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
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Amber Rudd)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the opportunity to meet him recently and reassure him that I am committed to looking into this area. I want to do and want my Department to do more to make sure we gather more information earlier so there is less need to go to tribunals and, where there is a need to go tribunals, the amount of time people have to wait is reduced.
Mr Davis
I have a constituent, Susan Hatton, with an eight-year-old daughter, Jessica. Jessica suffers from achondroplasia; she cannot wash herself, dress herself or brush her own hair; she frequently falls over, is regularly on concussion watch and wakes up several times every night. Her mother needs help. In August, Jessica’s DLA was withdrawn despite her condition worsening. While an appeal was ongoing, the Department recommended she put in a second claim to hope for a better outcome. Eight months after that, they went to court and the judge said that because the second proposal was in play, he could not answer on the first one. So not only did my constituent have to wait an unduly long time for her appeal to be heard, but she now finds herself facing the entire process over again. Every month’s delay in fixing this problem is another month of deprivation, distress and uncertainty in very young lives. I know the Secretary of State is committed to correcting this problem, but I urge her to spend whatever it takes to do this as quickly as possible.
Amber Rudd
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising such an important case, and I am very sorry to hear of the circumstances he has set out today. I have set up a new process for listening to MPs about particular cases; I now have a surgery open to all MPs about a week after having oral questions, and if he wants to come along and discuss that case, or of course have a separate meeting about it, I will certainly do that.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)
The Secretary of State will have heard of Stephen Smith, because I wrote to her about him a couple of weeks ago. Stephen Smith was found fit for work, and by the time he went through the appeals system, he was obviously dying. He died shortly after the Secretary of State’s Department’s decision was overturned. What lessons does she draw from the tragic circumstances of this Merseysider, and when is she going to reply to my letter asking for an inquiry?
Amber Rudd
That is another very sad case. I have got the right hon. Gentleman’s letter and will be replying to it, and we will be looking very carefully at what can be learned from that example
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
I have a constituent who has now waited a year for a DLA appeal, having previously waited a year for a successful appeal. She is a chronically disabled teenage girl and faces endless errors in the Department and constant demands for more information and more signatures, and she has come to the conclusion that the Department has engaged in deliberate foot-dragging, not merely incompetence. What assurance will she have that thousands of cases like this, including the ones we have just heard, will be dealt with more expeditiously in the future?
Amber Rudd
I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we are spending more money and investing more effort to make sure we get the decision right first time. I am working very closely with the Ministry of Justice, which is recruiting additional people to make sure there is less of a wait for the tribunal. I know how distressing that wait can be, and I am determined to reduce that time.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Amber Rudd)
There is clear evidence that work offers people the best opportunity to get out of poverty, and we now see record numbers of people in work. But it is not enough just to have a job; we want people to have good jobs and to progress in their work. And last month, this Conservative Government increased the national living wage, work allowances on universal credit and the personal tax allowance, providing the biggest pay rise to the lowest earners in 20 years.
Bridget Phillipson
I did listen to the Secretary of State’s answer, but she will know that around two thirds of children growing up in poverty have at least one parent in paid work. Work is simply not a straightforward route out of poverty for far too many families. Will she look again at the current levels of the work allowance and the taper rate for universal credit as an important first step in addressing this rising tide of in-work poverty?
Amber Rudd
There are many different levers that we can assist with to ensure that we reduce poverty overall and child poverty in particular. I have been focusing particularly on ensuring that more childcare is available and accessible to parents who want to get back into work, sometimes full time, so that the whole family income can be increased. That is a really positive way to try to assist people such as the hon. Lady’s constituents.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Some people working in Truro and Falmouth tell me that the faster technology changes, the more frightened they feel of being left behind. I therefore very much welcome the Secretary of State’s recent announcement enabling work coaches to support people in work to upskill and transition to better-paid employment, including in the new tech sectors. When will my constituents be able to benefit from this new service?
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that some people are very concerned about this; they see the changing face of the workplace, and they are concerned about their own job security and skills. I am determined to ensure that we give people the skills they need and that we work with work coaches on projects to ensure that people get the right support. I would be delighted to work with my hon. Friend, particularly as she did such fantastic work in my Department, to ensure that her constituents are early beneficiaries.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
We know that, from April, 15% of claimants are not receiving their first payment within five weeks. Will the Secretary of State tell us what action the Department is taking to ensure that claimants are paid in a timeous fashion?
Amber Rudd
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are seeing constant improvements in the rate at which pay is received by claimants as early as possible. We have ensured that advance payments are available, and I am vigilant about ensuring that the figure of 85% for those receiving the actual application on time is constantly improving.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what safeguards are in place to help universal credit claimants with regard to the repayments of any debts they might have accrued?
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend asks a very good question. Many universal credit applicants have already accrued debts, and sometimes they wish to take out an advance on their claim, which they would then need to repay over a period. We have been able to reduce the amount that they need to repay, from 40% to 30%, to ensure that they can keep more of their funds. I am constantly alert to the fact that people may have debts, and we need to be careful about the rate at which they need to repay, to protect vulnerable clients.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
We support disabled people to enter employment through initiatives such as the Work and Health programme, which is expected to support 220,000 disabled people over five years, the personal support package, and the new intensive personal employment support programme. Access to Work approved support for nearly 34,000 disabled workers last year, and we engage with employers through Disability Confident.
Huw Merriman
Employment prospects for young people with hidden disabilities or who are on an education, health and care plan are much lower than the mainstream average. Supported internships offer a way through, but the take-up from employers is painfully low. Given that the Department for Work and Pensions is responsible for overall targets, may I ask the Minister to work across the Government to ensure that we can use the apprenticeship levy to fund employers to enable them to take up more of these excellent opportunities?
Justin Tomlinson
My hon. Friend has been a real champion in pushing forward the opportunities created through supported internships and traineeships, and through our efforts to open up apprenticeships to those with learning disabilities. I will continue to work with the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to increase awareness among employers, and I very much welcome the fact that last year Access to Work saw a 28% increase in take-up for those aged between 16 and 24, in part because of the expansion of the supported internships.
Alex Chalk
Specsavers in Cheltenham has teamed up with the GEM project to recruit people with disabilities into the world of work, and the impact has been transformational, resulting in improvements in staff morale and in productivity. What more can the Government do to ensure that the message gets out that recruiting people with disabilities is good for the individuals themselves and good for society?
Justin Tomlinson
My hon. Friend has worked really hard to promote opportunities for employers in his constituency to employ people with disabilities. I welcome the fact that, over the past five years, this Government have seen an extra 930,000 more disabled people in work and that, for the first time ever, there are now more disabled people in work than not in work. The key is to give businesses the confidence to realise that they can benefit, and that this is a win-win for the disabled person and for the business.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
My concern relates to the number of people who are dying after being found fit for work. Further to my letter to the Secretary of State, will she commit to publish the Department’s internal reviews of the cases of those who have died? Will she also commit to an independent inquiry? Will she ensure that if any evidence of wrongdoing by someone in public office is found, that information will be forwarded to the police?
Justin Tomlinson
This Government are committed to working with stakeholders and those with frontline experience to continue to make improvements. There have been two independent reviews of the work capability assessment, and we have accepted and implemented over 100 improvements. We will continue to do all that we can to improve the process for claimants.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Justin Tomlinson
All claimants should be advised at the beginning of the process that there are alternative methods of communication. I welcome the introduction of the Citizens Advice provision across the jobcentre network, which is an additional layer of independent support, particularly for vulnerable claimants who may find it difficult to access services.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
May I welcome the Minister to his post? As the National Audit Office recently pointed out, the number of disabled people out of work has stagnated at 3.7 million during the past five years, because increases in the number of disabled people employed have not been matched by a decrease in the number of disabled people who are out of work. Under the Government’s flagship Disability Confident scheme, it is possible to be a Disability Confident employer without actually employing a single disabled person. Will the Minister now commit to independent evaluation of the effectiveness of that flagship scheme?
Justin Tomlinson
The Government have actually delivered an additional 930,000 job opportunities for disabled people over the past five years, and for the first time more disabled people are in work than out of work. The NAO also welcomed our joint work with the Department of Health and Social Care, particularly in the area of mental health. As for the Disability Confident scheme, I welcome the fact that 49% of the businesses that have signed up have said that it helped them to recruit at least one additional member of staff with either a disability or a long-term health condition.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
As announced in August last year, housing costs for all claimants in supported housing, including universal credit claimants, will continue to be met through housing benefit. Maintaining housing benefit for all supported housing reflects the particular needs of these vulnerable groups.
Paul Masterton
I welcome the Minister to his new role. However, is he aware of an issue with the Universal Credit Regulations 2013, which refer only to English county councils as relevant bodies? Supported accommodation provided by Scottish local authorities is not covered, even though those living in identical circumstances in accommodation in England will be covered and so will still be subject to housing benefit. Will he meet me to discuss the matter?
Will Quince
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is a passionate campaigner, and I recognise that that is a specific constituency issue. There is no difference in how English lower-tier local authorities and Scottish local authorities are treated within the regulations. Amendments to the regulations were introduced in 2014 to extend the protection to other supported housing, which was not previously included and was most likely to be affected by the welfare reforms. However, I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this complex issue further.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Contrary to what the Minister just said, I have had a small group of constituency cases in which the Department for Work and Pensions does not seem able to decide whether people in supported accommodation should continue on housing benefit or whether their housing costs should be paid through universal credit. Will he repeat his clarification to make the situation absolutely certain, because the DWP does not seem able to decide in its own cases?
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I am happy to look at those individual cases. He can write to me, or I would be happy to meet him.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Mr Speaker, I could probably ask this question on the back of any question on the Order Paper. Broadband connectivity is very poor in parts of my constituency, which surely flies in the face of the Government’s best efforts to ensure that people who deserve benefits get them and that people who want to get back to work have that opportunity. What do the Government intend to do about the problem to help my constituents?
Will Quince
The question is a good one, and we will always look at alternative forms of communication.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Too many young people who are sofa-surfing or, worse, sleeping rough are doing so because of problems due to universal credit delays and sanctions. When will the Government do an assessment of the impact of these delays and sanctions on vulnerable young people?
Will Quince
That is why, in recent Budgets, we have put an additional £1.7 billion into the universal credit system.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
This Government have introduced a £1,000 bursary for those starting an apprenticeship, the care leaver covenant and extended paid internship opportunities across the Government. I will build on the good work of my predecessor and meet employers to see how we can further improve job opportunities for care leavers.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Of what does the Minister’s work with Barnardo’s consist?
Will Quince
I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. He is a passionate campaigner and supporter of Barnardo’s. The Department and Barnardo’s are developing a small work experience pilot for care leavers in a number of Barnardo’s high street shops. More broadly, the Government aim to use the care leaver covenant to secure 1,000 employment opportunities by September 2021.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
Why is the youth obligation failing our young people so badly? More people on the youth obligation are falling out of benefits altogether. They are unable to maintain stability and are unable to go on to seek work.
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, but I gently point out that youth unemployment has halved under this Government.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Amber Rudd)
Universal credit makes sure that payments reach those who need them most. Around 1 million disabled households will receive, on average, £100 more per month on universal credit than on the system it replaces. As a single system that integrates six legacy benefits, universal credit will enable 700,000 households to access approximately £2.4 billion of welfare that was previously unclaimed.
Giles Watling
I recently wrote to the Secretary of State about one of my constituents in Clacton and the severe disability premium. I set out in the letter how my constituent was moved on to universal credit in October but now says that she is £185 a month worse off. I know the draft Universal Credit (Managed Migration Pilot and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019 will rectify her situation and provide a lump sum to cover the missed payments since she moved. This is welcome, but when does the Secretary of State expect the regulations to be voted on so they can become law, especially given the real need of some claimants now?
Amber Rudd
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter on behalf of his constituent. As he will be aware, there has recently been a court judgment on the Universal Credit (Transitional Provisions) (SDP Gateway) Amendment Regulations 2019, and we will have to wait to consider it before I will be able to give him an update. I will come back to him on the earliest possible occasion, because I understand the concern his constituent must have on this matter.
Bob Blackman
Without a roof over one’s head, it is very difficult to get a job or to claim benefits. Without a job, it is almost impossible to afford rent, so what is my right hon. Friend going to do to ensure that universal credit claimants are helped and assisted not only to get a roof over their heads but to get back into work?
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend asks a question about which he has done so much, and I start by paying tribute to his incredible work to help homeless people in the previous Parliament.
We recognise the concerns about homelessness, and I am determined to make sure we help homeless people to rebuild their lives. I recognise the link he so eloquently describes between jobs and homes. As part of the rough sleeping strategy, we will establish a single point of contact for homelessness at every jobcentre. I recently announced that we are increasing awareness of direct payments to private landlords under universal credit to protect vulnerable claimants’ rent. Many private landlords have told us that that will help to ensure that vulnerable people are able to stay in their homes.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
Amber Rudd
I would ask the hon. Lady to work with us on UC and with her local jobcentre. The National Audit Office recently commented that the right thing is to continue with UC. I understand that it is often difficult for individuals who are concerned about moving from the six legacy benefits to one benefit, but my experience from talking to people is that even though they were concerned, once they are on UC they almost exclusively say that it is a better system than the previous one.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Shelter Cymru, a Welsh housing association, has growing concerns that tenants threatened with eviction who are dependent on UC payments are not able to meet the deadlines to settle arrears claims. Will the Minister consider allowing fast-track payments, especially for those facing eviction?
Amber Rudd
I would hope that the possibility of evictions will be reduced by our new plans to allow many more people to have their rent paid directly to housing associations and, increasingly, to private landlords. The hon. Lady raises an interesting point, and she needs to give me an opportunity to look at it; perhaps she would like to come to my surgery in the House of Commons next week or write to me about it.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
Under UC, claimants will be treated as terminally ill only if they are not expected to live for any longer than six months. Owing to medical advances and the nature of some diseases, some people may live much longer than that, so what steps is the Department taking to ensure that those who are terminally ill but with a life expectancy of more than six months will be able to receive support through UC?
Amber Rudd
I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important issue. It is so important that when people receive such a devastating diagnosis they are treated with care. So where a claimant has been diagnosed with a terminal illness but has a life expectancy of longer than six months, and they have satisfied the conditions of being treated as having either limited capability for work and work-related activity or limited capability for work, they will be submitted for an immediate work capability assessment referral. I hope that that answer satisfies my hon. Friend.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
One of the clear vulnerabilities for people accessing UC is indebtedness; the Department’s figures show that 60% of all new UC applicants receive an advance payment. We know that people are in desperate need at that application stage, so will the Government consider making the advance payment assessment the first assessment and any advance payment the first payment of that person’s UC claim?
Amber Rudd
I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from and his desire to ensure that these people, who are often on very low incomes and in difficult circumstances, are looked after when they first make their application. We believe we have made the right changes to be able to address that, not only with the advance payment, but with the housing benefit run-on that comes after two weeks, which should give them additional funds in order to be able to support themselves. Of course we will also be introducing further run-ons of other benefits from next year. We are improving the ability of people to access money all the time.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
The Government’s plans for payments to severe disability premium recipients who lost about £180 a month when they were forced to transfer to UC were found to be discriminatory by the High Court on 3 May. Severely ill and disabled people should not have to fight through the courts for the support they should be entitled to, so will the Government now ensure that people receive payments, as soon as possible, that fully reflect the loss they have suffered?
Amber Rudd
As the hon. Lady will be aware, my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work took an urgent question on this last week and fully answered the questions that many people in the House had. The issue is the access that we put in place through a gateway and whether it is the right amount—the amount that was paid previously or the amount that is paid subsequently. We have decided that we will consider this before replying in full to the Court.
Margaret Greenwood
New research from the Children’s Commissioner found that the introduction of UC, the two-child limit and the benefit cap combined will mean that the number of children in families struggling to make ends meet will almost double in some areas. The Trussell Trust distributed nearly 600,000 emergency food parcels to children last year. When will the Government wake up and once again make tackling child poverty the priority it should be?
Amber Rudd
Tackling child poverty and poverty in general is absolutely a priority of this Government, which is why we are so focused on ensuring that UC supports people into work as well as providing the necessary safety net. Last week, I made a speech about ensuring that there is additional support for people when they are on low income and finding new ways of getting better access to different skilled work.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
We spend more than £120 billion on benefits for pensioners, including the state pension, which is now worth £1,600 more than in 2010. Means-tested benefits are adjusted according to changes in circumstances, and it is not possible to say how many pensioners have had an increase or reduction, but it is the case that this Government spend more on pensioners than any Government have ever done before.
Stephen McPartland
More than 750,000 pensioners are in receipt of disability living allowance, and those who turned 65 after April 2013 are being kicked off DLA and are forced to apply for personal independence payments. Many of them are not applying, and of those who do, some are not receiving PIP. Why are we not transferring these pensioners across automatically?
Guy Opperman
It is right to say that 75% of all reassessed claimants receive a PIP award, and nearly 67,000 more people aged 65 or over are on either DLA or PIP than when PIP was first introduced in 2013. I take my hon. Friend’s point, though, and the Minister for Disabled People will be happy to meet my hon. Friend. I am sure he would make the point that the Government spend more than £20 billion on DLA and PIP, which is up from £15 billion in 2012.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The inquest for my constituent Joy Worrall took place last Thursday. Joy was 82 years old. It was confirmed that she had committed suicide after the DWP wrongly stopped her benefits and her winter fuel allowance for a period of 15 months before her death. At the time of her death, Joy had £5 in her account. Will the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State undertake, for the family, who have asked me to do this for them, an urgent inquiry into why Joy was not paid her pension or her winter fuel allowance for that period? Will he ensure that nobody will ever again commit suicide because of poverty?
Guy Opperman
The right hon. Gentleman rightly raises his constituent’s case; I have already spoken to him on two occasions. Our thoughts are with Mrs Worrall’s family and friends. The Government apologise unreservedly for the clerical error—it was a clerical error—that led to Mrs Worrall’s pensions payment being stopped. We have urgently reviewed our processes and acted so that benefits are no longer linked on our systems, to try to ensure that this does not happen again. There is an internal process review; I undertake to write to the right hon. Gentleman in the short term with what we know and with more detail when the urgent process review has taken place. I am including Mr Worrall in that process.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
It would be helpful if every member of DWP staff were able to get to a Minister if something absurd was happening, rather than getting stuck in bureaucracy.
May I take the Minister back to his £1,600 extra? Will he review House of Commons briefing paper 01457, on the history of frozen overseas pensions for half our overseas pensioners? It is absurd that an agreement with New Zealand in 1948 and a written parliamentary answer in July 1955 should determine that people who leave this country to retire abroad do not get pension increases in half the countries around the world but do so in the other half. It is time that we had a proper debate and a proper decision, and got past the legalistic approach taken by this Government and previous ones.
Guy Opperman
My hon. Friend raises several points, but unquestionably the situation in relation to overseas pensions has been consistently enforced by every Government of every persuasion since the second world war, and there is no anticipation of changing that.
Of course, we will ensure that individual members of DWP staff up and down the country are able to go to their line managers and then to Members of Parliament or individual members of the Government on an ongoing basis.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Pensioner poverty halved under the most recent Labour Government; it has increased by 400,000 under this Government, with one in six pensioners living in poverty. Having broken one manifesto pledge on TV licences, Ministers are now breaking a second one, as mixed-aged couples are no longer being paid pension credit if one of them is under retirement age. How can the Government begin to justify the breaking of a solemn promise, particularly in circumstances where it will cost the couple concerned a staggering £7,320 a year?
Guy Opperman
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the overall trend in the percentage of pensioners in poverty is a dramatic fall over several decades. The rates of material deprivation for pensioners are at a record low at this stage.
On the hon. Gentleman’s second point, couples who currently receive pension credit or housing benefit will not be affected by the change, as long as they remain entitled to either benefit. Claimants who would be eligible for pension credit or housing benefit for pensioners under the current rules but have not claimed before 15 May have until 13 August to make a backdated claim.
Jack Dromey
From Carillion to BHS, workers’ pensions are being put at risk by bad bosses, sloppy practices and poor enforcement. We have campaigned against that injustice. The defined benefit White Paper has proposed stronger powers and penalties. Ministers have promised to introduce such legislation, which we would support. Will the Government keep at least this promise so that we can send out a joint message that says, “Never again a Philip Green”?
Guy Opperman
We are agreed across the House that there must be action on defined benefits so that we stop what took place with Philip Green, and to address that the Secretary of State has brought forward proposals in the defined benefit White Paper. We propose to bring forward a Bill, when parliamentary time allows, to address the DB White Paper, collective defined contributions, Dashboard and a number of other matters, and I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman on a cross-party basis to make that happen.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Alok Sharma)
Under universal credit, our work coaches provide vital one-to-one support to all claimants. Work coaches receive appropriate training to ensure that they can offer support to claimant groups with a variety of characteristics.
Tom Pursglove
As I understand it, the test and learn approach has been crucial to improving the system and getting it right for individual claimants. What key lessons have been learned and what steps have been taken to address them?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the test and learn approach has allowed us to adapt the delivery of universal credit to support claimants more fully. Examples include: abolishing the seven-day waiting period; the introduction of 100% advances; the landlord portal; and the flexible support fund being used to cover initial childcare costs.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Alok Sharma
Of course there is a range of reasons why people make use of food banks, but what is important is that the DWP makes sure that we get funds to claimants in a timely manner. The Secretary of State has already talked about the 100% advances and the two-week housing benefit run-on, and, of course, there will be additional run-ons coming on in 2020.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
I have constituents in Stirling who would like to take up work or to extend their hours of work but cannot afford to pay the upfront costs of childcare. Can the Minister tell the House what is being done to help parents with upfront costs of childcare?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Under universal credit, up to 85% of childcare costs can be covered and, as the Secretary of State announced earlier this year, we are making the flexible support fund available so that funding can be provided up front to take care of childcare costs, which will help people get into work.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is welcome that the Secretary of State has finally responded to pressure and abolished three-year sanctions, but failure to scrap this punishing regime entirely means, as we have heard across the House today, that many people including children will still suffer. Six months is a long time to go without money, so will she go the extra mile and abolish punitive sanctions altogether?
Alok Sharma
I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman has, in turn, welcomed what the Secretary of State has announced—it has absolutely been the right thing to do. Sanctions are not put forward indiscriminately; a very clear procedure takes place, and right now less than 3% of those who are on universal credit and under conditionality are getting a sanction. The average sanction rate is 31 days.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
We support disabled people in employment through initiatives such as Access to Work, which last year approved support for nearly 34,000 disabled people; Disability Confident, to which almost 12,000 employers are now signed up; and the £55 billion we will spend on benefits this year to support disabled people, including those who are in employment.
Dr Allin-Khan
Sarah Jeffers in Tooting requires a specialist wheelchair owing to her cerebral palsy. The Department for Work and Pensions has told her that she is required to pay £17,000 to fund the replacement of her broken wheelchair. Sarah’s job each day is to get disabled people back into work. However, without her wheelchair, she herself cannot work. The DWP has also stated that it cannot provide further funds for her wheelchair because she already receives support for her car from the Motability scheme. Will the Minister meet Sarah and me to discuss this complicated case?
Justin Tomlinson
The hon. Lady has been working brilliantly to support her constituent, whom we all want to remain in employment. From the details given to me already, it sounds as if Access to Work would have the potential to help with the funding towards her constituent’s wheelchair. I am happy to look into the details of the case as quickly as possible.
Justin Tomlinson
And I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady and her constituent.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Amber Rudd)
The UK female employment rate has never been higher. The latest figures show that there are over 12 million women in employment in England, which is almost 1.4 million more than in 2010. My hon. Friend asks about his constituency. I can give him the figures for the east midlands, where there are 109,000 more women in work since 2010. The number of women claiming unemployment-related benefits in Northampton- shire has dropped by 28% in the last five years.
Mr Hollobone
Against the background of record levels of employment in the Kettering constituency, will the Secretary of State confirm that, whether someone is male or female, young or old, able or disabled, employment prospects in Kettering have never been brighter?
Amber Rudd
I can confirm that employment prospects have never been brighter in Kettering, particularly with the strong advocacy of such an excellent Member of Parliament.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman can luxuriate in the lather of the praise conferred on him by the Secretary of State. Make sure it is bottled and keep it for a long time, man.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The question of women’s employment is very important to me. Is the Secretary of State’s Department doing long-term planning? Has she seen the recent research from Sheffield University and King’s College London that says that the very areas that voted leave will be the hardest hit post-Brexit, with a 17% to 20% decrease in GDP? Is her Department getting ready for this terrible situation?
Amber Rudd
I would like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are ensuring that we are prepared for any situation, whether that is leaving the European Union or changes to the workplace in general. We are working closely with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to ensure that we are prepared for changes to employment structures, and I have been making some comments on that issue recently to ensure that the necessary training is provided in the workplace in the private sector as well as the assistance that we can give.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
The Government remain committed to tackling poverty so that we can make a lasting difference to long-term outcomes. This Government have lifted 400,000 people out of absolute poverty since 2010, and income inequality has fallen.
Patrick Grady
Very few people in Glasgow North moving on to universal credit feel as if they are moving out of hardship and poverty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) said, 60% of claimants across the country automatically apply for the advance payment, which means that they automatically start receiving less universal credit as the repayments kick in, regardless of their means. How on earth is that helping to tackle hardship or people’s ability to manage their money? Will the Department urgently review the advance payment system?
Justin Tomlinson
The hon. Gentleman highlights the importance of ensuring that claimants do not go without any money, which is why we welcomed the improvements to make advance payments more accessible. Let us remember that, under the complicated six legacy benefits, more than £2.4 billion of benefits were left unclaimed every year, worth an average of £280 per month; that meant that 700,000 of some of the most vulnerable people were missing out on their entitlement.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
A constituent of mine who is a single mother with three children was persuaded to apply for a loan to replace her cooker. The loan company took her details and made an application for universal credit on her behalf, unbeknown to her, and claimed a large advance payment that they told her was the loan. When she reported this to the police and to the DWP and asked them to look into her case, they insisted that it was a valid claim for universal credit. She has had her advance payment, and she is left—pregnant, with three young children—with no access to any money until the end of the month. Please will the Minister or the Secretary of State look into this and make sure that vulnerable people cannot be treated in this way?
Justin Tomlinson
The circumstances just described sound horrendous. We will absolutely look into that as a matter of urgency and report back as quickly as possible.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Alok Sharma)
The unemployment rate is at its lowest since the 1970s. We have record employment with more people in work than ever before, and wages have been rising faster than inflation for 13 months in a row.
David T. C. Davies
The latest figures do indeed show that Britain’s economy is booming, unlike those of the rest of the European Union. Do the Minister and his colleagues on the ministerial team agree that the prospect of Brexit, with or without a deal, is driving forward the British economy and confidence in it?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend is of course right to point out that, despite any uncertainty around Brexit, the British economy is in good shape. We do have one of the highest employment rates in the EU, Britain is the No. 1 destination in Europe for foreign direct investment, and the IMF projects that our economy will grow faster than Germany’s this year. Unlike the Opposition, Conservative Members believe in supporting businesses and employers.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
The Government know that getting ex-offenders into work is a crucial part of rehabilitation. DWP prison work coaches and jobcentre work coaches provide tailored support to ex-offenders. The DWP works collaboratively with Ministry of Justice on its education and employment strategy, creating a system where prisoners are on a path to employment as soon as they enter prison.
Mark Menzies
People from all walks of life have to undergo work capability assessments, but ex-offenders have complex needs and often institutionalised experiences. What measures is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that the assessors themselves are taking the appropriate measures?
Will Quince
My hon. Friend raises a good point. Healthcare professionals are subject to a rigorous recruitment process, followed by a comprehensive training programme in disability assessment for physical and mental health conditions, and have to be approved by the Department. They are then required to complete a programme of continuing professional development.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Reoffending rates among those who have served a sentence of less than 12 months are a staggering 64%. The Ministry of Justice has signalled a clear intent to move away from this model of sentencing. What discussions have Ministers had with the Ministry of Justice about ensuring that community-based sentences have substantive support around employment to ensure that reoffending is curbed and sentences deliver meaningful rehabilitation and workplace opportunities?
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Being relatively new in post, I have not had those conversations as yet, but I do work very closely with my counterpart at the Ministry of Justice and will be having such conversations.
Mr Speaker
We look forward to an update in due course and we are grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Amber Rudd)
That is such a relevant question from my hon. Friend. The key difference between the legacy system and the universal credit system is that work coaches provide such a tailored, individual service, which will give his constituents the additional support they need to make sure they get the best financial reward from their work this year.
Steve Double
Cornwall has a higher than average number of self-employed people—about 60% higher than the English average. Being self-employed and claiming universal credit can present a number of challenges, particularly in the early years when starting out. What specific help are we giving to self-employed people who need to claim universal credit?
Amber Rudd
It is good to hear from my hon. Friend quite how enterprising his county is. I reassure him that work coaches provide additional support to allow those who want to become self-employed to do so via the new enterprise allowance, which provides mentoring support and additional financial support. We announced in the last Budget a one-year grace period from the minimum income floor for claimants joining universal credit with an existing business. All these efforts try to make sure that his constituents, and other people throughout the country, are able to set up their businesses and work self-employed and get access to universal credit.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I am sure that the Secretary of State has seen the comments made by the Children’s Commissioner based on research carried out by Policy in Practice. The Commissioners said that the number of children in families running a monthly deficit is expected to double in some areas as a result of the introduction of universal credit. Does she accept that this is completely disgraceful, and what is she going to do about it?
Amber Rudd
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we care enormously about ensuring that there are fewer children in poverty than before. There are fewer children in poverty and fewer families in poverty since 2010. As we know, the best way to help people out of poverty is to ensure that families have work. I am ambitious to ensure that people in low-paid work can get into higher-paid work, which is why I made the announcements last week, ensuring that work coaches can give additional support.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Amber Rudd)
Employment is at a record high, with 32.72 million people in work. Overall, 3.6 million more people have entered work since 2010, which is on average 1,000 people each and every day, and the vast majority of them are in full-time, high-skilled jobs. I know that there are concerns about low-paid work, which I am determined to address. That is why I made announcements last week about new projects working with our excellent work coaches on job switching and with employers in the private sector, to see how we can help individuals across the country to access the better-paid jobs that will help them and their families.
Chris Bryant
If you were to look in the faces of the vast majority of people who have an acquired brain injury, you would not be able to spot anything wrong whatsoever, but inside is somebody who has a massive sense of fatigue. They might have major memory problems or have completely lost their executive function, unable to make proper decisions for themselves, but when the assessor from the DWP comes they will want to please them and will exaggerate the improvement in their condition. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that every single person who, on behalf of the DWP, goes to see somebody with a brain injury fully understands how brain injury can fluctuate?
Amber Rudd
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that, and I know how much he has done to support people with brain conditions. We are ensuring that we do that through the welfare system, so that those with acquired brain injury and associated neurological complications receive the right support, but I recognise the issue he raises. We are doing more to ensure that our health assessors have all the necessary training, so that they are able to recognise different challenges, such as acquired brain injury.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Amber Rudd
I can confirm that. We are ambitious to ensure that we continue to take children and families out of poverty, and we acknowledge that there is more to be done. I believe that the best way to do that is to focus on growing a strong economy, with better-paid jobs, and ensuring that those on lower incomes can access those jobs.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Last week, the Secretary of State kept her name in the Tory leadership fray by admitting that social security sanctions can “undermine” the aim to help people into work and reducing the longest sanctions from three years to six months, which we welcome, but will her review of sanctions include the possibility of scrapping them altogether? If not, can she really make a name for herself by explaining how anyone is expected to live on fresh air for six months?
Amber Rudd
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his cautious welcome of the announcement I made last week about ensuring that there will be no sanctions of more than six months, but, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work has pointed out, sanctions are usually no more than 30 days. I have had many conversations with work coaches, who have personal relationships with individuals, and they reassure me that they use sanctions only as a last resort. The work coaches who provide this tailored support also tell me—I would be interested if the hon. Gentleman has had a different experience—that sanctions are an important part of the tools they have.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I absolutely agree with him. He may know that I campaigned with the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) before taking up my post. I am personally committed to this, the Department is committed to this, the Prime Minister is committed to this and we will deliver it.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I welcome the fact that record numbers benefited from Access to Work last year—an increase of 13%—but operational improvements still need to be delivered. I would welcome an opportunity to meet the hon. Gentleman to look at some areas of priority for us.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Justin Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend, who has been a real champion in this really important area of work. The Government are fully committed to protecting people with disabilities in the workplace and elsewhere. We welcome the fact that over 1 million employees are now protected by the voluntary employers charter, and this is a real step forward. There is more work to be done, and I welcome the fact that MPs are working together cross-party on this vital issue.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
The hon. Lady knows that the policy pursued by this Government is the same policy that was pursued during the 13 years of the Labour Government and all other Governments since the second world war. It is a consistent approach that is absolutely endorsed by the present Government, and I am afraid there are no plans to change the policy at present.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Amber Rudd
It is indeed interesting to hear of this success: the rate of self-employed people in Cornwall is 5.5 percentage points greater than the UK average. In Cornwall, jobcentres are working in partnership with the local authority and with Big Lottery funding to provide self-employment workshops. In addition, across the UK work coaches are trained to provide additional support to self-employed people. This includes the new enterprise allowance, with which mentors can support claimants to develop their business further.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Every week in my surgery I hear from people who have been wrongly assessed as being fit for work when they are so clearly disabled. I welcome the Secretary of State’s offer to sit down with us individually in the Tea Room, but I fear for all those constituents who do not think of going to their MP and the countless numbers of people out there who do not know how to access help. Surely it is now time for the Secretary of State to admit that the whole process of work capability assessments is flawed and in need of an urgent review.
Amber Rudd
I am aware of this, and a number of Members of Parliament have raised issues with me. As a Member of Parliament myself, I know that we need to do better at making sure that people do not have to wait so long for a tribunal, so I am looking again at what we can do. I am focusing particularly on making sure that the first decision collects more information, and that the mandatory reassessment has more content put into it. We are already looking into this, and I am seeing some extraordinarily good progress being made in making sure that the mandatory reconsideration has more information.
I will come back to the hon. Lady and others with more information in due course. I recognise that we need to do more, and I am on it.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
What progress is being made to support more people in East Renfrewshire into an occupational pension scheme through auto-enrolment?
Guy Opperman
It was a great pleasure to visit Barrhead with my hon. Friend and meet his outstanding credit union, which is one of 1,290 employers providing 5,000 employees across his East Renfrewshire constituency with automatically enrolled pensions. It is a cross-party success story, with 10.4 million people now automatically enrolled.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
If it is true that work is the best route out of poverty, why did food banks in Barnsley give out more than 1.5 million food parcels last year, many to people in work? Why is it that in the Secretary of State’s own constituency low income has overtaken benefit delays as the biggest reason people are referred to Hastings food bank?
Amber Rudd
I am aware of the challenges faced by people on low incomes, which is why I am focusing on making sure that there is better access to higher-paid jobs. I am working on a number of projects with jobcentres across the country to see what we can do to get better training for people, setting up projects relating to job switching, and working particularly with employers in the local area so that they can get more involved and recognise that there are opportunities for them to promote people and give better training to those on lower incomes to get them into higher-paid jobs.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
For clarity, can the Minister confirm that the Scottish Government have power under section 24 of the Scotland Act to top up reserve benefits, including for anyone affected by future changes to mixed-age couples’ benefits?
Guy Opperman
I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the chance to clarify that sections 24 and 26 of the Scotland Act enable the Scottish Government to make top-up or discretionary payments to any person in Scotland who is in receipt of any reserved UK Government benefit. Put simply, the ball is in the Scottish Government’s court.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
A constituent of mine is being passed from pillar to post by the DWP and the Scottish student loans group, both of which say she is entitled to support. She wants to start studying full time in September but, as a single parent, cannot do so without appropriate financial support. Will the Secretary of State or one of her Ministers meet me to see whether we can find a way out of this Catch-22 situation and ensure that my constituent and other single mothers like her, who want to improve their families’ opportunities, have the support to do so?
The Minister for Employment (Alok Sharma)
Yes, I will of course meet the hon. Lady.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 1.9 million pensioners now live in poverty, which is a complete disgrace. Given that 46,000 pensioners died prematurely last year, why has the winter fuel allowance not been increased for more than a decade?
Guy Opperman
It is not specifically the case that pensioners are in poverty compared with previous records, which show that pensioner poverty is coming down. I will write to the hon. Lady in respect of her specific point about the winter fuel allowance.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I listened carefully to the Minister’s earlier answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). It was simply not good enough because in just two days’ time changes by this Government to mixed-age couples’ benefits will make them ineligible for pension credit and force them both to apply for universal credit, which will result in many losing thousands of pounds. With one in six older people already living in poverty, is it not time that the Minister rethought the changes, or is he determined to increase those shameful levels of poverty?
Guy Opperman
Pension credit is intended to provide long-term support to economically inactive pensioner households. It is not intended to support working-age claimants. This change ensures that people cannot access pensioner benefits before they have reached state pension age, so taxpayer support is directed to where it is needed most.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Earlier this year I met representatives of those who carry out work capability assessments and representatives from the previous disability Minister’s office. I was assured that those carrying out capability assessments were well aware of unseen conditions such as ME, but since then I have been overwhelmed with correspondence saying that people with ME are being declared fit for work. What work is the Minister doing to ensure that the assessors are aware of conditions such as ME?
Justin Tomlinson
There is a real emphasis on ensuring that assessors are best placed to identify how fluctuating health conditions and hidden disabilities will impact on the assessment. I am disappointed to hear what the hon. Lady reports and I would be happy to meet her to discuss it further.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
My caseworkers recently updated me on the thousands and thousands of pounds of public money that they have helped to recover for constituents who are entitled to it, often after many months of delays. I am not satisfied with that; I am angry that this Government Department is keeping so many of my constituents and, I presume, others across the country in poverty for so long when they are owed this money. What is the Government doing about reviewing DWP’s shameful record on paying people money to which they are entitled?
Alok Sharma
I would just point out to the hon. Lady that, under the legacy benefits system, there are £2.4 billion of unclaimed benefits. That is changing and being fixed under universal credit. If she has specific cases, she will know that this ministerial team is always happy to talk to Members of Parliament to try to resolve issues. If she wants to talk about specific cases, I would be happy to do so after this session.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Visits to one of the food banks in my constituency have increased by 20% since the roll-out of universal credit. Trussell Trust referrals have risen by 52% since the roll-out of universal credit. Everything suggests that universal credit is not lifting people out of poverty, but pushing them further into it. Was that the Government’s intention with the roll-out of universal credit, because that is what is happening?
Amber Rudd
Universal credit is a vast improvement on the legacy benefits. There were six different benefits and three different places; the system was incredibly difficult to navigate, and there were vast numbers of complaints and problems with it. This new system is easier for people to navigate. Overall, it will be more generous, when it is fully rolled out, than the last system. I believe it is absolutely the right approach in making sure that we support all our constituents.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The Verify identification function for those claiming universal credit online does not work properly. When the Secretary of State is looking at that, will she also look at the problem that requires couples making a joint claim to verify their identity in person at the same time, which causes those sharing childcare and working shift patterns difficulty in claiming?
Alok Sharma
I am happy to discuss any issues around Verify with the hon. Gentleman, but, as he will know, there is more than one way for someone to verify their identity. Of course, they can use gov.uk Verify, but they can also use documentary evidence or a biographical test. Those are known, recognised tests, and they are all available in the system.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Secretary of State just said that universal credit is better than the legacy system, yet evidence published this weekend shows that twice as many children will be pushed into poverty by universal credit, the two-child limit and the benefit cap. On top of that, universal credit is actually increasing infant mortality—the first time we have seen an increase in 100—
Debbie Abrahams
I am sorry, but there is irrefutable evidence on this. Instead of the cursory responses that we have had from the Government, will the Secretary of State commit to review the up-to-date evidence and get back to this House with some detailed explanations of how she is going to stop these things?
Amber Rudd
I totally reject the hon. Lady’s approach to this. Universal credit is a welfare benefit system that, overall, is more generous and much more straightforward than the previous system. I wonder whether she has talked to any Members of Parliament who had the experience of having to navigate the six legacy benefits, of three different places to go to, and of annual tax credits. The complications were totally out of proportion compared with the challenges that people sometimes encounter now. Above all, there was the difficulty people had with the 16-hour threshold, where they could not take up new work if they were on a certain amount of benefits. We have reformed the system so that it works for people—it works for families, and it works for people trying to better themselves and get better access to work.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
Centrepoint’s evidence to the DWP Committee showed that 96% of the young people it surveyed were not offered a traineeship or work placement if they were still on the youth obligation for six months. Does the Minister think it is worth having a closer look at what more could be done to improve the youth obligation?
Alok Sharma
I share the hon. Lady’s desire to make sure the youth obligation support programme works properly. We are looking at extracting information from the system, and I hope shortly to come and report on the findings from that.
Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
I would like to update the House on the progress we have made in tackling brain cancer, including on a new innovation that is now available across England.
For far too long, tackling brain cancer has been put in the “too difficult” box, and we are determined to change that. I want to pay tribute to the Petitions Committee, which did so much work on this; my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who picked up the subject in Government as Life Sciences Minister; my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), the former chair of the all-party parliamentary group on brain tumours, which brought parliamentarians together; my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas), the current chair of the APPG; and, of course, Baroness Tessa Jowell, who campaigned passionately and tirelessly while battling the illness herself, and who, sadly, passed away a year ago.
Brain cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related deaths in children and young people under 19. Baroness Jowell called for all patients to benefit from 5-aminolevulinic acid, or “pink drink” as it is otherwise known: a dye that makes cancerous cells glow under ultraviolet light, thereby making it easier for surgeons to target the right areas. Trials have shown that, when the dye is used, surgeons can successfully remove a whole tumour in 70% of cases, compared to 30% of those without.
I am pleased to inform the House that we have now rolled out this ground-breaking treatment aid across England, with the potential to save the lives of 2,000 patients every year. That is part of the £33.9 billion extra that we are putting into the NHS and the NHS long-term plan. This procedure will now be expanded to every neurological centre in England. That is a fitting testament to Tessa Jowell’s memory.
It is worth pausing for a moment to remember the courageous words that Tessa Jowell used to urge us to rise above our differences. She said that this
“is not about politics but about patients and the community of carers who love and support them. It is…about the NHS but it is not just about money. It is about the power of kindness”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 January 2018; Vol. 788, c. 1169.]
That represents the very best of our democracy and of our Parliament. On behalf of all those who have died of brain cancer, all those—children and adults alike—who have campaigned, and all those seeking to do research, of which there is more to come in future, we are acting.
I want to mention three further areas in detail. The first is research. In the past, not enough research was done into the causes of and treatments for brain cancer. In the last year, the Government have made an unprecedented £40 million available to fund cutting-edge research of new treatments and drugs through the National Institute for Health Research. That will build on our outstanding reputation for neuroscience and oncology research, and increase the quality, quantity and diversity of brain cancer research. That funding was further enhanced by Cancer Research UK committing an additional £25 million to support brain tumour research. The size of those pledges will cement the UK’s position as a leading global centre.
Secondly, on our NHS cancer workforce, the number of specialist cancer staff in the NHS is set to grow as we put the £33.9 billion into the NHS over the next five years. Health Education England’s cancer workforce plan, and our upcoming NHS people plan, will set out in detail the steps we are taking to recruit a world-class cancer workforce. We made available an additional £8.6 million in the cancer workforce last year, and we aim to have 300 more radiographers start training by 2021.
Finally, on empowering patients, we have worked closely with the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission, Jess Mills and others to ensure patients are at the heart of all these efforts. The mission brings together Government, the NHS, researchers, pharmaceutical companies and patients to ensure that data is shared and disseminated properly so that more patients in the UK and around the world can benefit from what is learned. Due to the complexity of brain cancer, we must provide joined-up care that meets each patient’s unique needs. The NHS is focused on improving care for brain cancer patients to ensure they have access to dedicated out-patient clinics and consultations, wherever they live.
I hope the whole House will recognise the important progress made over the past year in rising to the challenge set by Baroness Jowell and the families of those who have lost loved ones to brain cancer. That progress has been possible only through the collective effort of patients, the NHS, charities and industry. That work is and will continue to be collaborative.
In her final speech in the other place last January, Tessa Jowell said:
“I am not afraid. I am fearful that this new and important approach may be put into the ‘too difficult’ box, but I also have such great hope.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 January 2018; Vol. 788, c. 1170.]
That hope was an inspiration to us all. We will rise to the challenge that she left us. We must not waiver in that task. I commend this statement to the House.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement. We warmly welcome today’s announcement. His tribute to our much-missed friend and colleague was moving and powerful. It is an extraordinary testament to Tessa’s bravery that in the final harrowing months of her life, faced with a highly aggressive and very-difficult-to-treat cancer, and in full knowledge of the life expectancy associated with such a devastating cancer, Tessa led from the front to campaign for better brain cancer treatment for others. She spoke with extraordinary courage in the Lords, she brought the then Secretary of State and me together, and she convinced Ministers to shift policy, not by garnering sympathy, understandable though that approach would have been, but by persuasion based on facts and policy argument. It was typical Tessa.
Tessa would have been delighted by the Government’s announcement—some 2,000 brain cancer patients a year will now benefit from the “pink drink” solution—but she would be keen to go further still. Almost 11,000 people are diagnosed each year with a primary brain tumour, including 500 children and young people, which is 30 people every day, and more than 5,000 people lose their lives to a brain tumour each year. Brain tumours reduce life expectancy by around 20 years, which is the highest of any cancer, and are the largest cause of preventable blindness in children.
We live in hope of dramatic improvements, but further research is needed, given that less than 2% of the £500 million spent on cancer research is dedicated to brain tumours. I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitments on research, but does he agree that we also desperately need more involvement in clinical trials? The number of brain cancer patients taking part in clinical trials is less than half the average across all cancers. How will the Government encourage more trials and data sharing?
Finally, we know that the NHS remains under considerable strain generally. The 93% target for a two-week wait from GP urgent referral to first consultant appointment was not met once last year. Neurosurgery is no exception. In March 2019, the 18-week completion target for referral to treatment pathways stood at 81.3% for neurosurgery— 5% lower than the average for all specialties—which made neurosurgery the worst performing specialty. This is a question of both resourcing and staffing. I know the Secretary of State has his answer on revenue resourcing—we disagree, but we will leave our political arguments for another day—but on workforce there are vacancies for more than 400 specialist cancer nurses, chemotherapy nurses and palliative care nurses, and there are diagnostic workforce vacancies too.
Meanwhile, the staff who are there are reliant on outdated equipment, and we have among the lowest numbers of MRI and CT scanners in the world. Failing to diagnose early is worse for the patient and more costly for the NHS, so will the Secretary of State update us on when we can expect Dido Harding’s workforce plan? Can he reassure us that the cancer workforce will be a key part of that plan? On equipment and MRI scanners, can he guarantee that the NHS will see increased capital investment budgets in the spending review so that it can upgrade existing equipment and increase the number of MRI and CT scanners?
Overall, however, we welcome today’s announcement. It is a fitting tribute to our friend Tessa Jowell, and like Tessa herself will touch the lives of so many.
Matt Hancock
The cross-party tone of this discussion demonstrates what we can achieve when we work together. This is not just about Baroness Jowell, who did so much and was so brave in how she made her case—in the last few months in particular, but before that as well. It is about the many others who have worked together, including the many who were inspired by her words to work harder on brain cancer.
In truth, the amount of research money going into brain cancer—and therefore the number of clinical trials, which the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) mentioned—was too low. There were so few clinical trials because research overall was too low. That is partly because brain cancer is a very difficult disease to treat. Just because it is difficult, however, does not mean we should not try, so we have increased the amount of research money, and I am determined to see an increase in the number of clinical trials and to make sure that the data from them is properly used and openly disseminated.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the cancer workforce. As I mentioned, of course we will need more people to treat cancer. That is partly what the £33.9 billion extra is all about.
The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that we need more early diagnosis. The truth is that, while the NHS is very good at treating cancer once it has been spotted—indeed, it is one of the best in the world—our cancer survival rates in this country need to improve through early diagnosis. That means giving more support to community services, strengthening primary care and ensuring that we have the diagnostic tools that he mentioned. We have more MRI scanners and more Linux machines for treatment purposes, but of course there is always more that we can do.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
During my time as the cancer Minister, I had the pleasure of meeting Tessa. You will recall, Mr Speaker, a very special debate that we had in the Chamber last April, when Tessa was back in the House of Commons, sitting in the Under-Gallery with her lovely family and listening to the debate.
Obviously I welcome the roll-out of 5-aminolevulinic acid—5-ALA—which allows surgeons to tackle some of the most difficult cases while ensuring that the healthy cells remain untouched. Does the Secretary of State agree that the exciting new frontier in cancer treatment is not only allowing people to survive it—more people are doing that for longer than ever before—but enabling them to live really well after treatment? It is no good surviving cancer if it is a rubbish time afterwards. Is that not the real promise of this?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is a former colleague and dependable Minister, and I regret not having mentioned the work that he did in my opening remarks. The hon. Member for Leicester South said that he and my predecessor as Secretary of State had worked together on this issue, but the person who did the hard yards was my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to him.
My hon. Friend is completely right: it is not just about surviving cancer, but about living well both with and after it. We must make sure that we learn that lesson and put the needs of patients at the heart of the process—not only their medical needs, but their non-medical and social needs. One of the humorous and amusing things that Tessa would talk about was the importance of the shape of the wig and the colour of the headscarf to a person who is going through chemotherapy, and that should be at the heart of treatment.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I welcome the statement, and thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of it. I join Members on both sides of the House in remembering Dame Tessa Jowell, her lifetime of public service and, of course, her brave campaigning during the final months of her life.
This research funding is very welcome, and it was good to see Edinburgh University’s Dr Steven Pollard involved with the Tessa Jowell mission. Will the Secretary of State expand on what he said about research spending being UK-wide, and on the implications of that? Will he also say something about how his Department has worked with the Scottish Government in this important area?
I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of the statement made this morning by Medac, which manufactures the “pink drink”, and its concerns about medical supplies post Brexit. Will he update the House on the work that he is doing to ensure the smooth continuing supply of that very important medicine?
Matt Hancock
It shows the power of bringing people together that we can agree with the Scottish National party’s Front Bencher on the importance of this agenda. I am delighted that the research spans the whole UK. The National Institute for Health Care Reform is reserved, and health research takes place throughout the country, and indeed internationally—throughout Europe and the world as a whole. Much of the best research is global, and that must continue. I shall be happy to work with colleagues in the SNP Government to further this mission and this end. Innovations of this kind are of course available to the NHS in Scotland, but the decision on whether to roll them out there will be a matter for Scottish Ministers, as that element is devolved.
As for the question of Brexit, I have absolutely no doubt that whatever form Brexit takes, we will do everything we can to ensure the continued and unhindered flow of medicines. We did an enormous amount of work to ensure that was the case ahead of 29 March. I have seen the comments the hon. Gentleman mentions from the company that supplies this drug. I see absolutely no reason to think that Brexit should have any impact at all on the ability to use this cutting-edge drug to save people’s lives.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
First, may I thank everyone in Taunton Deane who was involved in raising money for the new MRI scanner? It was a huge local team effort. May I also welcome today’s announcement and the use of this dye, which will potentially save 2,000 patient lives and which is to be rolled out into all those neurological centres? That is wonderful news and demonstrates that where there is a will in this place there usually is a way.
I also want to highlight the following. Does the Secretary of State agree that when we are talking about this issue, we should also remember cancers that spread from other parts of the body to the brain—it is called metastasis? This is a very complex area and it needs more input in just the way that we have looked at this issue. Does the Secretary of State agree that we ought to look at that in more detail? Unfortunately, I speak about this from experience, with a close family member being involved.
Matt Hancock
I know about my hon. Friend’s, sadly, personal experience with this horrible disease and pay tribute to her for speaking up because it is not easy. She is right to raise another frontier that we must cross, and I am fully open to research bids in this area to work not just on brain cancer but on brain cancer that is a secondary cancer, because that is a very important area to get right, too.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I welcome the announcement today and the progress made over the past year since Tessa so sadly passed away. I also welcome the announcement as someone who lost both my paternal grandparents to brain cancer. I want to pay tribute in particular to Tessa’s daughter, Jess Mills, who has worked with unswerving determination and energy to drive forward progress in Tessa’s name over the past year. May I say on behalf of my constituents in Dulwich and West Norwood, who Tessa represented for 23 years, how proud we are of her powerful legacy on brain cancer and the difference her work will make for thousands of people for generations to come? Throughout the whole of Tessa’s 23 years in Parliament, she was a tireless champion of King’s College hospital, which is currently in a very challenged financial position. May I encourage the Secretary of State in continuing his commitment to £33.9 billion of additional funding to look at how this national support may also be marshalled to secure Tessa’s legacy at local level?
Matt Hancock
Baroness Jowell’s successor in her parliamentary seat speaks very powerfully and the hon. Lady is right to highlight the role of King’s in this research. King’s has been developing this treatment for years, and as a result of its work, it can now be rolled out nationally. It is a hospital that, as the hon. Lady says, needs to address some of its local challenges, but we should not take away from some of the globally cutting-edge work that it does and the positive impact it has: potentially 2,000 people alive each year who would otherwise die. That is testament to the importance of this research.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The first person I know who had a brain tumour and cancer and died was John Davies, who had been the MP for Knutsford shortly after I was first elected.
The NHS website is very good about the possible symptoms of brain tumours. May I strongly recommend that everyone who thinks they may have a worry consult their medical practitioners so that either they can be cleared or they can get early treatment, and is it not right that early diagnosis is the best way forward for those who may have the condition?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that: early diagnosis is critical to improving the proportion of people who survive cancers, because of course it is easier to treat people if diagnosis is early. We are reviewing all cancer screening programmes because they are not working well enough; the National Audit Office set that out in some detail recently, and we accept those findings. We want to get early diagnosis and screening right, and it is a top priority for the new Public Health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy), to make sure we do so that more people can survive.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State said, last weekend marked a year since the death of Tessa Jowell. We all heard the moving interview that Jess did at the weekend, which showed the commitment that she still has for taking on this issue and fighting for her mother’s legacy. On 19 April last year, we were in this place for a Back-Bench debate, with Tessa sitting in the Under-Gallery. I had sponsored the debate, alongside the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), and I should also like to thank you, Mr Speaker, for helping us at that time. We heard many moving speeches, and we were all glad to be there to pay our tributes to Tessa.
I am privileged to sit on the board of the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission, and I want to thank the Department of Health and Social Care for its support and for the roll-out of the pink drink that we have all been talking about. That is one of the many important initiatives that the mission has prioritised. Will the Secretary of State give us his assurance that the Department will provide the same amount of support and commitment to the other initiatives that we have identified? He has talked about some of them. They include the national roll-out of the integrated multidisciplinary care model, support for the first adaptive trial for brain cancer and the Tessa Jowell fellowship programme for oncologists. The NHS is one of the few care systems in the developed world that does not train or employ experts in brain tumour treatment. Rather, brain tumour patients are typically cared for by colleges and radiologists who predominantly treat other cancers. This strategic programme is really important, as it will revolutionise the skills in the health service to tackle this difficult problem.
Finally, I worked for Tessa Jowell, and I also worked for Mo Mowlam. They were two of the most powerful, wonderful women in this House, and they both had brain tumours. We need to find a faster cure, to ensure that people with brain tumours live well for longer so that women like those two amazing parliamentarians can continue to contribute for much longer. I thank the Secretary of State for the work that he has done, and I ask him to carry on doing it.
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady expresses the thoughts of the whole House. She, too, has done an awful lot. I should of course have mentioned my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who used his enforced sabbatical from the Cabinet due to cancer to push this agenda. I add his name to the tributes. It is absolutely true that campaigners on this subject who have had personal experience of brain cancer either themselves or in their loved ones and friends, as I have, feel very strongly about it, and this is absolutely not the end of the drive. I wanted to update the House on what we have done in a year, but there is still plenty more to do.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Melanoma is one of the cancers that can metastasise into the brain, because it can travel either through the blood or through the lymphatic system. We also know that, although it can kill, especially in the circumstances we are talking about, it is very preventable. I just wonder whether there is not considerably more that the Government could do to ensure that every child covers up in the sun and that more people use sunscreen, perhaps by taking VAT off sunscreen that is higher than SPF30 or SPF50. We must also ensure that we have enough dermatologists in this country to check moles and other growths that people might have on their bodies.
Matt Hancock
Yes, I agree with all that. Of course, protection from too much exposure to the sun is part of the prevention agenda in healthcare, as well as being an absolutely sensible thing to do.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Like others, I want to congratulate the Government and everyone involved in the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission on making a painful anniversary for Tessa’s friends and family a bit more bearable for knowing that her vigour and energy are still very much alive and kicking through the mission. This is also a painful time of year for my constituents, Scott and Yang Lau, who lost their young daughter Kaleigh to a diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma, a particularly pernicious brain tumour that largely affects children. They are working with Jess Mills on fighting that particular form of brain tumour. What more can the Department do, generally and specifically through the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission, to focus on childhood brain tumours, particularly rare tumours such as DIPG, so that other families do not have to suffer what my constituents and others have had to go through?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that, and I send my condolences to his constituents. The truth is that brain cancer is one of the most, if not the most, predominant cancers among children. Although it is relatively rare among all cancers, that is not true among children. Thousands of people still die from brain cancer, which is why it was right that Parliament and Tessa Jowell came together to highlight the lack of research in the area—something that we are determined to put right.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
May I too thank the Government for today’s statement? I was heartened by the answer given to the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), because early diagnosis is incredibly important. There are certain things that people can recognise, such as the effect on vision. Ironing a pinstripe shirt, for example, can lead to an odd effect, which is an early sign. Early screening in built-up areas and cities is quite easy, but it is harder in rural areas, so I make a plea for the Government to consider sparsely populated regions such as mine.
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman is right that screening is vital. One of the reasons why we are looking at the whole screening programme is that the use of technology has not been nearly good enough. For many people, but not all, that can be valuable, especially in rural areas. Technology is not only used for the screening itself, but for notification and for ensuring that we get to everybody who needs to be reached. Professor Sir Mike Richards is undertaking the review of all screening, and I would be happy to put Sir Mike in contact with the hon. Gentleman to ensure that the review properly considers the impact of rurality on the need to get screening to everybody who needs it.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Secretary of State, the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), and all colleagues for both the content and the spirit of the exchanges that have just taken place. Let us hope that Tessa’s husband David and children Jess, who has rightly been referred to, and Matthew will derive some succour from knowledge of the continuing interest in Tessa’s passionate crusade that exists in the House. We know in our heart of hearts that that continued interest will endure for as long as is necessary, both because of the supreme importance of the cause and because we are united across the House in this. We have huge respect for the courage, stoicism and unrelenting determination to make progress on this subject that Tessa Jowell, in extreme adversity, exhibited at all times.
Domestic Abuse
(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)
Mr Speaker, I echo your words in relation to Tessa Jowell’s contribution in this place and the debate that we were privileged to be part of just a year ago. It is good to see the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) in her place. We are in different places now, but the debate was a shared endeavour, and we were both privileged to be part of that special debate, when Tessa was here, and to champion the cause so well and so effectively.
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on a new sustainable approach to delivering support for victims of domestic abuse and their children in accommodation-based services across England.
Domestic abuse is a devastating crime experienced by more than 2 million adults a year, with women twice as likely to be victims. That is completely unacceptable, and we have much more to do if we are to reach a point where no family lives with the threat of domestic abuse. Domestic abuse can take many forms and affects the young and old, male and female, but whoever the victim is, those fleeing abuse must have somewhere safe to go.
Just last year we announced £22 million to provide over 2,200 new beds in refuges and other safe accommodation, supporting more than 25,000 survivors with a safe space to rebuild their lives, but I know much more must be done to ensure a consistent approach across the country and to ensure that survivors have a safer future.
At the 2017 general election, the Prime Minister made a manifesto commitment to review funding for refuges. The violence against women and girls strategy for 2016 to 2020 set out our ambition to provide support for refuges and other accommodation-based services, helping local areas to ensure that no victim is turned away from the support they require at the time of need.
We also committed to reviewing the locally led approach to commissioning domestic abuse services. To meet that commitment, in January 2018 we began a full review of the funding and commissioning of domestic abuse services in England. We have worked closely with sector partners, drawing on their data, expertise and knowledge. This review complements wider Government work on tackling this devastating crime and supporting victims, including our new draft Domestic Abuse Bill.
Through the course of the review we have engaged with specialist domestic abuse service providers and their representative bodies, local authorities, police and crime commissioners and other organisations that support victims, to understand fully the challenges in commissioning and delivering these vital services and the positive features of the current system. We are grateful for their engagement and extensive input into our work.
We know there are dedicated professionals delivering support to victims and their children in accommodation-based services across England. This support helps victims move from danger and abuse to safety and independence, and their children to regain their childhoods. That includes the vital work of service managers and support staff, counsellors, outreach workers and play therapists, and I pay tribute to their work.
However, we also know that we need to do more to ensure that all victims and their children can access support at the right time, underpinned by a sustainable approach to provision. We understand that victims and their children will live in a variety of different forms of safe accommodation and will need support to stay safe and rebuild their lives in all of them. That includes outreach support to remain safe in properties with enhanced security measures, in emergency or temporary accommodation, in dispersed accommodation and in refuges.
Although refuges play a critical role in supporting victims at high risk of serious harm, we have deliberately kept our definition of accommodation-based services wide to include the full range of safe accommodation in which victims and their children may require support. That will help local areas to meet the support needs of diverse groups of victims and their children, and those at lower and medium risk, to prevent their needs from escalating.
Having reviewed the current system and listened to the views of expert stakeholders, today I am proposing new local authority-led arrangements for delivering support to victims of domestic abuse and their children in accommodation-based services in England. The proposals will place a new statutory duty on upper-tier local authorities—county councils, metropolitan and unitary authorities, and the Greater London Authority—to convene a local partnership board for domestic abuse accommodation support services.
The local partnership boards should include representation from police and crime commissioners, health bodies, children’s services and housing providers, along with specialist domestic abuse service providers. The boards will be required to assess need for domestic abuse services; develop domestic abuse strategies; commission services to meet the support needs of victims and their children; and report progress to my Department.
In two-tier areas, lower-tier local authorities—city, district and borough councils and, in this instance, London boroughs—will have a significant role to play in contributing to needs assessments, strategy development, service commissioning and reporting on progress. Those areas will be subject to a statutory duty to co-operate with the local partnership board.
To support local authorities and local partnership boards to meet these new requirements, I am proposing that we should produce new statutory guidance, making our expectations clear. This new approach will be backed by funding from the Government to ensure that services are put on a sustainable, long-term footing; it will be determined through the forthcoming spending review and informed by the consultation.
I want to safeguard provision of support; to clarify expectations of governance and accountability; to ensure needs assessments are undertaken; and to enhance our understanding of service provision across England, through monitoring and reporting. I also want to ensure that the diverse needs of all victims and their children are met, including those with protected characteristics. This is part of a wider Government drive to tackle domestic abuse and end this pernicious crime for good. Our Domestic Abuse Bill, published in January, is the most comprehensive package ever to tackle domestic abuse. We have also brought in a new offence to capture coercive and controlling behaviour, and new domestic abuse protection orders will allow the police and courts to intervene earlier. It is our duty to ensure that victims and survivors can receive help by providing the support they need to transform their lives and move to safety and independence.
Through this consultation, I want to hear views on our proposals from victims and survivors, service providers, local authorities, housing providers and other public agencies, as well as professionals who support victims and children every day. I believe that this announcement today will provide much-needed help to ensure that more victims and their families better overcome their experiences, and move on to live full and independent lives. The consultation will run from today until 2 August. A copy of the consultation document will be placed in the House Library, and I commend this statement to the House.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Today’s announcement is, of course, welcome. It is a victory for the campaigners who have fought for 10 years for a legal duty to support survivors of domestic violence. It is a victory for charities such as Women’s Aid; for campaigners such as the new Victims’ Commissioner, Vera Baird; and for Members of this House such as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips). They deserve huge credit, as do many other Members in this House, on both sides, who have fought for this change. This is a victory for the hard work of current and former Front-Bench colleagues, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) and for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn). Most importantly, it is a victory for survivors of domestic abuse, who show such unimaginable strength.
There are, however, questions still to answer, which will determine whether this policy is going to work. First and most importantly, unless we provide the funding to make it work, we are setting local authorities up to fail. The Secretary of State has estimated today that the new legal duty could cost £90 million. Given that councils in England are facing an overall funding gap of £8 billion by 2025 and that Home Office figures estimate that domestic abuse costs the economy £66 billion in just one year, does the Secretary of State really think that that funding will be enough?
The Local Government Association has today raised concerns that the policy is focused exclusively on the crisis-point intervention, rather than early intervention; we need to ensure that the funding does not drain from these equally important areas to pay for this policy. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the funding will be ring-fenced? We do not know when the spending review will be; we may not know the outcome of the spending review until this time next year. Why is the Secretary of State risking this policy being kicked into the long grass by hooking it to the spending review? When will we know how much money there will be to spend?
We know that there are issues with support provided to victims only in their local area, despite two thirds of women fleeing to a refuge further afield. Can the Secretary of State confirm that women will be supported wherever they are from? The same must apply in respect of women with no recourse to public funds and those with complex needs, as such women struggle to access beds and are overrepresented among women murdered. Specialised support services such as those for black, Asian and minority ethnic women and for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are hugely important but have suffered significant cuts, with one expert recently saying that we have lost 50% of all specialist BAME refuge services. It is unclear how these proposals will impact specialist services, so can the Secretary of State provide some reassurance?
The background to this announcement is a crisis in support for victims of domestic abuse and deep cuts to investment in genuinely affordable homes. The Government are responding to a crisis that their own policies have partly created. A 60% cut in Government funding for local authorities between 2010 and 2020 has stretched our councils to the limit. Services have been cut back to the legal minimum and core services have deteriorated in quality. Women’s Aid has found that many organisations are running an area of their services without dedicated funding from local authorities, and some receive no support from local authorities at all. That has led to a fifth of refuges closing since 2010, and more than 150 women a day are now being turned away from refuges.
The lack of genuinely affordable housing has left domestic violence victims facing homelessness and squalid housing. This is because last year the number of homes built for social rent fell to fewer than 6,500, compared with almost 40,000 in 2010. The Government’s record on this issue is not good. Attempts to dismantle the funding stream for refuges through housing benefit were shelved last year only after tireless campaigning from women’s organisations.
Although many men are victims of domestic abuse, the majority are women, and women are disproportionately affected by austerity, bearing the brunt of cuts in support services. Ten years of austerity have had a savage impact on BAME women and single mothers in particular. By 2020, the income of single mothers will have fallen by 18%, and black and Asian households will see average drops in living standards of 19.2% and 20% respectively, according to analysis by Amnesty International.
The Prime Minister said today:
“Whoever you are, wherever you live and whatever the abuse you face, you will have access to the services you need to be safe.”
That is a commitment that cannot be made lightly. There is a now a clear moral duty on the Government to see this through—not just for the sake of keeping the promises that have been made, and not just for the sake of the campaigners and survivors who have pushed for this change for years, but for the sake of those people who are trapped right now in abusive relationships. If we promise them safety and do not deliver it, we will not deserve forgiveness. We welcome today’s announcement, but we will hold the Government’s feet to the fire until this commitment becomes a reality.
James Brokenshire
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and her support for today’s announcement. I agree with her on that sense of moral duty—that sense of moral purpose—to those who are in abusive relationships that underlines all this work. She will know the figure that is used: some 2 million people each year suffer some form of domestic abuse. That is unacceptable and intolerable, and it is right that we do much more, which is why the Prime Minister made her comments today. Indeed, she has an enduring commitment to making a difference in this important policy area.
I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to all those who have campaigned on this issue, not only across the House but throughout the country. So many voluntary organisations—those very much at the frontline—have really made the difference and I pay tribute to their work, as well as to the quiet, dignified determination of so many survivors of domestic abuse, who have really underlined that sense of why we need to do more.
The hon. Lady highlighted the issue of funding for local government and the interrelationship with the spending review. We have indicated that there will be a spending review later this year because the current spending review period ends at the end of this financial year. It is therefore right that we look at the funding position in that context but, as I have underlined, it is a question of ensuring that local government receives the appropriate financial support, given that a new and additional requirement is being placed on local government as a consequence of this proposal. That is why I said what I did about the need to ensure that this issue is properly addressed through the spending review and that it is informed by the consultation itself.
In the media this morning, I gave some estimates of what we anticipate the broad annual cost may be—a round figure of around £90 million is our current estimate—but I want that to be informed by the consultation and, indeed, to be taken into the spending review, so that we can get the right level of support. That sense of co-operation between areas is also within the duty that we anticipate, by which I mean not looking at this in isolation. The hon. Lady makes a very good and important point about being able to support people from wherever they come. Indeed, that is, in part, what this variability of service, which we want to address, is all about, and what the statutory duty is very firmly intended to underpin.
As I said in my statement, we announced £22 million of additional support for the sector last November. I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler), who has had to leave her place on the Front Bench to attend a debate in Westminster Hall, for her incredible support and leadership in this regard. Obviously, local authorities are seeing a real-terms increase in spending power over this coming year.
I know that we need to do more. We need to ensure that specialist support reflects the protected characteristics —the needs of BAME, LGBT and other communities. There is a need to recognise some of the different types of outreach services that will be needed to give effect to that. The hon. Lady sets that challenge, and I respect and acknowledge her intent to ensure that this Government are properly scrutinised and challenged to see that we follow through. I know that that view is shared across Government. Colleagues with different responsibilities are determined to work together to make that difference.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I join Women’s Aid and Safelives in welcoming today’s announcement. I also pay tribute to the absolutely inspirational Maggie Parks from Women’s Centre Cornwall and thank the refuges in Truro that provide such needed refuge for both men and women. This very important announcement today builds on a landmark domestic violence Bill. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is just as important to commission high-quality services for victims and their children living in their own homes as it is for those living in refuges? Alongside that, we must make sure that there is access to specially trained and qualified mental health professionals.
James Brokenshire
I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend. I know that, in some of her previous ministerial work, she was very passionate in advocating and supporting greater focus on this matter and ensuring that some of these issues in relation to the criminal justice system were followed through. I pay tribute to Maggie Parks and the Women’s Centre Cornwall to which she refers. Yes, of course, the Domestic Abuse Bill will be really important. The commissioning of services is absolutely critical. She makes the right point, which others have made too, that it is important that we get the support right in refuges, but it goes much wider than that, which is why we have framed the consultation in the way that we have.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I commend the statement of the Secretary of State. In particular, I commend the Minister for Women—I do not take anything away from the Secretary of State for making this statement today—for tirelessly pushing for this. I thank her for that.
Ever since the first women’s refuge—Chiswick Women’s Aid—was created in 1971 by Erin Pizzey, women’s refuges have been precarious financially. They have existed hand to mouth from year to year, never knowing what their financial situation will be. The reason why this is a very important statement and an important moment today is that it marks the point at which it is recognised that this is not just an optional issue, dependent on locality, but actually a national public policy imperative. We should recognise the really serious step forward that has been made.
I join other colleagues, including my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, in paying tribute to all those people around the country—including in the refuge movement but more widely in the women’s movement—who have pushed for this moment, and also to women across the House who have provided the support that has led to this statement. Will the Secretary of State explain to the Chancellor that we are very supportive of this statement, and that we will expect the Government to put their money where their mouth is?
As my hon. Friend the shadow Minister said, 150 women a day have been turned away from refuges because of the lack of available resources. We do not want the Government to rob Peter to pay Paula; we want the money to be there. The Secretary of State has said that he is going consult, and that is absolutely right, but he does not need to consult me any further because I can tell him what my view is: this is a thoroughly good thing. Will he get on with it and ensure that it is fully funded?
James Brokenshire
I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for her comments and for her leadership as one of the key Members across the House who have championed the issue for so many years. I recognise her contribution in getting to the place at which we have arrived today. She is right to say that this is a national public policy issue, and that we need to deal with variability to ensure a national standard that we seek to reach through this new statutory duty—hence, the consultation. She clearly and plainly makes the point that we need to ensure the necessary financial investment and support for these measures, and I am grateful for her support regarding those conversations with the Chancellor.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) was present at the start of the exchanges—I was advised that he was not. Was he here?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman was chattering away to the Whip on duty, was he? Oh, very well; I will indulge him on this occasion.
Stephen Kerr
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. I also pay tribute to the excellent work of Stirling Women’s Aid; Jess Lindhoff and her team do extraordinary work and it is always humbling to be with them.
Domestic abuse support services are devolved across the United Kingdom, but will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will consider a UK-wide ombudsman or similar to guarantee standards across the entire United Kingdom?
James Brokenshire
As my hon. Friend will know, today’s announcement relates to England, as these issues are devolved. The Domestic Abuse Bill, which has been published in draft format, contemplates and sets out a new domestic abuse commissioner to stand up for victims. I am sure that the point that he makes on the way in which that provision can be applied UK-wide will be part of the Bill’s consideration.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I strongly welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement. A statutory duty on local authorities was a specific recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee’s report last year on domestic abuse. As part of the report, we raised the need for local areas to work together, given that people sometimes need to move to a different area because of the risks they face or to ensure they are safe. Will the Secretary of State make sure that his review recognises the need for areas to work together? Will he also consider our specific recommendation of a ring-fenced fund to ensure that the capacity gap is met and that nobody ends up unable to find a safe place?
James Brokenshire
I thank the right hon. Lady and the work of her Select Committee in ensuring a good evidence base, and in taking that evidence and presenting it in the way the Committee did. We have responded to that today. The statutory duty will do much to ensure a focus on commissioning, resources and delivering against the need in individual communities.
The right hon. Lady makes a valid and fair point about co-operation within and between areas. There have previously been problems, so we have given firmer and clearer guidance on people’s ability to access services in an area even if they do not live in that area; somehow that was previously a barrier, which it should not have been. It is important that we remain vigilant and conscious of such problems as we approach the consultation and what we learn from it.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, which I support very strongly. It is very timely, of course. A recent Women’s Aid report showed that about a third of domestic abuse services have been forced to reduce the support they provide in the past few years, and that one in 10 refuges received no funding whatsoever from local authorities in the past 12 months.
The Secretary of State refers to partnership with police and crime commissioners. Will he provide additional funds for police authorities such as Cumbria to reverse the cuts in police numbers in order to identify and protect victims? Will he say a little more about what assessment he has made of the impact on other local services, because councils inevitably raid important other budgets to subsidise new statutory services if they are not properly funded and, indeed, ring-fenced?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman heard what I said about the investment that was provided last November and the bed capacity it has given, and about other services that have been provided in that way. There is clearly much more to do, but the number of available bed spaces for victims has actually risen since 2010. Again, I want to see that there is proper, assessed support for the needs that are there, which is what the statutory duty is all about.
Police funding is obviously a matter for Home Office colleagues, but I would point out that more than £1 billion extra has been made available to the police during this financial year.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement. Ever since I was elected as a councillor, many years ago, I have been asking that this be made a statutory duty on councils. But the issue is funding. He made no mention of upfront funding. Will he elaborate on the resources that are, absolutely, needed to provide this service?
James Brokenshire
It is worth bearing in mind the timing. The statutory duty will require legislation to be implemented through the Domestic Abuse Bill that we want to progress later this year. The spending review then talks to the next financial year, 2020-21, and kicks in. We are consulting now to inform the discussion that I will have with the Treasury as part of the spending review, recognising the new burdens and the additional funding that will be required to follow through on this.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I welcome today’s announcement and I am grateful for prior sight of the statement. The announcement refers to England only, although the Government’s draft Domestic Abuse Bill applies to England and Wales, with some UK-wide aspects. Will the Secretary of State confirm that extra funding will be made available to the Welsh Government to support safe accommodation for victims and children fleeing violent homes in Wales?
James Brokenshire
As I have indicated, these services are for England. Yes, there are various aspects of the Domestic Abuse Bill, as we have discussed, relating to other provisions within it that have operational impact. However, I will certainly commit to work with the Government of Wales to see how we can ensure that things are well co-ordinated.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ending homelessness, I welcome this statement. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will now ensure that automatic priority for housing is extended to everyone fleeing domestic violence so that they are guaranteed a safe, long-term home and not just emergency temporary accommodation?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point on move-on and how we ensure that prioritisation. There is guidance to that effect, but equally I will look to see whether further steps are required in the light of the consultation.
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
I, too, welcome this statement, which will be very welcome in my constituency. I have often raised concerns about Jane’s Place in my constituency, which opened in 2017 to provide specialist support for victims of the most horrendous domestic abuse, which affected those victims in a very serious fashion. Since it opened, over 400 women and their children have benefited. The management of this excellent facility have regularly been in the very regrettable position of sending women away because it was full. Ever since it opened, its funding has been extremely precarious. I do welcome today’s statement, but I fear that without funding—ring-fenced funding—it will not be in a position to guarantee that its excellent services are available next year, and to plan staffing and future provision.
James Brokenshire
I commend the hon. Lady. I know that she has spoken to the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler), about the incredible work that Jane’s Place does. The whole point of this new statutory duty on commissioning and assessment of need is to put funding on a sustainable basis, rather than have the uncertainty that the sector has faced over many years.
That is the intent behind the statutory duty. I hope the hon. Lady will be assured about the approach we are taking. We recognise the need for a lack of variability across areas and for a long-term financial position for the incredible work that is taking place.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s statement. Some 60% of referrals to a refuge service were declined last year, which I am sure the Secretary of State will agree is a shockingly and unacceptably large statistic. As well as providing the sustainable funding that many Members have called for, what can be done to provide capacity in the sector, so that survivors of domestic violence are provided with the support they need?
James Brokenshire
I hope the hon. Lady will be assured about the responsibilities that we contemplate through the creation of this duty, which include firmly assessing the need and demand for accommodation-based support for all victims and their children, working on strategies for the provision of support and making commissioning decisions to sit alongside those. We envisage that step-by-step approach as part of the statutory duty, to assess the needs in a particular area and commission accordingly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I am aware that this duty applies to England, but over the years some of my constituents have fled to England because of domestic abuse, and people have come to our constituency from England because of domestic abuse. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that co-operation with devolved government and local councils in Northern Ireland will continue and that lessons will be learned from how we have successfully handled cases of domestic abuse in Northern Ireland?
James Brokenshire
I commend what the hon. Gentleman says. I know from my ministerial experience the incredible work and support services that are provided in Northern Ireland. As I indicated in a previous answer, I would like to consider how we can ensure that there is a good connection with each of the devolved Administrations, and perhaps we can have a further conversation outside the Chamber about that.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
Grimsby has had domestic violence provision for more than 40 years. The refuge is run by Denise Farman, who does an excellent job, and women arrive from all across the country to receive support, often with their children in tow. The service is funded only in terms of the property’s rent, through housing benefit. There is no additional funding for any of the other services it provides, including specialist support for the children—everything from swings and play equipment to talking therapies. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is essential to ensure that this funding is ring-fenced, so that the broad provision of these services is available and sustainable for the long term, and they do not have to worry about year-to-year funding gaps or rely on public funding through donations?
James Brokenshire
I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting that specific service; I know that the Minister for Women, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who is on the Front Bench, has visited it. Ultimately, we want to ensure long-term sustainability and confidence in service provision to meet local needs. I remain open-minded about how we look at this as the consultation develops. The duty is intended to place in the minds of local authorities the way in which funding is provided and the need for services for children or other specialist support, outreach or accommodation-based services. The point of the consultation is to listen and ensure that when we implement this through the Bill, we do it well.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the statement from the Secretary of State, but both the supply of refuge places and whether women feel able to leave the abusive relationship they are in are very much dependent on social security support. What discussions has he had with the Work and Pensions Secretary, particularly in relation to universal credit—we believe that a split payment should be automatic—and the two-child limit?
James Brokenshire
I assure the hon. Lady that work across government is taking place on these issues—in the context of the Domestic Abuse Bill and more broadly on the availability of welfare, which, as she rightly says, is often one of the key elements in the support for and funding of rental and other aspects of need. On the point she makes about leaving the abusive relationship, a number of people actually want to stay in a particular home, and this is therefore about how the provisions in the Domestic Abuse Bill work in relation to extra sanctions and such measures. We talk about the concept of accommodation-based services, but important as refuges are, and they are hugely important, we equally recognise that there are other needs, and this is about the way in which that service and such support can be delivered.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
This is welcome news, as we have seen by how warmly it has been received. A woman in Nottingham fleeing abuse may be reliant on facilities elsewhere, so the decisions taken in other communities are of as much interest to me as those taken in my own. What does the Secretary of State foresee putting in the statutory guidance about the responsibility of local communities and authorities to work together so that we have a genuinely national network of refugees?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. As part of the duty on local authorities, there is a responsibility to monitor and evaluate local delivery, as well as to report back to my Department about their strategies and the implementation of them. One of the things I will be very interested in and focused on as we look to deliver this is the issue of data sharing, which, as we know, can sometimes be challenging and problematic in other policy areas. This is about how we are best able to reflect on the fact that people will understandably move from one area to another; indeed, that may be an imperative part of delivering their safety. As we look to the implementation and delivery, this is therefore an important part, and I hope we are able to get some good responses through the consultation.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I warmly commend all the work that is done by Rhondda Cynon Taf Women’s Aid, which is primarily based in Pontypridd but serves the whole of RCT. In the next few weeks, it will open a new service in Dunraven Street in Tonypandy that is publicly available, and it covers a whole series of different services that are non-residential, which is great.
May I raise a different element with the Secretary of State? There is the issue of so many women in prison who have now been shown, from substantial academic research, to have had acquired brain injuries prior to their offending behaviour. In the end, because we do not provide proper neuro-rehabilitation to women whose violence has come from a domestic relationship, we are not actually providing proper support and they end up in the criminal justice system, so the victim ends up becoming the criminal.
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important and relevant point about understanding someone’s pathway into the criminal justice system. My hon. Friend the Minister for Women, who is alongside me on the Front Bench, has just told me about the £2 million being provided for work on female offenders. That is really important, as is recognising needs in different contexts and providing support in different ways, responding in a much more holistic way to where need is and, indeed, understanding properly the balance between how someone has become an offender while saying very firmly that they can be a victim, too.
Point of Order
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The learning disabilities mortality review programme is vital in trying to learn from the early deaths of people with learning disabilities. The programme’s second report was handed over by its authors on 1 March. The Government have not published the report, but yesterday it was leaked in The Sunday Times. We now know that only one quarter of more than 4,300 cases have been reviewed and that there are some serious scandals, including 19 patients with learning disabilities or Down’s syndrome having “do not resuscitate” notices put on their care because of their learning disability. That should never happen and it is appalling that this report has had to state that to doctors.
Mr Speaker, has a Minister notified you of their intention to make a statement to the House about the leaked report? That would allow hon. Members to question them on the vital issues, some of which I have just touched on. Some have emerged from the leak, but we should see the final report.
Mr Speaker
The short answer is no. The issues that the hon. Lady has highlighted are of enormous salience and there is great interest in them among Members across the House—of that I feel certain. I have not received any notification that a Minister intends to come to the House to deliver an oral statement on the matter. The hon. Lady can, of course, seek to ascertain, through the usual channels, whether such an intention exists. If not, through consultation with the Table Office she can explore opportunities to extract the information that she understandably seeks. I hope that is helpful to her for now.
Non-Domestic Rating (Preparation for Digital Services) Bill
Monday 13th May 2019
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Non-Domestic Rating (Preparation for Digital Services) Act 2019 View all Non-Domestic Rating (Preparation for Digital Services) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Government are committed to ensuring that the tax system is fit for the 21st century, that it is designed around the needs of the taxpayer and that we minimise as far as possible the administrative burden for businesses paying their taxes. The Government are also clear that this system should reflect and take full advantage of modern technology, and use that to make the process as simple and efficient as possible for taxpayers.
This very narrow Bill will support those aims in the context of the administration of business rates. This extremely short and simple measure will simply allow us to start exploring future digital reform of the business rates system. The same clauses appeared in the 2017 Local Government Finance Bill and passed through Committee without Division. The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) was present during those debates, and I hope the clauses will receive the House’s support again today.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Can the Minister give an idea of the cost involved and what sort of efficient and better system might emerge?
Rishi Sunak
The measure is even narrower than that; it is simply a paving measure, which I will come on to, that enables that exploratory work to start so that future Ministers will be able to come to this House with firmer proposals, with costs attached, depending on the eventual design of the system that is ultimately decided to be appropriate after extensive consultation with the sector. If my right hon. Friend bears with me, I hope his question will be answered later. If not, I will be happy to have him intervene again.
In the lead-up to the 2016 Budget, the Government undertook a wide-ranging review of the business rates system, in response to public calls to reform. As well as seeking views on the business rates tax itself, the review invited specific feedback on the administration of the rates system, including how business rates are collected.
Responding to the review, business groups called for a number of changes to the way the system is run, including switching the annual indexation of the business rates multiplier to the consumer prices index, rather than the retail prices index; implementing more frequent valuations; and modernising the billing and collection of business rates. I am pleased to say that the Government have already begun reforming the system to implement those changes.
Ratepayers are already benefiting from the change to the annual indexation of business rates from RPI to CPI, which was brought forward by two years, to April 2018. That measure alone is worth almost £6 billion to businesses over the next five years. The Government have also committed to increase the frequency of business rate revaluations from every five years to every three. To ensure that businesses benefit from that change at the earliest point, the Government have further announced that the next revaluation will be brought forward from 2022 to 2021. That will ensure that, as requested, business rates bills more accurately reflect properties’ up-to-date rental value and any relative changes in rents.
The Bill will enable us to begin exploring how to modernise the billing and collection of rates. Businesses in this country are of course already banking, paying bills and making sales online. Our tax system needs to keep pace.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Has the Minister seen press reports today that some major companies are calling for a 20% reduction in business rates? Does he have any comments to make about that?
Rishi Sunak
It is important to remember that the Bill is much narrower in scope than the design of the business rates system and how individual businesses pay the bills they are given. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), the high streets Minister, is looking forward to winding up the debate, and he will be able to give the House chapter and verse on every single initiative the Government have undertaken to support businesses on the high street. In sum, there has been £13 billion of relief since the 2016 Budget, and a third of all businesses no longer pay any rates at all.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I thank the Minister for giving way—he is being very generous. On that point, however valuable and commendable many of the proposals he mentions may be, does he not feel that this is somewhat like fiddling while Rome burns, or indeed many of our town centres burn? There have been calls for a reduction of around 25% in high street business rates, and that could be funded by making sure that the tech giants pay their fair share of corporation tax.
Rishi Sunak
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am loth to get drawn on to topics that are much broader than the very narrow scope of this Bill. However, I am happy to reiterate that I do not think the £675 million high street fund my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the high streets Minister introduced earlier this year is a case of fiddling while Rome burns. The Government are committed to the vibrancy of our high streets through various initiatives that will be outlined in my hon. Friend’s winding-up speech.
Indeed, the Bill is also an important measure; it is a measure that businesses have called for. Given the statutory nature of HMRC, it is impossible to move forward without this short piece of legislation. The reason for that is that businesses today receive separate business rates bills for each non-domestic property they occupy. Large businesses with property in different areas may receive bills from a number of local authorities responsible for issuing bills and collecting payment. It is worth bearing in mind that there are over 300 different billing authorities today, each with its own system of billing for business rates. While I pay tribute to the good work carried out by local authorities in administering business rates locally, the Government’s clear view is that reforming the system to more closely link with the wider management of business taxes led by HMRC could unlock long-term improvements to the current system.
Members will appreciate that implementing any reform of this scale takes significant time and that it is critical that the Government engage with businesses and local government in developing and designing any new digital system; indeed, the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton brought that up in Committee during consideration of the previous Bill. I am pleased to tell him that the measure before us today will take many years to come to full fruition. The current intention announced by the Treasury is that any new design of the system will not come into force until after the next revaluation, in 2024. What we are doing today is therefore just a very small first step on a journey that requires an enormous amount of engagement and consultation.
The main measure in the Bill allows HMRC to expend resources on beginning to explore designs for a new digital service for business rates. That is necessary because HMRC’s current statutory functions do not include activity in connection with the administration of business rates. To be clear, the legislation we are considering simply permits HMRC to begin the necessary design and engagement work for a potential new digital service. It does not implement any reforms to the current system of business rates administration.
That is important because, as I have noted, the Government are clear on the need to engage with businesses and local government to seek views on any specific options for reform. For example, the local government sector will want to ensure that any changes are fully compatible with the local retention of business rates and with plans to increase rates retention in the future. Equally, business organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Independent Retailers Association and the CBI will be keen to engage in future design work to ensure any reforms deliver benefits to businesses and minimise any burdens. Members should also be aware that any practical reforms to the system are likely to require further changes to legislation and, as such, there will be opportunity for full scrutiny of any proposals once the design work has concluded.
The Government’s efforts to improve digital tax services are already helping businesses seize the opportunities that digital technology offers. They are giving businesses more control over their finances, allowing them to spend their time focusing on innovation, growth and the creation of jobs. The Bill will support this by enabling HMRC simply to begin exploring potential options to link business rates with the administration of the wider tax system. It will also enable HMRC to undertake the necessary engagement with stakeholders to ensure any reforms work for business and for local government. While the Bill is just a small paving measure, it supports some potentially significant long-term improvements to the current system. I commend it to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the Opposition spokesman, with the leave of the House, and most unusually, I am sure the House would like to join me in wishing the Associate Serjeant at Arms, who occupies the Serjeant at Arms’ Chair, a very happy birthday.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I will not put the House through a rendition of “Happy birthday”—[Hon. Members: “Shame!”] But many happy returns.
Perhaps this is a missed opportunity. It is a shame, really, that the Bill is so narrow, because we have a good five hours where we could have talked about the real threats our businesses face, the dangers to our high streets and the many representations made on this issue. Nevertheless, this Bill is progress. Following the falling of the Local Government Finance Bill when the general election was called, we encouraged the Government to come forward with non-controversial elements of that Bill. Clause 14 was not controversial, so I am glad to see it in this Bill.
Local councils are on the frontline of government, delivering services that people rely on and which both support and enrich our communities on a day-to-day basis. Labour welcomes the modernisation of tax collection and the move to online payment and account facilities. However, the proposal to develop an online payment system led by HMRC, as set out in the Bill, does raise some questions.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I refer you to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, the body that represents councils, which are the billing authorities responsible for the collection of business rates. It, like me, wants confirmation that the move to develop an online payment collection facility will not change the fundamental and historical role of local councils as billing authorities with the legal responsibility for the collection of business rates. In the design of this new bridging system, to what extent have the Government sought input and representation from local government? Local government has significant experience in designing systems and processes, and it is important to draw on that to make the best of this proposal.
As the Government are investing in digital services, do they intend to streamline this online facility with the check, challenge and appeal process already in place? That would make it easier for businesses to have an end-to-end business rate system in place, marrying in one system the payment mechanism with the ability to check and appeal business rates. What payment mechanism will be in place to transfer funds to local authorities, especially in rate retention pilots? Who will be responsible for the collection of rates, and who will underwrite funds lost through non-collection?
The most critical issue is the wider sustainability of business rates and their role in funding local public services and encouraging local economies to thrive. Local government has already seen severe cuts after nine years of brutal and devastating Tory austerity.
Mr Jim Cunningham
One of the reasons that there is a reaction from businesses regarding the level of business rates is that while central Government should have been responsible for funding certain services, they have shoved that on to local authorities, which have had to put that through business rates, just like the police and fire authorities’ precepts.
Jim McMahon
It is a matter of fact that the Government are moving towards the self-financing of local government. That is fine if a local authority can generate money through business rates and council tax in its local economy, but if, for whatever reason—usually for historical reasons—it is not able to do that, the Government do not care if councils sink or swim. That is no way to fund adult social care or children’s safeguarding services, or to make sure the homeless get the support they need either. Quite frankly, it shows a callous disregard for the role of central Government in making sure that every area gets its fair share of funding. That is a critical point.
Mr Cunningham
Anybody who has any experience of local government—my hon. Friend does, as do I and many others in here—knows that three or four years down the road, though they hint at looking again at business rates, Ministers will come along and tell everybody in local government, “You’re profligate, you’re spending too much, so we’ll cap you.” As I am sure he will remember, we have had all this before.
Jim McMahon
The hallmark of local government across parties—this is not a party point—is that people roll up their sleeves and get on with it. They do not complain; instead, they find solutions to the difficult challenges facing the community, but that is made much harder when central Government are disconnected.
Successive Secretaries of State have failed to champion local government, which is why I welcome our shadow Secretary of State having that local government background and experience and really believing in it. I hope he will be Secretary of State in the future, leading on this from the Government Benches. It is critical that the Secretary of State should not batter local government all the time. It needs a champion to celebrate what goes on in every community and, regardless of party affiliation, to fly the flag for what has been proven to be the most efficient arm of government—they are our champions, and we should thank them for all the work they do.
By 2025, there will be a funding gap in local government of £8 billion, and by 2020 local authorities will have faced core funding cuts at the hands of central Government of nearly £16 billion since 2010. That means that councils will have lost 60p for every £1 the Government previously provided to cover local public services. Next year, 168 councils will receive no funding whatever from central Government to meet the cost of rising demand for local public services.
What impact will that have? We can talk about the big numbers, and £16 billion is a huge number and has had a huge impact, but this is really about people and communities—the streets where people live, the communities that bind people together and make places decent places to live. The cuts have had a dramatic impact on government services. Youth centres have closed; libraries have reduced their hours, and hundreds have closed altogether; and meanwhile, social care is on the verge of collapse. Warning after warning has been issued, but the Government, particularly the Treasury, have not come to the table. As a result, our councils are having to make difficult and unwelcome decisions about where to make efficiency savings, and that is hampering their ability to prioritise social good above all else.
Moving to an online payment system administered by HMRC, but with links through to local billing authorities, raises a more fundamental point about taxation on business overall. Currently, many believe it operates in a silo and that the approach to business taxation is very disjointed. While our town centres and high streets are going to the wall, the online giants are making record profits and ensuring that as much as possible is sent offshore. The Government should use this opportunity not just to introduce a digital payment system, but to undertake a more fundamental review of business taxation overall to ensure that tax is generated where the wealth is created and that our town centres and communities are properly supported. We look forward to scrutinising the Bill properly and to hearing answers to the questions posed.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I have declared my business interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but I am not speaking for them of course; I wish to speak on behalf of the retail businesses in my constituency, as others have already done.
While I am sure it is well intended and necessary to develop a digital payment system for this tax, can the Minister reassure us that it will not be used as a device by the Treasury and others to accelerate payments and to damage further the cash flow of the shops and other businesses that have to pay it? There is the temptation to use the power of digital technology to have real-time information and then to knock the money off for the tax rather more quickly, when the timing of tax payments may be an important part of cash-flow planning, particularly of retail businesses.
I hope that Ministers are sensitive to the current position in many high streets up and down the country. Large chains and other sizeable independent shops are struggling because their cost base is very high, and they are competing with online retailers who have nothing like the same cost base in terms of property and staff numbers. They are finding it difficult to manage, and another hit on their cash flow from the Government would not be welcome.
Rents are now falling in shops generally in England and Wales, the area covered by the Bill. Some retailers are talking about reductions of 25% or 30% as and when the rents on various shop properties become due for review. That relief is welcome to some extent, but it takes time, because many of the leases are for several years and have to mature before renegotiation is possible. Some retailers must go through the agony of a voluntary administration to secure a change in their rents. Another problem is the fact that rents can go down through market processes, but rates never go down, except in the case of very small shops that benefit from one of the exemptions. So the total property cost does not fall at anything like the percentage that the market is suggesting that it should, because the Government element is very fixed. I hope that Ministers will be sensitive to that.
I realise that this is not the occasion—much as many of us would like it to be—for a proper debate on the balance of business rate taxation and its impact on the retail sector. However, in Wokingham, a lot of money has just been spent on refurbishment and the provision of new and more attractive space in the town centre. Securing the first lettings is an important part of promoting a more active town, but over-avaricious taxation, speedier payments and other changes in how the business rate is handled could offset what will otherwise, we hope, be a good-news story.
That is my prime concern, to which I hope the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), will respond. I am delighted that he will be winding up the debate, because I know that he is very conscious of and sensitive to the need to do more to help retailers, and I am sure that he will mention that.
I should like to follow up my earlier intervention on the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak). It would be good, at some point—it may not be possible today—to have a better idea of the scope of the survey and of the costs that might be involved. Will it be conducted by our own Government officials, or will there be consultancy contracts? If there are consultancy contracts, will we get value, and will we be consulting people who actually know what they are talking about, so that we can end up with something that we are proud of?
The Government have a duty to taxpayers to ensure that money is well spent. It would be useful to have any more information that the Minister can give about the kind of sums that the Bill might authorise, and what the purpose is. What more can they learn that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs does not already know from running perfectly good systems for a range of taxes on people and businesses? A fair amount of them are now handled electronically, so presumably there is quite a lot of in-house experience and expertise that could be drawn on. We always want to make the best possible use of the talent that the Government already have and the information that they have already gleaned both through their own researches and by buying it in through consultancies. I hope that Ministers will have some ability to discipline that work and to ensure that it is timely and provides value for money.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
This is probably the easiest summing-up that I have experienced so far in the Chamber. I thank the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron)—first, for turning up and, secondly, for making incisive comments about this short Bill.
As we know, this is paving legislation to enable the Government to deliver on their commitment to link the local authority business rate system to HMRC digital tax accounts so that businesses can manage their rates bill in one place alongside other taxes. As I think should be clear from what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), we fully understand the Government’s wish to modernise the administration of business rates for the 21st century, and we fully understand that linking the local authority business rates system to HMRC digital accounts will make it easier, simpler and less burdensome for businesses to understand and pay their business rates. Nevertheless, as I am sure the Minister would acknowledge, there is some way to go before that aspiration can be achieved, and little of the detail of the new system is yet known.
The Bill provides HMRC with the ability to undertake the planning, consultation and testing that is needed to truly inform the design of the new service, and in their factsheet the Government say they will engage locally with local government and the business sector in developing detailed proposals and seeking views. It would therefore have been really useful today for the Government to have provided more detail on how they intend to go about this; we have simply no idea about the detail of how they will take this forward. There is a money resolution but absolutely no idea of the costs of digitising, and it would be helpful to hear something from the Minister about the costs that will be incurred.
The Minister made it clear that the measures in this Bill are to be compatible with the 100% business rate retention system the Government are aiming for, but we need to stop for a moment and explore this further, because there is a real risk under the 100% business rate system of dividing the country further between the haves and have-nots, the wealthiest areas and deprived areas, the south and the north. So can the Minister confirm that councils, particularly those affected by austerity, will not lose out under this system?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton said, since 2010 there has been a massive £16 billion-worth of cuts—a reduction of 60p in every pound for some councils—and the Centre for Cities found in January that the poorest areas have borne the brunt of council spending cuts. As a result of these cuts, councils have had to make £7 billion pounds of savings to adult social care, with less being spent on early intervention, libraries, youth services and so forth. In fact, these services have almost disappeared in some local authorities. So it might have been helpful for the Government to set out at the same time as this Bill how they see the whole of the local government finance system progressing in the future—for example, by having more information about the fair funding review and whether the Government will agree to independent scrutiny of the system and its implementation to test whether it actually is fair.
We know, too, that the current business rate system is broken, and we need firm proposals from the Government to ensure business rates are not an impediment to tackling regional inequalities in the way they are at the moment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)
The hon. Lady says we should talk about that to enable us to have a full discussion here today. This might be slightly beyond the scope of today’s debate, but perhaps she will set out from the Dispatch Box Labour’s position for business rate reform in some detail because we have time to do that, and then I will comment on that in the context of today’s debate.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I thank the Minister for that intervention, because perhaps I was not clear: I was not suggesting that those measures necessarily needed to be in this Bill, but they do need to be set out so that we can place the Bill within the context of the Government’s wider proposals, because the Government—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady has explained that very well and I understand why the Minister made his point, but of course matters that are not in this Bill are not subject to discussion this afternoon. As I said, the hon. Lady has explained the context very well and I am sure the debate will not be widened—and actually it is not difficult for me to keep this as a narrow debate.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will do my best to keep to what is in the Bill. However, the Government cannot continue to rely on a system of ever-increasing council tax bills and supplements to make up for the lack of Government funding for our essential public services such as policing, youth services, housing and social care. That is why we are interested in the wider picture, as well as the matters we are discussing today, but I will keep my points as narrow as possible.
The Local Government Information Unit has been pressing for a clear vision for the future shape of the council funding system, and it is worried that councils could continue to fail if no such vision is put forward in the near future. We also need to know something about the redistribution mechanisms that could be attached to 100% business rate retention, and it would be extremely helpful if the Minister said something about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton set out a series of questions for the Minister to address this afternoon. We need to know how the lessons from the retention pilots will become known and when they will be rolled out and whether there will be any additional costs for ratepayers. We need to know who will be responsible for collection rates and who will underwrite funds lost through non-collection. We also need to know how the system will be appealed and challenged, and who will administer the non-payment collection and the applications for discounts and exemptions. How will local government be involved, not only in the design of the new system but in bringing in the arrangements? I hope that the Minister will address all those detailed questions this afternoon. We understand the need for the Bill, and we will not seek to divide the House on it; instead, we look forward to improving it in Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)
What a privilege it is to have this opportunity to close the debate today. I wish that it had been better attended, but it is great to have had a contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and some contributions from Labour Members. There was no one here from Change UK or TIG or whatever it is called; it obviously does not care about business rates.
In our debate today, it is important for us to stick rigidly to the scope of the Bill, which sets out how we will empower HMRC to look at digitisation and at how it can modernise and simplify the business rates system. Before the 2016 Budget, the Government held an extensive consultation and set out a commitment to enter on this process. It is a commitment that, following the passage of this Bill, HMRC will then, and only then, be able to progress the necessary design work.
Today’s Bill is an important step towards those reforms, and it will allow HMRC to start to explore some of the digital infrastructure that will link local authority business rates to digital tax accounts. This has been called for by businesses, and it is also being welcomed by them. Today’s Bill is simply the first important step, and it rightly paves the way for further discussions on how the process will proceed. All those discussions will require legislation, which will pass through the House and be subject to the usual scrutiny of the Opposition parties.
Turning to the impact of business rates on businesses, we have heard clarion calls in the press this morning and from the Opposition during this debate for looking into a more wholesale reform of business rates rather than simply digitising them, and it is impossible to have a debate about digitisation without giving cognisance to that point. Let us not forget, however, that we have committed to £13 billion-worth of savings to business over the next five years through the reforms that we have already made to business rates. We have switched the annual indexation from RPI to CPI, which will, over the lifetime of that commitment, save ratepayers and businesses up and down the country some £6 billion. That is £6 billion that will remain in all our local communities and economies for the constituents that we represent. We have also reformed small business rate relief, doubling it to £12,000 and making it automatic, meaning that 650,000 businesses now pay no business rates at all. We have responded to calls from businesses for more frequent revaluations, which will now happen every three years from 2020-21.
Turning to the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham about business rates and revaluation, it is of course the case, thinking about cash flow and the impact that business rates may have on a business, that it is possible for business rates to go down if rent has gone down and other factors have reduced during the period since the previous revaluation. The last revaluation actually led to a majority of businesses seeing no change or a reduction in their business rates. Over time, that should happen more often with more frequent revaluations from 2021.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I am curious, based on the Minister’s research, about how often businesses ask for a revaluation.
Jake Berry
I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. From speaking to business groups—I regularly consult with the Government’s Future High Streets Forum, and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has the Retail Sector Council—it is clear that they seek more frequent revaluations because that stops bill shocks. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows about bill shocks from people who have visited his advice surgery, and he also runs his own business—[Interruption.] Although I do not think that farms have a big business rates bill, because they do not pay any business rates.
Bill Wiggin
However, I get continual complaints about business rates from the landlord at the Moody Cow pub, which is very near my home.
Jake Berry
I am sure that those at the Moody Cow will be delighted not just with more frequent revaluations, but with when they can move on to the digitalisation of business rates, which we are discussing today.
People who make the clarion calls for the abolition of, reduction in or some other change to business rates will accept that they are already a key source of funding for local authorities, funding essential services, such as adult social care and children’s services. I note that the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) did not take the opportunity in the wider context of this debate on business rates to elucidate the Labour party’s policies, but those who seek to reform business rates have an obligation to say how the revenue would be made up.
Many people who talk about business rates reform have at heart concerns about the health of our high streets, which was mentioned by the Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople and which should worry us all. The Government need to find a way of ensuring that high streets continue to thrive as shopping patterns and behaviours change. I cannot remember a period of more rapid change in how we choose to shop. High streets must clearly transition from bricks-led retail to a bricks-and-clicks online and offline model, with experiential leisure at its heart. High street retailers will be delighted that business rates were slashed by a third in the most recent Budget for retailers with a rateable value of under £51,000, and that formed part of our wider high street package.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not know whether you are a fan of “Sex and the City”, but Sarah Jessica Parker recently bemused her Instagram followers on a recent visit to London, when she praised Timpson not just for its key-cutting service, but for its extensive selection of umbrellas, labelling the branch in High Street Kensington tube station as her new favourite shop. Timpson is of course a fine retailer, which is why I was delighted that Sir John Timpson worked so closely with the Government on his report on the future of the high street, business rates and retail. Leading directly from his report, the Government created the £675 million future high streets fund to support high streets and enable them to pay their business rates. Although all those reforms have been welcomed, people will continue to call for a more fundamental review of business rates, and the Government will, of course, continue to keep that under review.
The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) raised a lot of specific questions about how the digitisation of business rates will work. I am sorry to disappoint him, but I am unable to answer any of those questions today because the purpose of the Bill is to give HMRC the statutory power, which it currently does not have, to go away and work up that system. How the system will work cannot become clear until we have empowered HMRC, both on Second Reading and in Committee, to start work on it. That is why it is so important that we agree Second Reading this evening, and it is why it is so welcome that the Opposition Front-Bench team support the Bill.
This important Bill is just the start of our cross-party work to ensure that we create a business rates system fit for the future. Many people who run businesses will now be used to making the majority of their transactions online, whether it be paying their VAT bill, paying their utility bills or making sales and buying stock. If we truly want to create a modern tax system that is supportive and friendly to business, we must all work to create an online taxation system, including for business rates, that small businesses and large businesses alike will find workable and useful in driving productivity and efficiency in their business. That is why I have the pleasure of commending the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Non-domestic Rating (Preparation for Digital Services) Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Non-Domestic Rating (Preparation for Digital Services) Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading
(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to other proceedings up to and including Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Non-domestic Rating (Preparation for Digital Services) Bill (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Non-Domestic Rating (Preparation for Digital Services) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 4 to 9 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6),
Exiting the European Union (Animals)
That the Animal Health, Alien Species in Aquaculture and Invasive Non-native Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 813), dated 4 April 2019, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5 April, be approved.
That the Animal Health, Plant Health, Seeds and Seed Potatoes (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 809), dated 4 April 2019, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5 April, be approved.
That the Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 811), dated 4 April 2019, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5 April, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Plant Health)
That the Plant Health (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 820), dated 4 April 2019, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8 April, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Architects)
That the Architects Act 1997 (Swiss Qualifications) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 810), dated 4 April 2019, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5 April, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)
That the Common Agricultural Policy and Market Measures (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 812), dated 4 April 2019, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5 April, be approved.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6),
Local Government
That the draft Buckinghamshire (Structural Changes) Order 2019, which was laid before this House on 2 April, be approved.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6),
Education
That the draft Higher Education (Monetary Penalties and Refusal to Renew an Access and Participation Plan) (England) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 1 April, be approved.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6),
Exiting the European Union (Value Added Tax)
That the Value Added Tax (Tour Operators) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 73), dated 17 January 2019, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22 January, be approved.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Adjournment (Whitsun)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 25),
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 23 May, do adjourn until Tuesday 4 June 2019.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Business of the House (14 May)
Ordered,
That at the sitting on Tuesday 14 May, paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) shall apply to the Motions in the name of the Leader of the Opposition as if the day were an Opposition Day; proceedings on those Motions may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption and for up to six hours from the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Environmental Audit
Ordered,
That Colin Clark be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Derek Thomas be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Selection Committee.)
Health and Social Care
Ordered,
That Dr Philippa Whitford be discharged from the Health and Social Care Committee and Angela Crawley be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Selection Committee.)
Self-build Housing
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
I wanted to call this debate “Kevin McCloud changed my life and I want him to change yours, too”, but I was told that was not entirely orderly.
What I do want to impress upon the House is that self-building produces houses that are better quality, cheaper and greener. My husband and I were gripped by “Grand Designs” when it was first shown about 20 years ago. I was aware that our French and German contemporaries had been brought up in houses that their parents had built, and they were starting to build their own at our sort of stage. We were thrilled when a run-down house on a large plot became available in our village. We definitely fall into the “creative” type, rather than the “engineering” one, so we got a local architect and a building firm in the village to do the work for us. But coping with the legal side of planning, as well as the design and organisation, was in itself a huge time commitment.
There were definitely television-worthy moments, and I am so glad we were not filmed: the day the glass wall broke into tiny shards as it was being installed; and when we moved in with two small children with only an outside loo and no floors. Thirteen years on, we still love our house. It was built for our needs: snooker, books and vinyl; and a large cooker. Where others have an eating area, we have a hose-down function room for community events. Most important to us are the incredible views of the Cherwell valley from every room.
Did the planners encourage us? No, they were horrified by discussions about reed beds and solar panels, and we had to appeal and argue. They did, however, eventually have the grace to commend the final result. But Cherwell District Council has come on in leaps and bounds since, and it is as passionate about building as I am.
We are building at an enormous rate locally, with three new homes finished every day in our area; we regularly top the leaderboard. But much of my casework is about problems with the quality of build of large developers. We have a wall of shame in my office where we rank how many complaints we get for each major builder. Occasionally, I get their representatives in, in small groups, to show them who is at the top of that wall of shame. I find that that is quite effective, with householders suddenly finding that defects are rectified—safety in numbers not working is effective in those meetings. The lack of quality, as well as the uniformity of type, of so much mass development is a real concern to me, as it should be to Members across this House.
In 2012, Cherwell District Council created Build! to look at alternative ways to deliver affordable houses for local people who buy a share in the property, which they self-finish to their own specification.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her characteristically entertaining and thought-provoking speech. I only wish there was time for me to make a speech. [Interruption.] Oh, of course, given the time, there probably is.
When I was a district councillor, one of my most memorable visits was to my hon. Friend’s constituency to see that Build! project. Does she agree that there are two wonderful things about self-build that she has not yet had time to mention, although I am sure she will: first, it strips out the profit element and therefore means it is much cheaper; and, secondly, there is individuality in each build—the place-making and the village aspect that is so important to our constituents?
Victoria Prentis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Build! scheme is a good example of a halfway house before a full self-build, which we all know is quite a commitment to take on. The scheme enables people to self-finish, and brings many of the benefits that my hon. Friend just outlined, possibly without all the pain of a full self-build process.
We have quite a few examples of the Build! project throughout the constituency, but grouping is important, as I will come on to explain, and one great example is in Warwick Road in Banbury, where there is a 16-house development on the site of a former care home. In creating the project, we learned that instant community cohesion is a major bonus to grouping self-builds: by the time people move in, they know not just their neighbours but the location and type of their soil pipes. That makes for a diverse but energetic community who look out for each other right from the beginning. It is quite extraordinary, and it is one of the very real benefits of grouping self-builds, even in quite small developments, such as blocks of flats.
Another example is in a large building in a car park in Banbury town centre. People in flats next-door to each other look out for each other. They carry each other’s heavy pipes in for installation and help each other with other elements of building. It really makes a difference to how they go forward together as a community.
One of my newest town councillors has just bought a one-bedroom Build! flat near Bicester Village station. She told me:
“Without Build! and the support of CDC”—
Cherwell District Council—
“I would have really struggled to get on the property ladder. At 24, with a single income, I’m not very attractive to mortgage lenders. I bought a share in a self-finish flat. I pay a mortgage and a minimal amount of rent, and hope to work up to 100% ownership in a few years.”
She continued:
“This scheme has allowed me to finish my first property to my own specification. It was a bit of a shock to learn my doors wouldn’t fit over the new carpets and needed to be cut down. I’m in the process of tiling my bathroom, which has been a learning experience. It hasn’t been plain sailing but it will be an experience I’ll treasure.”
That is somebody with, to put it politely, no self-build skills. She is a young woman doing it on her own aged 24. That is really commendable. It has enabled her to have a cheaper property finished to her own spec, and it has given her the confidence to get on to the property ladder. It is exactly the sort of scheme that we should roll out nationally.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this idea to the House for consideration. The Minister and I were just at a meeting of the all-party group on healthy homes and buildings. Some of the ideas that the hon. Lady refers to are coming through in the White Paper that the all-party group published.
Many years ago, before I got married, we did a project for my house back home. We referred to it as grip work—we employed a builder, a carpenter, an electrician, a plumber and so on to come in to do the work at each stage, thereby diminishing the cost factor at a time when, because we were younger, we were pushed for money and did not have very much. What does the hon. Lady feel that the House, and perhaps the Minister in particular—he is a good Minister—could do to help these projects and schemes for first-time new build owners?
Victoria Prentis
The hon. Gentleman has just helped—by telling us about his own experiences back home. What we can do is promote schemes such as Build! and the slightly more ambitious one that I am about to discuss, which are very easily rolled out across the country and which really can help new, young first-time buyers to realise their dream of property ownership.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I have a constituent who is interested in home building, but they had difficulty accessing the register of available land, which local authorities are required to keep. Can the hon. Lady advise me on how that was done in her local authority?
Victoria Prentis
Yes, I will come on to that. My local authority actually has provided enough houses—as indeed all local authorities are obliged to do—for people who want to build their own home. People wishing to build their own house must register with their local authority and a plot is supposed to become available in time. That is not always the case, and it is one of my real worries about people achieving their goals of self-build. I will cover that, and I am sure that the Minister will, too. That is one of the reasons for holding this debate: it is really important that we continue to press for plots to be made available so that people can begin to realise their dreams.
Jim Shannon
I am listening very intently to the hon. Lady. We also have a co-ownership scheme in Northern Ireland, which enables people who are financially restricted in getting a mortgage to buy half a house, and the co-ownership scheme gets the other half. It is also another way of enabling people to get on the first rung of the ladder and to move forward to get their own place, which is probably similar to the self-build project that the hon. Lady refers to.
Victoria Prentis
That is really important. Often, those help-to-buy schemes, or similar schemes, are not available to self-builders. They are in my constituency, because of a forward-thinking local authority, but they are not available across the country, and that is of real concern to me. The way mortgage lenders lend money is often not very helpful to self-builders, either.
I come on to Cherwell District Council’s most ambitious project and the one about which we really do want to sing from the rooftops. Graven Hill, which is former Ministry of Defence land, is a 188-hectare site south of Bicester. It is the UK’s, and possibly the world’s, largest custom build site. Plots with services already installed are easy to buy, and planning regulations—I cannot believe that I am saying this sentence—are relaxed and user-friendly. Two thousand custom build homes are being created, and those with a local connection have the chance to buy first.
I encourage everyone, particularly those involved in planning, to watch the fabulous programme “The Street”, on Channel 4, the final episode of which aired last week during Self-Build Week. It is available to watch on catch-up for the next 30 days. There is a shortened taster programme, but you would miss the full experience, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you did not watch the whole thing. Watching the programme is six hours of your life very well spent.
In the programme, Kevin McCloud—need I say more?—provides gentle commentary on the construction process of the first 10 builds on Graven Hill, demonstrating the positives and the stresses and how these houses meet the specific needs of the young, the old, the disabled and the unwell. These homes are definitely cheaper—around 20% cheaper—than other new builds. They are definitely ecologically sound. Just as the build quality is much better when a person does it themselves, individuals are consistently keener to take risks and try new ecologically interesting ideas in a way that big developers simply will not. So far the site as a whole has saved a significant quantity of carbon by sourcing tarmac from a local plant and by recycling aggregate on site. Some 90% of the waste generated at Graven Hill has been recycled, which is extraordinary on a big building site. McCloud does not shy away from the problems—this is very good telly—causing the reviewer of the series in The Daily Telegraph to call for a solid Victorian terrace to live in. However, what is clear is that what has been created is much greater than the sum of its parts. These are not just houses, but Graven Hill custom build houses. Their builders feel a pride in what they have achieved and that really shines through. They will definitely help to build a fantastic community.
There are three major barriers to intrepid self-builders, the first of which is access to land, mentioned by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous). All planning authorities are required to maintain a register of those seeking to self-build, and to ensure that sufficient permissions are granted. Some 18,000 plots have been promised by Right to Build Day on 30 October. Will the Minister assure me that this is on track and will happen?
The second barrier is mortgage and financing issues. When we inevitably went over budget in our own build, I remember that our mortgage company was distinctly unimpressed by our application for further funding and told us that our plot was worth less with our half-built house on it than it had been at the beginning. That was a low moment. My husband was self-employed, which also caused problems for the mortgage company. Low-deposit mortgages are not usually available to self-builders, and neither is Help to Buy because it relies on the purchase of a completed property by a single payment at legal completion. It is, however, available at Graven Hill for custom built homes. Central Government really could work more creatively with lenders to address those issues, and I would be grateful if the Minister thought further about that.
The third major barrier is undoubtedly planning. At Graven Hill, the council has adopted contemporary planning regulations to ensure a fast approval process of a self-build plot in 28 days. This is revolutionary, and I do not see why every local authority in the country cannot follow suit. I remember the thousands of pounds in rent that we wasted while waiting for planners. I do not really know what they were doing, but whatever it was they did it very slowly. Addressing this issue is critical to the future promotion of self-building.
The Government and the Minister are making all the right noises in policy terms, but real change has to come from creative thinking by local authorities and mortgage lenders. Without it, we will not see the revolution in self-building that I seek. The UK has one of the lowest self and custom build sectors in the developed world, running at about 8% of the market. This is a real way to solve our housing problems, build communities, and ensure good quality and ecologically sound architecture. To Cherwell District Council led by the quietly inspirational Barry Wood, the Graven Hill pioneers and Kevin McCloud —I salute you.
The Minister for Housing (Kit Malthouse)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) not only on securing this debate, which is customary, but on a really engaging, thoughtful and cogently argued speech. Her enthusiasm for self-build—notwithstanding her own tortured experience—shines through, and she is a great champion for it.
This debate comes on the back of last week’s National Custom and Self Build Week, in which I participated wholeheartedly, appearing on stage with the great Kevin McCloud at the ExCeL, in front of an audience of eager self-builders—a small number of the 93,000 people who I gather were due to go through that exhibition over a number of days. I have also visited the legendary Graven Hill in my hon. Friend’s constituency and seen for myself the site, which, as she quite rightly says, is the largest self and custom build site in Europe—I am not sure about the world. Graven Hill has been the subject of the series “The Street”, which is gripping us all. My favourite is the black one, which is built out of packing cases. It is a remarkable achievement.
As my hon. Friend quite rightly says, Graven Hill has an effervescence to it. To me, it seems like a kind of latter day Portmeirion. I have no doubt that, in time, it will become a conservation area—not least for the sheer variety and enthusiasm of the architecture, with a Cotswold cottage next to a Swiss chalet next to a house that looks like a stealth bomber next to a glass box. The variety of homes chosen by the occupants is extraordinary, as is the strong sense of community and ownership that is immediately apparent among the people there.
I know that, as a self-builder herself, my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm spreads far and wide in her constituency and has been noted by many people who live under her supervision. Like her, I have lived with the experience. When I was a small child, my parents built their own home—in the early 1970s, when it was a revolutionary thing to do. They bought a big old Victorian house, with a couple of other families, demolished it, and built a terrace of three houses that still stand today. We often visit and look back with fond memories, not least because my parents also had the Kevin McCloud moment that is in every “Grand Designs” programme where, two thirds of the way through, there is the conversation about money. With my parents, that conversation happened at the end of the build, and we moved in without stairs. For the first few months, as a five-year-old—or whatever I was—I would climb three ladders to get to bed. I am sure that the EU working at height directive would have something to say about that now, but in those days it was de rigueur.
That personal experience is translating into personal support for this mission, but also, happily, into Government support. I speak regularly to Members who are enthusiastic, such as my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), whom we should mention in this regard, and to sector representatives. They highlight, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, the structural barriers that can inhibit self and custom build, such as access to land, finance and navigating the planning system.
However, as result of this Government’s interventions, there has been some progress. We have brought forward, as my hon. Friend said, the “right to build” legislation, inspired by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, which requires local authorities to hold a register of people seeking to build or commission their own home locally. I will follow up with the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) the problem that his constituent is having in accessing that register. We have committed over £30 million to English authorities to meet their statutory duties to permission sufficient land to meet the demand on their registers within three years. We have published national planning guidance, in support of the legislation, and expect to update it to help local authorities with implementation later this year. I am encouraged that the demand is there, with authorities reporting about 42,000 people now signed up to the registers, indicating an increase of 133% in the past three years. We will continue to work with local authorities to ensure that the legislation is as effective as possible. However, we are not complacent. If the legislation is not having the impact we seek, we will look to reinforce it.
We have worked with the industry to identify barriers to the growth of the sector in England, and it has identified access to finance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury rightly said—both developer finance and mortgage finance. The £4.5 billion home building fund launched in October 2016 offers £1 billion in short-term loan finance targeted to self and custom builders, innovators, and small and medium-sized enterprises. In July, a Homes England programme to deliver the community housing fund outside London was launched, with £163 million available up to 2019-20 to support community-led groups bringing forward local affordable housing schemes. We expect a similar programme for London to be announced shortly by the Greater London Assembly.
We have worked with major lenders to ensure that mortgages are available. For example, challenger bank Virgin Money has joined the market, launching new products for custom-build projects recently. As the self and custom build sector consolidates and mainstreams, we anticipate that the market will move into this space and provide new financial products.
The self and custom build sector has welcomed our ongoing and wide-ranging reforms of the planning system, including the new national planning policy framework. These reforms will help to reduce the time that self and custom builders have to spend on appeals, saving money and resources. The new permission in principle, which promises to streamline planning on smaller sites for builders and developers, has also been welcomed. We know there is more to do, such as addressing concerns around capacity in some local authorities. Later this year, the Ministry will be publishing a Green Paper on accelerated planning to discuss how greater capacity, capability and performance improvements can accelerate the planning process.
Hon. Members may well ask why this Government want self and custom builders to build more homes. Last year, we delivered 222,000 new homes—the highest number in a decade, up 2% on the previous year. Since 2010, we have delivered more than 1 million new homes, and we are determined to get to 300,000 homes a year by the middle of the next decade. For too long, we have been overly reliant on a small group of large developers. Lack of diversity and competition has not been good for innovation and productivity, nor for consumer choice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury rightly said, new homes that fall short in terms of quality and character, and that lack a sense of place and belonging in the area, seem ubiquitous.
We now have the opportunity to change things. Self and custom house building is much more common in all developed countries except the United Kingdom, and England sadly lags behind the rest of the UK. If we could increase annual levels of custom and self-build, which were about 10,000 homes in 2015, to levels comparable to the closest overseas country—Holland—we would deliver 30,000 to 40,000 homes annually. Any additional capacity in house building will relieve pressure on the market and other services. Self and custom builders have a vital role to play in delivering new homes that are welcomed in their communities, rather than resisted, and built to last.
We know that a wide cross-section of people are looking to build their own home, and our aim is to make it easier to access self and custom build opportunities. We are working closely with the National Custom and Self Build Association to resolve the structural barriers to self and custom build that it has identified. Like many Members, I want to see more affordable, accessible and innovative self and custom build schemes. I want to see inspiring schemes such as the Nelson project in Plymouth for veterans, and community-owned and focused projects such as the Rural Urban Synthesis Society—RUSS—in Lewisham.
Local authorities are rising to the challenge, playing their part to make custom and self-build part of the solution to our national housing crisis. Councils such as Cherwell, Teignbridge and Shropshire continue to lead the way with their ongoing commitment to custom and self-build. I want to see diverse custom building across the sector, spanning in-fill, small sites and large-scale projects on ex-public sector land such as at Graven Hill. The Right to Build Task Force is working with a number of authorities to bring forward custom and self-build on larger sites—for example, at Aylesbury Woodlands and Tresham Garden Village.
An issue that I have identified, which my hon. Friend will know well, is that local authorities often adopt custom and self-build at volume and scale because one councillor happens to be interested. That is certainly the case at Cherwell, where the visionary leader decided that the council would embrace this and, as a result, has produced a celebrated estate. At the moment, it has not been systemised—it is not something that civic leaders naturally embrace—and one challenge for me is to get in among those civic leaders and sell this as part of the housing mix in their areas.
I recognise that there is still some way to go to mainstream self and custom building as a housing option in this country. We can make the progress necessary only by demonstrating that self and custom build can be affordable. I was pleased to attend Grand Designs Live last week and have the opportunity to meet a number of people. It was a great event, and the message that came across loud and clear was that self and custom projects can be built on modest budgets by hard-working individuals and groups working in collaboration. These builds are as much delivered with passion and energy as with materials and finance.
We should also be designing for our changing and ageing society, ensuring that homes are accessible and fit for people of all ages, so that we build and maintain vibrant mixed communities that stand the test of time. That is certainly the case in Graven Hill, where, as my hon. Friend recognised, there is an immediate sense of ownership and community. There is something life-affirming about designing and building your own home. It is about wanting to build something bespoke and individual, with character, that will be high-quality, accessible and enduring.
I want to finish by paying tribute to the National Custom and Self Build Association, which continues to provide leadership, expertise and experience to overcome sectoral barriers and challenges, and to my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk and the Right to Build Task Force, who have done sterling work in banging the drum for custom and self-build, helping authorities and community groups to bring forward large affordable custom and self-build projects and demonstrating that that is possible.
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury that custom and self-build can and should be a mainstream housing option in this country. With the measures that the Government are putting in place and the support of all Members in challenging the myths about custom and self-build, we are firmly on the path to realising that ambition. I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate and for her work in pushing and championing what is undoubtedly a critical part of this country’s future and the homes that we must build for the next generation.
Question put and agreed to.
Trade etc. in Dual-Use Items and Firearms etc. (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No. 2) 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 International Trade (Graham Stuart)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Trade etc. in Dual-Use Items and Firearms etc. (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019, No. 806).
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin. I am pleased to be able to open this debate on the regulations, which were made in exercise of the powers conferred by section 8(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. They correct errors in an earlier statutory instrument, the Trade etc. in Dual-Use Items and Firearms etc. (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which, as some hon. Members may recall, have already been debated and approved by both Houses. At the time, I acknowledged that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments had reported that instrument for defective drafting in three respects. I said then that we would correct those errors, and we are now doing so.
In addition, we are correcting an error concerning the removal of annex IV of the retained dual-use regulation. Annex IV establishes authorisation requirements for certain intra-Community transfers, and it was deleted because in a no-deal scenario the UK will not be party to intra-Community transfers. However, annex IV is referenced elsewhere in the dual-use regulation and so it needs to be retained in order for the regulation to function properly. We are therefore reinstating annex IV.
To conclude, the regulations do nothing more than to correct acknowledged errors in another instrument that both Houses have already approved. On that basis, I call on my fellow hon. Members to support the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin.
When we considered the original Trade etc. in Dual-Use Items and Firearms etc. (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, I asked the Minister whether, given the drafting errors, we might be back at some point in the future to discuss them again—and here we are. As the Minister said, the regulations correct the drafting errors in the original regulations, including the inadvertent consequences of removing annex IV. Labour will, of course, support the Government in correcting those errors.
Hon. Members will be thankful to hear that I will not repeat everything that I said in the first debate, although I will make some brief points. Labour fully supports a robust export control system. We therefore support the Government’s intention to ensure that the existing approach to export controls for dual-use items and firearms continues once we leave the European Union. We want to see minimal disruption to exporters, and safeguards in place, to ensure that controlled goods are not inadvertently exported inappropriately.
Labour recognises the considerable contribution that a responsible, world-leading defence and security industry makes to the UK economy. We also believe that strong export controls have a vital role to play in sustaining a legitimate trade in arms, while protecting UK jobs and research and development. As I said before, we also believe that we need a tighter approach in some areas of our export control regime, and we have called for the cessation of exports to countries where there is a concern that those exports would be used to violate international humanitarian law.
Recently, I asked several written questions on some technical aspects of the regulations. One question concerned the way in which the UK Government intend to work with our European partners once we have left the EU. I hope that the Government will at some point set out exactly what they intend to do in that regard. For example, what relationship will the UK have with the dual-use co-ordination group? It is vital that, whatever our exact relationship with the EU, we continue to work with other countries on crucial issues such as this.
I repeat my question about how the Government intend to define human rights violations in the context of export licence applications, given that we will no longer be following the charter of fundamental rights.
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Lady for her response. We do not expect to make any changes to how we deal with exports. Every export is judged against the consolidated criteria. Ensuring respect for international humanitarian law, as she knows, lies at the heart of that. We will never approve of an export that is inconsistent with those criteria, which are always applied.
To reiterate my opening statement, we made some errors in the original regulations, and through these regulations we are correcting them. The instrument does nothing more than that. Given that the original regulations have already been debated and approved by both Houses, I ask Members to support these regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Plant Health (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (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 Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 811).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the Plant Health (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 820).
David Rutley
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. The statutory instruments relate to buyer security in Northern Ireland, and have been grouped to facilitate efficient scrutiny and ensure that we have a fully operable statute book on exit day.
The Committee might wonder why the instruments have not already been debated. To clarify, they were initially submitted in December 2018, but we needed to ensure that the policies we have developed for Great Britain worked in Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances. On 13 March 2019, the UK Government confirmed their policy to have no new checks or controls on goods at the land border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland if the UK leaves the EU without an agreement. That enabled the instruments to proceed to ensure that important controls to protect buyer security on the island of Ireland are managed without checks at the land border.
The statutory instruments are among a small number of affirmative measures made under the urgent procedure. The importance of having the regulations in place by exit day—initially 29 March and then 12 April—meant that the timeframe did not permit us to lay them via the normal route. It was of the utmost importance that we could assure the EU, in advance of its consideration of the UK’s application for third-country listed status in the event of exit on 12 April, that we had a complete statute book.
The nature of the instruments makes them critical. If they were not operable on exit day, there would be a significant risk that products of animal origin from third countries could not be imported directly into Northern Ireland and that plant products that host harmful organisms could enter Northern Ireland without regulatory controls. That was not acceptable and required urgent action. The priority was to provide as much certainty as possible for business and the public. The Committee now has an opportunity to debate and vote on the instruments.
The regulations largely mirror amendments made to the corresponding legislation for Great Britain, which have been considered by the House. As with those amendments, the regulations before the Committee are technical and are designed to ensure the continued operability of effective legislation. The instruments do not introduce any change of policy, nor do they impose any regulatory controls on imports from the EU. In particular, the trade instrument does not require consignments of animals and animal products from the EU to be inspected at border inspection posts in Northern Ireland. The plant health instrument provides for some operational changes to plant and plant product import arrangements, which I shall address in a few moments.
On animal and plant health products entering Northern Ireland directly from a third country following exit, I confirm that there will be no change to, or an increase in, the checks that are carried out currently. For animals and related products transiting from a third country to Northern Ireland through the EU, the only additional checks that would be applied if we left the EU without an agreement would be for products of animal origin and high-risk food and feed that is not of animal origin.
Such commodities would need to enter via a border inspection post in Northern Ireland, which are currently located at Belfast airport and Belfast port. Intra-EU movements of those commodities is not considered significant. Even if we left the EU without an agreement, live animals, reproductive materials and animal by-products from third countries would be able to enter Northern Ireland through a UK port without further checks if they have had full veterinary checks at a recognised EU border inspection post. A significant increase in the number of checks at Northern Ireland border inspection posts following exit is not therefore anticipated.
Plants and plant products entering Northern Ireland from third countries cleared in the EU would have to comply with the same import requirements as consignments that came directly from the EU. Regulated plants and plant products entering Northern Ireland from third countries via the EU that have not been checked in the EU would require three days’ pre-notification, documentary checks, and inspection at an approved place of inspection which, it is important to note, would be away from the border.
While operating within a United Kingdom framework, plant and animal health are matters of shared interest on the island of Ireland. The Belfast agreement provides the structures for north-south collaboration on plant and animal health. That has resulted in a recognition of the importance of the single epidemiological unit, which protects the island’s biosecurity. The regulations are specifically about protecting biosecurity across these islands while facilitating trade, and will not change any island plant and animal health partnership practices.
The Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which is the first of the two instruments, amends Northern Ireland legislation relating to imports of live animals including horses transiting through the EU; animal products; reproductive material used for animal breeding; and bees. It also amends legislation on the movement of pet animals, which is an important social issue in Northern Ireland given its land border with the EU. Most importantly, the instrument makes necessary technical corrections to the Trade in Animals and Related Products Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2011, a key piece of Northern Ireland legislation that sets out the requirements for trade in live animals and genetic material with the EU, and imports of animals and animal products from outside the EU.
The instrument makes no policy changes to the 2011 regulations. It does, however, provide for the transfer of the power to approve border inspection posts in Northern Ireland from the European Commission to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. I am pleased that the very hard-working DAERA officials who have helped ensure these regulations are in the best possible order are present.
This instrument ensures the continuation of veterinary controls and other import conditions in the 2011 regulations that provide the necessary protections for animal and public health. Furthermore, it amends two pieces of legislation that regulate the non-commercial movement of pet animals into Northern Ireland. Those amendments provide the necessary technical corrections to provisions in other Northern Ireland trade-related legislation that are predicated on EU membership and would be inappropriate to retain following exit, such as references to “another member state”, “intra-Community trade”, and the European Commission’s ability to attend inspections. They are very much technical operability changes.
The Plant Health (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 is the second of the SIs. Although the instrument provides for some operational changes to import arrangements for businesses, those changes are necessary and risk-focused. First, regulated plant material such as ornamental plants in pots intended for commercial planting that currently enters Northern Ireland from the EU with an EU plant passport would require a phytosanitary certificate issued by the official national plant protection organisation, in line with international obligations. Those consignments must be pre-notified to the relevant plant health authority. In order to maintain the flow of goods, regulated plant material from the EU would not be subject to checks at the border in Northern Ireland, just like the rest of the United Kingdom. However, remote documentary checks would be undertaken in alignment with UK plant health authorities.
Secondly, consignments of regulated plants and plant products from non-EU countries that transit through the EU to arrive in Northern Ireland and have not been checked and cleared in the EU would require a statutory three days’ pre-notification to DAERA, as well as documentary checks and inspections at approved places of inspection within Northern Ireland, which would be away from the border. In the unlikely circumstance that plants and plant products from a non-EU country are checked and cleared in the EU, they will be treated as EU goods on arrival in Northern Ireland, and must comply with the import requirements for plants and plant products imported from the EU. The instrument also extends the application of an existing offence to the import requirements that would arise should the UK leave without an agreement.
Biosecurity and trade is significant for the Northern Ireland and wider UK economy. While operating within a UK framework, biosecurity in plant and animal health will remain important to the recognition of the island of Ireland as a single epidemiological unit. That will continue to secure close co-operation between Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland officials on wide-ranging trade, disease and biosecurity matters. The instruments will protect biosecurity whilst facilitating trade following exit. For the reasons I have set out, I commend them to the Committee.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, even if it is for yet another set of amendments in the long series of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Brexit statutory instruments. Once again, the Minister states that the statutory instruments make technical changes. We can only hope that there are no policy consequences, impacts or costs for individuals or businesses and no risks to biosecurity or environmental or health protections. The fact is that, as with most other Brexit SIs, we are left with no choice but to take those words on trust.
Paragraph 2.4 of the explanatory memorandum to the Plant Health (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 states that the regulation “creates new offences”. Paragraph 12 states that no impact assessment has been done because it has no impacts. What assurance can the Minister give that the criminal offence of failure to comply with an order in respect of a demarcated area can be properly enforced? How will that be done without incurring any additional significant costs? Can he be certain that any additional costs will be below the de minimis threshold for an impact assessment? Regulation 12.10 states that the increase in public sector costs will be largely covered by charging businesses. Will he assure us that there will be sufficient public budget for the new offences to be detected and prosecuted whether or not the costs can be recovered?
In the debate on the draft Plant Health (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 on 19 March, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), said that the number of Animal and Plant Health Agency plant health inspectors was being doubled to 227 full-time equivalents. Will the Minister provide an update on how many of those staff are now in place, and the equivalent numbers for Northern Ireland?
The legislation being amended includes the Plant Health (Phytophthora Ramorum) Order (Northern Ireland) 2005, which concerns a serious fungal disease affecting native and introduced trees and plants, including oak and rhododendron. Will the Minister tell the Committee how many outbreaks of phytophthora ramorum are currently known in Northern Ireland? Why does the factsheet about that disease on the DEFRA website not seem to have been updated since 2012?
As with all the Northern Ireland EU exit legislation, it is important to have clear arrangements for plant health checks in any scenario. How can checks prevent the spread of disease in plant material and wood if there are no border checks between Northern Ireland and the Republic? Is there not a danger that those wishing to import dubious material might choose to import via the Republic in order to avoid checks? The amended wording states that no person may move any specified material
“into or within England unless it is accompanied by a UK plant passport”.
Again, how will that be monitored and policed in practice without border checks?
The amended legislation includes emergency measures to put in place controls where there are outbreaks of disease. How will control areas be set up and made secure across the border with the Republic? What mechanisms are in place to ensure that close collaboration continues? How does the Minister justify the use of the exceptional urgency provisions in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 now that we have agreed to extend article 50 to 31 October? Will the Minister continue to use the Act’s urgency provisions for further SIs that are needed to correct errors and omissions?
It is of huge concern that most SIs are being pushed through with little or no engagement with industry or voluntary groups who are, in any case, suffering from consultation fatigue. Of more than 500 Brexit-related statutory instruments churned out since last June, more than 120 are from DEFRA. Amid all the other chaos generated by the Government’s misguided handling of Brexit, surely it is legitimate to ask whether such a huge investment of parliamentary effort has resulted in effective scrutiny.
As the Opposition have said in other Committee debates, this is not a dry parliamentary issue. The regulations have a significant potential impact on the people of Northern Ireland. They are in place to protect commercial interests and livelihoods, prevent the spread of animal and plant pests and diseases, and protect food safety and animal health and welfare. Getting any of this wrong, even in small matters of technical detail, risks serious consequences. As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew), said in the corresponding debate on the EU exit SIs on UK animal trade on 19 February,
“it would be economic madness if we allowed things like rabies to come in because we did not have enough people to check as a result of having a different process for allowing animals with such diseases to come in.”—[Official Report, Ninth Delegated Legislation Committee, 19 February 2019; c. 7.]
Ministers have rightly praised the officials, expert advisers and lawyers who have responded with the professionalism and dedication that we expect of them—often entirely unreasonably, considering the manufactured suspicion of experts in some quarters. However, the Government are now effectively asking Parliament to take their work on trust. Hon. Members have zero realistic prospect of following the jumble of lumped-together SIs on disparate subjects, each of which makes changes to a vast array of domestic and EU legislation. It is inevitable that the process will produce a statute book that is all but impossible for lawyers and the courts to track through, let alone real people struggling to run a business.
We have repeatedly warned Ministers that errors and omissions will happen. For the record, I repeat my request to the Minister that, once the process is complete, a comprehensive survey be made of all the DEFRA statutory instruments passed to facilitate Brexit, so that any further errors or omissions can be discovered. I hope he will reiterate his commitment to carrying out that survey.
If we could be certain that Brexit would not involve leaving the EU without a proper deal, much of this SI madness could have been avoided. We still hope that the Government will see the light and agree that there should be a permanent and comprehensive UK-EU customs union, close alignment with the single market, dynamic alignment on rights and protections, and clear commitments on participation in EU agencies. That would ensure that we can continue to share knowledge and expertise with EU bodies and would avoid extra costs and burdens for business, save jobs and protect our livestock, trees and plants from pests and diseases. Given where we are, however, we understand the Government’s rationale for introducing the regulations, so pressing for a vote today would serve no purpose.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I will not detain the Committee for long, but I have one or two questions for the Minister. I also have a general grouse, I am afraid, which is that, on the basis of the papers available in the Committee Room, it is virtually impossible to understand the changes made by the regulations—my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich made a similar point. Without being able to look carefully at the legislation that the regulations refer to, we cannot agree whether the measures in them do what they purport to, so it is very difficult to scrutinise them. That is not the fault of the Minister or of the hard-working civil servants who have produced the regulations, no doubt under extreme pressure. It is a fault of the process that the Government have undertaken to introduce the regulations.
The Minister said that the changes made by the regulations “largely mirror” changes in the existing GB legislation. The word “largely” suggests that in some respects they do not mirror them, but he did not set out how they do not. I would have expected him to set out those differences to provide clarity and reassurance to the Committee. I am sure we would all find it useful if he could do so today.
I note that the animals SI refers to the rabies order from 1977—a very serious piece of legislation aimed at stopping the importation of a horrible disease, which we would not want to see go wrong. As far as one can tell—I am guessing—the statutory instrument makes minor and technical changes, but given how important that order is I would like the Minister to reassure us that the changes are purely technical, and that they are correct and will not suddenly make the provision impossible to implement practically. It would be a disaster if that or something like it were to happen.
The instrument revokes the Destructive Imported Animals Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1933 and one of its more modern counterparts. It seems to me that revoking something entirely is making not a minor or technical change, but a substantive change, so perhaps the Minister will be a bit clearer about why this SI, which is supposed to be making minor and technical changes, is revoking regulations. I am sure that there is a perfectly good explanation, and that it is just that we have not heard it, but I want the Minister to deal with that point.
All these matters, whether on the animal or the plant side of things, are about important issues, such as diseases of plants or animals. If those things go wrong, they can have a huge impact on businesses, food supplies and the natural world. These are very important matters. It is not at all clear to me, despite the best intentions of all concerned, that these instruments do as they say they will. The explanatory memorandums appear not to be as explanatory as one might wish. For example, they say that this instrument revokes the Destructive Imported Animals Regulations (Northern Ireland), but do not explain why that is necessary. One certainly cannot gather from the wording of the instrument why it is necessary.
I hope the Minister understands the Opposition’s frustration at not being able to ascertain why some of these things are being done. These instruments seem extensive—revoking something is not a minor and technical change—but the explanatory memorandum simply asserts that it is being revoked without giving any explanation of why. I hope the Minister will enlighten me on that point.
This illustrates the Opposition’s difficulties at being faced with these instruments at a late stage and not having the legislation present in the Committee—I have complained about that in other Committees—so we can make comparisons between the old instrument and what the new instrument is doing. One simply cannot understand, from reading these instruments, what impact they will have. I hope the Minister will enlighten us about those two points and will take back to his Department and the Government the fact that, yet again, we are a bit frustrated that they are making proper scrutiny impossible.
David Rutley
I thank hon. Members for their contributions and questions. The hon. Member for Ipswich has been consistent in his concerns about the sheer number of SIs but, as I have explained previously, DEFRA in particular is significantly affected by a potential no-deal scenario, and as a responsible Government we have needed to look at and plan for every eventuality. I am grateful to hon. Members in this Committee, many of whom—I am thinking in particular of the Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Bristol West—have sat through many other SIs with great fortitude and interest in these important subjects. I also pay tribute once again to the officials who have taken this work through, not least the DAERA officials who are with us today.
I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Ipswich. However, in my view, it is clear that the best way forward would be to ensure that we have a deal; if we did, we would not have to worry about these arrangements. Obviously, conversations and negotiations are going on between both our parties at the moment. I wish them success in moving forward, and we will see how they play out, but to my mind a deal would be the optimal outcome.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of points about enforcement—I will address both his points and those made by the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood in turn. As far as enforcement goes, regulated plants and plant products from third countries that transit through the EU en route to Northern Ireland are currently subjected to plant health checks at the first point of entry into the EU to ensure biosecurity protection. Cleared goods can then circulate within the EU, and are assigned the same status as EU goods.
Under the instrument, regulated plants and plant products from third countries transiting through the EU en route to Northern Ireland that have not been cleared in the EU would be subject to regulatory controls. Those controls require all importers of regulated plants and plant products from third countries transiting to Northern Ireland via Dublin, or anywhere in the EU, to provide DAERA with three days’ pre-notification of any consignment arrival in Northern Ireland. Pre-notification provides relevant details of goods and the expected date of arrival at the DAERA-authorised approved place of inspection within Northern Ireland, where documentary checks and physical inspections are completed. Goods will not be subject to plant health checks at the Northern Ireland border. The instrument also requires that the goods must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the appropriate authority in the country of origin.
The instrument gives the same assurance for third-country goods transiting through the EU to Northern Ireland as is provided by the corresponding DEFRA instrument in respect of Great Britain. Furthermore, existing protections provided by the common transit convention and international air services transit agreement will continue after EU exit. That will mean that consignments will continue to travel under a seal from their place of origin, and goods arriving at the authorised places of inspection will have their seals removed there only by an authorised officer. DAERA and DEFRA have agreed the operational arrangements for goods transiting via the UK so, in those situations, strong enforcement mechanisms will be in place.
Regarding inspectors, all consignments of regulated plant and plants products currently imported from the EU under the existing EU passport system would require pre-notification accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate, as I explained before. In the event of exit without an agreement, they would also be subject to remote documentary checks. A recent survey on the volume of trade with the EU indicates that up to 40,000 phytosanitary certificates would require remote documentary checks annually. Those certificates will replace EU plant passports, and similarly will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. That equates to 20 or 30 checks daily, which is a manageable workload. Resources will be in place to manage those processes, and it is anticipated that the number of inspectors required to undertake that work would more than double, from five to 11. However, plans have been developed to deploy and redeploy staff to manage that additional workload, so the appropriate number of inspectors and the resources required to carry out those inspections will be in place if required.
The hon. Member for Ipswich raised points about co-operation with Ireland in the area of biosecurity. There is a strong sense of collaboration and a real sense of partnership to this work, which will continue as we go forward. We will work to maintain common protected zones for plant health in both jurisdictions.
The hon. Gentleman also asked questions about new plant health offences. The instrument extends the application of offences to the import requirements that would arise if the UK left the EU without an agreement. The existing offence relates to failure to comply with a notice served by a DAERA inspector identifying non-compliance with regulations relating to a relevant consignment. In the event that the UK leaves the EU without an agreement, goods that require an EU plant passport will need to be pre-notified and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate. The instrument ensures that the existing offence covers non-compliance with those requirements.
The Committee mentioned the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) Order (Northern Ireland) 1977. The definition of “member state” in that order is amended to reflect the fact that the UK will no longer be a member state of the EU. References to “Council Directive 92/65/EEC” are replaced by references to “the Trade in Animals and Related Products Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2011(2)”. The amendments are very technical in nature.
The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood mentioned the differences between statutory instruments for Great Britain and those for Northern Ireland. The SI makes minor amendments to four additional pieces of Northern Ireland legislation—I apologise for not including them in my speech, which was quite long. I am pleased to have the opportunity to update the Committee now.
Three of those pieces of legislation have been included in the instrument because there was no other vehicle with which to amend them. The amendments made have been made for GB legislation via other instruments. One of those pieces of Northern Ireland legislation has no GB equivalent—the Northern Ireland Poultry Health Assurance Scheme Order (Northern Ireland) 2011—while others relate to bees and to destructive animals. Those are all technical changes.
Maria Eagle
Will the Minister tell us how the revocation of an instrument can be defined as a “technical change”? The Destructive Imported Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1933 is being revoked. How can that be described as technical?
David Rutley
This SI makes a minor technical amendment to one piece of Northern Ireland legislation—the 1933 Act. The amendment is designed to ensure that the movement into Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK of certain animal species, such as the muskrat, continues to be prohibited following exit, except when permitted under licence, which mirrors an amendment made affecting England. I will write to the hon. Lady to set that out more clearly.
I have covered most of the questions and, for the reasons that I set out, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 811).
PLANT HEALTH (AMENDMENT) (NORTHERN IRELAND) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2019
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Plant Health (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 820).—(David Rutley.)
Draft Food and Feed Hygiene and Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) (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 Health and Social Care (Seema Kennedy)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Food and Feed Hygiene and Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. This instrument, which concerns food and feed law, is made under the powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to make necessary amendments to UK regulations. The Government’s priority is to ensure that the high standard of food and feed safety and consumer protection that we enjoy in this country is maintained when the UK leaves the European Union. This statutory instrument will correct deficiencies in certain regulations to ensure that the UK is prepared in the event of leaving the EU without a deal. Amendments are limited to the necessary technical amendments to ensure that the legislation is operative on EU exit day. No major policy changes are made through this instrument, and we do not intend to make any at this point.
As hon. Members know, the Government have negotiated a deal with the EU and are in the process of taking it through Parliament. This deal is designed to secure a smooth and orderly exit from the EU. However, it is the job of a responsible Government to prepare for all possible scenarios, including the potential outcome that we leave the EU without a deal. We are committed to ensuring that our legislation continues to function effectively in the event of no deal and that public health remains protected. This instrument has been laid for such a scenario.
Fifteen EU exit-related instruments have been laid previously, addressing various aspects of food and feed safety and hygiene. This instrument will address a range of minor deficiencies in retained EU law relating to food and animal feed that have not been addressed by earlier instruments or by very recent changes made to EU law and that could not have been addressed by previous instruments. As with previous SIs recently laid before the House, I wish to make it clear that no policy changes are made through this instrument, which makes only the essential changes necessary to ensure an effective and fully operable statute book on exit day.
The primary purpose of the instrument is to ensure that legislation continues to function effectively after exit day. The proposed amendments are critical to ensuring minimal disruption to food controls in the event that we leave the EU without a deal. The changes also ensure a robust system of controls, which will underpin UK businesses’ ability to trade both domestically and internationally. The contents of the instrument cover several policy areas, which I will address.
The health mark for carcases of animals such as cattle, pigs and sheep, and the identification mark for all foods of animal origin, will change once the UK has left the EU, with the letters “EC” no longer used. The Specific Food Hygiene (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 retain the requirement for health and identification marks to contain either “UK” or “United Kingdom”. The instrument allows for the abbreviation GB to be used in such marks, as this is the International Organisation for Standardisation’s two-letter country code for the United Kingdom. The instrument also provides for a transitional period of 21 months after exit day, during which UK food businesses can apply their current health and identification marks on carcases and food of animal origin in the UK domestic market. This transitional period will assist businesses by providing a smoother transition to the new marking requirements and permitting them to use up existing labels and packaging.
Let me turn to the trichinella pork nematode worm parasite provisions and the transitional provisions for official laboratories. This SI addresses deficiencies in retained EU law on trichinella testing requirements to ensure that these rules are fully enforceable, replacing references to EU institutions and bodies with appropriate UK bodies and authorities.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Can the Minister explain how virulent and how difficult for human health that particular issue is? I am a bit unsure, and the more difficult it is, clearly the more we have to be careful about how we deal with it.
Seema Kennedy
The hon. Lady raises the point that trichinella—a parasitic nematode worm—can be extremely serious. It can cause disease in people who eat raw or undercooked meat from trichinella-infected domestic animals or game. The instrument will provide assurance that testing requirements that ensure protection will continue after EU exit. Maintaining the requirements of the existing regulations will retain confidence in the pork industry. Confidence in food safety is our Government’s priority.
Ms Eagle
Is the Minister confident that we have enough capacity in this country to continue testing for that worm and its associated health risks, as we do not have time to put in place our own testing facilities? Will she tell the Committee how much extra resource her Department has allocated to make sure that we do not allow a loss of control during the transition?
Seema Kennedy
I am confident that the Foods Standards Agency will be able to cope. It has done sterling work, and I met the chairman of the FSA this morning. An extra £14 million was provided to the FSA for EU exit in 2018-19, and £16 million for 2019-20. The FSA has had an additional grant fund of £2 million for local authorities for the year ending 2019, and again for the year ending 2020. That is just to support food safety-related activity related to EU exit pressure.
Ms Eagle
The Minister is very well briefed. Although that is an increase, she gives general figures for the Food Standards Agency, not the amount of extra resource that would be available to ensure that those particular nematodes do not infect meat that might be imported into this country and eaten by people here. Does she have a more broken-down version of those figures, so we can have some idea of whether her Department has allocated enough resource to ensure there is not increased risk to food safety as a result of the changes?
Seema Kennedy
I am confident that there will be no increase in risk. I do not have to hand the exact figures on the amount that the FSA has spent on trichinella.
Seema Kennedy
I am very happy to write to the hon. Lady with those figures.
Let me turn to the rules for businesses and official controls relating to products of animal origin, or POAO. EC regulation 2704/2005 is an EU tertiary implementing measure that provides certain technical and administrative refinements to EU regulations for food products of animal origin. It sets out specific rules on analytical methods, rules relating to fishery products used in the production of fish oil, and more. The instrument will assign powers and responsibilities currently incumbent on EU entities to appropriate UK entities to ensure that diverse regulation is fully operational.
The model import health certificates for certain products of animal origin under EC regulations 2074/2005 and 2016/759—for imports of certain products of animal origin such as fishery products, gelatine and collagen for human consumption—are amended so that they can be used solely to import foods to the UK.
Ms Eagle
Clearly, people worry about food irradiation. I suspect that what the Minister is talking about is irradiating things such as collagen, so that they are safe for human consumption, rather than irradiating meat for human consumption. The Americans do a lot of that, and I suspect that many of our consumers would not want that. Can she give us some clarity on the irradiation regulations that she is talking about in this particular context?
Seema Kennedy
The hon. Lady anticipates that I was about to turn to food irradiation. The instrument amends the definition of imports in existing legislation so that it is clear that any new facilities approved by EU member states in the future will no longer be automatically approved for food imported into the UK. Without the instrument, there could be a lack of clarity on the status of newly approved facilities.
The instrument includes provisions to set minimum charging rates for hygiene controls for fishery products by amending the Fishery Products (Official Controls Charges) (England) Regulations 2007. It updates provisions for the charges. For example, the rates are currently set in euros with an exchange rate to sterling. The instrument also updates the exchange rate from 2008, as it is now somewhat out of date and would not be in line with central Department for Exiting the European Union and Her Majesty’s Treasury guidance on amending outstanding references to euros.
Seema Kennedy
Can I just finish the point I am on?
The Food Safety (Sampling and Qualifications) (England) Regulations 2013 are national and stipulate the necessary qualifications and experience required for an official control laboratory analyst in England. The instrument corrects inoperabilities in the legislation, replacing references to EU institutions and bodies with UK authorities and bodies.
Ms Eagle
When people look at irradiation issues, they worry about whether it is the kind of practice one sees in America, where a lot of food is irradiated to make it last longer in a way that our consumers in Europe and particularly in the UK do not like. I am trying to establish—I hope the Minister can make this a bit clearer for me—whether the irradiation she is talking about with this instrument relates to food safety, such as with animal-derived collagen. That might have to be irradiated, but it is not the same as having prime steak irradiated to make it last longer, so that it might be much older when it is eaten. Will she clarify whether the irradiation amendments are about a food safety issue or about allowing food, particularly meat, to survive longer on the shelves, which would worry consumers?
Seema Kennedy
I think it is important that the hon. Lady wants to draw out what people are worried about, which is food safety. There is only one approved food irradiation establishment in the UK, and it does not currently treat food on an entirely commercial basis. Its main business is medical sterilisation. Only a small proportion of food is irradiated and that should be robustly regulated. The overall message I would like the hon. Lady to take away is that the Government are absolutely committed to food safety. There is no suggestion in this instrument or any other that has been laid that there will be any watering down of, or reneging on, the Government’s absolute commitment to the very robust regulation of food. That is something we pioneered and are very proud of.
The proposed amendments for smoke flavourings address minor drafting errors in the previously laid Food Additives, Flavourings, Enzymes and Extraction Solvents (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Those errors were identified by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. In its response, the FSA provided an undertaking to the JCSI that the deficiency would be addressed.
EU authorisation decisions relating to genetically modified food and feed have come into force since the laying of the Genetically Modified Food and Feed (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which will implement retained EU law on exit day. The instrument introduces amendments to make the decisions fully operable by specifying the UK entity to which authorisation holders must submit annual reports on activities set out in their environmental monitoring plans and to remove references to the European Community in connection with the register of authorised GM food and feed.
The instrument makes equivalent changes to the relevant Northern Ireland legislation to ensure that the body of Northern Ireland food law can function properly and is enforceable once the UK leaves the EU. It also inserts a definition of “Northern Ireland devolved authority” or, where appropriate, identifies the Department that is the correct appropriate authority, replacing references to EU institutions and bodies in various EU regulations. The amendments also include naming the relevant legislature for Northern Ireland where the regulation-making procedure is provided in various EU regulations. The instrument transfers powers to UK entities to support a UK regulatory regime. It also transfers responsibility for risk assessment from the European Food Safety Authority to the food safety authorities, the FSA and Food Standards Scotland. [Interruption.] Yes, “All You Need Is Love”. They will continue to deliver independent, open and transparent, science and evidence-based advice.
The instrument additionally changes references regarding the import of food and feed into the EU as references to the import of food and feed into the United Kingdom. It does not introduce any changes for food businesses in how they are regulated and run. The formal public consultation carried out by the FSA covering changes to UK health and identification marking received overwhelming support for the proposal. The instrument will provide continuity for businesses and protection of consumers’ interests and ensure that enforcement of the regulations can continue in the same way. The changes will ensure the retention of a robust system of controls that will underpin UK businesses’ ability to trade both domestically and internationally.
It is important to note that the devolved Administrations have provided their consent for the instrument. Furthermore, we have engaged positively with the devolved Administrations throughout its development. The ongoing engagement has been warmly welcomed.
The instrument will ensure that regulatory controls for food continue to function effectively after exit day and that public health is protected. It is therefore key to ensuring that the high standards of food safety and consumer protection that we enjoy in this country are maintained when the UK leaves the European Union. It will protect public health from risks that may arise in connection with the consumption of food. I ask hon. Members to support the amendments proposed in this instrument to ensure the continuation of effective food and feed safety and public health controls. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Robertson. I want to start by officially welcoming the Minister to her new role. It is the first opportunity I have had to do that and the first time we have faced each other in a debate. I am sure it will not be the last. I look forward to shadowing her and no doubt opposing her when I need to, but I hope that we can work together on all things public health, as I did with her predecessor, to ensure the better health of everyone in the country, regardless of where they live, how much they earn or who they are.
Earlier this year, as we approached the 29 March Brexit deadline, some of us would be in in this room, or one very like it, regularly as SIs were rushed through in haste. As has been said, the Minister’s predecessor and I debated 15 SIs relating to food safety in a matter of weeks. For many reasons I am pleased that we were able to secure a Brexit extension, but in this case I am particularly happy because if we had left on 29 March, some of the minor deficiencies that we are discussing today could have turned major very quickly.
The regulations have not previously been addressed in Brexit preparations, so it is good that we have time to discuss them now. They also deal with recent changes to EU law, which could not have been addressed in earlier instruments. As the Minister said, public safety is paramount. That is why any future changes to regulatory controls after the UK leaves the EU should provide the same, or hopefully an improved, level of consumer protection.
Any changes as a result of the regulations must be effectively communicated to the affected agencies in a timely manner. Will the Minister please tell the Committee whether she has had any further communication with those agencies since March? I am sure that they are awaiting further information from the Government about Brexit, and their business is no doubt hanging in the balance in the meantime. As this is a matter of public safety, changes must be communicated clearly and in a timely manner to ensure that the industry can be in line with current legislation. Will the Minister give assurances that that will not affect the safety or quality of foods available in the UK, now and in the future?
As we have heard, the SI relates to trichinella, which is a pork nematode worm parasite. I am sure that none of us had ever heard about it before, and hope never to need to do so again, or to deal with its effect. The SI also relates to the transitional provisions for official laboratories. The retained EU law regarding specific official controls that apply to trichinella in meat and trichinella testing requirements may not be fully enforceable until the specific inoperabilities are addressed by the SI. Is the Minister confident that the legislation sufficiently addresses the inoperabilities regarding the testing requirements for trichinella, and when does she think that they will be fully enforceable, on passing the SI?
The instrument states that facilities approved by EU member states would in future no longer be automatically approved for food imported from the UK. Does the Minister know what impact that will have on supply and businesses? How long will the process be to approve facilities for food imported from the UK, and will a list of approved facilities be available? The instrument also includes provisions to set minimum charging rates for hygiene controls for fishery products by amending the Fishery Products (Official Controls Charges) (England) Regulations 2007. Will the Minister outline what the charges will be and what impact any new set rates could have?
The explanatory memorandum for the SI states that functions currently undertaken by the European Commission in adopting some implementing regulations rendering applicable the controls on imported food will in future be the responsibility of the Secretary of State. Can the Minister provide information on how decisions on those controls will be decided and managed? What will the arrangements be for collecting data monitoring the effectiveness of the regulations and regularly reporting the findings? What bodies will be able to scrutinise performance and delivery, and what assessment has been made of their capacity to take on that work, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey mentioned?
Finally, what conversations has the Minister had with devolved nations regarding the SI? We do not know for sure exactly when we will leave the EU, but it is best to be prepared, especially when dealing with parasites such as this little worm. That is why the Opposition do not oppose the regulations, but rather express some concerns that I hope the Minister can address.
Ms Eagle
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Robertson. My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West very well encompassed some of the Opposition’s worries. The issues seem to be fairly technical, and potentially innocuous, but when looked at they raise a few worries. This is about food safety, safety for consumers, consumer protection and food supply in general. Should we leave the European Union, a range of duties would be transferred from where they have been done in the past for many years—in the EU—back not just to the UK, but to four different bodies due to devolution, one of which is not even sitting at the moment because of what is happening in Northern Ireland. That is alarming enough, but when we think about the austerity that has been visited on every aspect of government—be it at national level in the regulatory area or at local government level, which is much more responsible for enforcement rather than testing—lights begin to flash at least amber.
The regulations involve a range of issues, from parasitical worms in meat through to irradiation. Despite the Minister’s attempts to engage with some of my questions, I am still not entirely sure whether this is irradiation of things such as collagen, which in specific instances is derived from animals for human consumption, or whether it is about more general irradiation of meat and vegetables that are for public consumption, which happens in the US. Are there any issues there that we need to worry about? Consumers have particular worries about other issues that are involved, such as genetically modified food and feedstuffs.
Remember that the horsemeat scandal was not discovered by enforcement processes in our country; it was actually discovered by testing in the Irish Republic. We can see that we are in a situation in which things could go wrong due to the weakness that has been created in our enforcement system. I am looking for further reassurance from the Minister that the system we have—weakened by austerity and divided up by devolution—will be robust enough to take on all the extra duties that the Minister is putting on it through this SI.
We are talking about food hygiene, food safety, consumer protection and ensuring that, in all these different areas, the consumer in this country can have a robust confidence in the system that the Minister presides over, which is why I asked her about the extra resources that her Department is allocating to get this done. I must admit that I was not massively overwhelmed by the answer she gave about the extra money that is being allocated to the various regulatory bodies. I hope she can reassure us that the Government are absolutely certain that they have all their ducks in line before we get to the stage where all these things are transferred in the way specified by the SI.
Seema Kennedy
There were several points raised by the shadow Minister and by the hon. Member for Wallasey, and I shall try to address them. This SI is only on health marks, which have only recently been clarified by the Commission. The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West said that she and my predecessor debated lots of these before. However, we need this instrument to address recent changes to EU law that were not applicable when the previous SIs were drafted. It makes some small corrections that have come to light since the earlier SIs were laid, and provides for similar changes in Northern Ireland legislation. The overarching message is that the Government are absolutely committed to high standards in the entire food chain, now and after EU exit.
On dialogue with other authorities, the Food Standards Agency continues that with local authorities and other agencies. It also has a continual dialogue with industry. On lab capacity, which the shadow Minister brought up, the UK is developing alternative approaches to deliver the necessary functions provided by EFSA and the European Commission, building on our own capacity and capability to carry out risk assessment and manage and control food and feed safety risk through scientific advisory structures. The UK already has national reference laboratories in place that help to ensure the safety of our food and feed and to prevent the entry and spread of infectious diseases in crops, livestock and feed. Those laboratories are internationally recognised for their scientific expertise.
Seema Kennedy
I fear that I might be disappointing the hon. Lady with my answer but yes, I am happy to give way.
Ms Eagle
I thank the Minister for her generosity in giving way. Opposition Members do not doubt the excellent science available in many of our labs; we doubt that enough resources and people are in place to do the kind of job that will be required when this stuff all comes back. I suppose the reassurance that we seek is that she will ensure that an appropriate amount of resource and capacity will be in place to do the job properly.
Seema Kennedy
I will address funding and capacity later in my remarks. On fisheries, the charges are set out in detail in retained EU law, and various rates apply to different products. The devolved Administrations have been involved in the preparation of the draft regulations, and we engaged positively with all those Administrations throughout the statutory instrument’s development.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Is the Minister including Northern Ireland?
Seema Kennedy
I will correct the record: consent was sought from the Northern Ireland civil service, and was provided by the permanent secretary of the Department of Health of Northern Ireland.
To address the point made by the hon. Member for Wallasey, as I have said before, in 2018-19 additional funding for the FSA for EU exit was of the order of £14 million, and in 2019-20, £16 million. The FSA also had the extra £2 million in 2018-19 and in the year ending 2020 just to support food safety activity. We are therefore confident that it can meet the novel tasks that it will be expected to perform after EU exit.
Previous staff changes reflected efficiencies that were appropriate at the time. A careful assessment has been made of the additional work that we will now need to carry out when we leave the EU. The FSA has strengthened its capacity and capability for risk assessment and risk management by recruiting more policy and science experts, as well as strengthening processes and procedures that underpin the risk-analysis process. An extra—
Seema Kennedy
May I finish this point? An extra 140 staff have been recruited, and the majority of them are already in place. I—
Seema Kennedy
I would first like to address the other points that the hon. Lady made.
Ms Eagle
But my intervention is on this very point— I thank the Minister for her generosity in giving way. I note from the figures that she gave us that £14 million has been allocated for one year and £16 million for the next, but then it goes down to virtually nothing, £2 million. That gives the impression that a lump of work needs to be done and that the funding can then go back to the way it was before. Is she happy that that is the right level of funding allocation, and that the FSA can go back to where it was before this lump of money? Does she think that gives the Opposition the reassurance that we seek? Is she happy with that?
Seema Kennedy
I am very happy that the FSA will be able to cope with the additional duties that it will have after EU exit and that it is properly funded.
On irradiation, EU legislation provides for EU approval for irradiation facilities for food and specific foodstuffs. Nothing is changing, and no new foods can be irradiated. I hope that gives the hon. Lady the reassurance that she seeks. That applies to imports and to domestic foods.
On GM foods, which I know worry many people, the draft SI is not about changing the robust controls that we have in place for GM food and feed. It corrects a further two retained EU authorisations, in addition to the 68 covered by the main Genetically Modified Food and Feed (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which have already been approved by Parliament.
I hope that I have answered all the questions asked by hon Members. As I said, while the Government continue to work for an orderly exit from the EU and until we have final agreement, it is important to prepare for the possibility that we will leave with no deal. To reiterate, this instrument makes no changes to policy or to how food businesses are regulated and run. The draft regulations are limited to the necessary technical amendments to ensure that regulatory controls for food and feed continue to function effectively after exit day if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, and that public health is protected.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Food and Feed Hygiene and Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
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
Bird Nesting Sites: Protection
(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
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 244233 relating to protecting nesting sites for birds.
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. The petition is titled:
“Make ‘netting’ hedgerows to prevent birds from nesting a criminal offence.”
I will aim to reflect that. However, as we found through outreach work by Petitions Committee staff, including the live Facebook chat I held last week, the issue goes well beyond the detrimental effect of netting on nesting birds; netting affects the wellbeing of other wildlife, as well as having environmental consequences.
I am grateful to Margaret Moran for starting the petition, which has attracted in excess of 350,000 signatures. She acknowledges the broader repercussions of netting, stating in the text of the petition:
“Developers, and other interested parties are circumventing laws protecting birds by ‘netting’ hedgerows to prevent birds from nesting. This facilitates the uprooting of hedgerows which aid biodiversity and provide the only remaining nesting sites for birds, whose numbers are in sharp decline. ‘Netting’ hedgerows threatens declining species of birds, presents a danger by entrapment to wildlife, and produces large amounts of plastic waste.”
No doubt we will hear from colleagues, as I have learned from the public, that the practice of netting also applies to trees, buildings and even sand dunes.
A second live e-petition on bird nesting, which calls for legal protection for swallow, swift and martin nest sites, has more than 70,000 signatures. It was started in reaction to reports of the removal of swift, swallow and martin nests by supermarkets to prevent those migrating birds from returning to their nests the following year. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds reports that swift breeding numbers in the UK decreased by 53% between 1995 and 2016, which it attributes partly to the loss of nesting sites. I thank Simon Leadbeater, who started that petition, for raising the profile of that issue.
The practice of netting, especially the netting of hedgerows and trees by developers, appears to be on the increase. Experts say it is driven partly by the irrefutable demand for new housing, particularly affordable homes and bungalows. Indeed, The Guardian reported:
“The apparent rise in the use of netting this year has been partly fuelled…by a 78% increase in housebuilding over the last five years as developers respond to government pressure to build homes as quickly as possible.”
In the feedback that the Petitions Committee received, there are plenty of examples of the netting of hedgerows and trees up and down the country. In my constituency, a hedgerow was recently covered in green netting on behalf of developers seeking planning permission for up to eight new homes on adjoining land. Workers started to remove the netting and cut down the hedge, which does not require planning permission.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentions an important aspect of this issue. Netting is being used more and more, almost as a safeguard—just in case—but it ought not to be. It should really be installed by an ecologist and checked several times a day to ensure that nothing is trapped inside. Developers are far too relaxed in their use of the procedure. It seems to me that there is very little regulation, inspection or checking.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman may be aware of a recent controversy affecting my constituency, where netting was placed over cliffs before a major project called sandscaping to build up the beaches and improve coastal protection. Does he agree that it is really important that there is close collaboration on such schemes between councils and bodies such as the RSPB to ensure that everything is done absolutely properly to protect birds?
Mike Hill
Yes. I became aware of the Norfolk case through the Petitions Committee’s interactive work, and I was shocked that the practice extended to such schemes. The right hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point.
As we have seen in reaction to netting across the country, many of my constituents wrote to the council to protest against the installation of nets on the hedgerow in Hartlepool and its effect on wildlife and on birds’ nests. However, netting is used not just on housing developments but in all kinds of scenarios, including on major infrastructure projects such as High Speed 2.
Last month, HS2 contractors began netting hedgerows on the route near Quainton in Buckinghamshire, causing outrage among environmentalists. HS2 contends that all the work is legal, and it has employed an ecologist to monitor the site. In a statement, it said:
“The installation of this netting was carried out by HS2 contractors, as part of the pre-works for National Grid’s gas pipeline diversion scheme. This temporary netting is to discourage birds from nesting during construction and was installed before the nesting season started. The netting was installed under the direction of a suitably experienced ecologist and is monitored daily.”
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on opening the debate and I thank everyone who signed the petition. I think he must have read my speech, but the point bears repetition. Does he agree that the Government are the offender here, since HS2 is a Government project, so it is important that the Minister and her Front-Bench colleagues listen carefully to what environmentalists require so that schemes such as HS2 do not continue to murder our wildlife indiscriminately?
Mike Hill
I thank the right hon. Lady for her contribution. It shocked me that this was happening on a Government-led scheme, and that the contractors were working to Government directives on this matter. I hope that is a wake-up call for the management of any future projects of such scale.
In response to the HS2 netting, the RSPB acknowledged that the practice was not illegal, but it said that
“careful consideration will be needed to develop rules around netting that really help birds, and allow legitimate activity to continue. But we cannot stand by and let the current practices spread unchallenged.”
Jenny Chapman
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. I should probably declare that I am a member of the RSPB. Part of the issue is that the use of netting is voluntary, and we use it because we wish to develop. It should be used only when absolutely necessary—when there is no other option and it is in the best interests of wildlife—but almost every time it is used, that is not the case.
Mike Hill
Again, I agree with my hon. Friend. I will come on to the way forward, as the industry describes it, but she is absolutely correct.
Although it is an offence to destroy an active nest, there are currently no laws to prevent the installation of netting. The RSPB and other charities, such as the Woodland Trust, propose changes to current practice and the introduction of laws that commit the Government to ensuring the recovery and protection of nature and wildlife, which would cause practices such as netting to come under much closer scrutiny.
The RSPB went on to say:
“We all need nature in our lives–which means giving birds and other wildlife, more, not less room to breed, feed and sing.”
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
There may be some good, practical reasons why the banning of netting in all circumstances would not be either desirable or enforceable, but should we not, at the very least, ban netting during the breeding season?
Mike Hill
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. At the heart of this debate is the fact that the netting typically goes on before the nesting season. That is the whole point of the netting, as far as I can derive, so that proposition is timely and important.
I have spoken to people in the construction industry, who state that the practice of netting is done before the nesting season, always on an ecologically sound footing and in accordance with the law. They claim that netting is applied in a manner that is sensitive to the environment and to wildlife, and under the supervision of specialists. They have raised concerns with me that where wildlife has come under threat or been trapped behind the netting, it is often as a result of the netting being tampered with or shredded after its application.
Current restrictions lead to developers using nets to cover hedgerows and trees in and around their sites before any nesting activity begins, as that could stop or restrict building during the summer months. Legislation protecting nesting birds is pretty much exclusive to section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which makes it an offence to destroy, damage or harm wild birds and nests that are in use or being built; to kill, injure or take any wild bird; to take, damage or destroy the nest of a wild bird; and to destroy an egg of any wild bird. To back that up, Natural England guidance states:
“You must not do any work which might harm nesting birds or destroy their nests. You’ll usually find nesting birds during the main nesting and breeding season from 1 March to 31 August.”
There is also legislation protecting hedgerows, which are described by the Woodland Trust as
“the most widespread semi-natural habitat in the UK”
that support
“a large diversity of flora and fauna.”
Many hedgerows are protected under the Hedgerows Regulations 1997, based on their age, length, location or importance. The regulations make it illegal to remove protected hedgerows without permission from the local planning authority. However, not all hedgerows are protected, and legal obligations on planning authorities are either complex or insufficient.
There is clearly strong opinion on this matter, and a mark of that is the fact that the petition calls for netting to become a criminal offence. There is no doubt that pressure has been put on developers, with some of them reviewing their practices; Bovis Homes and Bellway, for example, intend to change their policies to stop the use of netting at any of their sites. The industry’s union, the Home Builders Federation, says:
“As we build the homes the country needs, the industry is committed to supporting and enhancing biodiversity, proactively protecting wildlife and providing an overall increase in the number of trees.”
Is that enough to strike a balance between the need of people to have homes to live in and the need to protect our wildlife and green spaces?
There is no doubt that this petition has raised plenty of interest in the national press and media, as well as strong feelings. Perhaps it is time to make the law stronger, in an effort to protect our indigenous species and the environment.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) on opening the debate so well and referring to my main bugbear: HS2.
When I looked at the petition, of the 355,631 signatures, 1,162 came from my constituency, and 5,454 people from an area covering Aylesbury, Buckingham, Wycombe and Beaconsfield signed the petition to express their concern about netting and protecting birds. That is a sizeable number of people and reflects the great concern that is shown for our environment in Buckinghamshire.
When I was young, I spent a lot of time on my uncle’s farm in south Wales. One of the great joys was to go around the farm and pick up the egg shells after the birds had hatched—I used to save them. There were always a multitude of different birds nesting around the farm site. Over the years, living in the countryside, I have noticed a reduction in bird life, not least among small hedgerow birds and birds that were very common in my youth. There used to be an abundance of sparrows, but in my back garden I do not see as many sparrows as I used to see 40 or 50 years ago. The RSPB says that, over the last 50 years we have lost over 40 million birds in the UK; that is a great loss that cannot be replaced.
As the hon. Member for Hartlepool said, it is an offence to destroy an active nest but there are no laws to prevent the installation of nets. The Government need to look at that and regulate for it, because it is not necessary to leave this to the market. We need to have a positive intervention that will make some difference. The RSPB spokesperson said:
“We cannot keep trying to squeeze nature into smaller and smaller spaces or demanding it fits in with our plans. This is an issue we are talking to the Government about as they look at what needs to happen over the next 25 years to stop our wildlife from continuing to vanish at an alarming rate.”
As I said in my intervention, the trouble is that the Government are just as big an offender as any housing developer; they need to take that on board. The route chosen for HS2 passes through irreplaceable natural habitats and unspoiled ecosystems. Constructing a railway line with a land-take equivalent to a four-lane motorway will have a devastating effect on the natural environment in these areas. Over 130 wildlife sites on the first stage alone will be directly affected, including 10 sites of special scientific interest, an area of outstanding natural beauty and 50 ancient woodlands. That is in my backyard.
HS2 will cause an unacceptable level of damage to European, national and county-important species. A number of European protected species are present within the proposed HS2 route corridor, including the otter, the great crested newt and several species of bats. In addition, nationally protected species such as freshwater crayfish, stag beetle, smooth newt, great crested newt, common frog, slowworm, common lizard, European water vole, Eurasian badger, rare butterflies and breeding birds are known to be present in the impact zone.
The HS2 Action Alliance believes that insufficient regard has been paid to the impact of HS2 on biodiversity. Specific concerns about the risks facing wildlife include where the HS2 route is likely to cause direct loss or damage to the wildlife site through the land-take. This leads to the severance of habitats, causing fragmentation; reduction in the size of habitat areas; direct impacts on vegetation and on sedentary animal populations, for example in woodland and ponds; and/or the creation of barriers that affect the behaviour of species on a site, such as foraging.
The further environmental impact on ancient woodlands—areas that have been covered by woods for over 400 years—is alarming. Their biodiversity value cannot be recreated by replacement planting; nor can the habitats for birds be replaced, because birds return to the same site, and their behaviour will not always coincide with the marvellous plantation that has been created by the developer in another area, in another place. HS2 is systematically destroying a large corridor of the countryside through the centre of Buckinghamshire, and elsewhere, to make way for a railway that is literally costing the earth.
As the hon. Gentleman said, HS2 says that while the work is being carried out, it is using an ecologist to monitor events; that includes the netting being used to prevent birds from using their regular nesting sites, which is monitored daily. I decided to test the water by putting in a written question asking who the ecologists monitoring the sites are, how often they visit—how many times a day—and how many birds or how much other wildlife they have found dead or dying, or have released. Without digging into the detail, it is easy to state that the work is being done under the guidance of ecologists, when what is happening on the ground could be completely different. I look to the Minister to encourage the Department for Transport to give me not one of its brush-off answers to the question, but a detailed one, so that we can be reassured that where the Government are in charge, they are keeping up with their responsibilities.
Jenny Chapman
I cannot remember whether it is the RSPB or Natural England that says the nets need to be checked three times a day by people who know what they are doing. I do not believe that that is happening. Was the right hon. Lady able to glean any more information about that when she did her research?
Dame Cheryl Gillan
The hon. Lady will know that I often have a great deal of difficulty getting any information about HS2 out of the powers that be, but I continue to press because I do not believe we should give up. I have only been at it 10 years, trying to scrutinise the project. I hope I have another 10 years to go.
HS2 was clear in its statement about the bird netting:
“The netting was installed under the direction of a suitably experienced ecologist and is monitored daily”,
but I want further and better particulars, as they say. I am not entirely convinced that those nets will be monitored on a daily basis. Perhaps I will be called cynical, but I want to check. It is important, particularly in the light of the number of people showing great concern about what is a relatively new development, in terms of trying to get rid of some of our wildlife and bird species.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady is making an excellent point. In my constituency I have seen where the habitat of ground-nesting birds—lapwings in particular—has been destroyed by herbicides being put down on sites that developers hope to develop. Does she agree that we need not just stronger legislation but stronger penalties for such actions that deliberately harm our wildlife, including actions leading to the destruction of raptors? I see such actions happening across my constituency, and there is little repercussion.
Dame Cheryl Gillan
The hon. Lady makes a powerful point, and I shall let it stand, but I should certainly be interested to see where the route lies and where the path takes us. There is no doubt about it: 20 years ago, after I became the MP for Chesham and Amersham, one of the great joys in the Chiltern hills was the reintroduction of the red kite. One of the great pleasures—if the hon. Lady would like to come out and visit the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty—is to see the red kites flying. They really are a source of great joy. It is a pity that we cannot do the same with some of our smaller nesting birds, which, sadly, we are losing.
I think I have made my point about HS2 and the Minister has heard it, but I must say that it begs the question why, if parts of the countryside have to be removed to make way for so-called progress, tree and hedge removals cannot be completed outside the nesting season. After all, it has taken 10 years and we do not even have the go-ahead for HS2, but we are already damaging the environment—irreparably, in my view—with the enabling works, even though we do not know whether the project will go ahead.
We are engaged in a major battle for the environment against global warming. Today we are discussing another battle—the battle for our birds in the United Kingdom. If we do not pay attention to the smallest creatures of our wildlife, we shall end up with a sorry, barren world, in which the next generations will be forced to live.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I think this is the first time that you have chaired a debate that I have taken part in, Ms McDonagh, so it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today.
It is good to see so many hon. Members here to discuss this important environmental issue. We have already heard some excellent speeches on the consequences of netting and the action required. I commend the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill), who set the scene well.
In a short speech, I will concentrate mainly on my constituent, Maggie Moran, who started the petition that is the reason we are all here this afternoon. Maggie and her family are in Parliament today. She started her petition in the early hours of the morning after a long shift at Hull Royal Infirmary, where she works. At first it was shared among friends; it went on to gain more than 300,000 signatures, national media coverage and a response from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which I understand has written to developers reminding them of their legal obligations.
Maggie was kind enough to write to me before the debate. I know that she has also spoken to the media and received a lot of media coverage, and has explained why this issue is so important to her. In her note to me, she talks powerfully of her upbringing and how her family instilled in her a deep love and respect for nature. She speaks fondly of holidays where she and her father calculated the age of hedgerows. As she reminds us, our hedgerows are ancient, beautiful, rich ecosystems. They are homes, breeding grounds, safe corridors and hibernation spots for birds, bats, dormice, reptiles, insects, hedgehogs and others. They play a major part in preventing soil loss and reducing flooding. I represent a constituency in east Yorkshire. The Humber estuary is prone to flooding and 95% of the city of Hull is below sea level, so flooding is an important issue for me and my constituents. Also, hedgerows help to reduce road noise, and they produce oxygen, which of course helps with the climate challenge. Hedgerows are not obstacles to be removed, but life support systems to be protected. As has been discussed in more depth today, netting puts those fragile ecosystems at risk. It can entrap birds, dormice, bats and hedgehogs, separating them from their nests and food, injuring them and even putting their lives at risk.
We must look seriously at ending the practice of netting, but we must also think beyond that. Last year in the UK, numbers of bats, hedgehogs, birds and insects continued to plummet. The UN report last week spoke powerfully of how nature’s decline will presage our own. Awareness is growing that to support society, we must change the rules to give nature room to thrive. The Government must look again at how the developments we need—houses, schools and hospitals—can be achieved without destroying nature. As Maggie said, we must look at prioritising brownfield land, which the Campaign to Protect Rural England has said can be used for more than 1 million homes on 18,000 sites. When greenfield is the only option, we should include original habitats, including hedgerows and trees, in the designs.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech; I hope her constituent appreciates what she is saying on her behalf. As parliamentary species champion for the swift, I am keen to ensure that in urban development we put swift bricks into houses, which provide those birds with a habitat,. That is a really easy step and councils such as, I think, Exeter have made it compulsory for new developments. Does she agree that that is an excellent way to provide a home for swifts?
Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend, who is a great champion of nature and the environment, makes an important point. If that practice could be spread far and wide, it would be an excellent measure.
I will conclude by saying that it was nice to meet Maggie’s children Nell and John today; they are seeing at first hand what campaigning can achieve. Maggie told me that she put together the petition and brought her children to Parliament today because she hopes they will witness the lesson that, if we speak out, we can create real change for the future. To use her words:
“I want them to see that…if they believe in a cause, and if they have conviction and are willing to speak out and work hard, then anything can be achieved”.
I am profoundly thankful to Maggie for raising this issue with us. I hope that this debate will prove her right and that action will be forthcoming to deal with netting of hedgerows.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) on obtaining this debate in response to the public e-petition, which has rightly engendered a lot of support and interest up and down the country.
The petition comes virtually at the same time as the publication of the United Nations report that shows the extinction rates accelerating and “nature’s dangerous decline”. That report, from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, raises some interesting points. It ascribes some of the loss of those natural species and habitats to
“changes in land and sea use; direct exploitation of organisms; climate change; pollution; and invasion of alien species”.
I instigated a debate here on the latter subject not long ago, regarding the importing of plants, trees and so forth from overseas.
It seems to me that the RSPB strikes a chord when it states:
“We cannot keep trying to squeeze nature into smaller and smaller spaces or demanding it fits in with our plans.”
The problem is that since 1970 the global human population has more than doubled, from 3.7 billion to 7.6 billion. Since 1900, the average abundance of native species in most major land-based habitats has fallen by at least 20%. There has also been a 100% growth of urban areas since 1992. All those things conspire to squeeze out nature or, if not to squeeze it out, to squeeze it into a tighter spot.
That is why I believe that, with the exception of some eminent hon. Members sitting around this Chamber, we have woken up very late to all this. There must be a trade-off between economic growth and the need to provide houses for people, which no one debates, and the requirement to ensure that the built environment is sustainable for the natural environment. We cannot have one without the other. Where would the world be without birdsong? A very sad place. Where would the world be without swallows? I have not spotted a swallow in my part of the world, Devon, at all this year.
Doing nothing is simply not an option. For too long we have put up with some of the behaviour of the volume house builders. It is perhaps unfair to paint them all with the same brush. It is an easy thing to castigate, but somebody has to build those houses. I lament that there are not more local house builders. I think this Government can do a lot more, as they have said they will, in encouraging smaller local house builders—those same house builders who were squeezed out by the last recession—to play their role, because they are from the communities in which they will be building, so they are likely to build in a more sustainable and environmentally friendly way.
Time and time again we have seen, up and down the country, the major volume house builders riding roughshod over local planning officers—because there are not enough of them and many of them are not qualified enough—changing the terms on which they develop and, too often, squeezing out the natural environment. I am not against profit; I am a Conservative, and I believe in profit and that a rising tide lifts all ships. However, I am a believer in responsible capitalism, and it is about time that this Government, or any Government of any hue, were a little tougher with some of those volume house builders. Perhaps then we, as Members of Parliament, would not have to put up with so many constituents complaining to us about shoddy finishes and the like.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
The point the right hon. Gentleman is making about the volume house builders and their complete disregard, it seems to me, for some of the planning regulations in place has been reflected in my local authority area. In Humberston, Persimmon Homes has cut down about 200 perfectly healthy trees to build its properties without having the proper permissions in place. It will now have to replant all those trees, but they should not have been removed in the first place. Does he agree that there should be much more enforceable action on these big build companies to ensure that they adhere to the rules that are laid down in the first place?
Sir Hugo Swire
I do and I do not agree; I agree that that sort of behaviour is wholly unacceptable, but I do not agree that they should replace like for like, if it is the case that they have done this where there were tree preservation orders or the like. If they have cut down a number of trees, they should be obliged to plant many, many times the amount of trees they have cut down, to encourage a change in the pattern of their behaviour.
I am afraid that it often comes down to the lack of local planning officers or their inability to challenge those large companies. Local councils are terrified of being taken to appeal, because then they have to fund it, so it becomes a vicious circle and a win-win for the volume house builders, as we have seen—although I say again to the volume house builders, or their representatives watching this debate, that I do not view them all in the same light.
That is one of the points on which I wish to conclude. The Government have been quite clear, but they need to be a little bit clearer what they are going to do about this. Why do we not have a register run by the Department, naming and shaming the worst offenders, so we can see on a regular basis which house builders and developers are behaving responsibly and which are not? There are also such things as shareholder action groups, and they and others can vote at annual general meetings and so forth and can bring the matter to the board’s attention. Naming and shaming, in this instance, is an extraordinarily good way to proceed.
I believe it is time to stand up to that sort of abuse. We are in the slight conundrum—or I am—of castigating some of these volume house builders while at the same time recognising that we need to build more houses, and quickly, if we are to avert what is becoming a national crisis in getting younger people on to the housing ladder. However, with the current scrutiny of developers, I would have thought it would make eminent good sense from the point of view of their own public relations. Indeed, if I were advising them—I am not available to advise them, incidentally—on public relations, I would say, “This is precisely the sort of headline that we don’t want to read about ourselves.”
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
In my constituency, there are a couple of developments on greenfield sites. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) report that Bellway has now decided not to use netting, because until a few weeks ago it had netted an area in my constituency where it was about to develop, which, as he said, caused great uproar and consternation among people who were opposed to the development in the first place.
Sir Hugo Swire
That is very good and shows that some of these companies are more concerned about the environment than gross profit—or, indeed, net profit. They should concentrate on having no netting, not net profit, in some instances.
To conclude, a list of offenders would be a good thing. However, I do not think that we should use a hammer to crack a nut. Parliamentarians should insist only on proportionate, enforceable legislation. As I said, I am not convinced that it is either desirable or practical to ban netting of hedgerows, bushes and trees throughout the year—because I am not really an environmentalist in this sense, I do not know whether it is. However, as a start, we should ban netting during the breeding season, which the Minister will hopefully say something about when she concludes the debate. If we can achieve that this afternoon, it seems to me that we will not have wasted our time.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I thank the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill), along with the Petitions Committee, for securing this important debate.
Many of us will have sung the hymn “All Things Bright and Beautiful”. Some will have sung it rather well, and some, like me, less well, but we will all remember the line
“each little bird that sings”.
The dawn chorus provided by our feathered friends is one of life’s most uplifting and natural sounds. Let us not lose it; it is diminished as it is. We need to cherish it.
Birds have played an important part in our lives for centuries, from the canary that protected the miners to the pigeon that carried messages in war and the budgerigar that perhaps provided companionship to a person on their own. The wild birds in our hedgerows are equally important for our wellbeing, the pollination of our plants and tourism, bringing twitchers, if I may call them that, to areas such as the Isle of Islay, where there is a host of wildlife—it is well worth visiting—and Loch Doon, in my constituency, where ospreys nest.
It is important that humans and wildlife co-exist in harmony for a balanced ecosystem. It is therefore disappointing to learn of the practice of netting trees, bushes and hedgerows prior to construction work commencing on various sites, with the clear aim of preventing birds from nesting, alleviating the risk of delay to those developments. However, there is some good news, as has been mentioned: I understand that Bovis Homes and Bellway will not use netting at any of their sites. That is a welcome step, although I fully appreciate that there has to be a balance among supporting businesses, providing homes and protecting wildlife. Let us hope that other house builders, major and smaller—I am sure many smaller house builders have very good practices—follow the good practice of Bellway and Bovis.
The Woodland Trust believes that netting, while not necessarily unlawful—the relevant offence would be to take or destroy an active nest—shows a complete and selfish disregard for birds and other wildlife. The RSPB is campaigning to introduce a law to protect nest sites, to enable migrating birds to return and rear their young in a safe environment. I understand that the intention is to do so in a manner that does not prevent the development of land but encourages considerate and careful development. Potential options include the relocating or replacing of hedgerows at an early stage in development, prior to nesting season commencing, or putting up nesting boxes as a compensatory measure.
Birds and wildlife are part of our ecosystem and our planet, and we should embrace them, not evict them. Protection is available for bats nesting in buildings, with strict rules about disturbing their chosen habitat. Why should birds not be given the same or similar consideration, with a balanced approach between the needs of nature and of the developer? I ask the Minister to consider enhancing the protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which already protects nesting wild birds, to make netting an offence as well, although in a sensitive and balanced manner, to allow all interests to co-exist.
Mike Hill
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the points raised in the second petition, about returning birds, and that equal measures are needed for netting places where birds normally have their nests? They migrate and return to find netting there to prevent them from nesting. I opened up a small housing new build in Hartlepool only last Friday, and incorporated into those houses and bungalows were bat boxes and bird boxes. Such cheap and good practice should always be the way ahead.
Bill Grant
I totally agree. We cannot meet our housing need, which I think we all agree we have to secure for our fellow citizens, at the expense of evicting wildlife or birds. We have to embrace them. Innovative ways have been suggested for how we can host them and make them part of our lives and part of our communities, because they are part of the planet and we need to share it. On that kindly note, I shall end my speech.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) on securing the debate. His observation on the plastic-waste debris from this practice flies in the face of pollution from plastic not ruining our planet. It is hard to believe that this is actually a practice at this moment.
I also liked what the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) said on HS2. The reckless ruination of ancient woodlands and the subsequent impact on wildlife is not acceptable and should not go ahead. I particularly praise the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and her constituents for raising the petition. I very much liked the points of the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) on volume house-builders and championing local builders. We need to hear an awful lot more of that throughout the whole UK.
As we all know, there are few greater pleasures in life than the music of wild birdsong. The dawn chorus has just been mentioned, and blackbirds and robins in our gardens are an absolute pleasure for us all to watch. In fact, I have a one-eyed blackbird in my back garden who goes round in the same direction all the time. I do not know if that is because of where I put the food out, but that is the way that he manages to go. Birds are very much part of the sights and sounds of our communities. They are everywhere. They are the embodiment of the natural world, which is why it is abhorrent to see them taken for granted, to the extent that they can be disregarded like pests or vermin.
In my hometown of Denny and Stoneywood, I have witnessed probably some of the worst practices of developers. Some giant sequoias—giant redwoods—planted 50 or 60 years ago by local children were cut down accidentally by a developer, and I never felt such a gut-wrenching feeling in all my life. Netting prevents birds from breeding in their natural environment, and it has become so prevalent that their numbers could be at risk. If someone in the future reads of the practice of netting to aid housing development, they would be forgiven for thinking that this country and the planet was going through a pronounced period of planet stability and had an overabundance of wildlife. One would think the planet was managing very well, when we all know that that is not the case—perhaps apart from the developers of this mad scheme.
It appears to any casual observer that developers and conservationists have laid down together in amity on this, but I emphasise that that is not the case. Like others, I was taken aback when made aware of this practice. I was absolutely astonished and astounded to see those nets all over these trees. Stories are widespread that trees in some areas across the country have been covered in nets before developers even have planning permission. As if dealing with climate change is not enough, our birds, some returning from abroad, find their nesting sites on trees, bushes and hedges draped in plastic nets.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
I congratulate the Morans for initiating the debate and for putting the issue on the agenda in the way that they have; I assume these are the Morans in the Gallery. We have heard about the massive decline in bird numbers in this country—14 million in the last 50 years, according to the RSPB. Habitat loss is a big part of that, and netting is increasingly a part of habitat loss. It may not be the biggest part, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is without doubt the crudest demonstration of, at best, our disregard for the natural world, and at worst the ongoing war against nature that we have seen in this country, which has massively reduced our biodiversity and which needs to be addressed, if necessary through legislation?
John Mc Nally
I totally agree. This practice sends all the wrong messages about what we are trying to do; it gives everyone the wrong message. We should be sending clear messages that we are environmentalists and are trying to protect our planet. This practice tells people the opposite, and the fact that those employing the practice think that they can get away with it is, again, unacceptable. Others have mentioned what we need to do about that.
As we have heard, there are two open parliamentary petitions concerned with bird nesting. The one that we are discussing is specifically about making the netting of hedgerows to prevent birds from nesting a criminal offence, and I believe that it had attracted more than 350,000 signatures by 2 May. As has been mentioned, articles in The Guardian and reports on the BBC have shown where nets are being used across the UK and have helped to highlight the deep concerns of the public and prominent environmentalists. Important organisations, including the Woodland Trust and the RSPB, have led the objections to the practice. Environmentalists Sir David Attenborough and Chris Packham have spoken out against it, warning of the impact of the widespread use of nets. Only a fool would ignore the warnings from those great people.
In Scotland, section 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 makes it an offence to obstruct or prevent any bird from using its nest, and section 5 makes it an offence to use a net to kill or take a wild bird. However, provided that the net is put on before nest building commences, no offence is committed under that legislation, which is strange. Under the habitats regulations, it is an offence deliberately or recklessly to obstruct access to a breeding site or resting place of a European protected species or otherwise to deny the animal use of the breeding site or resting place. Similarly, it is an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act to damage, destroy or obstruct access to any structure or place used by the species protected under schedule 5 to that Act.
Scotland, like other countries, is a nation of animal lovers. We take the welfare of our pets, wild creatures and livestock very seriously. Developers in Scotland are aware that they have a responsibility to preserve important environmental assets such as landscapes and wildlife habitats. They should act responsibly and care for our natural habitats. Given that there is a significant body of European Union legislation on animal welfare, the Scottish Government, through the SNP, will work to ensure that the Government here ensure that the protections that that offers are maintained and that there is no lapse in standards in this arena as the UK leaves the EU.
Calls have been made for those wishing to keep birds away from certain sites to work in harmony with nature, not against it. Why not work around the nesting season and employ someone who knows about wildlife to advise on how people should go about their business while causing the least harm? I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham about how often checks must be done. If nets cannot be avoided, regular checks should be made to ensure that no bird or wild animal has been caught in them.
I have to say that, even with some safeguards in place, my feeling is that this practice is in no way acceptable. If we treasure our precious wildlife at all, netting simply has to stop. If developers will not exercise proper care and diligence, suitable penalties should be applied to them.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) on introducing the debate in the way he did and on setting out the need for urgent action to stop the cruel and inhumane practice of netting of bird nesting sites. Every bird matters, and because our wildlife does not have a political voice of its own, it is important that we in this place provide that voice. Today, the Minister will have heard a comprehensive and cross-party argument—on both sides of the House—as to why this cruel practice needs to be stopped and why measures need to be taken to discourage not only developers but, as a number of colleagues have said, the public sector and public organisations from using this practice.
Humans are threatening our planet’s wildlife. They are causing huge and potentially irreversible climate change, and we all need to do something to stop it. A few weeks ago, the House agreed to a Labour motion declaring a climate emergency. The emergency is not just about carbon. Although it is about carbon, it is also about species loss, habitat decline and the pollution of our seas and waterways and our atmosphere. All of that needs to be taken together. When it comes to habitat decline, netting around bird nesting sites is a contributor to the wider issue of habitat loss—a point made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith). From the bees that pollinate our crops, to the forests that hold back flood waters, the report published last week by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services reveals how humans are ravaging the very ecosystems that support our society.
It is not a coincidence that the same quote has been given by both a Labour and a Conservative Member of Parliament:
“We cannot keep trying to squeeze nature into smaller and smaller spaces or demanding it fits in with our plans.”
We need cross-party consensus that we will not accept any form of economic behaviour without a plan as to how it will protect our environment.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I could not agree more. My hon. Friend is making a very good case for the need for cross-party consensus on what is a long-term problem. If we are to deal with nets on nesting sites, does he agree that we should also do something about roosting sites, which are not mentioned in the current legislation? In Whorlton, in my constituency, thousands of starlings have been doing murmurations for the last two years, but some developers, where they are building new houses, want to knock down the hedges that have become the roosting sites of those starlings. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should also cover the issue of roosting sites if we are taking the time to change the legislation?
Luke Pollard
I agree that this is a complex area that requires detailed consultation not only with developers, but with public-sector land managers, such as Network Rail, HS2 and local councils. We also need to look at the way our wildlife uses not only our built environment but our natural environment in different ways. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) made a clear distinction between building on brownfield and building on greenfield sites, but there can be bird nesting sites in beautiful trees on both brownfield and greenfield sites, so we need to take steps to deal with what is sometimes a false distinction in our legislation between brown and green, but also to deal with the different ways in which different species use our built environments. I am grateful for the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) has just made.
The report from the UN said that we need “transformative change” to stop the trend of habitat loss, and we do. That is why it is really important that the Minister take the concerns expressed in this debate not only back to her Department—I hope that she will speak about the built environment in a moment—but to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, because we need a cross-Government approach to address many of these concerns.
Kerry McCarthy
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. It is important that we look at how we farm our land. The vast majority of land in this country is used for growing food, and there is a real issue because as it becomes more industrialised in scale, there are fewer hedgerows, bigger fields and less attention to biodiversity. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should support measures to encourage farmers to farm more sustainably, with more regard for the biodiversity on the land?
Luke Pollard
I agree entirely. A few weeks ago, I visited a farm just outside Plymouth run by a fantastic farmer called Johnny Haimes, who demonstrated how agriculture could be more sustainable and still be profitable. That is the type of best practice that we need to encourage right across our agricultural sectors if we are to address the high levels of carbon that they use, but also to make our soils and our waterways in and around those agricultural lands more sustainable.
A number of hon. Members have made the point that it is not just developers that we need to look at. As the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) said, we need to look at how the public sector should lead by example on this matter. The majority of that can be done by local councils, but the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire), in the good and passionate rebuke to austerity that I am glad he made, spoke about the loss of planning inspectors at local level. That has hollowed out some of the expertise, particularly in relation to wildlife; I am thinking of the loss of wildlife officers from our local councils.
I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) mentioned the superb work that the Labour council in Exeter has done in choosing swift bricks. More councils should be looking at that. Indeed, about a month ago, there was a national day for putting up a bird box, and my mum—who should always get a good mention in these debates—bought me not one, not two, but three bird boxes for my birthday, so my garden in Plymouth has plenty more nesting sites.
That brings me to a good point about whether the habitats that are lost should be replaced one for one. That is a discussion that has just been had. I mentioned to the Minister before the debate that there was a fantastic piece on “Countryfile” last night about the net gain consultation—perfect wordplay for the debate that we are having today
That consultation was run by DEFRA, and it asked whether we should have a net gain of biodiversity if there is to be economic development. The Government consultation received 670 responses and closed in February. In theory, the results are to be published alongside the environment Bill later this year. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether that is still the plan, because we know that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs publishes plenty of consultations, but takes very little concrete action. I would be grateful if the Minister set out what she intends to do in respect of that.
Luke Pollard
We are seeing species decline in all parts of our wildlife in every part of the United Kingdom. The breeding farmland bird index is falling. It has declined by more than half since 1970. The breeding woodland bird index for the UK declined by 25% between 1970 and 2017. We cannot keep squeezing nature into smaller spaces and we must put the environment at the heart of Government policy. The best way to do that is for the Government to lead by example in the projects that they run and the leadership that they can provide for the environment sector.
Liz Twist
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. In the past fortnight, many of us attended an RSPB drop-in called “Let nature sing”. I am sure that we all supported the goal of getting their nature CD into the charts. I am told it got to number 18 in the charts. There is a bigger issue. He is talking about planning issues and squeezing nature. Many residents are concerned that when we develop greenfield sites in particular, but other sites as well, it feels as if the environment is a long way down the priorities list. We look at off-site mitigation and other things, but what we want to do is preserve the site. This has been a huge issue in my constituency recently.
Luke Pollard
Singles like that would make a proud addition to my collection of Britney and Kylie songs on iTunes, so we need to promote it. We also need to ensure that every type of economic activity that we have as a country becomes greener. If we are to meet our Paris climate change obligations, we need to remove 80% of the carbon from our economy. We will not be able to do that simply by recycling some more plastic bottles. We need fundamental economic change. The UN report on species loss outlined the transformative change that is required, and made it clear that when it comes to the loss of habitat in respect of the trees and hedgerows that are being lost through bird netting we need to take quicker action.
Dame Cheryl Gillan
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because he ignored me when I tried to ask him to give way earlier, when he was talking about net gain. Regarding the aim of net gain, I hope that we all will observe that in some instances it is impossible. If we destroy ancient woodland, we cannot replace it: it is irreplaceable. I look at net gain with a great deal of scepticism, as I hope others do.
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Lady is right to be cautious, because with net gain the devil is in the detail. It cannot simply be used as a stamp, to pretend that it makes the activity greener when it does not. A number of us share that suspicion about the consultation, so I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to that.
Finally, I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I thank Maggie Moran, Nell and John for their work in setting up the petition, as well as Simon Leadbeater, who initiated the second petition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool mentioned. We all need to do our bit to put pressure on developers, to ensure that the cruel and inhumane practice of netting precious bird-nesting sites comes to an end. I would be grateful if the Minister set out how the Government will be doing that with a cross-Government approach in the weeks and months ahead.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mrs Heather Wheeler)
It is also my first time serving with you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) on securing the debate. I am sure it was a bit of a lottery and that probably many people applied for it.
As we have heard, more than 355,000 signatures are on the petition. That shows the strength of feeling about the misuse of anti-bird netting in our country, so I am pleased to see the passion shown in this debate. I am grateful for the contributions made by hon. Members from across the House and representing most parts of the country. The hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman), who has unfortunately had to leave, highlighted the importance of developers using netting when it is not necessary. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) reminded us that netting should only be used outside the nesting and breeding season. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) made such a powerful point about the great interest shown in this issue by the good citizens of the Buckinghamshire area in particular.
I am grateful for this opportunity to set out the Government’s position and the action we are taking, and to respond to the important points made in the debate. This Government share the public’s concern about the misuse of anti-bird netting. That is why we lost no time in taking action. On 8 April, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government set out the Government’s views. In an open letter to major developers, circulated by the Home Builders Federation to all its members, he made it clear that using anti-bird netting to prevent birds from nesting is not acceptable. He called on house builders to act, reminding them of the Natural England guidelines that specify what surveys of the potentially developed land are to be carried out, and how we can prevent or mitigate any danger to wildlife.
It is worth taking a moment to remember why this is so important. Native bird species have been in shocking decline since the 1960s, with 40 million birds vanishing from our skies. Some 56% of bird species in the UK are in decline. Nets stop birds getting through to make their nests. Gaps in the netting can leave birds trapped or young birds unfed.
I am aware that this is a complex issue. Nesting birds present in trees and hedges can cause real delays to construction. Some of the nets are placed with good intentions. In Norfolk recently, a district council draped nets over cliffs so that a sandscaping project could proceed. However, the nets covered more than the spring breeding ground of sand martins than was necessary. In this case, with advice from the RSPB, the upper section of the netting was removed, allowing nesting where there was no risk to the birds during the work.
Kerry McCarthy
A lot of people were very distressed when they saw the pictures of the sand martins that had flown thousands of miles back from their winter migration and could not get back to their nests. I accept that there probably needed to be some work done on coastal erosion, or whatever the reason for the netting was, but there must be an issue of timing with such things. It was done at exactly the wrong time, when those birds were returning to their homes.
Mrs Wheeler
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. That council has learnt its lesson. It should have brought the RSPB in much earlier, but it did rectify the situation. I also watched that footage and it was very distressing.
Netting is permissible if the intention is to protect birds, but I suspect that many of those who signed the petition are concerned that these rules are often carefully misunderstood by some developers. Netting should never be used to hinder the natural cycle of nest building and the nurturing and feeding of young birds. Nets should protect birds not profits.
The law on protecting birds and preventing the disturbance of nests is clear. Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Animal Welfare Act 2006, prosecutions can be brought if someone causes unnecessary suffering to a bird by an act or failure to act, especially when the person concerned knew or reasonably ought to have known that their action or inaction would cause harm. Breaches can lead to fines or imprisonment. I am happy to acknowledge that some developers get the message. As we have heard, Bellway and Bovis Homes have declared that they are both changing their policies to stop the use of bird netting, and Barratt Homes does not net hedges or trees on any of its 400 or so sites across England, Scotland and Wales. Their actions show that it is possible not to use bird netting when firms plan ahead, so that construction does not clash with the nest-making and chick-rearing season.
As we have just marked Hedgehog Awareness Week, I am particularly aware that there must be wider recognition that we must do all we can to safeguard and enhance our biodiversity for the future. Today, local authorities already have a duty, under our national planning policy framework, to pursue net gains for biodiversity. The Government intend to give local authorities more powers to insist on the protection and enhancement of biodiversity. Our 25-year environment plan is a symbol of that deep commitment and a reflection of our shared desire to leave our environment in a better place than we found it. To answer the question of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) specifically, our forthcoming Environment Bill will make biodiversity net gain mandatory for development.
Dame Cheryl Gillan
The Minister is doing well in picking up on all the points. If it will be made mandatory for all developers, why do the Government not make it mandatory right now for HS2 to stop its netting?
Mrs Wheeler
Regretfully, we need legislation to do that. When the Bill comes in, that will be the legislative vehicle for it, because whether it is birds or hedgehogs, we are determined that our wildlife does not just survive, but thrives.
Kerry McCarthy
I sit on the Environmental Audit Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which have been conducting pre-legislative scrutiny on the bits of the Environment Bill that have been published. Although I welcome the idea of biodiversity net gain, there is real concern about how it would be enforced. It is not something that we can replace like for like; it would take an awfully long time to replace what was destroyed, and in some cases, it could not be replaced. I urge the Minister to talk to environmentalists, ecologists and other specialists about whether it is feasible to make the proposed swap.
Mrs Wheeler
Again, the hon. Lady makes a perfectly reasonable point. I am sure the people in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will have heard it and will pick up on it.
DEFRA’s recent consultation proposed introducing a requirement for new developments to deliver a 10% net gain for biodiversity, onsite or off. It also includes an alternative tariff that developers could pay to offset the costs of providing environmental improvements. I look forward to seeing those proposals considered and debated in due course. I hope the hon. Lady will be involved in that.
Liz Twist
Does the Minister accept that many residents faced with the loss of hedges or the offsite mitigation of environmental benefits are unhappy? They want their local environment to be preserved for birds and other wildlife and for local enjoyment, rather than some money to be paid to address the issue in another place.
Mrs Wheeler
In every planning application, the matter will be dealt with at the local level, so local wishes will be part of the decision-making process.
Helen Goodman
I am sorry to say this to the Minister, but if the legal framework is inadequate, the local planning authority cannot take such matters into account, because it does not have the vires—the powers—to do it. That is why we are looking for legal change in the area.
Mrs Wheeler
Indeed, and as I like to remind hon. Members, that will be debated as part of the Environment Bill when it is introduced. I am sure that all hon. Members present would like to take part in that debate when it happens.
Dame Cheryl Gillan
Can the Minister tell hon. Members present when we can expect the environment Bill?
Mrs Wheeler
In due course.
There is no question of making a choice between homes and nature. We can and must have both, because for us, as well as for animals, the benefits are clear. Our natural environment can have a profound impact on our physical and mental health. We need access to our natural environment; it is part of what makes life on earth worth while.
Ultimately, the responsibility lies with all of us. Our planning system and our planning authorities play an essential role in the mix; mechanisms allow them to say what can and cannot take place on a construction site, as well as when. Planning conditions, including surveys and other pre-construction stages, can be enforced by local authorities. If developers do not comply, a development may become unlawful.
The Government are working tirelessly to set up further protections. Through our revised national planning policy framework, and with help from stakeholders such as the Wildlife Trusts and the Woodland Trust, we are supporting planning tools that protect our natural environment. We have increased the protections for irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland and ancient and veteran trees; any loss or harm from development must be “wholly exceptional”. We have also clarified the importance of local wildlife sites in plan making by introducing the need for plan makers to take a proactive approach to rising temperatures and, wherever possible, to help to improve environmental conditions, including water and air quality.
As announced in the housing White Paper in 2017, we have provided £6.9 million over three years to Natural England, which will allow it to roll out a proportionate risk-based approach to protected species licensing nationally—principally, for great crested newts. That will provide greater protection at the same time as speeding up the process and reducing costs. We have also provided £210,000 to the Woodland Trust to support the first update of the ancient woodland inventory maps since the 1980s, to make protection more effective.
Developers must play their part in the wider wildlife agenda. They must provide access to new green space and develop green infrastructure, such as swift bricks, bat bricks and hedgehog highways, because our wildlife and its habitats are interconnected. We would like developers to design in as many nature-friendly stipulations as are reasonable. The Housing Minister saw that done impressively on a visit to Kidbrooke Village last week, where natural corridors and landscapes are a core part of the masterplan behind the regeneration. Let me be clear that gains in biodiversity must be genuine, not just a token gesture by a developer ticking a box by drilling holes for a theoretical hedgehog highway.
We must all play our part. Existing householders, neighbourhood planning bodies and parish and town councils can help to ensure that wildlife-friendly features are built into every garden in every neighbourhood. People can also make their voices heard—for example, the recent public outcry about the netting spread over a hedgerow in Berkshire led to it being removed by the council. Today’s petition is another example of democracy in action and people making their voices heard. Although we reject today’s call for yet more detailed regulation on bird netting—I have described the protections that already exist—I have the deepest respect for the aims of the petitioners, in particular Mrs Moran and her family.
Even as we pursue our campaign to build the homes this country so badly needs, we must do all we can to champion our natural environment. In the words of Gerard Manley Hopkins:
“Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet”.
Mike Hill
Equally, in the words of Joni Mitchell:
“They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot.”
I hope we do not get to that.
Next to Hartlepool is RSPB Saltholme, which is a lovely nature reserve in an industrial landscape. Recently, a site of special scientific interest was extended around Hartlepool’s beautiful coast. Because netting had been used in my town for development, I was grateful that the Petitions Committee allowed me to introduce the debate.
I must thank the petitioner, Maggie Moran, who is present, and the second petitioner, Mr Leadbeater. I also thank the right hon. Members for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) and for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire), my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant), and all hon. Members who intervened so wonderfully. I thank Petitions Committee staff for, as ever, getting involved in researching the subject and for all the interactive work they did on Facebook.
It has been a helpful and useful debate. I hope we make some progress to tighten up on a practice that has clearly been escalating lately, given the demands of the housing sector and the requirements to protect our wildlife. On the second petition, the netting of existing buildings to prevent migrant birds returning to their nests needs to be looked at as well. As has been pointed out in relation to HS2, the Government have a responsibility for the work that the contractors who work for them do on such big projects.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 244233 relating to protecting nesting sites for birds.
Written Statement
Court and Tribunal Estate Consultation
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
On 10 May I published the response to the “Fit for the future: transforming the court and tribunal estate” consultation. It sets out how decisions regarding the future of the estate should be made and makes clear that people will continue to be able to access courts and tribunals while providing value for money for the taxpayer and ensuring long-term efficiency.
The consultation published in January 2018, has been developed to complement HMCTS’ £1 billon reform programme, which is bringing new technology and modern ways of working to the justice system, making it more accessible for everyone. It received 249 responses and as a result, the response published today, strengthens and updates the principles underpinning future decisions relating to changes to our estate. It ensures that:
When visits to courts are necessary, travel times and ease of transport will continue to be prioritised—with added support for vulnerable users
Court and tribunal buildings will be fit for purpose and can be maintained at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer
Specialist front-of-house staff will be at courts to support the public and legal professionals, and will be trained in new technologies
The estate is aligned with the reform programme
The provision for hearings in physical court rooms will remain essential for the fair, just and proportionate delivery of justice. Yet we anticipate that fewer interactions with the court and tribunals system will happen in this way. Any future changes to the court estate which result in the relocation of a service from a local area will be consulted on publicly before a decision is made, using the criteria set out in the Fit for the Future principles.
We expect the modernisation being delivered by the reform programme to provide additional routes to justice and as a result lead to a reduction in the use of our court and tribunal buildings. These modem channels will be additional to, rather than substitutions for, existing routes. We make a commitment that we will not act on assumptions by proposing to close courts unless we have sound evidence that the reforms are actually reducing the use of those buildings.
Naturally, with an estate of this size there may be changes in demand for reasons other than uptake of digital services, and in those circumstances, it may be sensible to close or merge courts. Furthermore, this consultation has no effect on previously announced closures which will go ahead as planned.
Our response to the consultation addresses several concerns which we have committed to improving. One is that journeys to and from court should be reasonable and, for the overwhelming majority of users, this would be one that allowed them to leave home no earlier than 7.30am, attend their hearing and return home by 7.30pm the same day by public transport. We also set out how we will measure this commitment and what other factors we will consider, for example, the circumstances of users including those that are vulnerable.
The consultation was broadly positive about proposals regarding the design of our court and tribunal buildings and reinforced the need for the security of those who use and work in our courts and tribunals to be paramount and for ensuring suitable facilities for vulnerable users. This is reflected in the new “Court and tribunal design guide” published today.
Our revised principles will strengthen and guide our analysis and assessment when we consider future changes. It will better align the management of our estate to the wider modernisation of our services and will make sure the court and tribunal estate remains fit for the 21st century.
Court and tribunal design guide
Alongside fit for the future, HMCTS has also published a new Court and tribunal design guide. This has been developed after engaging with user groups, to make sure the guide improves the experience for court and tribunal users, while providing value for the taxpayer.
It provides the standards for refurbishment and redevelopment of existing and future court and tribunal buildings. It aims to enable optimum use of facilities and improve user experience and, along with the key elements of safety and security, sets out five principles that must be incorporated into any building design. These principles define that court and tribunal buildings must be appropriate, effective, accessible, flexible and sustainable.
The guide was developed through extensive engagement with court and tribunal users to ensure standards and designs meet their needs. The “fit for the future” consultation sought views on the proposed principles and approach to improving the design of court and tribunal buildings and a total of 181 responses were received.
The guide will be used by HMCTS to help inform current and future building and refurbishment work undertaken across the court and tribunal estate. As lessons are learned and HMCTS reform initiatives develop, the design guide will be updated.
A copy of the consultation response has been placed in the libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1554]
House of Lords
Saudi Arabia: Torture of Political Detainees
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Blackstone
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the government of Saudi Arabia about recent reports of the use of torture on political detainees in that country.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we are concerned by the allegations of torture of political detainees, including women’s rights defenders, in Saudi Arabia. The UK Government unreservedly condemn torture and cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. It is a priority to challenge this behaviour wherever and whenever it occurs. We regularly raise our concerns at a high level with the Saudi authorities, including during the Foreign Secretary’s visit to Saudi Arabia in March 2019.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but I am a little disappointed by it, given the extraordinary and appalling human rights record of the Government of Saudi Arabia, where there are political prisoners suffering from beatings, burns, electric shocks and malnutrition. At the recent mass executions, evidence was allowed in court based on confessions extracted under torture. Could he tell the House a little more about when and with whom his and the Government’s concerns have been raised, what the response of the Saudi Government was, and what the UK Government intend to do next about this appalling situation?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I agree with the noble Baroness: the reports we have seen and the recent events that unfolded with the mass executions of detainees were horrific and of deep concern. Many of the people executed were Shia Muslims. The noble Baroness asked at what level we have raised this issue. As I already indicated, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary raised it during his visit with his counterpart in Saudi Arabia. Most recently, at the end of April, Saudi’s Foreign Minister, Adel al-Jubeir, was in London and these issues were raised with him directly.
Turning to the next steps, notwithstanding what we are doing on bilateral relations, the noble Baroness will know that I am Minister for Human Rights and that we are a signatory to the 7 March joint statement from the UN Human Rights Council, which raised significant concerns about not just the reports of the detentions already in play but the arrests that are still taking place. I assure the noble Baroness that we continue to raise this issue at all levels, and we are working through international partners and will continue to do so. I hope to visit the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia later this year in my role as Human Rights Minister.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, in March 2018, the Minister said:
“We will continue … to implore reform”,—[Official Report, 7/3/18; col. 1173.]
from Saudi Arabia. What progress does he think the Government are making, given the cases of torture and the public executions that we have just heard about? In light of this and of actions in Yemen, is it not time for the Government to stop saying that they are taking adequate precautions on arms sales, and to stop arms sales to Saudi Arabia?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, on the latter point, the noble Baroness will know that we have a very rigid arms enforcement arrangement and process in place. That continues to apply to Saudi Arabia, as well as to any other international partner we engage with on defence contracts. On the specific issue, she is quite right. She quoted my use of the word “implore”. I assure her that in all our engagements we continue to remind Saudi Arabia of its important commitments to human rights. She will be aware of the 2030 vision, which is all about economic and social reform. Notwithstanding the tragic events that have taken place, including the issues surrounding Jamal Khashoggi, we continue to work with Saudi Arabia on opening up society and the country, and its continuing focus on and progress towards greater rights, particularly for women.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, having spent seven years in the British Embassy in Riyadh, I feel there is something familiar about this discussion. Clearly, we face a very difficult situation there and it is highly unsatisfactory. Does the Minister agree that it is slightly better to avoid a direct head-to-head with the Saudis on these things? They believe, and probably will also say, “These are not British citizens; it’s not your business”. It is much better to tackle it from the point of view of the very strong relationship we have with them in a range of important fields, and to use the flak rightly coming out of Parliament to indicate that it will be increasingly difficult for us to maintain that very important relationship if there is no visible progress on some of the matters mentioned by noble Lords.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord speaks with great insight on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and I agree with him. We have a very important and balanced relationship with Saudi Arabia that is realistic in terms of what is achievable and attainable in our exchanges, and that is because of the nature of the engagement. As I said, we do not shy away from raising human rights bilaterally or, as has been demonstrated, in partnership very publicly through vehicles such as the Human Rights Council.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister talks about the programme of reform. Certainly, since the incident in Turkey, we have seen a different attitude. The report on torture arose from Saudi Arabia’s own internal examination of these issues, and with a new ambassador in the US and here, the Saudis seem to be on a charm offensive. But the reality is that there are still huge human rights abuses and more executions than ever before. Will the noble Lord tell us a bit more about not only what the Government are saying to the Saudis but what we are doing with our allies to ensure we can exert pressure, so that, instead of the current PR exercise, we confront the reality?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the noble Lord raises important points. But the fact that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is deploying a “charm offensive”, as he calls it—I would also call it a diplomatic offensive—to change the way it is viewed on the global stage reflects the important fact that progress is being made. On working to get specific action, it is acutely aware of the action we are taking through international fora such as the Human Rights Council, and we will continue to do so.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, according to the last figure I saw, we export £80 million-worth of arms to Saudi Arabia and nil to Yemen. Does that not make us complicit in a lot of the work that is going on there?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I have already answered, in part, the question on arms exports to Saudi Arabia, which, as I said, are managed in the most robust manner. The noble Lord mentions that we do not export arms to Yemen. He and all noble Lords will know all too well that the conflict in Yemen is not just about the Yemenis themselves. There are external partners in play, and the last thing we should be doing is fuelling that conflict by exporting arms to a country that is torn by civil war and that has external players who are in part fuelling that war.
Mobile Phones: Public Alert Systems
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the remarks by Lord Young of Cookham on 5 July 2018 (HL Deb, cols 766–770), what progress they have made on the introduction of public alert systems for mobile phones in the event of an emergency.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise the potential benefits of an emergency alerting scheme that sends text messages to mobile phones. The Cabinet Office has undertaken further work to address some of the technical and operational issues of implementing such a scheme on the UK’s communications networks, and is working across government and with emergency responders to explore the potential benefits and opportunities further.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his Answer, but not a lot seems to have happened in the year since I last asked him about this matter.
It is seven years since Australia adopted a location-based text alert system, since when there have been no bushfire deaths. It is five years since the Cabinet Office published its report on the three successful trials it had carried out of these systems. It is three years since my report on London’s preparedness, which made recommendations in this area. It is two years since the Grenfell fire, when, had the technology been in use, residents in the tower could have been advised of the change in evacuation advice. That would have saved lives. It is two weeks since the Indian authorities sent 2.6 million text alerts warning people in the path of Cyclone Fani, possibly saving thousands of lives. Can the Minister tell us what exactly the problem is in this country, and when UK residents are going to get the protection that is available elsewhere in the world?
Lord Young of Cookham
I understand the noble Lord’s impatience, and commend him for the regularity with which he has addressed this issue. Ministers have made it absolutely clear that doing nothing is not an option. Two weeks ago, there was a workshop of the Cabinet Office, the Home Office and the police to identify more accurately the precise specifications of the scheme that the noble Lord refers to. Later this year, the Environment Agency will be launching a trial scheme using cell broadcasting, and testing the 4G technology to compare it with existing alerting capabilities. The previous trials in 2013 which the noble Lord referred to, were disappointing, but they were based on older technology and the 2G network. Since then, things have moved on.
Finally, the noble Lord referred to the cyclone in India. Most of the existing schemes are used to warn people of tsunamis, flooding and fires. His report used it against a background of terrorism. That raises different issues, in that it is impossible to forecast exactly what is going to happen, and also, in the case of terrorism, the protagonists are also receiving the message alerts. That means that one requires a slightly different approach if one is to use it for those purposes rather than the purposes it is normally used for abroad.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has just said, on 28 October 2016 he launched his report on improving London’s terror preparedness. He recommended the installation of hostile vehicle mitigation barriers and the wider installation of protective bollards in areas of vulnerability around London. Sadly, no action was taken before the terrorist attacks on Westminster Bridge and London Bridge, the first being six months after the publication of the report. Does the Minister accept that any unnecessary delay to the implementation of the recommendations made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, regarding the introduction of public alert systems could result in preventable loss of life?
Lord Young of Cookham
I agree. One of the themes that came out of the debate in July, which the noble Lord participated in, was the importance of getting the message right and of any message coming from an alerting system being compatible with what the BBC, Sky and social media are doing—all of which may have more on-the-spot responses. This is why, as I said, it requires a slightly different approach the schemes that are already up and running. On the issue of the bollards and other obstructions, I will of course take that up with the relevant government department.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend assure the House that no alert system will ever be capable of foreign intervention? I know that many Members, in all parts of both Houses, are acutely concerned about this.
Lord Young of Cookham
One of the advantages of cell broadcasting technology as opposed to SMS texting, which is the alternative scheme, is that cell broadcasting is better proofed against the risks that my noble friend has referred to.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is there something fundamentally wrong with this Government? Even when they want to do something, it takes years for them to actually act. Should we not review the way that the Government are proceeding on these issues, so that we do not have ongoing issues that last for years without being resolved?
Lord Young of Cookham
Again, I understand the noble Lord’s impatience which, for all he knows, may be more widely shared than he thinks. What has changed over recent years is that previous trials were based on an outdated technology, 2G. Now that we have 4G and the arrival of 5G is imminent, it is possible to have a scheme which was not possible three or four years ago. As I said a moment ago, we are testing a public trial of cell broadcasting later this year, which could then be developed into the sort of scheme proposed by his noble friend.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, one problem which is common to terrorist attacks and environmental disasters is the anxiety of friends and family about those whom they are concerned might be affected. Their phone calls, using mobile systems as well as landlines, put a load on the whole system. That was obvious in 2005. Does the work which the Government are doing take account of the need to ensure that that load is minimised?
Lord Young of Cookham
Cell broadcasting does not run the risks of congestion on the network that the previous system, SMS, did.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, confession is good for the soul, even for Ministers. Can the Minister be absolutely precise about whether the workshop to which he referred was planned before or after my noble friend Lord Harris tabled his Question?
Lord Young of Cookham
I am flattered that the noble Lord thinks that I have such influence that the moment a Question is tabled to me, I immediately ask for a workshop to be established. The workshop was planned before the noble Lord tabled his Question.
Apprenticeships
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, in the first half of 2018-19, there have been 214,000 apprenticeship starts: 38% were at intermediate level, 44% were at advanced level, and 18% were at higher level. Included in the latter were 14,000 level 6-plus and degree apprenticeships, representing 7% of apprenticeship starts. Our apprenticeship reforms are raising the quality of training and assessment at all levels. They are providing the skills that employers need and creating life-changing opportunities for apprentices.
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. We should all congratulate the people participating in these apprenticeships, but there are still not enough of them. Today, two dozen significant bodies have written to the DfE asking for more time to spend the money generated by the levy. Only 9% of the money raised last year was actually spent on workplace programmes, and if that money is not spent it goes to the Treasury. I am sure that everyone, with the possible exception of the Treasury, wants the money that is set aside for training apprentices to be spent on training them. Will Her Majesty’s Government respond positively to the spirit in which these organisations have laid out their request to the DfE? Will the DfE provide them with the flexibility so that they can provide the training for future workers?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
As the noble Lord is aware, we have listened consistently to feedback from employers since the scheme began two years ago, which is why we extended the time employers could use their levy from 18 to 24 months. We have also increased the amount of money they can pass down their supply chain. We continue to engage regularly with all employer groups.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his personal support of university technical colleges. Some 30% of students from these 48 colleges become apprentices each year. The one at Sellafield had 80% apprentices last year, which compares with an average of only 6% from ordinary comprehensives in England. All technical education is being squeezed out of pre-16 education, because it is being asked to follow EBacc. EBacc should be scrapped if you want more apprenticeships.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I disagree with my noble friend on EBacc, but applaud all the work he has done on UTCs and their role in the apprenticeship programme.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
Can the Minister say how many children in care and care leavers get on to and complete apprenticeships? He may prefer to write to me. Does he agree that it is a priority to ensure that such young people access apprenticeships and are supported to sustain them?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I will write to the noble Earl with the exact figures, but there is good news; I have come reasonably prepared for this question. The percentage of BAME apprentices—black, Asian and minority ethnic —went up from 9.9% in 2011-12 to 11% last year. Importantly, the number of apprentices with learning disabilities has gone up from 7.7% to 11.9%.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, one of the causes of the Government falling so far short of their laudable target of 3 million apprenticeship starts by next year is that not enough young people are directed towards apprenticeships in schools. A recent survey showed that only 9% of current apprentices found out about theirs through their teacher, and just 6% through a professional careers adviser. That is totally unacceptable. When will the Government start enforcing the requirement introduced last year for all schools to have a designated careers leader and—under the Baker clause of the Technical and Further Education Act—for head teachers to allow outside speakers to come in and inform young people of the rewarding alternatives to the academic route after they leave school?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
The noble Lord is right that schools are still not engaging enough to encourage apprenticeships. I accept that as fair criticism, but we are improving. We have just had the Youth Voice Census back for 2019, which shows that the percentage of children learning about apprenticeships has gone up. For example, specifically for engagement at FE level, “meaningful encounters” with sixth-form colleges have gone up from 52% to 60% and with FE colleges from 52% to 58%, and independent training provider engagement has risen from 29% to 34%. The work is ongoing.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
Is the Minister aware—and, if not, I and perhaps other noble Lords are ready to give examples—of the bureaucratic burdens and delays being experienced? For universities, the added obligation to report to and share data with the Education and Skills Funding Agency, as well as the three usual reports, is exacerbated by an identical reporting requirement for levels 2 and 7, NVQ and postgraduate. The burden seems disproportionate. For large levy-payers, there are unexplained delays in approving new apprenticeship standards. Will the Minister urgently address these to improve take-up?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
On the right reverend Prelate’s first point about universities, I encourage him to write to me and I will pass that to the Universities Minister. We have put a tremendous impetus behind the universities sector to engage particularly with areas of lower attainment. It now spends £800 million a year trying to reach areas where university access has previously been low. We now have 440 standards approved and another 50 in the pipeline.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
What steps are being taken to incentivise schools to encourage young people into apprenticeships? The league tables currently encourage GCSE and A-level results. Could schools not be given formal recognition for their young people who go into apprenticeships?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I refer the noble Baroness partly to my earlier answer where I spoke about the surveys that we are carrying out with schools. For example, the Compass data encourage seven meaningful encounters with employers. The apprenticeship programme is very much part of that.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, we should focus on the quality as well as the quantity of apprenticeships. With this in mind, will my noble friend join me in congratulating the UK Atomic Energy Authority, which in partnership with the Science and Technology Facilities Council is building a new training centre at Culham that will provide up to 150 high-quality apprenticeships in engineering, science and technology?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I agree. It is interesting to note that, for example, a level 2 apprenticeship can boost earnings by 11% and a level 3 apprenticeship by 16%, so these are career-changing opportunities.
Social Care: Green Paper
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wheeler
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the costs and effects of the delay in publishing their green paper on social care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford) (Con)
My Lords, the Green Paper remains a priority for the Government, and we will publish it at the earliest opportunity. Despite the delay in publication, the Government are committed to improving adult social care. We recently launched our social care recruitment campaign, Every Day is Different, and continue to support the sector by distributing £12 million a year through the workforce development fund. The Government have also given councils access to up to £3.9 billion of funding for social care for 2019-20.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, the Green Paper was first promised in 2017, when the Government said that,
“we cannot wait any longer—we need to get on with this”,—[Official Report, 6/7/17; col. 987.]
and pledged to publish by the end of that year. I remind the House that this was a year after they abandoned the Dilnot provisions on future care funding, which had cross-party support under the Care Act and were due to start in 2016. The Alzheimer’s Society has estimated that, over the past 26 months, there have been more than half a million delayed transfers of care for people affected by dementia; nearly 3 billion hours of unpaid care have been provided; and, at any one point, more than 120,000 people with dementia in England receive no help from social care or family carers. Emergency cash injections do not address the chronic underfunding of local services, change the eligibility criteria or help people plan for future care needs. When we finally get the Green Paper, can the Minister promise the House that it will address these issues and provide the major, immediate and long-term funding that is urgently needed?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank the noble Baroness for an extremely important question. I know that she will agree that decisions on future reforms must be aligned. That is precisely why the long-term plan and the upcoming social care Green Paper have been considered alongside each other. Some important measures within the long-term plan are already beginning to improve social care; for example, the enhanced health in care homes model, which will ensure stronger links between primary care networks and local care homes; the comprehensive model for personalised care, which will put the individual at the centre of services; and personal health budgets. However, the noble Baroness is also right that we have to make sure that we get funding reform right—that is why we have increased funding from £3.6 billion in 2018-19 to £3.9 billion in 2019-20. She is also right that we must ensure that we build on the carers action plan and put carers at the heart of social care. Finally, we must ensure that we recruit, retain and build on workforce development at the heart of the social care Green Paper. That is what we will do, and I look forward to the debates in this House when we bring it forward.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Economic Affairs Committee is conducting an inquiry at the moment into social care? One of the manifestly obvious conclusions is that we will not be able to address this important issue unless we are able to get a degree of consensus between the Opposition and the Government? Would it not be a good idea for the Opposition to take a constructive approach when the Green Paper is published?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I think that the noble Lord speaks for the whole House when he calls for consensus on social care. One reason why it is taking slightly longer to bring forward the plan is that we are doing a lot of work on consultation and collaboration to ensure that we produce a robust proposal which can command the support of the House and be delivered effectively and implemented well. The Government are committed to ensuring that everyone has access to the care and support they need, but we need to be clear that there should continue to be a principle of shared responsibility and that people should expect to contribute to their care as part of preparing for later life. The Green Paper will bring forward ideas for including an element of risk pooling in the system to help protect people from the highest costs. We look forward to support from the Opposition on those proposals.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, in 2009 there was a proposal that we should all work together, cross-party, for social care, started by the then Labour Government. All three major parties signed up to it, and then one party withdrew, making it undeliverable—it was neither the Labour Party nor the Liberal Democrats. The Minister said all the warm words that we want to hear about support for health and social care integration, but the new Health for Care coalition of 19 major health organisations is very clear that, while it is doing all it can for social care services and the NHS working together, and integration is improving, it can go only so far when services are being placed under so much strain. It points out that we would need an annual increase of 3.9% to meet the needs of an ageing population and an increasing number of younger adults. Seven hundred days since the social care paper was first promised is too long: when will it actually be delivered?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I share the noble Baroness’s impatience for progress on this. She is absolutely right that there is no point in bringing forward the proposals if they are not properly costed and funded. That is exactly why these proposals have been developed in collaboration with the long-term plan and the social care plan. We have to ensure that the right funding for social care is agreed alongside the rest of the local government settlement at the forthcoming spending review. That is partly why this process is taking the route that it is.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, I feel sure that the noble Baroness will agree that this has become an embarrassingly long-running saga. I am sure the whole House will agree that the people who depend upon these services are the most vulnerable in our society and have such high-dependency needs that they ought to have the security of knowing that their well-being and safety is being properly attended to. Will the noble Baroness use all her influence to make sure that these people get the security and peace of mind that they deserve?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I am absolutely delighted to offer the noble Lord my assurance that we will work as hard as we can to deliver the most effective and most deliverable Green Paper we can. He is absolutely right that the most vulnerable people within our society depend on the effectiveness not only of social care services but the integration of social care services with our public health services and the long-term plan. That is why it is encouraging that social care sits right at the heart of the long-term plan and why it is well integrated with the other commitments within the plan to improve outcomes for major diseases and including measures to support older people, through more personalised care and stronger community and primary care services. These will improve outcomes and reduce the demand on social care, and that is exactly the kind of holistic approach that we want to see.
Iran and Gulf Security
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the fact that the Government of Iran have given 60 days’ notice that they intend to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and restart their nuclear weapons programme, what steps they are taking to mitigate the increased risk of conflict in the region.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we note with great concern the statement made by Iran on 8 May concerning its commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. We are analysing the detail and are in close contact with the other parties to the deal. We urge Iran not to take further escalatory steps and to stand by its commitments. Should Iran cease meeting its nuclear commitments, there would be consequences. While Iran keeps to its commitments, so too will the United Kingdom.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Things are extremely dangerous and it is interesting that Mike Pompeo is not going to Moscow today but has gone to Brussels to speak to EU Foreign Ministers. Our Foreign Secretary said:
“We are very worried about the risk of a conflict happening by accident and … escalation that is unintended”.
There is no doubt that there are powerful factions within Israel, Saudi Arabia and the US that feel that an attack on Iran would be a good thing, believe it or not. They think that they would very quickly be able to suppress the enemy capability and then there would be regime change. They are wrong. It would be an absolute catastrophe. The passage of any shipping through the Straits of Hormuz would be problematic for weeks, there would be an outbreak of terrorist attacks throughout the region and there would possibly be some missile attacks. Bearing that in mind, are we going to give any warning to UK citizens in the region? What is the state of preparedness of our own forces there, bearing in mind that when action is taken in response to an attack, Iran will not think that we are not involved in it? They will; therefore, we need to be ready for such a thing.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite correct that a meeting is taking place in Brussels. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is part of that meeting of the EU three, and all of us are very much committed to keeping the JCPOA alive and on the table. He is also seeking, as we have done over the last few days, continued and close contact with Secretary of State Pompeo and other leading members of the US Administration.
I also agree with the noble Lord that the last thing the region needs now is a conflict of the nature of the one that is developing on the horizon. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said that that would further destabilise the region, and I assure the noble Lord that we are working hard to ensure that that will not be the case. The noble Lord will know from his own experience that I cannot go into any detail on deployments. However, the safety and security of British citizens are of paramount importance to the United Kingdom Government and we are working to ensure that all people are informed, in particular through our various embassies in the region.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that your Lordships’ International Relations Committee has taken detailed evidence on this agreement and the American attitude to it. While it is patently clear that a breaking of the agreement is bound to lead to further proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region—a great danger, as the noble Lord, Lord West, has already said—it is equally clear that the information we are getting on American intentions is not really satisfactory. I will ask my noble friend the same question I asked last week: what explanation are we getting from our American allies of their intentions in the whole region? Are we just to take the views of Mr Pompeo that we should be threatened with cutting off intelligence unless we follow the American line, or are we developing a joint strategy that will mitigate some of the enormous dangers that clearly lie in this situation?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My noble friend raises an important point about the US-British relationship. I assure him that we are in constant dialogue and contact with our US counterparts; the discussions between Foreign Secretary Hunt and Secretary of State Pompeo on this issue are ongoing. Recent statements on US intentions in the region from the US State Department—including from Secretary of State Pompeo—clearly show that it is not seeking to destabilise the region but wants to see a change in Iran’s behaviour. We have a view that part of ensuring peace and stability in the region is keeping the JCPOA alive, and we continue to make that point together with other European partners to the United States.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, it is not just about what the Americans are saying but what they are doing. America has, after all, deployed a carrier strike group and B-52 bombers. I associate myself with the analysis provided by the noble Lord, Lord West, and presume to offer three things for the Government to say to the United States. First, belligerence will not bring Iran to heel; if anything, it will simply stiffen the resolve of its leaders. Secondly, if America’s objective is regime change, then, drawing on our own recent experience, we are not in support of that. Finally, whatever it does, it should not listen to Mr Netanyahu.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, US deployments remain a decision for the United States. In more general terms, we share the concerns of the United States and others about Iran’s influence in the wider region. That said, as I have already stated a number of times—including last week on this very question—the United Kingdom believes that any kind of conflict with Iran will further destabilise the region. We are making that point consistently. We are continuing to engage with not just the United States and our European partners but directly with Iran. That dialogue is extremely important, not least at this particularly fragile time.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that one of the factors that will weigh most heavily with Iran is the attitude of China and Russia, who are co-partners in the JCPOA? What steps are we taking to concert with those two countries on ways to discourage the Iranians from reneging on their commitments? Does the Minister not find it a little rich that someone in the entourage of the American Secretary of State referred to the Iranian statement last week as “blackmail”?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord’s final point is very much a matter for the United States Administration; it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the entourage of the Secretary of State. On the noble Lord’s wider point, I agree that it is imperative that all parties to the JCPOA are involved. He named both China and Russia; I assure him that we are working with all parties and continue to implore both China and Russia to use their influence to ensure that Iran stays at the table and that the JCPOA stays live for the region. As I have said a number of times, it is important not just for Iran and for the region but for the whole world.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, this tit for tat that we have seen is clearly something that we were discussing last week. It is clear that there are also elements in Iran who would like to see the agreement fall because of their own ideological commitment. The noble Lord keeps referring to “our side of the bargain” and “their side of the bargain”. Can he tell us a bit more about how we are meeting our side of the bargain, as he said, not only with our European allies but with other co-signatories, so that we can say to the US, “We will continue to meet our side of the bargain”?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As the noble Lord knows, we are not only committed diplomatically to the JCPOA but have been working in co-operation with our European partners on the special purpose vehicle. That is part of our side of the bargain—to coin a phrase—to ensure that there is sanctions relief for the Iranian people. Our fight—or anybody’s fight—is not with any citizen or country, and nor should the United States view it as such. Indeed, Secretary of State Pompeo has repeatedly emphasised the importance of keeping in mind the Iranian people. That is why we are committed to ensuring that the work that is being done on the special purpose vehicle continues—because it provides a degree of respite for the Iranian people.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord West, refers to Iran restarting its nuclear programme. Does he really believe that Iran abandoned its nuclear programme altogether?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
What was important in the Question from the noble Lord, Lord West, was that Iran stopped further development of its nuclear programme. The letter from President Rouhani made clear their intent that after 60 days they would restart their efforts in that regard. We need to ensure that we avert that threat, and we continue to work to keep the JCPOA alive. This was not a perfect deal; as I have said before, issues around ballistic missiles were not covered. However, it is the best deal we have, it has kept the peace, and it has kept Iran from progressing on its path to obtaining a nuclear weapon. That is why the United Kingdom, along with other international partners, remains committed to it.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, the principal objective has to be to stop Iran getting a nuclear capability, and we were in that place with the deal, as the noble Lord rightly says. So the only way of keeping the Iranians in the deal is to get the special purpose vehicle and the financial scheme to work—but they are not working. How do the Government and their European allies intend to ensure that this contribution to making the deal continue works?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The short answer to why the vehicle is not working is that it is not yet operational. However, we are working with our European partners to ensure that all elements continue to function, including regulatory compliance, on the Iranian as well as the European side. We are focused on getting that SPV up and running.
Census (Return Particulars and Removal of Penalties) Bill [HL]
Monday 13th May 2019
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Census (Return Particulars and Removal of Penalties) Act 2019 View all Census (Return Particulars and Removal of Penalties) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to present this Bill today. This may be some noble Lords’ first encounter with the census legislative process. I have an advantage, in that I was responsible for taking through the legislation in another place to enable the taking of the 1981 census. I now have the pleasure to present a Bill that paves the way for new questions in the 2021 census, 40 years later.
The purpose of the Bill is very simple: it will remove the penalty for not responding to new census questions on sexual orientation and gender identity. This means that the questions will be voluntary. Given the sensitive nature of these questions, they will be asked only in respect of those aged 16 and over in the 2021 census.
This delivers on the proposals set out in December 2018 by the White Paper Help Shape our Future. The Office for National Statistics undertook an extensive three-year programme of research and evidence-gathering, including a large public consultation on the 2021 census, and the White Paper sets out its recommendations. This includes new questions on sexual orientation and gender identity to help decision-makers monitor their services and provision. The White Paper also recommends that nobody should have to disclose their sexual orientation or gender identity if they do not want to.
To make these questions voluntary, the Bill amends the Census Act 1920 to remove the penalty for not responding to them. As some noble Lords will recall, this reflects the approach taken in the Census (Amendment) Act 2000, which removed the penalty attaching to a failure to answer a question on religious affiliation in future censuses.
The Bill also extends to Northern Ireland by amending the Census Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 to ensure that there is a consistent statutory basis across the UK for asking voluntary questions on sexual orientation and gender identity. The Bill does not direct either question to be asked in Northern Ireland but extends the voluntary nature of both questions, should it be decided to include these questions in this or a future Northern Ireland census. Without an amendment to the census primary legislation for Northern Ireland, questions on these topics would remain subject to a penalty for non-response. Following consultations with the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, we are therefore extending this Bill to Northern Ireland. Noble Lords may wish to note that the Scottish Parliament has separately introduced a Bill to make new questions on sexual orientation and transgender status and history voluntary by removing the penalty for failing to answer these questions.
The census provides an opportunity, once every 10 years, to build a detailed and comprehensive picture of the nation. The 2021 census will be a primarily online census for the first time. This will help to improve data quality and pursue the Government’s aim of increasing the provision of public services online.
Confidentiality remains paramount. All personal data collected by the census will be stored confidentially and will not be released for 100 years. In 2021, respondents will be provided with a unique access code and anyone aged 16 years and over will be able to request a code, or individual paper form, if they wish to respond privately. This will enable people to answer these questions without having to tell the householder that they have done so. This is vital, given the clear need for this data.
The research and consultation conducted by the Office for National Statistics to inform the recommendations for the 2021 census showed a clear need to collect data on sexual orientation and gender identity. National and local organisations have confirmed that need, including the Government Equalities Office, the Department for Health and Social Care and Sport England. There has also been significant consultation with stakeholders in the voluntary sector, which I know the ONS values, and which will continue throughout the census.
The Office for National Statistics recommends new questions or changes to questions only where its consultations and research has shown a compelling case to do so. Data on sexual orientation, down to local authority level, is not currently available and there is no official data at all in this country on gender identity. This has a direct impact on the provision of public services. The NHS has highlighted that the absence of reliable gender identity information is a challenge for its provision of gender dysphoria services, and local authorities have sought the information to tackle homophobic incidents in the night-time economy. Without robust data on the size of the LGBT population at a national and local level, decision-makers are operating in something of a vacuum. They are unaware of the extent and nature of the disadvantages LGBT people may experience and, critically, they are unable to design and monitor the effectiveness of policies to address these issues.
I have written to my noble friend Lord Blencathra, of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, to set out the delegated powers memorandum accompanying the Bill. The Bill includes no new delegated powers but will have an effect on existing ones as they operate in England and Wales. Copies of the memorandum have been made available.
The Bill ensures that, in delivering on the White Paper’s proposals, the Office for National Statistics can arrange to include new questions on sexual orientation and gender identity in the 2021 census on a voluntary basis, ensuring that the penalty for not responding to these questions is removed. It ensures that robust data can be collected to inform policymakers in the planning and provision of vital public services to support citizens across the UK. I therefore urge noble Lords to join me in supporting this simple, worthwhile legislation. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill and for repeating his 1981 gig. I do not know whether he will do this every 10 years from now on. I also congratulate the Government on using our spare Chamber time on a useful piece of legislation, for once. Perhaps we could also now have the public service ombudsman Bill, the Grocott hereditaries Bill or some Law Commission Bill to put our otherwise rather idle hands to good use.
We on this side of the House welcome and support the Bill for the very reasons the Minister articulated. We believe that the timing is right to include the two new questions, not only to ensure that services and policies are appropriate but to help with the development of rights and the removal of discrimination. I say this particularly as an old campaigner—first and foremost, one needs good evidence to measure problems and monitor progress in order to formulate responses and make a strong case.
However, I confess that my enthusiasm for the census comes also from speaking as an historian. A plethora of data going back more than 200 years provides us historians with a rich treasure trove. Along with other noble Lords, I am delighted that the Government still believe in the census given that, in July 2010, the then Cabinet Office Minister, Francis Maude, called it,
“an expensive and inaccurate way of measuring the number of people in Britain”,
and planned to replace it with existing public and private databases, including credit reference agencies. That would have been awful for historians and today’s users of data, since those sources are neither as comprehensive as the census nor as rich in detail and depth. We are delighted that the Government did not follow that idea.
Planners clearly need extensive data, including on children, if they are to cater for future needs. The census is the only time when everybody in the country is counted; it is therefore used by the Government to determine spending priorities and track population movements. Without accurate data, it is nigh on impossible to distribute resources effectively or target them where they are most needed. As the Minister reflected on, it is similarly important for those monitoring the impact of legislative, demographic or policy changes. Whether for campaigners, historians, faith leaders, planners or politicians, the census must be comprehensive, consistent and credible, and provide confidence that it will be used correctly, that personal data will be kept private and that its oversight will be thorough and in the public interest. To achieve accuracy, we need very high compliance. That requires confidence in the process and a willingness to participate, so the questions must have public acceptance. Their wording therefore needs extensive consultation and testing, as well as explaining nearer the time to build trust in the process.
We on these Benches consider that the White Paper and the Bill have correctly judged that the moment is right to add these two questions and to ensure they can be voluntarily answered. We might discuss some details in Committee and seek assurance on the degree of consultation, but we are very supportive of the proposals. However, I will ask a couple of wider questions about the 2021 census.
The first is about the homeless. For the census to be complete—that is, a picture of everyone in the UK on that Sunday in March two years hence—it needs to count those who are homeless as well as those who are housed. This is important both to measure the impact of demographic or policy changes and to plan services for this vulnerable group—to say nothing of the future needs of historians—but, as we know, this group is currently underrepresented on the returns. Last year Shelter met the relevant ONS team and made suggestions to improve the situation. In particular, it argued that the key to achieving an accurate count by including homeless people is really just trying harder to reach them. That might mean providing extra reassurance to the homeless about dealing with officials and stressing to every local authority the importance of that. Without accurate numbers, there is little chance that services to help those experiencing homelessness will be fairly and adequately delivered. This issue is particularly important and relevant to the debate today, given that the Bill is about groups that we know have a higher propensity to homelessness. Particularly given the broader move to an online approach, what discussions has the Minister’s department had with the ONS on ensuring that the census captures those experiencing homelessness?
Secondly, I want to ask the Minister about the Royal British Legion’s “Count Them In” campaign, which seeks the inclusion of a question to make good the patchy data on the Armed Forces community, which leaves statutory and voluntary service providers unable fully to meet the needs of that cohort at the moment. Parliament would need to approve such an addition. At the moment, nobody knows the size or demographics of the Armed Forces community resident in the UK. The legion estimates it to be about one in 10 of the population: some 2.8 million veterans, perhaps 2.1 million dependants, another 1 million dependent children and perhaps up to 250,000 hidden ex-service personnel in care homes. In 2007 the MoD estimated that there were 2.4 million veterans. These are large numbers to be left so vague, especially five years after the Armed Forces covenant was enshrined in legislation. That covenant recognises the sacrifices that the Armed Forces community makes and pledges that no one should face disadvantage as a result of their service. Local authorities have promised to deliver the principles of the covenant, but they need data to do that.
Of course, the other recommendation in the White Paper was that there should be such a question. I know the Government have agreed to add something about past UK service. While the wording has yet to be decided, it would be helpful if the Minister could update the House on this. If I have understood it, it would not be in the voluntary section and that is why it is not included in this Bill. What thought was given to not excluding it and dropping it into the voluntary section?
I will just check with the Minister whether a couple of things that appear to be from a previous era remain. Is the approach taken in the census still that there is a “head of household”, which sounds a little not of our time? I hope the question on “issue born in marriage” is no longer there. Maybe the Minister can just update us, to make sure that the language and questions are appropriate for the 21st century. For the moment, though, we very much support the Bill and look forward to its helping to produce useful and relevant data on important human rights issues in due course.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill and thank him and his team for the briefing they gave Peers the other day. He is right: this is the first time I have been involved in census legislation. My previous experience of considering the census in great detail was in 1971, when my mum was an enumerator. Most enumerators were women because it was short-term work that working mums could do. She was an enumerator in a working-class area of the west of Scotland. I guess in those days we did not bother to ask about people’s religion because everyone knew what everyone else’s religion was, and if in doubt asked which school they went to.
I am pleased with the provisions of the Bill, which I hope will command general agreement. It is high time our data gathering became more inclusive. The LGBT community has suffered over time, particularly in the provision of public services, because there has been no basic data from which service planners have been able to work. All the information we get these days—patchy though it is—about LGBT people’s use of the NHS is not population data but data about our use of the NHS. That is all there is to go on, whereas for the rest of the population there is basic data from which projections can and should be made.
It is right that the Bill will ensure that it is not compulsory to answer that question—it is voluntary—and that there should be no penalty for not doing so. For many people it is still a matter that they wish to remain private. Other people cannot divulge their sexual orientation because they fear for their safety in the communities in which they live. It is therefore right that we should do this in the way that we will.
I was pleased to read the White Paper and about the great care that has gone into the preparation of the whole census and many of the questions. However, it is not what the Bill is trying to do that is important but what is not said in it. It is not clear what the questions will be and how they will be framed, and that is crucial. My understanding is that while the sexual orientation question has been subject to consultation, the gender identity one has not. I hope there will be extensive consultation with people likely to have to answer that question.
I understood from our briefing the other day that the sex question is likely to be, “What is your sex? Male or female?”—to be answered by everyone over 16—but the gender identity question is likely to be, “Is your gender the same as the sex you were registered under at birth? Yes/No. Please write in the gender or ‘Prefer not to say’”. Working from that, the assumption would be that a transgender woman would tick “Female” for the sex question and tick “No” and write in “Female” for the gender identity question. A non-binary person would tick the sex that they most closely identify with in the sex question and then tick “No” and write “Non-binary” in the gender identity question. A cis person like me would tick the sex assigned at birth in the sex question and “Yes” in the gender identity question. That is the basis on which I am working.
The standard sex question being left as it has been since 1801 causes a problem for people from three different groups: trans people, non-binary people and intersex people. First, trans people have for many years been filling in the census and have done so in their lived-in identity. Is it anticipated that that will happen from now on and that a trans person will respond in their lived-in identity? We have to bear in mind that the Government are currently consulting on a review of the Gender Recognition Act and these two proposals may come in at the same time. Let us remember that gender recognition is a legal process, not a medical process.
Secondly, what do the Government expect non-binary people to do? Whatever the Government expect them to do will have to be written into the guidance that goes along with the question. How are the Government going to consult on that?
The most difficult question, however, is about the smallest group of people: intersex people born with the characteristics of both sexes. As a result of the current way of not legislating properly for intersex people, they are currently assigned a sex at birth to have their birth recorded. Subsequently their sex may be changed. What are those people supposed to do? I know this all sounds horrendously complicated but I have talked to a number of people involved and they are aware that they are filling in a legal document. They want to do it properly. They do not want to deceive; they just want to know what to do, so it is critical that we get the guidance on this right.
That leads me to my next point, which will perhaps be raised by others, and is about privacy. I understand from the briefing the other day that the data will not be released for up to 100 years. As the Minister will know from our meeting, there is a fear, particularly among the trans community, that while at the moment our society is broadly well disposed towards its members, it may not always be. We are in the middle of a very vicious anti-trans campaign, orchestrated by one or two of our main media outlets. It may be that in 100 years’ time, people may not wish this information about their family to be released. Will the Minister say what might be done with this information in future? It needs to be handled with as much sensitivity as that afforded to religion.
I have two final points. First, this will only ever give us a minimum number because there will be all sorts of reasons why people do not respond to the question. When the statistics are released and show that there are far fewer people than we thought, let us not be surprised about that and let us not base public service provision on what will inevitably be a small number. I took the point made by officials that the census is kept as simple as possible to obtain information that cannot be obtained from other sources. That is why we do not ask every question that people would like to ask.
Secondly, I return to the point I made to the Minister the other day. There is another group of people—men who have never had children—about whom it is extremely difficult to find data. It is possible to work out which women have not had children through their medical records. Why is it important? Currently, 1 million people over the age of 65 do not have children, and we have a health and social care system predicated on the fact that your kids will look after you. It is estimated that by 2030 there will be 2 million people with no children. The trouble is that, because we cannot count them with any degree of accuracy, this significant emerging public policy issue is being ignored. I realise that this matter does not come within this Bill, and I realise, from questions, that the Minister will instantly go away and appoint a working group to look at what I have said. I thought I would throw it in on the off-chance, because I believe it is a significantly overlooked point of public policy. With that, I welcome the Bill very much.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill. He and the Government, in their 2018 White Paper, have laid out a clear case for the introduction of these questions to the census, as well as the rationale for them being optional. Historically, there has always been pressure to include more questions and response options in the census than can be accommodated without putting an unacceptable burden on members of the public in completing the form. However, I think that the Government have the balance right in introducing these two questions.
The surveys by the Office for National Statistics indicate that a large majority of the public—over 70%—find it acceptable to ask the questions, and only very low percentages would elect not to answer them. Although—again, according to ONS data—1% of the population claim that they would refuse to complete any aspect of the census questionnaire if the questions were to be included, this consideration is, I believe, outweighed by the utility that these questions will provide to the Government in fulfilling their obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. The fact that there is currently no official data about the size of the transgender population, for example, speaks volumes. The time is right for these questions to be included in the census.
In debating the 2021 census, I pay tribute to the Government’s work and to their success in acting on the recommendations endorsed by my noble friend Lord Maude when he was Minister for the Cabinet Office. During the coalition, we called for modernisation of the census. The Government recognised its value but believed that it was outdated in its current form and could be more effectively and more cheaply delivered. This is the first census to be predominately online, with an ambition for 75% of responses to be online. This will not only save a great deal of money but allow for the data to be processed faster and put to use while it is still fresh, rather than no less than 16 months old, as was the case after 2011.
I note also that steps are being taken both to help people complete the survey online and to provide offline materials for those for whom that is not possible. I hope that these efforts to get people online will also enable them to unlock the tertiary benefits of access to online governmental resources other than just census forms. Are the Government confident that they will meet their 75% online target or even exceed it? Can the Minister also confirm whether there are plans to offer help to people to get online that go beyond simply completing the census?
During the coalition, we encouraged government use of complementary data, and I am pleased to see that this is being undertaken. The ONS is working with tax data from HMRC and benefits data from the Department for Work and Pensions to develop census-type income data that can be integrated with the data collected on the 2021 census. The Office for National Statistics is also developing approaches to integrate 2021 census data with health and social care data, government surveys and administrative sources such as benefits data. This, in turn, will produce new research which will help to describe the health of the population in innovative ways and with greater depth and precision.
If the 2011 census was calculated to provide £500 million per year to the economy, I trust that the benefits of the 2021 census, with a more modern rollout, asking more useful questions and capable of being processed much faster, will be far greater. I commend the work of the Government and the ONS in their efforts to improve the 2021 census and their collaborative and open approach when conducting the work.
On a final note, however, I also ask the Minister to confirm that the 2021 census will be the last traditional census. During the coalition, we agreed with the ONS that it would run the next-generation census based on continuous use of administrative data for a couple of years before 2021 to ensure that the two processes were aligned. I look forward to receiving his response.
Lord Lipsey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am a facts geek. I chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Statistics with Kelvin Hopkins in the Commons and am vice-chair of Full Fact, the fact-checking charity, so naturally I welcome the Bill because it is going to provide more facts.
I also welcome something that is slightly more unusual to welcome: that there is such a short speakers’ list. I think that, if we had been debating this 30 years ago, there would have been a large number of noble Lords deploring the normalising of homosexual orientation through this kind of action. Indeed, not much more than 30 years ago the Prime Minister of the day cancelled the NatCen sexual survey, then very important in the combating of AIDS, out of just such prejudices. One thing that gives me comfort in the difficult world that we live in has been the huge advance in the acceptance that people’s sexual orientation is a matter for them and no one else.
There is, however, a question about the use of the census for this purpose. Many of the facts that we have at our disposal do not come from the census, which asks the questions of everyone; they come from various forms of sample survey. Obviously, that is less intrusive and requires less work, so could we not do it for sexual orientation? Well, I do not think you get very good numbers that way. Just over 10 years ago, in 2008, the ONS did an analysis of all the sample surveys that had been done into sexual orientation, and it found that the proportion of homosexual people in the community varied from 0.3% to 3% depending on the survey—a factor of 10. So they do not mean much.
Surveys are not very good for very small numbers. I came across another survey on the prevalence of out-of-control gambling; it was a big sample, but I would not trust the figures further than I could throw them since they jerk about all over the place. The reason for that is that sample surveys do not work well when you are trying to identify small groups of people. That is even truer of much smaller groups such as transsexuals, so I would not much trust the accuracy.
There are yet other estimates. An opinion poll recently found a figure for homosexuals of 4%, while the ONS’s latest estimate is 2%. These figures are all over the place. Some people think that the census figures will be all over the place too because many will refuse to answer but, for the reasons that I have already given regarding the change in society, they will probably turn out accurate enough. The ONS itself is testing its questions really thoroughly in an attempt to ensure accuracy.
The census is the only thing that tells you facts regarding a relatively small geographical area. Samples can give you national figures and sometimes regional ones but very rarely constituency-wide figures, let alone local authority-wide figures or figures for wards. There are areas in this country where the gay population happens to be very concentrated and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, those areas may require something quite different from other areas by way of services. I would not push this too far, but they probably do not need quite as many schools for primary-age children, for obvious reasons. So it is going to be of extraordinary value to local authorities and others in the planning business to have this definitive statement of what percentage are gay in particular areas instead of having to rely on national figures and trying to interpret from there.
Culturally, this move represents an important step forward in the recognition that homosexuality is a perfectly natural human condition and accepting that condition with complete equanimity. I therefore welcome the Bill with unusual warmth.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Barker has made clear, we on these Benches also welcome this Bill and the proposed new census questions. This takes us into a broader debate on the 2021 census which we will undertake over the course of the next year. I recognise that this is barely the soup course of that—it is certainly not the main course—so perhaps the Minister could start by telling us, either now or during further consideration, when we may expect publication of the census order and the full consideration provided by taking it through the House. It is very tempting to ask about wider issues at this point, such as the integration of census data with other government data—household surveys and the like—and the discussions within government since the passing of the Digital Economy Act on how one begins to provide for administrative data replacing the survey data of the census in the next 10 years, as chapter 9 of the White Paper suggests. Clearly, when we discuss the census order, we will need to include debate about the future of the census and government management of public debate post 2021.
I cannot resist pointing out in passing that there seem to be some limits on UK sovereignty in the census process. Paragraph 1.29 of the White Paper notes that,
“the census in England and Wales aims to align with international standards set at global and regional level”.
I think that is code suggesting that we are aligning our national census with European standards. I am sure that many on the Conservative Benches think that is entirely improper and that we should move as far away from them as possible.
I have some specific questions. I also received a note from the British Legion about the Armed Forces questions. If I understand the difference between its note and what is in the White Paper, the question is about how far one includes the dependents of members of the armed services, and veterans and their families, in the survey one undertakes? I very much hope that the Minister will tell us more about that, either now or in Committee.
I noted with interest the discussion on questions of national identity from paragraph 3.115 of the White Paper on. In particular, it spends some time on whether or not one should allow Cornish identity to be written in. I give notice to declare that we would of course wish to insist that Yorkshire identity is also allowed to be written in under those circumstances. I was a little puzzled that it appears not to allow for multiple identities. As we know from the rather complex discussion we have had about different identities—English, Scottish, English and Scottish, British, European—these are out there in the public and it may be time to take some of them on board.
I also noticed the delicate discussion on whether or not one allows the Somali community, which has very particular needs, as discussed in the White Paper, to be identified separately from other African communities. It seems that, in public policy terms, there are some quite important questions about identifying particular communities. I once happened to canvass in a part of London which had a remarkably strong Congolese community. They were very surprised to know that I understood that some of them spoke Lingala and other languages; they did not expect a white person to understand anything about the Congo at all. There are good public policy reasons for wanting to identify certain communities, and I was puzzled about why that had been left out.
I was also slightly puzzled that there was no question on digital skills, given that we are moving towards a digital census. I am aware from discussions with the social housing association and other authorities in Bradford that there are some pockets where there are a remarkably large number of people who lack digital skills. Again, perhaps we might return to that in Committee.
As far as the new questions are concerned, I recognise their sensitivity but also their great utility. As a Liberal, I am in favour of open information as far as possible in an open and tolerant society and with the maximum transparency. We are, after all, talking about our preference for evidence-based policy, as against the myth-based policy that has unfortunately taken hold in British government in recent years. Perhaps the Minister could remind us, either now or in Committee, which other questions on the census are voluntary. I noted in the White Paper that the question about religion is voluntary. I am not sure whether there are others. It would be helpful if that was provided to be sure that we understand the categorisation taking place.
I also noted the question on heads of household filling in questionnaires. I wonder whether that is still appropriate and, although very convenient, whether it still provides something of a problem in some parts of the United Kingdom when it comes to sensitive questions such as sexual orientation and gender identity, thus discouraging full returns. I wonder whether there is a particular problem with heads of household in Northern Ireland.
I am torn on the question of privacy. I know that some within the LGBT community are concerned, as my noble friend Lady Barker suggested, about allowing this information to become public even 100 years after it was provided. Again, as a Liberal, I am in favour of making as much information public as soon as possible. I remember the exchange we had in this House when I was in government about the information in the Denning report and Lord Denning’s promise to those whom he interviewed that their answers would never be made public. The position I took as a junior member of the coalition Government was that, at the point when all of those who had been involved in that particular scandal were dead, it would be time to release those answers. I am in favour of limiting the length of privacy, but we should hear the concerns of those worried about it and do what we regard as necessary to allay them.
I welcome the Bill and the proposals. I look forward to further detailed examination in Committee and on Report.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town said in her opening remarks, the Opposition welcome and support the Bill before the House. There are, however, other pressing needs that require parliamentary time, and I hope we will see a few Bills to address those matters as well.
We have had a census in a form we recognise, providing useful data for Governments, local authorities and a whole range of other organisations, for the past 200 years, collected every 10 years, except in 1941, for very understandable reasons. I understand that the 2021 census will largely be conducted online, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, referenced. That is a sensible move, but where people are unable to complete the form online, then a paper-based option should remain available for use since there are still a number of people in this country who are digitally excluded. I am sure that that is an issue of concern to the Government and I very much support the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, that the Government should look into how we can get more people to complete the form online.
The census provides a whole range of data that would be almost impossible to collect in such a comprehensive form through any other method. As my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town said, it must be accurate, complete, comprehensive, consistent, credible and provide confidence that it will be used correctly.
I very much welcome the two new categories that the Bill allows to be asked on the census. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that it is very welcome that we have made such strides in the acceptance of people’s sexual orientation. There is always more to do, but I think we have made tremendous progress in recent years.
I am also very pleased that the Government have, through this Bill, ensured that there will be no financial penalty for respondents who do not complete these questions. It is regrettable that we still have no functioning Executive or Assembly in Northern Ireland. In the absence of such institutions, it is right that the Government have legislated to ensure that the same questions are asked in Northern Ireland, and that there will be no penalty there either for anyone who does not respond.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, raised several points that I wish to support her on. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, will be able to give satisfactory replies when he responds to the debate shortly. In respect of the sex question, where an individual is asked to pick either “male” or “female”, can the noble Lord tell the House how trans people should answer that question? Is it their sex at birth, their sex now, or should they respond in a way outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker?
Can the noble Lord say something about the guidance that will accompany the gender identity question? Can he say something about how intersex births are to be recorded? On the question of publishing de-anonymised data in 100 years’ time, I understand that there is the ability, through an instrument, to extend that period further, if it is thought necessary or desirable. Can it be extended only once, or can it be done many times? Has the noble Lord's department looked at this question, and can he provide information on this matter?
It is important that we get the same data for the United Kingdom, so I am pleased that the Scottish Government are also legislating on these matters, and that a legislative consent Motion is being sought from the Welsh Assembly.
Like many other noble Lords, I received the excellent briefing from the Royal British Legion, and while the issues raised are not directly the subject of this three-clause Bill, I will refer to them—as others have done—and hope that the Minister can provide the House with some information. First, I pay tribute to the work that the Royal British Legion does generally, supporting veterans and their families. Data is invaluable for the Legion in its campaigns—as it is for the Government and for local authorities. The Armed Forces Covenant is enshrined in statute, and has also been adopted by many local authorities in the United Kingdom. The Legion calls and campaigns, and the Government have an obligation that no member of the Armed Forces is left disadvantaged because of their service. To deliver that objective, the Legion is reliant on uniform data.
I very much support the Legion’s campaign for a new topic to be included in the 2021 census that concerns military service and membership of the Armed Forces community. I look forward to the final details of the question that will form part of the census coming forward for approval in 2020, but anything that the Minister can say now is most welcome.
My noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town also raised the issue of homelessness. In terms of the census, how do we reach these people and get as accurate a picture as possible? Again, it would be welcome if the Minister could say a little about what he expects the Government will say to encourage local authorities to do everything possible to collect data from this important group who are difficult to communicate with. There are several voluntary projects that could help. In Lewisham, where I live, the 999 club could certainly help the local authority. We must find ways to get to these people. For all local authorities to go the extra mile, they have to feel that the Government really want this data to be collected and will support them in doing so.
In conclusion, I confirm that the Opposition support this Bill and will work constructively with the Government to enable its passage through this House and on to the statute book.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this relatively short debate, and particularly welcome the broad support for the legislation we have brought forward. I will try to answer the questions that have been raised, but if I do not, I will ensure that noble Lords have the answers before the Committee stage.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for her support. The business managers will have noted her suggestions that there are other pieces of legislation—some of them controversial—that should be introduced. She set out why we need firm data in order for the public services to be effectively targeted. The census will be trialled later this year in a number of places, including Tower Hamlets, and there will be further consultation on the detailed questions.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked a key question about how homeless people will be counted. I agree that it is vital that those who face severe challenges in their lives are reached when we assess how public services are to be delivered. Since 2011, further research and engagement with charities have been undertaken to understand how people without a fixed place of abode can make a census response, so the ONS is planning to make forms available in night shelters and day centres, with practical help for filling them in. The ONS continues to work with these centres and other groups to ensure that people who may attend them only on a given day will also be able to take part.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, also asked about the Armed Forces and veterans. We will consult the Royal British Legion and others on the detailed question or questions, which will be determined by secondary legislation later this year. There was a question about whether the veterans’ questions should be voluntary. I do not think they raise quite the same sensitivities as the two questions that will be voluntary, so they will be part of the compulsory section. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, the only voluntary question is the one introduced in 2001 on religion and the two questions being dealt with today. All the others are voluntary.
Lord Young of Cookham
Sorry, did I misspeak? All the questions are compulsory, apart from the religious question and the two questions before us today—corrigendum.
The new question on past service in the Armed Forces is proposed for the 2021 census to identify those who are 16 and over and who are veterans. This will enable us to serve those who have served their country and keep the commitment which we made to them when they joined the Armed Forces. As I said, the detailed question will be determined later in the year.
The term “head of household” has not been used since 1991, so the argument that some noble Lords on the Cross Benches have with their wives as to who is the head of household is unnecessary. It has gone to a more neutral form, either “householder” or “joint householder”.
On the 100-year rule, there is such a rule but of course Parliament could always change that if it wanted to. It has 100 years in which to come to that decision if some of the concerns voiced by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, took place. The noble Baroness asked a number of questions and I will do my best to answer them. One was about what intersex people do. The ONS is recommending that there be a note on the sex question, to advise that a gender question follows and include guidance that those who wish to can use the free-text box on gender identity to write “intersex” or another identity. Engagement by the ONS with the intersex community has not shown any objection to this proposed approach. She asked what we will do with this data and how it will be protected. Public confidence in the security and confidentiality of all information given in the census is paramount, including in particular on the questions that we have referred to today.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Hayter, asked whether we were going to consult on the guidance. The guidance for the online and paper versions of the census is in development and being informed by research and testing with members of the public, and by input from stakeholders. On an additional point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, we do not use “issue born in marriage” in the census. Just to clarify, responsibility for completion now falls to the householder or joint householder, as I said, which is defined as the person who owns or rents the property, or is financially responsible for day-to-day expenses.
A homeless person would use the address of the establishment—the day or night shelter—where they fill the form in. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Finn, who worked in the Cabinet Office and helped to move a number of public services online, as that has made the forms much more convenient for the citizen to fill in.
Yes, we have an objective of 75%, which I will come on to in a moment. My noble friend also referred to the value of cross-referencing census data to other data to build a more granular picture of society as a whole.
The 2021 census is part of a wider modernisation programme to transform ONS data collection to provide improved population statistics. As part of this programme and by using data-sharing provisions in the Digital Economy Act, the ONS is exploring how administrative data could replace the need for a decennial census after 2021. As to whether this is the last census, the UK Statistics Authority will make its recommendations on the future of the census in 2023. The ambition remains as set out in 2014: censuses, after 2021, will be conducted using other sources of data and by providing more timely statistical information. How will we hit the 75% target? ONS will provide assistance, including in-person support sessions, for example in schools and libraries. There will be a dedicated census contact centre working with community groups, and also work by census field staff on the doorstep.
Along with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and me, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, welcomed this being a non-controversial debate. I suspect that, had I introduced this provision in 1981 in another place, the debate would have lasted slightly longer than it lasted today. I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, as a statistician, particularly for his reference to the value of data at a ward level.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked when we will get the order. We hope to debate it towards the end of the year, around October. “Later in the year”, my briefing tells me—that is perhaps a broader definition than the one I just used.
A person can tick as many national identity boxes as they like and write another. The noble Lord, if he wants to, can identify himself as English and Yorkshire. I think I have addressed most of the issues raised in the debate.
Baroness Barker
On exactly that point, I put two questions to the Minister to which he has not responded. How do the Government expect non-binary people to respond? Are trans people expected, as they do now, to reply to questions going by their lived-in experience? Perhaps the Minister will write to me about the interrelationship between this and the Gender Recognition Act.
Lord Young of Cookham
In so far as the compulsory question is concerned—the binary question of male/female—the guidance is minded to say, “Fill in what was on your birth certificate”. If you have changed your gender and have a gender certificate, you would put in that gender. The noble Baroness’s question underlines the importance of the guidance being right, and we propose to consult on it. If she agrees, I will write to her on the other question. Having said all that, I beg to move.
Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford) (Con)
My Lords, with permission, I shall repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in the other place on the Tessa Jowell brain cancer mission. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the significant progress that we have made in tackling brain cancer, including a new innovation that is now available across England. For far too long, tackling brain cancer has been too much in the ‘too difficult’ box. We are determined to change that.
I pay tribute to the Petitions Committee, which did so much work on this; to the Member for Mid Norfolk, who drove this subject in government as Life Sciences Minister; to the Member for Castle Point as former chair of the APPG, which brought parliamentarians together; to the Member for St Ives as the current chair of the APPG; and, of course, to Baroness Tessa Jowell, who campaigned passionately and tirelessly while battling the illness herself and sadly passed away last year.
Brain cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related death in children and young people under 19. Baroness Jowell called for all patients to benefit from 5-ALA, or ‘pink drink’ as it is otherwise known, a dye that makes cancerous cells glow under ultraviolet light, thereby making it easier for surgeons to target the right areas. Trials have shown that, when the dye is used, surgeons can successfully remove a whole tumour in 70% of cases, compared to 30% without.
I am pleased to inform the House that we have now rolled out this ground-breaking treatment across England, with the potential to save the lives of 2,000 patients every year. This is all part of the £33 billion investment that we are making in the NHS long-term plan. This medical procedure will now be expanded to every neurological centre in England. It is a fitting testament to Tessa’s memory.
It is worth pausing for a moment to remember Tessa’s courageous words urging us to rise above our differences. She said that this,
‘is not about politics but about patients and the community of carers who love and support them. It is … about the NHS but it is not just about money. It is about the power of kindness’.
Tessa represented the very best of our democracy and of our Parliament. On behalf of all those who have died, all those who have campaigned—children and adults alike—and all those seeking to do research, of which there must be more to come in future, we are acting.
I want to mention three areas in detail. The first is research. During the past year, the Government have made available an unprecedented £40 million to fund cutting-edge research of new treatments and drugs through the NIHR. This will build on the UK’s outstanding reputation for neuroscience and oncology research, and increase the quality, quantity and diversity of brain cancer research. The funding was further enhanced by Cancer Research UK committing an additional £25 million to support brain tumour research. The size of these pledges will cement the UK’s position as a leading global centre of research into brain cancer.
The second area is our NHS cancer workforce. We now have a record number of specialist cancer staff in the NHS and that number is set to grow as we put a record £33.9 billion into the NHS over the next five years. Health Education England’s cancer workforce plan and our upcoming NHS people plan will set out in detail the steps that we are taking to recruit a world-class cancer workforce. We made an additional investment of £8.6 million in the cancer workforce last year. We aim to have 300 more radiographers starting training by 2021.
The final area is empowering patients. My department has worked closely with the brain cancer mission, Jess Mills and others to ensure that patients are at the heart of all our efforts. The mission brings together government, the NHS, researchers, pharmaceutical companies and patients. Together, we are working to ensure that data is shared and disseminated so that more patients in the UK and internationally can benefit from what is learned. Due to the complexity of brain cancer, we must provide joined-up care that meets each patient’s unique needs. The NHS is focusing on improving care for brain cancer patients to ensure that they have access to dedicated out-patient clinics and consultations wherever they live.
I hope that the whole House will recognise the important progress that has been made over the past year in rising to the challenge set by Baroness Jowell and the families of those who have lost loved ones. This has been possible only through the collective efforts of patients, the NHS, charities and industry. The work has, and will continue to be, collaborative.
In her final speech in the other place last January, Tessa said:
‘I am not afraid. I am fearful that this new and important approach may be put into the “too difficult” box, but I also have such great hope’.—[Official Report, 25/1/18; cols. 1169-70.]
That hope was an inspiration to us all, and it still is. We must keep striving, and keep rising to the challenge that she and those families have set us. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Of course, it is a matter close to the hearts of many noble Lords here, particularly those of us who took part in the debate when Tessa Jowell spoke in this House for the last time. Who could forget Tessa’s determination to fight for change, so that in the future people would not die of brain tumours but that research would lead to prevention, early detection and more effective cures, and that these would be available to everyone throughout the NHS, without being dependent on where you live? I pay tribute to Jess Mills, Tessa’s daughter, and her family for their continuing commitment to fulfilling the challenge that Tessa set all of us, as the noble Baroness quite rightly said.
We know that brain tumours are indiscriminate; they can affect anyone at any age. What is more, they kill more children and adults under the age of 40 than any other cancer, yet historically just 1% of the national spend on cancer research was allocated to this devastating disease. We all welcome the progress made so far by the Government; we congratulate them and support the fact that treatments are now available across the country that were not available when Tessa spoke to us in this House. However, we also know that the NHS faces a cancer diagnostics crisis. Cancer Research UK has pointed to chronic shortages in the diagnostic workforce, with more than one in 10 positions unfilled nationally. Hospitals are reliant on outdated equipment and some of the lowest numbers of MRI and CT scanners in the world. The UK is fourth from bottom in a league table of OECD countries with the lowest number of CT scanners per million inhabitants.
As the Minister rightly said, this is a question of both resourcing and staffing. In today’s Statement, we have been given sight of the key points that have been touched on and we are pleased that it references the upcoming workforce plan. However, it would be useful if she could expand on this point, specifically around the need for a global scientific workforce and the plans for immigration in relation to the research community. Because without the right skills and technical staff in place, a lot of the research funding and momentum achieved in the past year will not amount to very much. She will be aware that a mix of domestic and international scientific talent underpins the UK’s position as a world leader in life sciences. The 2018 immigration White Paper was not fit for purpose, in the view of those on this side of the House. The £30,000 a year salary threshold would have had a devastating impact on the recruitment of junior research capacity and the increased cost and bureaucracy requirements of the visa system. Indeed, the British public recognise the importance of an international research workforce to the UK. Ninety per cent of the public think scientists make a valuable contribution to society and 86% want to increase or maintain the level of immigration of scientists.
While I absolutely accept that progress is being made in the noble Baroness’s department, this question applies across government and I should like some reassurance that that is understood and action is being taken. Neurosurgery is no exception when it comes to the problems of cancer targets. In March 2019, the 18-week completion target for referral to treatment pathways stood at 81.3% for neurosurgery, 5% lower than the average for all specialties. This made neurosurgery the worst-performing specialty, almost certainly because of staffing shortages in these areas. Therefore, while I absolutely welcome the Statement and the progress being made, we all have to accept that we have some way still to go to fulfil the ambition and the targets that Tessa Jowell set us.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I had the honour of responding to Baroness Jowell’s maiden speech on 23 May 2016. I looked it up in Hansard this morning. She recalled Seamus Heaney’s injunction to his wife:
“‘Noli timere’—‘Do not be afraid’”.—[Official Report, 23/5/16; col. 167.]
As it turned out, we did not have long to wait for her to show how fearless she could be. I responded to her maiden speech by saying that I felt sure she would make her mark very soon. Sadly, she did not have as huge an amount of time to make her mark as I had expected—but nobody who was in the Chamber for her valedictory speech in January 2018 will ever forget her demonstration of total fearlessness.
5-ALA received FDA approval for use in the USA on 3 July 2017, just over a year after Baroness Jowell joined your Lordships’ House. Use in the UK was given NICE approval on 10 July 2018, just two months after she died. I clearly welcome today’s announcement, but I have some questions for the Minister about 5-ALA and its rollout. What weight does NICE give to treatments that have received approval by the FDA? Is it usual for a treatment that is so obviously effective to wait nearly a year before being used routinely? Will it be universally available to all those who stand to benefit from it?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Jolly, for their very important and moving contributions to this debate. I will start by responding positively to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton; of course she is right that maintaining a strong and vibrant life sciences ecosystem is absolutely a cross-government endeavour. She is also right that the mobility of scientists, from the technical and research level up to neuroscientists and neuro-oncologists, must be the business of the whole of government. We take that as a core aspect of the life sciences strategy and shall continue to do so.
Both noble Baronesses were absolutely right to say that workforce is key. As I said in the Statement, our upcoming NHS people plan and the cancer workforce strategy will ensure that there is a holistic plan to ensure that the technical workforce—including radiologists, as I already mentioned—is in place. HEE is also leading on specific work to ensure that we recruit and train an appropriate level of neuro-oncologists. This has been identified as necessary going forward.
To make sure that we make progress, we must go forward in four specific areas: research, early diagnosis, delivering on the long-term plan commitment to see 55,000 people a year surviving cancer for five years by 2028 and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, rightly pointed out, ensuring that when those people are diagnosed they have access to the best and most innovative treatments. That is exactly why we announced the boosting of the accelerated access collaborative—to ensure that we are identifying the best and most innovative treatments and getting them through the regulatory testing and uptake systems of the NHS much more effectively than before.
We have been putting in place a number of proposals to do this, and the mission has been playing an absolutely core strategic role in bringing together key individuals across government, the NHS, charities, industry and patients. I do not think that we could ever have imagined seeing such impressive progress. We can only thank it for that, particularly for the work it has been doing in research to develop the BRAIN-MATRIX trial. It is exceptional, and the mission should be given credit for that work. Through that research we will see earlier diagnosis and delivery of the commitments and targets that we have under the long-term plan to see more people diagnosed, treated effectively and surviving cancers.
Lord O’Shaughnessy (Con)
My Lords, a year ago yesterday we lost somebody who was a colleague, a friend and an inspiration to us all. I do not think that any of us who were involved in the debate that Lady Jowell initiated in January last year, whether they had known her for a long time or were only just getting to know her, will ever forget the extraordinary courage and leadership that she showed that day. As my noble friend pointed out, the impact has been truly profound, including through the brain cancer mission set up in her name, of which I am proud to be a patron. I am delighted that the Government have chosen this anniversary —an unwanted one, of course—to give us an update on the very important progress that they have made.
I am delighted by the news on the pink drink, which was one of the issues that Lady Jowell highlighted that day, as well as with other progress. As well as paying tribute to my noble friend and colleagues in the department, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the brain tumour charities, Cancer Research UK, patient groups, and of course Jess and her family for keeping up pressure and momentum so that we can make a difference on this dreadful disease.
Of course, the work of curing brain cancer is one not of months but of years and even generations. While I absolutely welcome the announcements today, can my noble friend give a commitment—which I am sure she will be happy to do—that the support the Government are providing will never waver during the long periods when we have to go through research and have to change things to improve outcomes, and that that commitment will always be there for this Government and any future one?
On a specific point, it is good to hear my noble friend talking about adaptive trials through BRAIN-MATRIX, and about Health Education England training a new generation of neuro-oncologists. Is she able to give specific details about the kind of support that the Government and others are prepared to offer for those? For untreatable cancers, having highly specialised staff as well as different ways of carrying out trials is critical to keeping people alive for longer—which is of course what Tessa’s speech and the leadership she showed was all about.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank my noble friend for his comments and in particular for the leadership he showed in responding to Tessa’s call to arms to improve outcomes for those with brain cancer diagnoses. I can absolutely give him the commitment that the Government’s commitment to the mission will not waver, and there is a very good reason for this. The outcome we are already seeing is so significant; over the last 12 months there has been the launching with partners of the mission and the making available of funding that has resulted in 24 brain cancer research proposals—the highest number ever—with a further four under active consideration. In addition, progress has been made on moving towards new service and staffing models, with commitments in the long-term plan and the life sciences sector deal. This will deliver exactly what my noble friend is talking about: namely, better care and support for patients, targeted to the kind of diagnoses they have, which is exactly what the brain cancer mission has recognised, and exactly the specialist advice which government needs to tailor care for patients in the most appropriate way when they most need it.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, the update is most welcome. I will say two things to my noble friend. First, as part of the update, would she be able to update us on outcomes, particularly one-year and five-year survival rates, which are what we most want to see moving consistently in the right direction? Secondly, my noble friend will recall that about eight years ago we in the coalition Government agreed a programme for investment in positron emission tomography—PET—scanners. One of the particular reasons we did so was that patients in this country through the NHS were not accessing a form of radiography that would be particularly relevant for those with brain cancer, because of the minimisation of collateral damage to tissue around the tumour site. What my noble friend was saying about the identification and targeting of tumours is true not just for surgery but for radiography. Can she update us also on the availability of PET scanners through the NHS?
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank my noble friend for his question. He is absolutely right that we want to focus on outcomes. That begins with earlier diagnosis, shorter waiting times and access to treatment. However, when it comes down to it, we want to know that we have better survival rates. Cancer is a priority for the Government so that we can improve that, and the quality of care for patients. I am pleased to report to the House that survival rates are at a record high: since 2010, rates of survival from cancers have increased year on year. However, we know that there is more to do, and we will never have any measure of complacency about this. That is why in 2018 the Prime Minister rolled out a package of measures to see three-quarters of cancers detected at an early stage by 2028—the current figure is just over half. The plan is to radically overhaul screening programmes to provide new investments in state-of-the-art technologies to transform the process of diagnosis and boost R&D. My noble friend is absolutely right that one of the areas that we must focus on is ensuring that treatment has the lowest burden of side-effects possible. The proportion of cancer survivors living with long-term disabilities as a result of treatment is high, so having more targeted treatment is absolutely a priority within our cancer strategy. I will be delighted to write to my noble friend with a specific update on where we have got to with PET scanners.
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)
My Lords, I echo noble Lords who have said what a fitting and appropriate tribute it is to Tessa that, on this anniversary of her death, we have heard this encouraging update from the Minister. It was a great sadness to me that I missed her final speech in your Lordships’ House because I was abroad, but having worked with Tessa for more than 20 years in many different roles, I found it unsurprising that she showed her characteristic determination, courage and campaigning skills, which she carried on with absolutely to her final days. It is extraordinarily good to know that her daughter, Jess Mills, carries on this work today, as my noble friend Lady Thornton said.
I make two points that I know that Tessa would have emphasised. The first is the importance of what one might call translational research, as the Minister said. I know that one problem that Tessa had as an individual was that she could not find out, except by exercising her characteristic energy and skill with the computer, what was going on. It is very important that in developing both treatment and research in these difficult areas of cancer—the glioblastoma from which she suffered being one of the most intractable—individual patients have the opportunity to know more broadly what is available.
That is why it is particularly important that the announcement today reveals not only new treatment but emphasises that it will be available in all cancer centres across the NHS, because not all of us are blessed with Tessa’s energy and ability to find things out. Particularly when people are feeling very vulnerable when they are diagnosed, their need for clear available information is paramount. It is very good to hear that that will be more available in future.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank the noble Baroness for her comments and think that she has hit the nail on the head. I think I can say that Tessa’s characteristic verve is being carried on and honoured by those involved in the mission: I have been in post for a relatively short time, but I have already met the mission and Jess twice, and they have nailed me down on commitments and ensured that I follow through on commitments that my predecessor, my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy, had made. It helps that he is still involved in pushing them forward.
One of the key principles of the mission is that it provides a convening function, bringing together government, the NHS, charities, industry and patients in working together to identify and drive through progress on areas that need improvement. One key area that has been identified is patient care, support and communication. As the noble Baroness said, Tessa was passionate about ensuring that patients can get rapid access to new treatments and know where they may be. That is one of the principles behind the brain cancer matrix. Separately, we have introduced the accelerated access collaborative programme to try to bring in other treatments that might be complementary to patients as quickly as possible through the NHS system, recognising that the NHS, while incredibly innovative, can be low and slow at times in adopting those innovations across the system in a consistent way. We want to make that better.
Animal Health, Plant Health, Seeds and Seed Potatoes (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Regulations laid before the House on 5 April be approved.
Relevant document: 58th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I hope that it will be helpful to your Lordships if I speak to both the Animal Health, Alien Species in Aquaculture and Invasive Non-native Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the Animal Health, Plant Health, Seeds and Seed Potatoes (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, given the close connection between the two instruments.
It may also be helpful to explain why we are debating the Animal Health, Plant Health, Seeds and Seed Potatoes (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 again when it has already had your Lordships’ full consideration. We are doing so because timetabling issues in the other place led to a delay in the instrument being made; that meant that it was necessary to withdraw the instrument and make it under the emergency procedure, under which we are now debating it. Both statutory instruments were made under the emergency procedure as both were required to support the UK’s application to the European Commission for third-country listed status for animal health purposes. As the Government have made clear, we are seeking a negotiated deal with the European Union, but we are taking responsible action to prepare for other scenarios.
The European Commission called a meeting of the relevant committee—SCoPAFF—on 9 April to consider the UK’s third-country listing application and made it clear that it required all relevant animal health legislation to be in place by that date. Both SIs therefore had to be made in a very short window of time as both contain amendments to animal health legislation. By using the emergency procedure to make the SIs, the UK was able to assure the Commission that all relevant legislation had been made, enabling member states to vote unanimously on 9 April to list the UK as a third country. This would have enabled the export of animal products and most live animals from the UK to the EU to continue in the event of a no-deal scenario on 12 April. The Government have taken care to avoid using the emergency procedure under the EU withdrawal Act, but we considered use of this procedure to be appropriate in this instance.
I want to make it clear that our biosecurity controls for animals and plants are paramount and that these instruments continue to contribute to ensuring that we will have the most robust arrangements in place to protect public health and the environment. The instruments make technical operability amendments covering animal health, plant health, aquaculture, invasive non-native species, seed marketing and seed potatoes, and will contribute towards ensuring that the legislation protecting our biosecurity is fully operable.
As the first statutory instrument has been debated in this House previously, I hope that it will be helpful if I summarise it. The amendments made by the instrument concern recent updates on animal health control measures relating to African swine fever in certain member states. Retaining this EU decision requires the appropriate Minister in the UK to display public information notices regarding the importance of biosecurity measures to prevent this pig disease being brought into the UK; it also prohibits the movement of live feral pigs.
On TSEs, a reference to a function of the European Commission in the Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (England) Regulations 2018 has been amended to refer to the Secretary of State instead of the EU Commission.
Part 3 of the statutory instrument 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, including controls on the red-necked longhorn beetle. I remember with some affection the debate we had on this particularly difficult beetle. As I said before, this is a damaging pest and a threat to a range of fruit and ornamental species in the UK, including cherry, peach and plum.
Regulations 4 and 5 recognise the arrangements with the Crown dependencies, following planned meetings concluded early in 2019, that will continue to facilitate the import and movement of regulated plants and plant products into the UK. The changes made by this instrument give effect to those arrangements. Regulation 5 also provides for the import of ash wood from the United States of America and Canada to continue under the same stringent derogation provisions after exit, ensuring continuity of supply for UK businesses without—I emphasise this—any compromise to bio- security.
The Plant Health (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 are also amended to enable UK plant passports to contain certain details in relation to the marketing of fruit plant propagating material and fruit plants. This is intended to avoid the need for dual labelling.
Part 4 of this statutory instrument covers seed marketing and seed potatoes, and applies to England as this is a devolved matter. Indeed, in the previous debate we considered the importance of consistency but also of respecting the devolved arrangements, which have worked particularly well. These regulations are amended to ensure that growers in England have continued access from the EU to new varieties of vegetables and a continued supply of seed potatoes for an interim period after EU exit. I remember the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, talking about the kalette during that element of our considerations. This instrument is required to attend to a number of elements of retained direct EU legislation to ensure operability and appropriate functioning.
I turn to the Animal Health, Alien Species in Aqua- culture and Invasive Non-native Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. This instrument amends four previous EU exit statutory instruments to ensure that the previous instruments work fully as intended. At this moment, I again extend my regrets and apologies, and I take responsibility if errors are discovered, but—as I have said before—given the pressures, I understand how these errors have been made. I put on record that I regret having to bother your Lordships with a piece of business about errors. I am open, transparent and straight about that, but I regret it.
The invasive non-native species instrument is amended to correct a small number of drafting and typographical errors that have been identified. An amendment has also 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, and this amendment provides certainty that importers are responsible for these costs.
The two aquatic animal health and alien species in aquaculture instruments have been amended to allow cross-references in the legislation to be more readily understood. I agree with that. Both instruments contain reference to an article in EU directive 2006/88 that has since been implemented by a more recent Commission decision, making these references redundant. These references have therefore been omitted from both SIs.
The instrument relating to the import of and trade in animals and animal products is amended as it revoked a 2006 Commission decision in error, instead of revoking a single article from that decision. This decision imposes the import requirements of fruit bats, cats and dogs from peninsular Malaysia and cats from Australia—intended to prevent the introduction of the Nipah and Hendra viruses—and is now correctly reinstated as EU retained law. The UK does not import any fruit bats, but a number of cats and dogs are imported from these countries and so it was clearly imperative that this situation has been rectified. Again, we are clear that there is no intention to weaken biosecurity standards and, again, I regret that this occurred. I am extremely pleased that, on further scrutiny, this was discovered and we propose through this instrument to sort it out.
Additionally, within the same instrument, lists of animal product commodities that require checks at UK border inspection posts are being amended to make the additional removal of products from the list an administrative function. The import conditions for animals and products remain in the legislation and so, again, there will not be a lowering of any standards.
I emphasise that this corrective instrument makes purely technical changes to these four existing EU exit instruments to ensure that they will operate correctly when we leave. This instrument does not introduce new policy but simply amends the original instruments so that they operate as originally intended.
The decision to use the urgent procedure was not taken lightly. It was deemed necessary in order to protect the biosecurity of the United Kingdom and to prevent financial losses and maintain trade by ensuring that the UK was able to achieve EU third-country listed status in the event of leaving the EU without a deal on 12 April. These instruments will ensure that our strict biosecurity controls with regards to animal health, plant health, aquaculture, invasive non-native species, seed marketing and seed potatoes are maintained. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I thank my noble friend for introducing these two statutory instruments but regret the circumstances that he has set out. I welcome the opportunity to consider them and I have a couple of questions.
Mindful of the fact that we are on the eve of the Chelsea Flower Show, I wish to press my noble friend on the comments he made in relation to inspections and the role of the import controls. When these were considered in the other place on 9 May, our honourable friend David Rutley said:
“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”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/5/19; col. 13.]
This raises a question not only about plants but about who will be responsible for the inspection for beetles. Will it be the responsibility of the UK border inspection or the importer? Will the importer pick up the cost of these inspections?
Page 44 of Statutory Instrument 2019 No. 809, refers to the policy on GMO and food and feed regulations. My noble friend has said that these two statutory instruments have been brought forward today in case there is no deal. It would be welcome if he could reassure me that our policy on GMO will not change in the event of no deal.
On a separate matter, I am keen that we use the same language as is used in this and other statutory instruments and regulations from my noble friend’s department, whether it relates to the import of plants, animals, potato seeds or other items within the remit of these two statutory instruments. We successfully amended the Trade Act, but I am concerned that the wording used in that amendment related only to plant and animal health. I would argue that it should extend to food safety. I realise it does not fall entirely within the remit of these statutory instruments, but I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this at greater length with my noble friend if we have the opportunity to do so. I am very keen that the language used by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is the same as that used by the Department for International Trade to make sure that, when we look at these issues across departments, we entirely understand what is being considered.
My final question relates to my noble friend’s comments on Statutory Instrument 2019 No. 813. Page 3 refers to the import of fruit bats, cats and dogs. As he explained, we have no imports of fruit bats, for what purpose are they in the regulation before us today?
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, first, I commiserate with my noble friend who has to introduce these statutory instruments. I am sure the whole House understands. What we do not understand is why we are doing this at all, as it is manifestly barmy. It just reminds us why we should not be trying to leave the European Union. It really has to be said again and again. When we are talking about invasive species, I can think of one or two whose names will be on the ballot papers when we come to the European elections.
I want to question my noble friend a little about the African swine fever element of this. I declare a family interest. It is not just a question of making sure that there is no spread of invasive African swine fever at our borders but of making sure that it does not spread inside our borders. I am sure my noble friend will not mind me saying so but there is a degree of unhappiness about the large and growing number of wild boars in this country—I refer to the animal species—and the danger that African swine fever will therefore be very difficult to control. Will the Minister take this opportunity to tell the House what measures we are taking internally to complement the external measures he has outlined?
My second point is fundamental. Can anyone imagine circumstances in which we would have different animal and plant health arrangements from the rest of Europe? I cannot imagine circumstances in which, divided as we are by only 22 miles of water, with enormous movement backwards and forwards—unless, of course, we get ourselves into a situation in which it all stops—we could have a system that was not a common system because we are a common area irrespective of our political arrangements. I hope my noble friend, on behalf of the whole Government, will apologise to all the civil servants having to do all this knowing perfectly well that it is a futile exercise because there is no way we can imagine a Britain divided from our nearest and sometimes dearest—sometimes not—friends in the rest of Europe and have different policies in these areas. This is a means of protecting ourselves from a common enemy, and that common enemy is disease spread by the movement of plants and animals.
In case my noble friend feels I am being entirely negative on this matter, the third point I shall raise with him is that the reason it is important for us, even in a repeat debate such as this, to remind people of the futility of the exercise is that, so far, that message has not got out as far as it should. People still do not understand that we are bound so closely to our neighbours that we either have a sensible arrangement between us called the European Union or we have a much more difficult arrangement in which, from piece to piece and from time to time, we try to sort these matters out.
I accept my noble friend’s very understandable apology for reintroducing these regulations and I in no way criticise him, but I just want to say that it is yet again a misuse of this House and these parliamentary procedures. We would never have been here if anyone had behaved sensibly and recognised that, in the end, if the people were presented with the alternatives and were able to make a sensible decision, they might indeed ask why on earth no one had explained that much of what we do here we have to do anyway, and all we are doing is making life more complex, more difficult and more illusory. We are pretending to do something—pretending to take back control—and I really am fed up with being part of a pretence.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as stated in the register—in particular in forestry. We have to learn from past sad experience—for example, over Dutch elm disease, which has wiped out the great majority of all the elms of southern England. At this very moment, we are grappling with ash bud disease, which can make the timber of ash completely useless, except as firewood. Other, lesser infections and importations have affected chestnut trees, oak and larch, and one hopes that they are not spreading or getting more serious. Invasive weeds have been mentioned, notably by the Minister, and on quite a few occasions your Lordships have discussed Japanese knotweed, but I will say no more about that.
I notice that of course the regulations are unamendable —incidentally, I apologise for not having been present when they were discussed earlier—but I trust that the Government have devised the very best possible protection. As an island, we are better placed than those with land frontiers to protect our stock of plants and trees, but we should try to benefit from our natural advantages and devise the very best possible protection.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend was emphatic about the stringency of the controls over the import of ash wood to this country. I take it that that means that no leaf and no centimetre of bark will come in. However, would he take this opportunity—alternatively, perhaps he would write, as I have given no notice of this question—to compare the progress of the disease in Britain and the United States and to compare the methods of control of the disease in those two countries?
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, perhaps the Minister could say a little more about the process by which these errors were discovered. I think he used the phrase “further scrutiny”, particularly in relation to what we find in the animal health, alien species regulations regarding fruit bats, dogs and cats coming from Malaysia and Australia. Some of the things that have been corrected seem, at a glance, to be almost typing errors. We are asked to substitute for the words “set out in” the words “as set out in”, and elsewhere to substitute for the word “Law” with a capital “L” the word “law” with a small “l”. It looks as though someone is taking great care to look at these regulations again to check that something which may have been done under great pressure is being corrected so that it is absolutely accurate. I applaud that if it is what is going on, and I sympathise entirely with the Minister and all those in his department having to deal with such an enormous quantity of material in great detail. It would be interesting to know what the process is and whether more of these instruments may come forward as further errors are discovered. If so, for my part, I would regard that as a consequence of this very punishing exercise, which is putting great strain on many people.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very full introduction to these minor amendments and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has pointed out, corrections. We previously debated these statutory instruments on 20 February and 3 April. I do not want to bore the House by running through the comments that I made then or rehashing the debate that we had. The EU requirements on 9 April for changes in order to accommodate the UK’s third-country status ensure our biosecurity and that of the producers, and that is the right step forward. I agree with virtually all the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben.
I want to refer to African swine fever, which is a really major concern for national pig breeders. There are areas of the land with huge populations of feral pigs, and the disease is a threat to pig farmers as there is little monitoring of the health of the feral pigs. It is important that we protect legitimate pig breeders from African swine flu. There does not seem to be any way to monitor how the feral pig population is doing and whether or not the pigs are carrying African swine fever.
That apart, I think it is a pity that we are having to make minor corrections to important pieces of legislation. However, I am quite content for it to be dealt with under the emergency procedures, and I support the amendments.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out why the SIs that we are debating today have been subject to the affirmative procedure under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. Like other noble Lords, while we accept that this is necessary, we share the frustration that we could be doing something much more constructive in taking these issues forward rather than revisiting the past. This feels like a bit of a futile exercise; nevertheless, we understand that the Minister has to do what he has to do.
I am grateful for the helpful briefing with the Minister’s civil servants prior to this debate. I declare an interest through my involvement with the Rothamsted institute, which carries out scientific research into the areas that we are debating today.
I have a couple of general points about the process being used. In his letter of 4 April, the Minister explained that the procedure was being used because the EU had asked for a specific reassurance that these measures were in place to support the UK Government’s application for third-country status, and he has repeated a similar explanation today. Of course we understand why that third-country status was necessary, but when we met the Minister I asked whether the EU had been consulted over the wording of the SI prior to the deadline for it to consider that third-country status. I was told that that was not the case and it had not been consulted in advance. I find that a bit odd; I would have thought that, in the spirit of co-operation and particularly because we wanted its goodwill over our application, it would have been beneficial to keep the EU in the loop on what we were proposing, including the proposed wording for this SI before the decision was made.
I suppose that that raises another question: if the EU does not see the SIs in advance, does it simply take the Government’s word on trust that this legislation is in place? If that is the case, some of the corrections to errors that we have been considering may not even be necessary because we can just promise that the legislation is in place and not actually have to justify it.
The Minister apologised and I think we all understand that this is not his fault, but we are concerned about the number of errors that are coming to light after the SIs have been considered and agreed. As he said, this is the case here. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, I wonder how these errors came to light. Were the SIs being double-checked specifically in preparation for our EU third country application? In other words, did someone go back through them before we reassured the EU that they were all in place? Does that mean that many of the other SIs which we have already agreed and signed off may also contain errors which have yet to come to light? Is there another batch of error-ridden SIs which will be brought before us and updated in due course when someone goes back and double-checks them?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords. Curiously, this is quite a timely debate, because this week is Invasive Species Week. Tomorrow, after a meeting in the morning chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson—I very much hope that some noble Lords will be present—I will be spending a few hours digging up American skunk-cabbage in Kent. If any of your Lordships would like to join me, I am sure that we can provide wellingtons and spades.
It is timely also because only this morning I had a meeting with the Chief Plant Health Officer and the chair of the Forestry Commission relating to the Chelsea Flower Show, which my noble friend Lady McIntosh referred to, and in particular on the resilience garden that Sarah Eberle is designing to record the importance of resilience and biosecurity. Perhaps it would be of interest to all your Lordships who have spoken if I were to send a note on some of the enhanced biosecurity arrangements being undertaken by the Royal Horticultural Society. For instance, because of oak processionary moth, oak will not be part of any display at Chelsea. There is an enhanced feeling about quarantine and the importance of these matters. I am very pleased that this has been a very determined point taken by Chelsea and the Royal Horticultural Society.
I will go through some of the points made by noble Lords. My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about the fruit bat. This is before your Lordships because the EU legislation contains reference to fruit bats, so it would not be within the legal powers of the EU withdrawal Act to remove this from the instrument, despite the fact that we do not import fruit bats. The truth is that we are bringing over all the legislation. That is why many of your Lordships have had to consider such a range of issues.
My noble friend also raised the issue of GMO. It is absolutely right that we have very high food safety standards, and there are strict controls on GM crops, seeds and food. All GM products must pass a robust independent safety assessment before they can be marketed, and approved products have to be clearly labelled. These standards will not be watered down when we leave.
My noble friend referred to potentially compromising on food safety. I am prepared to say again that maintaining safety and public confidence in the food we eat remains of the highest priority and that any future trade deal must work for UK farmers, businesses and consumers. Any new products wishing to enter the UK market must comply with our rigorous legislation and standards. I say yet again that this is strongly felt in the department, and I understand why your Lordships raise this frequently.
My noble friend also raised new plant health costs and businesses. Consistent with the existing policy of recovering the cost of providing plant health services through charging those who use the services, fees will apply for any inspections undertaken. For example, documentation and identity checks, which will be required on regulated material from the EU, are charged at £9.71 in total per consignment. Checks on third-party material that enters the UK via the EU will be charged in the same way as third-country material that enters the UK directly.
Inspection of plants, which again my noble friend raised in respect of Chelsea, is an area where we have opportunities to think about heightened biosecurity. It is why, for instance, Grown in Britain is an important concept—not because, as great plant lovers, we have found that many of our plants are not native, but because the issues of biosecurity and pests and diseases have made us have to think more strongly, as we should, about the sourcing of plants from around the world and absolutely not permitting plants from certain parts. This is why, for instance, the EU, with the encouragement of Defra and the Secretary of State, moved very much more strongly on plant movements in those areas with xylella, for instance, with the buffer zones, precisely because it would be so devastating.
My noble friend Lord Deben, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and other noble Lords are absolutely right—I do not for one minute see our leaving the European Union as signalling that we can put a barrier up. I say candidly that, although I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said—I will say more on this in a moment—22 miles is not wide enough. Yes, we should use the advantages of the sea, but the truth is that all eastern counties have ash dieback in the numbers that they do because of the spread across the continent. Cautiously, I say to my noble friend Lord Deben that I am afraid one of the lessons we should be learning is that the rigour of dealing with invasive species within certain countries of the European Union has not been as immediate.
I will give the example of the Asian hornet—of which we have had zero tolerance. Our rapid deployment force has eradicated every single one, because they are very damaging to our bees, and we rely on our bees and pollinators for so much to do with food production, and because they are a vital part of the eco-system. The Asian hornet arrived in a consignment from China, which is why immediate action had to be taken. The Channel Islands are having great problems because they are nearer to France. When the oak processionary moth arrived in an oak tree specimen, we did not immediately deal with it. That is why we are now seeking to contain the very damaging oak processionary moth in London and Surrey, pending better understanding through research.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
The whole House knows of the noble Lord’s expertise in this area, and of his genuine personal commitment to environmental protection and the avoidance of environmental harm. He says that other countries in the EU are not carrying out the existing EU rules on that subject as robustly as we are. Perhaps the rules themselves need to be strengthened. The matter is very important indeed. Does he agree that in those circumstances the best thing is to have very tough rules in the EU that are imposed effectively, and that states which fail to live up to their legal obligations be penalised? For that purpose, would it not be very desirable if we remained part of the European Union?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I rather thought that the noble Lord might take me in that direction at the end of his comments. He is absolutely right in his opening remarks about international collaboration. Whether within the European Union or the whole international family, we are subject to many conventions, and are considered world-leading. We have not got it all right. There are many lessons to be learned. I am very keen that we heighten biosecurity. Candidly, I see our mission on this as a global reach. Yes, our partnership with our very close neighbours and friends is going to be absolutely crucial as we all deal with invasive species, pests and diseases, because these species do not respect any border. That is precisely why our next set of instruments deal with a single epidemiological unit on the island of Ireland. This is a subject I could get a little carried away on.
I say to my noble friend Lord Deben that I absolutely understand about African swine fever. I receive regular commentary on its devastating impact, not only in central and eastern Europe and into Russia, but in China. It is a very dangerous and damaging disease, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, is right to say that all pig producers in this country are very worried indeed about it. That is why we are raising awareness through the newspapers and magazines in many languages for workers from eastern Europe, saying that they must not bring pork products back with them, for instance. We must raise awareness of personal biosecurity because of the outbreaks in the Czech Republic and Belgium. Although it has not been confirmed in the Belgian outbreak it is certain that, as I have said before, in the Czech Republic it was a loose connection to someone discarding a pork product. We need to be absolutely clear on that.
Animal Health, Alien Species in Aquaculture and Invasive Non-native Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Regulations laid before the House on 5 April be approved.
Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Regulations laid before the House on 5 April be approved.
Relevant document: 24th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, these instruments relate to biosecurity in Northern Ireland. Given their interconnection and for the convenience of your Lordships, they have been grouped together to enable co-ordinated scrutiny. They relate to trade in animals and related products, plant health, seeds and potatoes, and extend to Northern Ireland only.
The first two instruments, relating to trade and plant health, are among a small number of measures that have been made under the urgent procedure. Due to the importance of having them in place for exit—initially, 29 March and then 12 April—the timeframe did not permit us to lay them via the normal route. It was of the utmost importance that we were in a position to assure the European Commission that we had a complete statute book in advance of its consideration of the UK’s application for third-country listed status in the event of exit.
The third instrument, the Animal Health, Seed Potatoes and Food (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, was debated in the House of Commons on 23 April under the affirmative procedure. As it does not contain legislative amendments that would be critically needed to be in operation on exit day, it has not been subject to the urgent procedure.
These three statutory instruments largely mirror the amendments contained in instruments amending the corresponding legislation for Great Britain, which have already been considered by your Lordships. As with those instruments, the amendments presented today are technical and designed to ensure continued operability of legislation.
On checks on imports from the EU, these instruments do not introduce any change of policy and, in particular, do not impose any additional regulatory controls on imports from the EU, including those entering Northern Ireland from the Republic of Ireland. Importantly, they recognise that biosecurity risks associated with animals, animal products, plants and plant products from the EU will not change immediately on exit. They do not introduce any checks on the Northern Ireland border.
However, to ensure compliance with international obligations, the relevant instrument provides for some operational changes to the import arrangements for regulated plant and plant product materials. In essence, this would mean that the need for an EU passport for these regulated commodities would be replaced with the relevant certificate required under international law. As such, it is not expected that this would place an additional burden on industry. Controls on plants and plant products moving into Northern Ireland from the EU that do not currently require an EU plant passport would not change.
On checks on direct imports from non-EU countries, the same rigorous import controls that are currently applied in respect of animals, plants and associated products which enter Northern Ireland directly from a country outside the EU will continue.
On checks on imports from non-EU countries that transit the EU, all three instruments provide that there is no gap in controls in relation to animals, animal products, and plant and plant products that would present a risk to Northern Ireland’s biosecurity. The instruments debated do not—I emphasise “not”—in any way adversely impinge on the established partnership arrangements on animal and plant health matters on the island of Ireland, which is recognised as a single epidemiological unit. The noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, Lady Bakewell and Lady Parminter, and I have all been fortunate enough to have exchanges with Northern Ireland officials from DAERA. I can safely say that they are clear that these measures are needed in terms of Northern Ireland’s responsibilities for the whole island.
The Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 amend Northern Ireland legislation relating to imports, transit through the EU of live animals, including horses, animal products, reproductive material used for animal breeding and bees. They also amend legislation regarding the movement of pet animals, which is clearly an important issue in Northern Ireland given the land border.
The instrument makes necessary technical corrections to the Trade in Animals and Related Products Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2011, a key piece of Northern Ireland legislation that sets out requirements for trade in live animals and genetic material with the EU and imports of animals and animal products from outside the EU. This instrument makes no policy changes to the 2011 regulations. It makes technical changes: for example, it replaces references to “EU” with references to “UK” and “legislation of the EU” with “retained EU law” where appropriate. It also removes provisions which would be inappropriate to retain following exit without an agreement. These include references to the tripartite agreement on movements of horses, which will cease to have effect here on exit, and provisions which stipulate EU requirements for the intra-Community movement of animals and genetic material and provide for the automatic circulation in the UK of animals and products that have cleared EU border inspection posts. It also provides for the transfer of the power to approve border inspection posts in Northern Ireland from the European Commission to Northern Ireland’s Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. This is achieved by amending the existing definition of a border inspection post in the 2011 regulations. Overall, this instrument ensures that the veterinary controls and other import conditions that the 2011 regulations provide can continue to operate with the necessary protections for animal and public health.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I have just one question for my noble friend. In referring to the trade in animals and related products regulations, he mentioned that the tripartite agreement will cease, which is absolutely true. He also mentioned that this first statutory instrument will refer to the movement of horses between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland. That begs the question of the status of the tripartite agreement. Are we expecting a statutory instrument that will replace it as regards movement of racehorses and other horses between France, Britain and Ireland? This is obviously a matter of great concern among the racing community, and we now have the time to negotiate an agreement. What form will it take? Will it come before the House?
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction. As he said, we have discussed a number of these issues on previous SIs, looking at them in the context of our whole country, but there are obviously particular issues here given the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I thank the Northern Ireland civil servants for their assistance on this as I tried to grapple with some of the issues of operability, particularly the resource implications of some of these changes should we be in the unfortunate situation of either leaving the European Union or ending up with a no-deal exit.
First, can the Minister confirm my understanding that there will be a significant increase and strain on the number of inspectors that the Northern Irish team will need? I understand it will need more than double the number of horticultural inspectors, which is a significant number in terms of both cost and finding them in a short time. That gives an indication of the scale of the challenge that the Northern Ireland plant health team will have to face.
Furthermore, as the Minister rightly said, plants and plant products coming into Northern Ireland from non-EU countries will need to be checked at an authorised trade premise or designated point of entry. The most likely route for that would be arriving on a roll-on, roll-off at Dublin and then travelling overland to Northern Ireland, yet I understand that currently no businesses have registered as authorised trade premises, so the only designated point of entry for those checks would be Belfast port.
In an earlier debate on this SI, we had a fairly full and frank discussion on this, when the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who is not in her place, talked about our fear of “trailing pestilence” across our country. There is an issue for those of us who worry about transporting unchecked consignments to designated premises outside individual ports for checking. Having said that, at the moment there are no designated points of entry for checks in Northern Ireland other than Belfast port. Are the Government seeking to encourage stakeholders to become authorised trade premises to relieve the burden on Belfast port, and if no business premises are approved, is the Minister confident that Belfast port can deal with all the checks likely to be needed?
I have concerns, too, for Northern Ireland farmers in the event of no deal. It is clear from discussions on the SI on trade in animals and related products that if we leave without a deal, farmers will be obliged to have any livestock they are sending to the EU enter via an EU border inspection post. If the Government fail to reach an agreement with the EU, we could see Northern Ireland farmers and their livestock having to be transported greater distances, with all the risks to their welfare that that entails, because they have to go first to an EU border inspection post before onward transportation. What indications has the Minister had from the EU of where those EU border inspection posts might be in the event of no deal?
As the Minister rightly said, an issue of social concern in Northern Ireland is the movement of pet animals because of its land border with the EU member state of the Republic. I will not repeat our exploration in previous SI debates of the additional costs, delays and administrative burdens for owners wishing to take their pets into the EU should the Government fail to secure listed status in the event of no deal, but clearly this will be a big concern for Northern Ireland given its land border. Can the Minister give any update on discussions with the EU on this issue which might mitigate the considerable extra burdens that Northern Ireland pet owners would face in the event of no deal?
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for all the additional work he has had to undertake with regard to Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, this has come about because, as we know, there is no Northern Ireland Assembly or Executive to discuss and pass these Motions. However, I think all of us here hope that the ongoing talks taking place in Stormont will prove successful, and that might relieve the Minister. It is vital, however, that these Motions are agreed to protect animals and plants in Northern Ireland from disease, which can be imported from other countries, so I very much welcome the regulations. Northern Ireland has some of the best policies that defend animals and plants from imported disease. When the European Union certificate is replaced by the phytosanitary certificate, it will obviously involve additional administration. Can the Minister say who will bear the additional cost: the importer or the exporter, or will it be passed on to the public? Once again, I thank the Minister for all his work and for keeping the Northern Ireland Peers so well informed about these matters.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
I shall follow on from my noble friend. The Minister talked about the consultations between officials from Defra and the Irish Republic. Can he tell the House what consultations have taken place with the Ulster Farmers Union and the other groupings that represent farmers in Northern Ireland, and do they agree with the regulations before the House this evening?
Also, do any of these regulations have any connection with the backstop being demanded by Europe in the present negotiations? If they relate to the present negotiations and the backstop, which is opposed by many within Northern Ireland, certainly my colleagues in the Democratic Unionist Party will have to look afresh at these recommendations.
My noble friend also asked about the burden being placed. Do any of the proposals place a greater burden on the agricultural and business community in Northern Ireland than those in the rest of the United Kingdom? Who will bear the financial responsibility for that?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to the SIs this afternoon and for arranging a useful briefing for us beforehand. I particularly thank our Northern Ireland departmental colleagues, who joined us online and were particularly candid about some of the challenges facing cross-border trade, with which they are grappling at the current time. Their briefing and insight was extremely helpful. It is clear that close co-operation with the south is essential although, as I understand from an earlier letter from the Minister, it is not possible to have specific bilateral talks on trade between the UK and EU member states, such as the Irish Republic, in advance of us leaving.
Whatever happens as a result of the Brexit negotiations, it is fairly obvious that trade across the Irish border will become more bureaucratic and less free-flowing in future. There will, for example, be a need for phytosanitary certificates for plants crossing the border. There will be a new need for importers to be registered and new offences arising from the new requirements to take goods to an approved place of inspection. At a minimum level, this will require a huge communication initiative to ensure that farmers, food manufacturers and retailers are made aware of the cross-border import issues. Can the Minister assure us that all of those affected by these changes have been made aware of these new rules?
On the trade in animals SI, the Minister will know that when this was considered by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, it expressed surprise that the regulations had been delayed after being cleared for consideration by the House. The reason given was that the Department for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs chose to delay it pending negotiations on third-country status. As a result, we are now dealing with it under the “made affirmative” process. I shall not make heavy weather of this, but it seems the wrong way round to proceed. Surely, the UK Parliament should have considered the content before the issue was included in the package for conclusion with the EU on those third-country negotiations. Having said that, we accept that the SI is largely technical in nature. It is clearly important that we can continue to import the goods covered by it post Brexit with the minimum of disruption at the Irish border, and it would be helpful if the Minister could reiterate that there will indeed be no additional checks at the border—although I think he has made that point clear.
On the plant health SI, these regulations are very similar to those which we have already debated covering England. Again, the presence of the land border between the north and the Republic brings these issues into starker focus. As the Minister explained, goods entering from the EU that currently require a plant passport under EU rules will now require a phytosanitary certificate, which can be checked digitally rather than at the border.
However, there seems to be a real challenge in managing goods coming from a third country. In our earlier briefing with Northern Ireland officials, it was initially suggested that goods from third countries would arrive via Belfast port or Belfast airport and could be checked at those entry points—the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, raised this issue, although I have put a slightly different emphasis on it so clarification would be helpful. In our earlier discussions, it became clear that the other obvious route for third-country goods to arrive was via Dublin airport; there was an expectation that they would then be driven across the border. If that were the case, surely border checks would be necessary. Perhaps the Minister can clarify how goods will be handled when they arrive at Dublin airport en route to Northern Ireland. If I am right in what I am saying, is there a danger that, once this route becomes known, many more importers might opt for it because no checks on the border would allow importers to avoid additional checks? Either there will be checks on the border, which everybody says is completely undesirable, or goods coming via Dublin airport will face no checks, in which case there is a danger of goods being imported illegally. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how he thinks those journeys will take place and what checks will take place.
Can the Minister also explain more about the new offences created in this SI, which seem to include unlimited fines for failing to take goods to an approved place of inspection? Is that indeed the case? Is there ever a limit to an unlimited fine? How will that be calculated? Too prohibitive a fine could mark the end of business for some importers. Will importers be given adequate notice of this new provision? Does the Minister feel that it is proportionate, given the significant changes in import arrangements with which businesses will be grappling? Will these new fines be phased in, or on what date are they due to be applied? It would be helpful for importers to know that. Has any estimate been made of how many businesses will be affected by this new measure?
As the Minister knows, the animal health, seed potatoes and food SI was debated in the Commons on 23 April. During that debate, my noble friend Sandy Martin MP—the Defra shadow spokesperson—pointed out what he thought were other technical and grammatical errors in the text of the SI. At the time, the Minister gave an assurance that he would look at these possible errors and correct them if necessary. Were his concerns checked and corrected before the SI came before us?
When we met with officials, it also came to light that our exit from the EU would have a major impact on seed potato growers in Northern Ireland, as 50% of their seed potatoes are exported to the Republic and the EU bans the import of seed potatoes from third countries. What steps are being taken to mitigate the impact of this loss of trade on Northern Ireland businesses?
These issues aside, we accept that the SI is broadly technical in nature. We are therefore happy to approve it in all other respects.
Finally, it continues to be a considerable political failure that these devolved issues do not have a Northern Ireland Assembly to scrutinise them—a point made by noble Lords on the Cross Benches. I very much hope that this will be rectified soon.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I have been very impressed by the debate. I remind Members of the House that there will be a debate on Wednesday afternoon on Brexit and biosecurity, which goes through this whole issue and applies much more broadly. The speakers’ list is still open. I am sure that the Minister and I would very much appreciate further participation.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I am very much looking forward to the debate; I rather think I am looking at a number of the participants already. I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Browne of Belmont and Lord McCrea, for participating and emphasising that we wish this matter were being dealt with elsewhere. That should be the right way forward—it is the way mature politics needs to proceed—so I very much endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, have said. In my view, the responsibility is really on everyone in the public service to ensure that these talks are productive and successful. Alas, as we all know, we are talking about people’s lives and communities. We want a better time for Northern Ireland—what a great place it is—so, although I should not be doing this, it is a privilege and we are seeking to do the right thing for Northern Ireland.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh hit on a vein: I think she and many of your Lordships know that I am rather keen on the horse. Obviously, the Government recognise the value of the equine sector to the UK economy. I also know—declaring an interest in that my wife’s family breed horses in County Tipperary—that it is of great importance to the rural economy of Northern Ireland and the Republic. We therefore need to do all we can to ensure the movement of horses between the United Kingdom and Ireland—and indeed France; across the piece—and to ensure that in some way we can continue what was the tripartite agreement. We need to work on some arrangement to ensure the free movement of horses, particularly bearing in mind biosecurity. We do not want any future arrangements to jeopardise something that is absolutely crucial, particularly in that thoroughbred end—racing—where pest diseases, viruses, et cetera, are absolutely kept to a minimum by high biosecurity.
How to find an arrangement to best succeed the tripartite agreement is something for negotiations. We all recognise—the UK Government and, I think, the Irish and French racing interests as well—that what we had was of value, and we need to see how we can work. This is why the British Thoroughbred Industries Brexit Steering Group is collaborating with Defra officials. We absolutely need to see what we can do for a very important part of the rural economies of the Republic and our country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, rightly raised a number of points about the resource implications and so forth. My understanding of the sort of numbers under a new regime is that the five inspectors would need to be increased to 11—a doubling. All consignments of regulated—that is, high-risk—plants and plant products currently imported from the EU under the existing EU passport system would require pre-notification, to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate and subject to remote documentary checks in the event of exit without an agreement. This plays into a point that I emphasised and that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, acknowledged: this is precisely because neither we in this country nor the Republic want to have checks at the border. We think there are ways in which these matters can be checked. As we said in the previous debate, we should not be nervous of thinking about the best ways of heightening biosecurity. Making this the responsibility of a country’s plant health authority has that strength and imprimatur. If we import something from Italy, say, it will be the Italian plant health authority that has to signify the phytosanitary certificate. We should not be fearful of some elements of this new arrangement because they are about what we increasingly need to look at.
Plant Health (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Regulations laid before the House on 8 April be approved.
Special attention drawn to the instrument by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 58th Report. Relevant document: 24th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)
Animal Health, Seed Potatoes and Food (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 3 April be approved.
Rail Safety (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Regulations laid before the House on 9 April be approved.
Relevant document: 24th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, these instruments will be needed if the UK leaves the EU without a deal and are important in ensuring clarity, certainty and confidence for the rail industry and its customers. I shall provide some background. These three instruments make corrections to several pieces of EU and domestic legislation covering rail safety in Great Britain and rail safety, train driver and operator licensing, access and management and cross-border rail workers’ rights in Northern Ireland.
I turn first to the Rail Safety (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which I will refer to as the GB rail safety instrument. This instrument will make technical corrections to the Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006 and the Railways (Access to Training Services) Regulations 2006. These sets of regulations, which transposed EU law, set out among other things the requirement to obtain the appropriate safety certificates or authorisations before operating vehicles or managing infrastructure on the railway in Great Britain.
I turn to the two Northern Ireland instruments. Rail is a transferred matter for Northern Ireland, and in the absence of a Northern Ireland Executive, it has been agreed that the UK Government will be responsible for the necessary Northern Ireland EU Exit legislation at Westminster. In preparing these instruments, officials from the Department for Transport have worked closely with their counterparts in the Department for Infra- structure in Northern Ireland.
The first of the two Northern Ireland instruments, the Railways (Safety Management) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2019, which I will refer to as the Northern Ireland rail safety regulations, is similar to the GB rail safety instrument. It will correct deficiencies in the Railways (Safety Management) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006, the regulations that established the legislative regime for managing railway safety in Northern Ireland. The second of the two, the Railways (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2019, also known as the Northern Ireland composite regulations, will correct deficiencies in three pieces of Northern Ireland rail legislation. Among other things, those regulations established a common regulatory regime for licensing and certifying train drivers and operators on the railways. They also implemented rules on aspects of the working conditions of rail workers engaged in interoperable cross-border railway services.
These instruments will correct deficiencies in legislation as a result of the UK leaving the EU. The vast majority of these corrections are minor and technical—for example, removing references to “member state”. It is important to emphasise that the GB rail safety instrument will preserve the status quo, including the requirements and procedures for obtaining safety certificates and authorisations as well as the requirements for rail operators to establish and maintain common safety management systems. The Government’s highest rail priority is to maintain safety and our highly effective safety regime, which is one of the safest in Europe. The regulations secure that regime.
The GB rail safety instrument will remove certain requirements placed on the Office of Rail and Road to share information with the European Union Agency for Railways. However, there will be a power for the ORR to provide certain safety information to EU bodies on a discretionary basis so we can continue to contribute to a safer European railway.
Safety certificates issued in EEA member states will continue to be recognised in Great Britain after the UK’s exit from the EU. However, it is the Government’s intention to lay a second instrument that will limit that recognition to a two-year transitional period after exit or until the relevant certificates expire, whichever is the sooner. This is consistent with previous rail EU exit instruments that have introduced a similar recognition period for train driver and operator licences, and it strikes a balance between allowing for a reasonable transitional period and enabling greater control over the rail safety framework.
The equivalent regulations for rail safety in Northern Ireland will mirror the GB safety regulations, with the exception that Northern Ireland institutions have no plans to introduce a two-year recognition period for EEA licences and certificates, recognising the greater role of cross-border services in Northern Ireland. These documents will be recognised indefinitely in Northern Ireland to enable the continued recognition of licences and certificates issued in the Republic of Ireland.
As well as making minor changes—for example, removing references to “member state”—the NI composite regulations will preserve the status quo for rail operations in Northern Ireland. In short, that means that operators and train drivers in Northern Ireland will have clarity and confidence about the regime.
It should be noted that the EU has adopted a regulation that will provide a temporary extension to the validity of authorisations, certificates and licences required to run cross-border services. This contingency measure is applicable for nine months in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal in place and supplements the extensive efforts already made by the Government and rail operators to secure these important services. While the Government very much welcome the EU regulation, this alone does not provide the necessary certainty for industry which these instruments provide.
These instruments were originally laid under the negative procedure in February of this year. The House of Commons European Statutory Instruments Committee agreed to the use of the negative procedure, but in March the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House recommended that the affirmative procedure should apply as noble Lords might wish to debate the potential impacts on cross-border rail services and those that operate them.
While the Government accepted the committee’s recommendation to lay the instruments under the affirmative procedure, using the standard draft affirmative procedure would almost certainly have meant that the instruments would not have come into effect in time had the UK left the EU on either 29 March or 12 April. Therefore, the Government concluded that, to ensure the instruments were in place for the day expected at that time to be exit day, using the “made affirmative” procedure was appropriate. The Minister responsible for the railways wrote to the chairs of the committees in April to explain this decision and the reasons behind it.
Noble Lords will be aware that, while the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has cleared without comment the GB rail safety and the Northern Ireland composite instruments, it has drawn the special attention of your Lordships’ House to the Northern Ireland rail safety instrument on two minor instances of “defective drafting”.
Specifically, the JCSI identified three missing words in a definition relating to the Northern Ireland Department for Infrastructure’s monitoring of safety targets, namely the term “risk to whole”. The committee identified that the term,
“risk to society as a whole”,
appears in paragraph 12(3)(f) of Schedule 7 and it is this term that should have been defined in paragraph 2, in place of “risk to whole”.
The committee also considered that the words,
“risk to society as a whole”,
should have been set out in full in the table in paragraph 14 of Schedule 7, rather than using the label “whole society”. This table sets out how accidents to various categories of person—employees, passengers, et cetera—should be calculated, with the label “whole society” indicating the need to show the total number of serious accidents and fatalities across all those categories; namely, across society as a whole.
I am grateful to the committee for its work and for drawing these points to the attention of the House. The Government do not consider that there will be any real impact on the practicable operation of these provisions or that there will be any possibility for confusion by the Department for Infrastructure. It remains very important that the Northern Ireland rail safety instrument, dealing as it does with a critical area, stays in place as law so as to provide the necessary confidence and certainty that the rail industry and travelling public need. I can therefore confirm that the Government will address these minor drafting points in a subsequent instrument that will be laid in advance of this instrument coming into effect on exit day. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I start by expressing my regret that we are discussing Northern Ireland legislation at all. I would have hoped that the Assembly would be up and running again by now. I am not apportioning blame within this Chamber but simply making it clear that I believe it is a great disadvantage to Northern Ireland that the Assembly is not sitting.
These three SIs are being made by an unusual procedure, as the Minister has made clear. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee recommended that the originally intended negative procedure should be upgraded to the affirmative procedure because of the impact on cross-border operations, especially in Northern Ireland. In the event, because these SIs were not laid until 18 February, it was too late for the usual procedure to be followed, and instead they have been laid under the urgent “made affirmative” process, rather than the usual draft procedure. Northern Ireland deserves better than this. I realise it was not the Government’s intention to have run this as close to the wire as they have, but why was it left so late to lay these SIs? I know that the Government had intended to use the negative procedure, but the fact is that the committee has the right to recommend a change of procedure, and regularly does, so it is the Government’s job to anticipate a change such as that and to allow as much time as possible.
Of course, the irony is that we did not leave the EU on 29 March, and it does not look as though we are going to be leaving any day now. So, in fact, the Government had time to do it by the usual procedure. The Government rather overstate the amount we have to do in this House and in the other place. Business is actually fairly leisurely. Therefore, it could have been done in the usual way, if only everyone had been able to anticipate the situation.
My second question is my usual one. I am concerned once again that the obligation to share information, in this case on safety issues, is being removed and replaced with a power to share information. These three SIs all deal with issues of safety, and my view is that we should not be playing politics with issues of safety and should not be risking the possibility that, either intentionally or unintentionally, safety information will be held back. I ask the Minister: when a safety certificate issued in the UK is revoked by the ORR, what about a rail company that operates in both the UK and the EU? Would the Government then still have a legal obligation to inform the EU?
As the Minister mentioned, there are temporary arrangements to carry the industry over the period after exit. My concern is that EU Part A safety certificates would be recognised for a maximum of two years after Brexit or until they expire. This procedure has been used for other transport-related SIs, and I have previously raised my concern that there is unnecessary uncertainty about this. Some safety certificates will last for two years and some will not, because they will run out earlier. There is uncertainty there.
Meanwhile, the EU has adopted regulation 2019/503, which allows UK certificates to continue to be valid for nine months after exit. My concern is that we are talking about two years in Britain and nine months for British certificates in the EU, so we do not have a consistency of approach. The EU provision appears to apply only to the Republic of Ireland and France, so I ask the Minister: what about Belgium and the Netherlands? They are regularly in receipt of trains which start in the UK, so if these provisions will not apply in Belgium and the Netherlands—as I understand from the Explanatory Memorandum—then what about those trains going beyond those two countries?
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I too thank the Minister for explaining the content and purpose of these three statutory instruments, and for convening the meeting last week on them. We are not opposed to these SIs and their purpose, in view of the need to address the mess that the Government have got us into on our current and future relationship with the EU.
The three SIs are intended to address what are described as the deficiencies that would arise if our departure from the EU occurred with a certain degree of suddenness and without a withdrawal agreement. The “deficiencies” are referred to in the Explanatory Memoranda. The SIs amend the 2006 regulations and directly applicable tertiary legislation which brought into being requirements on EU member states designed to create a common regulatory framework for railway safety throughout the European Union. This has led to a harmonisation of the regulatory framework of member states on rules governing safety, the process of certifying railway undertakings, the roles and work of national safety authorities and the procedure for the investigation of accidents. The SIs also amend Northern Ireland regulations to correct deficiencies in the domestic Northern Ireland legislative framework.
According to the Explanatory Memorandum, the current railway safety directive is due to be repealed very shortly indeed—I think it is next month. No, I am sorry; the railway safety directive is due to be repealed in just over a year’s time. It is the new recast safety directive that is required to be transposed into the domestic law of EU member states next month, but with scope for this date to be extended for a year. Consequently, this recast rail safety directive has not been transposed into UK law. Bearing in mind that we have not yet hit intended dates for leaving the EU, will the Minister clarify that the date for transposing the new directive into our domestic law has been extended for a year until June 2020? If that is the case, can she also say by how far in advance of June 2020 we would have had, in reality, to start the process for transposing the new safety directive into our domestic law to meet the June 2020 deadline?
The EU also has a recent regulation on aspects of railway safety and connectivity in the light of our intended withdrawal from the EU, to provide for a temporary extension for nine months if we leave without a withdrawal agreement, and to enable the continuation of cross-border services between the UK and the relevant EU member states, namely France and the Republic of Ireland. When does that nine-month temporary extension start? Is it from the date we leave the EU without a withdrawal agreement, if that is what eventually happens, or another date?
Paragraph 2.10 of the main Explanatory Memorandum states that:
“The amended 2006 Regulations will preserve the status quo”.
The Minister has already confirmed that that is the case, but can the Government say what preserving the status quo actually means? At present, the regulatory framework of EU member states is harmonised. Does preserving the status quo mean that will continue after our withdrawal, to the extent of adopting subsequent amendments and changes to the regulatory framework made by the EU? If not, in what circumstances do we see ourselves not adopting changes and amendments made by the EU? Alternatively, in what circumstances do we see ourselves making changes and amendments of our own that do not apply to EU member states?
Paragraph 2.10 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to the removal of the requirement on the UK to share information with the European Commission or agency, then refers to an EU regulation to which I have already referred, which imposes,
“requirements on the holders of safety certificates and authorisations to share certain information to continue to benefit from the temporary extension of validity”.
The Explanatory Memorandum then says that:
“The UK Government fully expects all holders of applicable documentation to do so”.
Does that statement apply to continuing to share information generally with the EU, as is required at the moment, or only to the regulation providing for a temporary extension of validity?
Paragraph 2.12 of the main Explanatory Memorandum refers to a subsequent piece of legislation providing for the time-limited recognition referred to in paragraph 2.11, and says it will be brought forward “in due course”, which is as long as the proverbial piece of string. When in fact is that piece of legislation or instrument expected to appear?
Paragraph 10.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to the over 300 industry bodies that were invited to participate in the informal consultation. It does not specifically mention the trade unions, so I ask the Minister if the trade unions were included in the informal consultation.
I mentioned earlier that we did not hit intended EU withdrawal dates. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee recommended that these regulations be subject to the affirmative procedure, because of the potential impact of the proposed changes on cross-border rail operations, including on Northern Ireland, for which one set of regulations specifically maintains the train operator and train driver licensing regime in Northern Ireland. Could the Minister say more specifically than is set out in the relevant Explanatory Memorandum why it is necessary, under these SIs, to allow for the indefinite recognition of these licences in Northern Ireland, whereas in Great Britain the intention is to recognise them for just two years after exit day or until they expire, whichever is the sooner? We have not had a full explanation of the necessity for that difference.
The Department for Transport accepted the sub-committee’s recommendation that these regulations be subject to the affirmative procedure, but the department has laid these instruments under the urgent “made affirmative” procedure designed to ensure that the regulations come into force by exit day which, at the time these instruments were made, was 12 April. It has also been necessary for the instruments to come into force less than 21 days after being made, which is contrary to the usual practice. On the face of it, it does not look as though the department has dealt with these SIs and their scheduling with the same attention to detail and timescales that it would expect the railway industry to deliver on the safety issues to which these SIs relate. Consequently, as I understand it, these instruments are already in force, although to remain in force they have to be approved by Parliament within 28 days—presumably 28 sitting days, otherwise we are already out of time—beginning with the day on which the instrument was made.
It is clearly preferable if the “made affirmative” procedure is not used, since it negates the purpose of the affirmative procedure, which is that instruments should have parliamentary approval before they come into force. So as a final question—on the same lines as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson—will the Minister explain why it was not possible to bring forward these instruments in time to enable the normal affirmative procedure to be applied, including in a situation where they were laid as proposed negative instruments but where the Secondary Legislation Committee recommended that they be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure? I do not think that we have had a proper explanation of why the instruments were not brought forward in time to go through the full, proper affirmative procedure process.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for their comments and for agreeing to meet me before discussing the regulations today. That was extremely helpful. Some of the issues I knew would come up; others, not so much. If I do not respond to all of them, I shall of course write.
I share the regret of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that there is no functioning Northern Ireland Executive; I think that we all hope that one will be in place as soon as possible. A theme raised by both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord was the timing of the SIs and why noble Lords are here today to discuss them under the “made affirmative”, or urgent, procedure.
As has been pointed out by a number of people, these SIs are quite complex, particularly in terms of the legislation relating to Northern Ireland. It took a while to make sure that they were right. The noble Baroness said that Northern Ireland deserves better; I would say that actually it deserves the best. We wanted to make sure that the complexities surrounding these issues were absolutely nailed down before we laid the regulations. Timing was slightly against us—but, then again, the regulations were laid as negative; we did not expect them to be upgraded to affirmative. When they were upgraded and we looked at the parliamentary timetable, we realised that there might not have been time from that point until 29 March—there could have been time, but, as noble Lords will know, a number of committees need to consider these things—and decided that the best way forward was to lay the instruments as “made affirmative”. The noble Baroness was right to say that it is unusual, but it is not unique—I am sure that many noble Lords were here for the two debates preceding this one; they, too, were for “made affirmative” SIs. There were a number of SIs which, as we approached exit day, it was necessary to consider within the “made affirmative” procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked me about 28 days—it is indeed 28 sitting days.
Lord Rosser
The Minister says quite rightly that the regulations are complex, but this is not the first set of complex regulations that has appeared from a department. Neither surely is it the first time that a department has suggested that it should be dealt with by the negative procedure and the committee has said that it should be the affirmative, and the department has agreed and it has still been done in time to put it through the proper affirmative procedure. So I ask again: why could this not be done by the Department for Transport? There is nothing unique about their being complex; there is nothing unique about a department saying that they should be negative, the committee saying that they should be affirmative and there still being time to do it through the proper affirmative procedure.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I completely accept what the noble Lord says. In certain parts of the organisations that had to deal with these things, the pressure on resources was quite significant. I am not prepared to say much more on that.
Safety and data sharing were also rightly raised by noble Lords. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, pointed out, they are critical. The Government have no intention of compromising the safety of our rail network—or, indeed, anyone else’s. The Office of Rail and Road will be sharing data and we already have a very good relationship with it. I should like to go into a tiny bit more detail about this, because it is important. EU member states already have a number of cross-border rail arrangements with third countries covering a wide variety of arrangements, including border arrangements, sharing information about cases of accidents, the responsibilities of train operators—all sorts of things. For example, there is one between Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina and one between Poland and Russia, and both have negotiated bilateral agreements on cross-border rail arrangements. We anticipate that, as our relationship with the EU develops, we too will have these sorts of relationships. In the short term, the Office of Rail and Road will work very closely with its counterparts, as it already does, to enable it to continue to share information with EU and EEA member states. In particular, it is extremely important that we work closely with our immediate cross-border neighbours, France and the Republic of Ireland. Our engagement is going very well and we aim to sign a memorandum of understanding with both countries to enshrine co-operation agreements so that they can continue.
The noble Baroness asked what would happen if the ORR revoked a safety certificate belonging to an operator established in the EU and the UK: would the UK have a legal obligation to inform the EU? If the ORR issued a part B certificate based on an EU part A safety certificate, the ORR would be required to inform the EU safety authority that issued part A if it went ahead and revoked part B. She mentioned safety certificates that run out earlier. I believe that there is only one—most will be able to go up to the two-year sunset clause, and that organisation will be able to apply to the ORR for a new safety certificate.
Turning to the question of nine months, we have a new agreement with the EU, which has said that for nine months regulations will stay where they are. This obviously relates particularly to the Republic of Ireland and France, those being the countries we send most of our rail to, and I believe that nine months is a first step: there will obviously be more discussions to be had. The nine-month clock will start on the day we leave the EU. The noble Baroness raised an interesting point about operators going beyond France, for example. Operators are making their own arrangements to operate services beyond, and they have in place EU- issued operator licences, so I believe that people have already thought about that and are taking the appropriate steps.
The issue regarding Northern Ireland is interesting and important. It is a transferred matter and, in the absence of a functioning Northern Ireland Executive, it is right and proper that we preserve the status quo as much as we can. We therefore took the decision, given the connectedness of the network in Northern Ireland and the implications of that, that a different time limit was appropriate. Indefinite recognition of the various certificates in Northern Ireland is essentially the status quo. In the future, as it is a transferred matter, if there is a functioning Northern Ireland Executive that Executive will be able to make their own decisions. For the time being, however, it was agreed that this is the best way forward for Northern Ireland. Conversely, within Great Britain a decision has been made to match the sunset clause for these items to the sunset clause already in place for other types of rail licence.
The noble Baroness mentioned the consultation. We have carried out a fair amount of consultation. We wrote to 300 industry representatives and, as the noble Baroness mentioned, we had eight responses. I have not seen them but I will certainly write if they raised any particular issues. Workshops were also held and a technical notice came out on 12 October. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked whether the unions were involved in the consultations. I believe that ASLEF was invited to the workshop but was unable to attend.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned the next railway package—the fourth railway package, otherwise known as the recast safety directive. There are two issues here: first, what happens if we have a deal; and secondly, what happens if we do not have a deal. During any implementation period that comes into force under the withdrawal agreement, the UK would be required to meet its EU obligations. This would include the transposition of the fourth railway package. We would obviously proceed with that in the implementation period to have it done by June 2020. If the withdrawal agreement is not ratified and the UK leaves without a deal, we will need to decide whether we will transpose the technical pillar of the fourth railway package. The decision will be made on what account to take up the fourth package as regards, for example—this is the important bit—cross-border services with the French. We will need to look at where we are and what needs to be implemented to make sure that those cross-border services can continue. There will obviously be sufficient time on both of these for scrutiny by your Lordships to ensure that these matters are conducted accordingly.
Work has already commenced on the rail safety directive. We have started the underlying work to transpose the recast safety directive as part of our existing obligations as an EU member state. As I mentioned, we expect to implement by June 2020 and have already notified the EU Commission that we will be doing this.
Will this be for ever? Status quo does not mean matching the EU. The issue is that we may—or we may not; it is not certain—want to take our safety regime in a different direction. That does not mean that our safety will be any less important to us, or that the safety of our passengers will be compromised in any way. However, it might mean that, if we diverge in the future from EU law because doing so might present opportunities for the UK to shape our railways in the way we want, the safety outcomes will be the same but our law might say something different. I am not saying that this will definitely happen; I am not saying that this is even remotely likely in the short term. But status quo certainly does not mean being in lockstep with the EU on the rail safety legislative framework in perpetuity.
I am sure there are a few questions I have missed. I will look at Hansard and make sure that I have all the responses to any remaining questions from both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord.
Railways (Safety Management) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2019
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Regulations laid before the House on 8 April be approved.
Special attention drawn to the instrument by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 58th Report. Relevant document: 24th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)
Railways (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2019
(4 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Regulations laid before the House on 8 April be approved.
Relevant document: 24th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)