife was in hospital—at Raigmore Hospital in Inverness.
My wife had been due to drive to Inverness to get the messages, as we say in the highlands, but found—as it turned out, very luckily—that the car had a flat tyre, so she caught the bus to Inverness. Having got her shopping, she was at the bus stop waiting to come home again when she took a massive epileptic fit. She woke up in Raigmore Hospital. Very shortly afterwards, when the staff took an X-ray of her head, they discovered that she had an extremely large meningioma, which is a form of tumour. Luckily, it is a benign tumour, but they reach some size. Within weeks, she had an operation to remove the meningioma. Unfortunately, in the recovery ward shortly after her operation, she took a further brain haemorrhage and had to go straight back into surgery. She was then in intensive care, but she did survive. I want to say that, for my family, for me and for my dear wife, it was an incredibly difficult time. How my eldest daughter, who was then aged 17, got through her studying for her highers, I will never know. I always think that my three children were in fact braver than I was; I put that on the record.
I want to say something else for the sake of the record. Reference has been made to the NHS and just how good it is. The then consultant neurosurgeon at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, where my wife was operated on, was Mr David Currie. He and his team, as well as the nursing staff, were absolutely astonishing. I owe them and my wife owes them absolutely everything. They may think it was churlish for me to carry on canvassing to be an MSP but, when my wife could speak, which was not for a few weeks, I said, “Look, it’s only March and the election isn’t until May, I think I’ll pull out”, and she said, “Don’t.” She said it very quietly—she could only speak very softly. She said, “You must carry on. I think you might win.” And so I did. So there is a happy end to the story.
My wife is left somewhat disabled—she has a weak left leg and she has lost the use of her left arm—but, as we always say in my family, she is alive. She remains better than I am at the crossword. I cannot tell hon. Members how annoying that is, but that is just the way it is. She suffers from mild anxiety about things; much comment has been made about the side effects of this sort of surgery. However, I am intensely grateful to the NHS.
There are one or two conclusions that I would draw in this short contribution. The first is that we could see that Mr David Currie, the consultant neurosurgeon, and his staff—I admit this was 20 years ago—were stretched. Mr Currie always said to my wife for some years afterwards, “You see these white hairs. I got these operating on you for the second time.” But they were pushed. They were working extremely hard, but we could see they were pushed.
Secondly, as I have said already, we could see the sheer importance of the NHS and what a great British institution that is. I think, rightly, all parties in this place cherish and nurture it. I have to say, as an aside, that when I hear some of the comments coming across the Atlantic from the United States about how they do not want anything like the NHS, I think that they are just plain dotty. It is something of which we are very proud.
A third point arises from this experience, which was difficult. I admit that it was 20 years ago but, when my wife came out of hospital and came home, there was the business about what occupational therapy and physio help she could get, what was the social work package and how that was going to be handled. I think things have improved since then—I give credit to the Scottish Government for that—but how this is put together is very traumatic for the patient and for the patient’s loved ones. I was 44 and my wife was 42, and we had a family in their teens. An event such as this is a crisis and a change that you can hardly understand at the time. But, as I say, life goes on and we are where we are.
I have a habit of talking about disability issues because of my wife. One of the reasons why I volunteered—I was probably completely insane—to go on the small Committee charged with building the Scottish Parliament was that I could see that the old temporary Parliament at the top of the Mound in Edinburgh was utterly unsuitable for disabled people. Because of my wife’s experience, I got involved in what was known as the Holyrood project. It damn nearly lost me my seat at my second Scottish election because it was a very controversial issue, as I am sure the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) will recall.
I have mentioned several times in this place the issue of getting disabled people back into work. At a time, whatever happens with Brexit, when we must play to all our strengths—we must play every card we hold—we have a lot of people who have been ill or are partially disabled who have great abilities that they could contribute to the functioning of the United Kingdom and to forging a new and better future for the United Kingdom. It remains a challenge for Governments of all colours to harness those people. If nothing else, it makes them feel that they are contributing to the country and it makes them feel useful and that they are important. Self-esteem and the esteem of your peers is incredibly important to happiness and to quality of life.
I want to take up the point, which I think was made by the hon. Member for Rhondda, that notwithstanding the desirability of local delivery of services, there is something to be said for amalgamation when it comes to something as crucial as neurosurgery. At the time of my wife’s treatment, there were four neurosurgical units in Scotland and Mr David Currie was the sole consultant neurosurgeon at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary. Had the four units been put together as one, there would have been better peer working and peer support. I think the hon. Gentleman made the point that, when it is something as traumatic as neurosurgery, people do not mind travelling. From the northern highlands, it did not really matter to me whether it was Aberdeen, Edinburgh or Glasgow—I just wanted my loved one to get the best possible treatment. I know it is always the case that we will get a local campaign saying, “No, no, no—not this”, but I think we can draw a line on some services, where centralisation for the maximisation of making people better is important. We should not lose sight of that.
A meningioma is a tumour that can kill you. It is a meningioma whether people live in Scotland, England or Wales—anywhere at all. I therefore appeal both to the Scottish Government and the UK Government for maximum co-ordination across borders on health delivery, the health service and making people better. I would hate to think that a line drawn by people on a map would in any way get in the way of that because this is about saving lives and making people better, which is surely one of the most important things.
I am going to end, as is my wont in this place, with a very short anecdote. I was lucky in May 1999. I would not say if they are sad enough, but if Members have a dull moment they can look at this week’s edition of Holyrood magazine and remark how young I looked then; I have aged terribly badly since then. I did win my seat. The Times decided to do a vox pop of my new constituents only a few days after I was elected. It asked one lady from the village of Kildary in Easter Ross, “How do you feel about Jamie Stone being elected to be an MSP for this constituency?” She replied, famously, “Well, at least it keeps him off the street.” When I read that to my wife in her hospital bed, she roared with laughter and I knew then that she was better.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I am delighted to take part in this important, wide-ranging, informative and consensual debate, and grateful to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for securing and opening it. I thank the all-party parliamentary group on acquired brain injury for its considered work, and the United Kingdom Acquired Brain Injury Forum for its report. The hon. Gentleman covered much of the ground in his opening remarks, which included a thorough summary of the subject. He reminded us that ABI affects nearly every Department and has a major impact on the families and support networks of those affected.
On behalf of my colleagues in the SNP, I welcome the publication of the report and congratulate the APPG on its amazing work. I encourage anyone who has not read the report to do so. The infographic on ABI key facts is an eye-opener; it informs us that 1.3 million people are living with traumatic brain injury-related disabilities, at an estimated annual cost of £15 billion. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) covered many other facts in that report. I recommend the report for that graphic alone, but the whole publication is fantastic and contains lots more information. Indeed, it may even underestimate the position, because much of the published information relates to traumatic brain injuries, not just to ABIs; none the less, it puts the scale of the problem in perspective. We have heard a number of case studies today, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for his personal anecdotes, which helped to bring this subject home. I cannot help but think, “There but for fortune,” as such a thing could happen to any of us at any time.
I have suffered two head injuries in my lifetime, thankfully both fairly minor. Once I was hit by a golf ball—I was not even on a golf course at the time, which proves that such a thing can happen anywhere—and the other time was when as a child I was hit by a swing. I had listened to my mother who told me not to run in front of swings, but let me state for the record that it is equally dangerous to run behind them—that might save someone else from getting a knock. Thankfully, I was left without any lasting effects, but I know of constituents who suffered injuries that appeared to be no worse that the ones I incurred, but that had long-lasting effects that were traumatic to see.
In Scotland we are committed to ensuring that those with disabilities such as ABI get the support and care they need to live as independently as possible. The report is a welcome addition to that debate. It brings together key findings in a range of sectors, looking specifically at the impact that an acquired head injury can have on a person’s interaction with many different services. ABI can be caused by a variety of events and have a variety of implications. It is important that specific pathways are available to those who have suffered ABI and have had to go through the pain and trauma of coming to terms with the impact of that injury on their day-to-day lives. Fundamentally, this is about ensuring that people with disabilities can live as independently as possible. Our vision in Scotland is that children and adults with acquired brain injury should have equal access to highest quality brain injury care, regardless of where they live.
It is estimated that ABI is the most significant case of disablement for people of working age in Scotland. We know that around 40% of working age disabled adults are in employment, compared with more than 80% of those without a disability. Our key ambition is to reduce that gap. Many of those with ABI have complex rehabilitation and support needs.
Before I go on to mention some of the national services available in Scotland, I wish to pay tribute to some of the local work undertaken in my area by CRABIS, the West Lothian Community Rehabilitation and Brain Injury Service. CRABIS is funded by NHS Lothian and West Lothian Council, and it provides multi-disciplinary assessment and rehabilitation within the home or community settings—that is important—to those over 16 who have an acquired brain injury. The CRABIS team comprises occupational therapists, physiotherapists, clinical psychologists, speech and language therapists, and rehabilitation assistants. The model they use is being looked at by other areas within Scotland as good practice.
At national level, the Scottish Acquired Brain Injury Network—SABIN—was established in 2007 with the key objective of enabling improvements in and access to services in Scotland for children and adults with ABI. It comprises service user representatives, healthcare professionals, service providers and voluntary sector groups. SABIN published the traumatic brain injury in adults standards, which ensure a joined-up approach to immediate and long-term care for people with an acquired head injury. To achieve those aims, it works with partners to bring together healthcare professionals, service providers, parents, carers and voluntary sector groups who support brain-injured patients. SABIN undertakes events and workshops to raise awareness, including the Brain Detectives event for children who have a relative with a brain injury, which provides education on the effects of such injuries.
Last year, Scotland’s first major trauma centre opened at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary. It will treat the most seriously injured patients in the north of Scotland, and is the first of four major trauma centres to open as part of Scotland’s trauma network, with further centres due to open in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dundee. A number of speakers have raised the point that in the case of such a traumatic event, people do not mind travelling—I certainly would not mind that should anything happen to me or one of my loved ones. The network will ensure that each year Scotland’s 6,000 seriously injured people get the best possible care and chances of recovery, wherever their location. The new centres will host dedicated trauma services, including rehabilitation support to help patients with significant injuries to recover more quickly. Backed by £15.2 million investment so far, the new Scottish trauma network will also include the Scottish Ambulance Service and existing trauma services.
I could, of course, touch on many other aspects, given the wide-ranging impact of ABI on services and public agencies, many of which—including education, the criminal justice system and health—are devolved in Scotland. I will therefore conclude with an issue that remains largely reserved: welfare benefits. The disability employment gap that I mentioned compounds the problems for those with ABI when interacting with that complex service. I echo the report’s call for less frequent reassessments and for assessors to be trained to understand the problems faced by those with ABI. I hope the Minister will cover that point when she sums up the debate.
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
I thank all Members for their contributions to an excellent debate, as well as the Backbench Business Committee for selecting this important subject. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Blaydon (Liz Twist), and the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who tabled the motion before us. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda for his extensive work to raise awareness of acquired brain injury. I acknowledge the important work of Headway and the United Kingdom Acquired Brain Injury Forum, and I pay tribute to the excellent APPG for its sterling work to improve our understanding of the wide impact that ABI can have. Its comprehensive report, “Time for Change”, sets out a range of recommendations for the kind of support and rehabilitation that must be made available. I found that excellent report immensely interesting and informative, and I will now go on to champion awareness of acquired brain injury.
As the term suggests, acquired brain injury applies to injury caused to the brain after birth, and it can happen to anyone at any time. All Members have constituents who live with the consequences of ABI. A brain injury can happen in an instant, but its effects can be devastating and lead to lifelong challenges. The effects of ABI vary; those affected may suffer from headaches, dizziness, memory loss, extreme fatigue and depression, as well as diminished co-ordination and motor skills, irritability, and inability to concentrate. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings reminded us that we must be aware of the dynamic nature of the condition, and we heard about the wider impact of ABI when my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) spoke about George’s experiences and the wide impact that ABI has across all walks of life.
Improvements in medical procedures and acute care have led to improved survival rates for those who acquire an injury to the brain. That is welcome, but it brings its own challenges and places further pressure on already overstretched health and social care services. Early and continued access to specialist rehabilitation has been shown to optimise the chances of recovery and to be extremely cost effective. As for many health conditions, however, the number of available beds across the UK is inadequate. Service provision is variable; consequently, long-term outcomes for brain injury survivors are compromised. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda powerfully reminded us, this is all about quality of life, and it is cruel to save lives without the following support and rehabilitation.
Many Members spoke of the scale of the problem, and many people—including me before this debate—have little awareness of ABI, even though the numbers affected are so great. Currently, 1.3 million people in the UK live with ABI, which has rightly been described as the invisible epidemic. Some 900,000 people attend A and E with a traumatic brain injury every year, and every 90 seconds someone is admitted to hospital with an acquired brain injury.
It is estimated that 24% of children have some sort of brain injury, compared with 1% who have autism. ABI in children is often misdiagnosed as autism or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The point about misdiagnosis across the board was made effectively. A particularly good example was the misunderstanding of cases involving servicepeople. The combined cost of brain injury, including health and social care costs, disability support, lost work contributions and premature death, is estimated to be £15 billion a year, which equates to about 10% of the NHS budget. This is an issue of such seriousness and magnitude that it cannot and should not ignored.
In September 2018, the APPG report called for reform is all areas and Departments. This is not just a matter for the Department of Health and Social Care, although that would be a good starting point. As the report so rightly demonstrates, this should be an issue for the Department for Education, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Work and Pensions, too. The report recommends change in several key areas. A national review of neuro-rehabilitation is required to ensure that service provision is adequate and consistent throughout the UK. We have heard Members describe current provision as a lottery. All affected individuals should be given a rehabilitation prescription, and there should be a significant increase in the number of neuro-rehabilitation beds. We heard about excellent trauma centres, but would it not be wonderful if an ABI consultation could be available in each of those units?
On education, Members expressed disappointment that the Timpson report made no mention of this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon talked about small details, such as adjusting lighting or the colour of paper, that could be embedded in education. That would require all education professionals to have a minimum level of awareness and understanding about ABI and the educational requirements of children and young people with the condition. It is essential that special educational needs co-ordinators are given special training and that it is embedded in all SEN provision.
It was shocking to hear about the record of football in this country, and that, as a football nation, we have so little regard for sports-sustained concussion injuries. There is much work to be done in that area. Sport, Government and professional clinical bodies must work collaboratively to improve health professionals’ knowledge of concussion management.
Criminal justice procedures, practices and processes need to be reformed to take into account the needs of individuals with ABI. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda made the powerful point that ABI could be at the root of some crime and that, in the instances of female victims of domestic violence, we may be punishing victims. An assessment carried out ahead of imprisonment and sentencing would be useful in getting to the root cause of the problem, and would hopefully prevent further crime and further custodial sentences.
All benefits assessors in the DWP should be trained to understand the problems that affect individuals with an ABI. The story of Jordan Bell and his experience of filling in forms and the exasperation with the bureaucracy of the system was powerfully told. Those issues need to be addressed by the appropriate Department.
Much has been done to prevent ABI. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) talked about the benefits of seatbelts and airbags in reducing such damage. Comments were made about the considerable work of charities, but we cannot rely on charity to deliver on its own.
As this debate is being held under the aegis of the Department of Health and Social Care, may I ask the Minister, in the first instance, to focus on neuro-rehabilitation? NR can avoid or minimise disability and optimise recovery. Early access to NR is critical and there is substantial evidence that demonstrates NR is both clinically effective and cost-effective. Outcomes for those affected would be significantly enhanced if every individual was given an NR prescription that specified the individual’s specific needs and a care pathway. Will the Government ensure that every individual with an acquired brain injury gets just that? Will the Minister commit to introduce a neuro-rehabilitation consultant in every major trauma centre? The UK is facing a shortfall of 10,000 beds for neuro-rehabilitation services. Will the Minister commit to addressing that issue? Will she ensure that all health professionals in the community in primary care and secondary care are trained to recognise the symptoms of ABI?
We heard the powerful personal story from the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), which reminds us all about the impact on the families of ABI sufferers. So many people find themselves in a frightening situation. They need structured and planned support that is assured wherever they live. Significant mention has been made of the great work Headway does, but, as I have said, addressing ABI cannot be left to the work of charities.
Will the Minister commit to work with her colleagues across Government Departments to implement the recommendations in the APPG’s report on education, justice and welfare? As the debate has shown, there is support for action in all parts of the House. The report’s recommendations cannot be ignored, but must be regarded as the beginning of a journey. In the words of the all-party group, it really is time for change.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Seema Kennedy)
It is a real pleasure to respond to this excellent debate on behalf of the Government. I would like to begin by thanking the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for securing the debate. I commend him for the all the work he has undertaken as chair of the all-party group on acquired brain injury. He began by giving us a very vivid description of the physical impact of brain injuries, and went on to describe a whole gamut of mental health and emotional effects they have on people—and, of course, their families. He set me a challenge and I shall endeavour to meet it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) spoke with his usual eloquence. He reminded us about the scale of ABI, and emphasised the complexity of the issue and how it touches on many areas. The hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) told us all about George, reminding us that ABI can have extremely unexpected and devastating effects on the people who live with it and their families.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant), with his long career in the fire service, saw many people who had an ABI. He set us a very interesting challenge about having compulsory helmets for cyclists. I will take that point away and speak to my colleagues in the Department for Transport about it. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) outlined how people “just don’t get it”. That is a very important point, and it shows how important it is that we are debating ABI here today. She made a point about carbon monoxide poisoning, and I am due to have a meeting with the hon. Member for Rhondda on that very issue.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) told us that the excellent charity Headway, which was mentioned very many times during the debate, is based in her constituency. She reminded us that a brain injury can strike any of us at any time. We also heard from the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). He spoke very movingly, as he did in the debate last year, about his wife’s experience and his. All I can say is keep going on the crossword.
Brain Injury Awareness Week is from 20 to 26 May. I welcome the time Parliament that has set aside to discuss this issue. Prevalence estimates for ABI are problematic to make, but it is likely that the number living with ABI is definitely over half a million and could be as high as 1 million. The total cost of brain injury in the UK is estimated to be at least £1 billion per year. Charitable organisations such as Headway and the UK Brain Injury Forum, as well as other local and national groups that hon. Members have referred to, are highly valued by those affected. They raise awareness and provide help to those with the condition, as well as to their families and carers, and I want to put on the record our appreciation for everything they do.
As we have heard, in 2018 the APPG held a wide-ranging inquiry into the causes, impact and treatment of ABI. My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), to whom I pay tribute for the energy he brought to this matter, agreed to respond to that report, and my Department co-ordinated with officials across Whitehall to deliver that response on 19 February. In responding today, I will draw on key areas of the response to set out the relevant activity that is under way.
Sir John Hayes
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I know she will address these matters with her usual acumen and assiduity. I spoke about dynamic disability and the pace of recovery, but will she take into account the fact that aligned with that is the subtlety of the effects of brain injury? Sometimes a person may be deemed to have recovered completely and to have returned to normal—whatever normal is—but their manner, meter and mood might have changed and their sense of appropriateness might have altered, and that has effects in education and employment, in particular, as well as in personal relationships.
Seema Kennedy
My right hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, showing that this is an issue not only for the health system and my Department but for others across Government.
While the majority of rehabilitation care is locally provided, NHS England commissions specialised services for patients with the most complex levels of need. For people who have ABI, neuro-rehabilitation that is timely and appropriate is an important part of their care. Access to high-quality rehabilitation improves outcomes for patients and can save money. The shadow Minister mentioned rehabilitation prescriptions. RPs reflect the assessment of the physical, functional, vocational, educational, cognitive, psychological and social rehabilitation needs of a patient and are an important element of rehabilitation care. The APPG report was clear that all patients with ABI should benefit from an RP.
NHS England’s major trauma service, where acute phase rehabilitation begins, sets out that patients should be reviewed by a rehabilitation consultant. The shadow Minister asked about this. The development of major trauma centres, which the hon. Member for Rhondda supported, has improved recruitment to this specialty, while the national clinical audit of specialist rehabilitation recommended that all trauma networks review access to rehabilitation consultants and make improvements. Patients should have either a rehabilitation consultant or an alternative clinician with skills and competencies in rehabilitation to provide an initial formulation and plan to complete and perform the initial RP. At discharge, all patients should have a patient-held record of their clinical information and treatment plan from admission as they move to specialised or local rehab.
The “National Clinical Audit of Specialist Rehabilitation for Adults Patients with Complex Needs Following Major Injury”, published in 2016, found that on average 81% of patients had a record of a rehabilitation prescription. The audit recommended that MTCs take action to improve compliance. The audit report appears to have had a significant impact. The latest data, from the last quarter of 2018, from the trauma and audit research network shows that the national average rose to a 95% completion rate for RPs. This is good news. NHS England has worked with patients, clinicians and charities to improve the RP design and set new standards for communication and involvement of patients, families and carers. It is hoped that the new RP will support the development of a rehabilitation dashboard to monitor the performance of the system. Audits play an important role in helping services to improve. The report also recommended that all organisations within a trauma network work together to review capacity.
The majority of rehabilitation care is commissioned and managed locally. To support commissioners to plan services for local populations, NHS England has produced a document, “Principles and Expectations for Good Adult Rehabilitation”, that describes what good rehabilitation looks like. Additional guidance covering adults and children sets out a commissioning model and the evidence base for delivering high-quality rehabilitation services.
The hon. Member for Rhondda mentioned that ABI spans many Departments, and I shall take away all the comments that concern my ministerial colleagues and will ask them to respond. On support for children with ABI in school, the special educational needs and disabilities system is designed to support all children and young people with additional needs. The arrangements for SEND are intended to support joint working between health, social care and education; multi-professional assessment of a child or young person’s needs involving relevant experts; and the development of an individual education, health and care plan to meet those needs. This should provide a basis for the sharing of information and expertise to ensure the needs of children and young people with ABI are supported in school.
The hon. Member for Blaydon mentioned the ABI card. The Department for Education has said that promotion of the card is a matter for individual schools, but as far as my Department is concerned, Professor Chris Moran, a national trauma director, said that he would be happy to promote the card in trauma networks, working with the Brain Injury Trust. The statutory guidance on supporting children with medical conditions at school covers a range of areas, including the preparation and implementation of school policies for supporting pupils, the use of individual healthcare plans, consulting with parents, collaborative working with healthcare professionals and staff training. The Department for Education continues to work with organisations such as the Health Conditions in Schools Alliance to help to raise further awareness of the duty on schools.
On prisons, there is an increasing body of evidence linking ABI to offending behaviour. NHS England’s liaison and diversion service has collaborated with Headway to develop workshops to improve awareness and identification of ABI in vulnerable offenders and the support available. The “train the trainer” workshops were designed so that attendees could return to their services and cascade workshop learning to their colleagues. Representatives of all NHS England-commissioned liaison and diversion services attended. Over the past two years, the Ministry of Justice has also piloted approaches to improve screening and support for prisoners through new link worker roles at six sites on the male secure estate. I take the point about female offenders and will speak to the relevant Minister. There was a pilot at a female prison between 2016 and 2018, but I will take away the point about the female estate.
I want briefly to touch on the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chair of the Defence Select Committee. The veterans trauma network delivers comprehensive medical care to veterans, including those suffering from brain tumours, and, as he knows, the Prime Minister opened the successor Defence centre to Headley Court last year. We do not recognise his statistic that there are only two machines, but I will take that away and report back to him.
Dr Julian Lewis
I was not talking about tumours; I was talking about traumatic injury caused in explosions. My understanding is that only Nottingham and Aston Universities have the special types of scanners that can detect that particular injury. Will the Minister check that point and consider a screening programme for such people?
Seema Kennedy
I will happily take away that challenge from my right hon. Friend and will write to him.
The hon. Member for Rhondda spoke passionately about sport, although he claims not to be a sportsman. It is important that we do more to reduce the risk of ABI in sport. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport asked Baroness Grey-Thompson to carry out an independent review of the duty of care that sport owes to its participants; her report dedicated a chapter to safety, injury and medical issues. National governing bodies are responsible for the regulation of their sport and for ensuring that appropriate measures are in place to protect participants from harm. The DDCMS expects everyone in the sports sector to think carefully about the recommendations in Baroness Grey-Thompson’s report and in the all-party group’s report. Progress has been made over the years, for example through the Rugby Football Union’s Headcase campaign and action by other groups.
It is important that the welfare system appropriately supports people with ABI. Work capability assessments for the employment and support allowance are conducted by healthcare professionals for the Centre for Health and Disability Assessments. Case discussions about claimants with ABI form part of new entrant training for all healthcare professionals who undertake such assessments. They should all have access to a self-directed learning module on ABI, which was updated in 2018 and quality-assured by Headway.
Since September 2017, those who are placed in the ESA support group and the universal credit equivalent, who have the most severe and lifelong health conditions or disabilities and are unlikely ever to be able to move into work, will no longer be reassessed. Changes have been introduced so that existing claimants with the most severe lifetime disabilities whose functional ability has remained the same are more likely to have their evidence reviewed by a Department for Work and Pensions decision maker, and not need a face-to-face assessment with a healthcare professional.
I hope that this debate demonstrates how seriously the Government take the issue and the devastating impact that it can have on people’s lives. We are committed to ensuring that people are better protected. I look forward to responding to further debates.
Chris Bryant
I will be very brief, because the next debate is also very important. I was delighted with the speeches of all hon. Members; my only complaint is that my constituency is not “Rhonda”, but Rhondda—if everybody could practise that before our next debate on acquired brain injury, I would be very grateful. I am conscious that lots of people have been watching the debate, including clinicians at the clinical neuropsychology department in Oxford and at the Child Brain Injury Trust.
There are some issues still to be tackled, including armed forces personnel, cost recovery caps for insurance companies, school exclusions, and training and recruitment to get more people working in the area. I very much hope that the new champion, who did magnificently in this debate and will do even better in the next one, will ensure that we can have a cross-departmental meeting with all Ministers who have responsibilities in the area.
Question put and agreed to,
Resolved,
That this House notes the report of the All Party Parliamentary Group on acquired brain injury and supports its conclusions; and urges the Government to work through all of its departments to ensure that those who have sustained brain injuries are guaranteed full neuro-rehabilitation as needed.
Death of John Smith: 25th Anniversary
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the 25th anniversary of the death of John Smith, former leader of the Labour Party.
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting Chamber time for this special debate on a motion in my name and in the names of right hon. and hon. Friends across the House. The 25th anniversary of John Smith’s untimely passing is a fitting occasion to commemorate and remember a man who lit up this place, lit up our politics and lit up the lives of so many. I am sure that many hon. Members across the House will wish to share their stories and memories today.
This Sunday will mark the 25th anniversary of John Smith’s death. When I suggested this debate to his wife, Baroness Elizabeth Smith, I was not expecting a response from so many colleagues wanting to contribute or merely tell me their own stories about John. Many MPs, from all parties, have come up to me and said, “I can’t be at the debate, but let me tell you about the time—” or “I know where I was when I heard the news that John had died.” After 25 years, that is a measure of the man himself: he was admired and respected across the House.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Many of us have memories of John Smith. I remember that when I was a London taxi driver, there was a memorial service to him in Methodist Central Hall, just across Parliament Square. I could not finish the day without parking up and going inside to join in. He was a remarkable speaker—a magnificent orator, whom I managed to hear on several occasions. In my opinion, he will go down as one of the parliamentarians who can be described as a great Prime Minister that this country never had.
Ian Murray
I hope that when my hon. Friend went into the memorial service, he stopped his meter—I know that John, as a traditional Scot, might not have done so.
Some of the stories about John can be repeated in public, but—with his wonderful wit and Scottish humour—there are some that are perhaps best not written into Hansard. I do not think that anybody would contradict the assertion that he was the best Prime Minister that this country never had. As a young Andrew Marr wrote:
“The greatest political tribute to John Smith is the simplest one: had he lived, he would have become Prime Minister.”
It is no exaggeration to suggest that his passing changed the course of British history. He was referred to as “Labour’s lost leader”, the man who made the Labour party electable again.
As well as being a formidable and committed politician of extreme intellect, transparency, decency and straightforwardness, with a sense of fairness and a willingness to fight for those who were not able to speak up for themselves, John Smith was a committed family man, with his wife Elizabeth, whom he met at Glasgow University, and his three daughters, Sarah, Jane and Catherine. The country may have lost a Prime Minister in waiting, but they suffered the heaviest and most heartbreaking loss of all—the loss of a husband, a father and a part of their lives that could never be replaced.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
When I heard of the death of John Smith, I was at the Scottish Tory conference—as a journalist, I should point out, not as a member of the Tory party. I remember that the whole conference came to a grinding halt. Everyone there was stunned and greatly saddened. I thought that that reflected very well on John Smith, and, in fairness, extremely well on the Tory party.
Ian Murray
I shall come to that later in my speech. Journalists get all the best gigs, I am sure—such as the Tory party conference.
I was saying that John Smith’s family had suffered the most heartbreaking loss of all—the loss of a husband, a father and a part of their lives that could never be replaced. I feel that acutely, because I lost my own father at a young age. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in wishing my own mum, Lena, a happy 70th birthday for yesterday. The Labour Party would have a new leader to replace John and the country would have that Labour Prime Minister whom it so desired, but it is not possible to replace a father and husband.
I never met John personally, but I feel, as others will surely feel today, that he was always part of my political life. His family still live in my constituency, and constituents often stop me in the street and get on to the topic of John. He was one of theirs, and they are not going to let people forget that any time soon. They all recall his funeral service at Cluny parish church in Morningside. The building sits on a small embankment close to where John lived. The film footage shows the red brick punctuated by the black of mourners moving slowly and sombrely past into the church. The deep national shock was there for all to see.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) cannot be here today owing to a long-standing engagement in her constituency. She was John’s deputy, the politician who took over the reins of the Labour party and the person who had the most difficult job in the House, that of leading the tributes to John when he died. She did it brilliantly and with her usual grace, clarity and kindness. She was devastated that she could not be here today, so she asked if I would read out something on her behalf, and I am very proud to do so:
“25 years ago, the profound shock of John Smith’s untimely death was felt across the country and this House, which only convened for tributes to be paid, led by the then Prime Minister, John Major, before adjourning.
It was also the Scottish Conservative party’s annual conference”
—as we have heard—and
“Ian Lang, the Secretary of State, announced the news and adjourned the conference immediately.
In the Labour party and wider Labour movement the sorrow was profound. I recall a senior trade unionist telling me that he was listening to the tributes in his car, and found himself crying so much that he had to pull over and stop the car.
Party leaders, presidents and prime ministers from across Europe demanded to be allowed to come to the funeral and pay their respects. None were officially invited but they all came anyway at what ended up as almost a state funeral. Yet, in the end, it was not a sombre occasion—appropriately, because John was not a sombre man. It was his lifelong friend Donald Dewar who said in his address, ‘John could start a party in an empty room—and frequently did.’
Yet his outstanding characteristic was his determination to, as he put it, ‘speak up for those who can’t speak up for themselves.’”
I do not really want to do a biography of John, but his character was undoubtedly shaped by his upbringing and early life. John was of radical Presbyterian stock, born on the west coast of Scotland on 13 September 1938. “John Smith”, he once said “is the commonest name in Scotland. A robust character is needed to overcome that.” His grandfather was a herring fisherman, and his father was the schoolmaster at the local village school.
At 14, John attended the grammar school at Dunoon. He was academically very successful and began to organise on behalf of his beloved Labour party. From school, he went to Glasgow University, where he cut his teeth, sharpened his elbows and honed the skills that would take him to the Bar and then to the Dispatch Box. He remained at university for seven years, reading for degrees first in history and then in law. He became a first-class debater, as many of the Glasgow university alumni at that time did, helping his university side win the Observer mace competition, but his greatest passion lay in politics.
At just 21, he was adopted as Labour candidate for East Fife, which he fought unsuccessfully, and, despite another couple of failed attempts, became the MP for North Lanarkshire in 1970. Legend has it that he won enough money on predicting the results of the 1966 general election in Scotland to be able to quit being a solicitor and train for the Bar; I am not sure whether that is true.
As a new MP in this House in 1970, it was said that he ruined his chances of early promotion by defying his Whip and voting for entry into the EEC in 1971; I certainly know what defying my party Whip on Europe feels like so can concur with that. He remained a staunch pro-European and internationalist his entire career. Breaking the Whip must have been difficult for John, because he was a party man and believed in discipline, which would prove to be useful in his later political career, but he also believed in the common market and working together, and history repeats itself all too often in this place.
John had a glittering parliamentary governmental career as a Minister in employment, trade and energy until the long 18 years of Labour in opposition. He was shadow Chancellor from 1987 until he became Leader of the Opposition, following the 1992 general election and the resignation of Lord Kinnock. Despite his glittering parliamentary career, John always put his constituents first. Mike Elrick, who worked for John, said that John always emphasised that he had constituents who needed him to fight their corner and he had no intention of letting them down.
The people who knew him best were the wonderful people who worked for him, such as David Ward who is here today. I asked David what it was like to work for him and he had story after story of what a pleasure and how much fun it was. As almost every tribute has mentioned and will mention, he was a witty man, with a warmth and kindness. David tells a story, published in Mark Stuart’s book “John Smith: A Life”, that emphasises John’s devastating humour, which was used to deadly effect in parliamentary debates. John was a brilliant debater capable of superb one-line put-downs to Conservative MPs brave enough to intervene on him. When John was on full song, he relished the chance to cut his opponents to size. Such was his fearsome reputation that it became obvious that Tory Whips were discouraging their MPs from interrupting him in debates. In response, Labour Back Benchers used to taunt the Tories to stand up.
John was spontaneously quick-witted but he also worked very hard at jokes prepared in advance. A great example is the “Neighbours” skewering of Nigel Lawson in this Chamber in June 1989, when Lawson was Chancellor, over the role of Margaret Thatcher’s economic adviser Sir Alan Walters. Lawson and Walters were at loggerheads over Tory policy on Europe—that sounds familiar—and that was causing huge friction between No. 10 and No. 11, which is also hugely familiar. In opening an Opposition debate, John sang a brief section from the theme tune from the television programme “Neighbours”, playing on these tensions; I am not going to sing it this afternoon. This hilarious mocking of the Chancellor culminated in John calling on him to go “before he was pushed”, and 24 hours later the Chancellor resigned.
David Ward said that they were working on the speech the day before the debate and, while John and David were drafting the text, another member of the team, Ann Barrett, was watching the BBC to make sure John got the lyrics to the theme tune right. After that, they seemingly rehearsed the theme song with everyone singing along late into the evening. David said he was worried that anyone wandering past the leader’s office would have been forgiven for thinking everyone had gone stark raving mad.
But I wonder what John Smith would have made of today’s greatest issue, Brexit. Today is Europe Day, and he was a great internationalist. For one, he would not have gambled on calling a referendum and he would have challenged the constant downplaying of the importance of the UK as an integral member of the EU. What would John have thought of the Brexit shambles engulfing and paralysing our politics? It is worth examining what he would have done, and David Ward looks at this in an article published in today’s New European. We know that John voted to go into the EU. He fundamentally believed that giving up some national sovereignty to gain some sovereignty back would allow a great degree of control over the international companies and the global issues of the future. Working together was the only way to solve the global problems.
And here is a greater lesson for Europe now: the way John Smith handled the tricky problem of Europe. Instead of a leader trying to force his opinion on the party—history may be repeating itself in the Labour party today—he asked the party to force its view on the leadership. There are important lessons to learn from his handling of the European issue during his all-too-brief tenure as Labour leader. The party could have been equally as divided as the Conservatives. Dissidents led by former Cabinet Minister Peter Shore—including a notably serial rebellious Back Bencher and challenger to his leadership, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the current Leader of the Opposition—were irreconcilably opposed to Britain’s membership of the European Union, but John minimised internal dispute by taking the unprecedented step of allowing the parliamentary Labour Party, rather than the shadow Cabinet, to determine its policy on Maastricht ahead of crucial votes.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate and for the way in which he is presenting his arguments in favour of John Smith. I should like to take him back to the way in which John Smith conducted himself in the Chamber. Although he was robust in his parliamentary style, he was always respectful. This reminds me of a conversation I had with Jimmy Gordon—now Lord Gordon—who said that it was because of the respect John Smith had for others that he had not come across one person with a bad word to say about him. Would the hon. Gentleman like to reflect on that?
Ian Murray
That was a super intervention. I think that that was the measure of the man himself. I am sure that, if we were all a bit more like John Smith, this place would be more pleasurable and our politics would be more as they should be.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend might not know that I used to work for John Smith, and I will be speaking about him in the debate later. John did not suffer fools gladly. If you crossed him in a bad way, if you let him down or if you did not come up to scratch, you got the hard word—and if he gave you the hard word, you deserved it.
Ian Murray
I am sure that my hon. Friend has no direct experience of that and that he has just been told about that approach taken by the former leader of the Labour party.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I think that I am the only one here on the Conservative Benches today who was here on the day that John died. I remember being in the Department of Social Security, where I was a Minister, and I remember how shocked everyone was. We learned quite quickly that he had passed away, before it could be publicly announced. I remember the shock among Labour friends as they began to appreciate what had happened, and I would like the hon. Gentleman to know that Conservative Members who were here felt exactly the same as our colleagues in the Labour party. In that spirit, I would say to him that, while he has painted a picture of a robust and quite partisan politician, I cannot personally remember being on the wrong side of one of John Smith’s tirades. That is probably because I was one of those who took the advice of the Whips and did not intervene on him. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he was able to combine passion with courtesy, and that if there is anything that we are missing at the moment in the difficult debates we are having, it is the ability to combine our passion—whether for our party beliefs or for Europe—with the courtesy that this House and this country need? John Smith’s example should take us forward into the future.
Ian Murray
The right hon. Gentleman’s intervention speaks for itself. If the House will indulge me, I have not yet had the opportunity to say publicly that he was a fantastic Minister in the Foreign Office. I sit on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and he was always courteous and straight with us. He was a super Minister, and I hope that he ends up back on the Front Bench as soon as possible.
John Smith’s self-confident approach won a clear majority among Labour MPs for ratification of the Maastricht treaty. Crucially, that left the Conservatives looking fatally divided and Labour clear in its support of a radical and progressive agenda for a reformed European Union that put jobs and people first. I just wish that we could have that approach today. I am in no doubt that he would be deeply saddened by Brexit, angered by the lies told during the referendum and dismayed by the Prime Minister’s approach. I think that today he would endorse exactly the position taken by his former deputy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South. She unequivocally and persuasively believes that any version of a Brexit deal passed by this place should be put to a confirmatory public vote. We all listened intently to her superbly argued speech in this House during the indicative vote process, and many would conclude that John Smith would have agreed with every word she spoke. That is where our politics is lost today. Smith’s politics were based on persuasion and taking people with him, by force of argument, to do what was in the national interest. I believe that our politics has lost that principle at the moment, as the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) said.
Then there is John’s beloved Scotland. What would he make of it all today, as a passionate believer in devolution? It is 20 years this week since devolution was introduced. The Scottish Parliament is his legacy. John firmly believed that devolution was the settled will of the Scottish people, but that independence would be disastrous. He would see it as even more of a folly than leaving the European Union. John made his political name by being fully immersed in his time at the Cabinet Office to do devolution. Many thought that it was a poisoned chalice, but he came out of it incredibly well. In a touching twist of fate, the first sitting of the new Scottish Parliament took place on the fifth anniversary of his death in 1999. I wonder what John would think of what is happening in Scotland today, where his idea of devolution to make Scotland the best place it can be is being used as a tool by nationalists to rip the UK apart. Scotland lost giants like Smith, Dewar and Cook. We could be doing well with them in Scottish politics today.
Key to the devolution reform was, John believed, the conscious devolution of power to the nations and regions of the UK, and the first step was the establishment of a Scottish Parliament. He was a convert to devolution in the 1970s, not because he saw it as a means of killing “nationalism stone dead”, but because he saw it as a means of addressing a democratic deficit, bringing politicians closer to the people and making them more accountable for their actions. A Scottish Parliament, he believed, was essential to the democratic governance of “our nation”, by which he meant the United Kingdom, not just Scotland. In John’s view, it was “unfinished business”. Devolution was in the interests of the UK, not just Scotland, and a key part of the democratic renewal of the British constitution and its civil institutions. We maybe need a new Smith approach for the 21st century devolution settlement across the whole United Kingdom.
John Smith leaves a lasting legacy despite dying at just 55. Yes, he is the best Prime Minister we never had and an inspiration to us all, but his legacy also includes the Smith Institute, fellowship programmes for leaders of the future, and the John Smith Centre based at his own University of Glasgow. The centre has now established itself as a leading institute for academic rigour, advocacy and opportunity. It is part think-tank and part defender and advocate for the good in public service, and it exists to lead by his values and his example. There is also the annual John Smith memorial walk. It is a legacy he would be proud of.
Many in the Labour party would refer to themselves as Blairites or Brownites. In fact, many refer to each other in such terms—some positive and some negative. I have never been comfortable identifying with either of those blunt terms, but I am comfortable with being a self-declared Smithite, and on this anniversary we should all be a bit more like John and a bit more Smithite.
Andrew Marr concluded his obituary to John by saying:
“He is the lost leader of a lost country. Had he lived, he would have entered our lives, affected our wealth, altered our morale, changed how we thought about our country, influenced the education of our children. His grin would have become a familiar icon, his diction the raw material of satire. At however many removes, and however obscurely, his personality would have glinted through the state and touched us all. For good or ill? The question is now meaningless. That Britain won’t happen.”
In his final conference speech in 1993, John concluded with this:
“For I tell you this: there is no other force, no other power, no other party, that can turn this country round. It is up to us, all of us, together. This is our time of opportunity: the time to summon up all our commitment; the time to gather round us all our strength. And, united in our common purpose, it is the time to lead our country forward to the great tasks that lie ahead.”
As we commemorate the 25th anniversary of John Smith’s death, let us remember the words that have become his epitaph. The night before he died, he spoke at a European gala dinner in London. When he spoke these now immortal words, he did it from the heart and with his usual passion. They are something that I have always used to guide me in politics, and perhaps we should remind ourselves of them every day as we navigate our own paths in this place. These were the last words he said in public and some of the last words that many of his closest friends ever heard him say. As all our thoughts this weekend will be with Elizabeth, Sarah, Jane, Catherine, the wider family and his friends, we simply say:
“The opportunity to serve our country—that is all we ask.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
In commending the hon. Gentleman’s excellent speech, may I say for the sake of wider consumption and for those who pay attention to our proceedings here that the lack of hon. Members in the Chamber at this particular moment is absolutely no reflection on the way in which this debate is perceived by hon. Members in general?
Listening to the hon. Gentleman, I had a tear in my eye. I remember very well exactly where I was when I heard the news about John Smith. I can confirm what the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) said about the Scottish Conservative party conference, which was immediately suspended on that day. Perhaps I am somewhat biased as a West of Scotland, Church of Scotland, Scots lawyer, albeit a Conservative, in my absolute respect and liking for John Smith. I had the opportunity to speak to him reasonably often, and I held him in the highest regard.
What the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) said about the lessons we can learn, 25 years on, from the way in which John Smith conducted his political life and political relationships is a very strong message indeed. I simply repeat that the fact there is not a very large number of Members here to reiterate that message does not mean it is not held in very great honour. The memory of John Smith in this place will go on and on.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
Thank you for your very moving words, Madam Deputy Speaker. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) for his magnificent tribute to John Smith.
I rise as a Scot, indeed a Scottish Conservative, to honour one of our finest countrymen. When John Smith died, this country lost a leader of integrity and a leader of faith. His socialism was strongly rooted in his Christian faith, and he proposed a politics that, in his words, could
“replace cynicism with faith, despondency with expectation, despair with hope”.
This uplifting vision of political service—indeed, service to others—is rooted, is it not, in the principle of love, the greatest of all the godly virtues? It speaks to our day, and indeed to all the days we have faced or will face in this House, or wherever we may be.
The service of the best of our parliamentarians, and John Smith is certainly in that number, reminds us that we serve not to gratify our pride or vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion, but, in the words of the Speaker’s prayer that we have the privilege of hearing every sitting day:
“laying aside all private interests and prejudices keep in mind their responsibility to seek to improve the condition of all mankind”.
John Smith, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh South said at the close of his tribute, sought and asked for the opportunity to serve our country, which is all he wanted. In truth, it should be all we want. He sought to serve, as many hon. and right hon. Members do, and the country is the poorer for his tragic and untimely loss.
John Major described John Smith from the Dispatch Box as
“an opponent, not an enemy”—[Official Report, 12 May 1994; Vol. 243, c. 430.]
—would that our politics reflected that spirit—and he paid tribute to his pragmatism and fair mindedness. John Smith knew that some things were more important than politics. The national interest and the interests of the people of our country always came first for him.
As has already been said, the legacy of John Smith is celebrated, and should be celebrated, in the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and the devolution settlement. It is 20 years since the establishment of Holyrood, which is now a vital part of the daily political life of Scotland. It is accepted by all, including people like me who campaigned and voted against its establishment. I was on the wrong side then, but there is no zeal like that of a convert—and a convert I am.
As a Scot and a Unionist, I feel that we must work hard to ensure that the Scottish Parliament fulfils its promise of a Scotland at ease with itself, united together and well governed, with a Parliament that makes a real difference to the quality of the lives of its people. But I have to say that I believe there is unfinished business in relation to devolution. In my mind, that is captured in my experience as a newly elected Member of Parliament for a Scottish constituency when I have come up against the culture and mindset of Whitehall.
The better governance of Scotland, I believe, will also require further change at the heart of the UK governmental system. There are yet missing constitutional pieces that undermine and have the potential to damage fatally the unity of the United Kingdom. I regret to say that, too often in Government Departments, there is a prevailing culture of “devolve and forget”. For the Union to flourish, its influence must continue to be felt as a power for good in the lives of people in all parts of the United Kingdom. John Smith knew that only too well, as a Scot who understood that the United Kingdom is at its best when it pulls together in the same direction and when people work together for everyone’s benefit.
John Smith’s resting place is on Iona, where the light of Christianity first came to Scotland. It is a fitting place. On his gravestone are engraved these words:
“An Honest Man’s The Noblest Work of God”.
That is truly fitting. John Smith’s politics were honourable and honest.
There is much we can learn from John Smith’s life and legacy—from a man seen as an opponent and not an enemy; a man who could see beyond politics towards a higher goal of a better country and a better world; a man who strove to give a voice in this place and elsewhere to those who are voiceless. I am only too well aware that in this House we stand on the shoulders of giants. Those who came before us are always with us, and always will be.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate today. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) on securing it and on his wonderful opening speech. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr).
I did not work for John Smith for a huge length of time—for about a year before he died. One of the truisms of life is that we do not know what we have until it has gone. Many people felt that about John Smith after he died. I remember well the tributes paid in this Chamber by MPs from both sides on that day and how moving and genuine they were.
It could be said that the podium at our conference or an outside event was not John’s natural habitat, but this Chamber was—particularly when he was at the Dispatch Box, holding forth in debate. He enjoyed it, the challenge and the back-and-forth. He loved to take interventions, like notes in a song to guide the rhythm of his speech. He would challenge the opposition. Having a master of parliamentary debate at the Dispatch Box cheers the troops. It gave heart to the MPs sitting behind John to see him perform. He came up with some memorable lines. I remember him giving John Major a very hard time when things were going wrong—the grand national had failed to start, hotels were falling into the sea, and he called him:
“The man with the non-Midas touch”.—[Official Report, 9 June 1993; Vol. 226, c. 292.]
For all the barbs, there was always a glint in John’s eye as he faced the person opposite.
John’s funeral was at Cluny parish church, and I had some part in organising it. It was a combination: it was a private family occasion but it turned into something like a state funeral. We all remember the words of his lifelong ally, Donald Dewar, who said:
“The people know that they have lost a friend”.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend may recall that one thing that happened at that funeral and that was subsequently replicated for Princess Diana’s funeral was that the service was broadcast to nine cathedrals throughout the country. People turned up in their thousands at all those different cathedrals to attend and sing the hymns at the same time.
Mr McFadden
That is an eloquent reminder of how deeply John Smith’s death was felt in the country.
A debate such as this is also a moment to consider what John Smith stood for and what he would make of today. When we think about what he stood for, we think of words such as decency and community, which for him was not just a word but something with real meaning—the basic building block of the good society—and we think about the term social justice. One of his main initiatives as Labour leader was to establish the Commission on Social Justice, chaired by Sir Gordon Borrie and staffed by a bright young man called David Miliband. That body was charged with coming up with a platform of ideas that would challenge poverty and inequality, promote social justice and opportunity and, crucially, do so with policies that were properly costed and not dependent on some mythical magic money tree. Responsibility was written through its remit, as well as ambition.
The reason why responsibility was so important was that John understood the importance of trust in politics—of winning the public’s trust—and the truth is that in the early 1990s Labour had a trust problem with the public. We had lost four elections. The trust issues related to things such as taxation, our perceived weakness on defence, and a doubt that we could be responsible in power. He wanted to take away any fears about backing Labour, so those issues of responsibility and trust were hugely important.
The Commission on Social Justice did not issue its final report until after John had died, but many of its recommendations were enacted by the Labour Government who followed. The highly respected Resolution Foundation has recently done some interesting research on the impact of those policies on, for example, child poverty. The research showed that during those years child poverty was reduced by significantly more than was thought at the time, and that—without being too partisan today—it has gone up by more than we first thought in the years since 2010. Those achievements on child poverty had a lot to do with the legacy of John Smith. It was about the difference between winning and losing elections and the difference between governing and protesting, and that difference was felt in the families of some of the poorest households in the country.
John Smith was a champion of the national minimum wage at a time when the cause was not fashionable and there was no consensus, even within the Labour movement. It is great that there is consensus now across the parties in favour of the national minimum wage, but it is one thing to accept consensus and another entirely to create it and John Smith played a great role in creating consensus on the national minimum wage.
John was also a party reformer. When I worked for him, he was engaged in a titanic battle with some of the major trade unions in the Labour party on the principle of one member, one vote. He had to face down accusations that if this reform went through, it would mean the end of the union link and a break in the relationship between the Labour party and the unions. That was not true, but it was what opponents of the reforms he was advocating maintained at the time. It took great bravery to carry that battle through. It was not a battle that he always relished, but it was one he was determined to win, and in the end, he did.
John was a passionate supporter of devolution. He believed that there should be a Scottish Parliament and he never believed that that should mean breaking up the United Kingdom. His belief in devolution sat alongside a belief that we have far more in common throughout the United Kingdom than anything that sets us apart.
John was an internationalist, a passionate pro-European who broke the party Whip to bring the United Kingdom into the European Community within months of being elected as a young and no doubt ambitious MP. The reason he was so passionately in favour of that was fired by social justice: he understood that in a world of international capital, there was a social justice benefit to be gained by controlling markets internationally, and that no country could do that on its own. He would have been very clear in his rejection today of the right-wing nationalism that has driven the Brexit agenda, but he would have been just as clear in his rejection of the ossified fantasy of socialism in one country that drives support for Brexit in some corners of the left, too.
John was a believer in strong defence, a supporter of the nuclear deterrent and a supporter of NATO. He understood the post-war Labour Government’s achievement in creating a system of collective defence. He would never have found himself parroting the lines of the country’s enemies or attacking NATO as an aggressive or expansionist organisation. That was his politics. That was his democratic socialism. The tradition that he represented was the internationalist social democratic tradition in the Labour party. Of course, those were different times. It was just after the end of the cold war, and South Africa was emerging from apartheid. There was a middle east peace process that people could really believe in, about which he was passionate.
I believe that the causes that called John Smith are still relevant today: the battle for social justice, the battle against poverty and inequality, the battle for community to mean something, the battle for the United Kingdom’s European identity, and the battle for strong defence and keeping people secure—for collective security. These things are all relevant today and, in line with his tradition, there are still people prepared to stand up and fight for them.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
It is of course a pleasure to speak in this debate on Europe Day about my dear old friend John, and I say that with humility. David Ward, his special adviser, is here, and one of the Deputy Speakers, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton), knew John well. Many of us worked with him, and you could not work with him without saying that you loved him. I knew him from about 1979, so for about 15 years. We were always in opposition; it is terrible that John never got that chance to be Prime Minister. When I got in, what I realised about this man who had asked me to join his team was what a rumbustious character he was.
I did not know anything about Scottish politics, and when I joined his team I suddenly realised that there were all sorts of internal wars in Scotland that I did not know about. I soon worked out who John loved, loathed and disagreed with, and it seemed that it all went back to time immemorial—or at least to their student debating days. I mean, it was no secret. Look at the quality of the speakers in those days, when I was first in the House: Robin Cook, Donald Dewar and John. I will not go into too much detail, but I will say that there was a very close friendship between Donald Dewar and John Smith, although the same could not be said about his relationship with Robin Cook, which was very deep in some student disagreement they had had in the past.
John was a rumbustious character. He was larger than life and an amazingly vibrant speaker. I remember the day we were in here and the Conservative Government were near collapse. It was Black Wednesday—we had come out of the exchange rate mechanism—and he filleted the Chancellor of Exchequer. He did him over in a way that only a brilliant speaker can do.
I used to be a university teacher when I worked for a living. Some university teachers who come here were probably very good lecturers, but cannot speak in the House of Commons; I may be among them. But I know a lot of lawyers who come here and cannot keep the attention of the House. Their skills are about the courtroom, but they cannot do it in here. John Smith could do it in here—absolutely forensically and funnily. In a sense, it reminded me of Harold Wilson’s reputation. John actually turned down Wilson’s first offer of a job, which was unheard of. Wilson offered him a job in the Scottish Office, but he refused because he did not want to be branded just as a Scottish politician. Of course, Wilson was wonderful at interjections; he loved them. Whether in a public meeting or in the House, everybody knew that in his prime he was brilliant at repartee. John was even better—absolutely brilliant. As the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) said, people were told not to intervene on him because it was like offering human sacrifice in a debate. It was a rollercoaster working for John because he lived well and loved to party, but his work rate was enormous.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman talks about the fact that John Smith was a fantastic parliamentarian. There is often an issue with some politicians being very good parliamentarians, but not very good constituency Members of Parliament—having difficulty interacting with their constituents. However, former local councillor Peter Sullivan, who I spoke to about John last night, said that he was incredible on the doorstep, and that he would often take too long speaking to some of his constituents, even when it was clear that they were not going to vote Labour. Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the fact that John Smith was not just a brilliant parliamentarian, but a very astute and caring local constituency Member of Parliament?
Mr Sheerman
I certainly do not disagree with that. He seemed to operate brilliantly at every level. He had the common touch. When we took people in to see him, he always knew how to communicate with them, whatever their background. As I said in an intervention, he would sometimes give people a steely look. When he first met me, he said, “I don’t know what to make of you. You’re MP for Huddersfield, but you don’t have a Yorkshire accent. I don’t know where you’re from,” which was quite perceptive of him. But we worked well together.
John was looking at new ideas all the time. He and Giles Radice asked me to be, I think, the very first person to work in the Department for Education on the employment side, so that we could develop a proper youth policy that covered not just conventional education, but training, job opportunities and so much else. I am a Co-operative Member of Parliament, and John was deeply interested in co-operatives. The interest in the Co-operative Development Agency and all that was down to him. He was passionate about it, and chaired the international co-operative movement for some time. Whatever he looked at, he had the passion and ability to push on.
John was also what we always need in this Labour movement of ours—a talent spotter. I remember when he had been at the Beaconsfield by-election, he came bustling back into the Commons and said, “It was a hard day and we’re never going to win Beaconsfield, but there’s a brilliant new candidate there—Tony Blair, his name is. I think we’ve got to get him a safe seat somewhere.” He was a talent spotter, even in terms of seeing new Members of Parliament coming in, identifying their skills and giving them a hand.
He was a bruiser, absolutely—you should not cross him. If you crossed him, politically or personally, he did not forget easily. When we had an attempt by Militant—a left-wing Trotskyist group—to take over the Labour party, he led the fightback, with Roy Hattersley, Gerald Kaufman and other giants of the Labour party who identified the problem and formed a new group called Solidarity. I think that our Chief Whip would probably have painful memories of the battles of those days. When that triumvirate said, “We’re not going to take this,” John Smith was central to the fight to keep the Labour party as a central, democratic socialist party. We all owe him for the fact that he did that.
I think there was a bit of a myth after John died that he was almost a saint. John Smith was not a saint, I can tell you. He was not a bad man, and he loved life. He and Elizabeth were a great host and hostess at a party. We would never forget the lovely feeling of inclusion that the Smiths gave whenever they entertained.
When John become ill—when he had his heart attack—many of us were absolutely terrified. We were really, really concerned. We knew that we had to support him. There was a sort of little mafia. We used to co-ordinate to make sure that he got home at a reasonable time—that he did not stay in the House precincts too late and got his taxi back to the Barbican, where he lived on the 35th floor. I took on something of a role, because he lived in No. 352 and I lived in No. 92. Gwyneth Dunwoody lived in No. 112, so there was a kind of political and parliamentary presence. It was sometimes a very good excuse for me to say to John, “I’m going home—shall we share a cab?”, which we sometimes did.
Sadly, I was in my flat in the Barbican on that dreadful morning when someone rang me from John’s flat and said that he had collapsed in the shower. By the time I got out into the reception area, John was being brought out on a stretcher, very ill indeed. It was a very sad moment. I had a feeling of lost, missed opportunity for this person who had such a range of talents, passion and moral purpose. He wanted to change the world for the better—and to do it now. He was intolerant of waiting too long before the changes in low pay and the minimum wage—all those things—could be achieved.
I remember John fondly and dearly. I hope we can keep that spirit alive. He was not a saint, but a passionate, moral man who wanted to make change. He also wanted to have good politics—yes, to have a good fight and really scupper someone in this place, but to go outside and have a civilised relationship afterwards.
The quality of John’s life and the sort of environment he engendered was something all of us can learn from. I have never spoken on any occasion about John Smith. I loved him dearly. He had a huge influence on my life, and for Elizabeth and his daughters we should say today how much we appreciated what he did in touching our lives.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I am grateful and honoured to be called to speak briefly in this debate to pay tribute to John Smith. I am pleased to follow the very personal testimonial of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman).
We have heard some moving speeches, but we have also heard about John’s humour. In case colleagues have not seen it, there is a great compilation of clips on Twitter of John Smith at the Dispatch Box tearing the Tory Front Bench apart. I mean no disrespect to the present Tory Front Bench, but it is so funny that even Lord Heseltine is laughing, and he is the butt of most of the jokes, which shows that it is really worth watching. It was posted by David Ward, and I have retweeted it, so colleagues can find it easily.
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for affording this time, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) on securing the debate and on his excellent speech. I did not know John very well. I was chair of the London Labour party for nearly 10 years, from 1988 until 1997, and I only met him on a few occasions. Neil—now Lord—Kinnock saved the Labour party from the hard left and turned around our fortunes, making us a serious party again. John Smith, as leader after Neil, consolidated that process and set us on course to win the 1997 general election.
In the 1980s, the capital was not a happy place for our party. The Sun branded us the “Labour loony left” or, more precisely, the “London Labour loony left”. But through the support of the national leadership and the great efforts of professional staff like Terry Ashton, Margaret—now Baroness—McDonagh, David Evans and David Wilkinson, and hundreds and thousands of councillors, activists and volunteers, London became Labour heartland again. John Smith drove that progress, and one of his first regional visits on becoming leader was to London, which was not always a popular place for Labour leaders to visit in those days.
John’s belief in Europe is chronicled in today’s New European by his former head of policy from 1988 to 1994, David Ward, who is here listening to the debate. David has supplied me with a reminder of John’s legacy, some of which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South and others. The John Smith Trust runs the fellowship programme, which promotes good governance. It is very positive to see that the Foreign Office is funding the trust, which I hope will continue.
One spin-off from the trust is EASST—the Eastern Alliance for Safe and Sustainable Transport—which was founded by Emma MacLennan and other trust alumni. Emma, who is married to David Ward, was Labour’s social security and taxation policy officer during John Smith’s time as shadow Chancellor and leader. EASST promotes road safety in former Soviet countries and saves lives there. More recently, John’s legacy includes the John Smith Centre at Glasgow University, promoting leadership in public service. Kezia Dugdale has just been appointed its first director, and I wish her well. Both those important programmes keep alive John’s strong commitment to democracy and public service.
As we have heard, some of John’s policy legacies were the national minimum wage, which he strongly supported as both shadow Chancellor and leader; constitutional reform and devolution, including on freedom of information, the Ministry of Justice and Assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and internal party reforms, including one member, one vote and electoral college revisions, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), a fellow Holyrood boy from Glasgow.
John was known for his commitment to social justice, and his strongest belief was that social justice and economic efficiency went hand in hand, hence the Commission on Social Justice. I am told he believed that party politics was like an aeroplane—you need a wing on the left and a wing on the right, and if you don’t have two wings, the beast won’t fly. Sometimes we forget that in modern party politics, in both the main parties.
John Smith’s incredible wit and debating skills in the Chamber led him to being credited, as we have heard, with provoking the resignations of Leon Brittan over Westland and of Nigel Lawson over Sir Alan Walters, Mrs Thatcher’s economic adviser.
On “Desert Island Discs”, John’s luxury item was a case of champagne. He told Sue Lawley that when he had drunk it, he would send a message in a bottle asking for more champagne. He was tickled to receive correspondence from a member of the public rebuking him for being so stupid for not knowing that you cannot put corks back into champagne bottles. Apparently, he loved that letter.
I would like to conclude, like my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South, by quoting from John Smith’s last leader’s speech to the Brighton Labour conference of 1993. This passage is perhaps a little more tribal than my hon. Friend’s, but this is a measure of the time and of his incisiveness. John said:
“Today I offer the British people a better way and a clear choice: a choice between Labour’s high skill, high tech, high wage economy, and John Major’s dead-beat, sweatshop, bargain basement Britain; a choice between Labour’s opportunity society which invests, which educates and which cares, and the sad reality of neglect, division, and rising crime that is Tory Britain today; a choice between Labour’s commitment to democratic renewal, rights, and citizenship, and John Major’s centralised, secretive and shabby Government.”
In conclusion, we were robbed of a great Prime Minister. Britain would be a different place today if John Smith had been given the opportunity to serve and to lead our country. It is 25 years on, and I sincerely thank my hon. Friend and his supporters for giving the House the opportunity today to remember John and to pay a fitting tribute.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak. I follow some very moving and thoughtful contributions from Members who were obviously touched greatly by John’s influence in their lives. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) for bringing forward this debate at such a pivotal moment in our political history. We can learn a lot from our political traditions, particularly those that John Smith epitomised, as we think about how to address the great challenges that face us today.
Although John Smith was born in 1938, some 51 years before I was born, his influence still affected me in some small ways. Reflecting on his death in May 1994, when I was just five years old and at primary school—primary 1—one of my earliest political memories was the grief that swept through my house. My parents were crying, and I remember that very vividly. I have only some faint memories of politics in the 1990s, and one of the earliest ones was John Smith’s death. Another one was Labour coming into government, and perhaps Princess Diana’s death. These were the things I remember from my childhood as the pivotal episodes of the 1990s in politics that influenced me as a small child.
John Smith’s death definitely struck a chord from a very early age because, after so much despair at the loss of the 1992 election, my parents had invested in the hope that Labour might finally come to power and achieve the changes, as it was seen at the time, to liberate our communities, which had been ravaged so terribly by Conservative party politics. There was a great deal of hope, and of lost hope in that moment, and that was definitely impressed on me from a young age. Tam Dalyell wrote about how he remembered it as similar to the death of Gaitskell in 1963 aged just 56. That was a similar episode of great potential and a great future Prime Minister lost to this country, and the potential of what that history could have entailed and what it could have meant had it not been altered in such a terrible way.
The key lessons from John Smith’s political tradition and his political behaviour are that he was suspicious of factional demagoguery and of opportunist political spivs who crafted their values in managerialist speak. However, he was also very intolerant of his party being in impotent opposition. He yearned for Labour to return to government, and that was evident in his speeches and the way he addressed this House. In truth, he was a complex mixture of different things that influenced him as a person. There was the ruthless Glasgow University debater, which is a great tradition; the Edinburgh lawyer, which is another great tradition; and the emotional west highlander. He came from a very beautiful part of the world.
In Tam Dalyell’s obituary, there is a reference to Calum MacDonald who was Member of Parliament for the Western Isles at the time of John Smith’s death. He observed:
“That John Smith was a West Coast Highlander by birth and background came across strongly in three ways. First, that socialism for John was not about dry theories on narrow sectional interests, but about values, principles, and moral beliefs. Second was his great democratic and egalitarian quality—that he could relax with absolute ease in any circle of people. And third, the sense he gave of being a man with a healthy ‘hinterland’—a man with a passion for politics but also with strong roots in his family, in Scottish society, and the land that he came from.”
John Smith’s presence was often felt. I went to Glasgow University, and one of the first things I did was join its union. Anyone who joins Glasgow University union cannot miss John Smith, because he is there facing every student who walks into that building as a wonderful bronze bust that stares from the top of the stairs of the debating chamber. It simply says on it “Friend of the Union”. That is what encapsulated the spirit of John Smith.
Working-class people often go to Glasgow University, which is quite unusual in Britain because most of its students are home students and tend to come from the city. It has a fine working-class tradition, and because of that debating chamber where—like so many politicians from across Scotland—John Smith cut his teeth, he came to this House without fearing it and with a healthy understanding of how it works. Working-class people who went into politics cut their teeth at the Glasgow University union, which to this day is the greatest debating union in the world. John Smith did a great deal to achieve that. He won the Observer mace for the union in 1962 and was convener of debates. He formed that great tradition along with Donald Dewar.
My maths teacher at school, Mrs McKee, used to tell me about going to see John and Donald who were a great double act in the chamber of Glasgow University. She recounted a particularly memorable occasion in November 1963, when the debate had to be suspended because someone burst in and said that John F. Kennedy had been assassinated. It is interesting how those great swathes of history can touch each other in such ways, and perhaps the great figures of that period influenced John’s politics, just as he in turn influenced us. That is the great thing about institutions such as university unions. They build a great community, and even though I never knew John and he died when I was a small child, I still sensed the golden thread that runs through those institutions and inspires those who come after. That is a real sense of immortality. A person dies once when they physically die, but they would die a second time if their memory was lost, and keeping that memory and understanding alive is critical.
Until recent years, the university union held a biannual dinner and debate in honour of John Smith, and I remember that Tom Clarke, the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney), came to speak to us. He spoke movingly about John being such a lovely man and someone who did not suffer fools gladly. He was also a great friend to people across political traditions and divides. He was not sectarian or petty. He was certainly tribal and firm in his beliefs, but he maintained friendships despite that. We should remember that important point in our current politics.
After his election in 1970, John did not necessarily pursue those things that would lead to progression in the political hierarchy, and in 1971, he voted, along with 68 Labour colleagues, against the Whip on joining the common market. He told the Commons that day that
“economic forces must somehow be brought under popular control and be fashioned towards social and political ends that the people determine”—[Official Report, 26 July 1971; Vol. 822, c. 131.]
We should remember that fine sentiment today as we consider our future relationship with the rest of the world.
In 1974, when Labour was on the cusp of coming into government and defeating the Heath Government, John made another watershed decision that might come across as counterintuitive. He said that he did not want to take up the post of Solicitor General for Scotland, because he did not want to be typecast in Scottish affairs and as a lawyer-politician. Perhaps I made a fateful decision when I decided to become a junior shadow Minister in the Scotland Office, but I am proud to have done so in the tradition of John Smith, who was a predecessor of mine and a shadow Scotland Office apparatchik.
John was quickly forgiven and joined the Department of Energy. Cutting across political traditions, he served under Tony Benn who was then Secretary of State for Energy. Benn tasked him with setting up the British National Oil Corporation in Glasgow. Today, it is an office building used by Santander, which encapsulates what Labour was trying to achieve in the 1970s and how it was turned over by Thatcherism. He set up a great institution, which was a vision for mobilising the great resources of North sea oil for the common good and the greater betterment of the nation. Sadly, his vision and the BNOC-Britoil building were dismantled and that tradition and opportunity was lost, but that was another example of John’s vision.
John was promoted to Minister of State under Michael Foot to pilot the Scotland devolution Bill through the Commons. Like Benn, Foot was full of praise for Smith’s loyalty and expertise. His excellent personal relations with Benn and Foot made it much more acceptable that a tough right-winger should be become a Cabinet Minister from 1978. From 1979, until his appointment as the leader of the Labour Party in 1992, he won every shadow Cabinet election.
On his advocacy of devolution, despite much criticism and opposition within the Labour party, John said:
“It is the Labour Party which has campaigned to get a Scottish Assembly established. No other political party has pioneered the way in which this Labour Party has.”
Indeed, he had disdain for the intransigence on the constitution of both the Conservative party and the nationalist traditions on this question. He recognised that the United Kingdom has great benefit to Scotland, but that it is over-centralised. He sought to create a Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh that would give better government to Scotland, while strengthening the United Kingdom. Then, as now, that is the preferred view of most of the people of Scotland, as regularly tested in opinion polls both before and since the 1997 and 2014 referendums. However, he also recognised that not responding imaginatively and vigorously to the need to reform the constitutional structure of Britain would create such tensions from a notion of a democratic deficit and regional imbalance that would only serve to render the fracturing of the United Kingdom altogether as the more likely outcome.
John Smith said in 1992 that there were two forces sawing away at the legs that support the Union: one was the nationalists, who wished to destroy the United Kingdom; and the other was the stupid Conservative party, whose members blundered on oblivious to the consequences that their arrogant actions were having for the future integrity of the United Kingdom. That was borne out in the Conservative party’s opposition to the creation of the Scottish Parliament. And of course the SNP boycotted the Scottish constitutional convention and opposed devolution at the 1997 general election. It is nice to see that John’s understanding of the problem and its solution was proven right by history. There is now much consensus on how he saw the future develop.
John was very proud of the Labour party: proud of its name and proud of its history. He was confident of the contribution it could make to the future progress of our country. He was also proud of Scotland, saying:
“as a Scot myself, representing a Scottish constituency, born and brought up in Scotland, living and wishing to continue living in Scotland, a member of a Scots profession, with children at Scottish schools, and having roots too deep in Scotland to wish to ever sever them, I think I am as entitled as any separatist to speak for my fellow countrymen.”
In the particularly vicious discourse that prevails in Scotland in the wake of the 2014 referendum, those sentiments ought to be heard far and wide across Scotland.
On the Labour party, John said it was:
“a united and a determined party, impatient for the responsibility of power. Let us communicate our resolve, our ambitions, our values, to the people. For they are ready, they are so ready to listen to the message of hope and of confidence which Labour proudly proclaims.”
Sadly, death robbed him of the opportunity to serve, but the Labour Government of 1997 delivered his unfinished business of home rule. His friend from his days on the floor of the university union to the Floor of this House, Donald Dewar, said at the opening of the Scottish Parliament, almost 20 years ago to the day:
“A Scottish Parliament. Not an end: a means to greater ends.”
As John Smith said,
“What’s the point of being in politics, if you can’t speak up for the people who can’t speak up for themselves?”
That was the greater end to which John Smith sought to achieve a Scottish Parliament. In his maiden speech, he spoke up for his constituents from mining communities about how poverty was affecting them. That must be our task today: to demonstrate the same courage in speaking for the interests of people who cannot speak up for themselves across our constituencies and countries and to share John Smith’s optimism for what public service can achieve so that we can realise our capacity as a nation and a society to set our own objectives and to set about achieving them in a spirit or resolute determination. May he rest in peace.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney). I add my thanks and congratulations to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) on having the foresight to recognise that this was an occasion that many of us in the House would want to mark.
Twenty-five years ago, I was a young TV reporter standing in a car park in Aberdeen with a camera crew waiting to interview Tony Blair. We knew that John Smith had had a heart attack that morning and we hoped that Tony Blair’s delayed arrival would bring a statement that all was fine and that John Smith would recuperate and be back soon. Sadly, by the time Tony Blair did arrive, we knew he had a very different outcome to relay to us. My thoughts that day, as on this day, were not merely about politics. I come from a family of three girls who lost their dad to a sudden heart attack at 44, and my thoughts were, and still are, with his girls. I am sure that the hon. Member for Edinburgh South would agree that, wherever Scottish politicians gather, at some point we get to talking about John Smith and what might have been—the country that might have been, the Labour party that might have been, how devolution might have developed differently, how the Labour Government might have acted differently—but we must always remember those lives most closely affected by losing him.
I do not claim to have known John Smith well, but when I was a young reporter he always gave me time and treated my often naive questions with respect, and he never ever patronised me—something we should all think about as Members. I particularly remember one evening when I was a reporter at Radio Clyde and had to phone him about the latest speculation about whether Neil, now Lord, Kinnock, was about to step down as Labour party leader. Once he had dismissed it as nonsense and said there was no way he would comment on such a ludicrous suggestion, he spent about 20 minutes, maybe half an hour, just chatting with me, putting me right about the situation and telling me what was actually going on in British politics and what I should be aware of. I came away from that conversation, which he did not have to have with me, better informed, and from then on in my career, I had much greater insight into and respect for British politics. I was not the only one, and I do not think it was just because I was a graduate of Glasgow University. I was not the only journalist in Scotland who had for John Smith the sort of respect and admiration the rest of us can often only aspire to. Other Members have spoken about the grief felt across Scotland among politicians. I cannot speak for the politicians of that time—I was not one of them, I was a journalist—but every single one of us felt that day that we had lost something that we perhaps had not valued enough. We saw him as a politician committed to an ideal but with a tolerance, understanding and commitment to people and communities that we would do well to emulate here.
I remember another occasion when I was sent to a pub in Airdrie—if memory serves—on the occasion of John Smith’s first response as shadow Chancellor. I was sent out to get public reaction to what the local MP was going to say, and I came away with a picture of a man regarded in his constituency as “one of us”, as somebody who understood his constituency and spoke for his constituency. He knew exactly what they wanted to hear and what they needed. I contrast that with the detached, two-dimensional picture that politicians often can project today. Maybe we need a little more of whatever it was that John Smith had, because he had something special that gave him a place in the hearts of journalists, politicians, the community and everybody in Scotland.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North East spoke about his parents. I remember my mother, a Tory, being distraught on the day John Smith died, because she respected him as a man who lived his politics. A politician to respect is one who enacts their politics in everything—no matter how small—that they do every day. That is what matters.
Looking back over the years, I remember a fantastic evening at the docklands in 1997: Labour’s daybreak party to celebrate what many of us, Labour or not, regarded as a turning point for the country. I remember how much John Smith’s presence was missed that night, as I suspect it has been missed in some way by Members in this place every day for the past 25 years.
I end by thanking the hon. Member for Edinburgh South again. As I got more involved in politics and decided to stand for this place, I kept in mind—even though I am not a member of the Labour party—that phrase of John Smith’s from the evening before he died. All of us who are in this place or who aspire to this place would do well to take it as our guiding principle: what we have here, and what we aspire to, is simply the opportunity to serve.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) for securing this debate. We are here to pay tribute to one of my predecessors, John Smith, on the 25th anniversary of his death. As a Member of Parliament, first for North Lanarkshire and then for Monklands East, John represented communities that are now in my constituency, including Carnbroe, Shawhead and Whifflet. He served North Lanarkshire and its communities with distinction in this House and I know that he is held in high regard locally.
When I learned that this debate was to take place, I spoke to another great parliamentary champion of North Lanarkshire, Tom Clarke, who I know is watching today and who was a good friend of John Smith’s. These are his reflections on John as a politician and as a friend:
“John Smith and I first met when he was an outstanding debater at Glasgow University and I was a Young Socialist. We were friends for a very long time. John could have a short fuse at times, but I had never known him to hold grudges. His great gift was his ability to relate warmly with people, whatever their background. He was as at home with miners and steelworkers when they were fighting to save their industries as he was when he met with international leaders.
I was fortunate in being able to be with John for two days before he died when we attended and gave evidence to the Boundary Commission which was considering proposals for our neighbouring constituencies. There was very little that we did not discuss.
I retain the view that while he took his role seriously, the post he held rested lightly on his shoulders and he was looking forward to the challenges of serving as Prime Minister. It remains one of my greatest regrets that history denied him that opportunity.”
I thank both John and Tom for their tireless service in this House on behalf of the people of North Lanarkshire.
John had a distinguished political career and was regarded as a fine parliamentarian. As a Minister in the Labour Government of 1974 to 1979, he was responsible for the initial Scottish and Welsh devolution proposals, as we have heard. He continued to champion the cause of devolution throughout his career; I think he would be proud that this week we are marking 20 years of devolution in Scotland and Wales.
Many commentators have speculated on what a John Smith-led Labour Government would have achieved in the UK. We know that John championed a national minimum wage at a time when it was not popular with some sections of the trade union movement. We know that his Government would have ensured that the richest in our society paid their fair share to support our public services. Indeed, it was John who advocated a 50p tax rate for the highest earners when he served as shadow Chancellor during the 1992 general election. He once said, referring to high tax payers,
“One should shoulder that obligation as part of one’s citizenship and be proud of it.”
We also know that his Government would probably not have led the UK into the disastrous Iraq war.
John Smith’s legacy lives on to this day. It is a fine tribute to him to be here today and to mark those 25 years. The John Smith Trust, formed in 1996, continues his work in promoting good governance, social justice and the rule of law by helping to develop the next generation of leaders committed to making a difference in their countries and societies. I reflect on the fact that many people across the United Kingdom still regret that John Smith was never able to serve as Prime Minister. As I said in my maiden speech—I have heard it said again today—he was one of the best Prime Ministers that this country never had.
I remember the day of John Smith’s death. I was working as a postman at the time and I remember his death because we had suffered for so many years under the Thatcher Government. I was a young man, working, and I was devastated that day, just like everyone else. I had just become a trade union representative. I stood in silence when I heard the news. I think that the whole country did, such was the mark of the man who was John Smith.
I am committed to following in the footsteps of both John and Tom Clarke, representing the people whom they once represented here in the mother of Parliaments. It is an honour and a privilege to do so.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Change UK)
I vividly recall the morning the BBC announced that John Smith had been taken ill. I had a meeting with Liz Pearce, who had been my general election agent and who was a councillor. She had just won us our first position in Redbridge, where we were going to form a Labour administration. Liz worked for me, and we had to have a discussion about the implications of that win for our relationship and whether or not she could continue to work for me. I was expecting it to be a difficult discussion. Then the message came through that John Smith had died. We cancelled our discussion immediately. We could not talk; we could not think. I remember coming here later. We always remember occasions which have such a huge, traumatic impact.
I knew John Smith reasonably well. I knew him when I worked at the Labour party headquarters, in the policy directorate and then in the international section. At the time of the 1992 election, I was the head of that section. From time to time, I would arrange for him to meet incoming delegations. There were good discussions with the Social Democratic Party of Germany about how to modernise the policy of the Labour party.
John Smith, although he was the shadow Chancellor, was much more than that. Neil Kinnock was trying to save the Labour party and bring us back from the abyss of the terrible period that we had suffered, to expel the Trotskyites and modernise the Labour party to make it electable. Although Roy Hattersley, now Lord Hattersley, was the deputy leader, many Members of Parliament said to me that the real deputy leader was John Smith. It was crucial that both wings of the party, the centre left and the centre right, worked together in that modernisation project.
Other Members have already said how important John Smith was in relation to many of the policy reforms of that period. He was also clearly politically principled and brave. The shadow Budget that he published just before the 1992 election, which has not been mentioned yet, was controversial. Some people said—wrongly, in my view—that that was the reason why we did not win the 1992 election, but I remember a conversation with a woman in a queue at a bus stop when I was campaigning for election in ’92. I was fighting a very marginal constituency—we were number 61 on the list and Labour had to win 62 seats to be the biggest party. To cut a long story short, I got here and many others did not. This woman had a pram and young children, and I said, “So are you going to be supporting Labour? You’ll get £6 more; we are very concerned to help people like you.” She said, “No, you’ll just take it away from me in tax.” I asked, “Do you pay income tax? Are you working?” “No,” she said; nevertheless she was convinced she was going to lose it. That is the problem we had sometimes in politics—how to cut through the misunderstanding.
I remember the debates around Maastricht when I came into Parliament in ’92. I remember the discussions we had after Neil Kinnock stood down and John Smith had been elected at a special conference by 90% of the vote for leader against Bryan Gould. Bryan Gould was my constituency neighbour in Dagenham, and I was under some encouragement and pressure from some people locally to support my constituency neighbour, and I did, for deputy leader, but I had no doubt who was going to be the best leader.
John Smith played a brilliant tactical game in those Maastricht debates. He was able to embarrass and undermine the John Major Government on so many occasions. We had one occasion when there was a tied vote and the then Speaker gave the casting vote in favour of the Government, but the next day it was realised that there had been a miscount and the Government had won by one. We have had similar scenarios recently, but fortunately, so far as I am aware, the vote was accurately counted on that occasion.
We had a genius and a real intelligence in our leader at that time and we were surging ahead. Labour in opposition in 1994 was 20 points or more ahead in the opinion polls. going into European Parliament elections in 1994, Labour was going to do incredibly well. This was in the pre-proportional days, and we won all 10 seats in London. The campaign and platform was established under John Smith, but it was Margaret Beckett who took us into those elections because tragically we no longer had John.
The party then moved to a younger generation, and the modernisation project, started by Neil Kinnock and continued by John Smith, was then continued under Tony Blair. That led to not one, not two, but three general election victories, and all the great achievements of that Labour Government, which, sadly, are not recognised enough by some in the Labour party today. I am not going to make a speech attacking the current leadership of the Labour party; I have done that before and will not do so today. I will simply say that John Smith, on this Europe day, would have read the election manifestos for the European elections with some degree of concern. He would have wanted a passionate case to be made for remaining in the European Union and for reforming it, as he argued, in speeches that have been quoted today, when he broke the Whip all those years ago, and as the Labour party argued, under his leadership, in the 1994 European election campaign. A moderate, mainstream and—in Labour terms—centre-right political leader, he was passionately pro-European, and in those days, that led to a significant electoral victory in those European elections. Let us look back 25 years to what could have been, and then look at where we are today.
John Smith had some very nice human qualities. I remember sitting in the House of Commons Library late one night in 1993; there was almost no one else there, but suddenly I saw the Leader of the Opposition walking around looking for a book. We have not often seen Leaders of the Opposition of any party doing that in recent years—[Interruption.] I do not mean reading books; I mean walking round the Library in a normal kind of way. Also in 1993, John organised a reception in his room for all of us who had been elected a year earlier, on 9 April 1992. I was not there at the start of the reception because I had to rush from hospital, where my wife had given birth to our daughter. I remember this vividly, because when I arrived, everyone applauded me when it was announced that I had become a father that day. That is a strong personal memory for me.
I also recall John saying, in that discussion with all of us who had entered Parliament the year before, “You have all got to learn how this place works. Spend your time understanding parliamentary procedure. Understand how Committees, questions and early-day motions work. Get to know what you will be doing here. I am not going to make any of you members of my shadow team. I want you to get an understanding of this place over the next few years. Some of you will be Ministers when we have a Labour Government, but I will want people who really understand how this place works.” What a contrast that is to the things that have happened since then.
John Smith was a great parliamentarian. He loved Parliament and he loved the debates. He is, and will be, sorely missed.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) and to contribute to this debate, not just on behalf of the Scottish National party but on behalf of my constituents, many of whom were also John Smith’s constituents. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) on securing the debate. I supported his application for it, and I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this time in the main Chamber. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South spoke eloquently, although I did not agree with everything he said, as I am sure he will understand. However, there is no doubt that he did John Smith’s memory justice. My thoughts, like his, will be with John’s family this weekend. Others who made moving speeches in the debate—those who knew John and those who did not—also did his memory justice. They all made their tributes well.
I did not know John Smith. Many people remark that I must have had a very tough paper round, but I hope it is self-evident that I did not know him—I was eight years old and growing up in Orkney when he sadly died. Although I did not know him, in preparation for today’s debate I have spoken to people, locally in my constituency and nationally, who did. The great sense that I get not just from this debate, but from the people I have spoken to is of someone who was clear about what he believed in and had the talents to realise his ambitions, but who was humble enough to be inclusive and egalitarian.
Peter Sullivan became a Labour councillor in the Cairnhill area of Airdrie—now the Airdrie Central ward—when John was the local MP. I spoke to Peter last night and, despite the fact that they had disagreements, like so many others Peter spoke of someone whom we would all wish to see leading in politics today. He said that John was a humble man without being a humble person in that, despite his undoubted abilities, he never sought to demean or make anyone feel small.
What Peter really appreciated was that John Smith made time for other people and took the time to canvass for him and to knock on doors, which worked because local people trusted John, meaning that they voted for Peter. Even if he was too polite and spent too long speaking to people who clearly were not going to support Labour, he was dignified and always listened even when people disagreed with him. He gave them the respect they deserved before politely offering his counter-argument.
What struck me from reading the biographies and the book dedicated to John, which was edited by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), was his inclusiveness and willingness—even eagerness—to surround himself when Leader of the Opposition with people with whom he disagreed, and the aeroplane analogy of the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) is quite fitting. That is what John’s best man Jimmy Gordon—now Lord Gordon—remembers as well. John had huge respect for Back Benchers and wanted to listen to them, regardless of whether they agreed with him. Jimmy thinks that that was because of John’s deep-rooted belief that everyone entered politics as a public service. We may disagree on particular issues, but John tolerated political difference because he respected everyone who made the sacrifices necessary to enter politics as a public service.
That tolerance has struck me because we have a real problem in politics at the moment with people at all levels who do not have that same strength of character, the same tolerance, the same confidence of their conviction, and the same ability to use the art of debate to persuade that John Smith had. We are living in a time of political intolerance, which is a problem for all our parties, our political movements and all of us. That intolerance has led to a culture in which abusing politicians and other public figures is becoming normalised. When John Major paid tribute to John Smith in this House in the hours after his death, he spoke of someone he debated with vigorously in public, but with whom he could share a respectful drink in private. Now there is a dangerous tribalism under which people are incapable of being wrong, we do not allow ourselves the space to accept nuance, and pragmatism is looked on with suspicion.
If we are to tackle abusive behaviour online and in public, it is incumbent on politicians to show some leadership. Yes, call out problems where we see them, as some of my colleagues did at the weekend, but also show a little more respect to one another and more tolerance for people with opposing views. Debate with John’s passion, but have a civilised relationship afterwards, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) rightly said. Otherwise, I fear that we will move to a politics in which creative thinking and collaboration are impossible.
There is no doubt that John Smith was a thinker. We have already heard of the policies that he proposed that are still his legacy to this day, but Peter Sullivan says that he was coming up with new policies that had not appeared in Labour’s manifesto for the upcoming elections. Those policies included allowing council tenants to live rent free after a period spent in council housing, such as 25 years. I can certainly see the attraction of that policy, and I am sure that others on the progressive side of politics would, too.
John is remembered locally as someone who was accessible and worked hard for his constituents, but he will be remembered by most as a formidable parliamentarian. Jim Sillars was a member of the parliamentary Labour party at the same time as John Smith and remembers how he used his forensic skill as a defence lawyer in parliamentary debates. However, like Peter Sullivan, Jim saw someone with the necessary human touch that is required in political leaders, but is sometimes lacking. The valuable asset, as Jim describes it, was John’s sense of humour coupled with a sense of humility. It was that humility that drew me to quote, of all my many illustrious predecessors, John Smith’s maiden speech in my own first contribution in this place. He was humble enough to admit his nerves before that maiden speech, and in his last speech he said he just wanted to serve and that he genuinely believed in public service.
As Jim says, John did not see himself as exalted but as fortunate to be given the opportunity to work on people’s behalf. Jim is right, and that should be what drives all of us. Lord Gordon agrees and feels that that feeling of public service is being lost, not just by a small number of those involved in politics but by those who observe and comment on politics, who often forget that public service is what drives the majority of us.
In that regard, it is timely that the former leader of the Labour party in Scotland, Kezia Dugdale, should be taking up her post at the John Smith centre for public service. I am sure we all wish her well, and I know John’s family are still deeply involved with the centre.
People locally and nationally often speculate as to what might have happened had it not been for John Smith’s untimely death, and we heard some speculation in this debate. Would Labour have won in 1997? Undoubtedly. Would the Labour Government still have been radical and popular? Almost certainly. Would we have gone to war in Iraq? Unlikely.
But I do not think John Smith’s legacy should just be his policy ideas or his unfulfilled destiny, because although I agree with much of what he stood on politically, I cannot agree with all his political decisions. What should be remembered is what he stood for. That should be his legacy and a lesson to unite people in politics today. We can agree or disagree with John Smith’s politics, but we should admire and aspire to his tolerance, his humility, his inclusiveness, his egalitarianism and his eagerness to serve the people.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
I share the last sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray). We remember the man.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) for securing this debate, because John Smith is still a towering figure for many of us. The words spoken today on both sides of the House are tribute to the high regard in which John Smith is held not simply by those who knew him but by those who are, in some ways, heirs to what he stood for.
The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) is right in saying that Conservative Members claim John Smith as a fellow parliamentarian, which is right and proper. And it is right that the Scots in this Chamber claim John as a Scot, and they should be proud that John was such a proud Scot. We, of course, claim him as Labour, because John was Labour. Whatever John Smith was in his life, he stood for the values and principles on which the Labour party was founded and he took them forward so ably.
It is almost axiomatic that John’s moral view of the world was that social justice was at the heart of what he stood for in politics and of what he believed the Labour party had to stand for. That is an eternal message for my party, and politics across the world needs people who will challenge injustice on behalf of those who cannot speak up for themselves—we have heard those words repeated on numerous occasions—and that is the hallmark of what John Smith was all about.
John Smith was, in many ways, a model Member of Parliament from a Chief Whip’s point of view. Madam Deputy Speaker, as a former Chief Whip you will know the value of such discipline. The present Labour Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown), will not be dismayed if I point out, as others have done, that although John Smith broke the Whip on only one occasion, he did so on a matter of fundamental principle—his passionate belief that Britain is a necessary part of a larger structure, the then European Economic Community. He could not, therefore, go along with the mainstream of Labour votes at the time.
I therefore use this opportunity to quote another leader of the Labour party who is known for having broken the Labour Whip once or twice, the present Leader of the Opposition. He has asked me to read these words into the record:
“John Smith was Labour to his core. His politics were those of a genuine social democrat—he promoted equality, supported trade unionism, and believed in a kinder, more caring society.
Not only that, but he was an exceptionally decent and inclusive Leader of the Labour Party. I joined the Labour Party in the 1960s, and of all the Labour leaders I knew, John was the one I admired the most.
I will never forget his speech to the Labour Party Conference in 1993…promising the same legal rights to every worker from day one of their employment, part-time or full-time, temporary or permanent.
It has taken too long, but the next Labour government will deliver on John’s commitment.
His death was a tragedy, not just for his own family and friends, but also for the Labour Party, and the country as a whole.”
What lies within those words is sometimes missed. It has been said today that John Smith was moderate and right-of-centre in Labour party terms. Actually, that is not a strictly accurate interpretation of what he was about; he was more radical than people believe. The fact is that he was comfortable with Labour’s traditions—comfortable talking about employment rights and advocating them, as I heard him do many times in this Chamber when he was shadow Secretary of State for Employment during the passage of Norman Tebbit’s draconian anti trade union Bill. John Smith was a passionate defender of the rights of people in the workplace. He was sponsored by the Amalgamated Society of Boilermakers, along with my good friend Gerald Kaufman—perhaps the two most unlikely boilermakers ever to hit this place. Nevertheless, they were committed to the principles of that union and what trade unionism was about in the Britain of that time, and that remains relevant to the United Kingdom of today.
As has been mentioned, John could also claim significance in the debate about the minimum wage. I was on the shadow employment team for a time during that period: we were told by the Government that the minimum wage would cost 1 million jobs, which was then hiked to 2 million jobs. It did not cost those jobs, of course—it was part of creating a fairer society. The interesting point is that while John Smith was leader the issue was massively controversial, even within the Labour party. Some of our major trade unions at the time were saying that it would erode wages for their own members. That argument was strenuously put forward, but John Smith was one of those who said that that argument could not prevail. People were on derisory wages that have been forgotten now. Hairdressers were sometimes on wages so outrageous that it was impossible for them to support their families. Fighting for that kind of social justice was radical, and the hallmark of the then Leader of the Opposition.
John had enormous intellectual gifts as a parliamentarian. Almost every friend and colleague I have spoken to about him has a memory of John’s decision-making capacity. He would come to quick and robust conclusions about what was right and proper, sometimes on issues that mattered but did not necessarily have a strong policy bent. Lord Foulkes—then George Foulkes, shadow Foreign Minister—travelled with John Smith to China. They had many engagements with the Chinese Deputy Prime Minister, who would raise questions of policy. John would turn to George, who told me he would stammer out some quick response about what he hoped the policy was. John instantly turned it into something that sounded credible and competent, and was accepted by the Chinese Deputy Prime Minister as the voice of a party ready for government.
I saw John Smith in a similar light when he took on controversial policies. The promotion of comprehensive education was an issue in the ’90s just as it is today. John was easily persuaded that social justice was on the side of taking forward that reforming step. That was controversial, but he was prepared to take on controversy if he believed it was the right thing to do.
As a politician, John was gifted and formidable in this place. Reference was made to the YouTube videos that David Ward has made available. David will be glad to know that I watched one of them—it is some years since we have seen each other, so I am delighted to see him in the Under-Gallery—and it was interesting to see how full the Chamber was when John Smith spoke. He was one of those people: everyone would be encouraged to come in to listen to him—to his bulldozer drive against the Government of the day, his forensic skills, his strong intellectual ability and, of course, his devastating wit. Sometimes, that devastating wit was most telling of all. The then Prime Minister John Major had apparently written a chapter in a book about football called “We’ll Support You Evermore”; as John Smith said at the time, it was obviously not a Tory party publication. I would venture to say, without introducing too much bitter politics into the debate, that we could make the same claim today.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East will not be unhappy if I recall the fact that although people talk about John being a kind man—and he was; he was very forgiving and prepared to heal the enmities, or at least some of them, that existed in his time—he was also very caustic when he wanted to be. My right hon. Friend was at the Dispatch Box as a junior shadow Treasury Minister being harangued by Government Members, three of whom stood up to challenge him to give way on some point. Gordon Brown was on my right hon. Friend’s right, giving him a stream of statistics and a robust intellectual defence of the Labour case; John Smith turned to my right hon. Friend and said, “Just pick the most stupid.” That was not reported in the Hansard of the day.
I wish to turn for a few moments to John Smith as a family man. Those of us who met and know Elizabeth—she is Baroness Smith, but Elizabeth is probably a kinder way to refer to her—know that she is still intensely proud all these years on, just as John’s daughters, Sarah, Jane and Catherine, are intensely proud of their father. John was a family man, although as Elizabeth said to me, as he was in political life, he was a family man in very short spurts. They still enormously value the family holidays and family time they had on the island of Iona. It was so important, not only for John as a human being, getting himself away from being the man of politics, but for John as a man more widely, with his family being part of something wider for that wider human being.
In John’s memory, the John Smith Trust continues to do incredibly valuable and powerful work, particularly in central Asia. John was passionately committed not simply to social justice but to the principles of good government that have been carried forward in the determination to train a generation of political leaders in central Asia in particular. They bear his name as fellows of the John Smith Trust. That is a remarkable signal to us all.
The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts said that John Smith was a humble man; I am not quite sure that I entirely agree with that description, because one of the good things about John’s background—not only his family background but his time at the University of Glasgow debating society and all the rest—was that he had confidence in himself, his politics and his belief system. He had confidence in his humanity, which is important. So he was not a humble man, but he was a simple man. A simple man is probably the most vividly fitting description when we think of the place that John chose for his burial on Iona: a very simple grave and memorial. Something very simple for a very decent man who graced this place, graced our politics and graced those who knew him.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Oliver Dowden)
I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Members for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) and the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) on securing the debate. I am also grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time to it.
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall keep my remarks relatively short, not from a lack of respect but because, unlike so many other Members who have contributed to the debate, I did not know John Smith personally. None the less, it is an honour to wind up the debate on behalf of the Government. I am not quite as young as the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney), who I believe was five at the time of John’s death, or as the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), who was eight. I was a 15-year-old Tory boy at my local comprehensive, rather lonely position in the mid-1990s, as Members might imagine—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) says from a sedentary position that it toughened me, and it certainly did.
It is a sign of the contribution made by John Smith that, even among teenage Tory boys like me, he was regarded as a towering political figure and there was a genuine and profound sense of shock when we heard of his death. It is a sign of his legacy that 25 years later here we are in this Chamber discussing it. So much of what he did, whether on devolution or the national minimum wage, and the way in which he conducted his politics still seem fresh and relevant to politics today. That is a true tribute to the legacy of John Smith.
My politics and my interest in politics were certainly stimulated by John Smith and I certainly remember those Maastricht debates and the incredible skill that he had—he simultaneously supported the Government on Maastricht and managed to sow division within the Conservative party and inflict defeats on it. Like many others, I also remember his funeral. It was a unique expression of the affection and respect he commanded, not just from the Labour party but from the Prime Minister and other major figures from every party and every area of national life who crowded into that simple parish church in Edinburgh to say goodbye to a man whose basic decency and good sense we could ill afford to lose. As our then Conservative Prime Minister, Sir John Major, said, he
“was one of the outstanding parliamentarians of modern politics. He was skilled in the procedures of this House, skilled in upholding its traditions, a fair-minded but, I can say as well as any Member in the House, tough fighter for what he believed in and, above all, he was outstanding in parliamentary debate.”
He went on to talk about
“the waste of a remarkable political talent”—[Official Report, 12 May 1994; Vol. 243, c. 429.]
and that certainly was raised by many hon. Members, not least the hon. Member for Edinburgh South.
I think that I can say without any risk of contradiction from any of my hon. Friends that if a Conservative Member of Parliament was ever asked to name the greatest Labour Prime Minister we never had, we would all choose John Smith. As many Members have reminded us, many of the causes that John Smith championed are still relevant today. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling talked about the role John Smith played in devolution. In many ways, he was the godfather of devolution.
Some Members may have heard the Radio 4 programme last weekend, recalling the path to devolution, in which John Smith’s daughter recalled a dinner very shortly after her father’s death to which both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were invited. Tony Blair apparently earnestly asked John Smith’s daughter how committed her father really was to Scottish devolution, and she apparently left him in absolutely no doubt about the strength of his commitment to that cause.
Other Members, particularly those who worked with John Smith—especially the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), who made an excellent contribution—mentioned his basic human decency. It was also brought out very well by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) that it is easy to overlook his role as a family man and that his death deprived his wife of her husband and three girls of their father.
The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) said something that we could all do with remembering on both sides of the House: for a political plane to take off, it needs both its left and right wings fully intact. That speaks to a wider role that John Smith played in promoting a civility in British politics that, as so many hon. Members have rightly observed, is sometimes lacking in these turbulent times. Despite only leading his party for approximately two years, a genuinely huge expectation had built up behind his leadership in 1994, but this never inhibited him from being an open, congenial and good-humoured man, as his colleagues have attested —no matter what their political allegiance.
Perhaps I may be forgiven for concluding my remarks by requoting the oft-uttered words of John Smith the night before he died that many hon. Members have also observed today:
“The opportunity to serve our country—that is all we ask.”
And what a fitting legacy of that great man.
Ian Murray
This has been a worthwhile debate to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the death of John Smith, and I am grateful to all Members from across the Chamber who have contributed some of their stories, which have been moving and appropriate for this commemorative anniversary, and I have enjoyed hearing them. I may have been listening to them for the second or third time in the past few weeks, but I have certainly enjoyed hearing them in public. I pay tribute to everyone who knew John and to the staff team who worked with him. Sometimes when I sit in this place, I get a bit envious because I have not experienced some of the history of this Chamber. Indeed, I felt a bit envious this afternoon, listening to the stories of people who worked with John and who saw him in the flesh at the Dispatch Box, doing what he did best. I think the greatest tribute is to try to emulate our political heroes, and we should certainly all try to do that in this case.
I wrote down some words as Members were making their contributions: outstanding, civilized, missed, great, inclusive, dignified, listener, formidable, humility, tolerance, gifted, social justice, forgiving, humane, community, responsibility, fun, the common touch, moral commitment, caring, traditional, idealistic, friend. Those words just sum up what John Smith’s life, including his political life, was about. I am glad that we have been able to commemorate this anniversary in the House. As I have said, all our thoughts over this weekend—especially on the 25th anniversary on Sunday 12 May—will be with Sarah, Jane, Catherine, Elizabeth and the wider family.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It has been a very powerful and moving debate. You have all done a giant of a man proud, and I hope that his family and friends will appreciate it; I am sure they will.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the 25th anniversary of the death of John Smith, former leader of the Labour Party.
A14 Cambridge-Huntingdon Upgrade
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing the House the opportunity again to consider the very important issue of the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon upgrade; the diversions that those works have required; and, I am afraid, the misery that those diversions have caused to so many of my constituents. It is sad to have to follow such an uplifting debate about John Smith with one on an issue such as this.
To those who follow Adjournment debates closely, this topic may feel somewhat familiar because last July I was standing in this very place holding a debate with almost exactly the same title. To paraphrase the Prime Minister, nothing has changed. That is because, frankly, the problems outlined almost a year ago have not been rectified and, I am afraid, the misery continues. But one thing has changed—one positive thing. I am delighted that, whereas last year the Minister was not available, today he is. That means that we are able to continue our very regular dialogue, which is usually conducted through the Transport Committee.
It is very tempting just to re-read my speech from last July, where I outlined the history of the project and praised those such as John Bridge from the chamber of commerce who have done so much to secure the project, as well as Doug Whyte and Elaine Gristwood, and Councillors Claire Richards and Jocelynne Scutt, who have done so much to continue to highlight the problems faced by residents and constituents. I also praised those involved in what is a fantastic project: David Bray and his entire team from Highways England—the construction workers, civil engineers and project managers. It is a truly impressive project.
There is no doubt that the upgrade is absolutely vital because the existing A14 trunk road between Cambridge and Huntingdon is notorious for congestion and delays. About 85,000 vehicles use this stretch of the A14 every day—many more than the road was originally designed to take. About a quarter of those vehicles are heavy goods vehicles—well above the national average for this type of road, adding to the need for an upgrade.
There have been some hugely impressive innovations involved in this project. Only this week, I read in The Cambridge News about the self-driving truck—a massive truck—deployed to speed up the works. Some of the bridge installations have been quite astonishing, truly impressive and watched in fascination. It is a deeply impressive engineering endeavour but, sadly, managing the disruption caused to local residents has been much less successful. I am here not to berate Highways England, or even the Conservative county council, under-resourced as it is, because that is a wider issue, but to raise the disruption that this project has caused to residents in my city of Cambridge and the surrounding villages.
Let me go into more detail about the problem. The road closures caused by these works have resulted in an official diversion strategy of overnight closures from Highways England that adds about 30 miles to the journeys of those driving lorryloads across the country, taking them along a strategic diversion route that includes the M11, the A505 and the A11 back to junction 36 on the A14. Given that it is such a lengthy diversion, it is unsurprising that some drivers choose to shortcut through Cambridge along King’s Hedges Road, Milton Road, Victoria Road, Newmarket Road, Histon Road and Huntingdon Road. The overnight road closures that began to cause trucks to drive through the city’s small roads started about a year ago and, I am afraid, have been unrelenting from the beginning. A year on, my constituents still face grim traffic, sleepless nights and even damage to their property. In the debate last year, the Minister’s colleague promised what she called a “step change in diversions” in September. My first specific question to the Minister today is to ask what happened to that step change and what we can expect over the next few months.
The shortcuts through the city disrupt the lives of those who live in and around my city. Roads inappropriate for HGVs are used. One, Victoria Road, already has a weight limit, which could be extended on a temporary basis to other similarly inappropriate streets, or to an even wider area still. Labour County Councillors Jocelynne Scutt and Claire Richards, and their officers, have been working hard to ameliorate the problem, working on a range of measures such as replacing pothole lids with new ones to make them quieter, looking at some of the weight and speed restrictions on certain roads, and maximising signage.
However, the problem is that it is ultimately completely inappropriate to have hundreds of HGVs thundering along residential roads through the city at night. I have heard, in some cases on many occasions, from exhausted constituents regarding the huge noise disturbances on the roads that I have mentioned. I know that neighbouring MPs have heard the same from residents in villages such as Swavesey, Histon and Impington, where, I am told, houses shake from the HGVs’ impact and people are similarly kept up all night by the noise.
In the city of Cambridge, one constituent told me:
“We had many trucks rattling down Victoria Road again from around 4 am (or earlier) until at least 5 am this morning, badly disrupting sleep… Does this mean that, yet again, the drivers can simply ignore the signage—and the law—when they choose? Is anything more being done about this issue?”
That is precisely the problem. There is no effective mechanism that any authority seems to be able to use to combat the issue and I will return to that point.
Constituents have also told me about serious road traffic congestion problems. One wrote to me saying that it has
“come to something when you’ve got to queue to get out of your own drive at 4.30am to go to work and the lorries are backed up.”
To most of us, that seems a quite extraordinary situation, but that is what people are facing—traffic queues in the middle of the night. It is playing havoc with the lives of hard-working people in and around the city, destroying their sleep and their routines. It is also causing significant damage to infrastructure—which is ironic, as it is a result of other infrastructure improvements—because local roads are just not designed for this type of traffic. I was told by my constituent and local campaigner Doug Whyte:
“There are already pot-holes and crumbling road surfaces on the roads that have been used by the lorries.”
Another constituent pointed out that the council’s current programme of road improvements will turn out to be
“a total waste of our money, as it will all be churned up by the HGVs again”.
The mismanagement of the diversions will affect the work by councils to improve their local areas, while costing taxpayers extra money.
The damage is not only to public infrastructure and property. My constituent Elaine Gristwood explained to the A14 team:
“We have noticed over the last few months that we have cracking to all the ceilings in our house which were not there prior to these closures. As reported to yourselves last year with the HGVs coming down Kings Hedges Road the whole house shakes and we are sure this is what has caused the cracking to these ceilings. It now makes us wonder how much more damage is going to occur due to this diversion, and how many other houses along this route are affected. We would like to know how we can claim compensation for these issues caused by this diversion.”
She was told:
“Whilst we sympathise with your concerns about the damage to your property, I’m afraid there’s no grounds for a claim”.
Where can Elaine and other residents go from here?
That is the human misery and infrastructure damage caused as an unintended consequence. The question I would like to address is, what can be done? One of the key points I raised last year was the accuracy of data. We can all agree that there will inevitably be disruption with any project like this, and my constituents understand and appreciate that. The question is, how much is reasonable? To make any rational judgment, the most basic element is at least having data on how many traffic movements are being generated.
In the debate last July, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), told us:
“Highways England is working with Cambridgeshire County Council to implement… HGV counters”—[Official Report, 19 July 2018; Vol. 645, c. 698.]
That is fine, but she went on to quote figures for nights when closures were taking place that seemed to be surprisingly—in fact, suspiciously—low. I have been pursuing that since last July and, astonishingly, we still cannot get accurate and reliable data, despite the well-intended promises made by the Minister that evening.
Anecdotally, I am told that residents are counting from 50 to more than 100 HGVs an hour in the middle of the night. When I looked at the data from the counter that was sent to me following the debate, the numbers were tiny by comparison. To my astonishment, the data also seemed to be telling us that there were virtually no vehicle movements during the daytime, but anyone who knows Cambridge knows that traffic is frequently gridlocked at that point. Quite frankly, the data was wrong. Last year I asked, somewhat rhetorically, whether the Government think it is more efficient for residents to stay up through the night counting the vehicles manually or to rely on BBC news reporters to do the same. If we have the technology to move a bridge, surely we can install at least a camera and count the number of vehicle movements. This is a woeful failure, and I hope we can have an assurance from the Minister today that at least the data issues will be resolved, so that we can have a rational discussion based on evidence.
That brings me to a bigger problem. This huge and impressive £2 billion project is being spoiled, because our public services around the project are now so fragmented and under-resourced that they are unable to do what would be necessary to make diversions work. The main problem is that, with so many authorities potentially involved, it is unclear who leads or takes responsibility. We have a combined authority, which has strategic responsibilities. We have a woefully under-resourced county council, which has responsibility for local roads. We have a metro mayor and a police and crime commissioner. We have the local police and we have Highways England. Local residents ask, “Who’s in charge?”—maybe the Minister can tell us.
When residents first came to me with this problem, I went to the council, which then directed me to Highways England, which then referred me to the Department for Transport and the police. We have so many different agencies involved and, frankly, they do not communicate properly and clearly with each other, let alone with the public. When I ask what should be a relatively simple question, such as “Why can’t these diversions be properly enforced?” no one can in the end give me a clear answer that does not end up blaming one of the other partners. No one is prepared to take the lead and no one is prepared to push for solutions. This is very frustrating for me and local councillors but, most importantly, it leaves residents in the lurch.
This is not just an issue for this project. When talking to others elsewhere in the country, I have been told that similar problems have emerged in other major schemes and diversions. The county council does have some potential powers and we have talked about those with the council—traffic regulation orders, weight limits and so on—and it is true that there are complexities in distinguishing genuinely local traffic from freight passing through, but the basic problem is that ignoring a 30-mile diversion is a perfectly rational thing to do if there are no consequences.
That is the policy point that I would like the Minister to focus on for the future: how we provide a disincentive for people to take the short cut. I have to say that, with cameras, automatic number plate recognition and all the modern technologies available to us, it does seem to me to be perfectly possible to come up with a solution. Put crudely, if it costs lorries more to take the short cut, they will stop doing it, but it does need the Government to get a grip. The local agencies have neither the powers nor the resources to make it happen.
As we have tried to come up with local solutions, we have hit persistent obstacles—not least the lack of resources in local policing to enforce any mechanism that could be put in place. Sadly, as I think we all know, traffic policing has virtually disappeared. That is backed up by the fact that Highways England actually offered to pay for more policing to enforce the diversion. When it did so, however, it transpired that there simply are not enough police officers available for the force to spare, regardless of the offer from Highways England to pay for them.
When I spoke to the police and crime commissioner’s office, I got a factually accurate, if rather depressingly defeatist, account of basically why it could not do anything. I was told that
“it is currently an ongoing issue that the Constabulary have had to deal with...surrounding the A14 upgrade. The diversion routes are clearly signposted, however, they are not enforceable and drivers cannot be made to follow these routes. There is currently nothing to stop HGV’S using Huntingdon Road and Histon Road to bypass the ongoing overnight closures as there is no weight limit in place. Victoria Road however is subject to a 7.5 tonne weight limit between the hours of 23:00 and 07:00.”
That was it. Basically the message is: nothing we can do. Frankly, that is simply not good enough, which is why I am rather looking forward to discussing further with the Minister some of the ideas I am proposing in a meeting that we have scheduled for next week.
To conclude, I have some questions for the Minister. How long will the current closures really go on for? How are we going to get accurate data, as the A14 team themselves have accepted that the current numbers are incorrect? How will he ensure that the diversions are managed properly, that my residents can sleep at night and that their houses and roads are not damaged at their expense? Just for good measure, is there any chance of convincing his Cabinet colleagues to stop running down the public services that are so essential for supporting big infrastructure projects such as this?
I will leave the Minister with a final image. In December last year, the local press reported on Barbara Placido, who woke up in her home one morning to find that an articulated lorry had torn through a small garden wall and crashed into the corner of her house. This was actually the second time that it had happened and it was in the heart of Cambridge; it is a lovely line of houses overlooking Jesus Green. I am sure the Minister knows Cambridge well. What on earth was that lorry doing there? She told the Cambridge News:
“We’re not being protected on our streets. It is really disheartening.”
This gets to the crux of the matter: there is no protection for residents between the myriad different agencies involved in this project.
The A14 upgrade should be a regional improvement and a showcase of UK civil engineering, which it is. However, it has also become a nightmare for motorists and passengers stuck in grim traffic queues, too often a headache for people finding regular journeys taking far longer than expected and, as I have outlined, a misery for residents in Cambridge and the surrounding areas. I hope the Minister will be able to outline how he will improve things.
In the debate last July, I invited the Minister to commit properly to resourcing a framework to ensure that HGV drivers follow the proper diversions. In my view, those who do not should be named, shamed, and fined to protect the people of Cambridge—or whichever area is under pressure—who currently lack protection. But guess what? Nothing has changed. A year on, can the Minister persuade me that we will not be having the same debate this time next year? Indeed, I have an inkling that, by later in the year, some things will have changed, hopefully for the better.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this debate about the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon upgrade. He is a genial although troublingly probing inquisitor on the Transport Committee, and it is always a great pleasure to discuss these issues with him. I look forward to this being the first half of a little two-step, with the second half at our meeting next week. In an Adjournment debate last summer, he diligently raised his constituents’ concerns, particularly about the impact of road diversions through Cambridgeshire as a result of the A14 scheme. He need not repeat his speech—I am glad he did not—because I have read it with care and attention. I was not able to attend that debate, but I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), who responded in my stead.
I wish to use this opportunity to outline what Highways England has done, and is continuing to do, to reduce the impact of the scheme’s road diversions on local residents. Inevitably, much of that will revisit issues already discussed in the previous debate. It is important to be clear that this is a genuinely difficult issue for reasons I will come to, and we do not need conspiracy theories or worries about overlapping or underlapping jurisdictions to recognise the genuine difficulty of this situation.
I will come on to discuss the road diversions in some detail, but let me remind the hon. Gentleman of some of the strategic reasons for the scheme and provide an update on Highways England’s progress in delivering it. As he and any local resident or traveller in that part of the world will know, The Cambridge to Huntingdon section is one of the busiest parts of the strategic road network between the midlands and East Anglia and the port of Felixstowe. It is vital to connecting businesses, communities and families across Cambridgeshire and beyond, and a crucial corridor for international freight. It is also a long-standing congestion hotspot and an area of concern for the communities around it.
In delivering upgrades to the A14, Highways England and my Department acknowledged that the demand placed on it was taking an increasing toll on drivers and local residents. Commutes between Huntingdon and Cambridge were severely congested, and small villages on either side of the road suffered from increased traffic caused by drivers rat-running to avoid traffic delays on the A14. The scheme was drawn up in recognition of those concerns and in an attempt to alleviate them. That is why the A14 improvement works were included as a major project in the Department’s five-year road investment strategy, which was published in December 2014. In a measure of how important the scheme was locally, local authorities and local enterprise partnerships committed £100 million towards the total £1.5 billion cost. That contribution will help to deliver a scheme that meets the needs of the strategic road network and local people.
The benefits to local road users and communities include 21 miles of new three-lane dual carriageway road—that was mentioned in the debate last year—a new 750-metre viaduct; the removal of the existing unsightly viaduct in Huntingdon town centre; two new footbridges at Swavesey junction and Bar Hill; and—this is the bit I really like—more than 18 miles of routes that are suitable for walking, cycling and horse-riding. The goal, which we believe the scheme will achieve, is to create a positive legacy that ties communities together, unlocks regional and local economic growth, combats congestion and improves road safety. Relieving congestion will make travel, particularly commuting, easier, safer and more reliable. We hope the scheme, along with better design, will improve road safety.
The scheme separates strategic and local traffic, which will help to reduce congestion. It has been designed to accommodate the expected significant growth in the area over the next 15 years or so. This will be vital if the scheme’s benefits are to continue. I understand we are looking at a 26% growth in traffic. Cambridgeshire’s employment alone is forecast to grow by 16% between 2012 and 2031. We hope there will also be improvements to air quality and a reduction in traffic noise. Highways England never undertakes any scheme without paying careful attention to the environment and local wildlife. The scheme will deliver nearly 700 hectares of new habitat for wildlife and 18 new wildlife habitat creation areas, and hundreds bat boxes and a variety of bird boxes will be installed. All of that adds up to a highly attractive and important scheme that creates a positive legacy for the residents and businesses of Cambridgeshire.
The scheme has also created jobs through the new Highways College in west Anglia, which was opened to give up to 200 local people the skills needed to get the road built. Highways England is making good progress on the scheme. It is within budget and on target to meet an open-for-traffic date in 2020, as outlined in the road investment strategy, although it would be nice to think that it will be possible to take some of the diversions off before the end of that period. That is certainly the aspiration, but the open-for-traffic date at the end of 2020 is the stipulated date.
Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s specific concerns about noise and disruption for residents on and off the official diversion routes caused by the scheme’s construction, as he knows the Government and Highways England are focused on ensuring that the delivery of the scheme causes the minimum inconvenience to local residents, while recognising that some inconvenience is inevitable in a scheme of this magnitude. Since the issue was raised of HGVs, lorries and other vehicles not following the recommended road diversions, Highways England has been working hard to develop measures that will help to lessen those impacts and encourage more drivers to use the preferred diversion routes. As he noted, it is working closely with Cambridgeshire County Council and partner organisations to minimise the impact where possible.
When closures are in place on the A14 between junction 36 and junction 31, the strategic diversion route directs traffic south of Cambridge on what, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, is a substantial detour. The trouble is that alternative routes are required for non-motorway traffic. This is where we get into the genuine complexity of the issue. There is non-motorway traffic and local traffic travelling to local destinations, where the strategic diversion would be considered irrelevant or not acceptable. Those routes take traffic further into and around Cambridge city centre and include, as he mentioned, Kings Hedges Road, Newmarket Road and Milton Road.
Highways England has no powers to prevent road users, including HGVs, taking other routes they have a legal right to use as an alternative to the official strategic diversion. As the hon. Gentleman knows, traffic is like water—it tends to flow down the channels of least resistance. Blocking traffic on some local roads inevitably diverts it on to other local roads, and that creates complexity for the scheme. Highways England is working actively to keep strategic traffic—we are talking about a very small percentage of thousands and thousands of journeys every day—following official diversion routes. This includes giving weekly briefings to regional media, parish councils and local organisations, and posts on social media. There are also over 40 roadside signs, some including instructions not to follow sat-nav systems, up to 13 mobile variable messaging signs, and the use of overhead signs further afield on the strategic road network. Works have also been resequenced to resolve technical challenges involving utilities and drainage. The A14 project team are working with the Road Haulage Association and Freight Transport Association so that diversion information can be shared with their members too.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I am concerned about a possible mismatch between the data reported by Highways England and the on-the-ground data and experience of his constituents. Following the previous debate, Highways England was asked to take a look at this. As he knows, it is working with Cambridgeshire County Council to implement speed signs and HGV counters and, as he recognised, it has offered to pay some of the enforcement costs, but it has also taken the trouble to check the calibration of the counters. If there is still a mismatch and the calibration shows a much smaller number—say 20 to 30 vehicles during some hours of the night on some roads, rather than the large build-ups that his constituents are recording—we will have to get to the bottom that. We will be happy to share the data—next week, I hope—and look through that in more detail.
I need hardly say that Cambridgeshire police are also aware of the issues raised and have agreed to check for non-compliance with speed or weight restrictions at key sensitive locations. That is important. Such measures are not necessarily resource intensive, if they are focused and if the effect is to create a sense of uncertainty or concern, which can have a powerful deterrent effect on regular abusers of the traffic system. That said, for operational reasons, this is not always possible, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
The overall commitment to deliver the A14 upgrade on time and within budget remains, but the scheme has been created to ensure that wherever possible local stakeholders’ concerns are at the forefront of the work. The trouble is that in many cases for a period some of the distress felt historically in the villages has been transmuted to the centre of the city, which is unfortunate, but the A14 will in due course serve a wider goal. As I have said, the diversion routes may be required until the open-for-traffic date, programmed for 2020, but the hope is that they will not be.
The traffic data collected by Highways England and residents is a fraction of the many thousands of the HGVs that use the A14 every day, and Highways England is working with Cambridge City Council to improve the weight limit signage, which is also an important part of this. It has assured me that the matter of traffic on diversion routes for subsequent schemes, such as the A428, will be considered in the early stages of the planning process. If that is one tangible result of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, it will have been a valuable one. I thank him for raising this issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Architects Act 1997 (Swiss Qualifications) (amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing (Kit Malthouse)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Architects Act 1997 (Swiss Qualifications) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 810).
The regulations were made on 5 April 2019. They are part of the Government’s programme of legislation to ensure that, should the United Kingdom leave the European Union without a deal or implementation period, there continues to be a functioning legislative and regulatory regime.
On 28 March, we—including some of us in this room—amended the Architects Act 1997 to continue to recognise European economic area-qualified architects in a no-deal scenario. This statutory instrument extends those provisions to Swiss-qualified architects. Leaving the EU with a deal remains the Government’s priority—that has not changed—but the responsible thing to do is to make the necessary no-deal preparations, to ensure that the country is prepared for every eventuality.
The regulations are made using powers under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to fix legal deficiencies in retained EU law to reflect that the UK will no longer be an EU member state after exit day. The regulations also use powers in the European Communities Act 1972 to implement EU legislation in domestic legislation, which are available only as long as the UK remains a member state.
As stated previously, the architectural sector is a global leader and plays a significant role in the British economy, with an export surplus of £437 million in 2015 and involvement in key global projects such as Vessel in New York and Pulkovo airport in St Petersburg. That is a position that we want to protect and enhance over the coming years by ensuring that UK architect businesses continue to have access to the brightest and best talent available.
I will provide some context and background to the regulations, including a description of our earlier statutory instrument amending the Architects Act in a no-deal scenario. As I explained on 14 March, in the debate on the then draft Architects Act 1997 (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, the mutual recognition of professional qualifications directive enables the recognition of qualifications obtained in other member states. That applies to EEA and Swiss nationals, and includes the recognition of suitably qualified architects. The arrangement is reciprocal, allowing UK and other EEA or Swiss nationals the opportunity easily to register to practise across Europe and Switzerland, and allows UK practices to recruit the best European and Swiss talent.
The Architects Act 1997 sets out the specific procedures for registering as an architect in the UK. The registration of EEA and Swiss architects is carried out by the competent authority, the Architects Registration Board, which is an arm’s length body of my Department. There are three routes to recognition for EEA or Swiss architects wishing to register in this country. Their main route to recognition in the UK is through an automatic recognition system. To qualify for automatic recognition, an EEA or Swiss national needs to meet three tests: an approved qualification, which means one listed in annex V to the mutual recognition of professional qualifications directive; access to the profession of architect in an EEA member state or Switzerland; and a statement from their home competent authority to confirm that they are fit to practise.
A second route, known as “general systems”, provides for recognition for EEA and Swiss nationals who do not have an approved qualification. The applicant is offered compensation measures—that is, the opportunity to undertake additional training to make up any differences in qualification. It is a long and costly process, which on average only four people pursue annually. The third route facilitates the temporary or occasional provision of service. It allows EEA or Swiss professionals to work in the UK in a regulated profession on a temporary basis, while remaining established in their home state. Typically, fewer than 20 EEA or Swiss architects pursue that option at any one time.
If the UK leaves the EU without a deal, the mutual recognition of professional qualifications directive will no longer apply in the UK. The 2019 regulations made on 28 March ensure that UK architectural practices will continue to be able to recruit the best European talent and maintain their global reputation as world leaders in the field of architecture by preserving the main route to recognition.
The mutual recognition of professional qualifications directive was extended by what is commonly referred to as the agreement on the free movement of persons between the EU member states and Switzerland, which allowed Swiss nationals to benefit from the recognition routes described. Due to the requirement of the European Communities Act powers, which exist only as long as the UK is a member state, to include Swiss qualifications, we assessed that there was a substantial risk that all EEA-qualified architects who wish to register in the UK would be without legislative cover if the 2019 regulations were not made before 29 March. However, the extension to exit day has allowed us extra time to lay legislation to provide parity between EEA and Swiss-qualified architects, as currently exists, in a no-deal scenario.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for highlighting the various qualifications and regulations with regard to the Architects Act. Can he confirm whether there will be any watering down of the regulations in place between the UK and the EU post Brexit?
Kit Malthouse
I am coming to that. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will explain the effect of the instrument.
The policy intention is to provide the sector with confidence that almost all applicants can register in the same way after exit day as they do currently. That is the approach favoured by the sector, which recognises that the skills brought by EEA and Swiss architects contribute positively to the UK’s reputation as a world leader in architecture. The approach of continued recognition also received support in the debates on the 2019 regulations.
The instrument allows applications made before exit day to be concluded under the current system as far as possible. For future applications, it will freeze the list of approved qualifications in the EU’s mutual recognition of professional qualifications directive. As a result, after EU exit, in a no-deal scenario, an individual holding an approved EEA or Swiss qualification will be able to join the UK register of architects if they have access to the profession of architect in their home state. Through the legislation, that process will be open to anyone with a Swiss qualification and access to the profession in Switzerland, regardless of citizenship.
We will, however, remove general systems as a route to registration, as that is a long and costly process that is not often utilised. It places a significant and unnecessary burden on individuals and the Architects Registration Board. Therefore, applicants without an approved qualification will be able to register via the route currently utilised by third-country nationals.
The instrument does not change any part of the 2019 regulations, but simply extends the provisions to include Swiss qualifications. Although the number of Swiss architects registering in the UK is low—77 in the last 10 years—and accounts for less than 1% of the total recognition decisions via that route, we felt that it was imperative to preserve the rights that Swiss-qualified architects enjoy and provide parity between EEA and Swiss-qualified architects.
The regulations, alongside those made on 28 March, serve a specific purpose to prioritise stability and certainty if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period by ensuring that EEA and Swiss-qualified architects can continue to register and practise in the UK. The regulations ensure that the UK will continue to have access to Swiss talent after we have left the EU, thereby helping to maintain the UK’s reputation as a global leader in architectural services. Thereafter, they provide a stable basis for Parliament to change the law, where it is in the UK’s best interest to do so.
To conclude, the instrument is necessary to ensure that the Architects Act continues to function appropriately if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period. I hope that hon. Members will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the Minister for outlining what the statutory instrument contains. It is clear that it follows on from the SI that was made on 28 March and relates to a relatively small subset of that larger group of European architects that that SI referred to. On that basis, I will keep my remarks short, but I want to ensure that we have a complete understanding of what the Government seek to do.
Architects are one of the seven sectoral professions that benefit from automatic recognition under the current system, so if an EU, EEA or Swiss citizen meets the minimum harmonised standards, as set out in the directive, they are eligible to register and practise in the UK as an architect. The Architects Registration Board is responsible for the registration of all architects in the UK.
When, or if, we leave the EU, the directive will no longer apply. The SI ensures that the existing process for recognising EU and EEA-qualified applicants seeking to register as architects in the UK will operate effectively should we leave without a deal.
Dr Blackman-Woods
The Minister is nodding, so I assume that I have got that right. The current process will be frozen immediately before exit day, hence the need to plan ahead. The reason that Swiss architects were not considered last time is that neither the 2019 regulations nor the 1997 Act referred to the Swiss agreement. Is that correct?
Dr Blackman-Woods
Good—we can make progress. It is a pity that we have to put time in to preparing for a no-deal exit that the Government could clearly have taken off the table much earlier. Nevertheless, we are where we are and I prefer to focus my comments on the importance of supporting the architectural profession in the UK and ensuring that, post Brexit, it is able to draw on the expertise and creativity of architects right across Europe, including in Switzerland. That is especially important as the sector contributes about £4 billion—perhaps considerably more, even £5 billion—to the economy, and grows in importance all the time.
We need to maintain our position as a major global player in architecture. That has been recognised by the Royal Institute of British Architects, which has been clear that the sector is calling for access to the best talent and skills and common standards and compliance costs post Brexit. RIBA has made it clear that the architectural scene could be stricken by a shortage of talent should Brexit mean that free movement comes to an end and no mutual recognition of professional qualifications agreement is in place. Will the Minister comment on that? At the moment, it is not entirely clear that there will be an MRPQ agreement or that the Government are working on that.
I know from what the Minister said in a previous Delegated Legislation Committee that he is aware of the importance of the sector. Hansard notes that he recognised the sector’s exports surplus in particular, which was £437 million in 2015. As we recognise the importance of the sector, we need to ask a few questions. Such SIs put temporary solutions in place, but what additional resources can the Minister give to ensure that the long-term issue of registration and recognition of Swiss architects will be resolved?
I have asked the Minister about reciprocal agreements before but, in the light of this SI, I need to ask again. What reciprocal agreements have been put in place and are the Government working on them? The sector says that they are hugely important: 74% of architects believe that access to the EU is necessary and that without it, the industry’s future growth could be stymied. Sixty per cent. of architects surveyed by RIBA said that they have considered leaving Britain because of Brexit, which is 20% more than when the survey was first carried out in 2016. Brexit has already had an impact on the revenue stream of 68% of architects, and 43% of practices have had projects cancelled. We must ensure that no further damage is inflicted on the sector, and everybody seems to say that work on a detailed and inclusive MRPQ must happen as soon as possible.
Has the Minister made an estimate of the cost to businesses or architects’ practices of putting this new system in place? Also, what exactly will happen to the ARB after Brexit? Will it be given additional resources, or will the Government meet it to ensure that it is able to deal with this situation post Brexit?
In the last SI Committee related to the 1997 Act, questions were put to the Minister on how, if this does not work and there is not an MRPQ that everybody signs up to, we may end up in a situation where architects wishing to come and work in this country from across Europe, including Switzerland, will have to apply through the tier 2 visa process. The Minister did not answer questions about whether they will have to take that route or whether the Government will develop another route for them. Obviously, as this is a concern to the sector, I am very keen that he comments on that.
Clearly this SI is a tidying-up exercise. We do not wish to vote against it, because we want to support the architectural profession and ensure that, if UK architects want to employ architects from Switzerland, they are able to. However, I will be grateful if the Minister addresses the questions that have been raised.
Kit Malthouse
I thank the hon. Member for City of Durham for her constructive approach. She is quite right that this is a temporary fix for a situation in which mutual recognition falls away as part of our exit from the EU. We are committed to trying to find a permanent solution. We are jointly holding fruitful and ongoing conversations about mutual recognition with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and our professional partners across the world.
Obviously, as we move into a post-EU world, that work will accelerate, not least because it is in our interest, particularly for this sector. Our architects are world renowned and famed across the globe for their expertise, ingenuity and innovation. I think a British architect designed the new airport in Hong Kong. We are, of course, famous for our bridges; we build lots of them around the world. This is a great export industry that we wish to encourage, as well as being part of our armoury, if you like, of soft power around the world. We build the great buildings and edifices, from the Bundestag in Germany right through to that airport in Hong Kong. We are keen to support the industry.
Part of the reason for this SI was to maintain standards. By freezing the recognition of qualifications at the point of exit, we provide ourselves with a period of security in which we can be clear that those people coming in to practise architecture in this country do so on a stable basis. However, it is of course the job of the ARB to continually review qualifications from around the world to make sure that they are up to standard, because it has a general duty to ensure that anybody practising architecture in this country does so correctly and to the right standard.
As we discussed in the last SI Committee to deal with the subject, we believe that the cost of this is minimal. Fundamentally, this SI achieves the same thing by a slightly different route. It gives powers to the ARB to require information to be provided in different ways from how it is currently provided. Given that the general route towards qualification to practise in this country is being removed—as I said, that places a burden on the ARB as well as individuals—there may well be a reduction in overall costs through the removal of that rather cumbersome route to qualify.
As the hon. Lady says, this is essentially a tidying-up exercise for a very small number of architects; we are talking about an average of something like seven people registering a year. We felt it was better to be belt and braces than to leave it loose, not least because one of our greatest or most acclaimed architects, Norman Foster, is resident in Switzerland and may wish to move backwards and forwards. That is not to say that we are legislating specifically for him; we are also legislating for the many young, exciting and interesting architects from this country and Switzerland who may decide to practise in the other country. On that note, I thank the Committee for listening carefully to the information that has been provided, and I hope it will support the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Value Added Tax (Tour Operators) (amendment) (EU exit) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Value Added Tax (Tour Operators) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 73).
It is nice to see that we are all here present and correct, Sir Henry, and under your chairmanship. The instrument allows changes to the VAT treatment of the suppliers of designated travel services made by UK tour operators that are enjoyed in an EU member state. By “designated travel services” we mean holidays in which, for example, hotel accommodation, car hire, flights and so forth are included.
The instrument will come into effect only after the laying of an appointed day order, which will occur only in the unlikely event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal. As the Committee will know, the Government remain focused on ensuring our smooth and orderly withdrawal from the EU with a deal as soon as possible. However, the current agreement with the EU is that the UK will leave no later than 31 October, and as a responsible Government we have been preparing for all potential outcomes, including the unlikely scenario in which no mutually satisfactory agreement can be reached.
The tour operators’ margin scheme, also known as TOMS, is an EU simplification scheme that treats a series of designated travel services—let us call them holidays—as a single supply, and determines that the place of supply is where the tour operator is established, not where the holidays are enjoyed. A benefit of TOMS is that tour operators need only account for VAT on the difference between the value of the sales and the costs for the services, which is commonly known as the margin. An additional benefit of the current system is that tour operators need to register an account for VAT only in the member state where they are established, regardless of where in the European Union the holidays take place.
In common with other areas of VAT, in the unlikely event of a no-deal exit from the EU, the Government are seeking to retain the VAT treatment of goods and services as close to the existing rules as possible. For UK tour operators, that means implementing a UK version of TOMS that retains some of the VAT benefits while treating holidays in the EU in the same way as those enjoyed in the rest of the world. That means that the VAT rate on EU holidays will be zero, rather than 20% as now. That requires an amendment to group 8 of schedule 8 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994, to extend the VAT rate of 0% to designated travel services enjoyed in EU member states, as well as to those in the rest of the world. There would be no change to the VAT treatment of designated travel services currently enjoyed in the United Kingdom.
It is worth noting that UK tour operators may be required to register in each member state where they supply designated travel services that are to be enjoyed in the member state in question. However, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is not aware of any member state that requires non-EU tour operators to register for VAT. While there is no reason to believe that this will change, in the event that the UK leaves without a deal, it cannot be guaranteed. The instrument therefore removes the risk of UK tour operators being subject to double taxation.
This instrument also makes changes to the Value Added Tax (Tour Operators) Order 1987, replacing references to “the EU” with “the UK”. That ensures that the place of supply of those services remains the United Kingdom, and that the place of establishment of the tour operator is in the UK.
In summary, in the unlikely event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal, these changes will keep the VAT processes as close as possible to the present regime, and ensure that UK tour operators will not be subject to double taxation. Those changes treat suppliers of designated travel services enjoyed in the EU in the same way as those enjoyed in the rest of the world, and maintains the present VAT treatment of designated travel services enjoyed in the UK. I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee with you in the Chair, Sir Henry, and I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. Of course, this statutory instrument is one of a series that is intended to prepare the country for the event of a no-deal Brexit. The Committee will be aware that the Opposition have repeatedly voiced our concern about this process, in particular the fact that, in our opinion, very often the precise impacts of these measures have not been sufficiently spelled out. That is a point I will return to in a moment in relation to this SI. In addition, we are concerned that the process has not facilitated the accountability necessary for potentially significant changes to rules around tax and many other financial and economic issues.
Having said that, we agree with the premise of these specific regulations, which is to prevent the double taxation of travel companies or tour companies in the event of a no-deal Brexit—something that we have long argued the Government should have ruled out from the very beginning. However, these regulations do not deal with the significant uncertainty, and especially the additional cost, that companies would face in relation to their tax liabilities abroad if there was a change to the current VAT process, especially if they suddenly had to register separately for VAT in every EU country in which they operate.
I think this is a matter of omission by the Government, rather than commission. My concern is that the Government have not spelled out how they would help those companies and what they would do specifically to deal with the bureaucratic obstacles that would arise in what may currently seem an unlikely eventuality, although I think it is perhaps more likely than the Government appear to believe.
As the Minister explained, the current system of VAT for tour operators treats the place of supply for VAT purposes as the UK, irrespective of where their travel service is employed. Therefore, VAT currently stands at 20% across the board for outbound tourist services. Under the new system, as I understand it, the amount of VAT due would differ depending on the country the service was provided in, if those different EU27 countries decided they wanted to levy it; I appreciate that they might not, but equally they might decide to do so.
The rate due in that eventuality would vary depending on the country, with the burden of operating in, say, Scandinavian countries such as Norway or Sweden increasing due to their higher VAT rate of 25%. It would also potentially become very complicated; as we know, in some countries such as Germany there are different VAT rates for different aspects of tourism-related activities. In the hotel sector, for example, VAT is 7%, compared with restaurants where it is 19%.
The Government’s impact assessment insisted that the impact of this regulation was negligible, but I understand from the representations made to me by industry that the changes could be felt in significant ways by outbound tourist companies. If it was necessary to have multiple VAT registrations, it would place a significant financial burden on tour companies, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises. Those tour operators would need to understand the operation of VAT in all those other countries in which they operate within the EU and how each VAT system could affect their business. That could place a considerable burden on tour operators and many would need to pay for local advice.
There is also the fact that different types of digital tax systems have been introduced in different EU states. Under these proposals, tour operators may need to have systems capable of compliance with multiple different versions of digital tax accounting. For example, I understand that the digital tax system in Spain—the biggest destination for UK holidaymakers—has been described as particularly complicated and likely to lead to high compliance costs for British businesses.
Those new costs would have to be absorbed by those companies, potentially at the same time as they had to comply with making tax digital for the first time, given the Government’s timetable on MTD. In fact, it has been suggested that the typical cost of basic local compliance in each EU member state could amount to between €8,000 and €15,000 per VAT-registered entity per annum. That is a pretty big burden. If we look at the outbound tourist industry, according to the Association of British Travel Agents, 90.7% of companies in the industry employ fewer than 10 people and a further 8% employ fewer than 50. They are not gigantic organisations that can have whole sets of staff dealing with VAT; that is just not on the cards for them at all.
As a first question, can the Minister explain clearly to this Committee what his Government would do to support small and medium-sized enterprises through this transition, if necessary? I must say that I find the impact assessment quite peculiar in its claim that there would be a minimal impact on business, because that surely would not be the case if they suddenly had to comply with all those different systems.
This is very evocative for me of what happened with the situation for VAT on digital services. I am sure that Committee members remember that the EU introduced a lower threshold for the payment of VAT on digital services, and changed the locus of payment from the location of the seller—that is effectively the same approach as that of these regulations—to the location of the consumer. It also introduced the VAT mini one-stop shop—I am sure hon. Members remember VATMOSS. The VATMOSS system calculated the VAT that was payable for businesses without their having to do that work, but even with VATMOSS lots of businesses found it very difficult to comply with the new system. There does not appear to be anything equivalent even to VATMOSS in the regulations for tour operators if they suddenly have to start paying all that VAT in EU27 countries. My second question is, have the Government made any attempt to encourage the EU27 to consider creating a one-stop shop if these regulations are acted upon?
There is also the matter of the impact of these new rules on revenue to the Exchequer. Studies have shown that TOMS VAT equates to about 1.08% of tour operating turnover. ABTA estimates that its members paid in the region of £300 million in TOMS VAT last year. Thirdly, I hope the Minister will be able to outline what measures the Government intend to adopt to avoid the loss of revenue that looks set to arise from this approach if it is acted upon.
It is important, as we head into economically uncertain times, that the Government do all they can to support the tourism sector, particularly given that the UK has one of the most developed outbound travel markets in the world. I want to pause a little to consider the Minister’s claim that it is very unlikely that we will see change here because third-country regimes are not being invoked at the moment and because EU27 countries currently do not charge VAT to third-country operators. The UK is in a different situation because of the number of trips organised by UK-based tour operators for people from outside the EU which begin in the UK and follow a so-called grand tour of Europe. That is very important for many of our tour operators.
The overall industry of outbound tourism is worth more than £11.7 billion a year to the UK economy, and in excess of £28.3 billion a year by the time aggregate impacts are taken into account. Those tourists sometimes start their trip in Paris or Berlin, but I estimate that quite a large proportion of them start in the UK. Therefore, the incentives are stronger for the EU27 to look into changing this regime, particularly if they think that there could be a positive revenue impact on them or that there is the opportunity to persuade those tourists to start their trips within their jurisdiction, rather than the UK, or to prevent tours from being run by a UK tour operator.
This is all occurring at a time when the tourism industry is facing difficulties. We have all heard about what has been happening with Thomas Cook. There is growing uncertainty, and it is creating an increasingly difficult environment for the tourism and hospitality sectors to operate in. It is also affecting consumers, who have been warned by travel companies that they will not be compensated if a no-deal Brexit causes travel chaos.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sorry I was late, Sir Henry. It is Europe day, and I was asking a question in business questions about celebrating our membership of the European Union. Does my hon. Friend agree that working people in the travel and tourism industry in our country, which is very important, are extremely worried about their jobs and their future? This statutory instrument is very important indeed to their lives.
Anneliese Dodds
I could not agree more. That is absolutely the case. To an extent, I have an interest in this sector, as some of my family members have been involved in it. It is often a route for social mobility, because small, innovative firms can develop a specific offer and, as a result, grow, innovate and create new jobs. It is a dynamic part of the UK economy. We need more information—I hope that the Minister can provide some—about how the Government will try to protect and nurture those firms, given the potential impact of the additional administrative and perhaps financial burden if these measures are required.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I am grateful for the Minister’s summation and I find myself much in agreement with what the Opposition spokesperson has already said. I would add that I find it absolutely disgraceful that the UK Government are still planning for a no-deal scenario, which in my opinion should have been ruled out far earlier than now. I am also concerned about the risk of multiple VAT registrations that may be required at some point in the future, and deeply concerned about the impact that could have on businesses.
Mel Stride
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Oxford East for her usual thorough interrogation of the issues at hand.
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady’s colleague says she is very good, and I concur entirely with that sentiment.
I am pleased that the hon. Lady agrees with the premise of what we are attempting to achieve here. She recognised the importance of avoiding potential changes in the unlikely event of a no-deal Brexit, in terms of double taxation. She specifically raised the issue of what would happen, and she set out in great detail what might happen, in the event that we were to leave the European Union and the EU were to then change its relationship in respect of this particular element of the VAT regime and what the impact of that might be on the UK business sector. I would like to make a few brief points on that.
The first point to make is that there is no suggestion at this stage from HMRC or ourselves that that is a likely outcome, in terms of the discussions that we have had with the European Union on our exit. It would introduce a great additional complication on both sides were the EU27 to decide to move in that direction.
The second point I would raise is one that the hon. Lady raised. Under the EU’s current regime, no third countries are treated as having to register for VAT within any of the EU28 member states with which they may be conducting business.
Thirdly, when we look at VAT, where holidays or trips are sold from the UK into the EU27, VAT is generated as a consequence of those trips and the hotel bookings and so on, so the EU and member states are collecting VAT in that way. As the hon. Lady will recognise, the context of this debate is the margin on which the VAT is being accrued.
Finally, if we were to end up in a no-deal situation, which I think unlikely, and the EU were to decide that our businesses had to register separately within the EU27, it would have to think long and hard about the consequences and what we might do in response to that. I do not think it would be in either party’s interest to change from the current status quo.
The hon. Lady also pointed out that the impact assessment foresees limited or effectively no impact on businesses. Of course, that excludes the scenario on which she dwelt at great length in her speech, and rightly so, as I have set out why we think that is highly unlikely. She asked what support we would provide to business in the event that there was a changed response from the EU27. Were we to get into that kind of territory, we would know some time in advance, and would take decisions at that moment in time.
She also asked whether we had encouraged the EU to look at alternative arrangements. I am fairly confident in saying that we have not engaged in those specific discussions with the EU on the basis that we think that it is extremely unlikely, but were it to appear to become more likely, then of course we would look at all those particular avenues. She asked a specific question about what the loss of VAT revenue might be as a consequence of complying with WTO rules and applying the zero VAT rate to those transactions between ourselves and the EU27, in the unlikely event of a no-deal Brexit. I am very happy to write to her to give as accurate an answer as I can.
I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for his comments. I think he said it was disgraceful that we are still planning for a no-deal Brexit, but that is something that we passionately do not want, which is why we are working so hard to try to deliver a deal. However, we must recognise the fact that ultimately a no-deal might be outside of our control. It is to some degree within the gift of the European Union. As a responsible Government, we must make sure we cover that remote possibility. On that basis, I hope the Committee will support the instrument.
Question put and agreed to.
Animal Health, Plant Health, Seeds and Seed Potatoes (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Animal Health, Alien Species in Aquaculture and Invasive Non-native Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Animal Health, Plant Health, Seeds and Seed Potatoes (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 809).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the Animal Health, Alien Species in Aquaculture and Invasive Non-native Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 813).
At the end of the debate, I will put the question on the first motion, and then ask the Minister to move the remaining motion formally.
David Rutley
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Ryan. Thank you for clarifying the situation. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for their participation at such short notice. Both statutory instruments were made under the urgency procedure, as they were required to support the UK’s application to the EU Commission for third country listed status for exports of animals and animal products. The Government have made it clear that we seek to negotiate a deal with the EU, but we are also taking responsible action to prepare for other eventualities. The UK’s third country listing application was a particularly important part of our no-deal preparations, as third country listed status would have guaranteed that the export of animal products and most live animals from the UK to the EU could have continued, had we left the EU without a deal on 12 April.
The EU called a meeting of the standing committee on plants, animals, food and feed on 9 April to consider the UK’s third country listing application, which covered most live animals and animal products. It was made clear that all relevant animal health legislation was to be in place by that date. Both SIs therefore had to be made in a short window of time, as both contained amendments to animal health legislation. They were laid before Parliament on 4 April and made using the urgency procedure, so the UK was able to assure the EU that all relevant legislation had been made, enabling member states to vote unanimously on 9 April to list the UK as a third country in the event of a no-deal scenario on 12 April. That was a positive outcome.
The Government have taken care to avoid using the urgency procedure under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, but we considered its use appropriate in these instances. Our biosecurity controls for animals and plants are paramount, and these instruments contribute towards ensuring that we will have the most robust arrangements in place to protect public health and the environment when the UK leaves the EU. These instruments make technical operability changes covering animal health, plant health, agriculture, invasive non-native species, seed marketing and seed potatoes, and they will ensure that the legislation that protects our biosecurity is fully operable.
The first set of regulations cover animal health, plant health, seed marketing and seed potatoes. They primarily make technical amendments to ensure that recent EU decisions will be operable on exit day. Regulation 2 implements recent updates on animal health control measures relating to African swine fever in certain member states. It relates to Commission implementing decision 2014/709, and requires the appropriate Minister in the UK to display public information notices regarding the importance of biosecurity measures to prevent this pig disease from being brought into the UK. It also prohibits the movement of live feral pigs.
Regulation 3 amends retained EU law to ensure that transmissible spongiform encephalopathies functions operate correctly, by replacing a reference to production and manufacturing processes being approved by the EU Commission with those approved by the Secretary of State. That was omitted from a previous EU exit SI.
Part 3 of the SI covers plant health. It amends the Plant Health (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the Plant Health (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 to recognise arrangements with the Crown dependencies and deal with new EU plant health decisions, such as controls on the red-necked longhorn beetle, preventing its introduction and spread.
Regulations 4 and 5 give effect to the arrangements with the Crown dependencies, following planned meetings that were concluded early in 2019, that will continue to facilitate the import and movement of regulated plants and plant products into the UK from Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man. Agreement came late in those negotiations, and the provision could not be put into a previous SI, passed back in December. Regulation 5 also provides for the import of ash wood from the USA and Canada to continue under the same stringent derogation provisions after exit, ensuring continuity of supply for UK businesses without compromising biosecurity. That follows a recent EU decision.
The Plant Health (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 are also being amended to enable UK plant passports to contain certain details relating to the marketing of fruit plant propagating material and fruit plants, to avoid the need for dual labelling.
Part 4 of the first statutory instrument covers marketing of seed potatoes and vegetable seed. It applies to England, as this is a devolved matter. Regulations are being amended to ensure that growers in England have continued access to new varieties of vegetables and a continued supply of seed potatoes after EU exit. These provisions are needed to ensure continued access to seed potatoes of relevant varieties during the one-year interim period. I am sure that we will speak more about that in the course of these proceedings.
With your permission, Ms Ryan, I turn to the Animal Health, Alien Species in Aquaculture and Invasive Non-native Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. This instrument amends four previously made EU exit SIs, to ensure that the previous instruments work fully as intended. The instruments being amended are the Invasive Non-native Species (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, the Aquatic Animal Health and Alien Species in Aquaculture (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, the Aquatic Animal Health and Alien Species in Aquaculture (Amendment) (England and Wales) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the Import of and Trade in Animals and Animal Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The invasive species instrument is being amended to correct a small number of drafting and typographical errors. An amendment has been made to regulation 7(3)(e) of the invasive species instrument, to ensure consistency with the Invasive Alien Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Order 2019. The order provides for recovery of enforcement-related costs from importers by enforcement authorities. This amendment provides certainty that importers are responsible for those costs.
The aquatic instruments previously contained minor errors, for which I apologise. They have been corrected by this instrument.
The instrument relating to animal imports is being amended to reinstate the 2006 Commission decision, which was revoked in error. That decision imposes the import requirements for fruit bats, cats and dogs from Peninsular Malaysia and Australia. I should say to hon. Members that the UK does not import any fruit bats, but a number of cats and dogs are imported from those countries, so it is clearly imperative that the issue be rectified. We have absolutely no intention of weakening biosecurity standards.
The lists of animal product commodities subject to checks at UK border inspection posts were intended by the Department to be published outside the EU retained legislation, for ease of later amendment. However, those were not removed as intended from the appropriate 2007 Commission decision. This instrument will now take the lists out, so that they can be more readily updated in response to future circumstances.
The final change of note is the removal of earlier amendments to a 2014 Commission implementing regulation, because it has been determined that the whole regulation is not required as EU retained law. It relates to a health certificate for wild game carcases, including gazelles, that has not been used for 10 years. The regulation has already been revoked in another EU exit SI from another Department, so we are removing our amendments, as they are no longer required. The animal imports instrument additionally makes a small number of further very minor corrections.
I emphasise that this corrective instrument makes purely technical changes to the four EU exit instruments, to ensure that they will operate correctly when we leave the EU. This instrument does not introduce new policy. It simply amends the original instruments, so that they operate as originally intended.
The decision to use the urgency procedure was not taken lightly; its use was deemed necessary to protect the biosecurity of the UK, to prevent financial losses, and to maintain trade by ensuring that the UK could achieve EU third country listed status, in the event of our leaving the EU without a deal on 12 April. The regulations will ensure that our strict biosecurity controls with regard to animal health, plant health, agriculture, invasive non-native species, seed marketing and seed potatoes are maintained when we leave the European Union. For the reasons I have set out, I commend the statutory instruments to the Committee.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
I intend to speak to SI 2019, No. 809; my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport will speak to the other SI.
I believe that the Minister told us that the measures in today’s SIs were intended to have been covered in previous ones. Perhaps he can confirm that. It can surely never have been the plan to deal with African swine fever and seed potatoes in the same SI. I also assume that the reference to the EU Commission in relation to the production and manufacturing processes in transmissible spongiform encephalopathies is simply an omission that was not picked up by a previous SI.
Is all that confusion not indicative of other possible omissions, one or two of which may turn out to be seriously damaging? Was there ever any serious possibility that the Crown dependencies would not want to be covered by the regulations? The explanatory memorandum states that it was agreed that they would be covered
“Following recent discussions”—
well, they were recent in February—
“with the Crown Dependencies”.
Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us as to whether the discussions started with, “After careful consideration, would you like to change your mind and be included in the UK regulations?”. Or was it more a case of, “Oh dear, we seem to have left you out of the regulations. We can put that right with a catch-all mopping up SI, but we need your consent”?
We are here to make amendments to amendments because the previous amendments fell short of what was needed. On aromia bungii, the EU regulations were changed in October. The SI was originally laid before Parliament on 12 February, but we could all be forgiven for having lost track, because it has been scheduled and pulled so many times, with or without minor amendments, and with or without the added complication of there being completely different SIs with the same title that dealt with Northern Ireland.
The Plant Health (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 were passed on 19 March. Will the Minister explain why they did not include the changes necessary to cover the new EU regulation in this area, given that SI 2019, No. 809, which was originally laid before Parliament on 12 February, mentioned things that were not in the regulations passed on 19 March? Why was no mention made of the fact that further changes needed to be made when we debated this on 19 March?
This all sounds minor and pettifogging, but if infestations of aromia bungii, also known as red-necked longhorn beetles, were to spread unchecked, that would have a serious effect on our fruit growers. Hopefully, the further amendment before us today will help to prevent its spread, but are there other pests for which preventive regulations have inadvertently not been accurately amended, and how can we tell? Ms Ryan, you would be forgiven for believing that we had passed the SI already. Can the Government be sure that they have, at last, got it right?
We have concerns about the changes proposed in the SI. In line with the series of concerns raised by the House of Lords Committee, will the Minister tell us whether the need to facilitate trade post Brexit will be allowed to compromise the UK’s biosecurity in any way? Will the Minister explain how checks on biosecurity will be made at the Northern Ireland border in the absence of a hard border and of any legal requirement for checks on material in transit to the UK to be done at the first point of entry to the EU?
The SI demonstrates that there have been omissions in previous SIs. Will the Minister commit to a complete review of all EU exit SIs once we have passed them, in order to identify any other errors or omissions? This repeat SI also gives us the opportunity to follow up on questions that I asked on 19 March. I asked whether the Government had any plans for information sharing with other EU countries on biosecurity. The Minister mentioned that the UK was developing its own database. Can he tell us whether that is now available, and if so, how much does it cost? I asked about the preferential treatment for roll-on roll-off plant shipments. The Minister mentioned the increased biosecurity afforded by containerisation. Could the Minister tell us whether that would also apply to containers being shipped directly by rail?
I asked about the volume of trade for which this SI is relevant. The Minister replied that the Government do not have data on the volume of EU transit trade in plants, which makes the point that I had intended to raise, namely that as they do not know what volume of checks will be needed, the Government will have to plan for significantly greater capacity than they expect to need. Otherwise, there is a very real danger that the capacity will not be sufficient. I would like to remind the Minister that the aforementioned red-necked longhorn beetle was introduced into this country from China in a consignment of decorative plants, so the lack of checks has already proven to be an issue, and may well become more of an issue. Following the previous Minister’s reply on 19 March, has the Minister asked for an assessment of the volume of checks that will be necessary?
No purpose would be served by voting against this SI, as it does not contain any provisions that we object to. However, as with all these SIs, the problem lies more with what might not be in them than with what might be in them. Our fear remains that if we do crash out of the EU without a deal, it will be extremely difficult to overcome these omissions.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich has laid out, the Opposition will not be opposing the SIs, because they fix the Government’s own mistakes.
Regular watchers of these SI Committees on the parliamentlive.tv website—I am sure there are many—will know of the concerns shared by my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Dr Drew), for Workington (Sue Hayman), and for Ipswich—the shadow Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs team—that these SIs are being rushed through with mistakes, or gremlins, as I called them in our last SI debate, being inserted into the statute book. There is too little time for scrutiny. There is widespread and understandable stakeholder fatigue: so many of these problems, which might otherwise have been spotted by stakeholders, are not being highlighted, because there is such an avalanche of them on their desks.
This raises a number of concerns in relation to the Animal Health, Alien Species in Aquaculture and Invasive Non-native Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, because time and again, when the elements of these instruments have been considered by SI Committees, the Opposition have raised concerns that poorly drafted and hurried secondary legislation is polluting the statute book. Those concerns have again been proven valid, because we are being asked to correct the mistakes of a Government who got Brexit badly wrong, and got these SIs badly wrong.
The purpose of this SI is to amend mistakes to the four EU exit SIs rushed through by the Government ahead of the 29 March deadline. In discussion on each of those SIs, the Opposition raised concerns about the breakneck speed at which we were asked to wave the provisions through. We know that at least 515 Brexit-related SIs have been laid before Parliament since 26 June. What we do not know, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich said, is how many of those have errors in them. In Committee, the Opposition warned about the lack of scrutiny. We are now using precious additional parliamentary time to pass legislation that was poorly drafted and approved in a rushed manner only a few weeks ago.
The fact that we are being asked to approve corrections to these errors highlights the concerns that were raised repeatedly about the lack of proper scrutiny. Before I come on to those concerns, I would like to say that I am grateful to the Minister for today apologising to the Committee for these errors. I assume that it was not his pen making these typographical errors, but I am grateful for his admission of them. Will he reassure hon. Members that any other errors found in these SIs or additional ones will again be brought to the House, so that they can be clearly and transparently admitted to and corrected, and so that no errors or mistakes, inadvertent legislation, surprise provisions or curious interpretations due to spelling and grammar errors will stand on the statute books in perpetuity?
The Import of and Trade in Animals and Animal Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which are contained in this SI, correct the imports instrument in respect of Commission decision 2006/146EC, on certain protections and measures regarding fruit bats, dogs and cats coming from Malaysia and Australia. Dogs and cats are certainly something that a number of my constituents have written to me about; they have largely written about ensuring that these animals are not eaten in the UK. Sadly, that is not what this provision does. The imports instrument revokes the decision. A single article from this decision, article 5, was intended to be revoked, but instead the entire decision was revoked in error. Regulation 5 of this SI fixes that mistake, which should have been spotted in the sifting process.
This instrument also corrects the imports instrument in respect of Commission decision 2007/275, concerning the list of animals and products to be subjected to controls at border inspection points. The explanatory note says:
“The Imports instrument was intended to remove lists of commodities subject to checks at border inspection posts from the annexes of this Decision so that they can be published elsewhere and amended more easily, but they were left in the legislation in error.”
I am glad that such errors have been spotted, and that we have the opportunity to fix them.
In regulation 5(11)(b) in the instrument before us, which replaces 2006/65 with 2006/605, a number of errors have been corrected, including the one I mentioned. I am glad that it has been spotted. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud took the instrument on invasive non-native species through Committee last time; he said the major objective was
“taking out the words ‘Member State’ and sticking in their place the words ‘appropriate authority’.”
However, the Government failed to do that, which is why the instrument before us sets out to do this under regulation 2(3)(b). Microsoft Word’s find-and-replace tool is useful; I suggest that the Minister familiarises himself with it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud also said:
“someone has had to do an awful lot of work, and I do not know whether they have done it well or whether they have covered all the bases.”—[Official Report, Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee, 29 January 2019; c. 5.]
It seems he was correct to say that all those bases were not covered by the previous Minister.
The invasive non-native species instrument is important, and it is legislation that we cannot afford to get wrong. From foot and mouth disease to agricultural diseases, we need to ensure that our laws are correct. There are 1,820 notifiable tree diseases that affect various species in this country, and we know disease is ever present. Ash dieback and the oak processionary moth have taken out major trees in this country, and we must ensure that the regulations on their protection, and actions against diseases, are up to date. That is why this legislation is so important, and why it is fundamental that we get the detail of these SIs right, and not confuse the word “biogeographical” with “biographical”—a basic error that seems to have slipped through the system. That relates directly to the concerns I raised in my opening remarks about the breakneck speed at which these SIs have been pushed through. It is embarrassing for the Government to have to correct such basic errors in this SI, but I am glad that they have ’fessed up to their mistakes and are correcting them.
The preamble to much of the European regulation on invasive alien species was not included in this instrument, yet the Minister will know it is quite an important element of the way we lay down how such species are dealt with. On the concerns raised my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, have the Government considered whether they could include the preamble in a future SI, to ensure that that really important part of the legislation is not lost? It is quite detailed and a bit techy, but it is important for the overall setting of this SI.
I turn to mistakes in the aquatic health SIs, addressing regulations 3 and 4 of the instrument before us. These SIs were approved through the negative procedure and were not subject to scrutiny in Committee. Although they had only minor typographical errors, such errors could have an impact on how the law is operated and enforced. I will repeat the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, but in relation to this SI. How can we be confident that there are not more errors, especially in SIs that have been approved through the negative procedure? Does the Department intend to review SIs that have come through the negative procedure—in a similar way to this SI, with this mistake—to ensure that no further errors are polluting our statute books?
My final point is on the impact assessment of these SIs. The Minister will know, because I have said it once or twice in SI Committees, that I am not a fan of the phrase
“no, or no significant impact”
in explanatory memorandums. I encourage him to work with the House authorities and the Leader of the House to try to correct that. There is a big difference between no impact and no significant impact. We should not allow that catch-all phrase in explanatory notes, because it reduces their validity. It reduces the information by which it might be determined that there is no impact. “No significant impact” implies that there is some impact.
As we have said, the Opposition will not oppose the instruments. The situation is embarrassing for the Minister, but I am grateful to him for coming to ’fess up and correct the mistakes. I should be grateful if he offered a commitment that any future mistakes spotted in these hurried and rushed SIs will be corrected in a similar manner.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I have a couple of thoughts on matters of concern. I share the concern about the errors. We all agreed at the time that statutory instruments were getting far too rushed and it was anticipated that there would be far too many mistakes. I agree generally with the two Members who have just spoken.
Will the Minister outline what would have happened if the exit day—whichever one it might have been—had happened; or what might happen on whatever date it might be in the future? What disruption could it have caused, in his opinion? I anticipate that there still might be some disruption, if errors occur in future. How will we handle it if errors are made, and what disruption will that cause to businesses?
David Rutley
I am grateful to members of the Committee for their contributions and, indeed, their forensic questioning under severe time pressure.
As has been said in previous Committees, we have had to deal with a huge amount of legislation in a short period to prepare for an EU exit that we thought would be on 29 March, and then 12 April. It is right that we got the legislation in place. I think everyone would recognise that not only have we had to work incredibly hard, but so have DEFRA officials and the DEFRA legal team.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport talked about a number of errors. There have been errors and I have apologised for those, but I stress, particularly in relation to the first of the two SIs we are considering, that most of the amendments were not due to errors. They were to catch up with EU regulation. [Interruption.] It is true. That is clearly something that, collectively, we will have to watch, and on which DEFRA will take the lead. As EU regulations develop, change and progress, we will need to make sure that rolling SIs catch up on that law.
When we leave—whenever that time is, before 31 October—we need to make sure that the UK statute book is in the right place. Indeed, the hon. Member for Falkirk talked about the need to avoid disruption. That is the reason for what we have done collectively, across both sides of the Committee. Countless other MPs and colleagues were involved in the process as well. The aim of that exercise was to minimise disruption. I think, collectively, we did important work on that.
On the point about disruption, work also needed to be done to communicate to business and other stakeholders. Again, we have made good progress, but I assure members of the Committee that we will continue to work to be prepared for EU exit. We will have to redouble our efforts to engage with stakeholders and businesses in the relevant industries to make sure they are ready whenever, and in whatever scenario, we leave the EU.
We will have to continue to work on the matters in question. While I apologise for the errors, there was a need for some of the changes—particularly in the first of the SIs. In fact, we always said that a number of SIs would use the urgent procedure under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, but that it would be used only as a last resort. However, we recognised the necessity of laying a few critical SIs, which were required to provide certainty in advance of EU exit day.
The hon. Member for Ipswich asked a number of questions. Our intention to retain relevant EU legislation has inevitably meant that it was not possible to include everything in earlier SIs. Some of the timelines were difficult to meet, because of the gap between SIs that had already been prepared and EU regulations that had been made. We did our best to put the updates into the previous SIs, but not all of them could be included. That is why there were always going to be some SIs laid under the urgent procedure. We have worked incredibly hard to ensure that the number is minimal.
Some Members may ask why the affirmative procedure means that these SIs have been brought forward so quickly. It is because the procedure means that the SIs have to be debated within 28 days and we needed to ensure that we met that deadline.
Questions were asked about why different subjects or issues were grouped together. I accept that some of the links are not completely obvious; that is probably an understatement. The reason is that we need to make sure that the UK statute book is as fully operational as possible. I will make every effort, with the DEFRA team, to ensure that as we move forward, those SIs are as clear and distinct as possible.
A number of issues were raised regarding biosecurity at the Northern Ireland border. Biosecurity risks for animals and animal products from the EU have not changed. In order to allow trade to continue to flow smoothly, animals and animal products will be able to move freely from the EU to the UK, as they do now. The UK remains committed to not imposing a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland under any circumstances. That may require limited additional arrangements. Further information will be made available as soon as possible.
Sandy Martin
This is quite an important point. The issue being dealt with here is imports from third countries that are currently checked at the first EU point of entry. If they come via the United Kingdom, and then go into the Republic, how can they be checked at the first EU point of entry if there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic?
David Rutley
With the hon. Gentleman’s permission, I will come back to that point later. I will seek a more detailed explanation.
The hon. Gentleman raised some other points, which I will get on to right away. On his point about systematic inspection of regulated goods, in future those goods will be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate, which is an official document issued by the relevant national plant protection organisation confirming that prescribed requirements have been met. These requirements will be the same as those under the plant passport scheme, and the phytosanitary certificate will be required for each consignment exported. This will require a greater level of official oversight than is currently necessary under the plant passport scheme, and is necessary to meet international obligations. I hope that gives comfort to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman also made points about databases and systems. We are developing our own database to capture details of interceptions and incursions from day one, to inform our decision making. All EU systems have publicly available elements, which the UK will continue to be able to access after EU exit. Our dedicated UK-wide horizon-scanning team will continue to gather intelligence on plant health risks, including information from other organisations, agencies and networks, by increasing bilateral relationships with key trading partners and nearest neighbours. Functionality has been added to the UK plant health portal to replace some of the EU notification system functions.
The hon. Member for Ipswich made a point about red-necked longhorned beetles. We have general powers to act against such pests, but the EU has recently introduced specific emergency measures and we wanted to make sure that those elements were added to the UK statute book. He also made points about importers’ readiness to change around inland inspection posts. To date, 33 viable applications have been received for premises wishing to be authorised as places of first arrival for regulated plant material from third countries arriving via the EU into the UK, by our roll-on/roll-off ports. These applications are under assessment and we expect that they will be completed by EU exit day.
The hon. Gentleman also raised concerns around transmissible spongiform encephalopathies errors and wondered why they had been included in this SI. This correction refers to a requirement for the owner or keeper of animals placed under movement restrictions, in accordance with these regulations, to comply with the prohibitions in the new TSE law on feeding certain products to such animals. This amendment will transfer the power for approval to the Secretary of State, following EU exit.
I hope that I can now answer the question from the hon. Member for Ipswich about Northern Ireland border issues. We have always been clear that there will be no physical infrastructure or related checks and controls at the border, and this will be a key part of our ongoing negotiations.
Notifications will be required for live animals. Germplasm and animal by-products not for human consumption, and high-risk food and feed are subject to vet checks,. Live animals and these other elements that travel through the EU are subject to vet checks from third countries before arriving in the UK, and will need to be notified and checked at the UK border inspection post, or BIP.
High-risk food and feed not of animal origin will need to be notified and checked at the UK BIP or designated port of entry. If the hon. Gentleman has further questions on that issue, I will be happy to answer, either in writing or outside the Committee. I hope that I have addressed his questions.
I will move on to a couple of the other questions; I have taken quite a lot of the Committee’s time already. I will just try to answer the last question from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. Notwithstanding his concern about corrections, we will make sure that lessons are learned from what has taken place. The head of our legal department within DEFRA will review the process but also our current status. All I can say is that there are multiple layers of checking— I am sure that was the case—and lots of scrutiny. So the number of errors that we have come up with, while massively regretted, is small in comparison with the sheer volume of work that we have been through over recent weeks and months.
The hon. Gentleman raised concerns about invasive species. Article 15.6 of the EU Invasive Alien Species Regulation states that costs incurred during enforcement of the import controls in regulation are to be met by the importer, unless the member state concerned determines otherwise in a domestic enforcement and permitting order, which supports the EU regulation and was made earlier this year. The UK Government decided that importers will be responsible for these costs.
The invasive species instrument, which was made earlier this year to correct operability deficiencies in the EU regulation, corrected article 15.6, but not in a way that was compatible with the provisions in the enforcement and permitting order. The amendment to regulation 7(3)(e) of the invasive species instrument made by this instrument corrects that oversight and ensures that the EU regulation and the domestic order are compatible after we leave the EU. I will carefully consider the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that there should be a future “review”; I think that was the word he used, but I will clarify afterwards.
I hope that we have been able to answer in some detail the questions that have been put, and for the reasons that I have set out, I commend these SIs to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Animal Health, Plant Health, Seeds and Seed Potatoes (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 809).
ANIMAL HEALTH, ALIEN SPECIES IN AQUACULTURE AND INVASIVE NON-NATIVE SPECICES (AMENDMENT) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2019
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Animal Health, Alien Species in Aquaculture and Invasive Non-native Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 813).—(David Rutley.)
Ministerial Corrections
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Field
As many Members may know, Huawei has had a long-standing joint venture with BT going back almost a decade and a half. Arguably, those who oppose Huawei having any more involvement will have to recognise that that has already been worked through. The extensive review that we now have will go far beyond individual vendors or countries.
[Official Report, 7 May 2019, Vol. 659, c. 261WH.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Asia and the Pacific, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field):
An error has been identified in my reply to the debate.
The correct wording should have been:
Mark Field
As many Members may know, Huawei has had a long-standing joint venture with BT going back almost a decade and a half. Arguably, those who oppose Huawei being involved will have to recognise that that has already been worked through. The extensive review that we now have will go far beyond individual vendors or countries.
Education
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Nicholas Soames
Does my hon. Friend agree that, generally speaking, the rule the Government should adopt, given the unfortunate decision that this country has taken to leave the European Union and in order to make our way in the world to the greatest advantage, is that we must retain a very open system to allow the brightest and the best to come and study here from all over the world at equal rates of charging, but also with a regime that allows them to stay here and work in an orderly, sensible manner that is easily enforced?
Chris Skidmore
From the international perspective of the United Kingdom’s universities, I entirely agree that we now have the highest ever number of applications from foreign countries—about 158,000.
[Official Report, 29 April 2019, Vol. 659, c. 30.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation:
An error has been identified in my response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames).
The correct response should have been:
Chris Skidmore
From the international perspective of the United Kingdom’s universities, I entirely agree that we now have the highest ever number of applicants from foreign countries—about 134,000.
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
BACKBENCH BUSINESS
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
Pre-eclampsia
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered pre-eclampsia.
I am delighted to have secured a debate on this important issue, and I thank my colleagues on the Backbench Business Committee for supporting it. The debate is timely because we are approaching World Pre-Eclampsia Day on 22 May. According to the House of Commons Library, the House has never had a debate about this extremely important matter, which affects every constituency, and every country in the world. Although I am surprised that there has been no previous debate, I am delighted that we are here today to put that right and to have what I hope will be a constructive, illuminating and considered debate. Before I proceed, however, I must say that I am extremely disappointed by the apparent lack of concern about this issue across the House, as we can see from the number of Members in the Chamber. Women and families who are concerned about pre-eclampsia will be equally disappointed by the poor turnout.
I want to pay particular tribute to Marcus Green, the chief executive of Action on Pre-Eclampsia, and all his team for all the support and information they have provided to me and all Members to help ensure that this debate is as well-informed as it needs to be. I applaud the work of Marcus, his team and others, including at the University of Liverpool, who expend huge personal and professional effort to combat and better understand the appalling condition of pre-eclampsia. I thank those who research this illness to help us better treat and manage it, because their work is ultimately about improving survival rates for mothers and babies when this condition occurs.
Pre-eclampsia is a very serious disease related to high blood pressure. It can strike out of the blue with no apparent warning—the word “eclampsia” is Greek for lightning. It can strike any pregnant woman, most notably in the second half of pregnancy, or up to six weeks after delivery. It is a symptom of new-onset hypertension and significant protein in the urine after the 20th week of pregnancy. There is no cure for pre-eclampsia, which is why treatment and management of the condition matter so much.
Identifying pre-eclampsia early is so important for mothers and babies; it can literally mean the difference between life and death. Globally, pre-eclampsia accounts for 14% of all maternal deaths, killing 40,000 women every year. Five women every hour die from pregnancy complications related to pre-eclampsia. Not surprisingly, poor outcomes for mother and baby are associated with poor care, which is most often found in low-income countries. Across the United Kingdom, our NHS services still face significant challenges with regards to pre-eclampsia.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who is very sorry not to be here, suffered a stillbirth due to pre-eclampsia. My personal interest in this issue was sparked by the death of my son Kenneth, who was stillborn two days after his due date, after his birth was delayed while he was still alive and healthy. No reason was given for that delay; in fact, when I reported back to the hospital the same day in terrible pain—a few hours after being told my baby would not be delivered that day as planned—I faced obstruction and argument. I was repeatedly told to go home as there was nothing wrong. How that could have been established when I had not been examined was a question that was never answered, then or since. My husband insisted that I be admitted to hospital. I was later informed that had he not done so, I would certainly have died.
According to a leading consultant obstetrician, Professor Edward Shaxted of Northampton General Hospital, had NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde reacted to the clear signs of my pre-eclampsia when I attended the maternity unity in pain, our otherwise healthy 8 lb 7 oz son would in all likelihood have survived. My husband and I commissioned a report from Professor Edward Shaxted after waiting for over a year in vain for NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde to engage with us after the stillbirth.
When I reported to the hospital, I was neither examined, tested nor treated, but I was—bizarrely—injected with morphine twice. By the following morning, baby Kenneth was dead. I had developed a very severe form of pre-eclampsia called HELLP syndrome, a condition that is life-threatening to mother and baby. Not only did my baby die, but my husband was summoned to be told to say his goodbyes to me, as I was not expected to survive following a rupture of the liver. I was in a critical condition, and spent a number of weeks in a high-dependency unit.
While the mortality rate for HELLP syndrome is estimated by some to be as high as a massive 30%, Professor Shaxted’s report described the errors made in my case as “extraordinary”. He said:
“With a little thought it would have been recognised that Mrs Gibson had developed pre-eclampsia.”
My concerns were ignored despite the fact that my baby was due for delivery. The professor went on to say:
“Delivery of Mrs Gibson’s baby while still alive”—
on my due date, as planned—
“would more likely than not have led to the birth of a live child who would have survived intact.”
His conclusion was echoed by Professor Benjamin Stenson of the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, from whom we also commissioned a report. Anecdotally, I know that this experience is not unique to me.
We must continue to strive to do better at monitoring pregnant women and to listen to what they tell us, because being aware of, looking out for and dealing with pre-eclampsia must be on the radar of all professionals dealing with expectant mothers on the frontline. Recognition of the condition and early intervention are vital. When the signs are present, it is important they are not missed. Overall, maternal mortality across the UK has much reduced over the generations, but there must be no room for complacency, as there appeared to be in my case, and as I know there has been in others. I was labelled high risk, having undergone five years of in vitro fertilisation and being over 40.
When mistakes are made, they cannot be undone, but if we do not learn from them, that is disgraceful and completely unacceptable. Despite low levels of maternal deaths, there are still unacceptable levels of stillbirths and babies born being prematurely and/or underweight because of pre-eclampsia. Significant numbers of women suffer from pre-eclampsia in pregnancy. We know that screening and diagnosis are the cornerstones of safe management, and that deaths are preventable with good-quality routine antenatal care in pregnancy and evidence-based guidelines for antenatal care and the management of hypertension in pregnancy.
However, according to the Library, no NHS in the UK collects official statistics on the number of women who develop pre-eclampsia during pregnancy. We do know that there are around two maternal deaths due to pre-eclampsia every year in the UK, but no figures are recorded for how many babies die due to pre-eclampsia-related issues, although research by Imperial College London puts the figure at around 1,000 babies each year across the UK.
There is also no information published about how much pre-eclampsia costs the NHS across the UK. The lack of detailed information on this issue is quite staggering. I urge the Minister to ensure that such information is collected and recorded. I will lobby the Scottish Government to do the same. We need clear information to know the true scale of the challenge we are facing. One of the keys to meeting such a significant challenge is clear information.
This is a complex illness. It cannot be predicted with certainty who will develop pre-eclampsia or what causes it, although risk factors can be identified, including having a strong family history of pre-eclampsia, being over 40 years old, and being overweight or obese. Evidence appears to suggest that black and Asian women are more likely than white women to develop pre-eclampsia, which requires further investigation. It seems that black women are five times more likely than white women to develop pre-eclampsia, and that Asian women are twice as likely to develop it. We need to understand better why that is and to treat such patients accordingly.
There is also evidence that women who develop pre-eclampsia in pregnancy are at greater risk of developing cardiovascular disease and kidney disease in the longer term, shortening their life expectancy. At the moment, no part of the UK has standard care pathways to monitor the long-term health of women who have had pre-eclampsia. That needs to change. I urge the Minister to address that, and I will continue my conversations on that matter with the Cabinet Secretary for Health in Scotland, Jeane Freeman MSP.
The only cure for pre-eclampsia—if we can call it a cure—is the delivery of the baby, but that often means the baby being delivered dangerously prematurely, which throws up all kinds of moral dilemmas and is not always straightforward. Of course, pre-eclampsia is a progressive condition, which gets worse, so mother and baby need close and careful monitoring. We know that babies born underweight or prematurely are at greater risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes in later life. We need ongoing research to find better treatments that reduce the risks to children whose mothers suffer from pre-eclampsia.
Let me say a little about the placental growth factor test. The symptoms and signs of pre-eclampsia are not always reliable or consistent, meaning that women may be admitted to hospital unnecessarily or have a severe case of pre-eclampsia that goes undiagnosed. Like too many other women, I know how tragic that can be. The PLGF test is a new blood test that indicates whether an expectant mother has the disease. When it is used on a woman with suspected pre-eclampsia, it can reliably indicate whether they will need delivery soon and whether the baby is at risk. It can also show whether the woman needs to be admitted to hospital and requires intensive monitoring to determine when delivery should take place, or whether it is safe to discharge her. Its use means that several other tests, which may not be so reliable, do not need to be done, saving our hospitals time and other resources. The PLGF test is available, and it must be provided regardless of where in the UK people live. I urge the Minister to do all she can to ensure that that is the case.
The PLGF test is an important tool that will help us make progress in combating pre-eclampsia by improving its diagnosis and treatment. NHS England will soon make the test available, and I am in negotiations with Jeane Freeman about it being made available in Scotland, too. The test is too important and too accurate, and the information it can yield too informative, for it not to be made available where necessary by health services across the UK. It will not just save lives; it will save money, and it will offer expectant parents huge reassurance about the health of their baby.
The Lancet published a study of implementation in England, which demonstrated that the test improved cost and clinical outcomes, with a 64% reduction in time to diagnosis, a 37% reduction in out-patient visits, and a 35% reduction in the use of bed nights for neonatal care. It seems that it is something of a breakthrough, and I think it has the potential to save many lives. With around 1,000 babies dying every year in the UK due to complications related to pre-eclampsia, this simple test offers real hope and gives us cause for optimism. It is a real milestone in how we treat this horrible condition, which can strike expectant mothers with no warning but with devastating, life-changing consequences for families. I hope that, one day, it offers real hope to women across the world—especially those in poorer countries—that mothers and their babies need no longer die.
World Pre-Eclampsia Day on 22 May deserves a place on our calendars. It deserves to be recognised this year and every year. More than 30 organisations recognise it, including Action on Pre-Eclampsia, Save the Children, the Preeclampsia Foundation and a whole range of others around the world. I urge the Government to ensure that more research is carried out into the condition so that better preventive work, as well as more and better treatments, can be developed. I urge the Minister to do all she can to ensure that women are educated about the condition and about how they might recognise and mitigate it.
As we approach World Pre-Eclampsia Day, this debate matters. Pre-eclampsia is killing our babies, and I believe we can and should be able to detect and treat it more effectively. I absolutely support the call from Action on Pre-Eclampsia to prioritise research into stillbirths from pre-eclampsia and to increase resources to support parents through the trauma of that. The UK has the lowest incidence of maternal mortality from pre-eclampsia in the world—that is not an accident; it is down to better care and attentive clinicians—but we have not found a cure. Until we do, and until we completely stop babies dying from this condition, we need to do more.
This is the very first debate on pre-eclampsia, and it is long overdue. I urge the Minister and the Government to commit to doing all they can to improve research, treatment and detection. We have come some way—we can see that from the number of deaths of mothers—but we must remember that 1,000 babies are stillborn as a result of this condition every year, so we certainly are not there yet. Let us work together to make as much progress as we possibly can.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I had not intended to make a speech, but I was ashamed by the lack of Back-Bench contributors and felt moved to do so, rather than making an intervention. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing the debate. Despite the poor attendance, this is an extremely important issue; the figures she outlined speak for themselves and do not need repeating by me.
I am here because my wife had pre-eclampsia during both her pregnancies. It was particularly acute during her first pregnancy, with my daughter Emma. The care she received when she was eventually admitted was exemplary. I could not fault it; it was fantastic from start to finish. However, in a similar vein to my hon. Friend’s experience, when my wife was first sent to hospital by her GP, having presented feeling nauseous and light-headed and with various other symptoms, she was not taken entirely seriously when she got there. Her blood pressure was up and down, and at one point she was accused of white coat syndrome and sent home. But she knows her own body, and she did not feel right at all, so she phoned up, went back to the hospital and was eventually admitted.
My hon. Friend is right that, even now, awareness and diagnosis of pre-eclampsia is still not good enough and must be improved. Despite its prevalence, pre-eclampsia does not get the attention or research it deserves. The fact that I am the only other Back-Bench speaker is probably a testament to that. My eldest was born six and a half weeks early, at 3 lb 10 oz, in an emergency caesarean. After an extended stay in hospital, she was sent home healthy, and she is still healthy—touch wood—to this day. My wife had no repercussions from the condition thereafter. She got pre-eclampsia again, albeit a much milder version, in her second pregnancy, which almost went to full term.
Many mothers with pre-eclampsia will give birth prematurely, and premature birth is an issue we have discussed in this Chamber of late. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who will speak for the SNP from the Front Bench, will talk more about that. My daughter Emma was born six and a half weeks premature, and once she was born my wife, who had had a caesarean section, sent me straight back to work, because she wanted my paternity leave to coincide with her arriving back from hospital so that I could help around the house. It does not feel natural in the slightest to go back to work with a daughter in an incubator and a wife recovering from surgery, but back to work I went, because that was her wish.
I went back to work and spoke with colleagues, receiving their congratulations and so on. About an hour and a half after getting in, I was pulled into the office by my boss, who essentially sent me straight back to the hospital—I was given additional paid leave for as long as I required it. I was extremely lucky, but that was only because my boss and another colleague had had similar experiences, so they were in a position to help me and my wife. However, it should not be down to luck. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East will go into more detail, but I fully back the calls made by him and the all-party parliamentary group on premature and sick babies for extended parental leave in such circumstances. I hope that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will publish the report on its review as soon as possible.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran once again on bringing forward the debate. I sincerely hope that this is the important first step in giving this condition the attention it deserves at parliamentary and governmental level.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is, as always, an immense pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for securing and opening the debate. Ahead of World Pre-Eclampsia Day later this month, the debate timeously highlights a hugely important issue surrounding prenatal health. She spoke with a personal understanding that sadly will resonate with many other families right across the UK. The fact that she can stand up and talk about something so deeply personal should be valued. That is not easy. She did so when many others would sit back and say, “I’m not willing to put myself in that space.” I am sure I speak on behalf of the Chamber in saying that we should be hugely appreciative of that.
This is not an easy subject to talk about, but my hon. Friend did so in a considered and sensitive manner. I very much commend her for putting pre-eclampsia on the parliamentary agenda for the first time. I heard her say earlier in the week that this was the first time it was to be debated, and I confess that I doubted that, but she confirmed today that it is the first time that it has been debated in the House of Commons. I hope that this will be not just one set-piece event to mark World Pre-Eclampsia Day, but the beginning of a conversation in this place.
I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), who stood up and contributed without notes, again referring to his personal experience and that of his wife, Lynn, with the birth of Emma and Eilidh. It is no secret that he is a genuine friend of mine and somebody I spend personal time with—not just time with here as a Member of Parliament. He is a real ally in the campaign to extend paid parental leave for parents of premature and sick babies. I am all the richer for having him at my side as together we battle the UK Government.
Pre-eclampsia has been at the forefront of my mind recently. Some in the Chamber will know that my wife Roslyn had a baby late last year and that her type 1 diabetes complicated the pregnancy. In addition to the complications we experienced during her first pregnancy with our son Isaac, we were acutely aware that diabetes increases the risk of pre-eclampsia by a factor of between two and four. I know from that experience that it is a real source of stress for expectant parents, particularly those with multiple risk factors for pre-eclampsia.
Pre-eclampsia is traditionally difficult to diagnose. Women with pre-eclampsia are often asymptomatic, and conventional diagnosis methods that look at hypertension and urinary protein levels can be subject to observer error. Therefore, the recently published findings of the Parrot trial into placental growth factor testing are a game-changer, showing that the time it takes for clinicians to diagnose the condition can be significantly reduced. Alongside clinical assessment, the testing can also be used to rule out pre-eclampsia, which would bring peace of mind to parents-to-be as well as cost-saving benefits to health services. Jane Brewin, the chief executive of Tommy’s, the charity behind the Parrot trial, said:
“For other women with raised blood pressure this ‘rule out’ test will give women peace of mind and enable doctors to treat their condition more appropriately.”
The reduction in diagnosis time brought about by placental growth factor testing is hugely important in determining the care pathway for mum and baby.
I have recently held stakeholder meetings in my role as chair of the APPG on premature and sick babies, one of which was with Professor Andrew Shennan, a professor of obstetrics at King’s College London, and Marcus Green, the chief executive of Action on Pre-Eclampsia. Professor Shennan truly is a leading expert on pre-eclampsia, with a working knowledge spanning decades of clinical practice. What really came across was the importance of individualised, tailored care pathways for patients with pre-eclampsia. A multi-disciplinary and systematic approach is required to ensure that each patient receives the appropriate care in order to reduce risk and increase the likelihood of a positive outcome.
Placental growth factor testing will play a vital role in the future, allowing for much greater management of the condition. At an estimated cost of only £70 for a simple blood test, there is clearly a massive cost-benefit in making the testing widely available. Research published by Action on Pre-Eclampsia shows that the cost reduction per patient compared to standard clinical assessment could be almost £3,000.
The recent announcement that NHS England will be rolling out this testing is a hugely welcome step forward. It would be churlish of me not to place on the record my admiration of Her Majesty’s Government for taking that step forward. I understand that the Scottish Government are looking at adopting this north of the border, and I am keen to see that. I am happy to support the lobbying efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran to ensure that progress is made. Given the Scottish Government’s recent announcement of a new model for neonatal and maternity care, backed with £12 million of investment, I strongly expect that Edinburgh will be fairly receptive.
The other big takeaway from my meeting with Professor Shennan and Marcus Green was that there are training issues with some clinicians. To an extent there is a postcode lottery when it comes to the assessment and knowledge of risk factors for pre-eclampsia. Globally, the UK has the lowest level of maternal deaths caused by pre-eclampsia, but if we are ever to change the stubbornly high level of adverse outcomes for babies, educating clinicians must be prioritised.
The work being done at centres of excellence, such as the clinic at St Thomas’ Hospital just across the river, deserves to become the gold standard of care, regardless of location. It is really promising that there will be some replication of the approach taken at the unit, and in the next 12 months we will start to see more clinics set up in other places. That is welcome. That approach, building on the strong foundations of the preterm birth network, could see the UK become a true world leader in dealing with pre-eclampsia. We should all get behind that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said, we know that the greatest burden of the condition is on low-income countries, and there is a role for us to play in improving outcomes around the world as well as at home. In order to do that we need to have a best-practice model, and it needs to be in place and operational across all our health services.
Maternal deaths as a result of pre-eclampsia are now rare in the UK, with a risk of just one in a million, as my hon. Friend explained. Although that is good news, regrettably there are hundreds of stillbirths in the UK each year as a result of the condition, and we have heard personal testimony of that today. There is more research to be done and more support that can be given. It might seem like a big ask of the Minister, but one small step that the Government can take now is to recognise World Pre-Eclampsia Day, which takes place on 22 May. I sincerely hope that she will join me in doing that.
I will wrap up by noting that there is clearly a great deal of expertise and willingness within the health services to improve outcomes, but that perhaps we need to see some sharper focus on this issue from the top, including from the House of Commons. I congratulate the Government on being so quick to act on making placental growth factor testing available throughout NHS England and hope that this is followed with greater resourcing to help predict and prevent adverse outcomes in future.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Hollobone. I am sure that happened just earlier this week or maybe it was last week; maybe it is every week.
I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for securing this important debate, just ahead of World Pre-Eclampsia Day on 22 May, and for her heartfelt, thoughtful and passionate speech. She is so brave, as has already been said, to do this. I know, and she knows, how hard it is to speak in a debate about something as personal and hurtful as the loss of a baby; nothing can ever be harder. I have the honour of being vice-chair, along with the hon. Lady, of the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss, which we set up. All the Members who set up the group have had the awful experience of baby loss, which makes it such a powerful all-party group. We all take the work it does very seriously and have had some small achievements, thanks to the Government listening to the voices from the group.
Some changes are being made and implemented across the country because of it. I am proud that we are able to use our own tragic experiences of loss to campaign for better care, treatment and diagnosis for future parents, so that hopefully they do not ever have to go through anything like the experience that the hon. Lady has been through. Let us hope that the debate today, which, as the hon. Lady said, is the first debate of its kind, will lead to some future changes that will ensure that even fewer people will have to go through that experience. I was so very sorry to hear the details of the hon. Lady’s own personal experience of pre-eclampsia. I knew that was how she had lost her son, but not the detail. I thank her for sharing her story with us and I am sure that Kenneth would have been very proud of his mum.
I also thank the hon. Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and for Glasgow East (David Linden) for their excellent speeches, and I join everyone in saying how disappointing it is that there are not more Members attending this important debate. Perhaps the debate about acquired brain injury, taking place in the Chamber, has drawn a bigger crowd of available Members. Nevertheless, what we have lacked in quantity we have certainly made up for in quality; this has been an excellent debate so far, and we have yet to hear from the Minister.
As we have heard, pre-eclampsia affects around 6% of pregnancies; that means 1,000 babies a year are stillborn due to this awful condition. That is not good enough; it has to be and it can be reduced, as we have heard. The last triennial audit of maternal deaths in the UK reported that of the 22 deaths from pre-eclampsia, 14 were avoidable. Again, that number can be reduced. Because the symptoms of pre-eclampsia are so similar to the general symptoms of pregnancy, they are often missed and that can be fatal. That is why we are here today: to raise awareness and ensure change.
Women with diabetes, high blood pressure, kidney disease and a body mass index of over 35 are more likely to develop pre-eclampsia. Many instances of these conditions can be prevented with a healthy lifestyle. As the Shadow Minister for Public Health, I cannot miss any opportunity to mention prevention and the cuts to health services of £800 million between 2015 and 2021 under this Government. If public health budgets, which fund services such as obesity services, had not been slashed so vigorously by the Government, the number of women with these conditions would be reduced. Even so, where cases have not been prevented, these women should still be a priority for midwives and healthcare professionals, and offered the tests that exist for pre-eclampsia, and support throughout their pregnancy. The same goes for women with lupus, women over the age of 40, women expecting multiple babies and women who have had pre-eclampsia before.
If we target the women most at risk of developing pre-eclampsia, we can detect the condition early and prevent fatalities. Finding at-risk women is now much easier as tests are available, as we have heard, that can predict with nearly 100% accuracy which mothers are at risk of pre-eclampsia, but unfortunately the tests are not being used to their advantage. The test that is currently the only NICE-approved clinically available diagnostic test for pre-eclampsia in the UK has seen uptake in only a handful of trusts so far, meaning that very few women in the UK have access to those life-saving tests. Will the Minister write to NHS trusts urging them to take up those tests, and advising them of the clinical guidance to do so?
Those tests can improve patient safety through accurate diagnosis upon the suspicion of pre-eclampsia, reduce the number of unnecessary admissions of suspected pre-eclampsia and reduce the direct costs to the system from the array of in-patient monitoring tests that are undertaken on the woman and her foetus. They will also relieve the stress and anxiety felt by expectant mothers that their symptoms are pre-eclampsia. We still do not know the root cause of pre-eclampsia. Does the Minister have any plans to fund research into the causes of pre-eclampsia so that more cases can be prevented each year?
Expectant mothers must also be made aware of pre-eclampsia and the signs and symptoms to look out for. I can remember being told about this terrible condition and every time my legs swelled or I had a urine test I would worry that I would get it. Maybe I was more informed or just a worrier, but I probably did not know enough about pre-eclampsia then. I might have been worrying needlessly; information is always a good thing. The knowledge will also fuel patient-led demand for testing and will, again, help to prevent deaths.
I hope the Minister will be able to assure us that the Department will look at this important issue further in the future, so that no more families have to go through the pain and suffering of losing a child to pre-eclampsia that we have heard about today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)
It is a pleasure to see you here again, Mr Hollobone. It is an absolute privilege to respond to the debate brought by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). I thank her for bringing it forward, and for her courage and honesty in the way she has approached the subject, which is clearly sensitive for her. Parliament is at its best when it hears people’s direct experience, so I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Lady has approached this.
I do not think the number of Members here reflects the importance of the subject, but, as the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) said, the quality of the contributions we have heard, all of which have been linked to direct experience one way or another, has made it one of the most powerful debates we have had in this Chamber none the less. I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran again.
This is the first time that the subject has been debated by Members of Parliament; while that should be shocking, in some respects it is not, because often things that affect many women are not adequately debated in this place. Thankfully, now there are more of us here, we can start to address that, and we will do so all the more often.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) talked about his wife’s experience, how she knew her body and presented at the hospital, but was told to go home. I am afraid that happens far too much to women. We often feel diminished or that our voices are not heard. My challenge, in which I am sure all hon. Members will join me, is to ensure that all our health services just stop doing that to women, because it is not good enough. It has left us feeling diminished and not getting the treatment that we all deserve, so I thank him for amplifying that point.
It is always a pleasure to hear from the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who has a unique ability to bring to life a dad’s perspective on these concerns and worries. As ever, it was a pleasure to hear from the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West, who has also brought her own experience on these subjects in the past. I pay tribute to the work of the all-party parliamentary group that both she and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran are so passionate about and so active in.
In its short time, the all-party parliamentary group has been incredibly influential; I would struggle to find a more effective one. It is a pleasure for me to work with it and support its work, and I am expecting both hon. Ladies to come with their cap in hand for the next wave of things they want me to fund under that work. It is making a difference and giving support to families on something that has hitherto been taboo, so I am grateful to them for that.
What is important about this debate and about pre-eclampsia is that, as we have heard repeatedly, it is an avoidable illness in the sense that we know the risk factors. To be frank, there is no excuse for the incidence of pre-eclampsia in 21st-century Britain. We may have better performance than other countries—and so we should, because we are Great Britain—but we need to do better, to improve outcomes both for babies, and for mothers and fathers. I rise to the challenge here and will hope to answer some of the requests made in the course of this debate.
It is still the case that pre-eclampsia and HELLP syndrome are a leading cause of maternal mortality and pre-term births, claiming the lives of nearly 76,000 mothers and 500,000 babies internationally each year. However, we know we can monitor the health of people in pregnancy, and we know the healthiest pregnancies are those that are planned, so it is important that we ensure that our policies encourage people to properly plan their pregnancies so that they can manage their health and, in particular, tackle things such as high body mass index and any other risk factors they may have.
In the UK, mild pre-eclampsia affects about 6% of pregnancies, and severe cases develop in about 2% of pregnancies. That is still quite high—dangerously high, considering the risk. According to the statistics for England, 14,352 pregnancies were coded for pre-eclampsia in 2017-18, which is 2.29% of all deliveries. That is 39 women in England diagnosed with pre-eclampsia every day. When we look at those types of figures, they bring home the fact that this condition is more common than the parliamentary attention given to it would suggest.
The prevalence of pre-eclampsia by maternal age or ethnic group is comparable to all pregnancies, but we know there is a risk of hypertensive disorders in women over 40, and those with a gap of 10 years since their last baby are at a higher risk. It is relatively easy to identify the at-risk group. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned that there is a higher prevalence among black women, who are five times more likely to die in pregnancy than white women, while Asian women are twice as likely to die. We must ensure that we tackle that, and we will take it forward through the race disparity audit, not least because there are generally other issues that lead to black and Asian women facing higher risk factors in pregnancy across the board.
I have been asked to see that the NHS adopts a life-course focus, rather than a pregnancy disease focus, when looking at this subject. That has come up in my discussions about women’s health. The president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists tells me that the factors that might lead to a woman’s mortality tend to surface during pregnancy, so it seems to me that we are not taking full advantage of pregnancy to have a look at women’s health and risk factors and help them with long-term prevention of poor health. We really need to do better at that.
For example, there are indications that someone will suffer from chronic kidney disease or cardiovascular disease in later life. We must embrace that life-course approach to women’s health. That is one of the things my women’s health taskforce will take forward, to make sure that we are really not wasting the opportunity of pregnancy to look at the health of women.
Reference has been made to placental growth factor testing, which is being made available in England through the Accelerated Access Collaborative. The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West challenged me, fairly, to ensure that trusts make use of that test. We need to take every opportunity to give a nudge and properly encourage all trusts to assess the risk factors in deciding whether to apply those tests.
Obviously, we will continue to have conversations with the Government in Scotland about our experiences. We would also be more than happy to support the efforts of Action on Pre-Eclampsia to raise awareness of pre-eclampsia and other hypertensive diseases in pregnancy during World Pre-Eclampsia Day.
I am pleased to report that there has been a significant decrease in maternal mortality from hypertensive disorders during pregnancy in recent years, but we cannot afford to be complacent. It is certainly true that when we look back at cases where mothers have died, too often, improvements in care could have made for a very different outcome. That reinforces the need to make sure that people are aware of this disease, which can be a killer.
I have been asked to prioritise research into stillbirths from pre-eclampsia. It was such research that supported the study that showed that placental growth factor tests can diagnose pre-eclampsia more accurately than current techniques. We are also funding the PHOENIX study at King’s College London, which aims to determine whether delivery in women with pre-eclampsia between 34 and 36 weeks of gestation reduces maternal complications without short and long-term detriment to the infant, compared with delivery at 37 weeks. That study will conclude next year. We are increasing resources to support parents through the trauma of stillbirth; we continue to fund Sands to work with other baby loss charities and the royal colleges to produce the national bereavement care pathway and to reduce the variation in quality of bereavement care provided by the NHS.
We know that 1,000 babies die every year in the UK because of pre-eclampsia. Most die as a consequence of premature delivery, rather than the disease itself, because the only cure—if, as the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran says, we can call it that—is to deliver the baby. In terms of reducing those deaths, we need to ensure that we are managing that risk. Clearly, it is very important that we take full advantage of all antenatal appointments to do that, so that a pregnancy can be safely managed. We expect midwives to screen for pre-eclampsia at every appointment, by checking the woman’s blood pressure and urine. It is disappointing that MBRRACE-UK found that those routine antenatal checks were not undertaken on most women who died of pre-eclampsia. Straight away, that is something that we really need to give the system a nudge on, to make sure that risks are not taken with the health of the mother or her baby.
On some of the other things that will help to manage this, as part of the long-term plan we will continue to work with midwives, mothers and families to implement continuity of carer, so that there is a longer-term relationship between the mother and health practitioners, who can then have trust and honest, empowered conversations. Women can often feel intimidated when dealing with practitioners who perhaps treat them in a less than humane way. When we have that personal relationship, we can have honest conversations, leading to better care and trust between the mother and her midwife, nurse or doctor.
Pre-eclampsia is very unpredictable, which makes it difficult to manage if the risk factors that add to prevalence are not there. It is clearly crucial that, if a woman’s condition deteriorates, a plan must be implemented quickly, with a multi-disciplinary approach to decision-making recommended. We expect every trust with a maternity and neonatal service to be part of the national maternal and neonatal health safety collaborative, which is driving forward practical improvements to make care safer in all maternity units by the end of 2019-20. I will make sure that there is specific action on monitoring that. NHS England is also supporting the establishment of maternal medicine networks, which will ensure that women with acute and chronic medical problems, including hypertension, have timely access to specialist advice at all stages of pregnancy, which, again, will help those discussions.
Members will be aware that, in November 2017, the Department extended the national maternity safety ambition to include reducing the national rate of pre-term births from 8% to 6%. The new Saving Babies’ Lives care bundle includes a focus on preventing pre-term birth, looking in particular at prediction, prevention and better preparation where pre-term birth is unavoidable. Every maternity service in the NHS is actively implementing elements of the Saving Babies’ Lives care bundle, and we are fully committed to implementing the recently launched version 2 of the bundle by March next year. Adherence to the care bundle is included in the planning guidance and incorporated into NHS standard contracts for 2019-20.
Placental growth-based blood tests clearly provide the ability to better diagnose pre-eclampsia and to manage risks. The tests have been selected as rapid uptake products by the Accelerated Access Collaborative, which works with commercial companies and clinical experts to make such products available much more widely. We will monitor that roll-out. That is an example of how we are trying to be much more fleet of foot when we identify these tests, products or medicines that can make a difference, which involves close working between NHS England and providers to deliver them. As set out in the long-term plan, the NHS will in the future introduce a new funding mandate for health tech products assessed as cost-saving by NICE. Clearly, preventive and testing measures are crucial to that.
I hope that Members welcome the progress made so far on this important issue. I am always happy to hear representations on where we can do better. Clearly, trying to make this country the safest place to have a baby, to make sure that we are doing everything we can to tackle stillbirths and to ensure that all women have safe and healthy pregnancies that deliver safe and healthy babies are priorities of the Government. I am very grateful for the constructive contributions of all Members. I am sure that this will not be the last time that we discuss this subject, even though it might be the first.
Patricia Gibson
We clearly have a lot of work to do to raise awareness of this condition. The poor attendance in this Chamber is a clear testament to that, although I extend heartfelt thanks to my colleagues who have made the effort to come here today and speak.
As we have said—we cannot say this too often— 1,000 babies across the UK die each year from pre-eclampsia-related complications. That demands our attention and requires our action. We know and have heard today that diagnosis and treatment are not what they could be and often not what they should be. If we do not talk about difficult issues, we are extremely unlikely to tackle them or, indeed, prioritise them. With pre-eclampsia affecting about—this is an estimate —6% of pregnancies in the UK, it affects every single constituency. I say this to all constituents who are watching the debate now or who may watch it later if they catch a bit of the news on social media about it: if this is an issue about which you are concerned, I urge you to contact your MP and ask them to raise it at every opportunity, because that is how change happens.
I welcome the Minister’s constructive response to the debate, and I look forward to continuing to work with her through the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss, which deals with neonatal death. As she says, we know which women are likely to be at risk, so we need to ensure that the treatment of those women takes pre-eclampsia into account—that it is on the radar—so that we can better monitor them, and their babies’ lives can be saved as a result. It is also extremely important that women are listened to when they present to any medical professional. That cannot be stressed enough.
It is also important that the placental growth factor test is delivered, especially to those women we know are in at-risk groups. I am encouraged by the Minister’s mentioning the PHOENIX study, because I am hopeful that that will yield additional understanding that will improve treatment for pre-eclampsia.
As the Minister said at the close of her remarks, this is the first debate on pre-eclampsia, but I am pretty confident that it will not be the last.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered pre-eclampsia.
Written Statements
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Common Travel Area
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr David Lidington)
Recognising the deep and enduring relationship between our two countries, the UK Government and the Government of Ireland yesterday entered into a memorandum of understanding reaffirming our joint commitment to the common travel area (CTA), and to maintaining the associated rights and privileges of British and Irish citizens under this longstanding reciprocal arrangement.
The UK has consistently reiterated its commitment to maintaining the CTA. Following on from guidance published in February, this Memorandum of Understanding reaffirms the support of the UK Government for the principles of the CTA, and the rights it affords British and Irish citizens when in the other’s state.
The CTA, involving the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and Ireland, facilitates the ability of British and Irish citizens to move freely within it. Flowing from this right to move freely are associated reciprocal rights and privileges that are enjoyed daily by British citizens in Ireland, and Irish citizens in the UK. These include access to employment, healthcare, all levels of education, and social benefits on the same basis as citizens of the other state, as well as the right to vote in local and national parliamentary elections.
Neither Irish citizens in the UK nor British citizens in Ireland are required to take any action to protect their status and rights associated with the CTA. Both Governments are committed to undertake all the work necessary, including through legislative provision, to ensure that the agreed CTA rights and privileges are protected.
[HCWS1548]
Contingent Liability Notification
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I can today confirm that I have laid a Treasury Minute, informing the House of the contingent liability that HM Treasury has assumed in relation to the transfer of sponsorship of the Bradford & Bingley plc (B&B) employer defined benefit pension scheme and the NRAM employer defined benefit pension scheme (the “Schemes”) from B&B and NRAM, respectively, to UK Asset Resolution Limited (UKAR).
UKAR and the trustees of each scheme (the “Trustees”) have agreed that the sponsorship of both Schemes should be transferred from B&B and NRAM to UKAR.
The contingent liability takes the form of a credit support deed (a “CSD”), entered into by HM Treasury and UKAR in respect of each of the Schemes, which will provide comfort to the Trustees that, in the event UKAR is unable to meet any payment obligation in respect of one or more of the Schemes, HM Treasury will provide UKAR with sufficient funds to meet such payment obligation. The remote maximum contingent liability possible under the CSDs together is estimated at c. £1.4 billion, based on the current mortality assumptions and discounted defined benefit obligations of the Schemes. This would only crystallise in the highly remote circumstances where the value of assets in both Schemes fell to zero and HM Treasury became liable for all liabilities under each scheme. Given that the majority of assets in the Schemes are held in gilts and the expectation that each scheme will be in surplus at the time of transfer, this scenario is considered highly unlikely.
As the Schemes will be in surplus at the time of transfer, UKAR is not expected to make any additional payments to either scheme until at least the next triennial valuations in three years’ time. In the light of this and the fact that UKAR will be funded via the usual supply procedure, HM Treasury considers it unlikely that the CSD will be called upon.
The CSD will remain in place for as long as UKAR remains the sponsor of the Schemes. It should be noted that HM Treasury, as the ultimate owner of B&B and NRAM, already has indirect exposure to this risk. An existing guarantee given by HM Treasury to the B&B pension scheme trustees will remain in place following the transfer of the B&B pension scheme to UKAR.
The transfer of sponsorship will not affect members’ benefits, there will be no impact on members’ accrued rights, and the relevant trustee board of each Scheme will remain unchanged following the transfer of sponsorship to UKAR.
I will update the House of any further changes as necessary.
[HCWS1553]
Foreign Affairs Council
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
The Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) will take place in Brussels on 13 May. It will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union (EU) for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HRVP), Federica Mogherini.
There will be an Eastern Partnership (EaP) ministerial before the FAC. The FAC will discuss current affairs, Libya and Sahel.
Eastern Partnership ministerial
Ministers will discuss the partnership’s achievements, the need for further progress on reforms and the partnership’s future direction post 2020. The ministerial forms part of a sequence of events to mark the partnership’s 10-year anniversary, including an anniversary statement and the EaP Heads of State and Government high level conference, hosted by Presidents Tusk, Junker, and Tajani on 14 May.
Current affairs
We expect HRVP Mogherini to update Ministers on recent developments in Venezuela, including the 7 May international contact group meeting. She may also provide an update on western Balkans, Sudan and the US decision not to renew the waiver of title III of the Helms-Burton Act.
Libya
Ministers will discuss the ongoing security situation in Libya, following Libyan national army (LNA) advances on Tripoli. The UK is deeply concerned by reports that the recent violence has caused the displacement of thousands of people, and blocked emergency aid to casualties, including civilians. The UK will underline that there is no military solution to Libya’s challenges.
Sahel
Ministers will discuss the current situation in the Sahel. The Council will seek to agree conclusions highlighting the EU’s commitment to working with the countries of the region to meet the security, development and humanitarian challenges they are facing.
Council conclusions
The Council is expected to adopt conclusions on Sahel and on the communication on relations between the EU and LAC (Latin America and Caribbean regional grouping).
[HCWS1551]
Investigatory Powers Act 2016
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 provides extensive privacy safeguards and has established a robust oversight regime with independent mechanisms for redress. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner, the right hon. Lord Justice Fulford, is responsible for overseeing the use of investigatory powers by the intelligence agencies, law enforcement and other public authorities. This oversight includes a programme of inspection and audit by judicial commissioners and inspectors, reporting to the commissioner.
This statement notifies Parliament of compliance risks MI5 identified and reported within certain technology environments used to store and analyse data, including material obtained under the Investigatory Powers Act.
The investigatory powers regime is the subject of ongoing litigation where the Government continue to defend the UK’s legal framework. This does necessarily limit the extent to which it is appropriate for me to comment further on these issues, noting that the Government have, in line with their duty of candour, made the court aware of this issue in relevant litigation. The sensitivity of this issue will also be apparent. The Government will not say anything that could damage national security. To the extent that it is possible to set out in open the nature and context of the material relevant to this issue, I have done so in this statement. Protecting the UK’s national security is my top priority and it is critical that MI5 is able to continue to carry out its vital role.
The compliance risks identified relate to particular safeguards set out in the Investigatory Powers Act in relation to the processing of material that has been obtained under a warrant. Section 53 of the Act—which relates specifically to lawful interception—and parallel provisions for the Act’s other powers require the authority issuing warrants to ensure certain processing is kept to the minimum necessary for the statutory purpose, including the number of people to whom material is made available, the number of copies made and the length of time it is retained. A report of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office suggests that MI5 may not have had sufficient assurance of compliance with these safeguards within one of its technology environments.
As will be clear from the above, the compliance risks identified are limited to how material is treated after it has been obtained. They do not relate in any way to the manner in which MI5 acquires information in the first instance or the necessity and proportionality of doing so. All UK intelligence agencies treat protection of personal information seriously. MI5 has in place internal safeguards concerning the handling of such information and ensures stringent vetting of individuals who will have access to this sensitive material.
The report of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office into these risks concluded that they were serious and required immediate mitigation. The commissioner also expressed concern that MI5 should have reported the compliance risks to him sooner. In response to the commissioner’s report, MI5 has also taken immediate and substantial mitigating actions to address the concerns raised. Work to implement those mitigations is ongoing and is being treated as a matter of the highest priority, both by MI5 and the Home Office. This work is subject to review by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to ensure that sufficient progress is being made.
It is of course paramount that UK intelligence agencies demonstrate full compliance with the law. In that context, the interchange between the commissioner and MI5 on this issue demonstrates that the world leading system of oversight established by the Act is working as it should.
Following his report, the commissioner was satisfied that the mitigating actions put in place by MI5 were sufficient for him to continue lawfully to approve decisions to issue warrants to MI5. I am also clear that none of the risks identified relate in any way to the conduct and integrity of the staff of MI5, who work tirelessly, under considerable pressure and without public recognition, to keep all of us safe.
The work MI5 does is absolutely critical, at a time when the threat from terrorism persists and continues to diversify. And the role of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and his office is also fundamental to protecting our citizens, ensuring that our operational agencies are able to carry out their vital work in accordance with strict and proportionate privacy safeguards.
Given the importance of these issues, I have established an independent review to consider and report back to me on what lessons can be learned for the future. MI5 will also continue to work closely with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and his team to address the concerns raised and I anticipate that the commissioner will outline his position in his annual report in due course. As the parliamentary body responsible for oversight of the intelligence services, the Intelligence and Security Committee has also been updated on this issue.
[HCWS1552]
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures: December 2018 to February 2019
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
Section 19(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (the Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of his TPIM powers under the Act during that period. TPIM notices in force (as of 28 February 2019) 4 TPIM notices in respect of British citizens (as of 28 February 2019) 4 TPIM notices extended (during the reporting period) 0 TPIM notices revoked (during the reporting period) 0 TPIM notices revived (during the reporting period) 0 Variations made to measures specified in TPIM notices (during the reporting period) 4 Applications to vary measures specified in TPIM notices refused (during the reporting period) 2 The number of current subjects relocated under TPIM Legislation (as of 28 February 2019) 2
The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.
The TPIM Review Group (TRG) keeps every TPIM notice under regular and formal review. The first quarter TRGs took place during March 2019.
[HCWS1549]
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures: September 2018 to November 2018
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
Section 19(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (the Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of his TPIM powers under the Act during that period. TPIM notices in force (as of 30 November 2018) 5 TPIM notices in respect of British citizens (as of 30 November 2018) 5 TPIM notices extended (during the reporting period) 1 TPIM notices revoked (during the reporting period) 1 TPIM notices revived (during the reporting period) 0 Variations made to measures specified in TPIM notices (during the reporting period) 5 Applications to vary measures specified in TPIM notices refused (during the reporting period) 1 The number of current subjects relocated under TPIM Legislation (as of 30 November 2018) 3
The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.
The TPIM Review Group (TRG) keeps every TPIM notice under regular and formal review. The third quarter TRG meetings took place on 12, 14, 18, 25 and 27 September 2018. The fourth quarter of TRG meetings took place on 4, 6, 10, 11 and 19 December 2018.
Three individuals have been charged with breach of a TPIM notice. Their criminal trials have yet to be heard.
[HCWS1547]
Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
Today the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse has published its latest case study report, which can be found at https://www.iicsa.org.uk/
This report relates to the Diocese of Chichester and Peter Ball case studies in the inquiry’s Anglican Church investigation. I am thankful for the strength and courage of the victims and survivors who have shared their experiences to ensure the inquiry can deliver its vital work.
The Government will review this report and consider how to respond to its content in due course.
I would like to thank Professor Jay and her panel for their continued work to uncover the truth, expose what went wrong in the past and to learn the lessons for the future.
[HCWS1550]
Airline Insolvency Review
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
We have a thriving aviation sector, with competition between airlines delivering choice of destinations and competitive fares for consumers, but occasionally airlines, like any business, do collapse. Over the past decade we have seen two of the largest airline failures in UK history, with the collapse of XL Airways and Monarch Airlines. In both situations, the Government of the day took a decision to ask the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to intervene to assist the repatriation of passengers.
When Monarch collapsed in October 2017, it could have left around 110,000 passengers overseas without a flight back to the UK. Given the specific circumstances and scale of the situation, the Government asked the CAA to launch an operation to ensure that all those abroad were offered an alternative flight to the UK. This involved the UK’s largest peacetime repatriation operation. In total around 85,000 passengers were returned to the UK, with 98% of them travelling on the same day as their original flight.
While this support in both the XL and Monarch situations helped to reduce the detriment for passengers, it also resulted in significant costs to the taxpayer. In the case of the Monarch repatriation, the final cost to the taxpayer has been assessed to be £40.5 million.
Following on from the experience of Monarch, I commissioned an independent airline insolvency review, chaired by Peter Bucks. The review has considered consumer protection in the event of an airline or travel company failure. The final report has been published today.1 It draws on lessons from the collapse of Monarch Airlines and has considered both repatriation and refund protection to identify options to ensure passengers are protected and identified areas for further work.
We welcome the report and the work performed by Peter and his team. The Government are considering the range of options put forward by the review and will work swiftly to introduce the reforms that are needed to ensure a strong level of consumer protection and value for money for the taxpayer. In doing so we also need to consider the challenges faced by the aviation sector. We would welcome any views on the report’s recommendations and encourage stakeholders to respond as part of the ongoing consultation on Aviation 2050, which closes on 20 June.2
1 https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/airline- insolvency
2 https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/ aviation-2050-the-future-of-uk-aviation
[HCWS1546]
Welfare Sanctions
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Amber Rudd)
Conditionality and sanctions are an important part of the welfare system, motivating claimants to engage with the support on offer to look for work while ensuring the system is fair to the taxpayer.
Sanctions must be proportionate, particularly for the most vulnerable. The level of a sanction depends on the severity of the claimant’s failure to comply with their work-related requirements. Sanctions escalate for subsequent failures, carrying greater penalties. Under current policy, a claimant on universal credit or jobseeker’s allowance may receive a three-year sanction the third or subsequent time they have failed to comply with a work-related requirement.
Three-year sanctions are rarely used, but I believe that they are counterproductive and ultimately undermine our goal of supporting people into work.
I have reviewed my Department’s internal data, which shows that a six-month sanction already provides a significant incentive for claimants to engage with the labour market regime. I agree with the Work and Pensions Committee that a three-year sanction is unnecessarily long and I feel that the additional incentive provided by a three-year sanction can be outweighed by the unintended impacts to the claimant due to the additional duration. For these reasons, I have now decided to remove three-year sanctions and reduce the maximum sanction length to six months by the end of the year.
It is important that sanctions remain proportionate to ensure they promote the best outcomes. For this reason, the Department is currently carrying out a further evaluation into the effectiveness of UC sanctions at supporting claimants to search for work. I will consider what other improvements can be made following this and inform the House in due course.
[HCWS1545]
House of Lords
Public Appointments: Diversity
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to increase diversity in public appointments.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to improving diversity in public appointments. We have made good progress. New appointments of women, candidates from BAME backgrounds and those with a declared disability have all increased since 2013-14, but there is more to do. We aim to publish around the end of June a refreshed public appointments diversity action plan alongside a response to my noble friend’s excellent review into opening up public appointments to disabled people.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for everything that is happening in the Cabinet Office. What is happening across Whitehall and in all government departments, which obviously have to play a role in this incredibly important issue?
Lord Young of Cookham
My noble friend is quite right. Although the Cabinet Office has overall responsibility for this topic, the actual appointments are made by individual government departments. One reason that we have taken a little longer to publish the document to which I have just referred is that we are anxious to get buy-in from all government departments to hit the ambitions that we are about to set out. I know from experience that Ministers in individual departments take public appointments very seriously. They are accountable for them, there is a Commissioner for Public Appointments to make sure the code is observed, and I know that Permanent Secretaries also take seriously the process of sifting applications before they go to Ministers. I will draw my noble friend’s remarks to the attention of relevant Permanent Secretaries and Ministers.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, unless we get rid of the traditional recruitment methods of CVs and formal, structured interviews, we will never be able to recognise the talent lying on our own doorsteps. HS2 has succeeded in recruiting a workforce which exactly reflects the population. Will the Government look at its methods and consider the option of blind, online applications that reflect the needs of the job, not what is written down on a piece of paper? That would at least be a first step towards an inclusive Civil Service that looks like the people it represents.
Lord Young of Cookham
When I re-read my noble friend’s document I was struck by the sentence:
“Currently, talent is everywhere, but opportunity is not”.
He is absolutely right. One of his recommendations, concerning CVs, is that we should take non-standard CVs into account. His report states that,
“lived experience ... is a talent”.
Standard CVs and application processes sometimes do not reflect the life history of those who have a disability. I hope that when the noble Baroness sees our response to my noble friend’s document, she will recognise that we have taken on board some of the unconscious discrimination against those with a disability when it comes to public appointments.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, I am very supportive of the Government’s efforts in this field but I want to raise one point. The Minister just said that talent is everywhere. It is indeed everywhere but, unfortunately, appointments are largely concentrated in the south-east of England. Will the Government make an effort to see how the spread is in other counties throughout the United Kingdom?
Lord Young of Cookham
The noble Lord is quite right. Discrimination is not just about gender, race or disability; it is also about age, diversity of experience and regional balance. My noble friend’s recommendations, although focused on disability, have wide implications for other underrepresented groups, not just in the public sector but in the private sector as well.
Baroness Finn (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that a consistent, rigorous focus on the action needed to overcome the barriers to employment is more important than another grand strategy? That was our approach during the coalition Government when increasing appointments of women, with very impressive results. Is it not sensible to learn from what worked successfully then?
Lord Young of Cookham
I pay tribute to the work that my noble friend did alongside my noble friend Lord Maude at the Cabinet Office when we had an ambition that 50% of new appointments should go to women. In the five years that followed, the percentage went up from, I think, 34% to 49%. My noble friend is quite right that some of the lessons that were learned from the Cabinet Office at that time have been taken on board by my noble friend Lord Holmes, and he has built on them and applied them where necessary to adjust for issues connected with disability. That is why I said in my initial response that we will refresh the public appointments diversity action plan, building on the one that I think my noble friend was closely involved with.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester
My Lords, I am conscious that these Benches may not embody everyone’s image of diversity. None the less, I was pleased to lead the final stages of the process by which these Benches were opened to women as well as men, although none of them is here today. I have also been chairing for the last five years a process within the Church where we are tasked with increasing the proportion of BME people in senior roles in the life of the Church. We have made some modest progress, though there is lots still to do. Nevertheless, we have learned that while legislation and processes are important, as has been indicated, so are culture, attitudes and bias. I wonder whether the Government might welcome some kind of forum within which quasi-public bodies might engage with public bodies so that we can share our learning on these matters.
Lord Young of Cookham
I welcome the suggestion from the right reverend Prelate. An event was held at Windsor called Faith in Leadership to encourage those with a faith perspective to apply for public appointments. In response to his suggestion, we are anxious to learn any lessons that the Church may have to ensure that the recommendations in the disability review go forward. So the short answer to the right reverend Prelate’s question is yes.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, for people who do not have a conventional CV, the confidence to make an application for a board appointment can itself be a barrier? I believe that some important work has been done in Northern Ireland to give potential candidates, with talent but perhaps suffering from one of those barriers—it might well be class, as much as gender—experience of serving on a board and seeing how one functions to prepare them to be competent and able board members.
Lord Young of Cookham
That is a very helpful suggestion from the noble Baroness. One of the recommendations in the review was that we should seek out talent, encourage people to apply who might otherwise not have done and then support them through the process. There is also an issue about the visibility of appointments, in that there is a risk of this applying just to a self-selecting group if one does not reach out to underrepresented groups. I am very happy to learn from the experience in Northern Ireland to which the noble Baroness referred.
Social Housing: Older People
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address the provision of suitable social housing for older people.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley, and with her permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a trustee of the United St Saviour’s Charity in Southwark, which provides social housing for older people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on so ably stepping into the breach. The Government have made £9 billion available through the affordable homes programme to March 2022 to deliver new affordable homes of a range of tenures, including social rent and supported housing. Supported housing, including sheltered housing, plays a vital role in the lives of the most vulnerable, including older people. Since 2011, we have delivered 34,000 units of specialist and other supported housing for disabled, vulnerable and older people.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, what plans do the Government have to support calls for the lifetime homes standard to be mandatory for at least some, if not all, social housing built in future? That would enable people to stay in their homes longer, help them to remain independent and save money on future aids and adaptions.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord is right to concentrate on that standard. He will know that Part M of the building regulations is about to be reviewed; we have touched on it previously. We very much hope that will be tightened for its requirements for disabled and older people. That will help to inform the sort of progress that we are all keen to make.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, in February last year—15 months ago—the Communities and Local Government Select Committee reported on its inquiry into housing for older people. It had 41 recommendations. Eight months ago, in September 2018, the Government’s response was published. It left many questions unanswered, but it did say this:
“We have been clear that we will consider housing as we develop proposals for the future of the social care system in the green paper to be published in the autumn”.
The two areas of social care and housing are clearly linked. The Green Paper was not published and there is no sign of it. Does the Minister accept the need to respond properly to the committee’s recommendations, and that the failure to publish the Green Paper is turning into a major failure of public policy?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord is right about the importance of the Select Committee’s recommendations, many of which we are taking forward. He will know that we have ensured that approximately 22,000 specific homes since 2011 have been geared towards older people. We have committed £400 million in the spending review to delivering specialist affordable homes for the vulnerable, elderly and those with disability. We are bringing the Green Paper forward, but he is absolutely right that it is important.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, I recently served on the ad hoc Select Committee on intergenerational fairness. It published its report two weeks ago. Although I know that the Government have not yet responded formally to the committee’s recommendations, the Minister will be aware of those we made on housing, many of which might help to increase the housing supply, especially of social housing. For instance, there is the presumption that local authorities be given priority to develop for housing any publicly owned land in their area, and the specific recommendation that retirement communities that provide extra care be designated as class C2—the same as care homes—to encourage their development. That issue is very close to the heart of the Associated Retirement Community Operators, ARCO, with which I work and for which I am proud to be patron. Will these recommendations be acted on, and quickly? They are very important.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for what she does on behalf of older people, specifically on intergenerational fairness. I remember the work we did together on the Neighbourhood Planning Act to ensure that, for the first time ever, older people are recognised in the National Planning Policy Framework. She is absolutely right about the importance of this. In fact, pensioners as a class have never been better off than they are the moment, but there are specific needs relating to housing. I mentioned Part M and the importance of delivering more specific homes. We are carrying that forward.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
Is the Minister aware of the All-Party Group on Housing and Care for Older People, very ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Best, who cannot be in his place this morning? Is he also aware that in the next 20 years, by 2041, about 30% of older people will be in the private rented sector? This will be Generation Rent, who will not be able to afford to pay rent when they retire. What plans do his Government—and his department in particular—have to deal with that? We need to plan for that crisis now.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Baroness is right: the private rented sector has grown massively across all age groups. There is nothing inherently wrong in that; it was slightly implicit in the question that it was undesirable. Oh, she shakes her head—I misunderstood. There are particular concerns. As she will know, we have moved on a number of factors in relation to the private rented sector across the board to ensure fairness on rents, evictions, secure tenancies, tenant fees and so on. She is right to highlight this. I assure her that we will carry things forward.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, while everyone would welcome a housebuilding programme, can the Minister assure the House that all these new houses will be built to be as carbon neutral as possible, given the current state of the climate emergency?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the climate change dimension is of interest to me, and the noble Baroness is right to highlight it. Modern methods of construction in particular will help us to deliver on that. Many companies are developing modern methods of construction and housing which are carbon neutral, and receive funding through BEIS to help with that programme.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Is my noble friend aware that 7,000 high-quality new homes are being built per day in the Republic of India—which, admittedly, is larger than us and probably quite soon will be richer than us as well? Would he concede that new construction technology has a major part to play in adequate and swift provision of social housing for all ages?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I was unaware of that statistic, but certainly India is developing incredibly quickly on a number of technological fronts, so I am not totally surprised. My noble friend is absolutely right about the importance of ensuring that housing delivery is carbon neutral and that modern methods of construction enable us to move very quickly. We are doing so across a range of areas. Last week, I saw modern of methods of construction providing help for the homeless. It is pleasing to see that beginning to happen across all sectors; it cannot happen too quickly.
Nigeria: Fulani
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Cox
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of recent developments in Nigeria, with particular reference to attacks by Fulani militia.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we remain deeply concerned by the escalation in intercommunal violence across Nigeria, which has a devastating impact on lives and communities and is a barrier to Nigeria’s development. While religion is a factor, the root causes remain complex and include access to resources, population growth and displacement due to climate change and desertification. We are working closely with international partners and the Nigerian Government to develop measures to address the causes of the conflict, including the national livestock transformation plan.
Baroness Cox (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that since the Fulani insurgency began, thousands of Christians have been killed in the Middle Belt region? That includes about 300 killed in Kaduna between February and April this year. Also, on 14 April, Fulani militia invaded Nasarawa, killing 17 people, including a 100 year-old man, and a girl whom they raped to death, and on Good Friday, another dozen were killed in Benue.
Given that the Government’s interim independent review into the global persecution of Christians has found that religious hatred plays a key part in these killings, does the Minister agree that while other factors may be involved, the asymmetry and huge scale of attacks by well-armed Fulani upon the predominantly Christian communities has a significant ideological base that must be acknowledged if the issues and the suffering are to be addressed appropriately—such as the Nigerian Government’s responsibly to ensure that it will be safe for thousands of displaced Christians to return to their homes?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. It is exactly why the Foreign Secretary and I were intrinsically involved in that decision, and initiated the independent review of Christian persecution around the world. The interim report is not just sobering, it is actually pretty horrific in terms of the numbers. We are talking about 200 million Christians around the world being persecuted in some shape or form because of their faith.
The example of Nigeria is a very stark one. The noble Baroness knows Nigeria well. This was a focus area for my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary’s recent visit, and I assure the noble Baroness that any of the organisations that seek to represent or hijack a religion are doing so erroneously. It is important for all communities, all faiths, to stand against them. I am of course referring to Boko Haram and the Islamic State in West Africa. Through development, diplomacy, and security initiatives, we will defeat these radical extremist groups once and for all.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, Nigeria is a valued member of the Commonwealth and as such, has signed the Harare Declaration and all other relevant declarations, yet Nigeria is mentioned by Open Doors as among the 50 worst countries in the world in which to be a Christian. What have the Government done, consistent with their new policy on religious persecution, to assist the Government of Nigeria to fulfil their commitments under the Commonwealth? Does the Commonwealth have a role in this tragedy?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
First, I totally concur with the noble Lord. Membership of the Commonwealth brings additional responsibilities for any country wishing to be an active and fully engaged member. I assure him that we are working closely with the Government of Nigeria. President Buhari himself has condemned these clashes. There is also an initiative from the Christian vice-president, who is taking forward a national strategy to address the issue of violence directly. He has already engaged directly with governors. We are also providing support and assistance to communities on the ground to ensure that those communities—be they of whatever religion, Christian or Muslim—can work together to defeat the scourge of extremism. This is a long process; that does not mean that we bail out at the first challenge. I fully accept that the situation of Christians in Nigeria is dire, but it is important that we engage even more forcefully now to ensure that we can beat the groups which seek to destabilise Nigeria.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, as a fellow officer of the APPG it was a pleasure to respond to the request from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for the group to launch an inquiry into this matter. The evidence has been that the violence goes across many states but that it is complex and various factors are at play. One key theme has been that the perception is rising that religion is a motivating factor, due to the use of social media, fake news and, often, the lack of capacity in civil society to investigate what is happening. Whatever part religion actually plays, in and of itself, the perception that it is playing a heightened role is a concern. Will my noble friend the Minister please outline what funding from the FCO and DfID can be given to civil society in Nigeria to increase its capacity to get accurate information about these attacks? Many of them, particularly Muslim-on-Muslim attacks, are going underreported in Nigeria.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My noble friend is quite right to point out the extensive level of support. I assure her that our work in Nigeria represents, I believe, the fifth-largest DfID support programme and our second largest in Africa. Various organisations are engaged on a series of initiatives; whether we are talking about schoolchildren, teacher training or building community capacity, we are working at all levels. When my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary visited Nigeria, he went to Maiduguri and saw directly how the UK is contributing to a programme for Nigeria to fight against terrorism. Again, we have emphasised the importance of the British Government standing in support of all initiatives. We are working with a raft of organisations on the ground and I will write to my noble friend in that respect.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, in answering the Question that I put to the Minister last December, he said that the development of policies and plans with European partners to address the escalation of violence and deaths in Nigeria was “work in progress”, and that the Nigerian Government were planning to introduce a Bill to address the events that have occurred between the Fulani and the farmers. Can he confirm what progress has been made in developing these policies and plans with our European partners since then, and advise how much, if any, of the £150 million of new British aid announced by the Foreign Secretary will be allocated to these projects?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord is correct to ask that question. Progress is being made; obviously, the election in Nigeria may have caused certain things to come to a halt but there has been a renewed focus. I have already referred to the vice-president’s initiative. On the Bill that the noble Lord refers to, we are providing direct assistance to the communities affected. Consideration is currently being given to that very Bill, which will look at, for example, grazing reserves, routes and cattle ranches, to ensure that we can address the issue of land in Nigeria.
Elections and Referendums: Foreign Interference
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tyler
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the adequacy of the regulatory framework for protecting elections and referendum campaigns in the United Kingdom from foreign interference, including financial contributions.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the UK has a robust electoral system with processes in place to defend it, and there is ongoing work to ensure our elections remain secure. The Government are committed to protecting electoral and democratic processes from foreign interference into the future. Measures such as those announced by the Government this week will continue to strengthen our resilience against any foreign interference and ensure that the regulatory framework is as watertight as possible.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, do the Government recognise that there is now an emergency? There is no time for new legislation. The statement made by the Cabinet Office at the weekend of a new consultation is far too little and far too late. Shadowy campaign organisations are already spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on Brexit messages on digital media, and nobody knows where their money is coming from. Just two—Britain’s Future and We Are The 52%—have outspent all the political parties, clearly seeking to distort the poll, which is in just 14 days. The Brexit Party will not tell the Electoral Commission where a £100,000 donation has come from until well after polling day. Surely the Minister recognises that it is totally unsatisfactory for Parliament and government to rely on the investigations of BuzzFeed, the Guardian, the Observer and Channel 4 to defend the integrity of our electoral system. The Government must now recognise that the outcome of the poll on 23 May, in 14 days, could be as dodgy as that in June 2016. Will the Minister undertake to meet me to discuss what can be done urgently to address this serious situation?
Lord Young of Cookham
As I have said before from this Dispatch Box, there is no evidence of successful interference in the electoral process in this country, either in referendums or elections. As I said in the Answer I gave to the noble Lord a few moments ago, we are considering the issues. While we do not believe there has been abuse, we are anxious to be ahead of the game. We are now considering increasing the transparency of digital political advertising, including by third parties; closing loopholes on foreign spending in elections; preventing shell companies from sidestepping the current rules on political finance; and taking action to tackle foreign lobbying. I hope the noble Lord welcomes the announcements we have just made.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, when I received my postal vote yesterday, in the same post I received an electoral address from just one party—not the Tory party, sadly not the Labour Party, and not even the Lib Dems, but from the Brexit Party. That indicates that it is well organised and very well financed. Yet on television, under pressure from Sophy Ridge, Farage refused to say where £200,000 has come from. We will not know until the end of July, which is far too late. Surely there is something the Government can do. Can the Minister talk to the Electoral Commission and make sure we know that these sources of finance are legitimate and come from the United Kingdom?
Lord Young of Cookham
I assure the noble Lord that a communication from the Tory party will be on its way well before polling day. I hope he finds it a persuasive document.
Lord Young of Cookham
My understanding from the television is that the majority of the finance for the Brexit Party has come from relatively small donations, of some £25, to Nigel Farage. It is up to the Electoral Commission to supervise elections, to monitor the rules and to take necessary action if any of them are broken.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
Does my noble friend recognise that it is no secret where a lot of this foreign interference comes from? The outcome of the presidential election in America and the referendum here gave no unhappiness at all in Moscow. Can I take it that the strongest representations are being made to the Russian Government that this conduct is unacceptable, we now know where it is coming from and we will watch it carefully?
Lord Young of Cookham
I am grateful to my noble friend. We have invested £1.9 billion in the national cybersecurity strategy for precisely the reason that he has outlined: to resist interference in the electoral process. Estimates of the reach of the Russians suggest that 105 accounts reached 16,000 people during the referendum campaign, in many cases simply amplifying arguments in circulation. The majority was 1.3 million. I honestly do not think that one can attribute that majority to the activity of Russian spooks.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, of course it is essential that we have maximum transparency in all organisations involved in referendum campaigns, general election campaigns and the like, but does the Minister agree that we need maximum transparency also on the part of those well-financed organisations whose aim is to reverse the result of referendums? I refer of course to the People’s Vote campaign, which is a campaign to reverse the vote of the people in 2016. It is massively well financed, with opinion polling across the country in individual constituencies and with leafleting and campaigning—I have kept many of its documents because it kindly sends them to me as well. Will he ensure that, in any future investigation into transparency, organisations such as the so-called People’s Vote campaign are included?
Lord Young of Cookham
Were there to be another referendum, there would need to be primary legislation, which would give an opportunity to the noble Lord and others to see whether the current legislation is adequate. Anybody taking part in any future referendum would have to register as a political party. There are maximum spending limits on such activity and there is the necessary transparency associated with it, but I take on board the warning from the noble Lord.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that, in practice, the European elections will be a referendum on Brexit?
Lord Young of Cookham
The various parties will put out their manifestos, which will explain where they stand and what they want people to support. Depending on how people vote, the necessary conclusions will be drawn. I see where my noble friend is coming from, in that there will be a clear temptation to add up the totality of votes for the “remain parties” and for the “leave parties” and see what the result is. Whether people are then motivated or influenced by the level of turnout is something that we will have to determine on the day.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I make a short statement about recess dates for Whitsun. There is no need for people to make a note of them; they are with the Printed Paper Office as I speak. I do not need to emphasise that the following dates are of course provisional and subject to the progress of business. We will rise at the conclusion of business on Thursday 23 May and return on Tuesday 4 June.
Business of the House
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That the debates on the motions in the names of Lord Borwick and Lord Harris of Haringey set down for today shall each be limited to 2 1/2 hours.
Conduct Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That a Conduct Committee be appointed and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:
Anelay of St Johns, B. Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, L. Donaghy, B. Hussein-Ece, B. Mance, L. (Chair)
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;
That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Last Tuesday, the House agreed to the Privileges and Conduct Committee’s fourth report and, in doing so, agreed to proposals for a new code of conduct, the appointment of a new conduct committee and a new standing order restricting debates on conduct committee reports on Members’ conduct. This first Motion appoints five noble Lords as members of the new conduct committee. A Motion to appoint the lay members of the committee will be brought before the House in due course.
The second Motion in my name on the Order Paper, which I shall move shortly, sets out the text of the new standing order. I would like to take this opportunity to inform Members that the new Code of Conduct, Guide to the Code of Conduct and Code of Conduct for Members’ Staff, as agreed by the House last week, were published this morning and copies are available in the Printed Paper Office and online.
Standing Orders (Public Business)
The Senior Deputy Speaker
Further to the House’s approval of the 4th Report from the Privileges and Conduct Committee Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme: Changes to the Code of Conduct, that the House agrees the following new Standing Order:
68A Reports from the Conduct Committee
Reports from the Conduct Committee resulting from an investigation under the Code of Conduct, together with any resolution on a sanction, are decided without debate.
Sri Lanka: UNHCR Refugees
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Minister for Asia to an Urgent Question in the other place. The Statement is as follows:
“Following the Easter Sunday attacks in Sri Lanka there have been reports of isolated incidents of violence and reports of intimidation and discrimination against Muslims, refugees and asylum seekers. In Negombo, one of the suburbs to the north of Colombo where the terrorist attacks took place, 985 refugees and asylum seekers were forcibly displaced from their ordinary places of residence according to UN figures. These refugees and asylum seekers, who are mostly of Pakistani origin, are being temporarily housed and protected to meet their immediate security and humanitarian needs. Our high commission in Colombo is in contact with the Government and UN agencies, working to find a more sustainable solution, and we are monitoring the situation carefully.
The United Nations is providing basic support—food, drinking water and immediate medical assistance—and co-ordinating with civil society to provide additional relief items. The humanitarian situation at the police station is a concern. The police have so far been welcoming, but we do understand that the facilities are insufficient. Staff at our high commission are also assisting in advocating and co-ordinating with the Sri Lankan Government to identify safe and secure relocation options to ensure the protection of refugees and asylum seekers. We also understand that processes are under way for some of the refugees to be resettled in third countries. Some 412 refugees are currently in the resettlement process of the UNHCR.
Ministers and representatives of the UK Government have met Sri Lankan counterparts over the past three weeks to reinforce the importance of inclusivity and respect for human rights in the response to the Easter Sunday attacks and to underline the importance of Sri Lankans working together to avoid intercommunal tensions. The Minister for Security and Economic Crime visited Sri Lanka on 2 and 3 May and met the President, Prime Minister, military and religious leaders and senior government officials, highlighting the importance of those points. Lord Ahmad and I have met with the Sri Lankan high commissioner over the past fortnight to raise concerns about refugees and minority rights in Sri Lanka”.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the response to the Urgent Question in the other place. I know that he understands the importance of this issue personally, particularly the Ahmadi Muslims, who have fled persecution in their own countries and Pakistan and who would face horrendous persecution again if they were to go back there. Will the Minister give a bit more detail about how we are able to support the Sri Lankan Government on immediate shelter for the refugees? Will this country be playing its part in any resettlement programme? Finally, on the discussion the Security Minister had, will we be supporting the Sri Lankan Government in trying to sustain a proper reconciliation process in the aftermath of that terrible tragedy?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the short answer to the noble Lord’s final point is, absolutely. My right honourable friend the Security Minister made that offer to the Sri Lankan Government. I visited the high commission myself to sign the condolence book and had an extensive meeting with the high commissioner. I will be seeking to visit the country for the purpose referred to by the noble Lord. It looks towards the United Kingdom and I am proud—as I am sure all noble Lords are—to be part of a country which, notwithstanding its challenges, has shown that it has the respect of all faiths and none, and in which faith communities are an integral part of finding solutions to those challenges.
The noble Lord is right to point out the situation of the Muslim communities that were expelled under severe security concerns. He is quite right that the majority of those are Ahmadi Muslims; I declare an interest in this respect. I am sure that the irony is not lost on many people: those who fled Pakistan because they were targeted for not being Muslim are now being targeted for being Muslim in another country. I assure the noble Lord that we have made all necessary offers of support to the Sri Lankan Government. There has been no specific request as yet.
On the issue of relocation, the UN and civil society organisations are working with the Government to identify immediate relocation options and as I said, there are 412 refugees currently in the UNHCR resettlement process. He asked specifically about the number for the UK. The UN says that seven are currently being processed for relocation to the United Kingdom.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating this Answer. The world looked in horror when we heard about the massacre of more than 250 people, worshippers and tourists, in Sri Lanka on that fateful Easter day. We have all condemned such attacks, and it is right that Sri Lanka takes every legal measure to identify and prosecute the perpetrators and take steps to prevent further attacks. I single out the timely meeting of the all-faiths group that was held in the Lord Speaker’s premises upstairs, at which a number of people paid tribute to what happened in Sri Lanka that day.
Two questions arise. First, I was delighted that the Minister mentioned the measures being taken to protect the Afghanis, Pakistanis and Ahmadiyya community in Sri Lanka, but who is actually monitoring that? Has the United Nations any particular role in ensuring the safety and security of this community? My second question concerns the Ahmadiyya community in this country and the very large Sri Lankan diaspora in the United Kingdom, as we have noted in the past. What is being done to assure the peace-loving Ahmadiyya community in this country about the protection of their friends and relations in Sri Lanka?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, first, I join with the noble Lord and I am sure I speak for all noble Lords when I say that we were all appalled by the events that took place in Colombo, with worshippers and people who were enjoying a holiday being attacked. It shows again the importance of unity in standing up to those extremists and terrorists who seek to divide us. We have experienced it here in the United Kingdom, and it is tragic that this is a worldwide scourge which we need to unify against.
On the noble Lord’s specific questions, we continue to work very closely with the diaspora communities here in the UK as well as the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. The noble Lord will know that I am a member of that community; I have been working very closely with it and identifying its concerns. The situation for the refugees is very dire at the moment—indeed, they are taking refuge in a police station, a centre and an Ahmadiyya Muslim mosque in Colombo. I have raised these questions directly with the high commissioner and she has assured me of her co-operation.
I will share a poignant moment, if I may. The noble Lord talked about multifaith organisations. On Sunday, I attended such an occasion in a church near me in Putney: the high commissioner and the deputy lieutenant were present, and it was very poignant to hear readings from Christian communities and representatives of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, who reflected on the need to stand up against those who seek to divide us, and prayers for those who have passed in these attacks.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, we are dealing here with not one but two members of the Commonwealth family. Can we be assured that, in our position as chair of the Commonwealth, working with the Commonwealth organisation generally, we are doing the maximum possible available to us in bringing to bear the co-ordinated efforts of the Commonwealth in meeting this difficult situation and the tragedy that lies behind it?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My noble friend speaks with great experience and insights, not just on the Commonwealth but on the two countries to which he refers, which are both friends of the United Kingdom. On the important issue of freedom of religion or belief, I visited Pakistan not so long ago, and I am sure that many of us have welcomed the recent steps that the Pakistani Government have taken in this respect, in what are pretty tense domestic environments. Indeed, yesterday we had the reported departure of Asia Bibi from Pakistan, which we all welcomed. We are working with the Pakistani Government on the importance of religious freedom and, as I said, we are also going to extend our work in building communal harmony and support for religious communities in Sri Lanka.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on the role he played in helping to secure the release of Asia Bibi and her ability to travel to be reunited yesterday with her family in Canada. The persecution of that Christian woman and the Ahmadi community in Pakistan should motivate us all in promoting freedom of religion and belief, and particularly Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Can I take the Minister to Written Questions which I tabled yesterday, which I gave him copies of? One referred to the police stations where Ahmadis and Christians have been taking refuge in Sri Lanka, where, as the noble Lord has said, they are even denied basic food, humanitarian aid and assistance. Can he tell us precisely what discussions we have had with the UNHCR in making progress to help those groups? My second point was about the use of textbooks in Sri Lanka which have been criticised by UNESCO for stirring up religious hatred and the dominance of some groups against the position of minorities. Are we taking action to ensure that those kinds of textbooks are no longer available in Sri Lankan schools?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, again, the noble Lord speaks with great insight on these issues; equally, to return to the issue of Asia Bibi, I pay tribute to his efforts in that respect—I think we are all grateful for what has happened. But he is right that the real result will be not to have 1,000 Asia Bibi cases. We must work with countries such as Pakistan to ensure, first and foremost, that the long-term objective must be the overturning of these draconian blasphemy laws, which are used not just against minority communities in Pakistan but against Muslim communities themselves. I therefore assure the noble Lord that we are working closely with the Pakistani Government to ensure that we can build not just religious tolerance but understanding at a core level.
The noble Lord mentioned the UNHCR; we are engaged fully with the Sri Lankan authorities and UN agencies on the ground to see what level of support we can offer. There has been no specific request apart from the figures I quoted to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, on specific refugees who may come to the United Kingdom. On the wider issue of textbooks, the noble Lord and I have discussed this matter, and I agree with him. We have a massive aid programme to various parts of the world, including Pakistan and Sri Lanka, and it is important that, as regards any support we provide, the values we seek to extend are reflected in the education and training, particularly which young children receive in those countries. I assure the noble Lord that we are working closely on that very objective with DfID colleagues.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My noble friend is entirely right to draw our attention to the plight of these Muslim refugees. However, can I return to the appalling atrocity that took place on Easter day? Is he as satisfied as he can be that the small Christian community in Sri Lanka has adequate protection? To take up the point on the Commonwealth made by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford, would there be some value in convening a meeting here in London of Commonwealth high commissioners to discuss the persecution of Christians, Muslims and others of religious faith in the Commonwealth and to try to agree a much firmer code among them?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My noble friend makes a practical suggestion, and I assure him that I will take this forward. Many Foreign Ministers from across the Commonwealth will be attending the media freedom conference in July this year, and I will certainly look to take up my noble friend’s suggestion in the margins of that. I am conscious of time, but I put on record that I assure my noble friend that we are working closely with the Sri Lankan Administration to ensure the safety of the Christian communities, who have suffered the worst kind of atrocity. Terrorism is bad enough, but to attack people who are at their most vulnerable, engaged in an act of worship on the holiest day of the Christian calendar—there are no words to describe it. It is unacceptable, and the motivation for such an act is inexplicable. However, as the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on Freedom of Religion or Belief, I am clear that freedom of religion and belief, which we enjoy here, should be a universal right; as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, it is a human right. I am sure that I speak with the support of everyone across this House and beyond when I say that the United Kingdom Government will work tirelessly to ensure that that objective is upheld.
Disabled People
Lord Borwick
That this House takes note of the issues facing people with disabilities and the potential for improved treatment and outcomes in the next 50 years.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as noted in the register, particularly my interests in accessible transport, housing and charities.
The lives of disabled people are often challenging. We rightly work hard to try to meet those challenges, and many disabled people say that we do not work hard enough. But the main reason I called for this debate today was to focus on the positives. Over the past 50 years, there has been an enormous improvement in the public’s attitude to disabled people, public understanding of their disability, and provision for their needs.
Sir Bert Massie repeated a story of being told in a restaurant, “I’m sorry, we don’t serve wheelchairs”, only for him to reply, “That’s okay: I don’t eat them”. That would not happen today, and that is something to celebrate, but, as we have seen those improvements over the past 50 years, we should now be optimistic that for the next 50 years we will promise even more.
A charity’s main aim should be to shut itself down. It should strive to achieve its mission, fulfil its special purpose and find that there is no reason for it to exist any more—but this is rare, if not unknown. The perhaps mythical charity for the relief of the destitute of Beverly Hills might have been such an example.
In this House, and in politics generally, there are quite enough problems to keep us busy, and so often the important gives way to the urgent. Setting a date of 50 years hence for this debate, we can start to think about the important. It gives us the opportunity to talk about a tantalising time when many of the urgent problems have retreated, in the hope that that might reveal the important ones left exposed on the beach of debate.
One charity that considered the possibility of being redundant was RADAR, when it was run by the late Sir Bert Massie, whose enjoyable autobiography was recently published. I am told that RADAR produced an annual report for 2030 looking forward in that way. Sir Bert imagined a world in which disability discrimination no longer existed—indeed, when no discrimination on spurious grounds existed. But the original idea for this debate was sparked when I discussed housing matters with a fine social housing provider called Habinteg, known to many of us in this House. It should be congratulated on its 50th anniversary, but did it imagine what the world would be like now when it started? I am not sure that there were many disabled Members of this House 50 years ago, and public transport was wholly inaccessible. Life is better now—still bad for many people, no doubt, but also better for very many.
Many noble Lords present will—but I personally shall not—see the world in 50 years’ time, when I would be approaching 115, but what will be the nature of disability then? Average longevity has been growing for years, so perhaps a life expectancy of 120 will be ordinary. We can hope to see ways of looking after the elderly improve, but perhaps the frailty that so often comes with age will grow further. Will dementia be preventable by then? Research is certainly progressing well, and there may turn out to be an infectious agent of some sort that can be prevented, just as we have discovered that many cancers are started by viruses.
Will we have solved some of the other problems of extreme old age? In every generation, people have felt that technology has passed them by, whether that be transport or iPhones. The older generations can now handle—just—the mystery of computers, but it has always been the case, and probably always will be to some extent, that technology will leave some of the older generation behind. It means that there are so many people alive today who are isolated by technology—who, for instance, cannot handle a ticketing system that is online only or that restricts cheaper tickets to online only.
Isolation makes people miserable. It may be one of the big challenges of the future. We should always be grateful to be Members of this great House, because so many deserving people do not have our privilege of having friends to disagree with. Perhaps, when our successors are debating the installation not of 5G but of 50G, they will convince the teenage designers of that system to design it with older people in mind. Better communication should reduce loneliness, but does technology always achieve this? I can hope only that the sheer numbers of older people will mean that that demographic group is a commercial opportunity.
Many scientists believe that, were people to engage in a healthy lifestyle throughout their lives, they could live for well over 100 years in relatively good shape, with preservation of cognitive ability. In a book entitled The Blue Zones, Dan Buettner studies communities around the world where people frequently live past 100. They stay physically active, eat well and usually never smoke—not even on the terrace. Crucially, they also enjoy loving, purposeful relationships throughout their lifespan. Someone can be physically well but lonely; loneliness clearly increases the loss of cognitive function and accelerates costly, preventable decline.
Technology can isolate people, but it also has enormous potential to alleviate loneliness. For instance, we can be sure that autonomous cars will be routine in the next few years. That could mean much more independence for those who are currently dependent—but when will we see autonomous ambulances with perhaps only one nurse to look after the patient while the ambulance drives itself? Autonomous cars may enable those with learning difficulties to travel as easily as everyone else, but what will happen without the contact with other people that happens on a bus? Will buses find themselves priced out of existence? Perhaps the autonomous taxi will be just a haven from increased crime.
Again, looking 50 years ahead means that we can start to identify the important things that we hope will not become urgent, because we know that a lot of costs are associated with disability. Lifts, special bathrooms and automatic door-openers are all expensive and all need electricity and maintenance. Whether they will get proportionately cheaper in 50 years’ time is an open question, but what is certain is that extra costs will exist, and I hope that all parties will accept paying towards them.
The subject of human helpers employed by many disabled people is more complex. With the growth of free trade—and, I hope, free immigration—around the world, I would expect the average wage of unskilled people to converge, so it will not necessarily be advantageous for British disabled people to employ foreign helpers. Will we see robots help instead? We see this already in places such as Japan, which has low levels of immigration.
One thing is predictable: in 50 years’ time, the promised Green Paper will actually have been published, and at least 50% of houses will have already been built to the lifetime homes standard. That is because the Government will have accepted the recommendation from all sides of the House to make it mandatory. That the majority of all houses should be accessible seems easy to me. We are winning the argument; I believe that building accessible housing will be seen as helpful not only in a practical sense but in an economic sense too. Given the number of times a house will change hands over the course of its existence, there is a good chance that a resident over that timeframe will need wider doors or accessible plug sockets. Building those things in at the start will be more economical than making alterations over a number of years.
Technology in healthcare can help, too. A few years ago, the American company Theranos popularised the idea—albeit perhaps fraudulently—that it should be possible for every patient to take a small drop of blood by themselves, which should reveal all the health markers that are so hard to find now. It is likely that another company might produce this in the future, meaning that every person could monitor their health daily with complete accuracy at trivial cost. All infections and diseases will be caught early, probably leading to much less suffering. Such technology might also, almost unbelievably, reduce the cost of our National Health Service. For those with disabilities, being able to track other health issues easily and cheaply will be of enormous benefit.
State borders will not be limitations on these benefits. For medicine in resource-limited countries, telecom-munication and telemedicine will be very helpful. It is happening today. Pathology reports and X-ray images can be sent to experts, and we can get second opinions through a group of physicians who volunteer to help in this effort. Surgeons can now operate remotely, thousands of miles away. So, looking forward, will it be easy for UK doctors to routinely treat patients in third-world countries, and will it be easy for doctors trained in South America to take on patients in the UK? How will we sort out prescriptions written in India and delivered in Westminster? Perhaps with prescriptions dispensed by Amazon—who knows? Treating conditions that might exist alongside a disability should be easier for those in the UK and overseas, which is a welcome prospect. Again, having a 50-year perspective is a useful framework for working out what issues might be important, so that we can start to use technology to tackle them.
I have addressed how technology can be used for good, but I have also acknowledged that it can isolate people. I think that loneliness might be the biggest long-term challenge for improving the lives of disabled people. The Government have, to their immense credit, recognised the problems that loneliness can cause. They have even given a ministerial role to the task, which my honourable friend Mims Davies MP currently occupies. The Government’s loneliness strategy was launched in October last year, and there is much to recommend in it. The strategy recognises the potential that technology has to reduce loneliness as opposed to exacerbating it, and it also seeks to discuss loneliness in classes at school so that children can learn about its impact.
While I welcome the Government’s willingness to tackle loneliness, it is also true that the best solution is the long-term care and support provided by families and loved ones. The Government can and should help when someone is truly alone, but they cannot and should not replace a family. There are thousands of family carers across the country, many of whom are balancing jobs and young families at the same time. This is a tremendous resource not just for the lonely person but for the country, and we should be immensely proud of these people. I have noticed an increase in award ceremonies and the like celebrating the role of family carers, and that is absolutely right. They are national heroes and may be the secret to making the next 50 years even better than the last.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, on securing this debate and also on an excellent speech, which I am glad to follow. When we speak about minorities, we all too often lose sight of the fact that disabled people are the largest minority group in our country. Out of the UK population of 66 million there are, according to the charity Scope and the Family Resources Survey, 13.9 million disabled people. Despite that, disability discrimination is still considered by the public, the media and in some cases the Government to rank below racial, homophobic and religious discrimination.
Your Lordships’ House has led the way in championing the needs of disabled people, and we can see evidence of that in the speakers’ list for this debate. It was a privilege to be asked to serve on the Select Committee on the Equality Act 2010 and Disability under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, in the 2015-16 Session. Many of the issues that I suspect will be raised in the debate today were covered by that Select Committee inquiry, and I would gently suggest to the Minister that it would be helpful if she and her department were to go through the 55 recommendations made in that report and see how many of them still need to be implemented.
I should at this point declare my interest as a vice-president of the charity Level Playing Field. I have been involved with the charity for 12 of the 20-plus years that it has been campaigning for improvements in access to sports stadia for disabled supporters. The charity gave me tremendous support when I took a Private Member’s Bill, the Accessible Sports Grounds Bill, through this House in 2015. Virtually everyone who spoke in its Second Reading debate was strongly supportive, particularly of the principle that each stadium should follow accessible guidelines and improve the experience for disabled people attending matches. As is the fate, sadly, of almost every Private Member’s Bill that starts life in this House, mine made no progress in the other place—but there seems to be little doubt that the pressure put on the football authorities by your Lordships helped to secure a remarkable change of approach. Access is now high on the agenda for clubs and sports governing bodies, and clubs have a clearer understanding of what they need to achieve.
Level Playing Field tells me that the Premier League pledge has resulted in the biggest change in facilities for disabled fans since the league was founded in 1992. Of its 20 members, 17 now meet the accessible stadia guidelines for wheelchair user spaces, and over 1,000 more spaces have been provided across the Premier League since the pledge was signed. There have also been 16 changing places and 10 sensory rooms created. All Premier League clubs have identified easy access and amenity seats, and more disabled away fans can now sit alongside their fellow supporters.
As recently as 2016, after the publication of the Select Committee report, I was still very critical of the lack of progress. While there is still a lot more to be achieved in the Premier League—including ticketing processes, sight-lines, persistent standing, appropriate audio-descriptive commentary and away-match experiences —I am pleased to acknowledge how much the situation has got better. I commend six clubs in particular where the pledge has led to really significant improvements: Everton, Chelsea, Watford, Newcastle United and our two proud competitors in the European Champions League final, Liverpool and Tottenham Hotspur. They all meet the accessible stadia guidelines.
The English Premier League pledge has also had a beneficial effect on the Football League. Championship clubs now have two years following promotion to meet the accessible stadia guidelines. Some good work is being done in Leagues One and Two and lower down, but there are inconsistencies that need to be addressed. The same applies to sports such as rugby, cricket, tennis and horseracing, which are following the Premier League’s example in assessing their own facilities and making improvements.
While these advances are very welcome, there is an overriding need to create a more inclusive culture in society as a whole, so that disabled fans enjoy a genuinely equal experience. We shall therefore need clear legislation, such as my proposed Private Member’s Bill, that binds sports clubs by the accessible stadia guidelines as part of their licence. There also needs to be an appropriate governing body to oversee and manage these arrangements.
Looking more widely, we should review the disposable income of disabled people. Scope estimates that on average there are additional costs of £583 per month to being disabled. Looking ahead, we can anticipate that during the next 50 years there should be technology improvements, increased life expectancy and more leisure time, as the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, has described to us. Disabled people are entitled to expect improvements to public transport links, including equal access for wheelchair users travelling on trains and buses and in taxis.
I also hope there will be better understanding of hidden disabilities, including mental health, learning disabilities and dementia. These will need more public awareness and better staff and service provider training and information. We shall need to recognise that an ageing population will mean an increased demand on existing facilities.
Finally, I will say a word about one of the most unpleasant aspects of the debate on disabled people. I refer to the growing incidence of abuse and discrimination. In the past 12 months, reported incidents of hate crime have increased in the UK by 33%. According to police figures there were 5,342 reported cases in 2017-18, compared to 4,005 in 2016-17. There is evidence of significant underreporting of cases. Many sports fans, for example, do not report what they see or experience due to fear, uncertainty and not having confidence in anything eventually being done about such incidents. That needs to be tackled by proper information-sharing arrangements, centralised data sharing, focused research, measuring change, and players and fans speaking out and not tolerating this.
There is a lack of consistent messages about what to do in a situation where a hate crime arises, and there has to be united and consistent action that makes it clear that any form of discrimination is not tolerated. I would like to see a charter to which everyone involved signs up—sports governing bodies, supporters’ groups, clubs, charities and the Government. In some cases, the constitution of fan groups will need to be amended to make it clear that discrimination against disabled people will not be tolerated. That needs to apply equally to social media and online forums and to written constitutions and rulebooks. If something is not acceptable on the street, it is not acceptable online either.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, when it comes to disability, the first thing that strikes me is how incredibly wide the field is. There is a grave danger that when we talk about disability we start to talk about a bit of it. I am afraid that virtually all the lobby groups—although it does not happen so much in this Chamber—tell you that their particular problem is the worst. They say, “You don’t understand. The problems are so great”, usually when you are talking about someone you are helping and supporting in that group.
We have achieved things in this field. I have been here so long that I can remember the initial Disability Discrimination Act. It was one of the first Bills that I was allowed to take a leading part in, if noble Lords know what I mean. Then, the whole of the lobby spoke with one voice. We must try to get back to that. The way we do that is to accept the themes that run across. One is the need for independence and to be involved in the whole of society. With the modern world and technology, that is getting easier. It is at least technically possible that it will become easier all the time. That is where we should look.
However, the problem is how we facilitate that potentiality, because many parts of the system at the moment seem to be designed to make that as problematic as possible. Now might be a good time to remind the House of my declared interests as president of the British Dyslexia Association and chairman of Microlink, which deals with this for a fee—my card will be available to anyone who wishes to speak to me later on.
Yesterday, in the first Question of the day, I asked whether we could accept one form of identification for dyslexics, who are one of the biggest disability groups although not the biggest, throughout the whole education system. We discovered that we had decided to have two forms of identification, one before you are 16—it used to be 18—and one afterwards because the lifetime condition would change. People did not understand that the way you cope with these conditions might change, but the condition itself does not change. It is there. That is true of all the neuro-diverse conditions. There is a lack of understanding. The two parts of the education system were incapable of speaking to each other. They had to be dragged to have their heads banged together. I thank Ministers again for helping me in that process. We must make sure that we co-ordinate. All the potential advantages will be stifled if we do not.
Passporting of identification and problems would help in virtually every field. There is a diagnosis, it is carried through, and that is how we deal with it. There is identification at school, then the disabled students’ allowance, through to access to work; I have looked at that path myself. How do you make sure that one diagnosis says that you go through? People will be able to give examples of this in other fields but, unless you carry it through seamlessly, you will have problems.
Why does that matter? If you want to make somebody economically active and be of benefit to society, you make sure that they have the opportunity to gain an education, qualifications and a job so that they can function in the outside world. There is a question over whether we should let people bear some of the extra costs, which have already been mentioned, but the state should help at certain points. There might be agreement that there should be some assistance from the state but, if the person is employed in their own right, the level of burden falls.
The noble Lord spoke about isolation. If you happen to be in work when you are diagnosed with a disability, one of your major social interaction points is removed, at least to an extent. However, if somebody at the workplace sees that the person with a certain physical condition or disability can function, suddenly a barrier is removed. It is about getting the person into that situation. One of the greatest lessons I have learned is that you encourage that to happen by making sure that it is as easy as possible to provide assistance.
We have discovered that slightly changing a line manager’s budget is one of the greatest barriers to making sure that the right assistance is provided in the workplace for a person identified as disabled. That is often the case with a late-onset disability. Someone might say to their employer that they have rheumatoid arthritis and will need a new chair and a new keyboard. The employer asks, “How much will that cost? Wait a minute. I want to paint the office and upgrade the entire computer system. How am I going to get the money for that?” If the assistance comes from elsewhere, things will happen quickly. The employer will then find that they do not have to deal with somebody, possibly with mental health problems, who turns up late, and they will not have to face legal fees for constructive dismissal and so on. Things become easier and quicker if there is identification and you are told that there is a comparatively straightforward way of dealing with the problem. All disability groups will benefit if we encourage government to do that.
One major barrier arises if people say, “That’s not what we do and that doesn’t concern me”. That happens largely because many people—usually those with the less obvious forms of these conditions—never identify themselves and carry on underachieving, not getting promoted and hiding in corners. We have to embrace the difficulties and try to get the potential out of this group. A great deal of time, energy and money can be saved by doing that, and the lives of the people in those groups who are around you will be improved.
The Government should take on board that people should be encouraged to self-identify, and it should be communicated to them that any problems they have can easily be solved or at least mitigated. That is what I would encourage the Government to do. Looking 50 years into the future, if we properly implement the solutions and take the practical steps that we have identified now, a great many of these problems will, if not disappear, at least become rather more manageable.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Borwick on bringing this very important debate to the Chamber today. I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Addington. The point that he made about the breadth of disability is very important because, for many people born with a disability, it will impact on them for their whole life. People might become disabled due to disease or accident, and then there is the frailty of old age. We must not forget parity of esteem and make sure that we recognise mental health and cognitive impairments, which sometimes also link to a physical disability. Therefore, it is a broad spectrum.
I welcome the prospect of what artificial intelligence will bring to that very wide and diverse group. Medical genetics, biopharmaceuticals and personalised healthcare offer us all—particularly those in the disability group—an opportunity for increased support and, in some cases, even a cure. But we should not focus only on machines and technology; as has already been mentioned, people are involved in caring for other people with a disability. We must make sure that people are at the forefront: people who are properly trained, who understand the nature of the disability, and—if I may say so—who are rewarded in an appropriate way for the important work that they do.
I want to talk about money—I know it is vulgar but I will do it, even in the House of Lords—and by that I mean money from the Government and money that people contribute personally to disability care costs. I shall speak first about money from the Government. Yesterday, the Alzheimer’s Society, of which I must declare I am a vice-president, announced that it believed the Government should provide a dementia fund for people with a diagnosis of dementia. People living with dementia face higher charges for care than those with other conditions, many of which allow for free care on the NHS. This is due to a lack of social care funding.
No one should face increased costs from developing dementia. Through the Green Paper on social care, which we are yet to see, the Government must ensure that people with dementia no longer face a disproportionate financial responsibility just because of the condition that they have developed. It is a disease. There are 850,000 people living with dementia in the UK, and that figure is expected to rise to more than a million within the next two years. The progression is rapid. The system of support for people living with dementia is unfair, unsustainable and in need of a long-term overhaul to ensure that they receive affordable, high-quality and appropriate care. Despite living with a health condition just like people with cancer or diabetes, people with dementia get most of their support from the social care system and do not receive most of it free at the point of use.
According to research by the Alzheimer’s Society, people with dementia typically pay £100,000 in care costs, with 15% to 20% higher costs than people without a complex condition, and in some cases more. There were 70,000 avoidable hospital admissions of people with dementia in 2016-17; this represents an increase of 70% in the last five years. Although the Alzheimer’s Society is looking to the Government to provide a dementia fund, noble Lords can therefore see that adequate provision would create savings throughout the health and social care system. Training for those in adult social care who interact with people with dementia is also really not up to par; it is not up to tier 2 of the dementia training standards framework. I hope that will be addressed when we eventually see the Green Paper.
Dementia costs the UK economy £26.3 billion per year, an average of £32,250 per person; that is enough to pay the energy bills of every household in the country for a year. But the people affected by dementia shoulder over £17 billion of care costs—an extraordinary amount that represents two-thirds of the total costs. It would take someone around 125 years to save for their dementia care costs if they saved at the same rate as for their pension. There is a need for the Government to consider very seriously this request from the Alzheimer’s Society for a dementia fund that will assist with increased training and the financial costs that the public bear.
The other area I want to touch on is money and the individual. All Governments, of all persuasions, in recent years have failed to take the opportunity that the tax system could offer to those with dependants who have a disability.
We can talk about many issues here. I declare an interest as a vice-president of the National Autistic Society, and I have raised the subject of autism on the Floor of both Houses for many years. I have a very personal family interest in the subject. Regarding autism or any other disability, we spend a lot of time talking about education, social care and getting into employment, all of which are incredibly important, but when you talk to parents of a child with a lifelong disability you find that the one thing that haunts them is, “What happens to that child when I am no longer here?” It does not matter if the child is four or 40.
There are parents around the country whose children, including adult children, have many different disabilities, and they would quite willingly make provision for their child in their own lifetime, to make sure that that child or dependant was able to survive to a more suitable standard of living and in a more sustained way when their parents were gone. Yet we have inheritance tax rules in this country which have said for decades that under the lifetime gifts rules you can gift only £3,000 per year, and even if you are able to make a substantial gift to a child to make provision for them for later on, you have the difficulty of the seven-year rule. I know there are trusts. I have looked at trusts; I have spent a lifetime studying them, and I have to say that solicitors do very well out of them. I will say no more than that. Sorry, I am looking at one or two lawyers around the Chamber. Some are nodding. How very honest of them.
When the Government look at inheritance tax and taxation generally, could they please look at people with responsibilities for disability? Can we not change the rules so that such people are not penalised, but are able to take the opportunity to use money that they themselves have earned to make provision? Many of them are very willing to do so.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, on knitting together two very different issues: the here-and-now problems that disabled people have in their everyday lives and the potential for improved treatment and outcomes in the next 50 years.
If we look back 50 years, there are many life-enhancing technologies that were not available then, such as hip and knee replacements, voice-activated software and computers themselves, while disabled access to many public buildings was impossible, with few accessible toilets. I do not think that the terms “autism” and “dyslexia”, both of which we have heard about this morning, were as well recognised then as now, and mental health problems were often hidden. In Britain, 22% are reckoned to live with a disability—or 19% of working-age people—meaning, in UN terms, that they have poorer health, lower educational attainment, fewer economic opportunities and higher rates of poverty.
It is refreshing to be asked to consider what the future for disabled people might look like in 50 years’ time, although we should not get carried away with thinking that today’s problems will have melted away. In the medical field, there will undoubtedly be all kinds of exciting breakthroughs—such as, for example, the amazing technology, now in its infancy, that allows some people with spinal cord injuries to begin to learn to walk again. We also hear that artificial intelligence can help blind people and PowerPoint can help deaf people.
However, it will probably be all the things that help disabled people to live independently that will make the most difference to the greatest number. That means not living in residential care but having help to get out and about; to work, if necessary; or just to live a normal life. Yes, there will definitely be sophisticated electronic devices to help with this, and in 50 years’ time perhaps everyone will have some form of smart home technology. But are smart devices really going to supplant personal assistants or carers? A great number of disabled people in 50 years’ time will be very elderly, like the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, will be. I cannot see technology being the sole answer for them, as he said. I hope the Department of Health and Social Care has factored this into its calculations.
I join with others in saying that it is shocking that we have not yet seen the Government’s plans for social care, which are so urgently needed. Unless some serious training and recruitment is done, there will not be nearly enough care workers to cope with the growing demand for home care, particularly if Brexit goes ahead. How care is paid for is, of course, the burning question that must be tackled, as is sorting out the fuzzy and unsatisfactory boundary between NHS continuing care and social care.
But before I leave the world of assistive technology in the home, I hope in time that it can be harnessed to enable far more disabled people to be employed. I hope it is something that work coaches at the Department for Work and Pensions are exploring right now. Far more attention also needs to be paid straightaway to the provision of both accessible and adaptable homes, and wheelchair accessible homes, which are needed now as well as in the years to come. That is something that the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, touched on when he praised Habinteg, the housing association for disabled people. As for transport, perhaps we will all be riding in driverless cars in 50 years, although I find that a terrifying thought. “Who will help us in and out?”, I wonder.
So what would make a difference to disabled people’s lives going forward? I envisage a world where there are more hydrotherapy pools for those with limited mobility—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Luce, will touch on this when he speaks; where wheelchairs and scooters have long-life batteries for travelling good distances; where most restaurants, cafés and shops are accessible; and where a lot of good hotels, far more than now, have electronic beds and hoists. Surely these things could be available in far less than 50 years.
Also by then, we should have far more disabled people not just in employment but in positions of power and influence as local councillors, school governors, mayors, CEOs, MPs, Peers, judges and, yes, government Ministers. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is on the case. We again heard about that today at Questions. Let us mandate all local authorities to have an access officer who has a disability.
To sum up, society must be eternally vigilant over the needs of disabled people; otherwise, we risk the clock going backwards, however good the technology. Being disabled is very expensive and probably always will be. In 50 years’ time, life may well be better for all disabled people, but only if those in positions of leadership always involve disabled people themselves in what they really need and what really works for them.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, for tabling this debate today. He has been a great friend of disabled people, championing developments in housing, transport and deaf children’s inclusion in education. I am also glad that he mentioned Bert Massie, an exceptional disabled person whom I had the pleasure of working with from when I was about 22. We worked together on the Disability Rights Commission. That body probably drove some of the best changes in disability equality that this country has seen. He mourned its closure, as I do. He was a disabled person, he worked with disabled people and together we were able to ensure that the Disability Discrimination Act was implemented. Things are going a bit cold now.
This House has a long history of working with disabled people and furthering our causes. Great pioneers, such as the late Baroness Felicity Lane-Fox, Lord Ashley, Lord Morris, Lord Rix and Baroness Darcy de Knayth, are but a few. We have gone from being hidden away and cared for by charities, to being citizens with equal rights enshrined in legislation, within a matter of 50 years.
With the passing of the Disability Discrimination Act, the advent of social care direct payments and a number of entitlements such as disabled facilities grants for home adaptations and disability living allowance—now PIP—our ability to live independently, for many but not all, became a reality. The package, taken together, enabled greater inclusion in the community as active and not dependent citizens.
Our case for a more integrated and joined-up response to our needs, with the emphasis on self-determination, is what disabled people call independent living. This is about living—living a life, as we all do today. This important principle has been largely accepted but not yet fully realised. In probably the last 12 years, there has been a notable slowdown in progress. Independent living is not just about social care. It is not about living on your own or doing things for yourself. It is about having choice and control over whatever support we need to go about our daily lives—working, socialising, raising our families and so on. It means, as the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities says,
“the equal right … to live in the community, with choices equal to others”.
Independent living aspirations rely on an integrated support framework and the removal of barriers in all aspects of our lives. Remove or reduce one aspect of support, and independent living becomes more expensive, dependent living. It is probably 13 years since the UK adopted the promotion of independent living as an official policy and committed to developing a system of integrated support. However, due to a combination of austerity measures, the closure of the Independent Living Fund, changes to disability living allowance as it migrated to PIP and a lack of progress in the realisation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, progress has ground nearly to a halt in this area and, in some aspects, is regressing rapidly.
What must be done? In thinking about this debate, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, what he was hoping to hear from our contributions. He encouraged me to think big. So, here I go. If I were Prime Minister tomorrow, I would look to develop radically disabled people’s current ideas of what it would take to be independent, as articulated in the life chances report and in Article 19 of the UN CRPD. A friend of mine suggested an excellent term for such an enterprise: “a comprehensive access to living scheme”. That sums up the kind of integrated, wraparound support required to support living a full life. This would replace our current support provision, which divides disabled people up into unwieldy boxes of social care, continuing healthcare, housing or employment support.
To do this, the Government would, first, develop a national access to living fund, which would bring together all the current state-funded work streams earmarked for our various support needs. Secondly, the Government would reinvest in the regional networks of crucial peer support as currently practised by user-led organisations such as the centres for independent living, and seed-fund new ventures in the form of co-ops, social enterprises, community businesses and other charities. This would enable a hundred flowers to blossom, making for a strong access to living culture, and enabling all disabled people—all, no matter what their medical condition—to maximise their life chances. An access to living investment would foster the transformative social capital we have yet failed to realise under current outdated systems, which, in social care support alone, now offer only the top-down, survival safety-net services.
I therefore invite the Minister to start by meeting the disabled people who have been thinking about this new idea. The national Independent Living Strategy Group, which I chair, is a disabled people-led think tank, set up especially to look at progressing independent living. It is working on this and another very important proposal, which is for an access to living programme of action: namely, to amend current legislation to deliver a new free-standing Bill to achieve this joined-up vision. The Independent Living Strategy Group has already looked at what the incorporation into British law of Article 19 might look like, and we would like to share our thinking with the Government on this.
However, this cannot be done without disabled people. Unfortunately, this Government have not been very good at working with disabled people. I remember the 1990s, when we worked with Ministers and experts in the Civil Service practically weekly; now, you would be lucky to get a meeting once every three months. That has to stop. We need to work together—I mean truly together—because it is high time that disabled people’s right to social inclusion was a reality and not a dream.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in today’s debate and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Borwick on having such a visionary title for it. Few people have done as much as he has on access to transport, not least when it comes to London’s licensed taxis. We should all be incredibly thoughtful on that point when others seek to let new entrants into the taxi market. That same level of access should absolutely be guaranteed before they are given a licence in this city. I must, however, pull up my noble friend on his most pessimistic point. I have no doubt that he will celebrate his 115th birthday. I look forward to celebrating it with him, when I will be a mere child of 97.
There is much I would have liked to cover in today’s debate—education, employment, social inclusion and everything around the fourth industrial revolution, not least artificial intelligence—but I will limit myself mainly to the issue of public appointments. Outside your Lordships’ House, who even knows what a public appointment is? Yet there are more than 6,000 public appointments to 500-plus public bodies responsible for the governance of over £200 billion of public expenditure. For that reason and many more, I was delighted to accept an invitation from my right honourable friend the Minister for Implementation, Oliver Dowden, a year ago, to lead a review into public appointments in the United Kingdom, not least what was happening for disabled people.
There are 6,000-plus public appointments. Currently, 3% are held by disabled people. That is around 180 public appointments. When compared to the overall figure, perhaps we should consider them public disappointments. People fortunate enough to hold public appointments often hold a number of them, which actually means that fewer than 180 disabled people exercise those most important functions in our society. I wanted to look at the reasons that so few disabled people came forward, even fewer were appointed and why we knew so little about the disability status of all people applying for public appointments.
Giving an inclusive and accessible approach to applying for a public appointment is not seeking to give a disabled person an advantage or a leg-up; it is merely enabling disabled people to apply with fairness, dignity and respect. Allowing alternative means to apply for that public appointment is not giving a neurodiverse person an unfair advantage. It may be the difference between them being able and unable to apply for a public appointment at all.
I will share some of the recommendations of my review, not least because my intention in doing the review was that these would be specific to public appointments but would have wider application across all areas of public, private and third-sector life. First, to set a target, 11.3% of all public appointments should be held by disabled people by 2022, with a review held this summer. I do not believe that 11.3% should be a ceiling, but an interim target. It reflects the current target for disabled participation in the senior Civil Service. I ask my noble friend the Minister whether she agrees with that target of 11.3% and what progress is being made towards it. By 2022, I believe we should be well set to go beyond that target.
I wanted the whole review to be focused through the lens of talent, because that is ultimately what we are talking about—the golden thread that runs through all our lives. When it comes to attracting disabled talent, role models are critical. I have already said that less than 3% of public appointees are disabled people. That means that the number of role models is small but incredibly important.
The Government should undertake a serious mentoring programme for all diverse potential applicants for public appointments. They should look at the multipliers, connectors and conduits; at all the channels of the excellent organisations of and for disabled people; and, equally, at organisations across our society. If, for example, the Ministry of Justice was looking to have a disabled person on one of the legal boards, it should look to legal publications, the Law Society, et cetera—to go broad and deep on this. Innovation should be at the heart of everything we do. Why can one apply only with a relatively inaccessible application form and, irony of ironies, a pretty inaccessible monitoring form? We should do stuff differently; if we do not, how can we expect to achieve different results? Why have interviews? Why not have mock boards or shadowing? Think wide, think broad, think innovation. If we want public bodies which truly reflect and represent our fabulous, bright, beautiful and diverse Great Britain, we need to go about this differently.
Ultimately, we are talking about change. Change is not easy, but it is essential. When I was lucky enough to lead Channel 4’s Year of Disability in 2016, not only was I incredibly fortunate to lead a group of people called the Year of Disability advisers—which meant that I was the chairman of YODA—but we were able to put in place many positive impacts both for broader society and for the channel. As noble Lords have mentioned, we need people to identify as disabled people. We were able within seven months though specific, targeted interventions to take the level of our people at Channel 4 self-identifying as disabled from 3% to more than 11.5%. Change is difficult, but it does not need to take a generation.
To take us to the big level—the next 50 years—heading not only towards my noble friend’s big, fabulous birthday party, what do we need to see? Many years before that point, I would hope to see a complete elimination of the attainment gap for disabled people in education. I would want equality of opportunity and representation in all areas of employment and in every aspect of our public life.
As I have already said, it is pretty simple if we take it down to the question of talent. We need government, civil servants, private sector, public sector—all of us—to look harder and further for that talent, not least that held in all the fabulous disabled people up and down the country who, sadly, all too often do not get the opportunities. Ultimately, our business needs to be about this, addressing the fundamental issue that still blights our society. Talent is everywhere; currently, opportunity is not.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, for tabling this debate—I have to say, he made me smile. Unfortunately, some of the discrimination that I still experience these days is people wafting a hand in my direction and telling me that people like me cannot do lots of things. I hope that I am able to channel the spirit of the much-missed Sir Bert Massie in saying that my response to that is always, “What? You mean Welsh people can’t do those things? Oh, sorry, you mean the disabled?”
I understand that the Minister might not be able to answer all my questions today because my contribution will cover a wide variety of areas, from physical activity to wheelchair provision and public transport, but the issues and solutions for disabled people show that they do not fit into just one government department; we are not just one homogenous group.
I declare an interest in that I am chair of ukactive and of the national Wheelchair Leadership Alliance. As I hope most of my noble friends will be able to attest, having the right wheelchair is crucial to living an independent life. Having the wrong chair or the wrong cushion can be disastrous. A pressure sore alone can cost the National Health Service £150,000 to heal. While I am delighted that in their response to the consultation on their 10-year plan the Government have committed to creating a legal right to a personalised wheelchair budget, there is still much that we need to do. I hope that the Minister will be able to reiterate that commitment. Within this work there is an amazing opportunity to create greater alignment of health and social care support for disabled people through integrated personal budgets and applying the comprehensive model for personalised care. Providing the right chair is a complicated issue of tariffs and access. This is not just about creating significant savings but, if we get it right, radically improving the health and lives of disabled people.
We know that everybody benefits from having more physical activity in their life. The Alzheimer’s Society has recently produced an amazing guide to show what those with Alzheimer’s can do and how they can benefit. Activity Alliance recently published research showing that a significant number of disabled people have concerns about being physically active in case it affects their support and benefits. Everyone Can is a project, commissioned by Sport England in 2017, which aims to encourage more disabled people to be physically active by identifying and addressing a number of specific barriers encountered when using gym and leisure facilities. Slightly worryingly, Sport England’s 2017-18 Active Lives survey found that 42% of disabled people and those with long-term health conditions were inactive. This is double the rate of those without disability or impairment.
We have to turn physical activity into a reality for disabled people, so ukactive has been working alongside disability organisations, such as Activity Alliance, Disability Rights UK and Sense, to identify the common barriers and a range of potential solutions which could be piloted and rolled out in the next two phases. This has included consultation with disabled people, disability experts, advocacy organisations and leisure operators. In phase 2, interventions will be piloted across a select number of sites and will be underpinned by rigorous assessment and evaluation. They will look at a consistent data standard, how we make changes to the physical environment, and staff training and workforce development, encompassing technical and communication skills. We have to create a more joined-up stakeholder community that highlights the importance of physical activity among disabled people and signposts them to appropriate local provision. To combat the fear of being physically active, we have to look at the personal independence payment structure and how assessments are carried out to make sure that people who are being active do not have their benefits removed and that being active is not seen as a negative thing. It can only be positive if disabled people are able to be active.
I turn to public transport. There is still a lot of discrimination if disabled people want to travel by plane. The noble Baroness, Lady Vere, has offered me a meeting. The ball is firmly in my court to take her up on that. I take more than 100 train journeys a year and I was recently asked what I wanted for disabled people. It is really simple: I want the same miserable experience of commuting as everybody else. Sadly, we are not there. Luckily we do not have to travel in the guard’s van any more but—this is slightly tongue in cheek—at least then we had a chance of getting on and off trains. I apologise to anyone who follows me on social media for the amount that I post about trains, but it is to show the challenges that many disabled people face every single day. There was no accessible toilet on the train that I used on Monday to come to London to be in this Chamber. I knew about it before I got on the train, but in this day and age it surely cannot be acceptable for trains to run with no accessible toilets. The booking system needs a lot of work. I have had many positive interactions with Network Rail and the train operating companies. To be fair, they did not realise the size and scale of the issues that we have to deal with, but the Government can also do more.
In recent days, FirstGroup confirmed to a colleague of mine that there will be only two spaces on the new London to Edinburgh service that comes into effect in 2021. The new Caledonian Sleeper has no accessible shower on board. I am looking forward to a time when I book such a journey and push through the station in my pyjamas looking for an accessible shower that may or may not be in the station. I am not sure that anyone is ready for that. The accessible twin rooms on that sleeper do not have any access to the lounge, so disabled passengers will be very isolated in the room that they book. It is not currently possible to book online. What about people who are deaf or have multiple impairments? At the moment, the only way to book is by phone: this is not accessible. I have not yet written to the operators of the Caledonian Sleeper; I will be making contact this week. It has recognised that it has to do more. I found out this morning that GWR’s sleeper service has designated space in a room with wheelchair access but, again, no access to the lounge. It provides room service or at-seat service, but limits the way that a disabled person can move around the carriage.
The new Azuma trains that have come on line with LNER have had a mixed response. I was offered an opportunity to go and look at one. I was not able to take up that particular date, but I shall go and look at it in the next couple of weeks. I heard this morning that the wheelchair seats have no windows and are isolated at the front and back, which does not always provide easy access for people. There are examples of good practice. Abellio is apparently very good at consulting disabled people, but other train operating companies in the network have to continue that good practice.
Finally, I ask Her Majesty’s Government not only to support co-production and consultation with disabled people—it is a travesty that train operating companies are not consulting disabled people on these issues—but to look at the design regulations again to ensure the best outcome for disabled people, so that we can have the same miserable experience as everybody else.
Lord Lingfield (Con)
My Lords, I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Borwick for tabling this far-seeing debate. I remind your Lordships of my registered interest as the chairman of the stroke charity ARNI, Action for Rehabilitation from Neurological Injury.
Stroke is the leading cause of disability in the United Kingdom and there are some 1.25 million people living with its effects at any one time. My noble friend mentioned the period 50 years ago when stroke, often then loosely called apoplexy or seizure, was a death sentence; today things are, of course, very different. There are about 130,000 new stroke victims each year in the UK, and the vast majority leave hospital having survived. The reasons for this are the extraordinary advances in acute clinical care during the last decades. There is also far greater public awareness of stroke, of its immediate symptoms and of the absolute necessity of seeking urgent help from the emergency services. I pay tribute to the Stroke Association and other stroke charities for their very successful dissemination of this vital information.
If you have a stroke, you should be rushed off to hospital and treated with a thrombolytic—a clot-busting drug—within four hours. You then stand an excellent chance of survival. However, it is on discharge from hospital that, for many people, their future disabilities really strike home; disabilities which will require lifelong support for a great proportion. For instance, 70% of them will have upper limb problems that render a hand useless and many will suffer weakness and lack of control of a leg, which makes walking extremely difficult. If they are of working age, too often employment becomes impossible. The annual cost of stroke in the UK is estimated at £26 billion. The stark reality is that families and carers pay for three-quarters of long-term care themselves. The current evidence suggests that the average annual cost of a stroke can be as much as £22,000 per family.
Alarmingly, the incidence of first-time strokes in people aged over 45 is expected to increase by 60% over the next quarter century. Many of these people hope to return to work. They are, in fact, three times more likely to be unemployed than if they were not disabled by stroke. Following discharge from hospital, patients may receive some, largely passive, physiotherapy and, if necessary, speech therapy, but this is quite strictly time limited, measured in weeks rather than in years—and then, to quote Andrew Marr, whose own stroke brought him considerable disability, you fall “off a cliff”.
Most stroke survivors, therefore, are stuck in perpetuity with their impairments and incapacities and a much-reduced lifestyle; the consequent effects for them and their families and carers are huge and debilitating. What can be done in future years to improve their rehabilitation? We most seriously need more research on rehabilitation. At the moment, stroke research is allocated about £56 million each year, compared to, for example, £554 million for cancer. Most, quite rightly, has gone on clinical research on the acute stage, on primary care, the causes of stroke and its prevention; far too small a proportion has gone on rehabilitation.
One hopeful area is to take advantage of neuroplasticity, the ability of the brain to reorganise itself by forming new neural connections to compensate for injury. However, this reorganisation does not just happen; it seems to require constant repetitive active exercise to make neural connections stronger and to drive functional changes. To give an example, last year I met a stroke survivor aged 38 who had lost all ability to grip a glass or mug. She was trained by my charity constantly to attempt this, day after day, in a special routine. At first the movements were almost imperceptible, but she persevered. Eight months afterwards she could demonstrate to me an extraordinary improvement: she could lift the mug to her mouth and drink. Each day of determined repetitive exercise had made her neural connections stronger until her hands operated again.
Another patient, a young man aged 17, was devastated to be paralysed by a stroke, probably caused by a sports-related injury. Absolutely determined to improve his ability to walk, he devoted himself for a year to a series of specially tailored repetitive exercises, performing them day after day and gradually making tiny improvements. He was, at the end of this period, able to kick a ball and catch it. I have seen very many other examples of success: they require dedication and patience. My charity trains and qualifies specialist rehabilitation instructors. They visit patients in their homes to help them with repetitive exercise routines, to do action control work for upper limbs, to do strength training and to teach crucial physical coping strategies for those with loss of control on one side of the body, such as getting down on and getting off the floor without support. In short, this is targeted therapy aimed at finding what improves individual stroke survivors.
At the moment, stroke rehabilitation of this kind is carried out by only a few charities; it has been subject, however, to some excellent pilot studies. We badly need a national programme of such treatments, publicly funded and assisted by ongoing research into outcomes. Given our ever-ageing population, we need these in the next five years, not in the next 50. Given this serious gap in provision, I hope my noble friend the Minister will be able to give me some hope and reassurance that there will be a change in attitude and direction concerning rehabilitation after stroke.
Lord Luce (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, who demonstrates how many types of disability we have to consider. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, for setting us the very good challenge of imagining where we would like to be in the field of disabilities in 50 years’ time, and even enticing us with the prospect that we might all be here in 50 years’ time to take part in this debate again and to take stock—indeed, that we might have a Green Paper or even a White Paper to consider for that debate.
I want to say one thing in particular. There are noble Peers in this House, many of whom have taken part in this debate, who suffer from very notable disabilities and we owe them an enormous debt of gratitude for the service they give here, the courage they show and the leadership they give to all those outside this House who suffer from these varying disabilities. For my part, I declare an interest as someone who for 50 years has suffered from chronic pain linked to musculoskeletal problems. As I will say in a moment, there are many millions of people who suffer from this. I just want to put down two considerations in this debate for this category of people. First, we need to implement a national chronic pain management service which is well co-ordinated and effective: we have a long way to go. Secondly, in the field of work and health, we need to ensure that people who suffer from chronic pain and other disabilities in their jobs retain those jobs or, if they have lost them, are helped to get back to work.
I shall give some facts. First, some very cautious figures, there are at least 8 million people who suffer from chronic pain, many with musculoskeletal links, of which 4 million suffer from severe chronic pain that hinders their activities quite seriously. Of course, it is true that those who are over 65 suffer more pain, but let us take people in their jobs. Some 25% of those who do jobs and suffer from chronic pain lose their jobs—that is a critical figure. Moreover, in five out of 10 global diseases, pain is a major component. So pain is common, expensive, disabling and distressing. People want to see a reduction in their pain and an improvement in their quality of life. I have worked with other specialist pain organisations in the last 10 years to campaign for this.
The first thing we need to recognise is that there are core quality standards for dealing with pain management services. NICE has set out certain standards on back pain, for example, and how to deal with it. Pathways have been established. There is evidence of best practice—inSheffield, Gloucestershire and Scotland, for example. What is missing is the effective, well co-ordinated implementation of these guidelines. Across the country, it is still very much a lottery, with particularly poor services in areas with people who have very low levels of income, who suffer badly. These pathways should indicate, in my view, a kind of pyramid of pain services, because at least 50% of patients can be dealt with through primary care. GPs have been described to me very well as acting as a sophisticated sieve to do the initial assessment, but the more serious cases enter the region of multidisciplinary support, which is what they need. That needs to be tailor-made to their particular setting and their own problem.
The key to this is to learn self-management, but you then have to draw on the multiplicity, the battery, of different specialisms. There is medication, of course. I will not get into opioids now, but I have weaned myself off opioids after 10 years and I think that that is quite a good thing to do. Physiotherapy is critical and there is osteopathy and acupuncture, of course. Psychologists can be vital, because there is not yet a recognition of the mental health aspects of suffering from pain. I will come in a minute to the role of occupational therapists, who play a vital role in getting people back to work. Learning self-management is like conducting an orchestra: you need to know what instruments to draw on—what medical specialisms to draw on—in conducting that orchestra in order to strengthen one’s own health and reduce pain. Providing a national service is the first priority.
The second priority is health at work. Over the last 10 years Dame Carol Black has produced two remarkable reports on how to make it easier for people who suffer to stay in their jobs, or come back to their jobs if they have lost them. In that period, one thing that has been achieved is that it is now accepted that work is good for the health of people who suffer from a disability. Indeed, I was a great friend of Mrs Pearsall, who invented A-Z maps, who suffered from intense pain for 50 years. I asked her the secret—“How do you deal with it?” She said, “Divert the pain’s attention”. I replied, “That’s easy during the day—you just work hard. What about the night, when you can’t sleep?” She said, “My dear, it’s very easy. You just read the Bible all night”. I have not quite got to that stage, although I am trying hard.
Many at work suffer and, as I have already said, many lose their jobs because they suffer from chronic pain and related problems. Those who have pain are a big cost to the economy: £12 billion a year. The challenge for the Government is to improve employment for adults. They have set a very good target of getting another 1 million disabled people into work by 2027, but to achieve that, you need to ensure that you have an effective scheme. What has been known as the Fit for Work scheme is not working. Here, we have to recognise that it is not so much about the large employers who provide some occupational assistance but the small businesses. Above all, I emphasise occupational therapy, which I would like to ask the Minister about. There is a vital role to be played by occupational therapists in helping people to assess what is needed to enable them to stay at work, to ensure that the employers have a flexible system. What progress is being made with the Wellcome expert working group that has been set up to study occupational health and see what improvements can be made?
I welcome the progress that has been made but there is a long way to go if we want to keep people in jobs, improve their quality of life and indeed improve productivity for this country. That is what we should aim for in 50 years’ time.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Luce; pain is such an important issue. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, for securing this debate on issues facing people with disabilities. Disability can be complicated and varied, as has been illustrated by this debate today. Disability is covered by many different government departments, so it may be difficult for the Minister in today’s debate to answer all your Lordships’ questions; perhaps she may be able to write to us.
I take this opportunity to say a few words about the Spinal Injuries Association. I declare an interest because, about 40 years ago, I started it and am its president. Most of our members have experienced traumatic injuries and life-changing experiences. Our members, who are often paralysed from the neck or back down, do not have feeling in that region. The three Bs are affected: bladders, bowels and bed-sores. There is a need for more advanced technology, such as superior wheelchairs, turning beds to help prevent bed-sores, suitable houses—with all the new houses being built, I wonder how many are suitable for people using wheelchairs—and all sorts of communication devices, the number of which increases all the time. I am sure that, in the next 50 years, there will be some wonderful developments. However, I was disappointed when the Government did not back the disabled access Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, two years ago. It aimed to improve access; many people use electric wheelchairs and, without a ramp, it is impossible to get the wheelchair up a four-inch step. These ramps are not expensive, but many people do not know about them.
All spinal cord injury people should and must have access to specialist spinal health services, and the NHS must commit to funding the additional capacity it identified in its own service review of spinal cord injury services. There must be a joined-up approach between health and social care, with each ensuring that disabled people are given the means to live independently, contribute to society and make the most of their lives. There must be independent monitoring and scrutiny of NHS continuing healthcare to ensure that the most vulnerable in society are enabled to live independently. The Government should explain how they intend to make £855 million-worth of savings from this national continuing healthcare by 2020-21. We cannot see how it can be done.
On Tuesday, I attended in the Cholmondeley Room the launch of myelopathy.org. It is dedicated to improving patient outcomes in cervical myelopathy—an under-recognised, progressive, painful and disabling condition—through scientific and clinical research, education, and collaboration with patients and the wider myelopathy community. The team is excellent, led by a charming Austrian doctor and with volunteers, some of whom are enthusiastic medical students. The team is based at Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge. This gave great encouragement to many people who were there. I feel that we should all support each other, as our needs are often very similar.
Antimicrobial resistance—AMR—is an escalating global threat that puts millions of lives across the world in danger. We cannot rely on the development of new antibiotics alone to mitigate this threat. We need better preventive measures, as well as alternative treatments, including innovative ways to use the body’s own immune system and healthy bacteria. There is a new white powder called micropore particle technology, which is a treatment for wounds—Acapsil is the trade name. When placed on the wound’s surface, the particles use microcapillary and evaporative forces to remove moisture from the wound’s surface, removing the toxins and enzymes excreted by the microorganisms. This support of the immune system enables the immune cells to selectively remove the unwanted microorganisms, while preserving the wanted micropopulation, removing the infection and, it is hoped, closing the wound. It functions as a passive immunotherapy. The Spinal Injuries Association is very interested in this and hopes that it will be accepted on to the NHS list. It could well save millions of pounds, as pressure ulcers cost billions of pounds a year across the world. Perhaps in the next 50 years there will be all sorts of interesting treatments.
Last week, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, had a debate on antimicrobial resistance. The noble Lord, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and I spoke of Achaogen. This start-up company in America is developing a therapy that was given FDA approval in July 2018 for the use of plazomicin in complex urinary tract infections. Sadly, the company filed for bankruptcy in April. The problem is that this new, much-needed drug was approved for use but there is no revenue to support it. Novel antibiotics such as this one get a relatively narrow indication for use, because the antibiotic is not broad-spectrum. It was targeted at the infection, which is what is needed because of drug resistance, but the sale is limited. Many spinally injured people get urinary infections, and resistance is growing to the present drugs for that problem. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked a question that I now ask again—I hope that we will get an answer. What will happen to this drug? It can treat the most serious superbugs. Will it be bought and developed by another company? It is needed. Urinary tract infections are very serious if untreated.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I too applaud the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, for initiating this helpful debate. If we want to improve outcomes in the disability field in the next 50 years, surely the best way of doing so, where we possibly can, is to prevent disability occurring in the first place. I therefore take this opportunity to speak about the potential to prevent some disabilities—obviously a limited number, but some—and to ameliorate many others, if only the UK could agree to establish a special category for medical cannabis within our regulatory framework. This sounds a narrow subject, but actually it has huge implications for many people.
First, why should cannabis be treated differently from other medications? One important reason is cost. Sativex, one of the only medications so far approved by the MHRA, went through so many expensive random control trials that NICE would not approve it on grounds of cost. The result is that severely disabled MS patients tell me that they still go to the illegal market to obtain cannabis to alleviate their symptoms. They say that the risk of arrest is worth it to feel better and have less suffering. I find that abominable, but that is what our system is causing.
I fear that a similar fate awaits Epidiolex. GW Pharma tells me that it has spent hundreds of millions of pounds on random control trials. I do not blame the companies—that is what they have to do. But NICE will surely rule that Epidiolex is too expensive to be prescribed on the NHS. The evidence from other countries, meanwhile, shows that cannabis medicines can be extraordinarily effective—much more effective than we recognise in this country—but their research is often based on outcome measures, rather than the very expensive, pukka random control trials. Of course I support random control trials and understand their point, but we have to make sense of our system for the benefit of patients. Ultimately, that is the only thing that really matters.
Epidiolex is coming on to the market, but it is already a suboptimal medicine: it is out of date before it even reaches patients. Israel has identified specific cannabinoids that are extraordinarily beneficial for treatment-resistant epileptic children, but in this country these children will, if they are lucky, be prescribed Epidiolex, if their parents can afford it. Epidiolex will perhaps help them to some extent for a short period, but that is just wrong when similar children in other countries have medication that stops their seizures. Why is this so important? We know that seizures cause brain damage and disability. Every week that we delay recognising cannabis as a medicine for treatment-resistant epileptic children, children are becoming disabled. Fifty years on, they will be suffering disability that they did not have to suffer. That is the point.
I implore the Minister to see what she can do in the department to hasten, ideally, recognition of a special category for cannabis—if only for a temporary period of five years, initially—so that these children can get hold of the medicine they so urgently need. In Germany, cannabis medicines are recognised for more than 50 conditions. Many of them will involve disability and could be alleviated. Can we not follow something similar to the German example? Across the US, Canada and much of Europe, the extraordinary medicinal value of cannabis for some people—I am not saying that it would help everybody—is recognised far more than it is here.
Another important field is pain; chronic neuropathic pain in particular. I applaud the contribution of my noble friend Lord Luce. Chronic pain is such an important issue, given the enormous number of people who suffer every day. As it happens, cannabis medicines are far less dangerous, far less addictive and have far fewer side-effects than opioid medications, which are prescribed every day to people with severe chronic pain. What is wrong with us? What is going on here? We are doing something really bad, and I fear that it has something to do with our regulatory system and the costs involved for certain medications.
I briefly mention mental health. One does not think of cannabis in relation to mental health. I spent years in the mental health services, and I used to ask patients why they took cannabis, given that it interfered with their treatment. They used to say, “Because it makes me feel human. It makes me feel alive”. I thought that that was very interesting, and that was years before I had any interest in any of these drugs. Research evidence is emerging—it is not there yet—that cannabis may alleviate some of their positive symptoms as well. If patients with severe psychotic disorders could manage with cannabis and none of the antipsychotic medications that cause such severe side-effects, it would be completely wonderful. We just have to watch this space. As someone interested in mental health, I am watching rather carefully.
Research evidence is emerging about the benefits of cannabis medicines for these and many other indications: Parkinson’s, Crohn’s disease, brain tumour, PTSD and many more. Many of those conditions cause disability. We can prevent some disabilities—most particularly, I would argue, epilepsy and brain damage—and certainly ameliorate a huge number of others, but only if we put our prejudices behind us and change our regulatory rules.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, for tabling the debate, his challenging speech and the invitation to the birthday party. The debate has been rich in not only its breadth but its depth. Last time we debated this topic, I spoke about the British film “The Silent Child”, which highlighted the difficulties facing many deaf children and their parents. The film was powerful in part because it placed the viewer in the position of a child who could not hear. A person-centred approach to disability is paramount to progress in disability rights. Over the next 50 years, we must work to ensure that people with all kinds of disabilities are included in policy spaces and that their diverse concerns and experiences are considered and acted on.
I was recently in contact with a young man, desperate to live independently, who, through his experience as an individual with physical disabilities, has developed an expert knowledge of gaps in the personal assistance system that supports his independent living. As a younger person, the sky should be the limit, but only when he can recruit suitable individuals trained to assist him with his day-to-day tasks. Crucially, he pointed out to me that for an active person such as him, the ideal assistant should be trained to do everything from heavy lifting and basic care to aiding him with administrative tasks and assisting him with his studies at university. Such a person is difficult to find when personal assistants are underpaid and their professional development training is neglected. Different funding streams from different parts of the public sector are often still not enough to pay a personal assistant a proper wage. He made a strong argument for reform, noting that disabled individuals wanting to live an independent life is the new “reality”. I would be grateful if the Minister could suggest a way forward for him and others in his position. I declare my interest as chair of the board of trustees for Hft, a national charity that supports adults with a learning disability.
There have been huge improvements in care for people with disabilities in the past 50 years; I expect that our imaginations cannot begin to determine what care might be like in 2070, in 50 years’ time. Every one of us wants to feel valued and loved, to have a home to share, employment, friends and to be cared for. This is the same whether you have no disability or a physical or learning disability. Debates on adult social care in this place tend to revolve around the need to support older people; that is important but I welcome this debate on disability, which is often forgotten. If you ask someone about their mental picture of a disabled person, it is usually someone in a wheelchair or with other aids or adaptations. Across the UK, organisations work tirelessly to provide those basic wants for adults.
I will focus the rest of my contribution on learning disability and the financial problems in delivering care. The estimated 905,000 adults with learning disabilities in England represent a growing cohort of adults needing social care support. For the most part, they look like any of us—able-bodied people. According to the County Councils Network, adults with learning disabilities can account for up to 35% of the total budget for adult social care spending for local authorities in England. Adults with learning disabilities also represent the fastest-growing sector in adult social care. In 2005, only six of the 151 local authorities in England spent more on care for working-age adults than they did on care for the elderly; in 2017, 57 did so, so the switch during those 12 years has been considerable. Adults with learning disabilities are living longer lives. While this is to be welcomed, we should also be aware that the support these individuals will need will become more complex if they develop secondary support needs; for example, adults with Down’s syndrome are more likely to develop dementia earlier in life than their non-disabled brothers or sisters.
Unlike care for older people, support for adults with learning disabilities is funded solely by local authorities, with no self-funders. Figures published by NHS Digital show that between 2014-15 and 2017-18 the number of adults with learning disabilities requesting social care support more than doubled, but 66% of people ended up getting no support and only 19% ended up with long-term support. Local authorities have considerable power over providers. They are the only purchasers of services in any given area, so are, in effect, a monopsony. With few providers having reach beyond one or two local authorities—and with exit barriers relatively high and entry barriers relatively low—most providers are beholden to individual local authorities for all their funding.
However, noble Lords will be aware that local authorities have borne the brunt of the Government’s austerity programme, with funding from central government rapidly decreasing. This has placed a downward pressure on the rate at which they are able to commission social care packages. Providers are becoming overrisked and underrewarded. Contracts are typically commissioned annually on the basis of the number of support hours an individual needs. The more independent a person is deemed to be, the fewer the support hours commissioned for them. This creates perverse economic incentives, as providers which are able to invest in improving the quality of care they deliver face being penalised by having the number of hours reduced. This could have potentially damaging consequences for both the financial sustainability of the provider and the support of the individual in receipt of care. My charity’s recent report, Sector Pulse Check, stated:
“More than half (59%) of providers have begun to hand back contracts to local authorities as a way of responding to funding pressures, compared to 25% in 2017. Looking forward, 68% said that they envisage having to hand back contracts ‘in the near future’ if their financial situation does not improve”.
Learning disability cannot be treated. There are few aids, adaptations or devices to help the individual and the carer. However, I am optimistic about changes in the digital sphere. I hope that digital technology will soon be able to detect changes in behaviour to indicate when someone will have an epileptic fit, and that virtual reality will be used to teach skills such as cooking and road safety without danger. The technology is there, but it requires the big digital innovators to work with interested university departments to see this as a good social project and invest. I hope that they are listening.
In his recent appearance before the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, Health Secretary Matt Hancock said that he saw a “series of injustices” in the system but was,
“more attracted to options that build and directly improve on the system than ripping up the whole thing and starting from scratch”.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s interest but wonder whether the Minister can tell us how much longer the wait for the Green Paper will be—a green thread that has run through the debate.
Looking ahead to the next 50 years, Governments should look to a more outcome-focused way of delivering social care for adults with a disability. By incentivising providers to invest in the future of their services, and rewarding them for delivering improved outcomes, we should begin to see the creation of a social care system that delivers high-quality support for adults with disabilities in a way that lowers local authority spending and does not threaten the financial stability of providers.
On a final note, I hope that the newly appointed Minister, Justin Tomlinson, takes note of this debate and, more importantly, takes action.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, on initiating this fascinating, well-informed debate. I declare an interest as a member of a clinical commissioning group.
I appreciate that the debate is fundamentally optimistic about the future for people with disabilities. It celebrates the progress made and expresses the hope that science, medicine, technology and societal enlightenment hold for curing, preventing and alleviating many conditions, as well as creating the living conditions we would want for ourselves and all members of society. Every day we hear about life-saving, gene-altering drugs and treatments, which are exciting and bring hope to many people and their families. Indeed, the planning, environmental and other changes that seem likely in the next 50 years were eloquently mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick.
In these remarks, I of course want to speak about the future and the hope that it holds for disabilities of all kinds. However, we need to start by being truthful about the situation currently facing millions of our fellow citizens with disabilities in this, the fifth-largest economy in the world and a rich first-world country. We must do so for two reasons. First, it is important to hold this Government to account for the poverty and reduced life chances that their policies over many years have visited on the disabled. Secondly, what will the Government do to ensure that disabled people are treated with equality and have equal access to the advances in medicine and technology we have spoken about?
There are 13.9 million disabled people in the UK. Some 8% of all children are disabled, as are 19% of working-age adults and 45% of pension-age adults. In 2018 the Social Metrics Commission published a report which found that disabled people are much more likely to be living in poverty than the population as a whole. Nearly half of the 14.2 million people in poverty are living in families with a disabled person—6.9 million people, equal to 48% of those in poverty. The SMC report recognises the inescapable costs of disability, accounting for them alongside the value of disability benefits to reflect a lived experience of people with a disability.
The facts of life of living with a disability in the UK are stark and, in my view, shameful. It is almost a perfect storm of failed public policy, which is to put it much less tactfully than did the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, who called it an adverse reversal of progress. Since 2010, £7 billion has been taken out of adult social care budgets as a result of reduced funding. Some 80% of local authorities say that there is not enough provision of social care services and we have a social care system in crisis. We know that the NHS faces huge challenges in terms of staffing because that has been headline news over the past few days. We have immediate shortages of GPs and nurses, with a knock-on effect for those who require continuing support and healthcare. We have not had a social care Green Paper for more than two years, as many noble Lords have said. The Institute for Government has said:
“The green paper has become an object of ridicule, but the Government’s constant foot-dragging is no laughing matter … Delays to the green paper make it impossible for councils to plan ahead”.
What is to be done? The Labour Party’s policy is a social model of disability; while people may have a condition or an impairment, they are disabled by society. Rather than adopting such a model, and through the way they have handled support for disabled people, the Government have not significantly challenged the stigmatisation that often goes with a disability. Some 40% of our disabled fellow citizens do not feel involved in or valued by our society. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Faulkner eloquently described some of the abuse suffered by disabled people.
According to the OBR’s January 2018 report, almost 1 million disabled people will be made thousands of pounds worse off as a result of universal credit, and the basic disabled child addition in universal credit is worth less than half of the equivalent in child tax credit. This could affect around 100,000 disabled children, who may receive up to £32 a week less than they would under child tax credit. It is therefore not surprising that a piece of research by the think tank Demos says that the Department for Work and Pensions should be stripped of its responsibility for providing social security benefits and job support to ill and disabled people, because of a series of botched reforms to disability benefits and the imposition of a brutal sanctions regime that has left many vulnerable claimants stressed and in poverty. The call comes amid concern over what critics say is the DWP’s punitive and insensitive benefits policy and contemptuous treatment of some claimants. Last year, the chair of the charity Scope, the former top civil servant Andrew McDonald, who receives PIP because he has Parkinson’s and terminal cancer, called the disability benefits system a “hostile environment”. The United Nations report on extreme poverty described this Government’s cuts as “callous”, “punitive” and “mean-spirited”. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has said that one in five disabled people suffers an erosion of their rights because they are disabled and, despite government pledges to improve conditions for the nearly 14 million disabled Britons, their situation is getting worse. They find it more and more difficult to live independently, to be included and to participate in their communities on an equal basis.
I agree completely with the aspirations rightly mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and indeed those described by many noble Lords, but we are not there yet. I therefore encourage the Government to hold a mirror up to the issues facing disabled people in the UK and make that their starting point for reform. As noble Lords have said, the Government must talk to disabled people about what they think and need for the future. There is no doubt about the huge change in society’s attitude towards disabled people, which is precious and needs to be built on.
I am going to dwell on science and technology in medicine. It is wonderful that our world-class, cutting-edge science research has, for example, produced a drug such as Orkambi, which targets the underlying causes of cystic fibrosis. It targets a mutation that around 50% of people with CF have. It is licensed for use in the UK, but NICE has not recommended it for use in the NHS. It is available only rarely on compassionate grounds. There are drugs coming down the pipeline that could cover 90% of the CF community, and we have to find a way to ensure that these life-changing treatments are available to everyone who suffers from such conditions. The report of the Health and Social Care Select Committee is now out and makes that recommendation. I should like to know what the Government’s response is going to be. Muscular Dystrophy UK is running a campaign known as FastTrack to identify and remove any barriers to accessing life-changing treatments. The charity says that this is an “encouraging time”, with many clinical trials in development and treatments emerging. However, existing drugs have been subject to lengthy assessment processes which cost individuals time that cannot be recovered. That is because, once lost, muscle mass and strength cannot be regained. The noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, also talked very adequately about the issues around stroke.
An increasing number of drugs and treatments are becoming available to treat a whole range of conditions mentioned in the debate. The problem we face is that it takes too long for them to reach the people who need them, and the deals being made are not helping. In the past two days we have read the amazing story of a young woman who has received the very first treatment for cystic fibrosis. She had a lung transplant that went well, but then developed infections which could not be treated because they were impervious to the antibiotics available in the hospital. The University of Pittsburgh has been enlisting students to collate the world’s largest collection of bacteriophages, which are viruses that prey solely on bacteria. Three have been identified so far which have been used to treat this young woman for the past six months. She will recover.
This is an important story on any levels. The first is how to replicate this science to get it into common use. The second is how to make it available at the point of need, because I suspect that it is expensive. Finally, it feeds into the antimicrobial challenges that we face in our NHS here and among health services across the world. This is something that the Government need to address. NICE needs to increase its capacity and not have its funding cut as it has been, so that it is forced to charge for its appraisals—a false economy if ever I saw one. NHS England needs to up its game by holding earlier pricing discussions with pharma, reaching flexible treatment access arrangements, meeting additional costs for early access schemes and urgently reviewing individual funding requests. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, made a very good point about unacceptable delays. The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, rightly mentioned the importance of the pioneering work of your Lordships’ House, and I am proud to have been on the receiving end of much of her determination in this matter. Does the Minister agree that we are in a fast-moving world, so the Government have to respond appropriately?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to respond to this important debate, and I join with other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Borwick on having secured it. I also join him in congratulating the Habinteg Housing Association on its work over the past 50 years. The issues raised by noble Lords on all Benches have highlighted some of the challenges and opportunities not just for the Government but also for businesses, civil society organisations, our communities and our families. In my remarks I will focus on the role of government in responding to the challenges and opportunities—the important rather than the urgent, as my noble friend put it—presented by the changing face of disability in the coming half-century. This is in no way to diminish the vital role of families, carers and civil society organisations. Indeed, government has important judgments to make about how to help them flourish, but also about knowing when to get out of the way.
The past 50 years have seen huge changes in the way disabled people are cared for, supported and regarded by society. Gone are the asylums that kept disabled people hidden from society. Instead, important legislation—which a number of noble Lords have been part of—including the Disability Discrimination Act and the Equality Act, has been passed, creating a platform from which the rights of disabled people can be upheld. In every field of public life, from politics to sport and from academia to the arts, there are powerful and inspirational role models, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and my noble friend Lord Holmes. They are role models for those with or without a disability—including, of course, in your Lordships’ House. We can contrast this with a time when Roosevelt was President in the US and the Secret Service was reported to have seized and smashed the cameras of journalists who tried to take photographs of him in his wheelchair.
As we have heard from all noble Lords this afternoon, much still needs to be done to ensure real equality for people with disabilities, to remove stigma and discrimination and to offer proper care and protection from threats such as hate crime and the risks of loneliness and isolation. Successful management of such huge changes, of the types that noble Lords have debated requires a clarity of vision. So what are we aiming for? My noble friend Lord Holmes talked about fairness, dignity and respect, not just in relation to appointments in public life but with much wider applicability. I also liked the words of Alex Fox of Shared Lives in his book, A New Health and Care System, in which he wrote that we should be achieving and maintaining well-being for people with disabilities.
Well-being is a core principle underpinning much of the legislation in this area, and government has a role to play in helping to align funding, assets, incentives and regulation to make this happen. We need not just to encourage the provision of services but to foster the relationships that are so crucial for genuine well-being, of which we have heard much today. Organisations such as L’Arche for people with learning disabilities—whose remarkable founder Jean Vanier died this week—have been prophetic over 50 years in emphasising the importance of recognising the gifts that those with a disability offer us all. That must underpin the kind of culture change that the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Faulkner, talked about.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Thomas, highlighted that, despite the progress of the last 50 years, all key indicators still show multiple disadvantages for disabled people—from poverty to educational outcomes, employment, discrimination, isolation and a lack of opportunity. This Government are committed to addressing this across a range of key policy areas including, to name but three, employment, healthcare and transport. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, that I will read and share the report from his Select Committee on this.
As my noble friend Lord Borwick described, the shape of disability is projected to change significantly in the next five decades, with a sharp increase in the number of people over 65 to around 21 million and a tripling of those over 80 to 9.5 million. It will be quite a birthday party when it comes. Conversely, important medical advances should presage declines in the prevalence and impact of many cancers and other life-limiting diseases. We have the potential to move from what has been described as a national sick-care service to a national preventive healthcare service.
Regarding prevention, government also has a role to play in understanding and acting on some of the wider factors that can lead to disability, which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, hinted at in her speech. Research that has shown the impact of adverse childhood experiences on the brain—and on later-life outcomes, not just mental ill health but also physical conditions such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes—needs to inform the response we offer to children growing up today with domestic abuse, parental substance use or parental mental health problems, as well as those living in poverty or with a parent in prison. This understanding underpins the so-called public health response to serious youth violence adopted in Glasgow and London and now being consulted on nationally. The potential for neuroscience to explain some of our health challenges is genuinely exciting, as my noble friends Lord Borwick and Lord Lingfield argued.
Perhaps better understood are the links between diet and exercise and cardiovascular health, diabetes and dementia, where our colleagues in public health services play such a crucial role. For example, we recently announced an ambitious plan to halve childhood obesity by 2030. We also believe in the importance of risk reduction; around one in three dementias are considered preventable. Perhaps the most important task—many noble Lords have raised it today—for government in a rapidly changing world of disability is to keep listening to those with lived experience, their families and their carers. This is not something that Governments of any hue find easy, but that does not make it any less important. Understanding the perspective of people with lived experience is essential for government’s response to address their needs, as well as recognising and celebrating their gifts and talents.
So what do disabled people say are their key concerns? They talk about their health, of course, but also about financial insecurity, weak social connections and a fear of losing their independence. These issues have been raised by many noble Lords today. The noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell and Lady Thornton, raised the importance of user groups; they are vital in this area. For example, patient groups—especially those that are networked—can make a crucial contribution to government policy. There are over 500 groups of stroke survivors co-ordinated by the Stroke Association, over 400 for diabetes and almost 1,000 groups of cancer survivors co-ordinated by Macmillan. These networks offer people with disabilities information they can trust and, crucially, put them in positions of authority, which in turn can be combined with specialist medical input if needed.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, that I would be absolutely delighted to meet the national Independent Living Strategy Group. I am not sure whether the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly—about the young man she talked so eloquently about—is about where he starts or where we start, but we should start by listening.
While noble Lords developed a green thread around the Green Paper, they were perhaps kinder on funding—but funding is obviously a crucial area where government plays an absolutely vital role. This is not just about enough funding, which many noble Lords raised, but about how to use our funding in a way that drives the outcomes that people want and that actively rewards success. I noted my noble friend Lady Browning’s suggestion regarding incentives in the tax system.
My noble friend Lady Browning raised the challenges from the Alzheimer’s Society report that was recently published. She will be aware that the Government published the Dementia 2020 Challenge in 2015, which aims to make England the world leader in dementia care, including in the area of training as well as research and awareness of dementia, and will respond to the Alzheimer’s Society report.
My noble friend Lord Lingfield raised issues around funding for stroke patients. He will be aware that the NHS long-term plan identifies stroke as a clinical priority.
More broadly, noble Lords welcomed the introduction of personal health budgets. I thank in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for her remarks in this regard. The NHS long-term plan set out a commitment for 2.5 million people to benefit from personalised care by 2023. The growing demand for care, which the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, raised, means that we need to reach a longer-term sustainable settlement for social care. Sadly, I do not have a magic wand at the Dispatch Box, so I cannot give a date for the publication of the Green Paper, other than to say that it will be at the earliest opportunity. But it will aim to address the issues of both sustainability and providing a genuinely human response. Through integrating health and care services, the intention is to establish the right organisational and financial incentives for providers to collaborate in order to deliver preventive, proactive and co-ordinated care for local populations, and, crucially, care that feels human.
A number of noble Lords raised issues around developments in technology. Clearly, a crucial role for the Government is to consider how to encourage innovation and research, manage intellectual property rights for the greater good and share best practice. The noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Masham, raised specific questions on that and I will write in response, if I may. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, also raised very practical challenges around the three Bs, which are obviously important, albeit possibly less glamorous than some of the other areas of innovation.
The noble Lord, Lord Luce, raised the important issue of chronic pain. As he said himself, many patients with chronic pain can be successfully supported and managed through routine primary and secondary care pain management systems. The noble Lord mentioned the existing standards, but the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is also in the process of developing new clinical guidelines for chronic pain, which are due for publication in August 2020. He also raised the crucial issue of supporting employers.
Issues around employment were raised by a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Holmes and the noble Lord, Lord Addington. The Government have a key part to play in addressing the financial insecurity that all too often accompanies life for disabled people. This includes creating opportunities for disabled people to gain employment and to stay in employment, as set out in our 2017 plan, Improving Lives: the Future of Work, Health and Disability, which aims to increase the number of disabled people in the workforce by 1 million in the next 10 years. As noble Lords acknowledged, overall employment has been rising, and our goal depends on disabled people fully sharing in this success.
I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes for his work on encouraging diversity in public appointments. The Government are confident that it will help us understand the issues in this area and will respond to his recommendations later this year.
The noble Lord, Lord Luce, raised issues about encouraging employers to play their part in supporting employees who are struggling with their health. Later this year, the Department for Work and Pensions and the DHSC Work and Health Unit plan to consult on measures to encourage employers to play a crucial part. Noble Lords will have noticed the announcement this week from Centrica about giving its employees with caring responsibilities extra days off.
The Government also need to play a supportive role in enabling employers and civil society organisations to strengthen social connections for the disabled. Increasingly, older people will be retired for much longer than their parents and grandparents were. That risks losing the stimulation, the social network the sense of purpose and the income that a job can bring. In our vision document, Prevention is Better than Cure, we set out a number of areas for action, including work and jobs, homes and neighbourhoods, childhood and early years. Included within this will be access to sport, which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, raised. I thought that he was no longer in his place but I see that he is now in a more important place on the Woolsack. I was disappointed, given the number of Arsenal fans in my family, that the club did not get a mention in his top six list.
I hope that we can aspire to more than the same miserable journey that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, described, although we can probably imagine it. But I will raise the points that she made with the department, particularly regarding design regulations and co-production.
I am running out of time, as ever. I want to say a word on independence, because that was one of the strongest themes raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thomas and Lady Campbell, and my noble friend Lord Borwick. Loneliness can have a huge impact, as we know, on physical and mental health, and the Government have now published the first cross-government strategy on loneliness in England. The action plan to support carers involves six different government departments working together. We are in the process of rolling out a regional stakeholder network, which is a step towards some of the exciting plans that the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, put forward about user involvement. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, also raised concerns about the availability of carers and continuity of care, which I will raise with the relevant Ministers.
As several noble Lords noted, the potential offered by increasing amounts of data brings with it some risks but also important ethical considerations about how we build public trust in our services. Using data to design support for disabled people needs to avoid bias, be accurately targeted and give the individual the greatest possible control. Noble Lords will be aware that the newly formed Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation is playing an important part in shaping our thinking on this area in future.
In closing, I would like to rest on an area that is less one of government responsibility but which is of critical importance to all of us as human beings. In listening to the voice of those with disabilities, we must remember that as human beings we want people to be there with us rather than for us. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate, and look forward to a world where the gifts and talents of disabled people are fully recognised.
Lord Borwick
My Lords, I will quickly thank all noble Lords for taking part and for taking a few seconds to pay undeserved compliments, for which I am very grateful. I think that, when the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, called for more influential disabled people, she underestimated her own influence.
I thank everybody for putting aside other problems to talk about the future. I will have to look out for my mischievous and noble friend Lord Holmes laying plans for my 115th birthday party. I do hope that he will attend it, even if I am not able to do so myself and have to send my apologies—but I thank him very much for the idea.
Conduct of Debate in Public Life
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey
That this House regrets the conduct, and toxicity, of debate in public life; of the divisions in society which result from that; and calls on Her Majesty’s Government to take steps to address such divisions.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, we all remember where we were when we heard the shocking, shattering news that our parliamentary colleague Jo Cox had been murdered in her constituency. We packed into this Chamber a few days later to pay tribute to her and pledge that politics would be different, less confrontational and more respectful and also, to use her words, focus on the fact that we know we have more in common that unites us than divides us.
Sadly, nearly three years on, little has changed. If anything, our politics is even more divisive and fractured than it was then. Indeed, the number of threats to MPs has rocketed. According to revised figures given yesterday by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, 151 offences against MPs were recorded in 2017, doubling to 342 in 2018, with 152 crimes against MPs and more than 600 incidents already recorded this year. The Local Government Association reports that councillors are also facing similar levels of harassment, threats and intimidation, so much so as to have an impact on people putting themselves forward for election.
I know of MPs who have been advised by the police that, for their own safety, they must not use any form of public transport. Others have had to scrap public surgeries—again, on police advice. Death threats are frequent. Rape threats against women politicians have become commonplace, with those making them now standing for public office. Homes and offices are attacked and constituency staff intimidated, so much so that some MPs are now limiting what they say on certain issues.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission, in its evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said that,
“the tone of modern political discourse permeates through society and normalises abusive and occasionally aggressive language when discussing politics”.
Only six weeks ago, the noble Lord, Lord Evans, who unfortunately is not in his place today, warned that intimidation and abuse of MPs and other people in public life has become worse in the current political climate. He said that it was not just a Brexit-related issue, although that had made things particularly acute. Just before Easter, the noble Lord, Lord Bates, stood down as a Minister of State, saying that there was a need to restore our national unity and to rediscover the common ground that we share as a nation. The reason he is not in his place today is that his solution is to walk from Belfast to Brussels. However one might view whether that is the most productive way of making progress on these issues, there is no question that he is raising and highlighting valid issues. Two weeks ago, a poll commissioned by the Daily Mirror found that 82% of people—that is, more than four in five—feel that our country is divided and 76% think that the country is more divided than ever before. What is worse, 79% of the public have lost faith in British politics.
So why is our politics in this state? This is not simply about Brexit and the legacy of the vote on 23 June 2016, although it is true that the very nature of referendums means that complex issues are turned into a simplistic yes/no division, and that inevitably leads to a polarisation in society when the issues themselves are contentious. Moreover, referendums certainly undermine the principle of a deliberative democracy, where the public elect representatives to Parliament to exercise their judgment as to what is best for society as a whole.
There is no doubt that polarisation can lead to more and more extreme viewpoints being expressed and a focus, increasingly personalised, on those who might take a contradictory view. That was the case during the referendum on Scottish independence in 2014, when there were outbreaks of indyref violence at football matches and elsewhere, and vicious online intimidation. The EU referendum two years later saw a similar pattern of increasingly bitter debate and more and more personalised attacks, and, just a few days before the referendum, the dreadful murder of Jo Cox. Interestingly, the referendum on the alternative vote did not have the same effect, perhaps because so few people had strong views on the subject or even cared either way.
However, the process of polarisation has continued and, indeed, deepened and intensified in the last three years, not just about Brexit but about all sorts of other matters. One has only to think, for example, about the discussion on trans rights and how vitriolic that has become. This is not just a British phenomenon. A few days ago, the President of Germany gave an impassioned speech about the impact of political debates on social media that, he said, so often tend to be toxic.
Is this a consequence of the advent of social media? That, too, is simplistic. I have no doubt that similar concerns were expressed about the advent of the printing press and the scurrilous contributions to political debate permitted by that dangerous invention, which enabled all those views to be more widely disseminated. However, social media has taken it to a new level. Short-form communications necessarily lead to simplification. Competing to be heard requires more extreme and eye-catching formulations. It is a medium that is, above all, automatically delivered into our hands, and the ability to be anonymous absolves the poster of responsibility.
The echo-chamber effect means that we will tend to hear only the views of those with whom we agree and contrary views will be less likely to reach us. This is made worse by the presence of fake news. Research shows that the more eye-catching and the more extreme the lie, the more likely it is to be shared. Clickbait is there to drive business to a site, and people are more likely to click the more dramatic the message.
The algorithms of the internet sites serve up to us more of the same and lead us into further and often harder-line variants. Guillaume Chaslot, a former programmer for YouTube designing its algorithms, has said that the site in practice encourages the most extreme and divisive content because that is what drives the most traffic. According to him, conspiracy theory content was a particularly effective way to increase “watch time”, so the algorithms recommend other conspiracy videos billions of times over.
Then you have the information warfare promoted by some state actors. The premise is simple: the more you doubt, the less you trust. If you can undermine faith in democratic states and their structures, that is a gain for such Governments. If you are Russia, a Ukraine that becomes part of NATO is a threat. So too is a stronger EU. To weaken NATO, to weaken the EU and to undermine the legitimacy of democracy becomes an objective. This is set out in the 2010 military doctrine of the Russian Federation, where the aim is,
“to achieve political objectives without the utilisation of military force”.
by seeking to plant seeds of doubt and distrust, to confuse, distract, polarise and demoralise. But what the Russians, and no doubt other states, do and sponsor does not absolve any of us from a responsibility, first, to be aware of that background and, secondly, to confront and address what is happening.
A lie can be halfway around the world before the truth has got its boots on—a comment variously attributed to Mark Twain, Jonathan Swift or even Winston Churchill. Who said it first does not really matter. The central message is clear: lies must be confronted early, quickly and authoritatively. So too must extremism. This applies whether it is on the internet, on conventional media or on the streets. So if we are concerned about the increasing toxicity of our public discourse, we must all take responsibility both for not propagating it and for not normalising it—for not condoning it and for combating it wherever it occurs.
A failure to do so does not bode well for the health of our democracy. Certainly, a weakened centre and an increasingly polarised politics give legitimacy to more extreme views. In the context of extremism becoming violent extremism, violent extremists often have a narrative of victimhood which they use to persuade others to follow them. Such a narrative provides a simple, ready-made alternative to complex problems. It provides a would-be extremist thug, as it were, with an alternative to a life of perceived discrimination and a lack of self-worth—offering them instead an opportunity, by becoming a violent and destructive extremist, to star as the hero in their own favourite movie.
Different ends of the extremist spectrum have a symbiotic relationship with each other. If there is an incidence of violence against one group, that reinforces the group’s narrative of victimhood. It may reinforce its message to more moderate elements who share some of the same outlook. The actions of one incite the other, which then incites the first. This is exacerbated if those in public life—politicians and commentators especially—fail to confront and answer extremist arguments. Indeed, to ignore is to condone. Worse still is to echo and pander to such views.
As Policy Exchange pointed out at the end of last year, language that brands opponents as “traitors”, “Nazis” or “enemies of the people”, or ascribes madness or stupidity to those with alternative views, is hardly helpful. I suspect that, if we were all to search our consciences, we could think of occasions when perhaps we have called those we have disagreed with stupid or even mentally ill. That is something we should all stop because it does not help.
A failure to talk meaningfully about, for example, the impact of immigration on our economy and society is one step away from legitimising the stirring up of hatred against migrants and asylum seekers. Ignoring a problem allows extremists to own it. Demonising one minority leads to the isolation and exclusion of other minorities—a slippery path that has led elsewhere to pogroms and genocide. Let us remember how quickly norms broke down in Kosovo and Rwanda. True political leadership is not about following the basest instincts of those whose support you seek. Instead, it should be about educating, persuading and inspiring. It is about confronting intolerance and calling out the bigots. It is about answering the extremists and contesting their views.
A first step in this country is for our political parties to put their own houses in order. It is shameful that the Labour Party is likely to be the subject of a formal investigation by the EHRC into its institutional racism. It is long overdue for us as a party to end the denial and prevarication so as to eliminate the stench of anti-Semitism emanating from some in senior positions within our ranks. Similarly, the Conservatives must take effective action against those in their ranks who are bigoted against Muslims. Only then can either party claim the moral authority to address the wider problems in society.
The Government’s role must be to combat extremism both by confronting its expression and by addressing the underlying issues that lead to the alienation breeding extremism in the first place. The Government have acknowledged that they have a role—I welcome that—in respect of what is happening on social media. The White Paper on online harms is a useful step in requiring online providers to take some responsibility for what takes place on their platforms. Imposing a duty of care on them will help, but let us not delude ourselves: it is not sufficient. And where is the counterpart for the more traditional media? Should they too not have a duty of care to their readers and viewers? Surely they should have a responsibility not to legitimise or normalise extremism, prejudice or hatred. How can they be incentivised to move away from a sensationalism that mirrors the prejudices of their readers? Where is the strategy to combat fake news, intimidation and misinformation? The Swedish Government have produced a handbook on countering what they call “information influence activities”, which is, in essence, a toolkit for public agencies. Where is the UK equivalent? How are we equipping our citizens and, above all, educating our young people to recognise fake news and reject extremist ideology?
Here, the Government have set up the Commission for Countering Extremism which, despite some interesting pieces of work, is still largely silent. Where is the work on the school curriculum to get children to seek out real facts and real news? What are we doing to equip our young people with critical thinking skills to identify manipulative language and distorted facts, and give them the courage to question everything and everyone? We can no longer simply tut about the toxicity that is now rife in our public debate and discourse. We have to accept that toxicity is corrosive, and not only to the quality of that debate and to the achievement of rational policy; it also undermines the very foundations of our democracy.
This is a responsibility not just for the Government, political parties or media companies but for all of us in public life. It requires an understanding of why so many feel alienated from our current politics, and the addressing of the underlying causes that feed and breed that alienation. Let us not delude ourselves: democracy is a fragile flower. Our institutions may too easily turn out to have foundations based on sand, and the so-called civilised values on which we pride ourselves may turn out to be as transitory as a summer’s day. Ultimately, we all have a responsibility to defend the core values that have shaped our country over the last 75 years. Failure to do so will see the very fabric of our democracy wither and decay. It is a challenge we must not shirk. I beg to move.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for initiating and introducing this important debate. But do we not all wish that there was no need to debate such a depressing topic? In the past few years, debate and public discourse have descended into fake news—or lies, as I prefer to call them—and it has become commonplace if you disagree with someone, particularly if they are in public life, to threaten them with abuse. The situation has become toxic. As the noble Lord said, with the advent of social media this behaviour is now far more widespread.
Just today, Danny Baker—a veteran BBC broadcaster, we are told—was, rightly, sacked for portraying the new royal baby as a chimpanzee. He published a photograph on his Twitter page yesterday of a couple with a chimpanzee leaving hospital, and then claimed it was all a big joke and a mistake. This week we heard that police are investigating comments by Carl Benjamin, a UKIP candidate in the European elections, speculating about whether he would rape the Labour MP Jess Phillips. That is just this week—and it is only Thursday. There are many examples of this kind of intolerable behaviour. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Cressida Dick, has said that there is an “unprecedented” number of threats against MPs as misogyny, racism and divisive issues such as Brexit fuel online trolls.
It is apparent that the first victims of hate-filled bigots are women and those from minorities. The mainstreaming of extreme views and the politics of hate often mean rage against women, migrants, black people, Muslims, Jews and LGBT people. Racism, Islamophobia and misogyny are multiplied and spread by social media, often with impunity. This reflects in part a political discourse that has become coarser and more vicious.
So how did we get here? I know that many do not like Brexit, which has already been mentioned, but it has surely become a factor in the country becoming more divided and polarised. The advent of Trump and Farage, with their intolerance and sweeping statements about migrants, women and Muslims, blaming “the other” for all society’s ills, is another major factor. They seek to exploit people’s fears about the so-called elites while seeking to take power themselves.
When Lord Nolan devised his seven principles, I cannot imagine that he considered that someone selected for an election in this country by a registered political party would publicly behave in the way that we have seen this week. Those principles—selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership—should apply also to those seeking public office, those selected as candidates. I ask the Minister what action will be taken to ensure that those seeking public office cannot threaten violent and criminal behaviour. This should come with immediate disqualification.
Men threaten rape for one reason: to intimidate and silence women. I have had Muslim women tell me that they are frightened when they go out. One woman said to me that she removed her headscarf to protect her children when she goes out with them. We know that attacks on Muslim communities have spiked. What steps are being taken to address this issue? Many of us may have experienced nasty threats; I personally have. I do not react particularly well to threats and never have, but they are nevertheless intimidating and unsettling, particularly when they are to your family. Our politics has changed. So too must our response. We must be firm, and we must not be naive about the effect that this is having on our public life and our democracy.
Last year the chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life warned that a wave of intimidation and abuse directed at parliamentary candidates had taken British politics to a “tipping point” and risked driving politicians out of public life in future, following the enormous amount of racist abuse suffered by Diane Abbott. That was last year and the situation has now escalated. How many of us here have spent many years, as I and others have done, encouraging women and underrepresented BAME groups to come forward and seek public office? How can we do that now, when people feel so unsafe that it is preventing people from those underrepresented groups coming forward?
Those who seek to hide behind freedom of speech must understand that free speech is not an unqualified right. If free speech intimidates, threatens or silences others, their rights have been denied altogether. Free speech cannot and is not to tolerate racist, misogynistic threats, and certainly not threats of violence and criminality.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, touched on the media and I want to touch on that issue too because I feel quite strongly about it. The BBC and other media must take more responsibility and show leadership on this. They frequently provide a public platform for these abusive, toxic views, often in the name of balance or, as they say, “populism”. Last week I heard on the “Today” programme—I could have wept—the leader of UKIP saying that Muslims in this country are seeking to take over and change the legal system because they want sharia law. That was not challenged; it was just left hanging there as if it were a fact.
We must show leadership and commitment to stop tolerating this appalling slide into a society where women and minorities no longer feel safe. We hear talk about “British values” but common ground, decency and kindness are the sorts of values that I think we must fight for, and to promote them we must all work together to combat extremism.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his Motion and the noble Baroness on her comments. Both speakers made many points with which I strongly agree.
Of course furious debate, passion and rage are nothing new in a democracy. In the Commons, the two sides are two swords’ lengths apart to stop them from striking each other. Over the years there has been protest, militancy and outrage. I understand that during the rage around the Great Reform Bill, at Trinity College, Cambridge—where the noble Lord went, as did my noble kinsman Lord Hunt of Chesterton—the fellows voted unanimously to reject the pro-reform Times from their combination room, disgusted by its violent and unprincipled language and doctrines.
Over the years we have had many more such examples. My early years were surrounded by the race riots; I was chair of the juvenile court at the time of the Brixton riots and was very involved with Scarman. This seemed appalling. I also spent many years as chairman of the juvenile court dealing with football hooligans. There were all sorts of uncontrolled groups, anger and rage, and we have seen that time and again. We have had real aggression from the Militant tendency, and other examples. Many of us have had colleagues murdered by bombs and mortars. My own daughter’s early years saw her always running around the corner so that, if there was a bomb under the car, my husband, the carer or I would be blown up and not her. That was the fear with which we all lived for many years: “Never go out without looking under your car”, and many other examples.
In a way we have to analyse what is new. What is new and different is that with mass education, effectively very low unemployment, opportunities and effectively a good health service—however much we argue about it—many of us thought that values such as enlightenment, civilised debate, balance, reason and consensus would spread and become ever more common. Many of us fear that they are in fact diminishing, and we are perplexed.
I request to the Minister that the recent speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, which he made at the Temple Church on the debate around Brexit, be placed in the Library. In it, without declaring his own position, he describes the way in which the argument is emotional, irrational and not evidence-based. There is no attempt to achieve consensus or reach a middle ground. This is an extraordinary way for a grown-up democracy to resolve issues, and we have to analyse why that is.
Perhaps the most eminent judge in this country of recent times, Lord Bingham, Master of the Rolls, Lord Chief Justice and senior Law Lord, said:
“In a world divided by differences of nationality, race, colour, religion and wealth”,
the rule of law,
“is one of the greatest unifying factors, perhaps the greatest, the nearest we are likely to approach to a universal secular religion”.
In his book The Rule of Law in 2010, he says:
“In a modern democracy where the ultimate decisions rest with the people, it is the more important that they should be fully informed and empowered to choose between conflicting opinions and alternative courses of action. The media, of course, have a crucial role to play … ‘The proper functioning of a modern participatory democracy requires that the media be free, active, professional and inquiring’”.
What has happened? Many of us had thought that the more information the better. When I was Culture Secretary, so long as we had diversity of ownership and plurality of voice we all thought that we were on the forward march. It is of course the development of social media, which had initially felt so exciting and such an opportunity to connect, integrate and communicate with constituents and to be responsive. We have seen how, with Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat, it has vulgarised society. It is not accountable. In the press you can ultimately have some redress from inaccurate reporting, but these are people without bounds who are not accessible. I am delighted that the Culture Secretary and the Home Secretary are bringing online harms measures for us to consider to give social media operators a duty of care. It will be a lot more complex than people think.
The way the world operates like an echo chamber reinforcing people’s views has been mentioned. The great thing about parliamentary meetings such as those my noble friend Lord Baker and I used to go to on many occasions in Surrey was that people would come to them. You could argue and debate. You knew that in the end most decisions would be 6:4, 7:3, or probably 5.5:4.5. Social media is about assertion and emotion, with no evidence base and no balance. It has become a sort of online game, like a television show. It is almost part of entertainment. It is totally without responsibility.
I echo the points about becoming more siloed. Gillian Tett’s book about the silo effect in modern society is all too true. Politicians do not know academics. This, again, is a sinister feature. I also take to heart David Goodhart’s point about anywhere or somewhere and the emotion around Brexit if you were left behind and had not had the proceeds of globalisation. It is wonderful that 600 million have come out of poverty in China but, if you are in Hull, where I have been chancellor of its university for 11 years, it is not how it feels. You feel out of London, out of the central area, alienated without power and effect.
I agree with those who have said that women are often the butt of this. Women are either deified or vilified. Yesterday Caroline Slocock gave a wonderful address to the Speaker’s Art Fund reception about the way Mrs Thatcher was perceived, and so also Julia Gillard or maybe Hillary Clinton.
What is the answer? It is to follow through the measures to protect politicians and to do everything we can to create a more united society, in exactly the words the Prime Minister used when she came to Downing Street. I am sure she more than anybody hopes that this Schleswig-Holstein question of Brexit will be resolved— although in that case one went mad, one died and one forgot the answer. I hope we can find the answer. I believe that we are a much more united nation than is often argued. We have to cope with social media and resolve this dilemma, but we should be proud of ourselves as a civilised, liberal and enlightened nation.
Lord Parekh (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley. It is also a great pleasure to take part in a debate initiated so ably by my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey.
I think we all agree that there is a spirit of intolerance and aggression in our public life. Death threats have been made against public figures. Their property has been vandalised. Obnoxious language has been used to refer to what they are doing. Their past lives have been dug up and all sorts of silly things are talked about. They have been mocked, hounded and put in a situation where, inevitably, they make mistakes and once they do they become the subject of further acts of mocking. The result is a vicious cycle, which we have witnessed in the case of Brexit. Mistake after mistake has been made, not only by individuals, but by individuals in the context of the criticism and mocking that has gone on around them.
Why is this happening and what can we do about it? That is what this debate is about. I will concentrate on why, rather than what we can do about it. Obviously social media has played an important part but cannot by itself explain what has happened. Social media simply reflects a certain cultural consciousness, a certain way of thinking. It is the deeper way of thinking that we need to understand. This is what I want briefly to talk about: the way the deeper undercurrents of our public life are manifested on social media and, more importantly, through the offensive language in which our public discourse is conducted. We must remember that language is the cultural capital of a community. It is the repository of its ideas and aspirations. If that language gets corrupted, people’s thinking gets corrupted. It is very important to be a custodian and to recognise the integrity and importance of the language of public discourse.
Why has there been this decline and corruption of the language of public discourse? There are two kinds of politics at work here, which I will talk briefly about. One is the politics of identity and the other is the politics of marginality. I will start with the politics of identity. If somebody were to ask, “What is our biggest problem?” in the aftermath of the financial crisis, in any western society the response would immediately be inequality. A large number of people have found their income frozen and are unable to see any rise. People are suffering as a result of great inequality. These are the issues crying out for attention. Obviously, if you start raising those issues you upset vested interests who would rather not have attention concentrated on them. The result therefore is to bring up a substitute issue and to concentrate attention on that, which is the issue of identity.
National identity or nationalism is the battleground, the site on which our differences are played out. National identity is ultimately about who we are, where we belong and what our place in this world is. Ultimately, with those questions Europe becomes extremely important—the Europe that we joined reluctantly and that we have been a part of all these years, yet from which we want to withdraw. People have a strong feeling that the very soul and identity of their country, of who they are, is at stake.
It is in that context that the debate taking place in our country has to be seen. On the one hand, there are people who are the custodians of the national soul, the national identity, and on the other there are those who disagree. They are dismissed as traitors or as people who do not care for the well-being of the country. In other words, it is a process of demonisation. The other is always a demon: “I am right. I bring light, the other person brings darkness. I bring life, he brings death”. I think my noble friend Lord Harris called this kind of demonisation “polarisation”. I would go even further, because it is not just a polar opposite; it is the demonisation of the other. Once you demonise the other, the only way you can live with him is to eliminate him. It is either you or him. You cannot both inhabit a common earth. This is the politics of identity.
The other important issue I want to talk about is the politics of marginality. Our public life is dominated, so the analysis goes, by a metropolitan elite, which is basically liberal, cosmopolitan, has no national sentiments of any kind and is elitist and technocratic. This elite has been governing our country for the past 50-odd years and has got us into this mess. Therefore, this elite has to be fought by the “real people”.
The “real people” is quite an important expression. They are the people whose voice cannot be represented by the elite. They are the people who speak in their own language and whose aspirations are not articulated by the elite. Therefore, a kind of war is postulated at the very heart of our society between the “People” and the “Elite”. The war between the elite and the people can be fought at many different levels in different countries in different ways, but in western democracies it is fought in one way: this war obviously has to be fought to the end, but we, the people, as a majority, should rule in a democracy, and the elite should have no commanding say at all. The argument is that in this war between the people and the elite, the people are the legitimate winners because they are the supreme majority in a democracy. Therefore, once you begin to speak in the name of the people, you say that the people feel alienated and unrepresented and hence that the whole representative framework which brings the elite to power should be dismantled.
Therefore, I suggest that these two kinds of politics—the politics of identity, which brings self-righteousness, and the politics of marginality, which brings anger and passion—are at work in contemporary British culture. Unless we identify how they manifest themselves and learn to cope with them or get rid of them, we will continue to have this problem, again and again.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for bringing forward this debate and for his characteristically robust, thoughtful, clear and evidenced introduction. I also thank other noble Lords for their contributions. I look forward to reading in the Official Report what the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, has just said, because there is a lot to reflect on.
Others have spoken from these Benches in recent months on this and related matters, referencing a number of scenarios which have given rise to language and expression that cause hurt and offence and do no credit to our public life. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds will, I understand, speak later in this debate about the power and importance of language in our public discourse. My contribution, which I hope will be brief, is to raise a question about one part of the context in which such harmful, toxic, destructive and even violent expression may come to flourish.
The phrase attributed to Aristotle about nature abhorring a vacuum has many applications. I suggest that one of the reasons for this flourishing of destructive and harmful conduct and debate may be that these things are rushing in to fill a vacuum. The Motion put down by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, asks the Government to address the consequent divisions, which is very difficult indeed. One approach—already suggested—might be an entirely understandable effort to control and restrict through legislation, regulation or other methods. In some instances—not least where lives are at risk—that is absolutely right, proper and necessary. However, my question to myself and to this House is whether part of our response might be to fill that vacuum with something rather more wholesome, so that what is not wholesome is less able to flourish in that space.
Might part of this vacuum be the absence of, or at least the difficulty in articulating, a coherent, inclusive, overarching and compelling national narrative which helps us to understand who and what we are, what our place is in the world and how we might shape our common life for now and for the future in ways that are both visionary and realistic? I am aware of all the dangers and difficulties around that, not least that it can end up as a rather esoteric exercise with lots of nice-sounding words, although words have power. What we do not want is anything overly nostalgic and rose-tinted in relation to some perceived national past or unrealistically utopian about a hopeful future. I am not against holding out and expressing hope—some might say that is what people like me are meant to be about—but if it is to have meaning and reality, hope must, if you will allow me a few words from my world, be like that biblical ladder which connects earth and heaven, both visionary and realistic. It is based in the everyday, but looks beyond it.
Could we find some way to shape a national conversation which might have some chance of offering us the unifying and enriching narrative which I suggest we currently lack? This is in large part about identity and connects with some of what the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, has just said on that theme. Identity is complex and difficult for each of us, let alone for nations or, in our case, a nation of nations. I am resident in England, was born in Germany, have Irish and Scots heritage and various other bits and pieces make up who I am. What is the story which helps me to know who I am? It needs to encompass and value all my various identities, and the same needs to be true of our national story. It must therefore be a story which affirms the richness of our diversity, be that historical, religious, ethnic, economic, educational, cultural, geographical or one of many other dimensions. It must be a story that helps us to recognise and express the value we see in one another and can articulate that which is shared in our common life.
Parts of our national being, including, importantly, the constituent nations of our United Kingdom and some of our faith communities, already have coherent and compelling stories that shape their understanding and affirm their identity. My question is more around the narrative that applies to the whole of this United Kingdom, which, as others have indicated, is sadly not as sure of its unity and identity as we might wish. The story needs to enable us to have a proper pride in who we are and what we stand for and give us the language and desire to affirm that positively and confidently, not least in the face of those who would attack it. I do not underestimate the difficulty of this when, as a nation or nations, we are so clearly not of common mind or intention on so many things. However, I fear for our future if we do not make some attempt to do something of this kind. I wonder whether there could be some opportunity for your Lordships’ House, given its peculiar nature—peculiar in the proper sense—to be instrumental in suggesting and shaping such a conversation. Perhaps this debate is part of that.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Harris for his introduction to this very useful debate, and also acknowledge what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester has just said about the role of the House of Lords, which I want to address in this speech.
Social media has been outlined as a big problem, and certainly there is no question that we have now reduced debate to mere assertion. This is an increasing problem, as a result of the issue in our education system. I do not want to pre-empt what my noble friend Lady Morris may say, but I am sure she would agree that it is very clear that the real problem we have is the failure to teach debate, particularly in primary school. No doubt she will talk about some of these issues.
I want to return to the issue of Parliament. My second speech in the House of Lords was on higher education and a piece of chemistry I was rather proud to know something about. I talked very volubly, asserting various things; then, as soon as I could, I decided I needed to let my pulse rate settle and my blood pressure come down, and so went through the voting corridor and to the bar to get a stiff whisky. Behind me, I heard an elderly voice say: “Lord Winston, that was a very interesting speech”. I turned around—it was Lord Porter, the Nobel prize winner for that piece of chemistry. I then had to spend a lot more on the whisky than I had intended, and we subsequently became friends. He was a remarkable man—though his use of the word “interesting” I will come back to.
One of the issues in our society now is the need to get attention—the love of celebrity. If I may say, we see this so often in the conduct of the House of Commons. It is astonishing that Prime Minister’s Question Time has been a showpiece for Parliament. It is absolutely unacceptable that that is how we judge our political measures in this country; it does us a great disservice. Unfortunately, it is generally copied; not just the arguments but somebody on one side making strident assertions and somebody on the other doing nothing but reading a prepared answer. That is not debate. In fact, it is quite destructive to proper debate, and we have to consider that.
If I may be impertinent, in 24 years in the House of Lords, I have never spoken on issues of conduct; I have avoided it. However, far too often, people come into the Chamber to give a prepared speech with no intention of debating or interpreting what has been said before, of putting some flavour on what is being said, or of speaking without notes. I think that is very derogatory.
There is competition to speak. We jump up together at Question Time and now lack the courtesy to give way to each other. That courtesy, now lacking, was an important part of that role model which was very impressive when I first came into the House of Lords. The acerbity in debate which we sometimes see has become political rather than rational, as we in the House of Lords should be as an advisory Chamber. This goes back to an Act of Parliament in the 1630s, when I think it was suggested that that should not be part of our business. Truncated business in the House of Lords is not always a good idea. Very short speeches do not always allow Members to give an adequate view of sometimes quite important topics. But I accept that I have only six minutes and am halfway through that already, and I do not want to disturb the order of the House.
In some respects, one thing that we in the Labour Party did in 1999 was rather derogatory. In the reform of the House of Lords, there was something that we forgot. Surprisingly, the presence of the hereditary Peers gave the House a kind of dignitas. I know we decided that we had to be much more ecumenical and popular in what we did, but we lost the wig on the Speaker’s head and the hats that we raised to the Speaker, and we stopped kneeling to the Speaker when we were admitted in introductions. That courteous and remarkable panoply of traditional respect was quite important in many ways. We still of course have the State Opening of Parliament, but we lost something with the loss of the traditions.
I am not a Tory but I am a conservative; I believe in conserving what we have of value and remembering why it is important. I am reminded of the novel by Tomasi di Lampedusa, Il Gattopardo or The Leopard, in which that character sees the gradual change that needs to happen in society. As a great aristocrat in Sicily, the Leopard recognises that he has to give way, but it is of immense interest that he gives way with courtesy and always sees the other side of the argument, even finally, when he recognises the need to give way to the new aspect of the Risorgimento. That brings me back to Lord Porter, who used a particular word when he approached me from behind in that voting corridor. He said, “Lord Winston, that was a very interesting speech”. He did not say anything pejorative, although he obviously felt quite angry about it.
Lord Patten (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, particularly his thoughts about how things used to be in this Chamber. That was in what some would think of as the good old times, when the Whips’ Office would send something round when they wanted you to attend and vote which said, “Your Lordship’s attendance is most earnestly requested”. That is very different from the sort of threats about being there on the night for a three-line Whip, or else. The noble Lord also said that he would like people to speak without notes. I will do my best in my remaining five minutes.
This is the best of times and the worst of times for the debate tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. Why is it the best of times? It is because he has put a stake in the ground, so we have to do some serious stuff in thinking about turning back the rising tide of vitriol and toxicity that surrounds debate. It is the worst of times because, for the next 14 days, we are going to get all that vitriol and toxicity in the run-up to the elections on 23 May. May we and people in those elections be protected from violent threats and excoriation, and from physical violence and death, which we have seen in the past. I would never have thought 20 years ago that we would be thinking in that kind of way. When it is all over and the results have come out, then it will be the best of times again for us to continue down the road that the noble Lord has set for us today.
It is interesting to reflect, since the elections on the 23rd are about Europe, that very hard words were used in the run-up to the Second World War about Europe and our attitudes to it. There were people accused of being traitors or collaborators. The country and the nation were split very much between 1938 and 1940, but then it really was serious. It was not about changes in trading relationships and the free movement of people, or changes in statutory provisions and the way in which justice is run between different countries in Europe. It was actually about matters of life and death. One of the first things that we need to do is to try to get people to reflect, as I think the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester was saying, about whether matters are serious or not. Our next step should be to try to promote more of a discussion in this country that might reflect a slowing down of the frenetic pace that will be there for the next two weeks. It would try to reclaim the Twittersphere and, following the slow food movement, perhaps there would be a slow debate movement.
I propose to your Lordships that we should all think very hard about trying to get together a group of sensible people, who would be widely recognised as that but also as not being politicians. Broadly speaking, we politicians are thought to be the cause of the problem in the first place. I mean a bunch of people who might be chaired by some acceptable celeb—perhaps someone from the entertainment world who is instantly recognised but perhaps someone from the medical world, from environmental protection or whatever. She or he should be readily recognised not as being a politician in any way but as a free-thinking person who, with a group of other free-thinking people, would say “Enough’s enough, so let’s spend time talking in some place”. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester suggested your Lordships’ Chamber but perhaps it should be in a less partisan place than the Palace of Westminster. The group should talk for a few hours—perhaps half a day—and say, “It’s got to stop, and this is why”. They would need the advice of people who think spiritually such as the humanist associations, who have valuable insights into all this, and those in minority communities, such as the Muslims or the Jews. The Jews rightly feel threatened and afeared, just as they felt in 1939 when those vicious arguments were used.
We would certainly need someone such as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury to be there. Doubtless, the right reverend Prelates from Rochester and Leeds would have some other brother or sister bishop whom they would like to see there on the day. I will probably get into terrible trouble in the confessional, as I have not consulted him, but I would also like to propose and volunteer the services of his eminence the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, firmly rooted as he is in Merseyside and Liverpool. Your Lordships might think, “That isn’t the right cast”; there are people such as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who understand about casting and perhaps they would have a better cast of people to do it. However, a bunch of such people on a stage, talking slowly, rationally and reasonably—following the lead we have had from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey—might well begin to turn the tide. We might just see an ebbing of the tide of the vitriol and toxicity that we have seen so much of in the last decade.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this debate about how government and Parliament can improve public debate on the critical issues affecting public organisations, communities and specialist groups, such as immigration, relations between religious groups, social and economic interests and private organisations working in the public sphere. We need to know what has caused the great deterioration of interrelations involving members of these groups, especially over the past three years, although the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, was quite right in her remarks about many of the big problems occurring 30 or 40 years ago.
It may be because the UK’s controversial national vote, with its huge numbers voting, involved a large proportion of the whole community, on one side and the other, in debate about the European Union. There may be long-term differences between societal and community groups, and the problems are growing to significant levels—for example, leading to disturbances in local areas and involving thousands of people in city centres. Many of these involve tensions between religious groups. At some of these events, political parties and groups have not always played their traditional role of calming social conflict and, in fact, have sometimes stirred it up. Even groups within the Labour Party have exacerbated, rather than calmed, social and religious conflicts, as mentioned by other colleagues.
An equally important role for Parliament and government is to improve understanding about the processes of public debate and involve schoolchildren, students and political societies. We may hear later about this from the noble Baroness. It is also important to hear how the public debate influences public decisions about crime or funding for schools, for example. It is not just abstract debate; it leads to decisions that affect lives.
At the international level, the United Nations Association has been influential in the UK and other countries. My grandfather was secretary of the United Nations Association in the 1930s, so we used to hear a lot about this. The number of young people involved in similar organisations is perhaps less now than in the past. In the 1930s, as we have already heard and may hear more about, millions were involved. Now, we need to think of how we can expand the involvement of pupils and students. We have seen that this year, most recently with the bold invasion into businesses’ and politicians’ debates by the Swedish pupil campaigning here in London and elsewhere. It is interesting that the individual campaigning was working with non-governmental organisations and public media, so we perhaps begin to see a new way in which different communities can influence decisions.
We have also seen conflict within social organisations, including universities and schools, which should be centres for reasoned debate and provide welfare and comfort to affected students. Sometimes, the TV, media and internet have amplified conflicts between social groups and warring parties, particularly those affected by people coming from abroad. That has led to groups in the UK being far from welcoming, but hostile to these incoming groups, as we heard earlier. Government could do more to monitor and assist UK and international social and political groups that are sensitive to adverse debate and criticism. There is a new role for government and the organisations it sponsors for this purpose.
Other organisations have played a different role in improving and calming society. In advanced countries, the debates of industrial, governmental and commercial organisations have steadily improved management methods. Again, I refer to the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, whose father ran the Industrial Society when I was head of the Met Office. We had an extraordinary visit from Garnett in the 1990s, discussing how dealing with complex issues in a business or governmental organisation can be effective. It is noticeable how little conflict there is within many of these large business and governmental organisations, so perhaps we should learn more about them. They have had to deal with difficult organisational problems, and I believe we should think about that.
I am an engineer, a former chief executive and member of the Hazards Forum. Another aspect of this is that staff can be frustrated if there is no internal debate about critical issues and decisions. At present, several hugely important technical debates are ongoing around the world. Examples include the recent situation with Boeing—I worked with Airbus and can see this issue is of great importance—people dealing with the combustible behaviour of tall blocks of flats, and the factory workers of Bangladesh. These critical social issues are being debated.
Given the general experience of Members of Parliament and of committees of both Houses, we should be well placed to investigate different organisations dealing with controversial issues, general and technical, in important debates. I add the caveat that physical, natural and medical scientists and engineers make an important contribution to the role of Parliament, and we should hear more about that.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for securing this debate and for the clarity of his and other speeches. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, that if such a cast were assembled, some of the people who need to be there simply would not turn up. If they did, they would see it as their job to disrupt it, so I suspect it will be more complex.
We still admire Benjamin Disraeli for telling Parliament that half the Cabinet were asses and, on being ordered to withdraw the comment, responding, “Mr Speaker, I withdraw. Half the cabinet are not asses”. Political invective is not new and it must have a place in a free society, but words matter. I speak as a former professional linguist. Language is never neutral, and the ad hominem abuse we increasingly witness now simply encourages wider public expression of violent hatred. It is incrementally corrosive.
If the conduct of debate in public life has become toxic, it is only because it has been in the interests of some people to allow it to be so. I have already spoken in this House of the corruption of the public discourse and the consequences of normalising lying and misrepresentation. I add that reducing people to categories might reinforce tribal identity, but it demonises and dehumanises everyone else. As Viktor Klemperer recognised from 1930s Germany, a million repetitions of single words, idioms, and sentence structures or slanders become unconsciously assumed to be normal. Think of Rwanda and “cockroaches”.
Jo Cox MP was murdered only 10 miles from where I live and I was there within the hour. Her attacker shouted slogans about “Britain first” while killing her. Do we think this is just unfortunate, or do we admit the link between language, motivation and action? I doubt if there was much analysis of the meaninglessness of the phrase “Britain first” and the assumptions that underlie it, but there was clearly a dynamic between language, motivation and action—language free from social inhibition and language that legitimises violence in the minds of some people.
What is going on here? Was the violent bile there already and did the referendum of 2016 simply open a valve, or has the lack of any legal or political restraint sanctioned or legitimised the sort of language we hear and read now? This is not about hand-wringing wimpishness about robust debate; rather, it now sees MPs fearing for their safety. As we have heard, Jess Phillips MP was openly spoken of in terms of when rape might be deemed okay. People are voicing violence that would have been deemed unacceptable three or four years ago, but which now is normal. This poses a danger to our democracy and corrupts the nature of our common life. It is not neutral and it is not trivial.
Classic populist language, of left or right, uses simple slogans, divisive negativity and visceral emotional pull. The accuracy, factuality or truth of what is said is irrelevant. Such language is powerful and effective: it works. It is also apparently unaccountable. What are Nigel Farage’s policies for the construction of a post-Brexit United Kingdom? Where is there even a hint of any responsibility for the future, other than a rejection of the past? It is just one simple message supported by a whole set of angry assumptions, and the language is all of betrayal. The culprits, the enemies, are those who are not them. This is viscerally emotional and not rational. Reality, truth and factuality are of no concern. Complex questions are reduced to simplistic binary choices. And it works.
We are witnessing a trading in the language of victimhood. Everybody, it seems, is now a victim. All sides of the Brexit shouting match claim to have been betrayed: hard Brexiters by soft Brexiters; remainers by leavers and leavers by remainers; “the people”—whoever they are—by the “elites” and the establishment by the people; and apparently everyone by the BBC. The ninth commandment is there for a purpose: do not bear false witness against your neighbour. Surely only satire could see old Etonian, Oxbridge-educated, senior multimillionaire politicians complaining about “establishment elites” as if this term of abuse referred to someone else. But no one laughs, and they get away with it. It is not a great leap from this to the sort of conspiracy theories that have brought anti-Semitism back into polite conversation.
When politicians speak of the Prime Minister entering “the killing zone” and taking “her own noose” to a meeting, we are in trouble. The German philosopher, Peter Sloterdijk, writes that the nature of our public discourse matters because,
“moral and political aberrations almost always start with linguistic neglect”.
Edmund Burke understood the powerful influence of abstract terms such as “liberty” or “equality”, which have the power to move people without enlightening them.
We might be entering a dark age in these matters, but we can put our own house in order and lead by example; for instance, by promoting a greater sense of responsibility among institutional and political figures who influence the public discourse; by making people who use such speech publicly accountable, and by offering counter-narratives that ensure that our children hear something good and witness a discourse that is respectful. We need strategies for addressing this, and we need to start here, with politicians, in Parliament.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Harris on organising this debate and on his outstanding introduction to the issues. What made me decide to speak was the fact that I had had a pretty rough time on the doorstep in the local elections running up to 2 May. I have done a lot of this in my life, for getting on for 55 years. I know what the voters are like; some people slam the door in your face and others say, “Oh, you’re all the same. You’re only in it for yourselves”. But I sensed that there was a much more aggressive tone towards politicians in this set of elections than I had ever seen before—and Wigton has such a nice local community.
I think that it is a direct consequence of the 2016 referendum. People feel that they were offered a clear choice: in or out. They just cannot understand why “out” has not happened, given that they voted for it. What the bitterness on the doorstep brought home to me was the great risk involved in going down this road of direct democracy, offering people simple choices when issues are becoming ever more complex as time goes on. Part of the answer to these problems is to restore faith in representative democracy, and I will make four points about how we try to do that.
The first point is one with which I know a lot of colleagues on my side of the House will not agree, but it is a view that I have held for a long time: namely, that if we had electoral reform and a system of proportional representation, it would lead to a wider representation of views in Parliament. I cannot stand Nigel Farage’s views, but he represents a sufficient group of people for his party to be in Parliament. The main political parties have ceased to be effective vehicles for representing a much more fragmented nation. That is true of the Conservative Party, which is bitterly split between nationalist populists and the traditional one-nation and pro-business Conservatives. It is arguably true of the Labour Party as well. So I favour electoral reform, which would bring a wider range of views into Parliament and force on our political system a culture of compromise. That is what the post-war Federal Republic of Germany is so good at. When we see the shouting match of Prime Minister’s Questions, the contrast with the political culture of the Federal Republic could not be greater.
Secondly, we have to foster more political education and debate in society. That should start in schools. I am very keen on Gordon Brown’s ideas for citizens’ assemblies, which have been shown to work in getting people to understand some of the complexities that we face. The way in which the Irish handled their second referendum on the Lisbon treaty in 2009 was a model of how to involve people in a proper debate about the issues that is not extreme and polarising.
Thirdly, we need reform of the media, on which I will make two points. First, social media companies have to accept much greater responsibility for rooting out unacceptable language from their platforms. That should become a legal obligation. Secondly, we had a wonderful Speaker’s Lecture from Tony Hall—the noble Lord, Lord Hall of Birkenhead—as director-general of the BBC, in which he spoke about the BBC’s mission to counter fake news and to put news as its top priority. This will not happen unless we stop trying to use the BBC as a social security policy to help over-75 year-olds with the cost of their licence fee and fund it properly to do the job that it should be doing in promoting objectivity and debate. I shall stand up for the BBC. I know that some of my colleagues and closest friends attack the way in which it behaves, but I do not support that.
Fourthly, we have a responsibility to provide political leadership. I am not satisfied that in the Labour Party, for instance, we have taken the necessary steps to deal with anti-Semites. The leadership has not defended Members of Parliament who have come under vicious attack. This is not good enough and it has to change.
Lord Puttnam (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for making this debate possible. It is timely and it certainly is important.
Almost 49 years ago, I travelled to Heidelberg to meet Albert Speer, Hitler’s former architect and Armaments Minister, who had recently been released after 21 years in Spandau prison. I had audaciously put in a bid to buy the film rights to his then best-selling book, Inside the Third Reich. Like many born during wartime, I was desperately eager for a better understanding of how Hitler came to power, with consequences that dominated the lives of my parents’ generation.
By some miracle of luck and timing, my partner and I won the rights to the book, which led to our spending many hours probing and questioning Speer’s motivations, with the opportunity to go well beyond what was actually in the book. One story in particular stands out. He said that he was walking in Berlin a day or two after Kristallnacht, surveying the damage done to Jewish property and shops. He claimed to have been appalled by what was going on, but by now his principal concern was that the glass was cleared away before any child fell and cut themselves. He made the point that it is quite shocking how quickly the unthinkable becomes thinkable, then normalised, and, eventually, in the final phase of populism, brutally enforced.
In chapter 2 of his book, he writes:
“I did see a couple of rough spots in the Party doctrine. But I assumed they would be polished in time …The crucial fact appeared to me to be that I personally had to choose between a future Communist Germany or a future National Socialist Germany, since the political center between these antipodes had melted away. Moreover in 1931 I had reason to believe that Hitler was moving in a more moderate direction … Hitler was trying to appear respectable in order to seem qualified to enter the government”.
In other words, he was seeking to legitimise himself and his party in order to take back control. Does any of that sound remotely familiar? In the event, we produced two documentaries. The first, entitled “Double-Headed Eagle”, covered the years 1918 to 1933, and the second, “Swastika”, took the story from 1933 to 1945.
I have always believed that this narrative ought to be compulsory viewing for anyone attracted to the simplistic rants of Nigel Farage or his venomous counterpart, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon—or “Tommy Robinson”, as he prefers to be called. When I was growing up, the term “nationalistic” was synonymous with a particularly pernicious form of authoritarian government. Somehow, the debates in this country around Brexit have allowed it to become somewhat re-legitimised. Nationalism is not the same as patriotism and they should never, ever be confused. This drift is a process that we in this House should be doing everything possible to overcome. To better inform that opposition, I thoroughly recommend an excellent new book by the young historian Tim Bouverie, entitled Appeasing Hitler.
Last Friday, the Labour MP Lisa Nandy gave the Clement Attlee Memorial Lecture at University College Oxford. It was a wonderful lecture and I can do no better than quote directly from it. She said:
“The problems of a deeply divided nation, and the many heartfelt views on Brexit, and the things Brexit has come to symbolise, are not going to vanish. They are complex, demanding of nuance and will not be wished or voted away”.
She went on to say:
“Never think that ‘the blood-dimmed tide’ is a threat only to immigrants and minorities. It is a threat to all of us. We all need constitutional protection, we need a centre that holds. Those who believe in civil discourse, who respect the truth, must be willing to find a common cause”.
I cannot top that, other than to remember that, in the final chapter of what was to be his last book, the late Lord Clarke—Kenneth Clarke—asks himself which of all human qualities he most values. It would be reasonable to assume that, as our foremost art historian, he would opt for some cultural reference. Instead he offers just one word: “civility”.
Civility will not be regained by accident. It is my belief that every Member of your Lordships’ House has an absolute obligation to ensure that civility once again becomes the watchword in the practice of politics in this country. When he replies, I sincerely hope that the Minister will offer the Government’s determination not to allow extremism in its many forms to undermine what all noble Lords seem to realise is a dangerously fragile democracy.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. I agree with what he has said. My profound thanks go to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for securing this important debate on a subject which goes to the very heart of our democracy. It impinges on the right to free speech, the right to challenge decision makers and freedom of association, and concerns issues such as treating people with respect, no matter what their views, and conducting public discourse in a civil manner.
In a democracy we need plurality of voices, but, critically, we also need skills, experience and knowledge to gauge the veracity of those voices. However, the conduct of public debate has become aggressive and uncivil. Healthy, open debate is thwarted by intolerance and lack of respect for differing views. The tone of bitterness and aggression that has entered our public debate is very worrying. The scale and intensity of intimidation shaping our public life is a matter of serious concern. We are all aware of the worst incidents, ranging from verbal abuse, intimidation and death threats sent to MPs for the way they voted, to the most horrendous murder of Jo Cox in 2016. Nothing appears to be off limits with the Wild West, cavalier attitude that we find in public life these days.
There are a number of contributing factors to this toxic environment. One area of great concern that has already been mentioned is social media. It has become a fertile ground for attacking those in public life, especially women and the LGBT and BAME communities. Emboldened by the mask of anonymity, people feel free to say what they like, no matter how harmful or distressing. Furthermore, the echo chambers of social media leave people unprepared to deal with views other than their own. The result is a political culture that is unable to accommodate differing opinions or form broad alliances. While the internet has brought many freedoms and an unprecedented ability to communicate, it also carries the insidious ability to distort, mislead and produce hatred and instability.
The Government’s global initiative to tackle online harms and address the negative consequences of social media is really welcome. We must use technology for positive purposes—to free our minds—and use regulation to restore accountability. Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google not only dominate market positions but exercise control over public debate, which undermines both economic competition and democracy. An effective regulatory regime is therefore much needed, as is digital literacy. The Government’s strong emphasis on digital literacy and their assertion that it should be a fourth pillar of education, alongside reading, writing and maths, is truly welcome. It is also encouraging that the Government are taking an international lead: we need to ensure that other countries are with us, so that perpetrators are not able to hide behind other jurisdictions.
This toxic atmosphere is discouraging people from getting involved in public life. If no action is taken, this will further diminish the quality of our politics and have dire consequences for our democracy. It is right that the Government are taking this issue seriously and looking at ways of dealing with these problems. However, trust in the Government and in politicians is at an all-time low. According to the Edelman Trust Barometer 2019, the trust deficit in our core institutions has never been bigger, and there has been a steady decline over several decades. More and more people feel disfranchised and not listened to. A decade of financial disruption, austerity and weakening civic ties have left many feeling dispossessed and insecure. The consequences of this have been poignantly unmasked by Brexit.
The National Centre for Social Research points out that, between 1986 and 2013, the proportion of those who trusted the Government to place the needs of the nation above those of the party nearly halved, from 38% to 18%. These feelings found expression in the Brexit debate and have fuelled populism, which we have all seen being manipulated. All this feeds cynicism and destroys trust. These divisions and the lack of trust in politics create an environment where intimidation in public life is more likely. Collective effort is needed to address the divisions in society. Everyone must take responsibility for turning this around; business, civil society and government. We all need to uphold ethical standards, so that we do not undermine the institutions we are part of: it cannot be only a government-led solution.
There are organisations that can help. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, mention Germany, because I have recently become a chairman of Cumberland Lodge, an educational charity set up 71 years ago by Amy Buller, who wrote the book Darkness Over Germany. I see that organisation as a laboratory that teaches children how to disagree well and how to develop critical thinking, and such initiatives need to be scaled up, along with efforts to promote digital literacy.
We also need to look at ourselves and ask whether our behaviour and the way we conduct ourselves set the standard that we expect from others, or whether our behaviour is contributing to the very toxic atmosphere we are debating today. How to conduct respectful debate, how to disagree well and how to treat others and listen to differing views with respect are fundamental to a vibrant democracy. We need to hold a mirror to ourselves.
Recently, both Houses have had to strengthen their codes of conduct. In my view, it is a very sad reflection that this had to happen. Yes, we need to regulate; yes, we need better digital literacy and better education; but we also need to improve the culture of our institutions and model the behaviour we expect of others. We live in very troubled times. A sense of anger and bewilderment is spreading. Fractious behaviour is on the increase, both within and without. It is high time for us to come together and work to nurture fraternity, not fractiousness.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
My Lords, when I was a student I used to play in curtain-raiser rugby league matches for the local team. We got a bit of money to cover our expenses, but this was docked for bad behaviour. Bad behaviour was “playing the man, not the ball”. I do not wish to trivialise this subject, but I was reminded of this when my noble friend introduced the debate—on which I congratulate him—because it is playing the man, not the ball, that introduces toxicity into public life.
You do not have to be a visitor to the United States to be appalled at the way the President has made personal insults a firm substitute for political argument—the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, mentioned this. Of course, because it comes from the President, this practice is legitimised and copied. As the Guardian pointed out, we had a good example of this here recently, when Greta Thunberg came from Sweden. Instead of dealing with her arguments and evidence, many commentators just called her weird, privileged, inexperienced or irrelevant. It is this disparaging of a person, rather than dealing with the argument or the evidence, that is one of the causes of toxicity in our public life.
As my noble friend Lord Harris and others have explained, social media thrives on this. Social media platforms are set up to reward people’s engagement: people are encouraged to feed off each other in a continuous cycle that enables the amassing of data. This data then enables people to target microgroups with messages that nobody else sees—angry messages of an extreme nature that would otherwise never be published—all adding to toxicity. The internet is a wonderful medium for knowledge and information, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, and other noble Lords have said, paradoxically, it has degraded debate.
What can we do about this anger and frustration? This tendency towards extremism has been apparent for some years. Like my noble friend Lord Parekh, I think it is due to rising inequality: in wealth, income and the standard of living, as well as regional inequality. My noble friend told us in his introduction of a poll that found that 82% of the public now feels that the country is more divided than ever. A cause of this inequality is the hollowing out of the economic middle. At the same time, we have a polarisation of the generations, as shown by the FCA study, and the unfairness of the generation divide, as shown by your Lordships’ own Select Committee. This hollowing out and polarisation is not the inevitable result of automation and new technology but the result of bad government and bad management—economic and social. Much of this automation is taking place without increases in productivity, resulting in unequal distribution of the benefits. If we do not do anything about it, new artificial intelligence and robotics will continue the process and widen the gap even more. This hollowing out of the economy is a direct cause of the hollowing out of our politics, somehow legitimising extreme views and language. As somebody famous said, bad economics always result in bad politics.
Yes, there are efforts in reskilling, apprenticeships and lifelong learning, and there is a minimum wage, but it is not working. The “just about managing”, who so concerned the Prime Minister when she came to office, are still there. Reports from various welfare charities, food banks and the children’s organisations that support the “just about managing” tell us that their number is increasing rapidly.
The problem that my noble friend has set us is about turning round society, and part of that turnaround is economic—economic reform that stops the hollowing out and produces a more equal distribution of wealth and of income so that all of us feel included. Public services are part of this turnaround. Hardly a day goes by without reports of the impact that austerity is having on our public services, particularly those provided by local authorities, which have had cuts to their grants of 30% to 40%. The cumulative effect of all of this—a political choice, not an economic one—has been to increase inequality. In this turnaround, citizenship and identity matter. After all, we are a community of citizens. As part of this turnaround, let us clearly define what is owed to and expected from each citizen. Add this to less inequality and we will have a more sustainable and successful democracy.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Harris for tabling this debate. It is the sort of conversation we have in the Tea Room and when we meet in corridors; it is good to hear it in the Chamber of the House, and I hope that we can take things forward from here. I also acknowledge that I have learned something and have been made to think by every speaker who has come before me in this debate. I thank your Lordships for that, because we need to do a lot of thinking if we are to find an answer to the issues we are talking about. Inevitably, at this stage of the debate I will try to add weight to certain arguments rather than bringing forward anything new.
I share everyone’s concerns about the number of MPs who have been attacked, the nature of the language, and the way some candidates think they can behave and excuse it as a joke. I do not want to concentrate much on that area of our discussion but I worry sometimes that the debate might give the impression that that behaviour is excused because other things are wrong, and it is not. Standing by themselves, those things are illegal and should not happen, the people who commit them are responsible for them, and action should be taken. Having said that, what has brought that about or allowed that to happen is wider than that and not illegal; the police will not take it up, and it is our responsibility to do something about it. When the Committee on Standards in Public Life looked at intimidation, it said:
“Intimidation also reflects broader issues with our public political culture”.
I start with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, which was where my thinking started, although I went in a slightly different direction. When I look back over the years that I have been a grown-up in politics and think about the changes that have happened in the lifetime of most people sitting here, those are things that should have strengthened democracy; they should have meant that we were a stronger representative democracy than we were when I was a child.
I think of communication, the ability to exchange ideas, to listen, to explain, to understand and to engage. All those opportunities are better now than they were 50 years ago and should have enhanced democracy. If we think of the improvements in education, more children are in education for longer, there are more qualified teachers and a better curriculum. All that should have strengthened democracy. There are genuine improvements in society. I know that it is not perfect, but I know that I have better life chances than my parents’, which are a million miles away from those of my grandparents. Nearly everything that has brought about a better life chance for me was driven by politics. There is a story to tell about how politics has benefited people over the past 30 or 40 years.
If we put that together—better communication and a better education system—there is a good story to tell about what politics can do. We should not be having this debate. We should be talking about how our democracy has improved over recent years. We have not seized those three things as a way to enhance democracy, and not doing that over the years is in part responsible for and has led to the chasm that the right reverend Prelate mentioned in which we are today.
I agree with everything that has been said about social media but, in truth, the relationship between politicians and the media has not been right for a very long time. They have had a relationship which has been about them, which does not mean anything unless it is also a relationship with the public. Over the years, in the mainstream media, with some honourable exceptions, the way that each has built up a relationship with the other has not been in the best interests of the voter, the citizen or the electorate.
For all those educational opportunities, we worry about illiteracy and people who cannot add up or multiply when they leave school. We ought to worry an awful lot more about the political illiteracy that still exists when youngsters leave our compulsory education system. We do not even have citizenship education on the curriculum any longer, let alone what my noble friend Lord Winston referred to: skills of debate and learning to grow up to be an engaged member of a democracy.
I had hoped that we might have moved from the age of deference to an age of engagement and healthy scepticism, but we have not; we have fallen into this dark place. Perhaps we can go back to think about what we are meant to be doing in politics. Essentially, politics is a battle of ideas. The need to be robust as a politician should not be to withstand onslaught from people who abuse you but to withstand people questioning and challenging your ideas and ideals.
Some of us have been in politics as a profession for years; some have come in from other areas. Over the past 40 or 50 years, every time somebody calls someone else’s idea “treacherous”, every time someone undermines someone else’s patriotism, every time we use language that abuses people rather than celebrates what they have to offer, every time we claim that something has been successful rather than explaining how we had to compromise to get it through, every time, in an interview, we fail to answer a question but continue with the lines to take and ensure that the listener hears what we want them to hear, not what they want to hear, we lose an opportunity to strengthen democracy.
In truth, we talk about Brexit and say that Brexit is toxic, but people out there are not listening to all the things we are worrying about. If we had had a strong political culture and strong foundations on which to have this Brexit debate, people would have stayed with us and listened to the argument, but it was too fragile a representative democracy, not because it will be overturned but in its ability to communicate with the electorate. That has led us into the problems we have now.
I will finish with this: people often ask me and others in this Chamber, “If you were young again, would you go into politics?”. I love politics. It has been my life. It has brought about all the changes I cherish and made them available for my family, my friends, my country and the world in which I live. I have never thought of saying that I would not go into politics again but, increasingly over the past few months, when people ask that question, I have begun to ask myself too. Representative democracy is in real crisis the minute we stop engaging and inviting other people to do the job that some of us have been doing for 50 years. It is in our power to change that and I believe that we have a contribution to make.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we all agree that we are in a crisis of the sort just described by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris.
I recall talking to a good friend, a young female MP, some weeks ago. She said, “Do you know, as I was going through the Lobbies the other week, I thought for the first time since I came here that I was perhaps in the wrong sort of job in the wrong sort of place”. That is the level of toxicity the Commons has reached. She and some of her young female colleagues have also talked about the intimidation they face through email, social media and so on. I fear for them; all I have faced are the shouts of “Traitor!” that we get every now and again as we walk in and out of here. It is a real problem and will of course affect how many people come into or stay in politics. Things are very different from what it was like when I first started out as a political candidate, when the old sense of deference was there and people were glad to see you when you met.
We all accept that we face the major problem of maintaining democracy. Violent language by established politicians and columnists in national newspapers, as well as across social media, affects the quality of debate. Violent language encourages actual violence. Behind that, a deep distrust of the so-called political class has been growing over the years; the expenses scandal and the way we are portrayed in the media have contributed to that. The increasing professionalisation of politics means that we rank down there with bankers among those who are the least trusted by the rest of our community. There is therefore a disillusionment with politics as such. I find that the widening of the gap between the public and the professional political class results partly from a decline in party membership; again, when I started out in politics, the Conservative Party had more than a million members. Those grass-roots numbers, feeding back to the leadership, are now down to something like 100,000.
The decline in local democracy and local government is also a major problem because it increases the gap between the governed and those who govern. If your local school has been taken over by an academy with its headquarters 50 miles away, your social services and children’s services are being cut and much of what used to be your public services have been outsourced, not surprisingly, you fear that politics is remote and that you are losing control.
In the past few years, we have seen the rejection of evidence on global warming, vaccinations, international trade, regulation and everything to do with the European Union. We have seen that not just in Britain; we must recognise that it is part of a wider trend towards what Viktor Orbán calls “illiberal democracy”—the politics of feeling and guts and nationalism against these silly liberals who muck about with evidence and detail. So, we have to be nice to each other. That intolerance is marked by President Trump’s violent rhetoric, as well as by Viktor Orbán, the Polish Government and others.
What should our response be? We have to defend the principles of liberal democracy—all of us across all parties and outside the parties. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, we have to defend the politics of reason, evidence, negotiation, tolerance of opposition and different views, the rule of law and respect for minorities who are so easily demonised by populists. I also agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, and others who have said that you cannot have too great a degree of inequality and maintain the sense of a national community. The social contract about which Locke and others have written is a contract between the governed and the governing, and those who are governed expect the state to give them security and a degree of welfare in return. We are in danger of allowing economic change, deregulation and the shrinking of government, which is very much what the Conservative Party has been pushing for through austerity, to widen the gap too much between what the Government do and what the governed receive. That, indeed, undermines democracy.
Several speakers, including the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, have also talked about the importance of educating our citizens. The failure of political education in this country is appalling. It is an issue that we have debated in this House. While we have to push at it, the problem is that it is a political football that easily becomes partisan and is perhaps the sort of thing on which this House could form a Select Committee—that is, on how to promote citizenship education in our schools. That involves an understanding of our national history, having respect for evidence and fostering an understanding of government and governance. Moreover, we need the teaching of citizenship to mean talking about not just rights but the obligations of citizenship—a term that, sadly, has gone from popular debate. I often hear on the doorstep, “I’ve got my rights”, but I never hear, “I should be doing something about my obligations”. Political education in all our schools should therefore be much higher up the agenda of all parties.
Who should respond to this problem? The Committee on Standards in Public Life has said that political parties should take the lead. Political leaders set the tone of public debate and our political leaders have failed. I do not mean just our current political leaders. David Cameron failed in many ways regarding his respect for evidence. I felt that in particular when we were dealing with European issues in the coalition Government. Tony Blair cultivated the press and refused to stand up to it when he thought that aspects of it were peddling other issues. As I say, it is not just the current Government, but when the Prime Minister fails to call out those in the European Research Group who come close to threatening violence if we do not accept a hard Brexit, she is failing in her role as a political leader. When she talks about how citizens of somewhere are much better than citizens of nowhere, she is dismissing explicitly, if one accepts David Goodhart’s terms, the educated half of the population. Incidentally, looking at the contenders to succeed her as leader, I think that Andrea Leadsom is the only one of those to have announced so far who would qualify as a citizen of somewhere rather than of nowhere, and will no doubt therefore receive the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley. Jeremy Corbyn, as the leader of the Labour Party, shares in the responsibilities of political leadership. As some on his own Benches have said, he has also failed to exercise that.
The media have responsibilities, and the extent to which we have to listen to highly paid journalists who went to public school arguing that the liberal elite is refusing to recognise the will of the people, whom they understand and represent, is part of the nonsense of the situation we are now in—not to mention the calls for a more robust assertion of national sovereignty from people writing in newspapers owned by American citizens of Australian origin or British citizens who live in a tax haven in the Channel Islands. Business and finance also have responsibilities to wider society and the national community, which they fail to meet. Moreover, perhaps I may say to our two bishops present that the Church shares in the responsibility to talk about the moral dimension of markets, society and government. The Church ought to be saying that more loudly and clearly. I know that it will be sharply criticised by the media for doing so, but that is what you are there for and that is what you should be doing.
In the long run, we need political reform: restoration of local democracy, as I have talked about; devolution from Westminster back to the regions of England; and more open political recruitment and competition. Of course, that means changing the voting system; we have to remember that the referendum in 2011 was masterminded by the same team that led the Brexit campaign, and to win they promised the same nonsense about spending money on the NHS instead. Perhaps we might even consider building a semi-circular Parliament Chamber as our temporary Chamber to begin to change the atmosphere.
Lastly, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester talked about a new national narrative, and I could not agree more. I spent some time on the Government’s advisory committee on the commemoration of the First World War, on which we fought a number of battles about how far we should represent this as more than just Britain beating Germany but as a wider conflict with wider responsibilities. I suggest again that we might consider a sessional committee on the teaching of national history in England. Mrs Thatcher attempted to address the question in her last year in government and intensely disliked what the committee she appointed came up with. Michael Gove is about to tackle it again. Let us do it on a non-partisan, cross-party basis and see how far we can get. There is a lot to do; our democracy is in serious crisis, and we should work together across the parties.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
A non-partisan plea from someone who has attacked every party except the Lib Dems—you could not make it up. I am sorry; I said I would resist doing that, but it was just too much of an open goal. Apologies.
My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lord Harris for tabling this timely—indeed, all too topical—debate. It is sad that we need it but, as he said, we need to detoxify political debate and heal divisions being fostered within society. The dual contributions from our Bishops were noteworthy—I was about to say “interesting” but, having heard from my noble friend Lord Winston, I think “noteworthy” is a better word to use—but when the churches witness the depth and effect of what is going on, I think we should take heed. Acknowledging the scale of the problem is a necessary start to addressing it.
As we have heard, evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life put it starkly:
“The tone of modern political discourse permeates through society and normalises abusive and … aggressive language”.
As my noble friend Lord Harris said, the Met Police chief revealed that abuse of MPs is hitting unprecedented levels, with near-daily reports of crimes. It is not just MPs, as he also said. Our brilliant—and mostly unpaid and unsung—local councillors are in the firing line too, with worrying long-term consequences. If fewer start a political career there in local government because of abuse, our pool of talent and experience, from which we draw future MPs and Ministers, diminishes.
Perhaps more than this is what this toxicity means for our democratic systems and assumptions. A Daily Mirror poll showed that three-quarters of the public feel that the country is more divided than ever before, with four in five having lost faith in British politics. This arises from more than just the tenor of debate, of course, but our very language, the lack of respect for the other and simplistic promises of quick fixes for complex problems—described by my noble friend Lord Liddle—all diminish trust in the political class. Both sides lose: the politicians and their families at the receiving end of some of the vilest material I have seen, but also the public, for whom a stable political world—albeit with its democratic swings between parties—forms part of the comfort blanket of our “common life”; I think those were the words used by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester.
Political parties of left or right, which strive to represent their communities, heed problems, find solutions and act with honesty and integrity, are part of the fabric of life that gives people some grip over their futures, a say in how they are governed, some shared values and an understanding of how things can change. Politics has, as my noble friend Lady Morris said, improved life immensely and should have strengthened democracy.
However, of late we have witnessed, from activists seeking votes as well as from anonymous, unaccountable bloggers, in addition to the evidence-free assertions mentioned by my noble friend Lord Winston, a level of abuse, vehemence and spite that has undermined faith in politicians. That is the “danger to our democracy” in the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds.
As we have heard, female politicians are more often the target, with vile misogyny and sexual aggression displayed in horrific detail. For ethnic minority targets, the abuse is similarly distasteful, alarming and shocking, with particular fears for our Jewish community with its echoes of earlier and, we had thought, long-forgotten pogroms, or Kristallnacht, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Puttnam, whose film “Swastika” I recommend.
It behoves all of us—activists, Governments, parties, faith bodies, broadcasters, press and social media companies, as well as schools and universities—to face up to what is happening to public discourse, and examine our own role in it, even if it is simply by turning a blind eye or doubting its scale, and to prioritise action to end the harm. As my noble friend Lord Haskel reminded us, this is not just about what is said, but why it is said. What causes these feelings of alienation, of being dispossessed or marginalised? My noble friend Lord Parekh identified inequality. For my noble friend Lord Haskel, the hollowing out of the economy is a direct cause of the hollowing out of our politics and we will need a more equal distribution of wealth and of income so that people feel included. On this, we look to the Government to act.
More widely, though, on the question of language and tone, as my noble friend Lord Harris said, we must start by putting our own House and political parties in order—a plea with which I concur. More is needed from all of us. We should look to the Government to take a lead and use their influence, whether over education, electoral law, the BBC, company regulations in the digital world, police training or myriad other ways to get every part of our life to face up to the challenge facing us. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, quoted from A Tale of Two Cities, which is how this country sometimes feels. But I think of the longer quote:
“it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness”.
How well that former Hansard writer, Charles Dickens, somehow understood our century.
My noble friend Lord Harris reminded us how we all vowed “never again” after Jo Cox’s tragic death. But it will be never again only if each of us is willing to play our part in putting an end to the corrosive atmosphere that has invaded the political sphere. On that, I am sure the whole House would concur.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I have wound up many debates in my time but I find this the most difficult of all, not least because we have had some great speeches which it will be very difficult to match but also because some of the issues that we have been discussing—what sort of country we are, how our institutions are letting the country down and how our political parties are not working properly—have no easy answers. But noble Lords have been good enough to identify some ways forward, so let us have a go.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, was quite right to raise this serious issue, and I commend the speech that he made in introducing the debate. He made some very moving references to Jo Cox, also referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds and others. The noble Lord cares passionately about our democracy. He articulated the threats that he sees, including the loss of confidence in democratic institutions, and identified some potential solutions. One theme that has run through the debate is the need for strong political leadership—a point he mentioned with which I agree. That was picked up by others, including the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. He also mentioned the need for political parties to put their own house in order, and again I endorse what he said.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who participated in the debate with some very thoughtful and thought-provoking interventions. They discussed how best to restore confidence in the institutions of our country, asking how we can promote good conduct and healthy political debate, alongside respect for those with a different view—the tolerance that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, mentioned—and what both government and those of us in active politics can do as individuals to heal the divisions. A theme developed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and others was that it is not just up to the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, mentioned the importance of the language that we use, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds was, rightly, concerned about the normalisation of violence in our language.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to my noble friend Lord Bates—an unerringly friendly, courteous and popular Minister, who took stock of the vitriol, anger and intolerance in British politics and resigned, calling for reflection and change. He has decided to make his contribution by talking to people on his journey from Belfast to Brussels, to get a deeper insight into the current malaise and how we might restore national unity. We hope to hear from him on his return.
Picking up a theme from the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and others, next week I am going to do something which many noble Lords have done. I shall be addressing a masterclass for year 12 at a secondary school, where those representing different career options will be making their pitch to school leavers. Listening to the debate this afternoon has brought home to me the challenge of persuading teenagers to opt for elective office when there are so many other careers that offer greater job security, less media intrusion, less risk of personal harm, and better pay, and which enjoy higher prestige in the public eye—and there is not even an estate agent coming with whom I could compete on equal terms.
I also remember recently addressing a roomful of university students on the Upper Committee Corridor. They were in their last year of a politics course. At the end, I asked how many would consider becoming an MP. Not one hand went up—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, who talked about the difficulty of engaging. Yet I was struck by a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, made: never have young people had more reason to become engaged in public life and shape their future. We saw last month how strongly young people feel about climate change.
In fact, we have a good story to tell about politics and democracy. In many ways, becoming an MP is more attractive now than when I started 45 years ago. MPs have better working conditions in Portcullis House, more generous pay and realistic allowances, proper staff, civilised working hours and, through technology, an increased facility to communicate with their constituents.
My noble friend Lady Bottomley put in a broader context the violence in society and asked what was different this time. I shall certainly read the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, as she recommended, and I will come on to the theme of social media, which she touched on, in a moment.
As part of the response to the issues that have been raised, I will explain what the Government have tried to do to remove some of the barriers to public life, to mitigate online abuse—one of our themes today—to tackle hate crime and hate speech, to prevent parliamentary intimidation and to promote democratic engagement, and I shall answer some of the questions raised.
This is a timely debate because, over the weekend, the Government announced plans to safeguard our democracy, addressing the mounting need to protect public debate and the integrity of our elections. In recent years, we have witnessed rising levels of violence and abuse directed towards those taking part in that debate. This increased prevalence of intimidation in public life risks stopping talented people from standing for public service and putting voters off politics.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, mentioned the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life. It was asked by the Prime Minister to look at this very issue of the intimidation of parliamentary candidates, MPs and other public officeholders following the 2017 general election. It looked at the nature of intimidatory behaviour and considered what measures might protect the integrity of public service effectively, especially given the rise of social media. As I said, we published a response last weekend, entitled Protecting the Debate: Intimidation, Influence, and Information. Additionally, the Minister for the Constitution announced that the Government will legislate for a new electoral offence of intimidatory behaviour—a matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece. Those found guilty of intimidating a candidate or campaigner during the run-up to an election will be stripped of their right to run for elected office for five years.
Passions run high in politics and political debate, and it is right that we should care about how we govern or are governed. However, there is absolutely no excuse for anyone, no matter who they are, to threaten or abuse a candidate or campaigner whose views they do not agree with. Neither do individuals have the right to impose their views on others. I deplore, as others have done, the comments made about Jess Phillips by a UKIP candidate; that candidate’s feet would not have touched the floor had he been standing for any party represented in our debate today.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester raised the need for a conversation about national identity, asking questions about who we are, to try to fill the vacuum—the “dark place” referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. He referred to the hostile emotions that have filled that vacuum and then sketched out how it might be done. This theme was developed by my noble friend Lord Patten, who suggested the possibility of a forum which might do some lateral thinking to work out the agenda for a way ahead. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested a new role for the Government in reassuring minority groups—I would like to reflect on that—as well as the idea of a parliamentary committee looking at how outside bodies deal with the sort of conflicts that we have been wrestling with this afternoon.
Brexit was one of the themes that ran through our debate; a large number of noble Lords mentioned it. A referendum has the potential to set people against Parliament when the people vote for a proposition with which the majority of parliamentarians disagree, and are then frustrated—as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, mentioned—when three years later the result they voted for has not been delivered. We have seen a sort of polarisation of leave versus remain, which is beginning to replace the traditional right/left divisions that we have seen in our politics. The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, referred to the polarisation of a metropolitan elite on the one side and the rest of the country on the other.
I have reservations about referendums. I think it is legitimate to have a referendum to see whether Scotland or Northern Ireland wants to remain part of the UK, but I have reservations otherwise. I happen to believe that democracy is a conversation between people and Parliament, rather than a one-off instruction from one to the other. But, whatever one’s views, nothing can excuse the hatred and violence that we have recently witnessed.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds developed the themes by referring to the language of betrayal that has been used by some of those currently campaigning. I deplore the language that has been used—in some cases by my party—to talk about politicians. But the whole House welcomed the two memorable thoughts for the day offered by the two right reverend Prelates.
To the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Wallace, I say that we have had a look at electoral reform; we tried it but the public did not buy it, and I am not sure that it will happen in the near future. I was moved, as I am sure we all were, by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who spoke of the risk of the slippery slope—the drift—if we do not confront extremists. He reminded us how nationalism can get out of control. Yes, we will stand up for the values he described.
While we have been talking about the toxicity in public life, it struck me that the increasing levels of violence that we have mentioned extend beyond the walls of Westminster to the lives of councillors—as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, mentioned—and to hard-working teachers, nurses, doctors, judges and police and prison officers, who have also been targets and victims of toxicity and, in some cases, the intimidation and violence referred to in our debate today.
I was concerned to read in today’s Times, as I am sure were other noble Lords, that a number of MPs no longer feel secure walking across Westminster Bridge and are increasingly taking taxis. Noble Lords will have seen at times the aggressive behaviour of protesters during the recent Brexit debates. I looked out of the window of the Chief Whip’s Office this morning and saw a large placard saying, “Self-serving liars are destroying our nation”. Security arrangements at the Palace of Westminster are under constant review, and there is an ongoing police operation on the Parliamentary Estate as the debate on Brexit continues. The Metropolitan Police will do its best to balance the legitimate right to peaceful protest, but its members will deal robustly with incidents of harassment and intervene wherever they see or hear breaches of the law.
A number of noble Lords mentioned social media and the online harms White Paper, and talked about the abuse that takes place online and the damage it can do to people’s lives, careers and health. That is why we are taking action through the joint DCMS and Home Office online harms White Paper, which was welcomed by a number of noble Lords. We will establish a new statutory duty of care, as referred to by my noble friend Lady Bottomley, to make companies take more responsibility for the safety of their users and tackle harm caused by content or activity on their services. Compliance with that duty of care will be overseen and enforced by an independent regulator. As we debate these measures, there will be opportunities for noble Lords to add their own thoughts about how the legislation might be improved.
Accountability was a theme mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. Companies will be held to account for tackling a comprehensive set of online harms, including behaviours that may not be illegal but are none the less highly damaging to individuals or threaten our way of life in the United Kingdom. We expect that to include hate crime. We would also expect the regulator to include in a code of practice guidance to companies to outline what activity and material constitutes hateful content, content that may directly or indirectly cause harm to users—for example, in some cases of bullying or offensive material—and expectations around clear and accessible guidance to users on what constitutes hate crime and how to report it. We are consulting on the most appropriate powers for the regulator.
I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, made a good point, on the other side of the scales, in accentuating the positive benefits that can come from the intelligent use of information technology.
On fake news and state actors, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked why we did not have a toolkit such as the one that they have in Europe to deal with misinformation. In fact, the RESIST toolkit was launched last month to help communicators to spot and respond to disinformation. There is also a rapid response unit in the Cabinet Office to try to address disinformation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, asked what we are doing to educate schoolchildren. We are looking at critical thinking skills in schools and launched a secondary schools resource last year to raise awareness of democracy. However, focusing just on children is not enough; we must do more now, which is why we launched the RESIST toolkit, as well as an awareness campaign targeted at 18 to 24 year-olds to give them the tools that they need. However, all the evidence is that people still look to the news agencies and news websites and give greater credibility to them than news on social media.
I am conscious that I am not going to get through all the issues that have been raised, but I will say a word about hate crime, an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece. We are clear that hate crime and hate speech are completely unacceptable, that victims should be supported, and that those who commit these hateful attacks should feel the full force of the law. We are committed to upholding free speech, and legislation is in place to protect fundamental rights. However, this freedom cannot be an excuse to harm or to spread hatred. Current UK legislation values free speech and enables people who wish to engage in debate so to do, regardless of whether others agree with the views being expressed. Importantly, the law ensures that people are protected against criminal activity, including threatening, menacing or obscene behaviour, online and offline. In this way, we believe the law strikes the right balance between protecting citizens and protecting their right to expression.
I will say a word about Prime Minister’s Questions, an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winston—this will be a personal view. For many people, the weekly session of PMQs, which now lasts nearly twice as long as Standing Orders provide for, shapes their perception of politics. It is like Marmite. Some people love it—it is good box office, with at times some good one-liners worked up by spads and brisk exchanges on the issues of the day. For others, it is a poor advertisement for our democracy and our elected representatives, which switches many people off a career in public life and downgrades their faith in the democratic process. No one understands more than I do the passions that exist in the other place and the function of Prime Minister’s Questions as a sort of safety valve, but it could be a better advertisement for the political process if the context was less rowdy. I admire the way the Prime Minister handles this bear-pit with dignity, and I suspect it is not how she would prefer to conduct political discourse. I hope at some point it might be reset, retaining it as the forum of political debate but without the concomitant uproar.
Of course, the other place should never be like your Lordships’ House, where herbivores like me prefer our debates without the large decibel count, personal animosity or a binary approach to issues. We need to embody civility—a word raised by many during our debate. I agreed with what the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester said: this might be a better forum for addressing the issues we have been discussing than the other place. I cannot remember who complained about it, but there are fewer people in the upper House who read out prepared scripts from the Whips’ Office.
I thank all those who have taken part in the debate. We must all work together to protect, respect, and promote our democracy. I will share with ministerial colleagues the helpful suggestions that have been made, and I hope that, working together, we will create a better environment in which our democracy can thrive and in which we can all deliver on our collective responsibilities.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, it is customary on these occasions to say how grateful you are to everyone who contributed. I suspect that that is sometimes formulaic, but it has been a debate of profound content. Like my noble friend Lady Morris, I have gained something, learned something and been provoked into thinking about something by every single contribution we have heard. I am also grateful to the Minister for a response that at least attempted to cover the enormous breadth of issues raised during our discussion. He did so with his usual urbanity, courtesy and all the values that we have said are so important in our public life.
I want to make it clear that I brought forward this debate not because I think the problems we face are new. I very much take the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley. The first death threat I received as a public figure was almost 30 years ago. It was scrawled on the front of my house in black paint, and it was quite clear what the intent was. At the time, the police duly took a little note of it. A chief constable saw a photograph of it recently and said, “Oh, we’d take that very seriously these days”. I am sure that is very reassuring. The point is that this is not a new phenomenon, but the consensus from every speaker has been that it has got significantly worse and significantly more serious in recent years.
I think a consensus emerged that we want to see strong leadership—I prefer the word “better”—to confront and deal with these issues. Unfortunately, strong leadership begins to sound like the strong man or the strong woman; that is the antithesis of what we are looking for. But we do want leadership, and people who are prepared to build consensus and confront the unacceptable, rather than pretend it is not there or ignore it. The overwhelming feeling I got from the contributions today was that we cannot allow this to drift, because the drift could lead us to a very unacceptable and frightening place. Given the unanimity that has been expressed today, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion withdrawn.
Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) (Amendment) Bill
Thursday 9th May 2019
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) (Amendment) Act 2019 View all Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) (Amendment) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords who are taking part in this Second Reading debate. The Bill may be short and simple, but it is important because it deals with the legacy of that dark and uniquely evil period of European history in the last century—the Nazi era. Between 1933 and 1945, thousands upon thousands of works of art were stolen. At any time that would be shocking and scandalous, but it was far worse than that. This widespread seizure of cultural objects was part of a grotesque and systematic campaign by the Nazis to eliminate a whole race and culture.
Ten years ago, Parliament passed the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act, to allow national museums and galleries to return works of art and cultural objects confiscated during the Nazi era to those with a rightful claim to them. However, the original Act has a sunset clause and is due to expire this year. This Bill would remove the sunset clause so that the provisions of the Act can continue indefinitely. It does not introduce a new policy but seeks simply to remove a statutory barrier. The Bill has been passed by the House of Commons, and I pay tribute to my right honourable friend Theresa Villiers MP, who piloted it through the Commons so skilfully, smoothly and successfully.
It might be helpful if I explain what led to the passing of the original 2009 Act, and also how the current system operates. During the Nazi era, thousands of cultural objects, largely in Jewish ownership, were stolen. It is thought that as much as a fifth of Europe’s cultural treasures were lost. Many remain hidden. Some will have been destroyed. Some may never be found. Others have found their way into private collections, and some into public collections. The realisation that looted works of art might have been acquired by museums and galleries around the world led to the Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets in 1998, which agreed: first, the need to identify art which had been confiscated by the Nazis and not subsequently returned; secondly, the need to publicise this information; and, thirdly, the need for dispute resolution mechanisms for resolving ownership issues.
It appears that very little looted art found its way to the United Kingdom during and after the war. Unlike mainland Europe, where many hundreds of works of art have been returned to claimants over the years, very few looted paintings and other cultural objects have been discovered in British museums. Nevertheless, and quite rightly, our national museums began detailed research of their collections to identify objects with uncertain provenance between 1933 and 1945. This information has been made available to the public. However, there was a problem. Several national galleries and museums, which are statutory bodies, were prevented by their governing legislation from returning such objects. This is why the original Act was passed in 2009.
The Act allows the 17 national institutions listed in it to return items lost during the Nazi era where there is a legitimate claim. Claims are assessed by the Spoliation Advisory Panel, established in 2000. The panel’s recommendations are not binding but the museum or gallery concerned has always complied with the recommendations. Unfortunately, the 2009 Act included a sunset clause which means that, unless we pass the Bill now before your Lordships’ House, that Act will expire in November this year and the national institutions named in it will no longer be able to return works of art lost during the Nazi era to successful claimants. To stop the clock would be terrible.
Many potential claimants may still be unaware of the location of objects which had been in the possession of their families. It takes time for people to come forward with claims, and for national museums and galleries to research the provenance of items with an incomplete history. For anyone who doubts this, the figures tell the story. During the whole of its life, the Spoliation Advisory Panel has advised on only 20 claims and only 13 cultural objects have been returned. So this whole process takes time, which is precisely what this Bill provides.
There are many people—heroes—who have played a major part in the restitution of looted cultural property in Europe. I want to highlight just two. One is the late Baroness Warnock, who was a powerful advocate for the 2009 Act and a distinguished member of the Spoliation Advisory Panel. The other person I want to mention is the co-founder and co-chair of the Commission for Looted Art in Europe, Anne Webber. It is because of Anne’s tireless dedication and tenacity that so much has been achieved.
Finally, this legislation deals with works of art but the motivation behind it—the driving force—is less about material objects as such and more about ameliorating, as best we can, the suffering endured by so many families in this terrible period. Returning to families objects of great sentimental value has a deeply emotional impact. It can touch the very heart of a family. I believe that this Bill, short and simple though it may be, gives us all the opportunity to send a strong and powerful signal: that anti-Semitism and racism in all its forms must be fought in every corner of society. It is in this spirit that I commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne, for introducing this Second Reading. Of course I support the Bill and its aim, which is, as he said, to remove the sunset clause. We should consider why that clause was inserted in the first place. The suggestion that it be time limited was because by November 2019 there would be no need for the legislation on the basis that, so it was said, it would become harder for claimants to amass sufficient evidence to decide on the validity of a claim. Clearly, this optimism was incorrect, as shown by the ongoing evidence that claims will continue, albeit at a snail’s pace. The original owners of paintings and sculptures may well have died but the claims can be continued by their descendants. The noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne, was doubtful about the volume within UK institutions, but who knows?
I find it hard to get my head around how these cultural objects landed up in museums around the world. A speech in the other place said that,
“there is still uncertainty about the full provenance of some of the cultural treasures”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/2/19; col. 557.]
Surely before purchasing or accepting items as gifts, the worthy museums and galleries would have obtained detailed provenance for each item. This happens in the art world. If museums and galleries have such items, one gets the picture of a hole-in-the-corner deal, with conversations such as, “Are you in the market for a Botticelli?”. The answer is something like, “No, I can’t provide its history or provenance without including ‘looted by the Nazis in 1944’”. The legislation before us suggests that on display or in store, in museums and galleries, are items of stolen art gifted to the gallery, purchased from the thief or purchased by the vendor from the thief or his or her preowner.
This is a worldwide problem. Removing the sunset clause by the UK will serve as an example to other countries. France is considering the need for legal action to make possible deaccessioning—a dreadful word—of artworks looted by the Nazis that are in state museums. Deaccessioning is the process in which a work of art or other object is permanently removed from a museum’s collection. My question to the Minister is: should this further action be implemented or at least considered in the UK?
It is worth restating that the legislation before us is limited in scope and continues to seek, in some small way, to put right the wrongs done during an industrialised slaughter by the Nazi regime. We are considering this Bill in a disturbing climate of anti-Semitism worldwide, and the UK is also experiencing such an upsurge. This Bill is not going to curb anti-Semitism, but it may just help to right some wrongs.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, it is an enormous pleasure to support my noble friend introducing this Bill and to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. I draw the House’s attention to my declaration of interest, which relates to various Holocaust remembrance organisations that I belong to.
It would be churlish of me at this time, given the announcement made this week, not to thank the Government and the Minister here today for the additional support for the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre, which is due to be built outside the Houses of Parliament. We are particularly pleased to receive the endorsement of the Prime Minister, and the former Prime Ministers David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and John Major, in addition to the Leaders of the Houses of Lords and Commons, the all-party group, the Mayor of London, the London Assembly, the Chief Rabbi, the Dean of Westminster, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Jewish Leadership Council, the Association of Jewish Refugees, the Wiener Library, the National Holocaust Centre in Newark, the Imperial War Museum, the University of Huddersfield Holocaust Exhibition and Learning Centre, the Anne Frank Trust, the ’45 Aid Society, the Learning from the Righteous, the Holocaust Educational Trust, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, the Holocaust Survivors’ Centre in Hendon, the University College London Centre for Holocaust Education and the nine synagogues in Westminster City Council. That additional help is well received. We are particularly proud that the Design Council chose to feature the design of the memorial and learning centre at its headquarters recently.
I know there are some who say that it is the right idea, but the wrong place. Some may even believe that, but they are wrong: the place is the point. Outside this building is the natural place for it to be. It is close to where all important decisions on Britain’s involvement in the Holocaust were made—the good ones, the bad ones and those of complete indifference. It is my hope that when the memorial and learning centre is built, visitors will leave there and look towards this building and recognise that it is a bastion against tyrants. I hope, too, that when we look out at that memorial we will remember that, as legislators, we always have a choice: we can either protect civil liberties or oppress our citizens.
I turn to the Bill. What we know about the Nazis is that they were many things: they were murderers; they were psychopaths; they were bigots; they were racists and they were anti-Semites. But, fundamentally, the Nazis were thieves. They looted and plundered throughout Europe. They stole from citizens; they stole from states, and, because there is no honour among thieves, they stole from one another. Elie Wiesel pointed this out far more elegantly than me, saying that this was a process:
“They stole your living, they stole your belongings, they stole your individuality. And they tried to wipe you out. To wipe out the fact that you ever existed”.
Do not think for a moment that this was confined to a bunch of Nazis. Their loot from Jewish people was an important part of the economy in the years of the Second World War. That was how people got their fur coat, their bit of jewellery, a nice mirror and the like. What was not looted by your neighbours was often taken by the state and sold outside your house or at special sales. The very clothes of the poor victims of Babi Yar, who were stripped and laid in pits, were sold close to the execution site. Do not let anyone say that nobody knew about this.
If we were to announce that, henceforth, property rights would be determined by the Nazis’ Nuremberg laws, people would rightly be outraged, but that is what we have effectively done in large parts of the world by putting so many obstacles in the way of restitution of stolen property. Around the world, thousands of artefacts, properties and belongings remain in the wrong hands—in the hands of national collections, local authorities, museums and private individuals. People and communities are often very proud of their collections and may even be well meaning, but stolen property in the most benign and cultured hands is still theft. It is shocking that, even today, thousands of injustices remain uncorrected.
My noble friend talked about the Washington principles. I shall not repeat those, but one important aspect of them fits very well with this Bill and is about information. It is about families being able to search websites and to locate the property. This country has a proud record in this regard. It is true that there were not many such artefacts, but we managed to get them on a public list and were helpful in enabling people to find them within three months of the Washington declaration. This process continues. The Spoliation Advisory Panel has worked extraordinarily well, with 75% of all those claims coming from information supplied by British museums.
In June, I take over as the chair of the International Tracing Service, with its extensive records from the Holocaust and its aftermath housed in Bad Arolsen in Germany. One of the aims of the UK chairmanship will be to make it simpler for families to view and search records, but without this Bill all the searching can be done but that restitution cannot take place. The Bill is an important part of this process.
Those who think that we are gently winding down discovery of new loot should think again. I was in Bern, Switzerland, in 2017 and visited an exhibition which showcased the art from the home of Cornelius Gurlitt. His father, an art dealer, had sold what Hitler dismissed as “degenerate” art. At the time of its discovery in a Munich flat in 2012, leading figures in the German and Austrian art worlds asked: “What is the problem? Everybody knew about Gurlitt’s collection”. Yes, everybody did know, except for the families that it was stolen from. My noble friend spoke so well about the work of Anne Webber and the Commission for Looted Art in Europe, which has been on the side of these families seeking justice for a long time. Anne and her team have united families with their treasured items, from books to paintings which once had pride of place above the fireplaces of Jewish homes across Europe.
I will quote two short paragraphs from a selection of quotes on the meaning and importance of restitution written to the Commission for Looted Art in Europe by families for whom the commission has helped to recover Nazi-looted property. The first is:
“These books of our murdered grandmother which until now filled the shelves of that German library have seemingly turned from passive objects to be read into witnesses whose voice will be heard and treasured”.
Secondly:
“Of all the pictures in the collection we are particularly pleased that this one has been rediscovered. It was one of the favourites of our grandparents and our aunt remembers it hanging on the dining room wall of her childhood home. As a young child she always liked it so much and she is so happy that she has had the chance to see it hanging in the family home again”.
We need to remember that, whether it is a painting or a book or a porcelain jar, every object represents the life and lives of those who were lost. Their restitution restores a personal connection, a link with those lives so utterly transformed or destroyed by the Nazis.
I conclude with a quote from Primo Levi. I was a guest on “Desert Island Discs” a few years ago. Besides the luxury and the various discs, you get to choose a book. My choice was Primo Levi’s If This Is A Man. I have two editions, but it is the second one which I treasure most. It was a gift to me, signed by Holocaust survivors. Some of them have passed on, but I got to know many of them and to understand their bravery and determination. This book, and this quote, mean a lot to me. It starts:
“But consider what value, what meaning is enclosed even in the smallest of our daily habits, in the hundred possessions which even the poorest beggar owns: a handkerchief, an old letter, the photo of a cherished person. These things are part of us, almost like limbs of our body … the personification and evocation of our memories. Imagine now a man who is deprived of everyone he loves, and at the same time of his house, his habits, his clothes, in short, of everything he possesses: he will be a hollow man, reduced to suffering and needs, forgetful of dignity and restraint, for he who loses all often easily loses himself … It is not possible to sink lower than this; no human condition is more miserable than this, nor could it conceivably be so …They will even take away our name: and if we want to keep it, we will have to find ourselves the strength to do so, to manage somehow so that behind the name something of us, of us as we were, still remains”.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, this short, very welcome and deceptively straightforward Bill raises a host of ethical questions. We are in the middle of worldwide discussions about compensation and restitution for past injustices and deprivations. Let me make it clear that this Bill in no way opens up the sort of difficult questions that have recently been raised in Cambridge about the slave trade, or about the Elgin marbles. Those issues were raised when the original Bill was introduced 10 years ago, and settled in favour of restitution, although the number of works of art that have been returned to their rightful owners in the last 10 years is fairly low. Sadly, the work is far from done, although the original sunset clause was understandable. There are survivors, and there are possibly hundreds of thousands of looted works of art in question.
The checking of the provenance of a work of art with a wartime question over it is now routine. The display of a looted work of art is not so much a work of beauty as a reflection of the pain and suffering surrounding its looting, for the Holocaust was not only genocide but the greatest theft in history. The Government should be praised for using their good offices to ensure justice. Klimt’s stolen portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer, often known as “The Woman in Gold”, now on show in New York, has added lustre because it is shining legitimately. The restitution of these works of art is somewhat unusual, in that the restorer is not usually the wrongdoer but a museum that may have purchased the object in good faith—but it is symbolically important. The rightful owners or their near descendants are still alive, and it sends a message to this war-torn world that, if the enemy despoiler does his worst, nevertheless, in the end that wrong will be righted. Ancient treasures from Syria and Iraq are currently being sold: this is a warning.
My noble friend Lady O’Neill has written extensively on the topic of compensation and restitution. Although she wrote before the recent Cambridge exercise on slavery, she sensibly pointed out that it makes more sense to seek action to redress present disadvantage than to provide compensation for historic wrongs. This is different from restitution: restoring the situation that obtained before the wrong was done. It is important as a symbol, and, far from going back too far in time to what some might regard as a closed episode, the looting in the Middle East today reminds us of the importance attached to a people’s art works and the part they play in the pride and in the continuation of the history of a nation.
In another way, too, this is unfinished business. What about the real property looted during the Nazi era, most of which is situated and identifiable within EU countries—not here, of course? The Terezin declaration, to which this country is a party, called on those countries that have not yet made restitution to do so along the lines of the declaration. The most egregious offender is Poland, squatting on the property of 3 million victims of the Nazis—the only country in modern Europe to refuse to set up a scheme for compensation, presenting yet another example of Poland’s cavalier attitude to the rule of law and European obligations. The European Parliament, the American Congress and British parliamentarians have urged Poland to do justice—so far to no avail. Indeed, racism is rising across Europe and, sadly, to spend £105 million on a Holocaust memorial—something like the sixth in this country, in the wrong place, which does not speak to the heart—will not stop anti-Semitism. It is a sad state of affairs to see it politicised.
Democracy, as we have seen, does not stop genocide. Genocide is due more to religious and ethnic hatred—and that we see on the rise across Europe, where there is democracy and there are many memorials. The more memorials we build, it seems, the more anti-Semitism rises. We need to think afresh about the causes of this hatred. This Bill is the right way forward and a credit to the United Kingdom. I hope that it also serves, first, to encourage our Government to put pressure on Poland to restore stolen property; and, secondly, as a warning to those who are looting historical objects in war zones today.
Lord Wasserman (Con)
My Lords, I too commend my noble friend Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury for agreeing to steer this short but important Bill through your Lordships’ House.
I do not know about other noble Lords, but I have found that there tends to be an inverse relationship between the length of the Bills we have been asked to consider and their effects. Or is it simply that my perception of these matters has been influenced too much by the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which, as noble Lords will recall, occupied this House for 160 hours and 44 minutes without, as far as I can tell, having any effect on our long-term relationship with the European Union?
This Bill, per contra, although it consists of only one short substantive clause, will, when it passes into law, as I hope it will do very soon, make an enormous difference to a large number of people, not only in the European Union but throughout the world. As my noble friend Lord Sherbourne has already pointed out in his excellent introduction, there are many ways in which this short Bill will make a difference; some of them are practical, while others are symbolic or presentational. We have already heard from my noble friend how the Bill will send a message to the whole world that this House, and indeed this country, believe strongly that there can never be a statute of limitation on Holocaust crimes—not 10 years, 20 years or 50 years. We will never forget or forgive those responsible for the Holocaust, and we will remember them not only by building memorials to their victims and learning centres to tell the story of their atrocities, but by ensuring that no one ever benefits from their activities, even when these benefits are enjoyed by the public at large through national and local galleries and museums around the world.
If for no other reason but this symbolic one, I believe that the Bill deserves to be passed into law as quickly as possible. But there are also significant practical reasons why we must get it passed into law quickly, and I will discuss them briefly now. Before I do so, however, I must make it clear that before I began preparing for this debate, I knew very little about these matters. However, in the last few days, I have had the benefit of a tutorial from an old friend, Laurie Stein, who happens to be one of a handful of world experts in this field. It is the full-time job of these experts, who work for museums, galleries and private clients around the world, to research the provenance of pictures and other cultural objects which are the subject of claims that they were looted, stolen or otherwise illegitimately taken from their rightful owners during the Nazi regime. I am grateful to Ms Stein for helping me to understand why and how the Bill would make a very significant practical difference to the valuable work which she and others are doing to ensure that cultural objects which were taken illegitimately from innocent Jews and others during the Nazi regime are returned to their rightful owners.
First, although it may be difficult to believe, as some noble Lords have already mentioned, new claims concerning objects stolen and looted by the Nazis are emerging in various parts of the world even now, more than 70 years after the defeat of the Nazis. Even experts like Laurie Stein have been surprised by this. They thought that the flow of contested objects seized by the Nazis would have dried up years ago. But, as I now understand, there are many good reasons why new claims are still being filed. One of these is the fact that only recently have large collections of personal files about victims of the Nazis, held in restitution and compensation offices in Germany and elsewhere, been opened to the public. I understand that these files, which had previously been closed for privacy reasons, contain masses of invaluable information about property seized illegitimately from the victims.
In other cases, the disappearance of family treasures in the 1930s and 1940s was simply unknown to the present generation of family members. Such a situation was the subject of a very moving article in the Jewish Chronicle of 26 April. In it, the granddaughter of noted French art dealer and collector René Gimpel, from whom a collection of major paintings was seized by the Vichy Government during the Second World War—it is now displayed in galleries owned and operated by the present French Government—wrote that he only learned what happened to his grandfather’s collection,
“10 years ago, when a US lawyer working on cases of Second World War spoliation contacted me saying that he keeps finding evidence of paintings stolen from my grandfather. After the war, the family wanted to move on and rebuild itself after the trauma. Like other Jews, they were advised to stop talking about what they’d lost if they wanted to become regular citizens again. I wasn’t even told I was Jewish”.
That is a moving story happening right now.
The other reason why an arbitrary cut-off date for filing claims is inappropriate is that judging claims about disputed objects is very difficult. Although there are many who would like to see these issues in black and white terms, I am assured by Ms Stein that 95% of the evidence adduced for supporting claims about objects seized or looted during the Nazi regime falls into the grey area between black and white and requires meticulous research and a good deal of international travel to ensure that both sides to any claim are treated fairly and justly. It should not surprise anyone to know that such research takes a great deal of time and cannot be rushed to meet arbitrary time limits.
It may be difficult for some people to accept, but the truth is that not every object which might have been in Jewish ownership in Germany, France, Austria or a number of other countries controlled by the Nazis was seized or looted or taken illegitimately. Some were disposed of by their owners for a variety of innocent reasons, reached their present homes entirely legitimately and should be allowed to remain there.
What we must not do is create fresh injustices in an effort to remedy old ones. That is why we must not set arbitrary limits on the time allowed to complete this research. Such limits are unnecessary and inimical to the search for justice. Although this is not relevant to the Bill before us, I want to put on record Ms Stein’s view that the UK’s Spoliation Advisory Panel, which adjudicates on disputed claims, is seen by the experts in this field as a model for how these matters should be handled.
I have gone on long enough. I hope that I have made my point that there are important practical and symbolic reasons why this small Bill should find its way on to the statute book as soon as possible. Although it consists of only one substantive clause, the implications of the Bill for those who seek justice for extraordinary wrongs are immense and will be welcomed as such around the world.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Sherbourne for his leadership and sponsorship of the Bill. In so doing, I also pay tribute to Theresa Villiers. I knew her as an MEP, an MP and a Secretary of State. She is my friend and did an immense job on the Bill. I read carefully the debate of 27 February in the other place. The Bill has wide-ranging support and rightly unites people across the political spectrum. I note what was said at the time regarding the inclusion of the sunset clause although, like the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, if I am totally honest, I am not entirely clear why it was included in the original Bill in 2009. Perhaps the verse in Exodus which says that if you take your neighbour’s cloak, as a pledge, you must return it by sunset, played a part.
I would perhaps cite a different verse from Deuteronomy, where there is a specific biblical imperative of returning lost articles with no time limit. Putting a time limit on the delivery of justice because it may be difficult to provide relevant evidence to prove claims is not, I maintain, a good argument for maintaining the sunset clause. I therefore entirely agree with the essence of the Bill.
Last week was Yom HaShoah, Holocaust Remembrance Day in the Hebrew calendar. As it is every year, it was commemorated at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem. I noted the speech of Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel. He spoke out about the heroism of the many people who saved others in that dark, dark time in history. However, he also spoke about the shooting in the Chabad synagogue in San Diego and the shameful anti-Semitic cartoon published two days earlier in the New York Times. Noble Lords who have visited Yad Vashem will no doubt recall displays in the early section of the museum of, sadly, very similar cartoons from the 1930s. We are in danger of watching history repeat itself, which is why we should not put time limits on the ability to seek justice.
That is why I am honoured to be a trustee of the Holocaust Memorial Charitable Trust. I pay tribute to David Cameron and Theresa May for their outstanding leadership in ensuring that the UK finally has the national Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre just next door—a project ably led by Ed Balls and my noble friend Lord Pickles. Clearly, it was not politicised. If the House will allow it, I want to put on public record that no one has done, continues to do and, I guess, will do in the future more for the issues that concern the Jewish community than my noble friend Lord Pickles. Again, for those who have been to Yad Vashem, there is nothing more powerful than the rows of trees in the Avenue of the Righteous, where each tree represents a righteous gentile who stood up to be counted and saved fellow human beings who were Jewish, at huge risk to themselves and their families. I cannot possibly begin to list the things my noble friend has done and continues to do but, today, I hope he will permit me to call him my noble and righteous friend.
As has been said, the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre next door will act as a constant reminder of the unique responsibilities of politicians. Some argue that the structure could encourage more anti-Semitism, but it is precisely that argument that proves we need it urgently. Does the Minister agree that the Bill is timely as it sets no time limit for the rectification of wrong? In the same way, does he agree that it is timely for the Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre to be a focal point at the heart of our democracy and, to quote the Prime Minister, to be a memorial that,
“will stand to preserve the truth forever”?
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I also thank the sponsors of the Bill, as well as those of the original Act.
In addressing the Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets just over 20 years ago, the then US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, thanked the then British Foreign Secretary, the sadly late Robin Cook, and the British Government for having convened the landmark 1997 London Conference on Nazi Gold. The UK can take some pride in its leading role in Holocaust restitution and its recognition of the need to maintain that lead. In 1998, Madeleine Albright talked about the “overarching imperatives” driving the work of Holocaust restitution: justice, openness and that,
“the obligation to seek truth and act on it is not the burden of some, but of all; it is universal”.
That is why I am speaking in this debate, having no material or family interest in the subject but a strong interest in the universal upholding of truth, justice and respect.
At the second London conference in 2017, organised by DCMS and sponsored by the Commission for Looted Art in Europe, the very welcome aim of extending the timeframe for the 2009 Act was announced. As the then director of the Tate, Sir Nicholas Serota, said,
“there is a strong moral case to remove the ‘sunset’ clause … It is important that potential claimants should not feel that the door is being slammed in their face”.
I join other noble Lords who are somewhat puzzled by the original justification for the sunset clause because it is pretty thin. My noble friend Lord Palmer cited the problem of evidence deteriorating over the years. While that is true, it is not a terribly good reason. I therefore agree with other noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Polak and Lord Wasserman.
I also strongly agree with David Lewis who, as co-chair of the Commission for Looted Art in Europe, said in 2017:
“It is, in our view, totally unacceptable that such matters as statutes of limitation and other legal restraints continue to impede restitution”.
Hence, I strongly support this Bill.
Mention has been made of Anne Webber, another co-chair of the Commission for Looted Art in Europe. She told the 2017 London conference:
“Although many of the Holocaust survivors are now passing away, their children and heirs still urgently seek the transparency, accountability and justice that was promised”.
Of course, the word “justice” crops up frequently.
I got a little involved in the topic of Holocaust restitution by other EU countries when I was an MEP for London, trying to assist constituents in dealing with Governments and institutions in other EU countries. In my case it largely involved dealing with the countries of central and eastern Europe, which around 2004 were newly acceding to the EU. There the issue was somewhat complicated by the post-war communist nationalisation and reallocation of property but, even so, a considerable smokescreen and lack of will was unfortunately evident.
Mr David Lewis, whom I have just quoted, after noting that he was often asked why it had taken so many decades for this matter to be addressed, said that,
“it is a sombre fact that in a high proportion of those countries”,
which attended the 1998 Washington conference,
“little progress has been made since”.
Some effort has been made by the EU to advance matters, but not enough. In 2009, some 47 countries, including all 28 EU member states, came together to support the Terezin Declaration to accelerate restitution, and the following year 43 countries endorsed a set of guidelines and best practices. However, many countries are not on track. One could cite Croatia and Latvia, where the relevant legislation has been delayed, while in Romania the processing of claims and payments has been extremely slow. In Hungary the discussions continue and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, Poland sadly has one of the worst records on the restitution of private property and has even backtracked on some of the commitments made at the 2009 Terezin conference. In 2009 I wrote in response to a constituent saying:
“The European Union has done little to push this matter on the grounds that property issues are a national responsibility, but personally I feel that it is a human rights matter which merits EU action”.
A few months ago a European Parliament resolution noted how litigants continue to encounter legal problems owing inter alia to expiration of post-war restitution laws, the non-retroactivity of conventional norms—I guess that means laws—the lack of any definition of “looted art”, statute of limitations provisions on claims or the provisions on adverse possession and good faith; that is, good faith on the part of the new owner. However, as my noble friend Lord Palmer mentioned, that can be assessed. The Parliament urged the European Commission to create a comprehensive database of looted art, including Holocaust objects, and the status of existing claims, and to support provenance research, including financially.
Perhaps in conclusion the Minister could tell us about the scope for better pan-European co-operation in encouraging the location of looted property and the unblocking of delays and obstacles. If we stay in the EU, no doubt the UK will be better placed to urge a greater sense of action and responsibility throughout the EU.
I conclude with another quote from Madeleine Albright, all too relevant today as we see examples of hate and hostility, including anti-Semitism, worryingly on the rise:
“I think of the blood that is in my family veins. Does it matter what kind of blood it is? It shouldn’t; it is just blood that does its job. But it mattered to Hitler and that matters to us all; because that is why 6 million Jews died”.
As the Holocaust cries out to us, we must never allow distinctions among the peoples of the world to obscure the common humanity that binds us all as people. Restitution of Holocaust-era assets is about much more than gold, art and insurance. It is about remembering that no one’s blood is less or more precious than our own.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I am privileged to speak in this debate and grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury, for making it possible for us to have it. I have listened carefully to all the contributions and have sensed the reasoning and the passion that, combined, make such a strong case to move this Bill forward.
I approached this exercise thinking that, as a garrulous Welshman, this was going to be the shortest speech I would ever make. After all, a Bill became an Act in 2009. It has proven itself over 10 years and has shown that the sunset clause was a mistake. I attribute no ill will to those who included it. This was a new Bill going in a new direction, and now we are looking at it and seeing if we cannot make it go in that direction for a long time more, so we should not attribute bad thinking to those who inserted the sunset clause and we should be delighted to see it removed. Indeed, since it was during a Labour Administration that this Bill came on to the statue book and Andrew Dismore was a sitting Member of Parliament at that time, and in view of recent controversies and anxieties, I say with all the energy and depth of passion I can that if getting this Bill on to the statute book contributes in even the smallest way towards healing wounds and reminding us all of our responsibilities to each other, I want it to happen for that reason alone—however minute that contribution might be.
So here we are with a very short Bill that has worked, alongside which these ways of evaluating claims have been inserted. Yes, it is a small number of cases—there may well be more—but it makes sense that what has worked and is seen to be morally right should be given the go-ahead, the green light, to continue into the hereafter.
My house was burgled once; somebody came in and stole stuff. He took money, and we could not give tuppence about that, but he also took my wife’s engagement ring, which had been a gift from her grandmother, and her grandmother’s brooch, within which there were two little cameo pictures of her and her husband when they were young—irreplaceable. Alongside the stories of the great works of art and treasures, which command their own logic and evidence, we must not forget that what particularly violates those from whom objects are taken is the loss of the personal items, the things that matter for everyday living, family memories and things like that. It is the great and the small. It is the mere act of violation that we need to do whatever we can to offer restitution to.
I said that this should have been the shortest speech, and perhaps that is where I should finish, but there is one thing that I feel I must say. I buy into the thinking of the noble Lords, Lord Polak and Lord Pickles, about the monument. But in the name of frankness, I have to say that it is the right idea in the wrong place. I could not sit through the debate and not say that. I will offer some words of explanation.
Pretty much exactly 50 years ago, I left these shores to travel and spend the first of my 10 years in Haiti. My experience there changed my life and my understanding of life in its entirety. I became aware of the evils of the slave trade. I am so pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, mentioned that. Millions of people taken from the western shores of Africa to end up in what was called the New World lost their lives, were forced into slavery and had no possessions that could be stolen, except their liberty and energy. It was this building that fathered the debates that led to the end of slavery in the British Empire. If the University of Cambridge is looking at the sources of its wealth, let anyone do an inventory of the wealth of this nation that depended on the deprivation of liberty of those slaves.
The plight of people shipped against their will— 150 years’ worth—tearing them from their families and leaving them to die in foreign territory has remained on my mind. Is the argument that the right place for the atrocities of the 1930s and 1940s is alongside the building within which those debates took place? I see a questioning look from the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, but I thought I heard him say that it should be alongside Parliament.
Lord Pickles
The noble Lord is most generous and I was enjoying and have a lot of sympathy with what he was saying. That is why I said that people within this building—the legislatures—have a choice. They can either oppress or protect. During the 19th century, they chose to oppress. That is why it is important because we must always be vigilant. It was, after all, a compliant legislature that introduced the Nuremberg laws. That is why I deliberately said that there was a choice.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port
I am grateful for that. Choices were made within this Parliament about the plight of slaves. Therefore, a monument could possibly be built to talk about the deprivations, destitution and suffering of slaves, but there is not room for two such monuments in the same place. That is all I am saying. I really do not want to be heard as having one iota of opposition to the idea, but I felt it incumbent on me, since I feel it in my deepest heart, to say that I suspect that I would side with those who feel that this is not the right place.
As far as the Bill is concerned, we must pass it and do so with good will, and hope that it has some of the outcomes and effects that have been hinted at from the speeches we have heard from the Floor of this House today.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, I have listened with great interest to the discussion on this important Bill, introduced by my noble friend Lord Sherbourne, and I speak on behalf of the Government in support of it today. Yes, it is a short Bill, but I have a bit to say about it.
I join my noble friend and other noble Lords in congratulating my right honourable friend Theresa Villiers and many others in the other place on enabling the Bill to reach this point. It enjoyed strong cross-party support in that place. I trust that your Lordships will agree that, as my noble friend Lord Polak said, the issue that the Bill seeks to address cuts across all political and other divides and unites us in our determination to bring justice to the families of those who suffered persecution and loss.
The widespread and systematic seizure of cultural property in territories occupied by, or under the control of, the Nazis and their allies has, for over half a century, been recognised in international declarations as warranting particular recognition and deserving special treatment. The scale of forced transfer of cultural property under the Nazi regime was unprecedented. Figures regarding the scale of the loss can be only speculative. However, it has been estimated that between 1933 and 1945 some 650,000 works of art were stolen from their rightful owners. Although the majority of these were not of museum quality, a small number found their way into national collections across Europe.
Most of what was taken were paintings of the type owned by successful, but perhaps not extremely wealthy, families, domestic silver and household artefacts, and books and religious items. We hear a lot about Old Masters and similar prized works of art seized from the wealthiest collectors or most successful dealers, but in fact they make up only a fraction of the numerically more significant theft.
Such was the scale of the looting that took place that, as early as 1943, 16 countries, including the UK, signed a declaration committing them to do everything in their power to halt the theft of cultural objects in territory under enemy occupation or control. In that same year, the allies established the Monuments, Fine Arts, and Archives programme to help protect cultural property in war areas during and after World War II. A group of approximately 400 service members and civilians, mostly from the US and the UK, came to be known as the Monuments Men, as your Lordships will remember, and they were based at the National Gallery of Art in Washington DC. They worked with military forces to safeguard historic and cultural monuments from war damage and, as the conflict came to a close, to find and return works of art and other items of cultural importance that had been stolen by the Nazis or hidden for safekeeping. My noble friend Lord Pickles emphasised that, in addition to their terrible crimes, the Nazis were involved in systematic theft, or perhaps we should call it systemic theft. He is right.
For almost 50 years after World War II, as people focused on rebuilding their lives, the implications of the loss of cultural assets received little attention from the international community. Little research was done and claimants were left to continue their search alone. However, with the end of the Cold War, new archival sources became available and the subject of Nazi-looted art was given new attention. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked about co-operation and I will say a little about that.
In more recent times, international awareness has continued to grow. The 1998 Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets saw a consensus reached on a number of non-binding principles with respect to Nazi-confiscated art. These principles highlighted the need to identify art that had been confiscated by the Nazis and not subsequently restituted, to publicise this information and to encourage the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for resolving ownership disputes. The conference recognised the need to reach a fair and just solution in such cases.
Compared with other European countries, very little looted art found its way to the UK during and after the end of World War II. Of course, that is no excuse for complacency, and since then our national museums have undertaken detailed research of their respective collections to identify any objects with an uncertain history dating back to the years 1933 to 1945. This research is held on a recently upgraded online database, which is actively maintained by editors from the 47 contributing UK museums, and it is co-ordinated by the Collections Trust.
National museum directors also established a working group in 1998 to examine the issues surrounding the spoliation of art during the Nazi era and to draw up a statement of principles and proposed actions for member institutions. That has recently been updated. In 2000, the Government established the Spoliation Advisory Panel to provide advice to claimants and institutions on what might be a fair and reasonable outcome in response to a claim. Since its establishment, the panel has advised on 20 claims, and 13 cultural objects have been returned. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, that is indeed a low figure. The resolving of a dispute is never an easy matter and, by its nature, the process invariably leaves one of the parties disappointed. Despite that, the Spoliation Advisory Panel’s advice and method of operation is widely respected here and internationally, and I would like to thank the members of the panel for their excellent work.
As we have heard, in its early years, the Spoliation Advisory Panel was unable to recommend the return of a cultural object, even where it found that the family had a strong moral claim to it. This was because of statutory restrictions preventing national museums from removing items from their collections except in a very small number of instances. In such cases, the panel’s only available option at that time was to recommend compensation or an ex-gratia payment.
The Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act 2009 allows 17 national institutions in the UK to return items lost during the Nazi era where this follows a recommendation by the panel and the Secretary of State agrees. The legislation recognised the fact that the Nazi era is unique in the scale and nature of the loss and the fact that it represented a systematic campaign to eradicate a whole people and their culture. The 2009 legislation was subject to exacting scrutiny and was significantly amended and clarified during its passage through Parliament. It is compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998.
Since the Act was introduced, five cultural objects have been returned under the legislation. It represents a major change in the way that claims for items in national collections are resolved, and allows the families of those who were unfairly deprived of their property to have it returned. It is not difficult to imagine how important that can be for the families; the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, spoke about this. There is no comfort that can be given for the loss of family members and the knowledge of their suffering, but the return of personal possessions, of which artwork is just one form, can offer some small connection and personal bond with those who perished.
I listened with care to the short anecdotes from my noble friend Lord Pickles. I would like to offer a quote from a family who successfully recovered some paintings lost during the war. It is not, by the way, related to a case considered by the Spoliation Advisory Panel, but it illustrates the point well:
“The return of our family’s paintings continues to fascinate, shock, elate, sadden, enrich and change our lives. It is hard to express how much this means to us”.
It may also be helpful if I provide a short case study on how the 2009 Act has been used in one of the five cases that I mentioned. In 2014, the Spoliation Advisory Panel considered a claim for the return of an oil painting, “Beaching a Boat, Brighton”, by no less a man than John Constable, in the possession of the Tate. The panel concluded that the painting was owned by a Hungarian art collector in 1944 and was most likely looted when the German army invaded Budapest in March of that year. In their statement of case to the panel, the claimants described how the painting was of particular significance to their family from a sentimental and emotional point of view. It was reported that the original owner and his family had,
“suffered grievously during the German and Soviet occupations of Hungary; they lost all their possessions, while several members of the family were subjected to acts of violence because of their Jewish ancestry. Some family members were murdered in Hungary by antisemites or murdered in Auschwitz-Birkenau … The restitution of the Painting would thus constitute a significant act of symbolic reparation to the family for the sufferings it was forced to endure during the war because of its Jewish origin”.
The panel recommended that the painting should be returned to the claimants in accordance with the provisions of the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Act 2009. The return of the painting was delayed to allow the carrying out of further research following the discovery of an export licence for the work from 1946. However, in 2015, the panel issued a further report, updating its earlier advice and confirming that the work should be returned. The painting has since been returned to the claimants.
The problem that the Bill seeks to correct is that the 2009 Act contains a sunset clause, which means that the legal powers are due to expire on 11 November this year. After that date, the institutions named in the legislation will no longer be able to return works of art to Holocaust survivors or to the families of those who perished in the genocide. The Bill would keep the legislation on the statute book by repealing Section 4(7), thus removing the sunset clause, as many noble Lords have said.
At the time of the 2009 Act, the Government considered that a time limit of 10 years would be a reasonable one for people to come forward with claims and for museums to have made significant progress in carrying out provenance research on works with gaps in their history during the Nazi era. It was described in Parliament as a safeguard allowing for a re-examination of the case. The Government made it clear at an international spoliation conference held in London in September 2017 that it remains an absolute imperative to correct the wrongs that took place during the Nazi era when it comes to cultural objects lost in such circumstances. This principle is not affected by the passage of time; arguably, the need is strengthened as memories start to fade.
Furthermore, although much information is available on the internet about the provenance of items in national collections, the completion of reports by national institutions into items with incomplete provenance during the relevant period is an ongoing task. As such, potential claimants may still be unaware of the location of any objects that used to be in the possession of their families. This was a strong and moving theme raised in the speech by my noble friend Lord Wasserman.
It is also worth bearing in mind that, owing to limitation laws, claimants are unlikely to be able to pursue a legal claim for the return of their property through the courts. That is because the Limitation Act 1939 extinguishes the title of the person from whom an object was unlawfully taken after six years. Referral to the Spoliation Advisory Panel is, in nearly all cases, the sole remaining route for pursuing the return of objects lost during the Nazi era. So I think we can be clear that while the approach taken at the time to the duration of the powers was reasonable, there are now very good reasons for applying an indefinite extension, and I reassure my noble friend Lord Polak that “indefinite” means just that.
The 2009 Act has worked well during its nine years on the statute book, resolving cases in a fair and balanced way, but, as we have heard, there is still much work to do. Earlier this year the Government announced that they had joined four European countries in forming a new network to increase international co-operation on identifying and returning works of art looted during the Nazi era, a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, might take note of. Those countries—Germany, France, Austria and the Netherlands—have not set an end date for the consideration of claims, and I hope this House will agree that there are very good reasons why we should do the same.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, asked what due diligence procedures museums normally follow. He may know that museums are required to undertake due diligence into the provenance of items that they acquire or borrow. DCMS’s guidelines, Combating Illicit Trade: Due Diligence Guidelines for Museums, Libraries and Archives on Collecting and Borrowing Cultural Material, which I think is a pamphlet, set out guidance on procedures that should be followed in relation to loans and acquisitions. Due diligence undertaken by museums may include visits to the lender to discuss the objects concerned, taking expert advice on any items that have a potentially uncertain ethical status, checks with the Art Loss Register and obtaining warranties from lenders regarding their ownership of the items concerned.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked why the decision was taken in 2009 to undertake a sunset clause. I have probably answered that but I will say that at the time, the 10-year limit was considered to be right, bearing in mind the time of its coming into force—that is, 69 to 70 years from the end of the war in Europe. It was thought that that would be a reasonable time for people to come forward with claims. Clearly, that was not the case, and I am pleased again to emphasise that we have made the time period indefinite.
I conclude by making a few comments about the Holocaust Memorial, as it was mentioned by my noble friends Lord Polak and Lord Pickles and the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths. As the House will know, the UK Holocaust Memorial will be dedicated to the 6 million Jewish men, women and children murdered in the Holocaust, and all other victims of the Nazis and their collaborators. It will honour and remember all victims and survivors of the Holocaust and subsequent genocides, and educate future generations on the importance of fighting prejudice and persecution in all its forms.
To give just a little bit of background, the designs were first unveiled in October 2017 and have since undergone further development through much discussion with Holocaust experts, survivors and other victims groups, local residents, Westminster City Council, Historic England, Royal Parks and other statutory consultees. The UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation has also worked closely with other organisations and experts on the contents and approach. I believe that the proposals have been developed with great sensitivity to the existing context and character of Victoria Tower Gardens. The vast majority of the park’s green space will be retained and enhanced. Views over Parliament and the River Thames will be improved, with a range of accessible seating and a new boardwalk along the Embankment. I realise that this particular news is not in favour with everybody, but I wanted to give a little bit of information and detail.
That is really all I want to say. I therefore urge the House to support the Bill.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury
My Lords, this has been a remarkable debate. The Bill is very timely. The debate has been relatively short, but it has brought forward remarkable speeches of knowledge, expertise and, above all, passion. Every speech has made the same point: although the Bill’s title is about objects, its purpose is about people. That is the Bill’s driving force.
This has also been a very heartening debate, because in these political times the whole House has been united. We have had the same view across all parts of the House. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend the Minister for giving such a comprehensive response and for assuring us of the Government’s support. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, quite rightly reminded us that the original Act and the Bill have had all-party support, backed by the Labour Government 10 years ago and by the present Conservative Government. It is a very heartening experience to have this uniformity and consensus.
I am very grateful to all speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, was extremely helpful in reminding us of the importance of museums and galleries, and their responsibility to determine and assess the provenance of the objects in their possession. My noble friend Lord Pickles, in a very powerful and emotional speech—I know how heavily involved he is in so many ways—gave some vivid and powerful examples of the impact that the return of property has for the descendants of families who suffered so much. This is again a reminder of what the Bill is really all about. He reminded us how much objects mean to families.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, raised some wide issues, especially regarding the international arena. She reminded us of Poland’s woeful record and how it is completely out of step with the international community in dealing with the challenges of restitution. My noble friend Lord Polak typically graced his speech with some apposite quotations from the Bible. He again dealt with the emotional impact of the Bill’s effects. My noble friend Lord Wasserman told us how important it is to have the time the Bill provides for, because it does take time for families to come forward with claims, for claims to be assessed and for museums to determine the provenance.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, who made a characteristically detailed and clear speech; I particularly liked her quotes from Madeleine Albright, which I thought were extremely well made. I am grateful to everyone who spoke in the debate, and now just want to make an appeal to my noble friend the Chief Whip. The Bill has to be passed this Session, or the legislation falls. It is very important that we have time. I am very encouraged by the widespread support for the Bill, and hope this means that it will get through smoothly and speedily. It is in that spirit that I ask the House to support this Bill by giving it a Second Reading.
Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Regulations laid before the House on 5 April be approved.
Special attention drawn to the instrument by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 58th Report
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I will speak also to the Chemical Weapons (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, the Republic of Belarus (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the Zimbabwe (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Noble Lords will be familiar with the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, which passed through this House last year. It provides the UK with the legislative framework to continue to meet our international obligations, to implement autonomous sanctions regimes and to update our anti-money laundering framework after we leave the European Union—although the last of these is not under consideration today.
Noble Lords will be aware of the importance of sanctions. They are a key element of our approach to our most important international priorities. They help defend our national interests, support our foreign policy and protect national security. They also demonstrate our support for the rules-based international order. The United Kingdom has been a leading contributor to the development of multilateral sanctions in recent years. We have been particularly influential in guiding the EU’s approach and that is why, when we transition the EU sanctions regimes into UK law, we intend to carry over their policy effect. I shall say more about that in a moment.
The principal interests and threats facing the UK and the other EU member states will not fundamentally change when the UK leaves the EU. The Government recognise sanctions as a multilateral foreign policy tool and intend to continue to work in close partnership with the EU and other international partners after EU exit to address those threats, including through sanctions. The SAMLA 2018 was the first major legislative step in creating an independent UK sanctions framework. However, while the Act set out the framework needed to impose our own independent sanctions, we still require statutory instruments to set out the detail of each sanctions regime within that framework.
Such statutory instruments set out the purposes of our regimes, the criteria under which the Secretary of State may designate individuals and entities, and the types of restrictive measures imposed. They do not specify which individuals or entities will be sanctioned. The Government will publish the list of those we are sanctioning under UK legislation when those prohibitions come into force. We will seek to transfer EU designations in each case, but these decisions will be subject to the legal tests in the sanctions Act. Any EU listings that do not meet the tests would not be implemented.
One important feature of the sanctions Act, which I am sure noble Lords recall, was passed in your Lordships’ House and discussed in detail during its passage: the right given to individuals to challenge their designation. Anyone designated under these instruments will be able to request that the Minister carry out an administrative review of their designation. The procedure applicable to such requests for reviews is set out in the Sanctions Review Procedure (EU Exit) Regulations, which were made in November last year and which are now in force. If, following the review, the Minister’s decision is to uphold the designation, the designated person then has the right to apply to the High Court, or, in Scotland, the Court of Session, to challenge that designation decision. The court will apply judicial review principles to determine whether the designation decision should be set aside. It will also apply the procedure set out in the amended Civil Procedure Rules for England and Wales, the Rules of the Court of Judicature for Northern Ireland, and the Rules of the Court of Session for Scotland, which allow in particular for closed material proceedings to take place in relation to such challenges.
The sanctions Act requires a review of all UK sanctions listings at least every three years. In addition to this triannual review, the UK will review all sanctions regimes, such as those being debated today, on an annual basis and present the results in a written report to Parliament. These governance arrangements provide protection for designated persons, especially when coupled with the wider safeguards in the sanctions Act. We have published reports on the purposes of each of the sanctions regimes under consideration today and the penalties contained within them alongside the statutory instrument. These reports, plus an Explanatory Memorandum for each SI, are available in the Vote Office should noble Lords wish to see them. As I have done on previous occasions, I once again thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for their close and helpful scrutiny of these SIs.
Before closing my opening remarks, I draw it to your Lordships’ attention that while the majority of the substantive provisions in the regulations come into force only on exit day, the provisions enabling sanctions designation decisions to be taken were commenced so that decisions could be taken in good order in advance of exit day. Due to the extension of Article 50, the provisions that have been commenced have not had any practical effect as no designations have been made under these powers. In the case of the Russia sanctions regulations, the provisions in Regulation 1(3) to allow designation decisions to be taken were commenced on 11 April, the day after the regulations were made. The regulations were laid before Parliament at midday on 11 April. As no time was specified for when the regulations came into force on 11 April, there was a period during that day in which the regulations were in force but had not been laid.
I regret that due to an administrative oversight, we failed to follow the correct procedure to inform the Lord Speaker and the Speaker of the other place of this pre-laying commencement. This matter was addressed as soon as the error was found but I regret that the Easter break led to the Lord Speaker not being notified until eight working days after the instrument was laid. We take seriously the procedural and legal requirement to notify the Speakers, in accordance with Section 4(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946. My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Europe and the Americas, Sir Alan Duncan, has already written to the Speakers of both Houses, and to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. A copy of his letter has been placed in the Library. Although this is an unusual situation, we have also reviewed our processes and taken steps to ensure that it does not happen again.
I will say a brief word, if I may, on the SIs in front of us. As I said earlier, these instruments seek to substantively mirror the policy effects and mutually reinforce the measures in the corresponding EU sanctions regime. Noble Lords will note that human rights are a significant focus of the sanctions regimes being debated. I know that many are keen for the UK to develop our own, stand-alone human rights sanctions regime and may therefore query why we are simply transferring existing EU sanctions regimes. I assure noble Lords, as I have done previously, that the sanctions Act does give us the necessary powers in UK law to develop our own such regime. However, the SIs we are debating were laid on the contingent basis to provide for the continuation of some existing sanctions regimes should we leave the EU without a deal. As such, our priority has necessarily been to ensure the transfer of existing EU measures by laying SIs such as these. We will give consideration to new regimes as circumstances suggest and parliamentary time allows.
I turn briefly to each of the SIs in front of us. The Syria sanctions regulations aim to deter the Syrian regime from actions, policies or activities which repress the civilian population, and to encourage a negotiated political settlement to end the conflict. They include: asset freezes and travel bans on designated persons, together with financial, sectoral and aircraft sanctions; and wide-ranging trade restrictions, including on goods and technology which may be used for internal repression and in intercepting and monitoring telecommunications, but also in respect of other goods and technology such as crude oil, jet fuel, luxury goods and items that could contribute to chemical and biological weapons.
Noble Lords will have noted that the JCSI has reported on the drafting of these regulations. Paragraph 16 of Schedule 6 to the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations permits the Secretary of State to issue licences for financial transactions involving the Central Bank of Syria or the Commercial Bank of Syria. The JCSI’s concern is that this paragraph could be seen to prejudge the question of whether those banks are to be designated under the regulations. We take these concerns seriously and recognise that the drafting could have been clearer. However, from the outset, I reassure your Lordships’ House that the Secretary of State’s discretion has not been fettered, and any decision to designate will be taken in the proper way.
Baroness Northover (LD)
I thank the Minister for introducing these SIs in somewhat more detail than he introduced the last set. I think he was in a considerable hurry last time, which we all appreciated. If we leave the EU, we need to incorporate into UK law the sanctions regimes we have as an EU member. These reflect our support for the rules-based international order to which he has referred.
There has to be a concern that we may lose influence in this field in the future. When we acted as part of the EU we had greater effect and are credited with playing a leading role. If we end up outside the EU, we lessen our effect. I am sure the noble Lord knows that, even if he is not willing to admit it. In addition, there will be new pressures on the UK from allies such as the US, which may wish us to align more with them, and maybe from the City of London, which may not wish us to take certain actions. Maybe our own economic short-term interest will mean that we are less keen to sanction those who may bring their funds to the UK. That is a completely predictable situation.
We considered a series of sanctions regimes last week and we now come to another set. I am grateful once more that my noble friend Lord Chidgey will deal with Zimbabwe.
On chemical weapons, I note that, in answer to a recent Written Question, Sir Alan Duncan stated:
“The UK played a key role in EU efforts to establish a new Chemical Weapons sanctions regime, which was adopted on 15 October 2018”.
This is a case in point. Will the EU be as proactive as it was without the United Kingdom there?
On 21 January this year, the EU added nine individuals and one entity to the regime, which included those involved in the use of chemical weapons in Syria and members of Russia’s main intelligence directorate deemed responsible for the Salisbury attack in March 2018. Sir Alan referred to, “This strong collective action”. Does the Minister agree that “collective” is key?
Sir Alan also stated on 7 February, in response to a Question from my honourable friend Jo Swinson:
“The UK has actively supported proposals for three new EU thematic sanctions regimes in order to strengthen our international resilience to hybrid threats. These regimes are in different stages of development in the EU”.
These included the chemical weapons regime. The second was a mandate for work on EU cyber sanctions, and the third followed a Dutch initiative to establish a regime on global human rights. All are important developments but, having supported them, the UK is of course in danger of no longer being able to play such a leading role. Can the Minister update us on how these three strands will be taken forward and what part we might play in them?
On Belarus, the measures include an arms embargo, financial and immigration sanctions, and restrictions on goods or technology that may be used for internal repression, as the Minister has laid out. The Explanatory Memorandum states:
“This sanctions regime is aimed at encouraging the Government of Belarus to respect democratic principles and institutions, the separation of powers and the rule of law in Belarus, refrain from actions, policies or activities which repress civil society in Belarus”.
The EU is calling for the proper investigation and institution of criminal proceedings against those responsible for the disappearances of four named people, and for Belarus to comply with international human rights law and to respect human rights. What effect does the Minister think the sanctions are having in bringing any change in Belarus? Are there any plans to extend or limit sanctions against Belarus? I note that some were removed in 2016.
The stated aim of the Syria sanctions regulations is to deter the Syrian regime from,
“actions, policies or activities which repress the civilian population”,
and to encourage a negotiated political settlement to end the conflict. The sanctions against Syria have been in place since December 2011. They are reviewed annually and the next review will be on 1 June—just coming up.
The sanctions comprised an oil embargo imposed in September 2011, restrictions on trade, a freeze of Syrian central bank assets, export restrictions on arms, weapons and equipment that might be used for internal repression, and a ban on export of equipment and technology for the monitoring or interception of internet or telephone communications.
In April 2013, the EU eased the oil embargo to allow oil exports and oil equipment exports to areas under opposition control to help the civilian population. As of March 2019, 277 Syrians are targeted by a travel ban and an asset freeze. Seventy-two entities are targeted by an asset freeze. Will the UK abide by the results of any EU sanctions review? Is there any plan to share intelligence on such matters? How is the review into oil sanctions to be conducted? What kind of impact assessment was made of sanctions on the civilian population? What actions must the Syrian regime take to get sanctions lifted? Has consideration been given to the difficulties of international development NGOs working in Syria, an issue discussed in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill? However, I note that the much-respected former FCO Minister, the right honourable Alistair Burt, emphasised in the Commons,
“the importance of the roll-over of these sanctions, in particular in relation to Syria”.
He expressed his concern that there was,
“a risk of Syria becoming almost a forgotten conflict because it is no longer on the front pages and it needs to be”.—[Official Report, Commons, 29/4/19; cols. 78-79.]
He is surely right.
I hear what the Minister said about the sanctions in relation to Russia. I note that the Commons has not debated these and he has given some explanation of why they were separated and not put forward with the others. As he said, the EU sanctions against Russia broadly relate to the aim of bringing about Russian policy change on Ukraine. They followed restrictive measures after Russia’s actions in Crimea. These regimes are reviewed regularly, two on a six-monthly basis and one annually. How will we play a part in that, and will we follow what the EU decides?
The sanctions regime was most recently strengthened in March 2019, when eight Russian officials were added to the sanctions list after escalation in which Russian forces took Ukrainian sailors into custody. The EU has called for the release of the sailors and their ships, as well as free passage for all ships through the straits in the future. The US and Canada have also adopted similar sanctions in response to the incident. There are currently 170 persons and 44 entities from Russia on the EU’s sanctions list. This will next be reviewed in September 2019. The assets of individuals responsible for misappropriating Ukrainian state funds have also been extended until March 2020. All these review dates will be important for the United Kingdom. Where will we fall in our reaction to those? Do the Government anticipate remaining in line with the EU? Since March 2015, EU leaders have aligned—or sought to align—the economic sanctions with the implementation of the 2015 Minsk agreements but these have not been implemented and many political commentators think it unlikely that they will have an effect. What are the implications for the sanctions regime? The US has generally imposed a harsher sanction regime on Russia and dealt with other issues, such as interference in the 2016 US presidential election. We have not become involved in those. Does the Minister think that we might align ourselves on them too?
The general effectiveness of sanctions against Russia has been contested. Some have argued that Russian actions demonstrate the failure of EU sanctions to influence Putin and Russian policy. The Minister referred to the separate Magnitsky provisions put into the sanctions Bill by the Commons but there is no sign of them there. The Minister made brief reference to that and said that they might be brought forward when parliamentary time allows. Given that parliamentary time clearly does allow, might they be brought forward sooner rather than later?
In conclusion, we support these SIs, but are concerned about exactly how we will liaise with the EU down the track, how we align ourselves, and how we will have most effect in the future.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, the sanctions regime is aimed at encouraging the Government of Zimbabwe and anyone else involved in human rights abuses to respect, as the Minister said, democratic principles and institutions and the rule of law; to refrain from actions, policies and activities which repress civil society in Zimbabwe; and to comply with international human rights law and respect for human rights. There has not been much sign of that in recent months. I note from the Minister’s remarks that there will be scope for the UK to update the sanctions in time, so I will just put down a few markers in advance.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, may I leave the House with no doubt whatever that sanctions which achieve their purpose are an essential tool in the arsenal?
I have studied, albeit some weeks ago, the individuals on the proscribed sanctions list, and I was initially surprised that Russians listed do not appear in a list under “Russia”. This is confusing, as they appear under Ukraine sovereignty, so Russians listed may be missed by observers. However, I place on record the courteous and informative manner in which the sanctions unit in the Treasury responds to information requests.
I was intending to speak in a more substantive way on the specifics before us on Russian sanctions, but points have been articulated by the Minister that stand on the record. This leads me to more questions than answers. The question in my mind is: where do we go from here? What are the sanctions to accomplish, and by when? What accompanying engagement is planned? Many suggest, including within this building, that sanctions without engagement could become self-defeating and lead nowhere. Do the Government believe that co-operation is more likely to come from engagement and if so, what form is that engagement taking—or are the Government of the view that the sanctions regime in isolation is the cure to all ills? I have heard it said by a trusted friend in Moscow that sanctions are mostly hurting the more fair-minded, Western-orientated Russians who support democracy, free trade and the rule of law. That cannot be good.
The Minister will be aware that a United Kingdom unilateral sanctions policy could place us at a trade disadvantage with other countries post Brexit, especially those within the European Union. While government should not necessarily be bound by such, I would expect Her Majesty’s Government to have reflected heavily upon the deliverables behind unilateral policies. It would therefore be reassuring to hear this evening that a commitment to review the policy regularly, supported by multilateral engagement, is intrinsic to this process.
There is one regrettable reality. Today is Victory Day, the solemn remembrance day of the sacrifice that the Russian people, including Ukrainians, made in the Second World War. It is a shame that people forget that we were once on the same side. That said, I was delighted that the Deputy Leader of this House, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, representing the United Kingdom Government and accompanied by the noble Lord, Lord West, were present today at the Soviet War Memorial and contributed to marking the anniversary of the Allied victory over fascism.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these SIs. I admit that a quote came to mind from an old trade union colleague, who used to say every year when he negotiated with his truck driver companies, “It’s déjà vu all over again”. The Minister has previously addressed many of the issues that we have raised today, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Northover.
I want to come back to the specific issue of human rights, because, as the Minister acknowledged before, we placed human rights at the centre of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act, and we in this House were responsible for raising the Magnitsky clause, which was adopted in that Act. When we discussed the last group of SIs, the Minister explained that it was the Government’s intention that,
“national sanctions in relation to human rights will be brought forward, but we will need to design and draft a statutory instrument to ensure that associated processes and structures are in place”.—[Official Report, 1/5/19; col. 1035.]
The simple fact is that we need a clear timetable from the Government. When will this be completed? What are the impediments to drafts being brought forward? It is a critical part of our foreign policy. When we come to address the specific issues raised by the SIs, I shall ask: will we extend sanctions to cover the kind of human rights abuses that the Magnitsky clause is specifically designed to address? I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a more specific commitment, rather than just say, “when time allows”, or another vague reference to the future.
On Syria, I read with interest this morning the Joint Committee’s report. I have not had a huge amount of time to study it, but I want to pick up on some of the Government’s responses, particularly to the second question on the grounds for existing licensing derogation. During consideration of the Bill in Committee, the Minister was able to facilitate a range of meetings with NGOs over that precise issue. I am very keen to hear not only how he believes that the Government have addressed the concerns of the Joint Committee but whether they have consulted with the NGOs we met before when considering the draft Bill. This is important, because we are talking about humanitarian support getting through to those most in need. I hope that the Minister will be able to address that.
Not only are we discussing these specific SIs but we are looking at the impact and effectiveness of our sanctions policies and regimes. I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, that we need assurance. I know that the Minister keeps talking about our co-ordinated approach, working with our close allies and that we “will continue to ensure”, but sanctions conducted simply by one country will not have an impact. They work because of collective action and because we work in solidarity. I hope that he will answer specifically the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, about the review dates, how we work in conjunction and, where there is an extension or a change, how we will co-ordinate that activity. What mechanisms does the FCO envisage to do that?
On Syria, I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to update the House on what we are trying to do to achieve a ceasefire to halt the killings on all sides, and what progress we are making towards a negotiated political settlement under UN auspices.
I want to raise a specific issue relating to the effectiveness of sanctions: media reports that President Assad’s niece has been studying in the United Kingdom for a number of years. That raises questions about the effectiveness of sanctions and the ability of UK government agencies to implement them. Can the Minister tell us what discussions he has had with Home Office colleagues about President Assad’s niece, such as how she gained entry, what clearance was given and whether any consideration is being given to stopping something similar happening again?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said that I spent a bit more time setting out the detail in my introductory remarks. I had hoped to avert certain questions by doing so, but as I look at the pile of notes in front of me, perhaps that has not quite been the case. However, I want to put on the record my heartfelt thanks to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, in acknowledging the co-operation and collaboration I received during the passing of the sanctions Bill.
Turning to the SIs before the House, again I am very respectful of the detailed assessment that has been made by the noble Baroness, the noble Lord and, indeed, other noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, has brought to us his specialist insights into Africa. I will certainly seek to answer some of the specific questions which have been raised, but if some are not responded to in the time I have available, I will write to noble Lords.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, set out a series of questions on the thematic issues covering cyber, human rights and chemical weapons. As she will know, the EU chemical weapons sanctions regime was adopted in October 2018 and the listings were then adopted in January 2019. On cyber sanctions, we welcome the strong October Council conclusions giving a mandate to progress this work. We look forward to taking this work on through the EU both quickly and thoroughly. Again on cyber, I take the lead responsibility on this issue for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and of course I will be pleased to work with the noble Baroness in respect of any specific suggestions she has as we move forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, both raised the issue of the human rights regime. One example that I can share is that we continue to work closely with our Dutch colleagues by supporting their efforts in crafting a cross-European perspective on human rights for an EU human rights regime. Perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that we are working closely with the Netherlands in that respect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, referred to an issue that she has raised several times in the past. She asked how the UK would work with the EU in the future on sanctions, and specifically how that would be decided. The EU-UK political declaration states that there would be consultation on sanctions with an intensified exchange of information where foreign policy objectives are aligned, with the possibility of adopting mutually reinforcing sanctions. We are working to strengthen our bilateral relationships with key partners not only in Europe but also globally. We are also establishing a new network of sanctions officers in key partner countries.
Perhaps I may also say for the record that I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that the effectiveness of sanctions can be felt only if they are imposed in collaboration and through collective action. It is certainly our intention to do just that. There is no point imposing sanctions on an individual or organisation if they can be in a neighbouring country and operating freely. The collaboration and collective action we have seen with the EU—the close co-operation—will continue after we leave the European Union.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked a specific question about the Belarus sanctions and what they have accomplished thus far. The sanctions regime is part of our efforts to engage with the Government of Belarus to improve the situation, particularly on human rights, democracy and the rule of law. It is also designed to encourage the Belarus authorities to institute credible investigations into and criminal proceedings against persons responsible for the disappearances of various individuals between 1999 and 2000. I assure noble Lords that they are having an effect. We will continue to press—through bilateral discussions as well as through the EU with colleagues—the continuing importance of seeing that effected.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised the issue of Syria. A series of sanctions continue to be in place across the piece on Syria, and I will come on to some of these in a moment. They act as a key lever by which we maintain pressure on the Assad regime to end its atrocities against the Syrian people and to engage seriously in the UN-led political process. Sanctions on Syria aim to end the violent repression of the civilian population, and we will continue to raise these issues consistently.
The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, talked of Zimbabwe and what has been achieved thus far. As the noble Lord will know, Zimbabwe remains one of the UK’s 30 human rights priority countries. The UK continues to call for the Government of Zimbabwe to uphold the rule of law and human rights and to promote free and fair elections under the protection of the 2013 constitution and international human rights law.
The noble Lord raised the issue of a limit to the number of sanctions. I believe that we have been balanced in our approach while very candid and forthright on human rights abuses. I am sure the noble Lord agrees that the Zimbabwean economy continues to be very fragile and faces severe challenges. We are therefore balancing to ensure that we can continue to commit to some of the reforms we wish to see while maintaining a sanctions policy that still allows the economy to develop and the citizens of Zimbabwe to progress. The situation in Zimbabwe remains very fragile, and we will continue to work closely to ensure that, while the sanctions are being imposed, at the same time we look to provide some relief for the economy of Zimbabwe.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked what we hope to achieve from some of the sanctions against Russia. She is quite right to say that we led on many sanctions regimes, particularly in areas of financial services. She expressed concern over how this will continue once we leave the EU. While I cannot give her the specific nature of the governance procedures—I am sure she will respect that; it will be under discussion—I believe we will work in close alignment with EU partners and, indeed, other partner countries as well to ensure that the sanctions applied to Russia and elsewhere continue to be effectively applied.
The noble Baroness asked specifically about stronger sanctions against Russia. Through a combination of our leadership and diplomatic engagements, the UK has been at the forefront of strengthening EU sanctions in response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine. This includes new sanctions designations in response to Russian elections in Crimea, the construction of the Kerch bridge linking Russia to Crimea and, most recently, Russian aggression in the Black Sea. The UK has also been at the forefront of efforts to put in place a new EU sanctions regime focused exclusively on chemical weapons that was adopted in October 2018.
The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, asked for examples of violations not tolerated in Zimbabwe. We condemned the human rights violations by security forces in January 2019, including the use of live ammunition against protesters. The Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum has recorded many human rights violations, including 17 deaths and 81 gunshot injuries. Minister Baldwin summoned the Zimbabwe ambassador on 17 January to urge the security forces to stop using disproportionate force. As the Foreign Secretary said in the House of Commons on 22 January, President Mnangagwa must not turn the clock back. He needs to work with all Zimbabweans in dialogue for a better future. As I said, we are applying sanctions in a way that will bring some relief to the Zimbabwean people, but I assure the noble Lord that we are keeping a very close watch on the prevailing political issues on the ground.
Lord Collins of Highbury
Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord about the Joint Committee and the consultation that might have taken place.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I think that the Joint Committee has reported back but, if I may, I will cover that in my letter to the noble Lord. He raised one other point about NGOs which I have not covered. During the course of the Bill we had a discussion in which NGOs were directly involved, and there are now provisions in the Bill to protect humanitarian elements. We will continue to work very closely with NGOs. I am looking towards the Box for an answer to his specific question. I am not aware that consultations were held with the NGO community in advance of the SI. However, it is a practical idea, and consultation is always useful. I am a great believer in consulting with NGOs. As I said, I will write to the noble Lord with an answer to his question.
Once again, I put on the record my thanks to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I apologise if my voice sounds slightly hoarse. As I am sure noble Lords will appreciate, I am fasting at the moment. With the day having started at half-past three, and with various speeches, Questions, Statements and SIs, as much as I enjoy my role at the Dispatch Box, by 7 o’clock the Ahmad voice needs a rest. However, I appreciate noble Lords’ contributions.
Chemical Weapons (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Regulations laid before the House on 22 March be approved.
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Regulations laid before the House on 11 April be approved.
Republic of Belarus (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Regulations laid before the House on 20 March be approved.
Zimbabwe (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Regulations laid before the House on 20 March be approved.