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, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
Diverting young people from crime is at the heart of my approach to tackling serious violence. Factors such as domestic abuse, truancy and substance abuse can make a young person more vulnerable to becoming a victim or perpetrator of serious violence. That is why we are investing over £220 million in early intervention schemes to steer young people away from serious violence.
Vicky Ford
The experience of the local police in Chelmsford is that once a young person is in a gang they become indoctrinated and indebted to the gang, and it is hard to turn that round. It is therefore better to invest in prevention, and the role of schools is vital. Will my right hon. Friend work with the Secretary of State for Education and the Treasury to ensure that schools get the resources they need to run proactive initiatives to prevent young people from being sucked into violent gangs?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we cannot arrest our way out of crime, and early intervention is critical. That is why we have, for example, the £200 million youth intervention fund to do precisely that: steer young people away from violence. She is also right to think about how schools can work much more closely with police and others. That require some more resources, and I am very happy to continue that conversation with the Department for Education and the Treasury.
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of county lines and his concern. More support is being provided for Hampshire in particular, with Hampshire police receiving £1.2 million from the £100 million extra that I announced a few months ago for the serious violence fund. Hampshire is also benefiting from the early intervention youth fund, through which we have sponsored a number of projects, including a £400,000 project in Hampshire aimed at supporting young people away from future offending.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Home Secretary referred to youth intervention investment, but that money is spread over several years. As he will know, the Select Committee on Home Affairs asked for the annual breakdown of that money. We are still waiting for that. That matters, because it looks to us as though the additional investment he has proposed adds up to around only 5% annually of the £760 million being cut from youth services.
I know from a meeting in Knottingley in my constituency this morning that antisocial behaviour is rising, and knife crime among young people in west Yorkshire has trebled over the last few years. We need this investment very rapidly and cannot wait. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Select Committee will get those figures, and that he will give oral evidence to the Committee before the summer recess? His office suggested that he would not.
Sajid Javid
I do plan to give evidence to the Select Committee before the summer recess. I can confirm also that the right hon. Lady will get the numbers that she has asked for. Perhaps she was referring to the £200 million youth endowment fund, but she will know that there is also the £22 million early intervention fund, which has supported some 29 projects already.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s decision to adopt a public health approach to youth violence, but aside from a summit we are yet to see any affirmative action. The Home Secretary recognises that early intervention is important, yet we have seen cuts to our Sure Start centres, our education and our youth services. What urgent action will he take to implement a public health approach? What will he do to step up conversations with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that those vital early intervention services get their funding restored to them immediately?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady rightly raises the importance of the public health approach—having a legal requirement for all Government Departments and agencies to work together—but she is wrong to suggest that the only thing that has happened is the summit that the Prime Minister held. The hon. Lady will know that we have already published the consultation, which is ongoing. She will know that, to get good policy, it is right to hold a consultation. I hope that she will input into it and that, when it leads to legislation, we can have cross-party support.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
The normally quiet and law-abiding town of Calne in my constituency has been rocked in the past two weeks by the brutal murder of 18-year-old Ellie Gould by, allegedly, an under-age knife-bearing murderer. I will not ask the Home Secretary to comment on that case, but does he not agree that one very good way of deterring people from carrying knives and taking part in this kind of appalling outrage is by applying the strongest possible sentence to these people to send a message to others who might be that way inclined?
Sajid Javid
May I take this opportunity to extend my sympathy to Ellie’s family for what has happened and their terrible loss? My hon. Friend is absolutely right that to tackle serious violence we need to take action on many fronts. As well as law enforcement and early intervention, it is right to ensure that sentencing is fit for the crimes that have taken place.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
Part of the Government’s response to the horrifying rise in violent crime has been to commission an independent review on drugs. Given the revelations over the weekend in relation to various Tory leadership hopefuls, is it not time to consider extending that review to consider whether our drug laws and policy are discriminatory, and whether they, in fact, fuel violent crime?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady will know that the Government have been very clear, as have previous Governments, that drugs and the crime related to drug gangs are leading to serious violence and all sorts of other serious problems in society and other types of crime. That is why we have taken action on many fronts, but we do want to understand more about drugs and their impact. That is exactly why I commissioned the independent review, by Dame Carol Black, on drugs misuse.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
On 3 April, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced the opening of the Windrush compensation scheme. The forms, rules and guidance were published on the same day. The freephone helpline is available to answer any queries. The scheme will ensure that those who have been affected are able to claim for the losses they faced and receive appropriate compensation.
Jessica Morden
How will the Government compensate Windrush victims such as my constituent who could not work for eight years because of his lack of status, losing his NI contributions and his pension? Are Ministers making sure that in such complicated cases people get the advice they need to fill out the forms, so they are not victimised yet again?
Caroline Nokes
We worked very hard with the independent adviser, and indeed with victims of Windrush, to ensure the claim form was as accessible and as easily understood as possible. It is a complicated claim form, because there are 13 different heads of claims under which people are able to claim compensation, but we have set up a contract with Citizens Advice so they can get independent advice without having to resort to using lawyers.
Helen Hayes
Community organisations working with Windrush citizens, including the Black Cultural Archives in my constituency, report that the compensation scheme simply is not working. The form is too complex, advice is neither accessible nor specialist enough, and the burden of proof is far too high. Will the Minister review the scheme, acknowledge that it is not working, and, as an absolute minimum, provide immediate funding for specialist legal advice to be available not only by phone but in person to every Windrush citizen who needs it?
Caroline Nokes
As I outlined, there is already a contract in place with Citizens Advice to provide that independent advice. There is an ongoing series of engagement events, with taskforce officials from the Home Office attending different community groups across the country, including in London. There have been two events in Newport. It is important that we get this right, which is why we worked with Martin Forde to have a scheme that gave us independent advice. It is important that we work through it. I know that at 18 pages the claim form is quite long, but of course individual claimants have to fill in only the components that are relevant to them, not every page.
Mr Dhesi
This gross injustice with respect to the Windrush scandal is not an accident or a one-off; it is a direct result of the Government’s hostile environment policy. Have the Government considered how their hostile environment might affect migrants from India, Pakistan or Bangladesh now and in the future?
Caroline Nokes
It is important to reflect that roughly half the individuals affected by Windrush had a negative impact pre-2010 under the previous Labour Government. We are determined to put right all those wrongs and ensure that wherever people have come from—people from a wide variety of countries, not simply the Caribbean, have made contact with the Windrush taskforce—they are given the support to go through the process of getting the documentation they need. Well over 4,000 people have secured British citizenship as a result, and over 6,000 people have the documentation they need to prove their right to stay in the UK.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The Minister has to begin to acknowledge communities’ grave concerns about the Windrush compensation scheme as it stands. They think that it is not working. She also needs to bear in mind that this is an ageing cohort, who will probably need more support on average than a cohort that is more mixed in age. The Home Secretary told the House in April last year that we
“will do whatever it takes to put it right”.
He continued:
“We have made it clear that a Commonwealth citizen who has remained in the UK since 1973 will be eligible to get the legal status that they deserve: British citizenship.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2018; Vol. 640, c. 35.]
What progress has been made on those promises?
Will the Minister reconsider some of the worst aspects of the current scheme? It will currently not compensate those who may have been wrongly deported. I quote from the document:
“It is difficult to determine whether inability to return to the UK is a loss”.
Of course someone being deprived of their home, job, family and community is a loss. How can Ministers say that it is “difficult to determine” whether there is a loss?
Caroline Nokes
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. It is absolutely because we acknowledge that people have been wronged that, in the last week, I personally have attended two separate outreach events for people who wish to understand the compensation scheme. It is why there are dedicated helplines. It is why we have put in place the scheme with Citizens Advice, so that it can provide advice. I reiterate that 6,470 individuals have been granted some form of documentation and 4,281 have been granted citizenship. As I said, there are 13 different heads of claim, including not only deportation, but loss of ability to work, loss of benefits and so on. We are absolutely determined to make sure that we compensate the individuals affected in a timely manner.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
Facial recognition technology can help the police to do their job. It must be right to support trials of this rapidly improving technology, but given its sensitivity it must also be right that the technology’s benefits should be independently reviewed. That is exactly what the Met is doing with the University of Essex and we will consider that review very carefully.
Mr Davis
In May, San Francisco, one of the most tech-friendly cities in the world, banned the use of live facial recognition technology because of massive error rates and concerns about racial bias in its use. Five United Kingdom police forces use similar cameras and systems. Both the Met and South Wales police have seen a 90%— or worse—misidentification rate of innocent members of the public. It is clear that the cameras carry serious risks, yet no legislation governs the use of the technology; it operates in a legal void. The Minister refers to the Metropolitan police. This is not a decision for a police force to make; it is a decision for Parliament. Will the Minister bring legislation to the House laying down strict guidelines on the use of this technology?
Mr Hurd
My right hon. Friend has a long track record in this area. He is entirely right to raise the sensitivity in finding the right balance between security and civil liberties. On the Met’s numbers, there is a one in 1,000 chance of a false alert, but we need to see the evaluation. I am very clear in my mind that we need to support the police in trialling new technology, but if we are to take the public with us we have to be absolutely sure that it sits inside a regulatory framework that they trust. We believe that there is a legal framework for it, although that is being challenged in the courts. I give him my undertaking that, given the importance of maintaining public confidence and trust, we are doing urgent work to review the regulatory environment in which this technology development sits, including new oversight and advisory boards, because I recognise the fundamental importance of taking the public with us on this journey.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The police national database contains 15 million images, which have been used in a much less controversial way for static facial recognition since 2014, but police tell me that the algorithm that is used to support the database is out of date and needs investment. Will the Minister confirm that the necessary investment will be made?
Mr Hurd
I can confirm to the hon. Lady that, across a substantial range of technology requirements for the police, the Home Secretary and I are considering the funding requirements of the police in the context of the comprehensive spending review, and he and I have made it clear that police funding is our priority.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
In the last year or so, the Met have issued many of their officers with tablet computers, but the feedback I have had from officers and constituents is that very often these are unstable, freeze routinely and can actually mean that work takes longer, so will the Minister talk to the Met Commissioner to ensure that their technology is stable and reliable for officers to use?
Mr Hurd
I have had those conversations with the Met Commissioner because I have heard exactly the same thing from members of the serious violence taskforce and officers on the beat in my own constituency. It is clear to us that mobility—the ability to work on the move without having to go back to the station to fill in reports—is critical to improving police productivity, so we must make sure we get the technology right.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
What was not known during the Huawei furore was that it was a leading pioneer of facial recognition technology distinguishing between Han and Uighur citizens within the Chinese republic. Are the Government seeking to use this technology as a solution on the British border on the isle of Ireland?
Mr Hurd
I will not get drawn into that. It is our responsibility as a Government and a Parliament to support the police in pushing the frontiers of what technology can do in law enforcement, but I come back to this fundamental point: we have to take the public with us, and that means the regulatory environment has to be fit for purpose.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware of the comments of the new independent reviewer of our counter-terror laws at the weekend about our police and security services using artificial intelligence and algorithms in detecting suspicious behaviour. He was speaking of a future like that in the film “Minority Report” where predictive technology drives everything. Is not the only way to establish the appropriate balance between liberty and security to create a new durable legislative framework that can be properly considered by this House? Why can he not commit to bringing that forward today?
Mr Hurd
I repeat that I am extremely aware of the need, as technology develops in this area and others, for there to be public confidence and trust in it, underpinned by a legislative and regulatory framework in which people have confidence. We feel that that legal framework is in place, but we are reviewing the oversight and regulatory framework in which this all sits, and that is a work of some urgency for me.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
The Government provide a safe and legal route for bringing families together through our existing family reunion policy. These provisions are consistent with our obligation to respect family life under article 8 of the European convention on human rights. We are listening to calls to extend this policy and will continue discussions with stakeholders.
Sir Vince Cable
Ministers will recall that last July the other House passed the Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill overwhelmingly but that it was not introduced here because of lack of parliamentary time. Since parliamentary time no longer appears so scarce, will the Minister introduce it here to help reunite families, many of whom are divided by some very rigid and inflexible rules?
Caroline Nokes
As I said, we are listening to calls to extend family reunion and are watching the two private Members’ Bills very closely. The right hon. Gentleman’s question is of course one for business managers, who I am sure will heed his calls.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend as concerned as I am that in designing a refugee family reunion policy we do not create incentives that encourage even more people to leave their homes and undertake an extremely dangerous journey in the hope they will bring the rest of their relatives to our country at a later date?
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend rightly raises the Government’s concern that allowing children to sponsor close family members might create incentives for more children to be encouraged or even forced to leave their families and risk a hazardous journey to the UK in order to sponsor relatives at a later date. I am sure he agrees that we absolutely want to avoid that because it could play into the hands of criminal gangs already exploiting vulnerable people.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
In December 2018 the Government set out their proposals for a future immigration system in a White Paper, “The UK’s future skills-based immigration system”. The new system will be focused on those with the skills that the country needs, who will bring the most benefit to the United Kingdom.
Bill Grant
My constituency needs migrant workers to support local industry—particularly, but not exclusively, in the health, hospitality, fishing and farming sectors. Will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that there will be sufficient flexibility in any post-Brexit immigration system to allow those sectors to flourish?
Sajid Javid
I am happy to give my hon. Friend that reassurance. We recognise that the future system must work for the valuable industries that make this nation great. We are working with many businesses and employers, including some in the sectors that my hon. Friend has listed, to ensure there is proper engagement which will achieve precisely what he has described.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
On Thursday night, a 17-year-old schoolboy visiting Canterbury from Germany was violently attacked in our city centre. He is now fighting for his life. I thank the Home Secretary for intervening personally to enable the boy’s family to travel to be at his bedside, and I am extremely grateful for his—and his team’s—rapid response, kindness and hard work over the weekend. In the light of this awful incident, will he please reassure me that he is listening carefully to the grave concerns that are being expressed about the dwindling number of police on our streets?
Sajid Javid
I was very concerned to hear about that case when the hon. Lady contacted me, and I am pleased that the young man’s parents are now at his bedside. I can give her the assurance for which she has asked. We have a big police funding settlement this year, which is leading to the biggest increase in police numbers since 2010.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for the support that he has expressed for the amendment drafted by our hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), which has the support of many colleagues on both sides of the House, and which seeks to ease post-study work restrictions on overseas students. Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only is this an economically sensible and useful thing to do, but it will enhance UK soft power as we build global Britain?
Sajid Javid
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. As he will know, we have already announced steps in that direction in the White Paper, because we want to make it easier for those who come from abroad to study in our universities to stay and continue to lead their lives in the UK. I do believe that we can go further, both for our own economic benefit—indeed, I think, for our cultural benefit—and, certainly, for the benefit of our soft power.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
International students are vital not just for our exports, but for university funding and regional economies. Britain is lagging behind our main competitors in attracting the brightest and the best. What plans has the Home Secretary to add countries such as India to the list of states with fast-track access to tier 4 study permits to help to address that issue?
Sajid Javid
I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of international students, including their importance as an export for our economy. He will be pleased to learn that there is no cap on the number of international students who can come to the UK, and that the number who came last year reached a record high. As for fast-track access for certain countries, we constantly keep that under review.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
My constituent Ken Macharia is under threat of removal back to Kenya, where he will not be able to live openly as a gay man. In the month of Pride, it cannot be right for us to deny him the right to be who he is. More importantly, however, does the Home Secretary agree that Ken’s sexuality should not be the issue? He came here to qualify as a mechanical engineer, and he therefore has skills that we urgently need for our economy. Should we not be letting him stay for that reason, irrespective of his sexuality?
Sajid Javid
I understand why my hon. Friend has raised this case, and I can assure him that the Home Office is taking it very seriously. He will, perhaps, appreciate that I cannot comment on an individual case, especially if it involves an application for a judicial review, but I can reassure him that in cases of this type, at the heart of decision making is the welfare of the individual concerned.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
As has already been pointed out, the Home Secretary has pledged that if he becomes Prime Minister he will reintroduce the post-study work visa. The university sector in Scotland, business, and my colleagues in the Scottish Government have been calling for its reintroduction for some years. The right hon. Gentleman is already Home Secretary, and he has the power to reintroduce it with full effect for Scotland today if he wants to, so will he make a commitment to do so?
Sajid Javid
That is exactly why the proposal is in the White Paper I published earlier this year.
Joanna Cherry
I am disappointed that the Home Secretary does not feel able to make that commitment, but I hope he will maybe follow through on it if he becomes Prime Minister.
May I ask the Home Secretary about something else that is very important to Members in all parts of this House? A recent freedom of information request from one of my colleagues in the Scottish Parliament revealed that 19 children and six pregnant women have been held at the privately run Dungavel detention centre since 2016, and this is despite the Government committing to end the detention of children at Dungavel. Can the Secretary of State explain how this has been allowed to happen and will he commit to ending indefinite detention as part of his future plans for the UK’s immigration system?
Sajid Javid
On the hon. and learned Lady’s first question, it sounds as though she has not read the White Paper yet because it talks about increasing post-study work permits. On the question about detention, we have a comprehensive and detailed policy on adults at risk; we constantly keep it under review, and when there are specific cases we will look at them very carefully.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Emma Dent Coad (Kensington) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
Operational decisions are for each fire and rescue authority to make as part of their work to assess local risk and manage and allocate resources according to their integrated risk management planning process. What we have done is reintroduce independent inspection by asking HMICFRS—Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services—to assess how effective each fire and rescue service is in responding to fires.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Minister for his response, but the reality is that Government cuts are having a dangerous impact on safety. If Tyne and Wear’s fire and rescue service funding does not increase, this year we could see overnight cover cut by 50% in South Tyneside, putting my constituents and our local firefighters’ lives at risk. When will the Government increase funding to protect our lives?
Mr Hurd
I know there are strong feelings about the funding of Tyne and Wear fire service because we had a debate in Westminster Hall, and I have subsequently met Chris Lowther, the chief, to discuss that. Our view is that the fire service has the resources it needs to continue providing what is acknowledged to be a good service underpinned by very high levels of reserves, but we are approaching a comprehensive spending review in which we will be looking to continue to make sure that the fire service has the resources it needs to do its very difficult job.
Emma Dent Coad
In the Minister’s response of 5 June to my letter about fire service funding he stated that all services had the capacity to respond to high-rise fires, yet the speed of the fire spread we saw yesterday in Barking was terrifying, and if that had happened at night people may well have lost their lives. Seconds count and seconds save lives; is the Minister truly convinced that he has done everything he can to keep people safe in their beds?
Mr Hurd
The whole House will understand the sensitivities of this subject, not least this week, and the fire was indeed extremely intense and unsettling. I congratulate the 100-odd firefighters who attended that scene on their success in getting the fire under control with no serious injury. In response to the hon. Lady’s point, yes of course I take this extremely seriously. I have received assurances from the fire chiefs that the current arrangements around integrated risk planning, the requirements around mutual assistance and the national resilience are fit for purpose, but if anyone has hard evidence to undermine that my door is open.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
In Northamptonshire the fire service has been successfully integrated with the local police service, saving money on administrative overheads and providing more resources for frontline capabilities. Is the Minister going to encourage more such mergers?
Mr Hurd
The answer is yes, and I congratulate Steve Mold and the leadership in Northamptonshire on what they have done to show what can be achieved through really creative collaboration. This is not just about saving taxpayers’ money; it is also about exploring the opportunities to deliver a better service to the public.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
We are approaching the third anniversary of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, which, as Members will know, happened overnight. The Grenfell residents had complained about their treatment by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and had specifically highlighted the fire risks, but they were ignored. What steps have the Government taken to ensure that similar warnings from those who know most—the residents themselves—are heeded and acted on?
Mr Hurd
I think the right hon. Lady meant to say that it was the second anniversary, but of course the point she makes is a fundamental one that will be addressed in the statement that follows on the Government’s response to the fire, not only on future arrangements for social housing and the regulation of that, but to ensure that the voice of tenants is a louder one and a respected one.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
The health and wellbeing of firefighters is of huge concern to the Home Office and to the sector leaders we are working with to support further progress in this area. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is the responsibility of individual fire and rescue authorities, as employers, to ensure that health screening suitable for the risks faced is available to their firefighters.
Alex Cunningham
The stress facing our firefighters has grown considerably under this Government. We have fewer of them, and many have been replaced by retained firefighters, including in Cleveland. As we have heard, they face some of the most difficult circumstances. Does the Minister recognise the impact of those circumstances and stressors on the mental and physical health of firefighters? Will he tell me what the Government are going to do to fund health services properly for firemen?
Mr Hurd
I fully understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Firefighters are exposed to major risks and highly traumatic situations, as well as to contaminants and toxic agents, so it is even more important that local fire authorities have appropriate strategies in place and that they are properly resourced and, critically, inspected and assessed by independent inspectors, which is what we have introduced. In relation to resources, I come back to the main point that a spending review is imminent, and it will provide an opportunity to ensure that the fire service continues to have the resources it needs to do its job and support its people.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Some of the things that those in our brave emergency services—whether in the police, the fire service or the ambulance service—are tasked with dealing with are truly horrific and have long-lasting impacts, particularly on family life. What work is being done to ensure that those in our emergency services are always able to access the very best mental health care?
Mr Hurd
My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. There is a growing awareness and culture in the leadership across the police and fire services about the importance of the welfare and wellbeing agenda. That is why we have supported the first ever national wellbeing service, which is being developed and rolled out across that system, and why we continue to engage with the fire chiefs in order to be absolutely sure that, on top of the money we have provided for the blue light services and for mental health support, we are doing everything we can to ensure that those on the frontline of our response to emergencies are properly supported and that the old culture of “stay strong” can be challenged when it needs to be, because of the trauma that our first responders are often exposed to.
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
Two years on from Grenfell, firefighters and members of the community still have not been screened for fire-related toxic contamination. Speaking as a former nurse and the mother of a young woman who died of cancer, I find that genuinely unacceptable. Given the dangerous carcinogens that have been found in the area surrounding the building, the Government’s inaction displays a reckless disregard for people’s health, and I hope that the Minister is not going to pass the buck here. I should like to ask him to commit to undertaking a wide review of cancer rates among firefighters, and to consider implementing a national fire service cancer screening strategy. This is just too important for him not to.
Mr Hurd
I have a lot of sympathy for what the hon. Lady is saying. In relation to the Grenfell firefighters, that is something that I will of course take up with the London fire brigade. On the broader point, she is absolutely right to say that firefighters are exposed to contaminants and toxic agents. Exposure will vary, but I am sure she will be aware that past research has not shown an increase in risk. However, this is a source of concern to us, and the fire chiefs have recently commissioned research from the University of Brighton. We will need to wait for that to conclude before agreeing the next steps in relation to the kind of comprehensive universal screening service that she has mentioned.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
The Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace)
A review of powers was undertaken as part of our updated comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy, CONTEST, and the lessons learned from the attacks of 2016 and 2017 were incorporated. Following the review, the Government launched the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act, which received Royal Assent on 12 February 2019.
Jack Lopresti
Our security services are world class, but we know that co-ordination is key, so does my right hon. Friend agree that negotiating security co-operation with our European partners and neighbours and strengthening our alliances around the world should be top post-Brexit priorities?
Mr Wallace
Yes, I can reassure the House that intelligence sharing will go on unchanged. The relationship between intelligence services under national security, irrespective of our status within Europe, will not diminish, and the same goes for our status within the Five Eyes community—a strong partnership for intelligence. In addition, when it comes to law enforcement tools, our relationships are also underpinned by the 1957 Council of Europe convention on extradition and the 1959 European convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters, and those will continue no matter what the settlement is.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
This weekend, the Home Secretary announced as part of his leadership bid a £500 million investment in border security in Northern Ireland, plus ongoing costs. Will the Minister agree to publish the proposals as soon as possible, so that they can be open to public and private scrutiny?
Mr Wallace
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point about investment in our border. However, I had a quick discussion with the Home Secretary, who does not have the same recollection of what he announced at the weekend. I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman writes to the Home Secretary, the Home Secretary will set out the position.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Change UK)
I was horrified to read that a Hezbollah bomb factory storing three tonnes of explosive materials was discovered in north-west London in 2015—three and a half years before the Home Secretary fully proscribed the antisemitic terror group. Why did the Government wait so long to act? Why were the public and MPs not informed, given the debates that we have had on this issue?
Mr Wallace
The right hon. Lady will know, as a former Home Office Minister, that we do not comment on intelligence operations for obvious reasons. In addition, if Hezbollah was behaving in that manner at that time, that would have been under its military wing, as it was classified, and that would have been an act of terrorism and, indeed, would have been subject to the proscription provisions. I therefore do not think that anything different would have happened. However, as the right hon. Lady knows, the Home Secretary recently moved to proscribe the entirety of Hezbollah, partly because of such cases.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
EU citizens are our friends, neighbours and colleagues, and we want them to stay. The EU settlement scheme enables them to do so, and we launched a £3.75 million marketing campaign in March to encourage them to apply.
Peter Grant
If these people genuinely are the Home Secretary’s friends, colleagues and neighbours, perhaps the Government should start to treat them as such, instead of preparing to make them the victims of another Windrush-type scandal. The Home Affairs Committee recently reported that thousands of EU nationals in the UK run the risk of being left with an uncertain legal future. Does the Home Secretary not accept that it is time to get rid of the application and potential refusal system that they have just now and replace it with as a system of right to remain by declaration? That would leave the onus of proof on the Government if they think that someone should not be allowed to stay, instead of making the person prove that they can.
Sajid Javid
The settlement scheme is working incredibly well. To update the House, 800,000 applications have already been made since its launch, with almost 700,000 concluded. The hon. Gentleman mentions Windrush, and if he wants another Windrush, he should continue with the proposal that he just suggested.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
Just some of the actions we are taking to tackle knife crime include: strengthening the law through the Offensive Weapons Act 2019; establishing the national county lines co-ordination centre; consulting on a new duty to support a multi-agency public health approach; launching the £100 million serious violence fund in the spring statement; and providing new lesson plans to schools as part of our #knifefree campaign. We take careful note of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner’s recent comments about knife crime levelling off, and I am sure we all support the police’s efforts to tackle this.
Rushanara Ali
I thank the Minister for her answer, but there were 18,000 assaults and 17,000 robberies involving a knife or a sharp object in the year ending 2018. The Government have cut police officer numbers by 21,000, and two weeks ago there was a murder in Tower Hamlets due to a knife attack. Does she agree that the Home Secretary is not fit to be the next Prime Minister, considering that he has lost control of law and order in his Department?
Victoria Atkins
I have to say that I think this is such a serious subject—I understand the hon. Lady’s comments about her constituency—but I do not think this is the appropriate forum to make those sorts of comments. What I do know is that the Government, working with the police, local authorities, the medical profession and educationalists, are doing everything we can not just to tackle the causes of knife crime through law enforcement efforts but to intervene early to stop young people carrying knives before they take that terrible step, which can affect not only their lives but other families and communities.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) is welcome to shoehorn his inquiry, Question 16, conveniently into Question 14, if he so wishes, but it is not obligatory.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Victoria Atkins
I am very happy to look into that. The hon. Gentleman will know that, through the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, there are six powers available to the police and to local authorities and agencies to tackle, in a flexible way, the terrible crimes that can be occasioned by antisocial behaviour.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Piggybacking on the shoehorn, so to speak, farmers are often victims of rural crime, antisocial behaviour, fly-tipping and the theft of farm machinery. What more is going to be done to help to tackle rural crime?
Victoria Atkins
As the proud Member of Parliament for one of the most rural constituencies in England, I know only too well the trouble that farmers and landowners can have with antisocial behaviour, including, for example, hare coursing. A range of powers is available to the police, depending on the type of criminality involved. I am very happy to involve my hon. Friend in the discussions we are currently having to see what more we can do to tackle hare coursing in particular.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
As part of the future borders and immigration system, we have launched a year-long engagement programme to seek the views of stakeholders, including the fishing industry, and I am listening very carefully to what they have to say. I have met representatives of the industry on several occasions, as has my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and we are reflecting on the views expressed.
Douglas Ross
The Minister has previously said that:
“there was no case for schemes for particular sectors in the immigration system, other than agriculture, which has some unique characteristics.”—[Official Report, 8 April 2019; Vol. 658, c. 153.]
I am sure the Minister and everyone accepts that the fishing industry has unique characteristics as well. Although we want local labour to do these jobs in future, they are not ready and able to do them now. Will she look again at this with an open mind, because our fishermen are crying out for a solution?
Caroline Nokes
I reassure my hon. Friend that I was quoting the Migration Advisory Committee when I said that agriculture is a unique sector with characteristics that justify the sectoral scheme, and the Government have certainly listened to that advice. He will know that we are undertaking a year of engagement as part of the proposals set out in the immigration White Paper, and no final decision will be taken on the future system until that is complete.
Mr Speaker
In calling the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), I am calling no less a figure than the Chair of the International Trade Committee.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
That is much appreciated, Mr Speaker. This cuts across the Department for International Trade, of course, and I have a constituency interest.
The Minister talks about a year-long engagement. She told me the very same last May. She said that the Home Office would reflect and ask industry for its views. We hear the same rhetoric today. It is quite simple: she should go to her boss, the Home Secretary—a man who needs to show leadership at the moment—and ask him to lift his pen and get fishing boats working on the west coast of Scotland. It will happen that easily. Get it shifted, make it happen, and make it happen this year. We do not want another year-long engagement.
Caroline Nokes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I do not think I have quite recovered from him appearing in my office asking me to write visas on the back of an envelope for those whom he deemed to be appropriate. It is important that the Home Secretary and I listen to all sectors, take the time to reflect on the advice received from the Migration Advisory Committee and the proposals set out in the White Paper, and make sure that we make the right decision, not simply the decision that the hon. Gentleman is demanding.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
The Home Office is committed to ensuring that asylum claims are considered and protection is granted, where necessary, as soon as possible. We have ambitious plans to improve the system, including developing new service standards to ensure that cases with acute vulnerability are prioritised.
Catherine West
Last December, the Home Secretary said that he would look into lifting the ban on asylum seekers working. Will he please set out his view on whether or not asylum seekers should have the right to work after they have lodged their applications?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady will know that in certain circumstances asylum seekers can work: after a year and if the occupation is on the shortage occupation list. She is right: I have said that. We continue to look at how we can change this and how we can expand those rights potentially. That work is under review and we will report to the House in due course.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
Frankly, we welcome all scrutiny of the emergency services network. It remains an extremely ambitious and very challenging programme, but our intent remains the same: to make sure that our emergency workers have access to the best available communications network. We still believe that the benefits are there.
Chi Onwurah
I have been raising this issue since 2013, when it became apparent that the Home Office was prioritising cost-cutting over the resilience of the communication network that enables our police officers, fire officers and ambulance crews to save lives. This is years late and billions overspent, so when are we going to have a proper plan to deliver this essential network? Will the Minister compensate police forces for the extra they are having to spend because of his incompetence?
Mr Hurd
Our plans have been set out and will continue to be available for scrutiny. The funding of forces will be dealt with through the spending review, but I push back on the hon. Lady’s premise. This has not been primarily just about reducing the costs of the Airwave contract, although that is real. It is also about making sure that 300,000 emergency workers have access to the most resilient, most modern emergency communications network. That is exactly what we intend to deliver.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
We are committed to tackling antisocial behaviour, which is why we reformed the powers available to local areas through the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Although we recognise there has been a small increase in the number of people who have experienced or witnessed antisocial behaviour in their local area, we would expect local areas to use the powers in the Act to tackle ASB.
Tom Brake
The Minister is correct; more than a third of respondents to the latest crime survey have experienced or witnessed ASB. Whether we are talking about drug dealing, vandalism, or people riding motorbikes or quad bikes in public places, for example in our parks, it has a real, damaging effect on people’s lives. Will she therefore support Lib Dem calls to invest more in community policing? Will she also publicise more effectively the community trigger, so that people know that it exists?
Victoria Atkins
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising the point about the community trigger. We, as constituency MPs, can really help to publicise the power of the community trigger and how members of the public can use it to review decisions with which they do not agree. On police funding, he will know that we have just voted through up to an extra £1 billion, with the help of police and crime commissioners, to put into policing. Of course the Home Secretary has set out his commitment to resources as well.
Mr Speaker
You can come in on this one, man; vehicle crime is manifestly antisocial behaviour.
Mark Pawsey
Victoria Atkins
I am concerned to hear of the experience of my hon. Friend’s constituents. He is right to ask about vehicle theft and the terrible impact it can have on victims. Vehicle theft is a priority of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing; indeed, he is bringing together industry, the police and others to help to ensure that the response to vehicle theft is as robust and technologically up-to-date as it can be.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
As we approach the second anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire, our thoughts are with the families of the victims and everyone affected by the tragedy.
We continue to increase support for the police and victims of crime. More money has been made available to tackle serious violence, with further allocations to the worst-hit police forces from the £100 million fund. We are making calls to the 101 non-emergency number free from April 2020. I have announced plans to change the law to give trained police drivers more confidence to pursue suspects, better protected from the risk of prosecution.
Jo Swinson
In his remarks about facial recognition technology earlier, the Minister for Policing rightly spoke about the need to take the public with us. Does the Secretary of State recognise that the imposition of Big Brother-style surveillance and fining people for covering their face with their coat is no way to secure the public’s trust? Will the Government halt the use of live facial recognition technology in policing until there has been a proper public debate, Parliament has considered a framework and there are civil liberties safeguards?
Sajid Javid
I am sure the hon. Lady will agree that it is absolutely right that the police, and those involved in law enforcement more generally, take advantage of changes in technology. Facial recognition is one of the technologies that are advancing and it is right that we test it properly. Police forces are piloting its use. The whole point of a pilot is to look at the results and then determine whether it makes sense to take the pilot forward. That may well include the need for proper guidance and perhaps even legislation.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Sajid Javid
I am very much aware of that. Forced marriage is of course a terrible form of abuse. The Government have introduced a range of measures to tackle the crime, including the creation of a specific forced marriage offence and the criminalisation of the breach of a forced marriage protection order. My hon. Friend raised the important issue of under-18 marriages. It is right that we consider our position, which is under review.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
The Government’s call for evidence on violence and abuse towards shop staff is welcome. However, research by the Charity Retail Association shows that more than a quarter of charity shops are reporting an increase in incidents of violence or verbal abuse against their volunteers. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that retail volunteers are included in the review and that they, too, will benefit from any proposed protections?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
The statistic the hon. Lady cited is sobering. I see no reason why charity shops should not be included in the review. I encourage all Members of Parliament to advertise the call for evidence, which we are holding precisely because we want to find out the nature and extent of the problem. I very much look forward to discussing it with the hon. Lady in due course.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
My hon. Friend has been persistent in making the case for more funding for Lancashire police, so he will welcome the additional £18.4 million of cash in 2019-20, on top of the exceptional grant for the costs of fracking. Chief Constable Andy Rhodes is recruiting additional officers, and I know that my hon. Friend will play his full part in lobbying the police and crime commissioner and Andy to make sure that Fylde gets its fair share of that additional resource.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this issue. I am sure he has in mind the horrific attack that was reported at the weekend and that I condemn in the absolute strongest terms. There is no place in our society for such hate crime. My understanding in respect of that particular incident is that the Met has arrested five individuals. The Government are absolutely committed to tackling all forms of hate crime, including LGBT hate crime, and we will continue to do all we can.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
Sajid Javid
First, I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she has already done to bring this about. She was one of the Members of the House to make the case for the scheme so powerfully and that is exactly why we have it. The intention is to see how it works while we have freedom of movement, but she has raised an important point. I think that it is worth considering an earlier review and I will be happy to discuss it with her.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Sajid Javid
The Home Office has been preparing for a potential no-deal exit, not because it is what anyone expects or wants, but because it is the responsible thing to do. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman right here and now what the total costs are, but I am happy to write to him with more detail. But it is right that we make these preparations, whether they are for border issues, immigration issues or customs and security.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
The strong message that came out of the referendum is that people want an immigration system that provides control, but they also want an immigration system that is underpinned by the principle of fairness, where everybody is treated equally, regardless of where they come from in the world. Is the Minister confident that the new system that we put in place will deliver on both those objectives?
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. That is absolutely the principle underpinning the proposals put forward in the White Paper, which was published in December last year. We want to have a single immigration system that treats everybody from every country according to the skills and talents that they can bring to the United Kingdom, not one based on where they come from.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Sajid Javid
The independent review of drugs misuse to which the hon. Gentleman refers is, I think it is fair to say, the most comprehensive review that has ever been commissioned on such a subject by a Government. It has a broad remit and, when Dame Carol Black reports back—I think there will be an interim report this summer—we will take it very seriously.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Sajid Javid
If I understood the hon. Lady correctly, she is referring to my comments about Stapleton Road, but I was referring to the Stapleton Road that I knew 40 years ago and I do accept that things have moved on. In fact, I was at Stapleton Road just a few days ago. I very much enjoyed myself and met some of the local residents, which was fantastic.
Mr Speaker
One always has to be careful about what one says about Bristol. For my own part, I fought the Bristol South constituency in 1992, but the good news for Bristol and perhaps for the nation was that Bristol South fought back.
Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Victoria Atkins
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that question. She is right to identify the fact that there is emerging evidence that gangs are ensnaring girls, in particular to rape them, but also to conceal weapons and drugs for the larger gang. If I may, I will write to her with the precise details. I am pleased that she has raised this because we tend to think of male members of gangs, but she is absolutely right to remind us that this includes girls as well.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Can I give the Minister a brief message from my constituents? They say that perpetrators of organised crime are constantly improving their ability to use new technologies to defraud them, and they have no resistance to having the best and most modern technology possible in the fight against crime.
The Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace)
One of the biggest challenges is how to get ahead of organised crime. Organised crime uses technology to organise better, and we need to organise better to counter it. The hon. Gentleman will have heard the different views in this House about technology and surveillance, and it is important to get the balance right. Members should be under no illusion that technology is giving the very baddest people in our society a real advantage, and that takes long-term investment to address.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Last Thursday, I travelled to the Netherlands with Teagan Appleby’s mother, Emma, to pick up the medical cannabis that has reduced Teagan’s seizures from 300 to four a day. In the absence of NHS prescribing, parents like Emma are having to go abroad, or pay exorbitant import and pharmacy charges. Emma had a UK prescription, so met the criteria presented to her at border control to the letter. Why, then, did the Home Office make UK Border Force detain the medicinal cannabis that Teagan so desperately needs?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady will know that I took immediate action to change the law to make medical cannabis available when I first heard about young children who are drug resistant and have severe epilepsy. But rightly—even with that change—it is necessary for a clinician to be involved and for a prescription to be given. Although medical cannabis is now legal with a clinician’s approval, it is still a controlled drug and it is necessary to have some controls to minimise the risk of misuse, harm and diversion. I am very sympathetic to the case that the hon. Lady has raised. We are discussing it with the Department of Health and Social Care and will do all we can to help.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Very, very brief questions because we cannot keep people waiting indefinitely.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Scotland had a 10-year strategy to develop a public health approach to tackle violence, although people in Scotland would argue that it should have been a 15 or 20-year strategy. Will the Government show us how serious they are about taking a public health approach to this issue by committing to a 20-year strategy from the start?
Sajid Javid
Earlier I mentioned the consultation, which—to correct the record—closed at the end of May. I hope that the hon. Lady will input into that consultation. If she has made that suggestion to the consultation, we will be taking it very seriously.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I do not want to spawn intra-family discord. We have heard a voice from Lewisham, so we have to hear a voice from Leyton; I call John Cryer.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Further to Question 7, it is widely known that fire crewing per pump has been cut across the country from five to four, and even from four to three. Although we all know that this is an operational matter, is not the safety of firefighters a ministerial matter as well?
Mr Hurd
The safety of firefighters is of huge interest to Ministers, and it is something that we do keep an eye on, but the hon. Gentleman is right in his fundamental point: these operating decisions are best taken locally. [Interruption.] He makes a face, but we cannot have a Minister sitting here and making judgments on what is right when it comes to allocating resources to risk in Cleveland, Cumbria or anywhere else.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I am sorry to disappoint colleagues, but we have time for only one more question. I call Alison Thewliss.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
My constituent, Eryaar Popalzai, came to the UK from Afghanistan at the age of 14 some five years ago, as an unaccompanied minor asylum seeker. Since his further submissions in 2017, he has yet to hear anything from the Home Office. He is an incredibly vulnerable young man and has been getting therapy from Freedom from Torture for three years. What do I tell him when he comes to my surgery this Friday?
Caroline Nokes
I am happy to take up this specific case with the hon. Lady after questions, if she would like. One of the changes that the Home Office has made over the course of the past few weeks is to ensure that we are prioritising older cases and cases of more vulnerable asylum seekers, so that we can get through the backlog of cases and ensure that people such as her constituent get a response.
New Member
Murders in Northamptonshire: Serious Case Reviews
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the findings of two serious case reviews into the murders of two toddlers in Northamptonshire.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
The deaths of Dylan in 2017 and Evelyn-Rose in 2018 were both tragic and, indeed, horrific. Separate serious case reviews were published on 5 June this year by Northamptonshire’s local safeguarding children board. The serious case reviews highlight serious weaknesses in child safeguarding practice and partnership arrangements at those times, and together make 16 recommendations for Northamptonshire and its safeguarding partners to implement.
These events have highlighted the serious systemic issues in Northamptonshire. I want to assure the House that we have already begun taking action. Since those deaths, and following an Ofsted focused visit in 2018 that exposed a more general decline in the quality of services, my Department has appointed a highly experienced commissioner, Malcolm Newsam CBE, to ensure that improvements take place, and has increased improvement support from Lincolnshire County Council—one of the best in the country for children’s social care. The commissioner has already identified six priority areas for significant improvement to effectively improve outcomes for children. He has identified the importance of learning from the tragic deaths of these two young children and others. I have written to Malcolm today to ask that he continue to put learning from Dylan and Evelyn-Rose’s deaths and the recommendations from these reviews firmly into his future work.
I have already set out my intention, on the recommendation of the commissioner, to create an operationally independent children’s service trust serving Northamptonshire to drive improvement in services. I can announce to the House today that I have issued a statutory direction to the council to work with the commissioner on the creation of that trust by July 2020.
Andrew Gwynne
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question on these horrific and tragic cases. I thank the Minister for his heartfelt response. I also thank the shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), for highlighting this issue to the Government during business questions last Thursday.
Last week, two serious case reviews were published in Northamptonshire on the deaths of these two toddlers. Both these very young children were systematically let down by the local authority, Northamptonshire County Council—an institution that was supposedly there to protect them. The reports examined the deaths of Dylan Tiffin-Brown, aged two, when he died of a cardiac failure after his father assaulted him in December 2017, and Evelyn-Rose Muggleton, aged one, when she died in hospital days after being assaulted by her mother’s partner in April 2018.
I hope that we will now see—I believe that we will—Ministers use everything in their power to ensure that this public institution does not fail children again and to prevent other tragedies from happening elsewhere.
I note that a serious case review into the death of a third child remains confidential. The review looked into the case of a boy from Northampton who was locked in a room, beaten and abused. The parents were jailed for neglect last month, with professionals describing it as the worst case of child cruelty that they had seen in 25 years.
The two published reviews highlight key misjudgements from staff about the level of danger posed by the men to the two children and failures to act on warnings that the children were at risk. Northamptonshire safeguarding children board said that there were “lost opportunities” leading up to the murders and that the two children’s safety was “seriously undermined” after the significance of the killers’ criminal past and history of domestic abuse was overlooked by agencies.
Dylan died aged two after sustaining 39 injuries to his face, neck, torso and limbs, including 15 rib fractures and lacerations to his liver. After a sustained beating at home by his father—a drug dealer from Northampton who was convicted of murder in October 2018—a post-mortem found cocaine, heroin and cannabis in the two-year-old’s body at the time of death. No social worker saw Dylan in the two months between his being discovered at his father’s home during a police drugs raid and his death at his father’s hands.
Evelyn-Rose, aged one, died three days after sustaining a traumatic brain injury from her mother’s partner. She had received multiple bruising and bleeding injuries, including damage to her spine and both eyes. Social care and health agencies that had been involved with the family had failed to recognise the neglect that was taking place. The safeguarding children board stated that two social workers had been allocated to the case, but that the case had started to
“drift, with little if any attention being paid to the children’s welfare”.
Sadly, Northamptonshire’s children’s services have been on the radar since the severe financial troubles at the county council overwhelmed the local authority. The county’s children’s services were said to have “substantially declined” when inspectors were called in during last October’s visit and that a “fundamental shift” in culture was required—something that the Minister acknowledges. Given that, can he assure the House that the financial problems at Northamptonshire are not further jeopardising or worsening the provision of children’s services across the county? If he finds that they are, what representations will he make to Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, to ensure that Northamptonshire has the resources it needs? Is he assured—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am loth to interrupt, because the hon. Gentleman is treating of a matter of the utmost gravity, and I respect that, but I am afraid he has taken two and a half times his allotted time. I feel sure that he is reaching his peroration, which will be of formidable eloquence and brief.
Andrew Gwynne
Thank you, Mr Speaker. These are very serious matters. Is the Minister assured that the authority is able to finance improvements to children’s services both now and during the reorganisation, including the transfer to the trust that he mentioned, and to implement the improvements needed to put right these severe service failings? Lastly, will he intervene and ensure full transparency on the third serious case review, which remains unpublished? This matter is so severe and so serious that every opportunity must now be taken to act.
Nadhim Zahawi
Let me take the last point first, about the third serious case review. Our statutory guidance is clear that local safeguarding children boards must let the independent Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel—the panel, as I will refer to it—and the Department for Education and Ofsted know of any decisions about a serious case review initiation and publication, including the name of any reviewer commissioned, as soon as they have made a final decision. The local safeguarding children board should also set out for the panel and the Secretary of State the justification for any decisions not to initiate or publish a serious case review. They should send copies of all serious case reviews to the panel, the DFE and Ofsted at least seven working days before publication.
There has been and continues to be a great deal of debate about the transparency of the child protection system in England, but there is a presumption that all serious case review reports are published. That is why local safeguarding children boards and the new safeguarding partnerships are required to send copies of all serious case reviews to the panel, the DFE and Ofsted within at least seven days, as I have mentioned. At that point, they would need to provide justification for any decision not to publish the report. The panel has not yet received the draft serious case review in relation to child JL.[Official Report, 23 July 2019, Vol. 663, c. 13MC.] Once the draft serious case review is received, the panel will consider carefully if there is any justification for not publishing the report. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
On our work with the MHCLG, the hon. Gentleman can see that my colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), is on the Front Bench, and we take our work together very seriously. We are working towards the spending review and making sure that funding for children’s services is adequate. Overall, if we look at England, local authorities have made some tough decisions, but they have actually protected the funding for children’s services. I can give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that working with Malcolm Newsam, with the recommendations he has made for me and the trust that we will be delivering for all Northamptonshire’s children, will be the best way forward.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
I thank the Minister and, indeed, the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), for the way they have treated this matter in the House today.
It is with great sadness and a sense of shock that I and others have read these serious case reviews. I have been here since 2010 and, unfortunately, throughout that time I have been raising concerns and cases with the local authority—Northampton’s children’s social services—that have caused me great concern. I am going to see Malcolm Newsam, whose appointment as the Government-appointed children’s commissioner I really do welcome, next week to discuss a number of current cases that I have. Throughout the various reviews and reports we have had on these issues, a serious lack of challenge and reporting has been highlighted in every single one. Can my hon. Friend explain to my constituents why these lessons have yet not been learned?
Nadhim Zahawi
My hon. Friend raises a very powerful point. All I can say to him is that my Department triggered our intervention powers immediately when those concerns in relation to children’s services were raised with me. I hope that, after his meeting with Malcolm Newsam, he will be reassured that we have the right commissioner in there. We are taking those steps, and I have mentioned the direction I have made to the local authority.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
It is impossible not to be moved by these stories. As the saying goes, it takes a community not just to raise, but to protect a child. Surely, early intervention must also be at the heart of all these stories. In Oxfordshire, over 30 children’s centres used to exist; now there are just eight hubs, many of which are far too far away from the most deprived communities. Given how important these centres are and the fact that groups such as Abingdon Carousel have needed to raise funds from county and town councils to keep centres open for a very limited period, will the Minister robustly make the case in the upcoming spending review for why children’s centres are so important to prevent children from getting into this situation?
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Lady raises the issue of children’s centres. I hope that she would commend the troubled families programme, which has reduced by a third the number of children needing to be taken into care. We have announced the strengthening families programme, in which we are scaling up the whole-system approach to children’s services and childcare from Leeds, North Yorkshire and Hertfordshire and investing £84 million to scale that up to another 20 local authorities. They have made it very clear to me that very much part of that whole-system approach is the troubled families programme work that they do.
The hon. Lady also mentioned children’s centres. I am looking at how local authorities make best use of their infrastructure, including children’s centres. Local government—local authorities, local leaders—is best placed to decide how it does that. Staffordshire, which chose to close more than 60 children’s centres, but keep 14 in the areas most promising for reaching the most difficult-to-reach families, has delivered much better outcomes because it has used that resource. It has not taken it away; it has used it for outreach, to go and knock on the doors of families who would never think of coming into a building run by a local authority. There are different models, but we are looking to learn from the best models, including some of the family hubs in places such as Westminster.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I thank the shadow Minister for requesting this urgent question and you, Mr Speaker, for granting it. These are among the most serious issues that anyone in this House could discuss. Evelyn-Rose Muggleton was just one when she was murdered by her mother’s partner. She died in hospital. Evelyn-Rose and her siblings were well known to the local hospital, the local GP and other services, and this clearly was a family in urgent need of assistance from the local authority. Sadly that was not forthcoming.
Responsibility for this must rest with Northamptonshire County Council, which has been dysfunctional for many years, but particularly in children’s social services. This must never happen again, and I welcome the Government’s commitment to put those services into a children’s trust. That is welcome, but the public in Kettering will want to know who is going to take responsibility for this appalling tragedy, and I am afraid that the answer must be the local councillor in charge of children’s social services at the time. That individual now happens to be the leader of Northamptonshire County Council. He is a good man, and he is working very hard to transform the county council into the two new unitaries, but I believe, and my constituents believe, that the buck must stop with the person at the top. Will the Minister therefore join me in calling for Councillor Matt Golby to resign his position as leader of Northamptonshire County Council?
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He spoke powerfully about the injuries that these poor souls sustained and about how they were well known to other services. We legislated in the Children and Social Work Act 2017 to require local areas to establish new, much stronger multi-agency safeguarding arrangements, which I think will enhance the protective net around our most vulnerable children. That includes the police and health as statutory partners. Safeguarding partners in Northamptonshire must publish a plan setting out how they will deliver those arrangements by 29 June and must implement them by 29 September. My Department is monitoring compliance, and we will be asking those partners to work swiftly and collectively to ensure that lessons have been learnt and implemented.
My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not comment on the local political leadership. What I would like to see now is us moving forward with Malcolm Newsam’s recommendations and getting the trust up and running as quickly as possible.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and the Minister for their approach and their responses to this horrific example of child abuse. The connections between the abuse of women and the abuse of children are unfortunately long known, and I am afraid that I could give several similar examples from when I was national children’s officer at Women’s Aid in the 1990s. I have heard previous Ministers and previous Governments say that lessons would be learnt and action taken, yet here we still are. I therefore ask the Minister respectfully, will he work with domestic violence organisations, as well as other organisations of course, to try to really learn the lessons that should be learnt about the connections between abuse by violent men of their children and abuse of their female partners?
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Lady makes a powerful and well-made point. There is, if not causation, then certainly a correlation between people who abuse and hurt children and those who abuse and hurt women. I try to make sure that we learn as much as possible and that we act as quickly as possible, as I think we have in this case.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
These cases are truly harrowing and nothing will ever bring back the young children who so tragically lost their lives at the hands of those who were supposed to be caring for them. I think we are all clear, both locally in Northamptonshire and here in this House, that this can never, ever be allowed to happen again. What steps are being taken to ensure that best practice from other parts of the country is being learnt as a matter of urgency in Northamptonshire to overhaul its children’s services? What ongoing monitoring of those services will be taking place to give my constituents in Corby and east Northamptonshire confidence that in future we will have first class children’s services that protect the young people in their care?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I hope he heard me say earlier that we have Malcolm Newsam. In conjunction with Malcom we have Lincolnshire County Council, which is one of our exemplars in delivering the best services and safeguarding children. The important thing to remember in this case is that we must always ensure that the safety of children comes first. We know that poor practice can cost more money, not less, in the longer term. The director of children’s services has been clear in her statements that funding was not the cause of these tragic incidents, and that system, practice and partnership was where it needs to be. The important thing is that we get on.
In Doncaster, I saw at first hand how children’s services can be transformed. They went from failing with very poor outcomes, to good outcomes for children when we put it into trust. I met the social workers on the frontline, and 70% of them are the same people who were there when the local authority was failing. I said, “I want all the directors out of the room. I want to talk to just the frontline.” I said to them, “What is the difference here? What have you done here that has transformed the service? You are the same people who were here when it was failing.” They said it was all about leadership: leadership that supported, trusted and nurtured them, and delivered that support for them. Those are the sorts of lessons we need to learn in order to be able to deliver the same level of success as Doncaster.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Funding may not have had a direct effect, but surely the Minister needs to recognise that, with the huge cuts to local authorities and a national shortage of well-qualified social workers putting enormous pressure on social services systems around the country, we are seeing a crisis in one area responded to by putting in extra money and bidding up social workers’ wages, allowing them to move to solve one problem but creating gaps in other areas. Surely the Minister needs to take a much more systemic view of what is going on in social services up and down the country, and recognise that funding is an issue.
Nadhim Zahawi
I think—I hope—I have been clear in saying that I recognise there are funding pressures on children’s services. I am working with the director of children’s services and the sector as a whole in preparation for the spending review. However, to simply characterise this as a funding issue would be misleading. We have to do both things. We have to have a whole-system approach. We are learning from the best—Leeds, North Yorkshire and Hertfordshire—and scaling those models from those three local authorities to 20. We also have to look at the workforce, and by introducing the national accreditation assessment process and Social Work England we begin to deliver a system that really does work to protect the most vulnerable children and families in our society.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I speak as a former Minister who changed the rules so that SCRs are published. The regulations are clear that if publication would compromise the welfare of a surviving child or sibling, they should be kept confidential. From reading these serious case reviews, I feel that there is a profound sense of déjà vu when they talk about the lack of joined-up working and the lack of information, showing lost opportunities. Last year, the Minister announced that he was going to change serious case reviews and the local safeguarding children’s boards who commission them. They will be replaced by team safeguarding partners, which consist of local authorities, clinical commissioning groups and the police. The only agency that seems to have rung the alarm bells in this case was the schools attended by the siblings of the victims. Why are schools and education not part of those essential team partners in the new format?
Nadhim Zahawi
My hon. Friend is absolutely passionate about work in this area. Schools and other local partners are involved and engaged, but the purpose of the legislation was to make sure that health, police and social services work together. However, he raises an important point about how we can make sure that schools are much more involved.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I am not attacking the Minister, but for years, his predecessors have come to the Dispatch Box and said, “We are going to learn the lessons. It’s not going to happen again.” Some years ago, I took a delegation to meet one of his predecessors and we were assured that resources would be available, but we are back at square one today, and I feel very sorry about what has happened to these kids in Northampton, as much as I do about some of the things that have happened to kids in Coventry. The Minister really has to get a grip on this now. It is no good talking about good practice in one authority as opposed to another. He has to face up to it: there is a shortage of social workers and a lack of resources in local government.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for at least not blaming this Minister, but nevertheless, he raises a very important point. One of our innovations is the introduction of a national panel, chaired by Edward Timpson, which has a remit to make sure that nationally we learn the lessons from such terrible cases. For the first time, it will undertake national reviews. The first of those reviews is on the criminal exploitation of children, so we are learning the lessons and putting the infrastructure in place to be able to do that and act upon it.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
I have met Malcolm Newsam several times and will do so again shortly. I have a lot of confidence in him. The proposed children’s trust model seems like the right way forward and particularly the “children first” focus and the focus on the child rather than necessarily on the mother or other carers involved. We have heard about the role of the community from the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). While the children’s trust model is welcome in many places, will the Minister provide assurances that local democratic oversight will continue to be involved in it?
Nadhim Zahawi
It is very important that there is local democratic oversight. When I look at the areas that deliver the best outcomes and best practice, I see that it is a combination of very strong leadership at local authority level—so, the officer class—and strong political leadership, including from councillors who really understand their remit to protect children.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
This is a deeply harrowing case and I appreciate the Minister’s focus on leadership; he is absolutely right about that. I hope that he can also see the connection between leadership and properly funded services. Surely it is very difficult for even the best leaders to lead adequately if they have an insufficient supply of skilled staff.
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point overall about funding and the challenge of funding for children’s services. In this case, it is also important for us to understand the detail. Sally Hodges, the director of children’s services, told the Local Government Chronicle:
“It was because of the failure of a number of people through the whole system in respect of risk to those children. I don’t think financial matters had a direct impact.”
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point overall, but in this tragic case, it is not about simply saying that the money was not there.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Northamptonshire had the most expensive children’s services in the country, so funding wasn’t the issue, was it?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for that powerful intervention by my right hon. Friend. As he rightly says, it is not simply about funding; the issue is much more fundamental in Northamptonshire, which is why we have made the right decision in taking it into trust.
Hong Kong
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the impact of the Hong Kong extradition law on the Sino-British joint declaration.
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
The UK Government remain acutely aware of our enduring responsibility towards Hong Kong as one of the joint signatories to the 1984 joint declaration that established the principle of “one country, two systems”. This principle, underpinned by the common law system, provides Hong Kong with the foundations for its continued success as a truly global financial centre and prosperous world city.
Let me turn to the current issues around the ramifications of the Hong Kong Government’s contentious proposals to change their extradition laws. Yesterday’s huge protest march—peaceful right up until the end—was a clear demonstration of the strength of feeling in Hong Kong. Hong Kong’s Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, has insisted that new legislation is needed to close a loophole that has prevented a Hong Kong national accused of murdering another Hong Kong national in Taiwan from facing justice, yet the Taiwanese Administration also oppose the changes, while civil society and business and legal groups in Hong Kong have expressed the strongest concerns about the content of the proposals and the very short consultation period.
Many fear above all that Hong Kong nationals and residents risk being pulled into China’s legal system, which can involve lengthy pre-trial detentions, televised confessions and an absence of many of the judicial safeguards that we see in Hong Kong and in the UK. While we welcome recent efforts by the Hong Kong Government to react to the unprecedented level of public concern—of the 7 million people living in Hong Kong, between 300,000 and 1 million were on the streets yesterday—the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is clear that the changes proposed fail to address fully some core issues that we and others have raised.
The UK Government have been unequivocal in their views. From the outset, the consul general, Andy Heyn, and my officials have been raising concerns with the Hong Kong Government, members of the Hong Kong Legislative Council and the Executive Council at all levels. We have also had full and detailed discussions with Chief Executive Carrie Lam, both bilaterally and as part of an EU démarche. On 30 May, the Foreign Secretary issued a joint statement with his Canadian counterpart on the potential impact of the proposals on our citizens in Hong Kong, including on business confidence and on Hong Kong’s international reputation.
Some Hong Kong lawmakers have proposed an array of alternative solutions, including that additional legally binding human rights safeguards be included in the proposed legislation. In my meeting in London on 20 May with Hong Kong Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, Edward Yau, I made it clear that proper consideration must be given to all these suggestions as part of a wider and more comprehensive consultation. More time for consultation would allow for a more adequate consensus to be built.
As the House will be aware, the operation of the court system on mainland China is very different from that which applies in Hong Kong. There are widespread concerns that fear of extradition to China might have a chilling effect on Hong Kong’s rights and freedoms and result in increased self-censorship. We shall continue to stress to the Hong Kong and Chinese authorities that for confidence in the “one country, two systems” policy to be maintained, Hong Kong must enjoy the full measure of its high degree of autonomy and rule of law as set out in the joint declaration and enshrined in the Basic Law.
Catherine West
It is very disappointing that the Secretary of State could not make it to the Chamber for the 1 million Hong Kong residents who took to the streets yesterday to protest against their Government’s proposed extradition Bill. If enacted, the law would allow suspected criminals to be extradited to mainland China, bypassing Hong Kong’s independent legal system. Over the past few weeks, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the business community, civil society organisations, the Hong Kong Bar Association and the International Chamber of Commerce have all expressed deep concern that the Bill will further erode the “one country, two systems” model.
The law courts on mainland China are seen as an arm of the state. Forced confession is frequently practised and activists often fear imprisonment for crimes they have not committed. Hong Kong’s common law system is not open to such abuse, as the Minister mentioned in his introductory remarks, and although it is under pressure, the separation of powers remains more or less intact. The amendments to the extradition law would significantly compromise the firewall that separates the sharply different systems.
In recent times, we have watched with great unease as political and civic freedoms have been put under increasing strain. Those freedoms are guaranteed under the Basic Law, a core component of the Sino-British joint declaration. As the co-signatory to that treaty, which is registered at the United Nations, the Government have a legal duty to ensure that it is upheld.
The last Governor of Hong Kong, Lord Patten of Barnes, said that this Bill’s provisions were
“an assault on Hong Kong’s values, stability and security. They create fear and uncertainty…at a time when we should all be working to safeguard Hong Kong’s reputation as one of the world’s greatest business”
and cultural centres. Does the Minister agree with his colleague’s assessment, and will he outline how the Government intend to address this issue in the immediate future, alongside long-standing concerns about the erosion of democratic principles in Hong Kong?
We have a long and enduring history with Hong Kong, and we have lasting political, economic and cultural ties. As we mark the 21st anniversary of the handover next month, it is crucial for us to keep our promise that “Hong Kong will never walk alone”.
Mark Field
I thank the hon. Lady for the tone of her comments. She will be aware from discussions that we have had—and I have visited Hong Kong twice already during my time as a Minister—that we understand many of the concerns which have been raised by Lord Patten and, indeed, by her. In particular, we understand the concerns raised in the most recent six-monthly report—not without some controversy do we continue to have a six-monthly report—which states that, while we believe that one country, two systems is working well, in the sphere of civil and political freedoms Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy is being reduced.
Let me say this in relation to the joint declaration as a whole. Three years ago, in 2016, we called on a breach of the declaration following the involuntary removal of the Causeway Bay booksellers from Hong Kong to the mainland. That was the first and, to date, the only time that we have called upon a breach. However, it is clear that these events are becoming close to breaching not just the spirit but the letter of the joint declaration. I fear that this is also a good example of tough cases making bad law. There is a potential loophole, but it is interesting to note that it is not one that the Taiwanese authorities have asked to be sorted out.
A Hong Kong national is being accused of a very serious crime—murder—and there is clearly no extradition prospect, but, as the hon. Lady rightly pointed out, this opens up a potentially much broader extradition-related concern. As I mentioned in my initial comments, one of the biggest concerns is that, particularly at a time when President Xi has a strong anti-corruption campaign in place, there is a risk that individuals could be caught up in this in a very inadvertent way. While there are proposed safeguards—it is proposed to raise the extradition level from a three-year custodial sentence to one of at least seven years—the situation none the less still raises the deep concerns to which the hon. Lady referred.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Lord Patten has said that the decision to exclude any extradition agreement between Hong Kong and mainland China in 1997 was not a loophole, but a deliberate decision that was made in order to protect the autonomy of Hong Kong and the firewall between it and China. Does the Minister agree that if countries speak with one voice in expressing concerns about this issue, there is likely to be more of an impact? What is the UK doing to join like-minded countries in expressing such concerns?
Mark Field
I thank my hon. Friend, who takes a great interest in matters to do broadly with China but also specifically with Hong Kong, and I pay tribute to her for her detailed and steadfast work in that regard. Yes, she is right: we need to work together as an international community on this. It is perhaps fair to put it on record that there are already some extradition arrangements between some countries and Hong Kong, but obviously we are deeply concerned that this particular law provides a much more general overview, particularly as it engages the Chinese mainland. But I will, if I may, reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and his Canadian counterpart, Christina Freeland, said as recently as 30 May:
“It is vital that extradition arrangements in Hong Kong are in line with ‘one country, two systems’ and fully respect Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy.”
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I also want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) on securing it. I share her profound concern about these extradition laws, as evidently do hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong citizens who took to the streets over the weekend. These laws constitute not just an erosion but a fundamental breach of the Sino-British declaration and the one country, two systems principle it enshrines. They threaten the judicial independence of Hong Kong.
The warning signs have been coming for several years now: we have seen an increasing crackdown on dissent and protest. Now we face the prospect of a direct line between Beijing and Hong Kong’s courts that could see Hong Kongers sent thousands of miles away to face trial in mainland China’s flawed criminal justice system.
The UK does not have an extradition treaty with China, so why have the Government done next to nothing? The joint declaration is a legally binding treaty registered with the United Nations, and the British Government are the joint guarantor with China of the rights of Hong Kong citizens. Moreover, there are 170,000 British national overseas passport holders, many of whom reside in Hong Kong.
The concessions offered by the Hong Kong Government in the last few hours have no legal force, so I have one question for the Minister: will he make every effort to persuade the Executive in Hong Kong to halt the progress of these highly dangerous extradition amendments before Wednesday’s crunch votes?
Mark Field
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, although I think some of them are a little unkind to officials, Ministers and also more particularly our excellent consul general, Andy Heyn, who has been out in Hong Kong, as we have recognised that this issue has been emerging for quite some time. As I mentioned in my earlier comments, it is also fair to say that we have consistently, certainly in my two years as a Minister, at every six-monthly report expressed ongoing concerns about the deterioration, as we have seen it, in political and civil rights.
It is probably fair to say that these proposals—the proposed extradition law—did not originate at China’s instigation, but there is no doubt that the Hong Kong Government are now under distinct pressure from Beijing. We believe that some opportunities to climb down have been missed, but even the huge public display of defiance yesterday—as I have said, up until the last few moments it was very peaceable—combined with concerted opposition from the international business and legal communities has not been able to turn the tide.
I say to the hon. Lady that of course we will do all we can. Andy Heyn is I believe in London this week, but his very able assistant Esther Blythe is back in Hong Kong, and we will do all we can to make further urgent representations to the Hong Kong Government.
This issue has highlighted that it is not the Chief Executive and not even the Legislative Council that can provide an effective check to external influence in Hong Kong; it is the presence and continuation of an independent judicial system. Obviously, again as the hon. Lady rightly alluded to, it now looks as though we are heading towards a potential pitting of the Hong Kong judicial system squarely against that of Beijing.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I agree with the Minister: the United Kingdom has a serious and special obligation to defend civil liberties in Hong Kong. One of the leaders of the Hong Kong pro-democracy movement said in a note last week that these new extradition amendments and this Bill will, if passed,
“have destructive effects on our civil liberties as well as on our economy.”
Does the Minister agree with that assessment, and does he feel we are discharging our obligation to defend civil liberties in Hong Kong as fully as we can at the present time?
Mark Field
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and I broadly agree with what has been said. I hope that the work of democracy and diplomacy will ensure that we are able to do our best not only to push back but to advise and express our deep concerns. We have only to look at the recent six-monthly reports to recognise the increasing buzz of concern on our side and indeed from many in Hong Kong in relation to this matter. In particular, the extradition treaty has engaged many in the business community, many of whom have felt broadly positive over the past 22 years. One of the messages we put to our counterparts in Beijing is that a strong Hong Kong is required for their own plans, whether on the belt and road or other economic initiatives, to be fully successful. Hong Kong’s unique legal system provides an opportunity for substantial capital markets. The great success of Hong Kong therefore relies on its high degree of autonomy being maintained.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) on securing this urgent question and I thank you for granting it, Mr Speaker.
Anyone who saw last week’s remarkable documentary by Kate Adie to mark the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre will not need to be reminded what respect for human rights means to the Government of China. Although people will say that China has moved on since then, it has not moved on enough even to admit that Tiananmen Square happened, never mind to apologise to the relatives of all those who were killed. Most people in China do not know that the weekend’s protests in Hong Kong happened because the Chinese Government made absolutely sure that they were not allowed to know about them. That is the extent of the ongoing repression of human rights in China and we should all be concerned that a similar repression of human rights will start to be inflicted on the people of Hong Kong as well.
Normally, under an extradition treaty, a person cannot be extradited for an offence that is not a crime in the country they would be extradited from. That will not apply in these circumstances, however, because China will not respect the terms of any treaty with Hong Kong. Also, a person cannot normally be extradited to a country where they would not get a fair trial, but does anyone seriously believe that that protection would be respected for anyone in Hong Kong? I welcome some of the assurances that the Minister has given, but will he say a bit more about what action the United Kingdom is taking just now—through the United Nations, for example—to ensure that all possible international diplomatic pressure is brought to bear, not just in Hong Kong but, more importantly, in China to ensure that this law never becomes effective? Also, given that China is one of the countries that we are supposed to be looking keenly towards for a trade deal, may we have an assurance that in no circumstances will the prospect of a trade deal allow the voice of the United Kingdom and our allies in Europe to be silenced when it comes to speaking up in defence of the rights of people to whom the United Kingdom continues to owe a legal and moral responsibility?
Mark Field
I thank the hon. Gentleman from the Scottish National party for his comments and I will try to answer his questions. It is obviously not my place as a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to comment on the specifics of trade deals other than to say that we will continue relentlessly to express any concerns about human rights with any country with which we are looking to strike a trade deal. That said, this is a particular circumstance because of the nature of the joint declaration. The hon. Gentleman rightly suggested that that document, which was signed by China and the United Kingdom in 1984, is now lodged with the United Nations and that is clearly one mechanism by which we could try to stand up for its terms. Back in 2016, there was a particular episode in which we thought the joint declaration was being abused and, if we feel that we are not getting the changes we are looking for on this extradition law, we will use whatever means we can.
The Hong Kong Government released a statement at 11 o’clock last night, Hong Kong time, noting the people’s right to freedom of expression and assembly, but insisting that the Bill would continue to its Second Reading on Wednesday. Chief Executive Carrie Lam reiterated that message on television this morning, again Hong Kong time, and we are obviously looking to try to ensure that the safeguards put in place over the next two or three days are as watertight as possible. However, this is an ongoing discussion and I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we want to leave all our options open.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Beyond the Minister’s evident charm, what leverage do we actually have?
Mark Field
I thank my right hon. Friend, as ever, for his charming and succinct question. He has obviously been to the same school as you, Mr Speaker, in that regard. The reality of the situation is that there is an international agreement that was signed with the UN, and we and many other international partners take it seriously. I hope that my right hon. Friend was reassured when he heard what I had to say about our discussions with our Canadian counterparts—a significant number of Canadian nationals live and work in Hong Kong—which happened as recently as 30 May. The message that is coming out loud and clear is that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) said earlier, we need the international community to work together. This is clearly a crucial point in Hong Kong’s history, and our legal leverage may be more limited than we would wish, but we can maximise it by working together.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
The worries about this breaking of the firewall and the possible intrusion into one country, two systems would not exist if there were not serious concerns about egregious breaches of human rights in China. What further information can the Minister provide about the discussions between the UK Government and the Chinese Government about improving human rights in China more generally?
Mark Field
As I have pointed out to the hon. Lady in our previous exchanges, we never stint from making our concerns clear in relation to issues in Xinjiang in the north-west of the country or more general issues around human rights. We have a strong diplomatic relationship with China that involves working together in a productive way in a range of areas, including tackling money laundering, people trafficking and, increasingly, climate change. Building up that body of trust also involves being able to have robust conversations about human rights matters. At the highest possible level, when the Prime Minister spoke to President Xi and when I speak to my counterparts in Beijing and other cities, we do not stint from making clear particular concerns where there are concerns, either on consular matters or, indeed, more generally on human rights.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Coincidentally, earlier this afternoon, I met a group of students from Hong Kong who are studying here. They are British national (overseas) passport holders, and they are obviously concerned about the recent developments in relation to China. What consideration has the Department given to the effect that the proposed changes would have on BN(O) passport holders in Hong Kong? What steps is the Foreign Office taking to provide ongoing support and advice to BN(O) passport holders in Hong Kong?
Mark Field
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is absolutely right that we have significant obligations to British national (overseas) passport holders. He will be aware that the right of abode in the UK was defined by the Immigration Act 1971, so there are immigration controls to which BN(O) passport holders are subject. The rights they have are not the full rights of British citizens. None the less, they are British nationals from Hong Kong. It is something that we do take very seriously. I hope that he will forgive me if say that I will write to him in due course to try to answer his specific issues, with particular regard to any changes to the rights of such individuals since 1997.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Second Reading of the Bill to implement these changes will take place on Wednesday. Legislators in Hong Kong have told me today that they anticipate that, thereafter, the remaining stages of the Bill could be completed as early as the middle of the week after next. If that happens, clearly the Minister’s aspiration for more consultation will be dead in the water. What will he do then?
Mark Field
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he says. It would clearly be of grave concern. There is an almost universal view, and not just from those who were on the streets of Hong Kong yesterday. Increasingly, business organisations based in Hong Kong and, indeed, around the world are asking for greater consultation. I would rather not speculate as to where we might be if the path he describes is taken over the next 10 days, and I sincerely hope that will not come to pass.
Mr Speaker, you may be aware that the right hon. Gentleman has the Adjournment debate, in which we will be covering a little of this ground. I hope he will forgive me—I will want to talk more generally later about the relations between the UK, Hong Kong and China.
Mr Speaker
I am most grateful for that public information announcement. It is potentially of interest to people observing our proceedings that this debate will indeed be resumed in the form of tonight’s Adjournment debate, under the auspices of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), specifically on UK foreign policy in relation to China and Hong Kong.
Moreover, I will have the great honour and privilege tomorrow night of hosting a dinner in support of Hong Kong Watch, which, to put it bluntly, is a splendid organisation that has been set up to keep an eye on what the Chinese Government are up to in relation to Hong Kong. That organisation is magnificently led on a day-to-day basis by the estimable Ben Rogers, who as I speak might well be in our midst.
Grenfell: Government Response
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the Government’s response to the Grenfell Tower fire. I am also writing to the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), to provide a formal report on progress, a copy of which will be placed in the Library.
First, I will take a brief moment to thank all those who responded to yesterday’s serious fire in Barking, east London. The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham provided emergency accommodation for those residents who needed it, and we will continue to work with the council to ensure that residents receive the support they need at this most difficult time.
Although the cause of the fire has yet to be confirmed, I have asked the Building Research Establishment to investigate the fire, working with the London fire brigade. I have also asked the independent expert panel on wider fire safety issues to provide urgent advice to the Government. We will take account of the findings of the investigation and of the panel’s advice in our further work on reviewing the fire safety guidance. The local authority and the building owners are reviewing fire safety for the rest of the development. I remain in close contact with the London fire brigade, and I will be visiting the community later today.
As we mark two years since the devastating events of 14 June, I know the whole House will join me in remembrance and solidarity with the people of north Kensington. I want them to know that this House is behind them in honouring the loved ones they lost, in helping those left behind to heal and rebuild their lives and in our determination to ensure that nothing like this can ever happen again.
The unprecedented disaster has been met with an unprecedented response across the Government, our public services, local government and the voluntary sector. I am hugely thankful to everyone involved, especially our emergency services and the public and voluntary sectors. In total, we have spent over £46 million of national Government funds and committed a further £55 million to help meet rehousing costs, to reimburse the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea for the Grenfell site management costs, to deliver new health and wellbeing services and to deliver improvements to the Lancaster West estate.
Over £27.8 million of the nearly £29 million raised through the generosity of the British public has also now been distributed, thanks to the Charity Commission. Those affected are also getting vital support from the NHS, with a further £50 million committed over the next five years to address long-term physical and mental health needs. To date, nearly 8,000 health screenings have been completed, including for more than 900 children, with more than 2,700 individuals, including more than 600 children, receiving or having received treatment for trauma.
We are determined to make sure those affected remain at the heart of the response to this tragedy, which is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd) continues to meet families regularly, in his role as the Grenfell victims Minister. It is why the Prime Minister recently appointed two new panel members for phase 2 of the Grenfell Tower public inquiry, to make sure it has the necessary diversity of skills and experience. And it is why the community will be pivotal to decisions about the long-term future of the site, as the Government take ownership of this, to ensure that sensitivities are respected and that they are fully engaged in additional environmental checks, after concerns were raised. Testing has started, to assess any health risk, and we will ensure that all appropriate action is taken.
Clearly, one of our biggest priorities has been rehousing the 201 households who lost their homes, with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea acquiring more than 300 homes to meet their needs and provide choice. I am pleased that all 201 households have accepted permanent or temporary homes, with 184 households in permanent accommodation and 14 in good-quality temporary homes. That represents significant progress since last year, but I am concerned that three households remain in emergency accommodation, including one in a hotel. I asked the independent Grenfell Recovery Taskforce, which was set up to ensure that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea better supported residents and rebuilds trust, to look into this, and I have been assured that the council is taking an appropriate and sensitive approach, given the complex needs of those households, to find the right long-term solution for each of them.
A new home is undoubtedly an important step on the road to recovery, and it is vital that this is reinforced by long-term support, such as the recovery services co-designed by the council, in partnership with the community and local health partners. It is essential that we build on this collaboration, with the council listening and the community being heard. That is fundamental to laying the foundations for a new and stronger partnership between residents and those who serve them.
Central to this relationship, and indeed to so much of the work flowing from the fire, is the need to rebuild trust. Above all, that means ensuring that people are safe and feel safe in their homes. With that in mind, right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that we launched a consultation last week on proposals to implement meaningful reform to our building and fire safety regulatory systems, following the independent review led by Dame Judith Hackitt, to provide a clear focus on responsibility and accountability and to give residents a stronger voice to achieve the enduring change that is needed.
Alongside that, the Government also launched a call for evidence on the fire safety order to determine what changes may be required to strengthen it. This follows the recent launch of a new fund to expedite the remediation of buildings with unsafe aluminium composite material cladding in the private sector and protect leaseholders, adding up to a £600 million commitment from the Government to make the buildings of both the private and social sectors safe.
This builds on other significant measures we have undertaken, such as a ban on combustible cladding, a review of the building regulations fire safety guidance—or Approved Document B—and tests on non-ACM materials, to not only keep people safe now, but to fundamentally transform the way we build in the future, through legislation, yes, but, more crucially, through a change in culture. But I know that we must continue to challenge on what more needs to be done.
People living in buildings like Grenfell Tower need to trust that there can be no repeat of what happened that night—to trust that the state understands their lives and is working for them. That is why the social housing Green Paper, published last year, and the new deal it sets out for people living in social housing matter so much. My thanks go to the many residents who have engaged with us on this for their invaluable contribution. We are assessing the consultation responses and finalising our response. The deal it proposes aims to rebalance the relationship between residents and landlords, to address stigma and to ensure that homes are safe and decent. In addition to our drive, backed by billions, to boost the supply of social housing, the deal promises to renew our commitment to people in social housing, ensuring that everyone, no matter where they live, has the security, dignity and opportunities they need to build a better life.
Ultimately, that is our hope for the bereaved and survivors and for the strong, proud people of north Kensington, who have shown us the power of community. They and we will never, ever forget those who died in the most horrific circumstances. I know that the pain of loss continues as they wait for answers and to see justice done, as the police investigation and public inquiry continue their important work, but they should know that they are not alone: the Government, this House and, indeed, our whole country will always have a stake in the future of Grenfell, and I have every faith that this remarkable community, working in partnership, will move forward, rebuild and emerge even stronger. I commend this statement to the House.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his statement. At the start of this, the week of the second anniversary of that truly terrible Grenfell Tower fire, above all else we remember the 72 men, women and children who lost their lives, and we rededicate ourselves to doing everything needed to ensure that such a fire can never happen again.
The Grenfell survivors and families who are with us today will draw little comfort or confidence from the Secretary of State’s update statement. He made no new announcement and offered no new action. Earlier, he and I both spoke at the two-year Grenfell memorial event, with you, Mr Speaker, in Speaker’s House. Those survivors from Grenfell United who are still campaigning for change told us today:
“We shouldn’t be here; we should be at home, rebuilding our lives”.
They said that in two years:
“Little has changed and justice still seems so far off”.
There has been over these two long years some progress, which we welcome and for which individual Members and Ministers, including the Secretary of State, deserve some credit, but a national disaster on the scale of Grenfell Tower requires a national response on the same scale from the Government. That has not happened.
Ministers have been frozen like rabbits in the headlights. Their action has been too slow and too weak on every front. There has been the failure to rehouse survivors, despite the promise that every victim of the fire would have a new permanent home within one year. There has been a failure to give justice to the Grenfell community: despite the first phase of the public inquiry first having been due to report at Easter last year, it has still not been published. There has been a failure to re-clad other dangerous high-rise blocks: despite 176 private blocks having been confirmed to have the same Grenfell-style ACM cladding, nine out of 10 have still not had it removed and replaced, and more than 70 of the block owners do not even have a plan to do the work. There also has been a failure to identify unsafe non-ACM cladding, despite the Government’s testing contract having set a completion deadline of November 2018. There has been a failure to overhaul building safety legislation, despite the final report of the Hackitt review having been published in May 2018.
Yesterday, there was the fire at Barking, where early reports point to serious problems: as at Grenfell, the De Pass Gardens residents raised safety concerns and were ignored; wood cladding was untreated for fire safety because the developer was not required to treat it; and the local council did not have the necessary powers to act to deal with this private development.
Will the Secretary of State now take up the five-point plan that Labour has published today to force the pace? If he does, he will have our full backing for such action. Will he name and shame the owners of blocks with dangerous cladding? Will he set a December deadline for the block owners to get work done? Will he update the sanctions available to councils under the Housing Act 2004 to include fines, followed by the takeover of blocks that still have dangerous cladding? Will he widen the Government’s testing regime to run full tests on all suspect non-ACM cladding? Will he bring in the long overdue overhaul of building safety legislation?
Finally, will the Secretary of State accept that only such tough action—only such far-reaching changes—will provide the proper legacy for those who perished at Grenfell Tower and that only such action and such changes will allow us all finally to say, with confidence, this can never happen again in our country?
James Brokenshire
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution and for the important points he has made to the House this afternoon. Indeed, Mr Speaker, may I also thank you for allowing your State Rooms to be used this lunchtime to enable survivors, the bereaved and others to come together to share their very powerful and important experiences and to underline to us very clearly why this matters so much and why we must be resolute in the actions that we take?
The right hon. Gentleman also highlighted the work of so many who have campaigned on this matter. We note today the role of Grenfell United, and I appreciate and recognise the huge contribution that it has made. He is right to say that, no, its representatives should not be here. I commend them for the challenge and the very effective way in which they have underlined the needs of their community. I will certainly continue to work with them and bring about the change that I think is needed.
The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of important points. On rehousing, we remain deeply concerned about the three individuals—the three households—who are still in emergency accommodation. I can underline the fact that each household has a property reserved for it. Sensitivity is needed in undertaking this work, but we will continue to support and to challenge until all residents have a long-term home in place, because that is what matters to all of us, which is why the taskforce continues to challenge and to support us to ensure that that happens.
The right hon. Gentleman highlighted the issue of the remediation of ACM cladding as well. He will know well the frustration that I have had with the private sector, which has not done the job that it should have done. Some responsibility can be placed very firmly there, which is why we have provided an additional £200 million for the very purpose of speeding up the process so that blocks are remediated and made safe. Progress is certainly being made. If we look at the remediation in the social sector, we can see that good progress has been made there. At the end of April, remediation had started or been completed on 87% of the 158 social sector buildings, with plans in place for the remainder. We are obviously seeing some progress in relation to the private sector.
The right hon. Gentleman highlighted the issue of local authorities and their need to see that enforcement is in place. I agree with him. That is why we are backing local authorities to take enforcement action where building owners are refusing to remediate high-rise buildings with unsafe cladding. This will include financial support, where that is necessary, for the local authority to carry out emergency remedial works. Where emergency financial support is made available, the relevant local authority will recover the costs from the building owner. Of course, we want to see this work completed as rapidly as possible, and I understand his desire to see some form of hard stop—some sort of certainty in relation to this. I say to him that some of the required work is extensive and complicated, and, indeed, that other issues, or other areas of work, may be highlighted in respect of individual buildings, but it is right that we continue to press on and take action.
Let me underline the actions that we have taken. We launched a consultation last week on proposals to implement meaningful reform to our building safety and fire regulatory systems following the independent review led by Dame Judith Hackitt, with the intent to bring forward legislation later this year, in the next Session. We want to get this reform on to the statute book and make it happen. We have taken steps with the ban on combustible cladding. We have taken steps to see that action is advanced and that buildings are made safe, and, indeed, we have taken steps with the remediation programme that is in place. Yes, there is absolutely more work to be done, and I do not shrink from that. I do not shrink from the challenge presented by the right hon. Gentleman or others across the House. I assure him and the community of our resolute determination to make that change so that people can feel—and are—safe, and to provide that lasting legacy to all those who died in the fire.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for opening your State Rooms today so that hon. Members could meet many of the survivors of Grenfell. I share the frustration expressed to me by many survivors today that, two years on, not enough progress has been made. I appeal to the Secretary of State to put his foot on the accelerator and move forward more quickly. I speak as a representative of an area of the country that has no tower blocks, but immediately after the fire and the tragedy my constituents told me that the Government are expected to do everything and anything they can to protect and support the victims, and to ensure that such a tragedy never happens again. I am not sure that we are moving quickly enough. I know that we are saying the right things, that we want to do the right things, and that we want be disciplined and respectful regarding the process, but may I appeal to the Secretary of State to move forward more quickly? By doing so, he will get my support and that of my constituents.
James Brokenshire
Absolutely. It is important—especially in the remediation of this highest-risk ACM cladding—that we make as speedy progress as possible. We intend to attach conditions to the funds being made available to the private sector, for example, to show that this is able to progress quickly. Indeed, we have already written to all relevant building owners to set some expectations and outline things that they need to have in place, so that we do not lose time. What needs to happen could not be more fundamental, which is why I took the step to ban combustible materials on the external walls of residential high-rise buildings and other high-risk buildings. There is a firm commitment to seeing that that action is taken.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for hosting Grenfell United in Speaker’s House this afternoon. It gave us all a very good opportunity to listen to the testimonies of those affected by this awful tragedy. My thoughts are also with those affected by the fire in Barking. This really highlights how much still needs to be done to ensure that people can trust that their homes are safe to live in. There are clearly echoes of Grenfell in the case of Barking; people had flagged time and again that there were issues with their property, but they were not listened to. What is the Minister going to do to ensure that those who raise similar concerns are actually listened to and that action is taken?
I have with me the parliamentary briefing produced by Grenfell United, whose demands are absolutely reasonable. The things that these people are asking for are not, by any manner of means, things the Government cannot deliver should they have the will to do so. Will the Minister look at the demand for:
“A new, separate, ‘consumer protection’ regulator to protect tenants, to change the culture of social housing across the country”,
particularly as Scotland has had the Scottish Housing Regulator since 2011? In Scotland, the regulator provides a very useful means for tenants and residents to flag issues about their housing, to ensure that investigations take place and to see that action is taken, and this can make a real difference to people. If such a regulator had existed in England, it would have provided the means for residents to have their concerns heard.
Grenfell United also asks for:
“Immediate removal of dangerous cladding…Improved fire safety regime…an extension of the Freedom of Information Act to cover TMOs and housing associations…Public Authority (Accountability) Bill…justice and change…For our community to be listened to.”
It is on that last request that I want to finish. Karim spoke movingly at the event in Speaker’s House earlier, saying, “We’re not going anywhere until people are safe in their homes and you treat them with respect.” Both those things must be fulfilled for the people of Grenfell to feel as though any kind of resolution is going to come from this.
James Brokenshire
I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Lady said. Yes, this is about that sense of justice and change. Clearly, there is an ongoing police inquiry that we must let take its course, and, of course, the work of the independent inquiry itself. The point about residents being listened to and respect being shown is very powerful and very important, and it will require culture change in so many ways. That process has started, but I know there is more work that needs to be done.
The hon. Lady highlights the issue of the social housing regulator—something that is of keen importance and is a key aspect of the social housing Green Paper. I am very clear, from the responses I have seen to the representations on that, that we need a much stronger response in terms of not just listening to tenants but acting on their concerns. That is the point. It is not just about trying to put something in place for the sake of it; it is about seeing that where complaints are made over building safety—there are separate regulations and issues that will come through from the implementation and the Hackitt review—there is a speedy process to see that things are done and remedied. That, for me, is and will be the test on all of this.
Of course we will keep in contact with the Scottish Government. I am open-minded as to where we can take learning, and apply and use lessons, on a two-way basis. There is good communication between my officials and officials in the Scottish Government as well. Therefore, we will learn the lessons, but equally, very firmly, make that difference.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Two years on, what agencies are, hopefully, working together among the residents, particularly the children, in support of them?
James Brokenshire
A number of agencies are working with the community. One of the issues that I have been very concerned about is mental health support. My right hon. Friend will have heard about the additional support and funding that is being provided in that regard. There are some amazing community leaders; I have had the privilege to meet them and to see the work they are doing and the difference they are making. The council clearly has a key role to play in terms of its recovery programme and how it is putting in place these further steps. That stance of working with the community and building trust will take time, but it is an essential element if we are to move on and make the progress we need.
Emma Dent Coad (Kensington) (Lab)
The time for platitudes is done. I am, frankly, shocked that Government Members have the face to wear a green heart—shame on them. How can they sleep at night when tens of thousands across the country cannot, living in homes that are potentially dangerous or with their investments worth nothing? I cannot sleep. Where is the leadership in this process? There is a whole generation of potentially unsafe buildings out there. It is hardly controversial to keep people safe in their homes. The Secretary of State talked about it being his mission. Please do not make it a mission—make it a legacy. It is within your power, and instead you consult, report, review; consult, report, review. Please, wake up from your torpor and legislate now; we know what needs to be done.
James Brokenshire
I recognise the passion of the hon. Lady and the way in which she has sought, very firmly and very effectively, to represent her constituents. I know that that passion and the real desire to see change quickly is keenly felt. There is a weight of responsibility that all of us in Government hold in respect of this. I do take that hugely seriously in seeing how we can speed up and make the progress that we need to in relation to building safety and to breaking some of the culture and stigma issues, too. That is why we have taken the series of actions that I outlined in my statement to see that we get on and get the regulations in place. It is also why I am determined that we fix what is a broken regulatory system, and why the final step of that is the consultation that we have just launched. I encourage her to engage formally and properly on that so that we get the legislation right. But equally, we are determined to see that we speed up the process, with the private sector, on getting the buildings remediated—she is right to challenge firmly on this—and that is what we are intent on doing.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
The thoughts of the people of Stafford are very much with the Grenfell community and all those who have suffered in this appalling tragedy. I repeat the need for the review to result in action. Has my right hon. Friend taken into account other types of building—not only residential buildings, but schools, hospitals, hotels and office buildings—and looked across the European continent at what is best in class for fire safety, to ensure that we are at the top?
James Brokenshire
Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Indeed, when we made the decision to ban combustible cladding, we looked at what other practice was out there and how to standardise in that way. We are consulting on key elements of the new building regulation regime, so that we are in a position to legislate. He is right to talk about learning from experience elsewhere. That is what we are determined to do, so that we see a difference. As Members have said, this is about people’s lives and seeing change happening. It is not about dry reports or doing consultations; it is about seeing change come into effect, and that is what I am resolutely determined to do.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s statement, but he made no real or meaningful reference to the means of justice for the Grenfell families and the bereaved. That justice is delivered by two things. The first is the public inquiry. Can he say more about the delays that seem to be dogging the inquiry and the frustrations of the families and their lawyers in participating fully in it? The second is the police investigation. Can the police update us on it, if he cannot? Many here believe that there is culpability, which must one day be found in court.
James Brokenshire
The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point in his customary way. I know how much he has rightly challenged and been engaged in this issue. He may be aware that Metropolitan Police Service detectives investigating the Grenfell Tower fire have conducted 13 interviews under caution. That provides part of the criminal investigation into the fire, and Scotland Yard says that more interviews are being scheduled. This is clearly an ongoing investigation, with the police examining closely and assembling all relevant evidence, and it is right that we allow it to take its course.
The right hon. Gentleman highlighted the timetable of the public inquiry. It has been announced that the phase 1 report will be delayed until October this year. It is obviously an independent inquiry and process. The extension is to allow the inquiry to look thoroughly at the significant volume of evidence, and to allow time for what is known as a rule 13 process, which requires warning letters to be sent to individuals or organisations who may be subject to criticism. That is the process of the inquiry, which is independent of Government. It is for the inquiry to set out its timeline and needs.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for hosting Grenfell United today. I hope you will continue that tradition.
I have hundreds, if not thousands, of constituents living in dangerous or potentially dangerous high-rise buildings. While I welcome the Government’s cladding fund for private blocks, many of those blocks are still waiting to hear from the Government whether they will be eligible for that fund. Meanwhile, their residents are trapped in dangerous properties, with their lives completely on hold as they wait for that information. The fund does not cover many buildings in my constituency that have other cladding—not ACM cladding—or that have no firebreaks or other safety concerns. Residents in Skyline Central 1 face demands of up to £25,000 each to re-clad their building, and those in Burton Place face demands of up to £80,000 each. Those costs will not, as it stands, be covered by the fund. As there are a very high number of private blocks in my constituency, will the Secretary of State come to Manchester to meet some of these residents and talk about how we can make their lives safe and free them from the trap they are in, with properties that they cannot sell and are frightened to live in?
James Brokenshire
I can say to the hon. Lady that I have been to Manchester and met some residents previously in relation to this very serious issue and the profound impact this has on people’s lives. It was why I did make the decision to commit to fully fund the remediation of private sector high-rise residential buildings with ACM, except where a warranty claim has been accepted.
The hon. Lady rightly says there is a need for certainty as quickly as possible. That is why we did write to all relevant building owners on 17 May to set out the initial steps, the documentation and all the aspects, so that we are able to move quickly on making decisions in relation to this. The point about non-ACM is also very relevant, and it is why we are undertaking the relevant steps that we are with the different testing and, indeed, the advice and guidance that were being provided. I am certainly happy to talk to her and other colleagues about the impact, which I know is significant in a number of different ways, and about support for local authorities or what other action can be taken to assist.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is always humbling to meet the Grenfell survivors, because often they want to talk about others who are in a worse condition than themselves or to ask what the Government are doing to prevent further tragedies in relation to cladding and other matters. Often, however, as I am sure the Secretary of State found today, if we talk to them in some depth, we find that they themselves are still suffering. After two years, despite the fact that there is an appearance of a full support structure, it often breaks down and people are being forced—or, at least, given ultimatums—to go into accommodation that is not suitable, and they do not know whom to turn to. What advice does the Secretary of State have for me and other Members when they are confronted by survivors of that kind, and where can they go to get justice, because not in every case is that being done at the moment?
James Brokenshire
I would be very interested to hear any further details from the hon. Gentleman in relation to cases he is pointing to. I know the Minister for Housing has had regular surgeries with a number of the families involved about the decision process and the support they are receiving, and indeed from the taskforce itself with the challenge and the information it gives me. I would be very pleased to meet the hon. Gentleman and talk to him about those cases. He is right: it is hugely humbling to meet the survivors and the bereaved, and see the dignity and humility that they show. I think many of us who were at the Speaker’s reception earlier today will have felt that very keenly, with the profound impact it certainly had on me and I know on others in this House, too.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, I am sorry I could not join your Speaker’s reception today, because I was with those of my constituents in Barking—on Barking riverside—who are the survivors and victims of the terrible fire that took place yesterday. I hope you will give me a little leeway in what I have to say.
The pictures on the estate are horrific. Thankfully, nobody died, but had that fire taken place at night, I think people would have died. Literally the whole building was engulfed in flames within six minutes. The residents I met have lost their homes, their possessions, children’s toys, family photos and personal mementoes, and what I came across in my meetings this morning was trauma, grief and anger.
These are early days and it is appropriate that a proper investigation takes place, but let me raise three issues with the Secretary of State that arose out of my visit this morning. First, it absolutely shocked me that the fire alarms that should have been in place and operating were not working and that there were no sprinklers in this block of flats, because they were not considered necessary. This is a block of flats that was built only seven years ago.
Secondly, timber was used, and it was used really in a decorative way. Allegedly—and this is so shocking—that timber had not been treated. What I have been told is that the regulations are such that, because the building was only a six-storey building and therefore not 18 metres or higher, there was no necessity to have that sort of regulation. That is shocking. How on earth can that be possible in this day and age?
Thirdly, I want to talk about who is responsible. When we walk on to an estate like that, there is a freeholder, a developer, a builder and subcontractors, while the developer sells on to other people and there are then leaseholders and people in buy-to-let. There are myriad people who have a role to play there, and nobody is accountable. Everybody I talked to today on that side of the fence wanted to pass the buck and pass on responsibility.
I have to say to the Secretary of State that, at the end of the day, when lives are at risk he has to be responsible, and he has to empower local authorities, through him, to take responsibility. We are talking about protecting our people—the most important duty we have as elected representatives. It is no good passing the buck to other authorities. I hear what the Secretary of State says, and he does talk a lot of words. I urge him to recognise that now is the time for action. Two years on from Grenfell, we should not have had another fire.
James Brokenshire
I thank the right hon. Lady for what she has said and the points that she has made on behalf of her constituents. I do not know whether she heard it, but I indicated at the start of my statement that I would be visiting Barking later this evening. Certainly, I would like to speak to her after the formalities here today, to co-ordinate and to hear some of the feedback that she has represented on the Floor of the House this afternoon.
There are two elements that the right hon. Lady highlighted to do with fire alarms and the nature of the timber used on the balconies. This is still subject to investigation and review of precisely what went on, but I can assure her that I have asked the Building Research Establishment to provide technical expertise on investigating the reasons for the speed of the fire’s spread. The expert panel will be asked to issue further guidance urgently, and the wider circumstances will be looked at in our review of wider building safety. She makes the point powerfully about responsibility—having one person clearly responsible for the management and safety of a building—which is at the heart of Judith Hackitt’s review. That is precisely what is at the heart of the reforms, and I look forward to continuing the discussion with the right hon. Lady.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Secretary of State has been asked on a number of occasions whether he would be willing to name and shame private landlords who do not take the action necessary. Will he confirm whether he is willing to do that, and if so when, to put pressure on them to take action and make that unnecessary? Secondly, I do not want him to comment on the legal case being launched by the Grenfell survivors against Arconic, Celotex and Whirlpool in the US, but what role, if any, does he see the Government playing in relation to that case?
James Brokenshire
On the latter point, I have only seen some of the press reporting on that litigation, so it is difficult for me to comment, not knowing at this point the detail and nature of the litigation that is contemplated. The right hon. Gentleman highlights the issue of responsibility. We have clearly set out those who have acted in a responsible way and underlined quite starkly those who have met their obligations. Clearly, those who have not are still subject to further work from local authorities. I have stressed again the enforcement powers available and the way in which we are supporting local councils in doing that, but the key thing is that we get on with this work and make those buildings safe.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
When in 2014 the all-party parliamentary fire safety rescue group asked the then local government Minister in the coalition Government to act on the coroner’s recommendations, published in 2013, after the six deaths in the Lakanal House fire in 2009, that Minister said that he had not heard anything to suggest that the changes were urgent. After the all-party group said that it would go public on his inaction if there was ever another major fire tragedy, he finally announced a review just before the 2015 general election, in which he lost his seat. He has since said that the incoming 2015 Government dropped his pledge. Maybe he is wrong, so is the Secretary of State completely certain now, 10 years after the Lakanal House fire—not just two years since Grenfell—that every recommendation that the coroner made has been implemented? If not, why not?
James Brokenshire
The hon. Lady has made various statements in respect of what did or did not happen at that time. It is precisely those elements that are part of phase 2 of the public inquiry, and it is right that there should be that proper scrutiny and investigation. Phase 1 is about what happened on the night, phase 2 is about the broader issues, and that inquiry will provide the scrutiny and detailed challenge that I think she is looking for.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his update. Two years is a very long time. I can only imagine the suffering and stress that the residents of Grenfell and the local community have had to endure in that time. Many other residents around the country, such as those in Reading living in flats with dangerous cladding, have also endured suffering and stress. Will the Secretary of State now commit to take urgent action? Will he visit Reading to see the flats in my constituency that are covered in dangerous cladding, as well as other buildings that may be dangerous, such as overcrowded houses in multiple occupation and shoddy conversions of office accommodation into flats?
James Brokenshire
On the last point, the hon. Gentleman may be aware that we are conducting an examination of some of the evidence around office-to-residential conversions. The point he makes is one that I have heard, which is why we are pursuing the issue further. He makes various other points about his constituents and residents. If there are particular points he wishes to make to me, my ministerial colleagues and I stand ready to respond to him. His call for action is one that I hear and will respond to.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Two years on from the Grenfell fire, thousands of people are still living in homes wrapped in unsafe, dangerous cladding. My constituents are living with unnecessary stress, anxiety and worry due to the unsafe cladding on their blocks. The Secretary of State says that the funding has now been made available for those living in privately owned blocks, but there is no deadline or timeline set for the removal of the unsafe cladding. Will the Secretary of State today confirm what timeline is being set, not just for local authorities but for the owners of private blocks, to ensure that unsafe cladding is removed more quickly?
James Brokenshire
As I indicated in a previous answer, we intend to make it a condition of the funding that there is a clear timeline and that actions are shown to be taken in terms of the work that is needed. It is not that there is a lack of intent or urgency, but some of the works required are highly complex and it is therefore difficult to set a hard deadline in the way the hon. Lady wants. However, her call for action and urgency is one that I hear loud and clear. That is the way in which we intend to operate the fund.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
Ann Jones, my colleague who represents the Vale of Clwyd in the Welsh Assembly, has sponsored legislation in Wales to introduce sprinklers to prevent such fires. In response to the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), the Secretary of State said that he will look all over Europe for best practice on fire prevention. Will he look at this best practice from Wales and see if he can introduce it?
James Brokenshire
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who is on the Government Front Bench, indicates that that proposed legislation may not be taken forward by the Welsh Government. On the hon. Gentleman’s broader point on the assessment of the utility and use of sprinklers, we need to look very carefully at the evidence. As part of the review of the current building regulations, we are doing precisely that. There are already obligations in England for new build blocks above 30 metres in height to have sprinklers. We are looking at what is known as Approved Document B, which is a technical document that deals with building regulations, so we can better assess the evidence for sprinklers being used in new buildings.
Ford in Bridgend
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the future of Ford’s engine plant in Bridgend, south Wales.
On Thursday, Ford announced the start of a consultation with its unions concerning the potential closure of the Ford Bridgend engine plant in south Wales. I am not going to understate what a bitter blow this is to the 1,700 skilled and dedicated workers at Ford in Bridgend and their families, to the many more people and businesses who supply the plant, and to the town of Bridgend and the wider community. Our focus will be on working with Ford and the unions to understand the challenges and opportunities and to gain the best possible outcomes. I have spoken with the company, the unions and colleagues across the House. Colleagues at Jobcentre Plus are standing ready to provide advice and support to people, if required.
I live close by and absolutely understand the importance of this plant to the local community. The site has been worth over £3 billion to the local economy over the last 10 years. The town of Bridgend has proudly been home for 40 years to a world-class engine manufacturing facility. Ford has relied on Bridgend and Dagenham to supply one third of its total engines worldwide—a fact held with great pride by the employees.
We have known for some time that the production of the Sigma engine was coming to its natural end and that the Jaguar Land Rover contract would not be renewed, but the news that the Dragon engine may no longer be produced in the UK is disappointing, to say the least. It is very disappointing that it could be taken out of the UK and, in fact, out of Europe, to be manufactured in Mexico. That underlines that this was not a decision about Brexit. The decision was about the challenging conditions faced right across the global automotive sector.
Bridgend has been particularly impacted by the downturn in Ford’s share of the passenger vehicle market in Europe, with volumes of the new Dragon engine falling significantly below the installed capacity at the site. Ford is restructuring its business across Europe to significantly decrease structural costs and allow for investment in future electrification. To that end, it is optimising its European manufacturing footprint and reducing operations in France, Germany and Spain. Bridgend is significantly underutilised, with projections of the number of engines that it will produce falling far below what would be commercially viable in a single plant. Bridgend also faces a significant cost disadvantage compared with other Ford facilities around the world building the same engine.
I have spoken to my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, colleagues in the Welsh Government, the trade unions and other representatives since Ford’s announcement last week. The Business Secretary and I have spoken with local Members of Parliament, too. Together, we will continue to engage with all stakeholders and elected representatives. Although the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) cannot be in the Chamber today, I spoke with her on Friday.
We in the UK Government are committed to working closely with the Welsh Government and the local community to ensure that south Wales’s justified reputation as a place of industrial excellence in manufacturing and technology is maintained and expanded. On Thursday, the Welsh Government’s Minister for Economy and Infrastructure announced the establishment of a taskforce to work with partners over the difficult weeks and months ahead to find a sustainable, long-term solution for the plant and its workforce. UK Government Departments and I will play a full and active part in that body. That builds on the existing group that has been working jointly since it was confirmed that the Jaguar Land Rover engine would end in 2020. It is important that it builds on the Honda taskforce, working together to support the automotive industry in general.
We are already looking at opportunities to attract new investment to the area. I remain optimistic that south Wales is an attractive proposition and place for industry to operate from. In fact, over the last two years, I have been in Japan, China and the USA to promote the opportunities that Wales presents for the advanced manufacturing sector and our modern industrial strategy. Last year, Aston Martin announced that it will bring the production of the DBX vehicle there, which will create 750 jobs for St Athan. Last September, it announced a further £50 million investment that will make south Wales the home of its electric vehicle range.
I and many other colleagues across the House have worked hard over the last three years to make the case for investment in Britain. Despite the devastating news for south Wales operations, Ford’s commitment to the UK will remain as a major employer of some 10,000 people, with other significant operations in the country, including Ford’s technical centre in Dunton, Essex, which is home to Ford’s European market-leading commercial vehicle business; Ford’s engine facility in Dagenham, where it will continue to produce diesel engines; Ford’s mobility innovation office in London, where it will develop future mobility solutions in Europe; and the Halewood transmission plant, producing transmissions for cars such as the Ford Fiesta.
It remains the case that Ford, as an American company with a century-long history of operating successfully in the UK, undoubtedly recognises our international reputation as a place to do business, with skilled and innovative staff, access to innovation and a strong determination to make those strengths even greater in the years ahead. This is the Government’s ambition, as is well evidenced by the steps we have most recently taken to build on the successes of our automotive sector deal.
Our Advanced Propulsion Centre has awarded grants worth more than £800 million to more than 150 organisations across the UK. Just last month, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), announced a further £28 million of support to further enhance our UK Battery Industrialisation Centre, giving investment of more than £100 million in a world-leading facility to enable industry and academia to put the UK at the forefront of bringing battery technologies from the lab into the next generation of vehicles to drive on our streets. Working with industry, £80 million of investment through our driving the electric revolution programme will see support for innovation in electric motor technologies.
We are determined to ensure that the UK remains one of the most competitive locations in the world for automotive and other advanced manufacturing. The announcement of this consultation by Ford is a disappointing blow, but the Government’s bold mission to put the UK at the forefront of the design and manufacturing of zero emission vehicles presents significant new opportunities for the UK. That includes new industries and ventures that will be well suited to the skills and expertise of those dedicated workers at Ford and their suppliers. I remain committed to ensuring that Bridgend and other parts of Wales benefit from that work. We will continue to work with the Welsh Government and our many partners across the industry as we seize the opportunity for Britain to provide great jobs and careers for hundreds of thousands of people across our country in the years ahead. I commend the statement to the House.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
Last Thursday’s news of the closure of the Ford plant in Bridgend was absolutely devastating for the exceptional workforce, their families, the town of Bridgend and the wider south Wales community. As a former Bridgend county borough councillor, I completely understand. It is absolutely devastating for the businesses in Ford’s supply chain and the tens of thousands employed in them, and it is absolutely devastating for the automotive sector, UK manufacturing and our entire economy. Ford must rethink its plans to strip away 1,700 highly skilled, quality jobs from the area, and the UK Government must do all they can to support those dedicated workers.
This news is disastrous for all concerned. The chaos caused by the Tory Government’s calamitous handling of Brexit, coupled with the Secretary of State’s continuing inability to stand up for Wales, has allowed Ford to deliver a hammer blow to the workers in Bridgend and the Welsh economy. This is a betrayal of the hard-working and loyal staff who have been committed to delivering savings in making the Bridgend plant one of the most efficient in the world.
It is clear that Ford needs urgently to reverse this treacherous decision and to stand by the highly skilled workforce in Bridgend, rather than chasing profits via cheaper markets in places such as Mexico and India. It is disgraceful that Ford no longer produces a single vehicle in the UK despite its growing market share of car sales. Companies such as Ford originally chose to locate production plants in the UK because it was renowned for its skilled workforce and seen as economically stable compared with other turbulent markets across the world, but the Government’s botched Brexit has changed this. It is causing chaos and uncertainty and undermining business confidence.
Ford is just the latest in a long list of companies, including Airbus, Nissan, Honda and Jaguar Land Rover, to halt investment, cut jobs or close plants as a direct result of this uncertainty. We know that the Tory Government offered Nissan a deal. Was Ford offered a deal? There can be no doubt that this Government’s reckless threats of no deal, accelerated by a self-indulgent leadership contest with hard-Brexit contenders, is having an impact on business decisions across the UK, not just in Wales. Yet again, this is catastrophic news for Wales—news that has come as a direct result of UK Government shortcomings where Wales is concerned and that follows their shortcomings on rail electrification, the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon and the steel industry. This is just one of a string of failures on the Secretary of State’s watch. I call on him to apply pressure on Ford to do the right thing and rethink its catastrophic plans.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) for all the work that she has done to support the plant and its workforce, now and in many previous years. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore)—who represents the neighbouring constituency—for all that he is doing to support the many hundreds of people in the area who are being affected. I thank other Welsh Labour Members whose constituents work at Bridgend Ford and in its supply chain, and I thank the trade unions.
The automotive industry is the backbone of our manufacturing sector, supporting highly skilled, quality employment and making an enormous contribution to our economy, but its future, in Bridgend and across the UK, is in jeopardy. I call on the Secretary of State to do now what he has failed to do previously and stand up for Wales. He must speak with Cabinet colleagues to seek the financial support and stimulus which will match what has already been committed by the Welsh Government.
Alun Cairns
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, but I must express disappointment in the tone that she chose to take, which contrasted with the tone adopted by both the Welsh Government and the unions.
Earlier, the Business Secretary and I spoke to Ken Skates, the unions and many local Members of Parliament as part of a communications plan to share our ambitions and discuss the steps that we will take before the taskforce meets, hopefully later this week. Ken Skates and I will be joint vice-chairs of that taskforce and there will also be a chair from industry. That demonstrates the joint approach that we are taking, in a constructive way, recognising that this is a commercial decision made by Ford because of the change in the marketplace caused by the shift from petrol and diesel engines to electric vehicles. I commend the Welsh Government for the joint working that they have demonstrated so far, and I commend the unions for their engagement and the tone that they have adopted in the discussions.
Like many other Members, the hon. Lady pointed to Brexit. Those Members are being somewhat selective. It is right that the manufacturing sector, in particular, seeks a stable economic environment from which to export to the European market, but Ford was a strong supporter of the Prime Minister’s deal, which the Labour party chose to vote against. Whatever uncertainty exists over the Brexit negotiations, I think that the hon. Lady and other Labour Members need to accept their responsibility. They played a part in that. They have been highly selective in quoting comments and recommendations from Ford.
The hon. Lady was right to say that this is a highly efficient plant with a very skilled workforce. We will continue to work to attract investment in the site, be it from Ford—although we have not succeeded in doing that since the Jaguar Land Rover engine contract was announced—or others. We will also engage with other potential investors in the Brocastle site, which is adjacent to the Ford plant. We are in discussion with some potential investors at a mature stage, but it will be up to those organisations to make the final decision about whether to invest. We are in discussion with other organisations in the automotive sector that could provide exciting opportunities. We all recognise the skill and the quality of the workforce. The potential investors recognise it, which is why they are engaging so positively with us and with the Welsh Government. I also underline that Ford job losses are also taking place in Europe: there have been 5,000 job losses in Germany as well as job losses and shift changes in Spain.
In closing my response to the hon. Lady, I remind her that there are now 100,000 more manufacturing jobs in the UK economy and 13,000 more manufacturing jobs in Wales than there were in 2010.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend welcome the fact that so many politicians in Cardiff Bay and London who only last week were proclaiming climate change emergencies and competing for who could demand the fastest possible ban on petrol and diesel engines have suddenly become champions of the manufacturing of petrol and diesel engines in this country?
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend makes an important point and highlights the shift taking place in the industry from petrol and diesel engines to electric vehicles. Some manufacturers are trying to catch up with the fast-changing consumer demand, but it is absolutely right that the UK is at the forefront of this technology, which is why we are investing so much in the sector to ensure we are active in the next generation of motor vehicles.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement. May I say on behalf of the SNP that our thoughts are clearly with the workers at Bridgend and those in the supply chain?
My constituency has suffered severe losses in manufacturing over the years, so I fully understand the devastating impact this can have on local communities, including the knock-on effects on shops and service providers. What supply chain impact assessment has been done as a result of the decision by Ford? What funding guarantees can be given to match Government actions, rather than just warm words?
The Secretary of State said that Brexit is not responsible for this decision, but Ford was one of the companies that warned of the dangers of a no-deal Brexit, so when will this Government rule out a no-deal Brexit to stop any further job losses in the manufacturing sector?
Alan Brown
I have a few more questions.
The Secretary of State said in his statement that Bridgend faces cost disadvantages compared with other Ford plants doing the same work. How long has this cost disadvantage issue been known about and what opportunities have the Government looked at to overcome that and to support the plant? What opportunities have been identified by the existing working group, formed in 2018, to plug the gap by the loss of the Jaguar Land Rover contract and how will the new taskforce build on that and identify the much bigger gap and challenge that needs to be overcome? What future investment will the UK Government make to ensure there are no further cost disadvantages to any companies located in this area? The Secretary of State also said they were already looking at opportunities for investment in the area, so can he give timescales for positive announcements on the opportunities that have been identified?
I understand why the Secretary of State gave assurances about the other Ford plant operations across the UK, but how robust are those assurances? Padding out his statement by mentioning a £28 million investment in Coventry, £800 million in UK-wide grants from the Advanced Propulsion Centre and £80 million for the electric revolution programme is of absolutely no comfort to the Bridgend workers. What we need to hear is that the right actions are being taken now, not platitudes.
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about supply chains and that was considered as part of our conference call discussing the formation of the taskforce. Work is undergoing to map the suppliers who supply Ford in Bridgend. We plan to then cross that over with the same work that is being done in relation to Honda in Swindon. A supplier might well be able to manage better the hit from one automotive manufacturer. The hit from two could obviously cause greater challenges and we want to work to respond to that. On funding, whatever support has been provided to the suppliers to Honda in Swindon is equally available to those who supply Ford in Bridgend.
The hon. Gentleman again points to Brexit, but I say to him that the automotive sector was a strong supporter of the deal the Prime Minister and the Government have agreed with the European Commission. The hon. Gentleman would do well to heed all of the sector’s message, if it wants to repeat some of the statements that it has made.
In relation to opportunities, the Government are investing significantly in the next generation of automotive vehicles not only through UK Government public funds but through attracting private investment in this field. Some of these investors are looking at locations in Europe and in the UK, and those are the organisations that we are naturally engaging with to ensure that the UK continues to play an active part at the forefront of this sector.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Government now review the very high vehicle excise duties they have imposed, as well as the squeeze on car loans and the regulatory uncertainty about buying new petrol and diesel, because these are all factors that have done a lot of damage to demand and output in the UK car industry?
Alun Cairns
My right hon. Friend makes the important point that Europe faces similar challenges. I have already pointed to the 5,000 jobs that have been lost in the automotive sector in Germany, and we are seeing similar challenges in Spain and elsewhere. Many of these issues are being driven by consumer demand, but some are being driven by regulation, and I think every regulator needs to reflect on the demands from the climate change challenge together with the risks that it poses in the short term until the technology catches up.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I should like to start by welcoming the Secretary of State’s statement, and I thank him and the Business Secretary for the constructive way in which they have engaged with me as the Member for the neighbouring constituency, in which a large majority of the workforce actually live, and with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon). We have been meeting the workforce and the unions over the weekend, and I welcome the way in which they are working with the Welsh Government.
It is reassuring to hear the Secretary of State say that he is willing to work in the taskforce and to do all he can to help to support the workforce, but can he set out here and now what he will do if there is a need for UK Government fiscal intervention to protect those jobs and possibly to make Ford change its mind? I believe that Ford still has questions to answer, given that just three weeks ago it was talking about the Dragon line being the most efficient of any of the plants across the world, including in Mexico.
My priority will be the families in my constituency who will be left devastated by this and the communities in my constituency that have not recovered from the de-industrialisation of the 1980s. This really will be a hammer blow to so many of them right across Ogmore, Bridgend, Aberavon and many other constituencies. We need a fiscal stimulus package and an automotive sector deal so that we can protect these jobs and these workers and ensure that these families have some security beyond September 2020.
Alun Cairns
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising those points and for his comments and contributions in the call that we had earlier today. He rightly points out that this is a consultation from Ford, and we will therefore work closely with the unions in challenging the assumptions and statements that Ford has made where we believe them not to be the case.
The UK has a good record of investment in this sector. According to the latest available data, there is a 20% uplift in investment in the automotive sector, which demonstrates that we still remain attractive. We will of course work closely with the Welsh Government on attracting investment to the area, to serve the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and the employees who come from a much wider field than just the community of Bridgend. We remember that there was a Ford plant in Swansea not so long ago and that people travelled to that. The effects therefore stretch much further west, east and north than just the Bridgend site.
The Welsh Government clearly have a responsibility under the devolution settlement for economic developments, but we will continue to work closely with them, as well as with the Department for International Trade, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the whole might of Whitehall to support the employees by attracting investment to that site.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees), has sought to blame Brexit for Ford’s decision, but Stuart Rowley, the European President of Ford, has said in terms that it has nothing to do with Brexit. He has also said that
“if Brexit had never happened, would there be a different decision, and the answer to that is no.”
Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is particularly regrettable that Opposition Members should seek so cynically to exploit the personal tragedy of 1,700 people for such nakedly political purposes?
Alun Cairns
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for underlining the points in relation to Brexit, because Ford has stated clearly that Brexit has nothing to do with this decision. Furthermore, there would be more credibility in the Opposition’s points about Brexit if the engine plant was being shifted from the UK to anywhere else in the European Union, but we know that production is being shifted to Mexico. Therefore, I do not think the Brexit argument stacks up, and my right hon. Friend makes an important point that it is disappointing that many people will still refer to Brexit, which will undermine the potential for further investment in the site.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
This is a devastating blow for the workforce, many of whom are from my Aberavon constituency. The Secretary of State keeps saying that the situation in other EU countries is also difficult, but none of them has seen investment in the automotive sector drop by 80% in the past three years. The fact is that this Government are like a driverless vehicle and have been for the past three years. Their botched Brexit and general incompetence have seen confidence drain away from the automotive sector. When will we see a proper industrial strategy that helps the sector move from diesel and petrol to electric?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the need to attract investment in this sector, but he is somewhat selective with the data that he presents. All automotive manufacturers have had challenges to meet in relation to changing consumer demand. For example, the UK is leading the way in attracting investment in the sector, and not only in terms of the scale of the money that I have already highlighted. Some 20% of all electric vehicles sold in Europe are manufactured here in the UK, which demonstrates that we are playing a prominent role.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
It is true that this sad announcement has come during a once-in-a-hundred-year change within the global automotive sector, and so much of European automotive manufacturing finds itself on the wrong side of that change. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that underlines the need for a proper, joined-up industrial strategy for Wales, linked up between Cardiff and Westminster, with a focus on skills and education, which are not good enough in Wales, on improving transport, which is not good enough in Wales, and on improving and creating a more pro-business environment across the whole of Wales?
Alun Cairns
The UK’s modern industrial strategy clearly sets out the foundation for an approach across the UK that includes the automotive sector deal and other deals across a whole range of sectors, and the Welsh Government’s economic action plan dovetails well with that. However, my right hon. Friend makes an important point that we need to continue to work closely to ensure that the implementation of all that is as efficient as it should be, to be attractive to investors and to avoid extra complication due to the devolved Administrations. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary, Ken Skates and I talk regularly about our ambitions to attract investment on a joint basis, and we work closely with the Department for International Trade, too.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The Secretary of State has been on an interesting journey from supporting remain during the referendum, when he said that the people of Wales could “suffer enormously” if they voted for Brexit, to supporting the most extreme Brexiteer in the Tory leadership—a reckless no-dealer. The reality is that we have a Secretary of State representing my country who is more interested in his own career than in the jobs of thousands of manufacturers back home in Wales.
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman wants an independent Wales, but I am unsure what opportunities that would create for attracting investment in the Welsh economy. He will be well aware that I am a strong supporter of a deal with the European Union, but I have also stated clearly that maintaining no deal as an option, a challenge and a risk, both for the European Union and for the UK economy, focuses minds on gaining a deal. A deal will also create the best opportunities for the UK and European economies to continue to attract investment and to gain access to one another’s markets.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I will never forget the incredibly warm welcome I was given by my colleagues at Ford in Bridgend when I started there as a foreman in 1980, just a short time after it opened. I view this situation with huge sadness, which is why I urge the Secretary of State and the Business Secretary, who is sitting next to him, to do everything in their power to ensure that this factory continues, whether with Ford or with anybody else. In fact, Ford used to have a strong presence in Wales—not just in Swansea but also at Treforest, where it made sparkplugs. It is a great site, with railway and motorway links, and it must employ at least 1,700 people in the future, if not more, in high-quality manufacturing jobs. It deserves it.
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point and speaks with passion and real understanding based on his experience of having worked at the site. He talks about the warm welcome, but the workforce has responded efficiently since the time he would have been working there to the opportunities to become one of the most efficient engine plants in Europe, which is commendable. There will be a great opportunity to attract further investment to the area not only because of the skills and assets among the workforce, but due to the site’s attractiveness. He mentions connectivity, with the site being close to the motorway, and I would also highlight the railway line that goes directly to the site, which is used to take the engines that are currently manufactured to the midlands and Europe.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
The circumstances facing Bridgend are obviously different from those that surrounded the collapse of MG Rover at Longbridge over a decade ago, but I still know something about the impact that the closure of a major car plant can have not only on jobs, but on a community’s sense of identity. The first message from this Chamber must therefore be one of solidarity with the workers of Ford at Bridgend and their families.
May I ask the Secretary of State two things? First, he said that he met the company, so has he suggested any alternatives to closure? If so, what were those alternatives; I did not hear them in his statement? Secondly, while Brexit may not be the immediate cause of this announcement, he knows that it is relevant to virtually every decision that any automotive manufacturer is making at the moment. Is this news not just further evidence that we must avoid no deal at all costs?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point about the sense of identity, and we view those comments positively because of the ownership that is felt in the community around the plant. However, it stretches far wider than that, which is why I was so keen to engage positively with the unions before the announcement became public, and I have also spoken to them on several occasions subsequently. As for challenging the assumptions that Ford has made, we will of course work closely with the unions, which have a better understanding of the actual factors in play within the plant. We will then work in challenging Ford on those issues.
I say to those who seek to try to blame Brexit for the decision that we are working hard to attract investment both to this site and to Wales. Opposition Members seek to misrepresent the position, because Ford has clearly stated that it proposes to take the production of the new engine to Mexico. I hope that people will not want to bring too much politics into the reality of trying to attract investment.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State represents the constituency next door to the plant, yet he will not rule out a no-deal Brexit. That is utterly irresponsible and provides the context, even if not the immediate cause, for why the automotive sector in this country, including at Ford in Bridgend, is on the brink, with 10,000 jobs at risk, with 50,000 more in the supply chain. When is he going to show some leadership?
Alun Cairns
Maybe I should answer that question with another question. When will the hon. Gentleman vote for the deal to provide a stable environment in which to continue exporting to the European Union?
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
In February 2019, Ford said explicitly that the possibility of a no-deal Brexit was jeopardising its investment in the UK, including at Bridgend. Ford reportedly said directly to the Prime Minister that she must rule out a no-deal Brexit, lest we lose jobs. Just last week, the head of Make UK, representing manufacturing across this country, said that there is now a direct causal link between the threat of no deal by Conservative Members who are vying for the leadership, including the Secretary of State, and the loss of manufacturing jobs. How many more jobs do we need to lose in Wales and elsewhere before he tells the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) that we must never have a no-deal Brexit?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman quotes Ford from February, but I can quote Ford from before each and every meaningful vote in this House. It is strange that he is happy to heed Ford’s calls when it suits him but did not respond to its calls to vote in favour of the deal that the Prime Minister agreed with the European Commission. On job numbers, I point to the record job creation numbers we have seen in Wales in recent times, which compare favourably with when his party was in government.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Some 27% of our output in the Gwent valleys comes from manufacturing, and some of our leading employers in Blaenau Gwent are in the automotive sector. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that Ford workers and suppliers will get the same package of financial support that was offered to Honda just up the M4?
Alun Cairns
Yes, I can. I have already stated that the support made available to Honda and its supply chain will be available to Ford and its supply chain. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the manufacturing sector, which is extremely important to the Welsh economy. I am sure he shares in the recognition that there are now 13,000 more manufacturing jobs in Wales than there were in 2010.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Ford’s announcement is indeed a bitter blow for workers at Bridgend and will be felt across south Wales, and all our efforts should be put into supporting those who are affected. With the car industry in crisis, the steelworkers I met on Friday at Cogent, owned by Tata, want the Government to be proactive in helping to develop and support the supply chain for electric vehicles. Companies like Orb have the workforce and the expertise, but what will the Government do to support such companies through the industrial strategy for the future of this industry?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Lady highlights the £1.1 billion that has been made available through a range of schemes, including the Faraday challenge, the Stephenson challenge, the autonomous vehicle initiative and the advanced Propulsion Centre. These schemes are available to companies across the whole UK, and many Welsh organisations are making active use of them.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Whether in terms of its impact on just-in-time manufacturing, on tariffs or, indeed, on regulatory alignment, no deal would be a disastrous outcome for manufacturing. Does the Secretary of State agree that anyone who wishes to keep that outcome on the table as a credible option simply is not putting Wales first?
Alun Cairns
Steven Armstrong, the head of Ford Europe, explicitly said:
“It’s important that we get the agreement ratified that’s on the table at the moment.”
I was happy to vote for that agreement. Was the hon. Gentleman?
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
I join the Secretary of State in praising the Welsh Government and the trade unions for the tone they set over the weekend. My thoughts are with the families.
The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee has looked into Brexit and the effect it will have on the manufacturing sector. The automotive sector was very clear that the current deal suits it and that no deal would be an absolute disaster. The Secretary of State has a responsibility today, in making this statement, to give assurances to the Welsh workforce that he will rule out no deal. Will he tell his favoured candidate that that is what the ultimate representatives are saying? Let him not ignore them.
Can we have an industrial strategy that is nimble enough to help those affected by these closures, liquidations and, yes, suspensions, which are becoming a trend?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman points to the statements from the motor manufacturing sector that the current deal suits the sector.
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman talks about remaining in Europe, but the sector strongly supports the deal that the Prime Minister negotiated with the European Commission. The Government and I responded positively to the sector’s statements. Perhaps he should have also supported the sector and responded to it at that time, too.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
A constituent of mine, like many other workers, has been back to the plant today and took the time to message me. He says that Ford is telling the workers that the plant is no longer viable. This is a bitter pill to swallow because the UK has been one of Ford’s best markets throughout the years. The employees feel that the plant has been manipulated by Ford into no longer being viable.
I have two questions for the Secretary of State. In a potential post-Brexit United Kingdom, where will the 1,700 jobs in south Wales—plus the impact on the supply chain—come from? Moreover, will he explain why he believes that the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) will be the saviour of the future prosperity and wellbeing of the people of Wales? I and many of my colleagues believe that actions speak louder than words, and the only words I have heard from the Secretary of State today are potential, not action.
Alun Cairns
The hon. Lady asks where the jobs will come from, which is a reasonable and fair question. We work closely with the unions and the Welsh Government in seeking to exploit every opportunity to attract investment to the site, be it from Ford or from any other manufacturer or organisation. The UK’s industrial strategy clearly sets out ambitions for the UK to become a leader in the next generation of automotive. The Advanced Propulsion Centre, the Stephenson challenge and the Faraday challenge, from which Welsh companies are already significantly benefiting, highlight why we have seen such a sharp uplift in investment in the sector for the latest full-year statistics that are available, and for the opportunities that come thereafter.
I have already highlighted what Ford has said, but I can also point to Aston Martin, McLaren and Toyota. So many organisations that either operate or are based in Wales, or elsewhere in the UK, strongly support the deal that the Prime Minister has negotiated, but the hon. Lady chose to vote against it, which I find very disappointing.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)
Although the whole House is concentrating on the actions that the Government should take to save jobs at Bridgend, this news sends a chill down the spine of all car workers in this country and of those in the supply chain. I have workers at Vauxhall who must be very concerned. The Secretary of State said earlier that he is working closely with the Business Secretary. Will the two of them bring before the House, as soon as possible, the proactive moves they are now making to save car jobs in this country so that we do not have another appalling statement like this one?
Alun Cairns
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making those points. The investment at Ellesmere Port is clearly important not only to his constituency but to the north Wales economy, where many of the employees will come from. Vauxhall, of course, has committed to investing in Luton, and we continue to discuss and attract further investment by Vauxhall, but this commitment demonstrates its interest and recognition of the UK workforce’s expertise, both at Ford in Bridgend and in and around the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I will happily meet him to discuss specific actions being taken that could also support his constituency.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
This closure is devastating news for families across Wales, including those affected in my constituency and across the whole of south Wales, and for the supply chain businesses affected, as a huge number of people are involved in the supply chain. The Secretary of State is wholly wrong to rule out Brexit being a causal factor in this decision. The former First Minister of Wales, Carwyn Jones, said today that closure was “never on the agenda” during his very recent private discussions with Bridgend Ford. So can the Secretary of State please rule out a no-deal Brexit and the irresponsible message he is giving to every manufacturer across the industry, across the UK and across Wales today? Will he give that assurance to the car industry and to everyone?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Lady suggests I am wholly wrong to rule out Brexit as a cause, but those are not my views; they are the clear statements that have been made by Ford, both in private and in public. There would be much greater credibility in the statements being made by people seeking to make party political advantage out of this position, which is disappointing, if Ford was moving its operations to the European Union. Clearly, Ford is not doing that; it is moving the engine manufacture to Mexico, which clearly highlights that this is nothing to do with our exit from the EU. She asks me to rule out no deal, but in order to rule that out, you presumably need to vote for a deal, and I have done so on each and every occasion.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Secretary of State has quoted Ford’s Europe chairman, Steven Armstrong, so may I quote him back to the Secretary of State? He said:
“We’ve been very consistent since the referendum that a hard Brexit, a no-deal Brexit, would be a disaster”.
So does the Secretary of State believe that loose talk about delivering no deal by leading Tory leadership contenders damages the UK car industry or assists it? Does he think that if the Chancellor has a Brexit war chest, it should be spent on investing in the UK car industry, including in electric vehicles, rather than on tax cuts for the wealthy, as some are advocating in their leadership campaigns?
Alun Cairns
Again, the right hon. Gentleman quotes what Ford has said, but Ford also said, “Please vote for the deal.” Perhaps he should answer the question of why he did not vote in favour of the deal.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
My father, David Davies, was head of economic development at the Welsh Office in the ’70s and was instrumental in getting Ford to Bridgend, with the help of inducements from a Labour Government, including the rail link the Secretary of State mentioned and other financial inducements. The Secretary of State knows that wages in Wales are the lowest in the UK, at 70% of gross value added, and that the impact of Brexit is in big companies such as Airbus, Ford and Tata realising that they will no longer be in that market and relocating and reducing their workforce. Will he therefore think again about providing a people’s vote so that people can vote on whether they actually do want to leave, because people from that Bridgend plant who voted to leave did not vote to leave their jobs? Will he rule out any no-deal Brexit? Finally, will he make sure that none of the convergence funding that we currently get will be stripped away and given to other parts of the UK? If he will give none of those undertakings, will he resign?
Alun Cairns
The way in which the hon. Gentleman is pursuing the question suggests that this is a debate about Brexit, but Ford has said that it is not and is acting in a way that demonstrates that it is not. It is not about judging Ford’s statements; it is about judging its proposals and the actions it plans to take arising from this issue. He is right in that the manufacturing sector, in particular, wishes to seek some certainty, and that is what we are seeking to bring about, but by voting against the deal on three separate occasions, the uncertainty over the economy has obviously been created.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Coming on the back of the similar announcement by Honda, this announcement by Ford will have a devastating impact on its workers and on the supply chain right across south Wales, including in my constituency. We absolutely need a co-ordinated response with the Welsh Government, local government and others, but may I ask the Secretary of State what immediate priority he will give in the coming days to ensuring that those in the company—the workers and the trade unions—are afforded all the support they need?
Alun Cairns
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising an important question, which absolutely will affect the employees in his constituency who work at the site. I have mentioned that the taskforce being established will have an industry leader, and Ken Skates and I will be the joint vice-chairs of that group. We will, of course, work closely with the UK Government Departments, the Welsh Government and the unions. I should also pay the greatest respect to the Welsh Automotive Forum for the work it has done in helping us to map the supply chains, many of which will be across not only Wales, but the rest of the UK. Over the coming days, we expect to be able to announce the chair of the taskforce. We have agreed that we want the taskforce to meet as quickly as possible and frequently, certainly in the early stages, and that we want to set up a number of working groups to tackle the individual issues that the taskforce will highlight, be it people, place or the potential for investment on that site.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The workers at Vauxhall in Ellesmere Port send their solidarity to those in Bridgend who have lost their jobs and to those who are going to lose their jobs in the wider supply chain. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) said, we are concerned about what is happening to the car industry in this country. It seems to be disintegrating before our eyes and the Government appear to be powerless to stop it. I know that the Secretary of State has mentioned various aspects of the industrial strategy that we hope are going to reverse some of these damaging job losses, but self-evidently this is not enough. Please may we have more action, on business rates, on energy costs and on actually encouraging investment in the first place, because once these jobs go, they are gone forever?
Alun Cairns
First, let me say that Vauxhall is investing in Britain, and that should give the hon. Gentleman confidence as to the approach and attitude that Vauxhall is showing towards the UK economy. However, he is right to highlight the need for further investment. For the last full year for which data is available, business investment in automotive was £5.3 billion, which is a 20% uplift on the previous year. Clearly, these things will vary from tranche to tranche, so we need to be looking at the trend, rather than just seeking to overstate the figures in order to be selective. This is a positive environment, and automotive research and development amounts to 15% of total UK R&D, which highlights the importance that the private sector and the UK Government place on the automotive sector, so that we can provide the next generation of automotive vehicles.
Bill Presented
Employment Status (Definitions)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Frank Field, supported by Nigel Mills, Steve McCabe, Justin Madders, Ronnie Campbell, Martyn Day, Albert Owen, Mr Virendra Sharma, Mr Roger Godsiff, Mrs Madeleine Moon, Gareth Snell and John Cryer, presented a Bill to amend the definition of worker and self-employed person; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 398).
Mr Speaker
We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. More accurately put to the House at this stage, as we are not psychic, as simply tomorrow.
NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS (TERMINATION AWARDS AND SPORTING TESTIMONIALS) BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)
Ordered,
That the Order of 30 April 2019 (National Insurance Contributions (Termination Awards and Sporting Testimonials) Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.
(2) 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 on the Motion for this Order.
(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.—(Amanda Milling.)
National Insurance Contributions (Termination Awards and Sporting Testimonials) Bill
Monday 10th June 2019
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate National Insurance Contributions (Termination Awards and Sporting Testimonials) Act 2019 View all National Insurance Contributions (Termination Awards and Sporting Testimonials) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 10 June 2019 - (10 Jun 2019)
19:19 - The House divided: - Ayes: 214 / Noes: 273 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:37 - The House divided: - Ayes: 270 / Noes: 207 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Report on the impact of Class 1A National Insurance Contributions on termination awards—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of section 1 of this Act (termination awards: Great Britain) coming into force, lay before Parliament a report on the expected impact of the new Class 1A liability on termination awards in excess of £30,000.
(2) That report must contain an assessment of the expected impact on—
(a) the total net value of termination payments received by individuals;
(b) the average net value of such payments; and
(c) the number of business start-ups using termination payments as funding in their first year in each region of the United Kingdom.”
New clause 3—Report on the impact of Class 1A National Insurance Contributions on sporting testimonials—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of section 3 of this Act (sporting testimonials: Great Britain) coming into force, lay before Parliament a report on the expected impact of the provisions of this Act on sporting testimonials.
(2) That report must contain an assessment of the expected impact on—
(a) the total amounts received by individuals from sporting testimonials; and
(b) donations made to charity from sporting testimonial proceeds.”
New clause 4—Report on Exchequer impact—
“The Secretary of State must, within three years of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay before Parliament a report on its Exchequer impact.”
New clause 5—Effects of termination awards provisions—
“(1) The Treasury must publish reviews of whether the payment of Class 1A contributions on termination awards under sections 1 and 2 has had—
(a) any effect on the number of termination awards made above £30,000;
(b) any effect on the size of termination awards made above £30,000; or
(c) a disproportionate effect on—
(i) women,
(ii) pregnant women,
(iii) persons aged 50 or over, or
(iv) any other group of people with protected characteristics (within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010).
(2) The first review under subsection (1) shall be published no later than 24 months after this section comes into force.
(3) Subsequent reviews under subsection (1) shall be published no later than 24 months after publication of the previous review.”
This new clause would provide for a general review of the termination awards provisions of this Act within every period of 24 months.
Amendment 1, in clause 5, page 5, line 39, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made under subsection (3) to bring section 3 or 4 into force until the Secretary of State has made a Statement to the House of Commons on the expected effects of the provisions of this Act on donations to charities by the recipients of sporting testimonial payments.”
Peter Dowd
Although he is not here, may I welcome the new Financial Secretary to the Treasury to his post, and congratulate his predecessor, the new Leader of the House, on his elevation to the Cabinet? I understand that the elevation was short-lived, as he realised that he still had to sit across a table—a Cabinet table rather than a Treasury one—from the Chief Secretary. I expect that if some of his colleagues get their way on proroguing Parliament, he may well even be put on a zero-hours contract, because there would be little else to do.
I have previously stated, both on Second Reading and in Committee, when we had wide ranging discussions on the Bill, as we always do with financial Bills—we talk about a whole range of issues and get into all sorts of discussions about various things, even quoting Cicero and going into all sorts of Greek mythology; it is helpful to broaden our horizons when dealing with these Bills—that the Bill is a pale imitation of the great national insurance reforms that the Government promised to enact just a few years ago, in those halcyon days of the 2010 to 2015 Tory Government, who were going to conquer the world and who proposed massive changes to national insurance contributions. Of course, in effect, nothing came of that. The former Chancellor went west and the proposals lay around gathering a little bit of dust, then more dust and then even more dust on the shelves at the Treasury.
As we all know, national insurance is paid by employees, employers and the self-employed, and it is used to fund a variety of contributory benefits such as the state pension, contributory employment and support allowance, maternity allowance and other benefits. In 2018-19, national insurance contributions raised around £137 billion, which is more than was raised by VAT but less than was raised by income tax, at £132 billion and £192 billion respectively. National insurance contributions are clearly a substantial revenue raiser for the Exchequer.
Along with the Prime Minister, the Government’s credibility and all sense of reason in the Tory party, gone are the proposed abolition of class 2 national insurance contributions and the planned expansion of class 4 national insurance contributions, along with the Government’s parliamentary majority to boot. Those proposals have been replaced with these meagre clauses, which masquerade as a real Bill. They will introduce a limited class 1A employer charge on termination payments over £30,000 and on payments over £100,000 related to non-contractual sporting testimonials.
While we are on the subject of sport—loosely—I reaffirm my congratulations to Liverpool football club on their win, albeit as an Everton supporter. As I said in Committee, I can say that in the clear knowledge that it probably will not get much further than the people present, so I will not be criticised by my Everton-supporting friends and family. Saying it here tonight makes it more or less a secret, in essence.
Consideration of the Bill’s remaining stages has been brought forward to pack out an empty parliamentary timetable. The timing could not be more fortuitous, as we enter the first official week of the long-running Tory leadership campaign. It is a burden for everybody else to have to put up with it, and I am sure it is a burden for those on the Government Front Bench and Back Benches, too. I suspect that they will not say that, but I will say it for them.
There is a backdrop to this debate. We have already seen a sneak preview of the chaos and dysfunction that any of the hard Tory Brexiteers who are running for Prime Minister will soon unleash on the country. The right hon. Member for Tatton (Ms McVey) has suggested purging the Cabinet of remain-supporting MPs. The frontrunner, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), is flirting with the idea of the UK going AWOL with around £48 billion in October. That figure is almost as big as his ego. The Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), has more positions on Brexit than the “Kama Sutra”.
Meanwhile, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) is threatening to put two fingers up to parliamentary sovereignty and prorogue the House, denying the elected representatives in this Chamber a say over the biggest issue facing this country since the second world war, and perhaps beyond that—I do thank you for your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker. So much for bringing back control. To what—an empty, locked Chamber? It is important, because had Parliament been prorogued, would we have been able to debate this Bill on national insurance contributions? No, we would not. Where would all the money go? We would not have it. We are here making the case for why Parliament should not be prorogued, but more importantly we are making the case because we have to get the cash in. All this is taking place while our European partners look on in polite bemusement, along with the rest of the country, as we are subjected to a month-long Conservative party psychodrama. That context is important to the matter at hand.
The Opposition continue to have concerns about how the new class 1A national insurance charge will impact on the level of termination awards that workers receive, particularly in respect of women, employees over 50 and pregnant women. Opposition new clauses 1 and 5 would require Ministers to adequately address our concerns. The tax and national insurance treatment of termination payments remains a sensitive topic to workers and employers alike. Employees facing redundancy often consider this final payment as an evaluation of the work that they have done for their employer, so it is psychologically important for them. As I have previously said, termination payments therefore have an emotional and a financial significance, and the amount awarded is often determined by painstaking and careful negotiations between managers and trade union representatives.
The Government’s rationale for the change apparently remains one of simplification: they cite many employers’ previous confusion as to what parts of a termination payment might qualify for exemption from tax and national insurance. However, Ministers have also cited the opportunity for well-advised employers to avoid paying the right amount of tax and national insurance on termination payments as justification for wider reform. It is important to repeat that that seems to have been given as justification for wider reform. We do not necessarily accept that justification. Neither the Office of Tax Simplification nor Treasury Ministers have been able to provide figures on the number of employers who have taken advantage of the existing loophole or on the amount that has been lost to the Exchequer as a result. That is important, because if a case is going to be made for something, the least we could be given is a little evidence—a few facts and statistics—to back up the assertion.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The best way to describe it is as a stealth tax on people who are going to be unemployed for quite a long period. Women are going to be under the cosh. We have to remind ourselves that women seem to be paying the price. We have only to consider the long, drawn-out saga of the Women Against State Pension Inequality, who cannot even get justice out of this Government.
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Assessments of the impact of austerity have found that 86% of the burden has fallen on women. The figures indicate that women are the most badly affected by austerity, and all this Bill does is overlay that and up the ante even further. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, because in effect it is a stealth tax. That is what it amounts to: a stealth tax with no evidence base whatever to support it, other than the Government just wanting somehow to get more and more cash in because of their failed economic policies.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. The arguments that he is making are sound. There is a concern that this may well open the gates to further measures in the future. I fully understand that this is a charge that is being applied to employers, but it would be instructive if we used plain English and simple terminology. Why do we not use the term “redundancy” instead of “termination awards”, so that people will realise what is happening?
Peter Dowd
That is a very good point, because that is exactly what the Government do time after time. When they introduce these notions and concepts, they always try to put up a bit of a smokescreen. My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. Let us call this essentially what it is, which is redundancy. Potentially, it is taking money from people at perhaps one of the most vulnerable times in their working life. Let me repeat: what we want is evidence. This an evidence-free zone—it is as simple as that. The other important point to make is that this is, in effect, a stealth tax. Worryingly, though, there is no coherence to this whatsoever. There is no coherence to this at all. Somebody comes up with an idea and the Government push it through because they want to push it through. There is no evidence for it whatsoever.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I have enjoyed discussing this Bill with the hon. Gentleman in Committee and on Second Reading. The definition of a stealth tax is surely a tax that is stealthy. In other words, it is not immediately visible, and has to be found in the small print of, for example, the Red Book. This is on the front of a Bill; this is the name of the Bill. I do not think that this can conceivably be described as a stealth tax. The Government have been very open about it, and it is on the front of the Bill.
Peter Dowd
I am very pleased that a Conservative Member of Parliament admits that he is putting taxes up. He has admitted that the Government are openly putting up taxes. Okay, even if I accept that it is not a stealth tax—
Peter Dowd
Just a moment. Even if I accept—[Interruption.] I am happy to give way. Even if I accept, which I do not, that it is not a stealth tax, it is, none the less, about a Tory Government putting taxes up. It is as simple as that. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
James Cartlidge
The point is not whether it is going up, but whether it is being done in a stealthy fashion. I accept that this is raising revenue. The Minister will not cut it, because that will take revenue from elsewhere. The question is whether it is stealthy. It is on the front of the Bill; it is the name of the Bill. It is not remotely stealthy. Stealth taxes are so named when we pull the wool over people’s eyes, but this is very open and transparent, and, yes, it will increase revenue for the Treasury.
Peter Dowd
The hon. Gentleman can point that out to me as much as he wants. I admitted, or acknowledged—call it what you will—that even if it is not a stealth tax, it is a Tory Government putting up taxes. [Interruption.] We agree on that. [Interruption.] I am happy to have that conversation with him outside the Chamber, if need be, so that I do not get into trouble with either you, Mr Deputy Speaker, or those Members on the packed Benches. The bottom line is that what we have here is quite clearly and unambiguously an admission from the Tories that they are putting taxes up. That is what it comes down to. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) says from a sedentary position that they do so in a sneaky way.
Ministers have claimed many times that they have a desire to simplify tax. They talk all the time about simplification of tax. They have an Office for Tax Simplification. They institutionalised it. Has there been much simplification? Not as far as I am concerned. There certainly has not been any simplification of national insurance contributions. Therefore, despite the many claims from Ministers that they have a desire to simplify the tax and national insurance treatment of termination awards, the Chartered Institute of Taxation and other tax experts have raised concerns about the lack of information in the Bill as to how this new class 1A charge will be collected. In their rush to try to get more money into the Exchequer, they have not even decided or worked out how they are going to collect it.
Mr Jim Cunningham
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I made a remark about sneaky tax from a sedentary position. I have a good example of why we should not trust what those on the Government Front Bench say: in their manifesto, they pledged to retain the free television licence for old-age pensioners. What did they do? They passed it on to the BBC. We have all seen the announcement today. How can we trust anything they say?
Peter Dowd
That is another stealth tax—the television licence. The fundamental point is important. It goes to the heart of this debate. This is a rise in taxes. We are not quite sure how it is going to be collected, but it is going to be collected from some of the most vulnerable people. Currently, Ministers plan to leave it up to secondary legislation to determine how it is going to be collected. That is another important point. This has happened so many times with this Government—no amendments to the law in relation to the Finance Bill. Again, this goes to the heart of the matter. The Government bring forward legislation, proposals and policies to this Chamber. They try to push something through, but they do not tell us how and when they are going to do it. But they are going to do it. We have no opportunity to challenge them because they close down the debate. They have done so on the last four Finance Bills, I think—I stand to be corrected on that one.
Currently, Ministers plan to leave that up to secondary legislation, which is clearly a break from normal practice. Furthermore, rather than simplifying the national insurance treatment of termination awards, they look set to confuse employers even more. Therefore, a fundamental attempt apparently to simplify these proposals has actually not simplified them. If the raison d’être for this is simplification —that is what we have been told—the Government are that incompetent that they cannot even get that right, because it is not simplifying matters at all.
The measure will also add additional administrative burdens on HMRC at a time when it continues to be hamstrung by the Government’s disastrous reorganisation of its estate, the introduction of Making Tax Digital and the preparations for a no-deal Brexit. These specific proposals are being introduced when HMRC is in flux, but do the Government care? They do not care at all. So what is the so-called rationale for the introduction of this new national insurance contribution charge on termination awards, if not to make things more confusing for employers? Another factor has been thrown in: this is a tax avoidance measure, apparently. [Interruption.] The Minister says that he is not sure about that. Read some of the documentation.
Peter Dowd
I beg your pardon. So it is a tax avoidance measure, apparently, without any evidence, as far as we can gather, that there is any substantive tax avoidance going on with regard to this. I am all for tackling tax avoidance, as the Minister well knows. We support the tackling of tax avoidance, but we always want to do it when there is some evidence for it. We have lots of evidence of tax avoidance in other areas that the Government are not tackling, and in an area for which they do not have a particular amount of evidence, they are tackling it. It is a bit topsy-turvy—a bit round about. We find ourselves in a rather bizarre scenario.
I suggest that the Government’s rationale is wholly to do with the revenue that they expect to raise and that this is little more than an attempt to increase national insurance receipts for the Exchequer while shying away from any major tax or national policy change. The previous Chancellor got his fingers well and truly burned because he did not do it right. That is the issue here. We are having all this tinkering around, which is making matters more and more confused. That is certainly the opinion of the Office of Tax Simplification, as advocated in its 2014 report, which stated that a new national insurance contribution charge could raise revenue for the Exchequer and offset the costs of any tax treatment change affecting termination payments. The report went on to concede that the policy was likely to lead to increased NIC costs to the employer—not just more NICs, but increased costs to the employer—and to individual employees receiving reduced termination payments, as employers would be unlikely to increase their redundancy budgets.
The Government’s own impact assessment notes that this measure will present an “additional cost to employers”. Here we are yet again, with the party of business putting more and more costs on to employers through this national insurance contributions proposal, at a time when they are all under terrible stress for a whole range of reasons—not least because of the uncertainty of Brexit. The impact assessment also says that this will be
“reflected in lower wages and profit margins”.
Not only are the Government attacking businesses and bringing their profits down; they are also accepting that they are attacking workers’ wages. It is a double whammy, as the employer and the employee both get stung. What a state of affairs! Sadly, it is some of the most vulnerable people in the workforce who will pay the ultimate price. Whether it is a pregnant female employee voluntarily leaving the workforce or an older worker opting for early retirement, the new national insurance contributions charge will have a significant impact on the level of termination awards received.
To address the issue, the Opposition have tabled new clause 5, which would require the Government to undertake a review every two years looking at the impact of this measure on women, pregnant women, workers over the age of 50 and any other group of people with protected characteristics. New clause 5 would ensure that the impact of the new national insurance charge was carefully monitored; that is very important. It would also require Ministers to take personal responsibility for its outcome, with regular statements to the House. I know Ministers do not like doing that—Mr Speaker in effect acts as the person who gets them to come here to speak to us—but it is important that Ministers come to this Chamber to explain what they are doing. They are responsible to Parliament for their actions. The Executive are responsible to us and that is what we are demanding through new clause 5.
Similarly, new clause 1 would require Treasury Ministers to undertake a distributional analysis of class 1A national insurance contributions, looking specifically at the impact on the level of termination awards received by employees and, importantly, at the impact on employers. I am particularly thinking about small and medium-sized business owners, who are likely to see added costs as a result of the measure. We want to ensure that such employers are not going to be penalised because of the lack of evidence base for the Government’s proposals—other than, quite simply, that the measure will raise money. The Government should stop telling the House that this is about simplification, because it is not. We have to be honest about that. It is just about raising revenue. There is nothing wrong with doing that—it is crucial—but it is important that the Government are honest about what they are doing. They often get their figures wrong when they indicate how much they intend to raise. In fact, some of the figures identified in their proposals are almost a work of fiction.
The second and final measure covered by this very short Bill relates to a new class 1A charge for non-contractual sporting testimonials of more than £100,000. [Interruption.] I can hear the Government Front Benchers saying that I am making a long speech. Well, I know that Conservative Ministers do not like to be held to account at all; it is in their DNA. One of their colleagues, who is a contender for the leadership, even wants to prorogue Parliament—to close it down—so it is important that I make these points clear.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) said in Committee, there remains a huge lack of clarity over how the charge will be applied, particularly when it comes to a payment that would be “customary”. She made a very important point and hit the nail on the head, and I am not quite sure that we are any further on at all from those discussions in Committee. There remain seriously unanswered questions as to how a national insurance contribution charge on sporting testimonial payments, which are in effect charitable donations from fans, would affect sporting charities and foundations set up by individual sportspeople. The Chartered Institute of Taxation has also pointed out the clear inconsistency that would arise between the national insurance treatment of sporting testimonial payments and the treatment of voluntary tips in the service industry. To answer these concerns, the Opposition have tabled amendment 1, which would require the Government to review the impact of this class 1A national insurance contributions charge on donations to charities.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I have listened very carefully to my hon. Friend and I totally agree with him. May I concentrate on the issue of testimonials? One of the great myths about professional sportspeople is that they are all terribly well paid, but county cricketers, people playing in the lower regions of football and rugby players playing outside the premier league are not well paid. Traditionally, long-term servants have had the opportunity of a testimonial and those testimonials are often organised by groups of volunteers. Are we seriously suggesting that people who organise a darts match, a pool tournament or a dinner are going to be brought into the regime, whereby they have to think about national insurance contributions, taxation and the rest? That is surely crazy.
Peter Dowd
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government would have us believe that there is an amount of money that people can raise or earn before the testimonial tax—that is what it is—comes in. I am sure that the Minister will be able to explain that to us, but we have had very little help by way of explanation from the Government on this whole area, and the measure is being introduced without significant or appropriate discussion.
Members will no doubt be pleased that I will only speak for another hour—I jest. This is yet another piecemeal reform designed to penalise employers and workers alike, while raising comparatively small sums for the Exchequer compared with the total amount of national insurance contributions that it receives each year, which I identified earlier as more than £130 billion. Of course, the Government remain wedded to cutting taxes for large corporations and the wealthy alike, leaving our public services and ordinary workers footing the bill. In fact—this is important—the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip has committed to £10 billion of tax cuts should he become Prime Minister, with the Institute for Fiscal Studies saying that the biggest beneficiaries would be wealthy pensioners and people living solely off investments, as neither pay national insurance contributions. Actually, all the Members of Parliament here would also be better off under the proposal by the former Foreign Secretary.
The Opposition will not countenance supporting a Bill that will indirectly lead to workers’ termination pay being reduced, especially when Tory hopefuls are throwing even more money at those who do not need it. Nor will we support a Bill that fails to offer any protection for women, older workers or pregnant women who could be financially worse off as a result of this change. If the front-runner for the Tory party leadership can give £10 billion to supporting wealthy investors, we can afford to support pregnant women who have been made redundant. For those reasons, we will oppose this Bill on Report and on Third Reading. I encourage colleagues from across the House to do exactly the same. Thank you very much for your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to take part in a Report stage where the Government do not have amendments to their own Bill. That is quite unusual these days. Most of the Bills that we have seen recently have had Government amendments to them because there have been errors in the drafting, so I congratulate to the Minister for managing to bring in one that has not. Obviously, it would be great if he could see his way to accepting all the amendments tabled by the Opposition and by me, but he can save that up for his speech and let us know then whether he is willing to do so.
I will talk us through the amendments that we have tabled but also make it clear that we are willing to support the amendments tabled by the Opposition. Our new clause 2 is about the impact of the changes to class 1A national insurance contributions on termination awards. It asks for a number of different things, including
“an assessment of the expected impact on…the total net value of termination payments received by individuals…the average net value of such payments; and…the number of business start-ups that are funded by termination payments…in each region of the United Kingdom.”
We ask for this for a number of reasons, but mostly because I was a bit annoyed by what is in the Government’s explanatory notes, which basically said, “We expect there to be no impact on employees”, but actually meant, “We expect there to be no additional tax liability impact on employees.” But the reality is that there will be an impact on employees as employers will choose to give their employees less in termination awards because they will be liable for this class 1A contribution.
I specifically mentioned the number of business start-ups because I am acutely aware of the number of people, particularly where I am in Aberdeen, who struggled during the oil price fall that occurred in 2015-ish and were made redundant as a result of it. A number of them went on to start new businesses because of the termination payment that they received. I am concerned that reducing the amount of termination awards that people receive will mean that there will be fewer of those new business start-ups, and we may not see some of those businesses that go on to be phenomenally successful just for want of a few extra pounds in the termination award that is made.
Another thing that concerns me is that the Government’s projections show that wages for everybody will fall as a result of this additional charge on employers. The Government have admitted that; it is included within the calculation. Even people who are not receiving termination awards or are not, at any stage, likely to receive them—even those who are receiving only the Government’s national living wage, which is a pretendy living wage that people cannot live on, and those who are under 25 and therefore not eligible for it—will experience a reduction in wages as a result of the Government’s changes to employer class 1A liability in relation to termination awards. It is not fair that we are asking people who already do not have enough to live on to pay this additional contribution. That might seem to be an odd position to take in this Chamber when we have Conservative leadership candidates talking about lowering tax for the very richest, but I do not believe that wages should be lowered for those at the bottom of the pile, to increase what is in the Government’s coffers. If we are to do that, surely we should choose, as the Scottish Government have done, to levy that money through a more progressive taxation system.
The other issue with the termination awards aspect relates to the collection method that is described. Currently—this is from the Government’s website—employers pay class 1A and 1B national insurance on expenses and benefits they give to their employees. They have to fill in the forms only once a year and are given a deadline for doing so. The Government have not yet said how they intend these payments to be paid in real time, or how they intend that employers should ensure that they are recording them and paying them in real time. If the Government expect them to do this, they need to clarify that more quickly. I am particularly concerned about the employers who currently do not pay class 1A contributions in any way, shape or form because they do not allow employee benefits such as company cars or health insurance as part of their deal, yet are now being brought into class 1A contributions because, for some unknown reason, the Government have chosen to use class 1A contributions as the method of collection—the method of liability—rather than choosing a different method. Class 1A contributions are not levied on any cash just now; they are levied only on benefits in kind.
Therefore, a number of employers will need to have new computer systems to pay this money. Those who do already pay for benefits in kind will need to have a different computer system that allows them to pay in real time rather than at the end of the year. That will involve a lot of additional work for HMRC and for tax professionals who will have to advise employers on this method. That is an extra cost to employers—not just the actual additional money that they will have to pay but the additional administration cost that they will have to go through. It is incredibly important that if the Government intend to press ahead with this, they do everything they can to ensure that every employer who does not currently have any liability for class 1A contributions, in particular, is well aware of these changes and the new liability that will arise if they make any termination payments in excess of £30,000.
Let me move on to sporting testimonials. My concern is much the same as that raised by Opposition Front Benchers in relation to the donations to charities that are made as a result of sporting testimonials. There will be a new liability for people receiving money as part of sporting testimonials as long as they are not paid through an employee charitable donation-type method. It is a bit much to expect committees that are set up to have to register themselves in this way to pay the sporting testimonial beneficiary through payroll giving. That is a bit of an over-cumbersome situation. A lot of the people who receive money through sporting testimonials give a significant chunk of it to charities. I am therefore concerned about the reduction in charitable giving that there will be as a result of these changes.
The Government have pretty much said that this has a negligible Exchequer impact, but, once again, an additional administrative burden is being built up. This may stop some of these committees going forward with testimonials if they realise that they have to register for payroll giving and have to pay class 1A national insurance contributions as a result.
Dr Drew
The hon. Lady will have heard my earlier intervention. It is not uncommon for people to give very generously when they have a favourite sportsperson. It could happen that someone expects to get £30,000 over the course of a year, yet people are so generous that they give £60,000. Should that be backdated? In other words, if the additional £30,000 could be given to charity, does that impact on the whole amount or the part amount? This what happens in real life; it is not as straightforward as perhaps the Government think.
Kirsty Blackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The liability only arises for testimonials of more than £100,000, but I understand his point. For example, I do not know how it would work if a committee were to receive £80,000 on the day of the sporting testimonial and then another £25,000 afterwards in charitable donations. I hope that the Minister will make plain which period the income from a sporting testimonial covers. If the income arises after the sporting testimonial, does it breach the £100,000 cap, and would the liability for class 1A contributions therefore arise, even though it did not occur on the day of the sporting testimonial?
There is also a difference between contractual and non-contractual sporting testimonials. The hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) made this incredibly clear in Committee and discussed in some detail the definition of “contractual”. The issue is not only the word “contractual”, but whether a sporting testimonial was expected. For example, if everybody who plays centre forward for a football club is given a sporting testimonial, does that mean that everybody should expect a sporting testimonial, or does it just happen that the last five people who played centre forward were amazing at scoring goals and therefore received a sporting testimonial? My concern is that people who did not expect a sporting testimonial will end up, through no fault of their own, in a situation where the Government consider it to be one that they expected to get.
My concern in both cases is the impact on HMRC, which will have a job of work to do in deciding whether the sporting testimonial income creates liability for class 1A contributions. Is it a contractual testimonial? Is it one that the sportsperson should have expected to receive? That will be a difficult set of cases for HMRC to deal with, to come to the correct decisions.
New clause 4 simply says:
“The Secretary of State must, within three years of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay before Parliament a report on its Exchequer impact.”
Before a Treasury Bill comes before Parliament, explanatory notes and a TIIN—a tax information and impact note—are provided, which we all are able to access. A TIIN projects how much the Treasury expects to receive as a result of tax changes, whether it is a tax relief or an additional tax. I have pushed Ministers before on how we know whether the expected impact was actually received.
The information that I was given in Committee was not as strong as I hoped for. I understand that at an unspecified point in the future, the Treasury Committee will be given a report on the Exchequer impact of tax changes. I do not know who keeps track of when those reports are published or whether a report is provided to the Treasury Committee on all measures that have an Exchequer impact. However, I do know that the Members who serve on the Bill Committee—whether Opposition or Government Members—and who scrutinise the Bill, raise concerns about its progress and ask questions about the potential Exchequer impact do not get a copy of the report. Only the Treasury Committee gets a copy of the report and has the right to scrutinise it.
If the Government cannot accept new clause 4—it would be nice if they did, so that a report was laid before Parliament that we could all see—I ask that when reports are published and sent to the Treasury Committee, all Members who serve on the Bill Committee also receive a copy. It would not be a massive administrative burden on the Treasury to ensure that we were all emailed a copy; I am not even asking for a paper copy. It would mean that Parliament and the Government’s decisions were more transparent. It would also mean that the next time we were asked to take a decision on national insurance contributions or anything else, we could look back at whether the impact that the Exchequer projected was actually received.
I get that there are various reasons why we change taxation. We can change taxation to discourage behaviour that we do not want, to encourage behaviour that we do want, to raise revenue or, as the Government say they are doing in this case, to simplify things—although I have given a number of reasons why this is not the way to simplify national insurance contributions or termination payments. This House can only make sensible decisions about taxation if we understand how accurate the Treasury’s projections are. It would be much better if the Government committed to send us a copy of this report when it goes to the Treasury Committee.
I will not press new clause 4 to a Division, but I am happy to vote with the Opposition on any measures that they press. I hope that the Minister will say yes to the small request I have made, because it would not have a huge administrative impact or cost him anything.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the comments and questions posed by the hon. Members for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and for Bootle (Peter Dowd). I shall not detain the House long, but I will try to respond to as many points as possible. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Bootle has raised those concerns and indicated that he intends to vote against this measure, given that he did not divide the House on Second Reading and did not divide the Committee on a single clause.
Peter Dowd
I indicated at the time that we would reserve our judgment and see whether the Government came up with sensible proposals. The fact of the matter is that, regrettably, they have yet again not come up with those suggestions, proposals, recommendations and explanations. That is why. Here we are giving the Government the benefit of the doubt, and we are being criticised for it.
Robert Jenrick
Let me respond to the amendments tabled by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. It is a bit like groundhog day, because we have been through these arguments before. I will first address new clauses 1 and 2, which seek to amend the legislation that deals with termination awards, and then new clause 5.
New clauses 1 and 2 seek to commit the Government to report to Parliament on the impact of the changes to termination awards legislation within one year of implementation. They both seek further information on the impact of this measure on individuals whose contracts have ended and on employers. New clause 1 also asks specifically about distributional analysis, while new clause 2 asks the Government to consider the impact on businesses using termination payments to fund a start-up—a matter that we also discussed in Committee.
First, the Government consider that producing such reports is unnecessary, because we have already considered these issues in detail as part of the policy development and extensive consultation process. As we have discussed on a number of occasions, this Bill has been known about for some time. It was published for the first time in 2015. It has been restated in Budgets. It has been consulted on. This is not a new measure; it is well known to individuals and stakeholders who might be affected and to the tax and professional community who will be involved in advising businesses. There is little more to be said on that.
Kirsty Blackman
As the Minister has said, we discussed this in Committee, as well as on Second Reading. As we have discussed it before and he knew this question was coming, can he tell us how many businesses use termination payments for their start-up and how many fewer will use it for their start-up as a result of these changes?
Robert Jenrick
As I said in answer to the hon. Lady in Committee, that is not information that HMRC collects. Studies are made by independent bodies, some of which I highlighted to her during the previous stage of the Bill. I could direct her to them, but I cannot vouch for the veracity of those studies, which are produced by independent bodies. Of course, there is anecdotal evidence of the number of start-ups created in the event of significant redundancies at particular businesses, but that is not something HMRC collects or would be able to do easily. With great respect to the hon. Lady and the point she is trying to make, I do not agree that that is something we should attempt to do in this case.
The point the hon. Lady raised in her closing remarks was about the review that HM Treasury does in the ordinary course of business. We do intend to do that, and we do so within three to five years of Royal Assent to a Bill. As I explained in Committee, the conclusions on the Bill will be communicated publicly to the Treasury Committee. I understand the point she has made on a number of occasions that we could at that point specifically notify certain Members of this House should they be in this House and remain interested. However, again with respect, I suggest it is perfectly reasonable that we send that to the Treasury Committee, which will publish it. It will be in the public domain, and if she or other right hon. and hon. Members are interested at that stage, they will be able to view it and take it from the Treasury Committee website.
Kirsty Blackman
Could the Minister please let us know whether that will be in three years’ time or five years’ time, or at what point in that two-year period should I be watching the Treasury Committee’s website?
Robert Jenrick
I cannot tell the hon. Lady that at the present time, and for good reason. We do not know at this moment when will be an appropriate time to review this particular tax. Clearly, it can take time to gather the correct evidential base, and that will vary from tax to tax. We will choose the correct moment when we have the greatest degree of evidence to make an informed decision, but it will be within the three-to-five year window.
The existing processes I have described allow time for the Government to consider an adequate amount of evidence, including administrative and taxpayer data. These do take time to collect. They often involve external research, stakeholder views and other relevant analysis. After one year, as is proposed in new clauses 1 and 2, is rarely the appropriate time to review a new tax. Accepting these new clauses at this stage would mean rushing into reviewing these polices prematurely, without proper consideration and without enough evidence to do so robustly, which is what I think all right hon. and hon. Members would wish us to do.
Secondly, the Government have already explicitly considered the impact on employers and individuals as part of this policy development and the consultation process I have already outlined. We decided on an approach that protected those losing their jobs—for example, by retaining the important £30,000 exemption. We have stressed on a number of occasions throughout the passage of the Bill that the Government certainly have no intention of changing that. Were this or a future Government to do so, it would require an affirmative statutory instrument, which could then be debated and voted on by the House. We have also chosen not to change employee national insurance contributions as well, which we could have done for even greater simplification. We chose not to do so to protect employees in a difficult period in their working lives.
At this point, I would add that this policy has been costed. That was certified by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, and the methodology for this assessment is described in the Budget policy costing document. The suggestion from the hon. Member for Bootle that this was not properly costed is not correct; it has been independently certified.
New clause 1 also requests that the Government conduct a distributional analysis. As I have set out on a number of occasions, the Government have already assessed the distributional impacts of this policy using the information that is available to us. We are confident that the termination awards affected by these changes will be disproportionately paid by higher and additional rate taxpayers. It will not be possible to make a further assessment until we have collected the administrative data on the impact of this policy, which we will do in due course, and it will of course inform the review we have already described in three to five years’ time.
New clause 2 asks that we consider the impact on start-ups. I have answered the question from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North: we do not hold this data. It is not an easy statistic to collect. It requires tracking the behaviour of an individual across time and between different employments.
Peter Dowd
We will push new clause 5, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw new clause 1.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 5
Effects of termination awards provisions
“(1) The Treasury must publish reviews of whether the payment of Class 1A contributions on termination awards under sections 1 and 2 has had—
(a) any effect on the number of termination awards made above £30,000;
(b) any effect on the size of termination awards made above £30,000; or
(c) a disproportionate effect on—
(i) women,
(ii) pregnant women,
(iii) persons aged 50 or over, or
(iv) any other group of people with protected characteristics (within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010).
(2) The first review under subsection (1) shall be published no later than 24 months after this section comes into force.
(3) Subsequent reviews under subsection (1) shall be published no later than 24 months after publication of the previous review.”—(Peter Dowd.)
This new clause would provide for a general review of the termination awards provisions of this Act within every period of 24 months.
Bought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Robert Jenrick
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am grateful to all the right hon. and hon. Members who participated throughout the passage of the Bill, particularly in Committee. I thank the Committee’s Chairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham) and the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh).
This is a small and narrowly drawn but none the less important Bill that continues the Government’s aim of aligning tax and national insurance contributions where it is right to do so. The Bill aligns the employer national insurance contribution treatment of termination awards and sporting testimonials with the current tax treatment. It also raises about £200 million a year for the public finances.
As I mentioned in previous debates, the Bill has been expected for some time. The measures were first announced at Budget 2015, consulted on thereafter and so have been widely expected and subjected to a great deal of scrutiny. The effect of the changes in the Bill will mean that a 13.8% class 1A employer national insurance charge will be applied to income derived from termination awards and sporting testimonials that are already subject to income tax.
I would like to reiterate my thanks to hon. Members who participated in the debates. I thank my superb officials at HM Treasury and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, whose patience and professionalism never ceases to impress me. I commend the Bill to the House.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the official Opposition on Third Reading. It is also a pleasure to speak opposite the Exchequer Secretary, who has been left holding the baby no less than three times this evening—understandable, perhaps, given the immense turbulence currently occurring on the Government Benches. I echo his thanks to the officials who have been involved with the Bill and to all those who made so many contributions, particularly in Committee.
As we have said repeatedly, this is a meagre Bill. We have many concerns about it that have not been addressed during its passage and were certainly not addressed this evening. First, on sporting testimonials, we still lack clarity on the scope of the Bill due to its terminological ambiguity. We still do not have any proper projection from the Government with regard to its impact on charitable giving.
On termination payments, we remain deeply concerned that the Bill still leaves the door open to reducing the value of national insurance-free termination payments. As a result of the Bill—the Minister even acknowledged this in his speech just now—we could see a reduction in the amount of NI-free payments going to those who are losing their jobs through secondary legislation. That is completely inappropriate and something we will not accept. The Government themselves have admitted that the measures will exert downward pressure on wages. There will also be a negative impact on termination payments, because they will be passed on from employers to employees.
There are huge problems with our tax system. They are not dealt with by this thin and meagre Bill. As a result, we will be voting against it on Third Reading.
Kirsty Blackman
The Bill does not do what the Government set out to do, which is to simplify the tax system. The tax system is not simpler as a result of the changes that are being made. It will be more complicated and companies will have a larger administrative burden. It also reduces wages. I raised concerns about the fact that those who are already at the bottom of the pile will be receiving less in wages as a result of the changes the Government are making. I am happy to vote with the Opposition.
Having said that, I felt that the Committee was good-tempered and we discussed the issues at some length. It was really nice to have an evidence session in Committee. Hopefully, we will move on to the Finance Bill Committee taking evidence so that we can have more informed debates.
Finally, I would like to thank a couple of our staff members who have been involved in the progress of the Bill—Emily Cunningham and Chris Mullins-Silverstein—for their work in supporting us. My speeches would have been much less informed if it had not been for their help and support.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Backbench Business
Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to carry out a review of the existing arrangements for the sharing of the surplus generated by the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee, under the excellent stewardship of my good and hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), for permitting this important debate. I also take this opportunity to apologise to those retired miners who made the long journey from the coalfield areas in anticipation that the debate would take place last week. Unfortunately, that was impossible owing to Government business.
In March I was honoured to accompany a group of retired mineworkers and MPs from coalfield areas to deliver a petition with more than 100,000 signatures to No. 10 Downing Street calling for a review of the surplus sharing arrangements for the mineworkers’ pension scheme. The petition is the basis on which this debate was called. I thank all those who have campaigned for pension justice for miners and their dependants.
I must declare an interest. Like many miners, my father and grandfather died prematurely in their 50s, their lives cut short by the industrial diseases prevalent in coalfield communities. While my father never collected his pension, my mother has been left with a reduced widow’s pension from the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. Every year, thousands of miners face premature death because of the dangerous conditions they toiled in underground many years ago.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
My hon. Friend speaks movingly about his family, but he also points to another issue, which is that the Government need to act urgently, otherwise miners and their families, who are obviously getting older, will not benefit from any measures taken.
Grahame Morris
That is an incredibly important point. When I had to apologise to some of the miners from Wales and Yorkshire who travelled down last week, the point was made to me that even in the space of one week—the period by which this debate was delayed—thousands would die.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and pay particular tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) and for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) for their work. Does my hon. Friend agree that a key issue is that the widow’s pension is even smaller than many of the miners’ pensions, so we are asking for an uplift from very small figures? If the Government could show some compassion and bring forward these changes, many widows and miners’ children would benefit hugely.
Grahame Morris
Absolutely; that is a key point. I hope those on the Treasury Bench will listen intently to the points made in this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) made a point about the number of miners and their dependants who were dying. The mineworkers’ pension scheme annual report shows a dramatic fall in the number of pensions in payment. It has fallen from 175,000 in 2011 to just over 135,000 today. As this indicates, because of the age of the retired miners and their widows—many are now in their 80s or older—they are passing away and the number of beneficiaries is falling dramatically.
I am proud to represent the mining communities of east Durham. We owe a debt of gratitude to our miners. Easington’s pits produced the nation’s wealth and powered the industrial revolution, and the mining industry transformed our landscape. Without coal, many of the colliery villages in Durham would simply not exist. Where a pit was sunk, workers from all parts of the UK— from Wales, Cornwall, Ireland—would come to work in those collieries. Indeed, at the height of its production, the Durham coalfield alone employed 170,000 miners in the 1920s.
Coalmining remained our primary source of employment until the closure of our last pit in Durham in 1994. The colliery in my village, Murton, ceased production in November 1991. It was a proud industry until relatively recent times. In my opinion, the men who toiled in our pits are heroes—they worked in darkness so that we could live in light—and, in their retirement, they and their widows deserve respect and security.
There are points of agreement that I believe are accepted across the House, including, I hope, on the Treasury Bench and among Government Back Benchers. I think we can all agree that there is value and importance in the guarantee given to the mineworkers’ pension schemes. What is in dispute is the cost of the guarantee. There is no denying that the guarantee has given to those who administer the funds the freedom to make bold investment decisions, which has allowed them to target higher returns on investment. It follows that the guarantor—the Government—should be compensated for the guarantee fairly and proportionately.
This debate is about the cost of that guarantee and whether the £4.4 billion and the ongoing claim to half of all future surpluses can be considered reasonable recompense to the Government for the level of risk they shoulder. In my view, there should be some correlation between the level of compensation and the level of risk.
Sir Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
We should recognise that when the increase in the miners’ pension scheme was higher than that in the state benefit scheme, many people in my constituency, because they got more money, did not take the means-tested benefits they were entitled to, so it is not just about surpluses; it is about how much money the scheme saved the state.
Grahame Morris
That is an absolutely relevant point. Other colleagues have referred to the relative pension levels. Ministers often quote the percentage increases, but the average pension payable is £84 a week. That is a paltry sum. I also respectfully point out to the Minister that the Government have never been called upon to make a single payment into the scheme.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a deferred member of the mineworkers’ pension scheme. My hon. Friend mentions the fact that British Coal—the National Coal Board—never put a single penny in the scheme. Many people have called this the crime of the century. At the time of the discussions, the projections were that the agreement would raise £2 billion. The Government have taken £4 billion from the miners of this country without putting a single ha’penny back in. Is this not an absolute disgrace?
Grahame Morris
Absolutely. I could not put it any better myself. It is now time to review the surplus sharing arrangements and the level set in 1994 and consider whether the decisions taken then were taken with the best financial advice and in the best interests of miners.
To be fair, the Government have been consistent in their arguments against making changes to the scheme. These arguments are set out in various responses to parliamentary questions and were restated by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in her response on 14 May to a cross-party letter co-ordinated by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent. I want to summarise the Government’s response because it is important to consider their arguments. The first is that the sharing arrangements work well for beneficiaries; the second that the sharing arrangements provide fair compensation for the Government; and the third that there can be no unilateral action and that changes can be made only with the agreement of the trustees. I want to take each point in turn.
First, does the surplus-sharing scheme work for beneficiaries? The Government’s position is that the scheme has worked well. In her letter of 14 May to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent, the Chief Secretary said:
“The sharing arrangements has meant beneficiaries enjoy bonus payments worth more than 33% of their index-linked benefits”.
As highlighted in a previous debate by my good and hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), the average payment from the scheme is just £84 a week, and it is a great deal less for widows, many of whom have outlived their husbands by many decades. Our industrial legacy means that many miners, like my father, never reach retirement age. Those who do are often in ill health, and will draw their pensions for fewer years than those who retire from other industries and sectors.
We often talk about deferred wages. When miners made those contributions, week after week and year after year, the expectation was that they and their families would have security in their retirement. After we delivered the Downing Street petition, w Sullivan, a campaigner and former miner, spoke of some widows receiving pensions of
“as little as £8.50 a week”.
Emlyn Davies, another campaigner, receives just £57 a week in return for 26 years’ work in the pit: a poverty pension for years of working in damp, dark, dangerous conditions, sacrificing health and wellbeing. Let me say to Conservative Members, and to people watching this debate, that to me it seems offensive to argue that the scheme is working well for beneficiaries when miners and their widows are receiving such a pittance as £8.50, £57, or even £84 a week.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. He has given some alarming figures. Does he agree that this is not just about security in retirement, but about dignity, and that the Government are not giving dignity to pensioners in the mining industry and their widows?
Grahame Morris
Absolutely. We owe a debt to the miners, and the Government have an obligation to them— a moral obligation. They obviously have the financial resources to discharge that debt, and to give retired miners and their widows and dependants some dignity.
John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)
May I take up my hon. Friend’s point about the moral obligation? Does he remember that when the Prime Minister first stood on the steps of No. 10 Downing Street, she talked about dealing with injustices in our society? Would it not be appropriate if, during her last few weeks in office, she asked officials and Ministers to think again and look at the independent analysis conducted by the National Union of Mineworkers, which suggests that a 90-10 split would be much fairer?
Grahame Morris
Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which has pre-empted my further remarks.
I am trying to deal systematically with the Government’s objections to changing the split. The second point made by the Chief Secretary in her letter concerned the question of whether the surplus sharing arrangements represent fair recompense for the Government guarantee. In her letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent, she wrote:
“Thank you for also raising your views on the surplus sharing arrangements. I believe that these represent reasonable recompense to the taxpayer, both for the past investment in the Mineworkers Pension Scheme during the industry’s period of public ownership and for the risks they continue to bear through the government guarantee”.
There is no evidence that the current sharing arrangements can be considered fair or reasonable. Incredibly, the scheme was established, and the surplus sharing arrangements agreed, without any actuarial advice, as confirmed in written answers given to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East.
We know a lot more about the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the associated risks that it faces than we did in 1994. If the 50-50 split represented the risk in 1994, 25 years later the risk to the Government is marginal. After a quarter of a century, they have never made a single contribution to the fund.
In the context of efforts to set a fair sharing arrangement, the Minister will be aware of two reports commissioned by the National Union of Mineworkers. I thank the NUM, and Chris Kitchen and his executive, for that. The two reports were produced by First Actuarial, and dealt with the Government guarantee and the surplus sharing arrangement.
One of the reports suggested that a 90-10 split of future surpluses would be a fair return to the Government for the relatively low level of risk taken in providing the guarantee. The schemes have been tested, and I point out that they weathered the 2008 world financial crash without any need to fall back on the guarantee. I implore the Government to use that report as a basis for negotiation—or rather renegotiation—which can deliver for all interested parties.
The third point made by the Chief Secretary in her letter was this:
“Any changes to the surplus sharing arrangements could only be considered in the round with changes to the guarantee, but trustees have indicated that their members are happy with the guarantee as it stands”.
As previously stated, the benefit of the guarantee is not being questioned. We all accept that it has benefit and value. It has allowed the scheme to be ambitious in its investment strategy. However, we should not conflate support for the guarantee with support for the surplussharing arrangements. Members representing coalfield areas will have received emails from constituents referring to the MPS trustee for Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire, Ken Capstick, in which he says:
“I know of not one Trustee that would agree with the statement made by…Chief Secretary to the Treasury and it is a complete misrepresentation of the position of the Trustees.”
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
That is what we expect from Tory Ministers.
Grahame Morris
Absolutely.
The MPS winter newsletter states:
“Whilst the Trustees are and always have been supportive of any initiative that had the underlying aim of improving members outcomes, the Trustees do not have the power to make these changes without recourse to the Guarantor”
—in other words, the Government.
“We will of course continue to work in your interests across all aspects of running the scheme”.
Let me say this, earnestly, to the Minister. The trustees will be listening. They want to renegotiate the current sharing arrangements. If approached by the trustees, will the Government, as guarantor, negotiate those arrangements? If the Minister wishes to intervene now, I will take his intervention; otherwise I hope he will address that question when he sums up the debate.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
May I say to the hon. Gentleman that there are those on this side of the House who not only have a great deal of sympathy with what is being said, but have a great deal of support for it and want to give a great deal of encouragement? Having come from Sheffield and worked with miners on the cricket field as well as the rugger field, I know the position exactly. I have seen all the pits and been down a lot of them. Let me simply say, I hope that you get what you want.
Grahame Morris
God bless you. I am grateful for that intervention,
What I am trying to do—with all due respect, and without denigrating anyone’s contribution—is set out the factual position. I think that the arguments that the existing arrangements are unfair are overwhelming.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
There is one point that my hon. Friend has not mentioned at all. I worked in the pit for 20-odd years before I came to Parliament, and I must say at the outset that this is an easier job than working down a coalmine. I know a lot of people do not like me saying that, but it is a fact. There is no doubt whatsoever about that.
One of the things that I learnt about the pension scheme was this. I must tell my hon. Friend, who has not referred to this yet although he may do so later, that when I went down the pit just after the second world war there was a pension scheme in the coalmining industry for managers and people who ran the mine. There was also a scheme that paid deputies, who were like little sergeants in the pit. They were people with authority and their membership entailed that they could be paid as well. I think it was in the early 1960s, when I was still in the pit, when at last somebody decided that miners themselves, and there were 700,000 of them working in the coalmines in Britain at the time—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I assume the hon. Gentleman thinks I am not listening to him, and that I have not noticed, but—
Madam Deputy Speaker
No, I did not mind that, but the hon. Gentleman is making rather a long intervention; I know this is his expert subject but I was hoping it would be an intervention-sized intervention.
Mr Skinner
I did happen to work down a coalmine and I am using the bit of expertise that I had regarding the coalmines, as opposed to being a Member of Parliament. I am trying to demonstrate something to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) and to ask whether he will look at this. When I worked in the pit the miners themselves—700,000 of them—did not have a pension at all. In fact it was not until the early ’60s that it was decided that the management had a pension, the deputies had a pension and it was time that the miners had a pension as well. That is what I am trying to demonstrate and I am hoping that my hon. Friend will refer to it. Thank you very much.
Madam Deputy Speaker
It is a pleasure. I must say that we are not creating a precedent here for the Chair allowing a very long intervention. Given the hon. Gentleman’s very specific position and long experience on this matter I have stretched things a bit, but that does not mean that anyone else will get away with it.
Grahame Morris
I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) for his knowledge, input and expertise. Of course the 700,000 miners, and the 170,000 miners in Durham, have built up a huge pension fund. I have asked various parliamentary questions to ascertain the size of that fund, but bear in mind that 50% of the surplus is taken by Government—£4.4 billion—and my understanding is that, when the last of those miners and widows dies, the Government will get everything; not just the surplus, but everything.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way on that point. As he knows, although Hartlepool never had any pits we certainly have mineworkers who served in pits in Durham. Does he agree that the Government are under an even greater obligation because of the sacrifices and industrial diseases that those mineworkers have suffered from, which have shortened their lives in many cases? That makes this an urgent issue for many.
Grahame Morris
Absolutely. This is a poignant time. Just a short while ago it was the anniversary of the disaster at Easington colliery in my constituency, where 81 men were killed in an explosion and two men from the rescue team. There is blood on the coal. A price was paid and men paid contributions into their pension funds in anticipation that, if their lives were cut short by accident or injury, their widows and dependants would be looked after. The Government are falling short on this. This is an historical debt that the Government must discharge.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Fred Smith died last week. He was a proud Scotsman and a miner in the Castleford collieries. He died of an industrial-related disease and he leaves a widow, Enid, and a family to care for. He wants justice.
Grahame Morris
Absolutely. A dear friend of mine, Myrtle McPherson, an absolute stalwart and a legend in Easington, died just a few days ago. These people should have justice. She was loved in that community and worked tirelessly. Her husband Gordon died prematurely of pneumoconiosis. There is a time pressure here and the Government and Ministers really must act.
Grahame Morris
I know lots of Members wish to speak in the debate but I will give way one more time and then conclude.
Caroline Flint
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that, given that these surpluses are essentially a windfall to Government, at the very least, we should have greater transparency in knowing what that money is actually spent on? Does he also agree that it is rather odd that the Treasury budgets to spend this money but claims it is not a sound or firm amount of money that it can count on? Does he think that the Treasury has questions to answer on that front?
Grahame Morris
I am rather alarmed that the Treasury uses some of the surpluses from the mineworkers’ pension funds and says that money is being recycled into regeneration in coalmining areas. Surely the money that miners paid—miners such as my father, grandfather and uncles no longer with us—was deferred wages; it was for their benefit in their retirement, which they never got a chance to enjoy, or for their widows and other miners, not to be used as regeneration funds.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
As a Member of Parliament whose paternal grandfather was a coalminer and whose major conurbation in my seat is called Coalville, I think the hon. Gentleman will know whose side I am on in this debate. Does he agree that, given that the vast majority of retired coalminers and their widows still reside in the coalmining communities in which they worked, and some of them died, any increase in their pension from this overfunded, well-endowed fund will only go back to enrich the communities in which they have lived and worked all their lives and it would be a good investment for the Government?
Grahame Morris
It is not often that I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but, absolutely, those people are certainly not going to be buying yachts and making investments in offshore tax havens. They are going to be spending that money in the local economy and supporting local businesses.
Several hon. Members rose—
Grahame Morris
I shall now conclude, otherwise I will incur the wrath of Madam Deputy Speaker.
Our mineworkers have served our country. They have served it loyally. They have toiled in the most dangerous and challenging working conditions imaginable. The contributions that miners have made to the wealth of our country was captured by George Orwell in his essay “Down the Mine” and I just want to read some lines from it:
“Our civilization…is founded on coal, more completely than one realizes until one stops to think about it. The machines that keep us alive, and the machines that make machines, were all directly or indirectly dependent upon coal.”
The importance of coal may have declined, but our gratitude to the miners should never wane and we owe them a debt of honour. Miners and their widows deserve better than poverty pensions. I am asking the Minister to end the pension theft and allow miners and their widows a better quality of life in retirement in their remaining years. Renegotiate the existing pension sharing arrangements. Do the right thing, Minister, and give the miners the money back that they have already earned.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We will have to start with a time limit of seven minutes.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
It is good to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), who raised some important points and set out a measured and non-partisan case, which is exactly what is required in this discussion.
I am proud to represent Mansfield and Warsop in Parliament. For most of the 20th century, mining was the most important industry and my constituency still has a proud coalmining heritage. It still dominates many aspects of our area and I have been working on the mineworkers’ pension scheme since I was elected. I have regularly met with the mineworkers’ pension campaign team and constituents affected by this important issue. I have held meetings with Ministers and trustees to help to lobby for changes to the terms of the scheme. This has been a very frustrating process; we have been through so many Ministers now, explaining and making the case each time. In March, I was pleased that the former Minister met a delegation, including Les Moore and my constituent Mick Newton, who has been a brilliant local campaigner on this issue in Mansfield. Mick, alongside campaigners including Trevor Cooke and many others, has been lobbying on the issue for many years.
I recognise—as do the Ministers with whom I have had this discussion—that the Government have done far better out of this scheme than they ever imagined when it was first agreed. The arrangement that was settled back in the 1990s saw the UK Government acting to guarantee the scheme and all pensions in cash terms in return for a 50% share of future services. It is important to recognise the importance of the Government guarantee and the protection it has provided to former miners. It means that the trust has been able to invest with security, and it has done incredibly well with those investments. Some credit for the fantastic investment returns made by the scheme has to come back to the fact that the guarantee allows the trust to invest without risk. That being said, time has moved on. The risk has moved on—it is not the same as it was back then—and I believe there is a case for revisiting the sharing arrangements, that the balance should be tipped in favour of the miners, and that the recipients of the scheme should keep more than 50%.
Ian Lavery
I am curious to understand what the hon. Gentleman has just said. He thinks that now is the time for the scheme to be tipped in favour of the miners, but what about before?
Ben Bradley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that, but I think it was a fairly pointless question. I am not in a position to go back and change the past. I am here in this Chamber talking about now.
The Government have had far more income from the scheme than they ever imagined. Many of the beneficiaries who are still with us are increasingly suffering with industry-related health conditions and are in need of support. It would be relatively simple for the Government to shift the balance, perhaps by offering a 70-30 split or going even further. The risk to the Government and the taxpayer is not what it was in 1994. We can split hairs about when the right time to do this might have been, and it was probably several years ago, but we are here now and we are talking about it.
Colleagues have gone into great detail about the costs and benefits of changing the balance. I have sought to do so previously with Ministers, but I feel that the best advocates for the change are the mineworkers themselves. That is why I have sought to get them together with campaigners, trustees and the Government to discuss this. I believe it is now time for the Government to undertake a formal review of the arrangements and consider the case for reform in proper detail.
Former coalfield communities are among the poorest in the country, and older people in particular struggle to make ends meet without savings and without much support beyond their pension arrangements. These coalfield communities are among the hardest working and longest suffering in our country, as the hon. Member for Easington said. The miners worked in darkness so that we could have light and, although much of that happened before I was born, I have every respect for those constituents in my community who worked incredibly hard to look after the rest of us and to ensure that we could have the quality of life that we expected.
Ensuring that miners can keep more of the surplus from these investments will have a life-changing effect. Many of them are on low incomes and it would help to boost their lives individually while they are still around to spend that money. It would also help to boost whole communities, such as mine in Mansfield and Warsop. As my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) said, more money in miners’ pockets in communities such as Mansfield is money that will be reinvested back into those deprived communities and help to boost them.
Some have suggested an increased guarantee as a compromise to cover the scheme’s bonuses, but although that sounds nice—and sounds like Government doing something—it will not put any extra money into the pockets of those miners. It would merely guarantee what they already get. We have already seen that the risk of needing that guarantee is very small, so I do not think that that is good enough. This is a chance for the Government to show that we are on the side of people who have worked hard and paid into the system, and that we will help them. To me, that is what the Conservative party should be about, so I hope that the new Minister and his Department will work alongside the Treasury and the trustees to review the scheme and to ensure that the hard-working miners who gave so much to their communities, including in Mansfield, will receive their fair share. I look forward to discussing this with him further.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley); it is good that there is all-party support for this debate. I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on his brilliant speech and on setting out his case so eloquently. I am speaking in this debate because I want to see justice for the retired miners in my constituency of Doncaster, North and, indeed, across Doncaster and the whole country. Miners worked their backs off for this country at great cost to themselves, often causing themselves ill health and a shortened life expectancy. Their families watched their loved ones risk their lives for this country, and the least we owe them is fairness and justice, which is what this debate is about.
As my hon. Friend said, the average payment under the scheme is just £83.98 per week—around £4,000 a year—so we are talking about people for whom every pound will make a difference. It cannot be right that £4 billion—and counting—has gone to the Government and not to the miners. That does not seem fair or right, and I think that that is recognised across the House. My hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman have spoken eloquently to the current injustice, and the hon. Gentleman said that if we look at the scheme now, it just does not seem fair. The specific and relatively brief point I want to make is actually about the past, because if the scheme does not seem right now, I think we have strong grounds for thinking that it was not right in 1994 either, when the original decision was made. That might look like a matter of historical detail, but I do not think it is. We are where we are now because of that decision, which Governments of both parties have abided by.
I am particularly grateful for the conversations I have had with my constituent Les Moore, whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and his organisation, the UK Miners Pension Scheme for Justice and Fair Play Association, which, along with the NUM, has toiled on this issue for years. The 50-50 split was decided and announced in April 1994, and we all know what happens when a decision like that is made: inertia sets in. The Treasury is getting billions of pounds as a result, and nobody wants to revisit the matter. No Chancellor, Conservative or Labour, wants to give up that amount of money. But what was the basis of that original decision? Remarkably, it is 25 years old and we still do not really know the basis for it.
I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), because she asked the most material question of all to the Minister last year. She asked the Government to publish the actuarial advice on which the surplus sharing arrangements were made. As my hon. Friend the Member for Easington said, the reply was, extraordinarily, that no such advice was obtained. If there was no actuarial advice behind a decision that had billions of pounds-worth of implications for hundreds of thousands of miners and their families, that really was negligence of the highest order.
The more closely we look at this decision, the more dubious it becomes. A document from September 1993 was released under a freedom of information request in 2016. It is a report carried out by the Government Actuary, and it is the closest document that anyone can find that is relevant to the time. It is not about the future arrangements, but it does talk about the current practice at the time and implies that at that point miners were enjoying not 50% of the surplus but 70%. So the question then arises: if 70% was the basis of the scheme then, why did it change to 50%? We just do not know the answer to that question.
My point about the history is that Governments of both parties have said that the decision was properly made in 1994, but the increasing evidence is that the decision was not properly made at the time. I have a simple request to the Minister, which is that he should publish the papers underlying the decision that was made in 1994. Then we could all see for ourselves for the first time how and why the decision was reached and what has changed since then. My simple belief is that the decision was not fair then and that it is not fair now. Miners gave so much to our country and we need to repay our debt to them. On that basis, and on the basis of the case set out by my hon. Friend, I believe that it is high time the Government launched a review so that there can be justice for my constituents and for tens of thousands of mineworkers and their families.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). My constituency covers what was formerly known as National Coal Board Scotland west area—a thriving mining community in its day—and this is one of a series of debates brought over the years in a bid to seek a fairer distribution of the surplus from the mineworkers’ pension scheme. The scheme was, in effect, divided into four sub-funds—the guarantee fund, bonus augmentation, guarantors, and investment reserve—with it being possible to vire moneys between some sub-funds, as appropriate, but the bonus augmentation fund is an exception, because there is no provision by which to make up any shortfall. The mineworkers’ total pension payable is protected, rises in line with inflation, and does not fall in cash terms.
There has been a long history of reasonable and fair requests for changes from former mineworkers, their widows, the Coalfield Communities Campaign and many others, including myself, whose relatives were miners. In my case, my father, my father in law and many other family members were miners. We empathise with those who served in the pits and who are seeking a pension commensurate with the daily dangers that they encountered at the coalface.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a good point about some of the dangers that coalminers faced at the coalface. In Clackmannanshire, which I represent, we still see not only the dangers that they faced back at the time, but the legacy and the long-term health impacts. Does he agree that it is time to review the fund and its distribution and that we should set regular reviews with actuarial advice to ensure that the distribution is fair and equitable in both good times and bad?
Bill Grant
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Those who were colliers or miners can become victims of silicosis and pneumoconiosis—common names in my household and my father’s—which affect the respiratory system. This group of people deserve a review that favours them. Many miners unfortunately go on to develop ill health later in life, which can often be attributed to the conditions in which they worked underground.
The men who wroughed hard, as we say in Scotland, in the bowels of the earth to put the “Great” in Great Britain fuelled the industrial revolution and kept the home fires burning through two world wars. It is worthy of note that the Labour party agreed to consider their concerns, but it found itself unable to do so as far back as 2003, due to a fall in world stock markets, so the original 50-50 share of the surplus prevailed. Even with the passage of time, it is clear that that unpredictability remains, given the immense dependency on the behaviour of money markets and the return from stock exchanges. It is essential to take a risk-based approach to ensuring that any Government, as the guarantor, are robust in securing and maintaining funding for the future.
The contingent pension liability for British Coal’s two pension schemes was valued at the modest sum of approximately £16 million. Some argue that recent surpluses need to be balanced against previous deficits, but I am unsure whether I would support such an approach. It was reported that there was a large surplus in the guarantee fund in 2017, with half being destined to provide bonuses to pensioners. The trustees announced new bonuses representing an increase equivalent to 4.2% of guaranteed pensions in the six years to 2023. In addition, there were to be improved benefits, and quite rightly so, for members under 60 who were not yet retired but who were experiencing serious ill health from spending decades underground. Such modest moves are to be welcomed, as is the coalfield communities fund that assists some of those communities.
In 2018, the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth instructed her officials to liaise with the pension fund’s trustees with a view to considering revising the scheme for the benefit of all parties. Earlier this year, she advised that that was ongoing, so this evening I ask the Minister to endeavour to expedite the review, given the increasing age and ill health of many mineworkers, to achieve any necessary adjustments to meet the earlier stated principle of a fair and equitable sharing of risk and, more importantly, reward in the interests of both scheme members and the Government. Finally, I hope that the review will look kindly on the remaining miners and their widows and afford them the financial dignity that they so richly deserve.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) and to see cross-party consensus around the need for change. I also congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on selecting this extremely important subject for debate.
I have been campaigning on the mineworkers’ pension scheme for some years alongside my hon. Friends from other coalfield communities and with both the National Union of Mineworkers and, crucially, the trustees of the pension scheme. We are all united in and committed to our goal of achieving a fairer pension for the thousands of former mineworkers and their widows who have stood by in dismay as the Government’s coffers swelled with billions of pounds made on their pension investments.
In answer to parliamentary questions, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has admitted, in its role as guarantor of the mineworkers’ pension scheme, that the Government have received nearly £4.5 billion since 1994. They have never had to pay a penny into the scheme. Even now, they expect to receive around £142 million a year from the scheme surpluses—a truly eye-watering figure. No wonder there is a huge amount of anger and resentment in mining communities because of it. The phrase I hear from many ex-miners in Ashfield is, “The Government is taking our money.”
Some people think ex-miners have a fantastic pension that is the envy of those on pensions from other traditional industries, but the truth, as my hon. Friends have said, is that the MPS pension is worth not much more than £80 a week. The truth is that many ex-miners and their widows are on a very limited income and struggle to make ends meet. That is some thanks for the back-breaking work these men did literally to keep the country’s lights on.
The conditions in which miners worked were uncomfortable at best and downright dangerous at worst. Keith Stanley, whom I know well, worked at the coalface in Nottinghamshire for 35 years, and he describes what it was like for miners down the pit: digging in narrow tunnels, just four feet tall at most; coal raining in on them regularly; travelling for an hour underground just to reach the coal seam before doing a shift; and grafting in hot and dirty conditions that most of us could not imagine.
Men were transferred to neighbouring collieries when the pits began to close, but when places ran out as more and more mines shut down, too many of them were tossed aside, left to find work in local factories or as manual labourers if they were lucky. Now approaching old age, many of them do not have the pension they hoped for and watch in dismay while money made from their pension investments is pocketed by the Treasury.
Keith told me that this injustice has always grated on him and that the oft-repeated Government line that ex-miners have a good deal leaves him seething. On the contrary, it is the Government who seem to have the good deal. When the guarantee arrangements were first negotiated, it was never forecast that the Government would make so much money from the scheme. They have banked billions more than expected, which is why we are now debating the right thing to do.
Luke Graham
I do not want to break the consensus that is building in the Chamber tonight, but the hon. Lady calls this an injustice and blames the Government. Why, then, did Ministers in the Labour Administration stand at the Dispatch Box in 2001, 2002 and 2003 and refuse to have that review? Why is it okay for Labour Members to call for it now? At least be honest about it.
Gloria De Piero
I accept that and, actually, the negotiations began at the end of the last Labour Government’s term—representatives of the National Union of Mineworkers have told me about the meetings they had in No. 10—but we left office. Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge the millions that we spent on compensation for industrial injuries and industrial white finger?
Ian Lavery
We are talking about good deals and bad deals, but it is not just about the surplus. Is my hon. Friend aware—I am sure she is—that, when the Government acted as a guarantor in 2002, there was a deficit of £390 million? Then, in 2005, the Government took back that £390 million from the scheme’s funds, plus interest. That amounted to £540 million. Not only that, but they took a further £229 million, which was 50% of the fund’s surplus. Talk about good deals and bad deals. I am sure she totally agrees that this is a bonanza for the Government. It is daylight robbery.
Gloria De Piero
“Bonanza” is right, “cash cow” is right and “injustice” is right when it comes to the mineworkers’ pension scheme.
In a recent letter on this issue, the Treasury referred to the 50-50 split of the surplus sharing arrangement as “reasonable recompense” for past investment in the MPS. Indeed, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has also stated that this arrangement is “in recognition of contributions” that the Government previously made to the scheme.
I ask for some clarity from the Government on this issue, as a recent answer to a written question I posed states that their involvement in the scheme began at privatisation, and we know from previous answers that the Government have not paid into the scheme since privatisation. What past investment or contributions can they still be being recompensed for? If there are none, surely this, along with the fact they have made far more money than expected from the scheme already, justifies the opening of negotiations into reviewing and reducing the surplus sharing arrangement. With such a strong case on such an important issue, though I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us time to debate the MPS, it is high time that we had a debate in Government time, with engagement from Ministers, so that we can look at finally righting this historic wrong.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), who has been a long-standing campaigner on this issue. I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on his passionate speech in opening this debate, and I thank him for it. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to be here fighting for an issue that matters so much to the lives of many of my constituents in Barnsley East. This debate on the MPS follows my Adjournment debate on the same subject in February, where we discussed the contribution made to this country by miners who toiled for decades, and the money the Government have unfairly taken from their pension scheme. Although I am pleased that this debate has been granted—I thank the Backbench Business Committee for selecting it—what we need now is action, not more words.
Since the scheme was established, following the privatisation of British Coal in 1994, the Treasury has pocketed more than £4.4 billion, with nearly half a billion more over the next three years planned. Yet since 1987 the Government have not paid in a single penny, and instead claim their undertaking as guarantor makes this a fair price worth paying. In return, the average retired miner must get by on about £84 a week, while some are forced to settle for much less.
Luke Graham
The hon. Lady is talking about returns. Does she recognise that a 40% return on an investment fund is extraordinary? One does not have to be a City hedge fund manager to understand that. A lot of that is down to the fact that the Government are a guarantor. Does she agree therefore that regular reviews should take place and that the percentage should be variable, based on the performance of the fund, as 50% or 90% of nothing will be nothing for the miners?
Stephanie Peacock
I will come on to talk about what split I think there should be, but I just ask the hon. Gentleman whether he could live on £84 a week. That is what a lot of retired miners in my constituency—
Stephanie Peacock
I have taken an intervention and I am going to make some progress.
As I was saying, these staggering sums are born out of the 50-50 surplus-sharing arrangement. Let us not forget that, as has already been pointed out in this debate, this agreement was made without any actuarial advice—it is simply staggering. This agreement simply must be reviewed and amended to give miners a greater share of what I believe is fundamentally their money. It is patently unfair that these miners, who powered our nation, are left to fight for crumbs off the table.
Leaving aside questions of fairness, the sharing surplus arrangement no longer makes financial sense either. The Government claim the risk they undertake in underpinning the pensions in their role as guarantor justifies this huge price paid and they suggest that without their backing the current value of the pensions would be considerably less. That is certainly up for debate, but what is not is that the landscape has changed drastically since this original agreement was made. For instance, the risk they assumed in 1994 in acting as guarantor has decreased substantially since then. The membership of the scheme alone has fallen considerably, for example. In 2006, there were 280,000 members, whereas there are now fewer than 160,000—by 2026, there will be just 125,000. So the financial risk for the Government has decreased and will continue to do so, yet miners in the scheme are still essentially charged the same price for the guarantee as they were 25 years ago. From a financial perspective, the scheme is no longer proportionate or providing value for money, yet the Government are willing to ignore this in order to continue boosting the coffers of the Exchequer.
On that note, in my previous Adjournment debate the Minister further attempted to justify this income by stating the Government have spent about £1 billion in coalfield communities over the past two decades—but that still leaves billions taken from the miners unaccounted for. Surely, the Government should at least tell us where that money has been spent?
Rather than in the Treasury, money should be in the pockets of retired miners. Along with the scheme trustees, the Government have the authority to make that so, by amending the surplus sharing arrangement, providing genuine value for money and righting this injustice—so will they? Will they, like the Labour party, commit to an immediate review of the current scheme as it stands? As part of that review, will they consider the NUM-commissioned report that suggested a 90-10 split in favour of the miners? Will they meet me, other coalfield MPs and the NUM to discuss that recommendation further? Will they acknowledge that the benefits brought to miners’ pensions by the Government’s guarantee simply no longer provide value for money? These are good, hard-working people who toiled for decades for the good of our country. The Government should put right this wrong and give miners what is rightfully theirs: a decent pension that they have earned and paid for.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for securing this important debate about miners’ pensions, and I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), who made a cracking speech.
This is an important issue for the people of Blaenau Gwent and across the south Wales coalfield. I wish to focus on people I know—people in my family, like my uncle Dessie, and his comrades—and why they need a fairer deal. I need to declare an interest: my family worked in coal and steel, the two industries that drove our industrial revolution and built Great Britain. My great, great grandfather was an iron puddler from Merthyr. It says on my birth certificate that my dad was a labourer at the GKN steelworks in Cardiff. My great grandfather was killed down the pit. My grandfather got crushed under a coal fall at Markham colliery. The three uncles on my mum’s side were colliers. Their stories are important to explain why we need action. I will concentrate on just one of them.
My uncle Dessie Winter started work when he was 15 at the NCB brickyard in Tredegar. After that, he started working underground in the Oakdale colliery, further down the Sirhowy valley, where he spent the next 17 and a half years of his life. He worked there alongside his brother, his brother-in-law and his butties from Ashvale. Several generations of Tredegar families worked at this pit to keep the lights on, the fires burning and our country running. At work, they faced daily dangers: explosions from gas leaks, flooding and, of course, the dust.
Dessie’s generation saw the industry change, from prosperity to the miners strike. Oakdale closed in 1989. Marine colliery, where my uncle Jackie worked, closed the same year. The mines are pretty much all long gone now. The coal industry employed 400,000 people in the year that Dessie started; now, just 700 work in coal, and there are just 150,000 mining pensioners. The Government’s obligations to Dessie’s comrades and thousands like them have to be met.
When I speak to Dessie about the pension scheme, his first concern is making sure that widows get a fair share. They currently get around two thirds of the pension, but with colliers getting perhaps £84 a week, that fall of around £30 a week is really hard for widows. Dessie paid in for decades and thinks that his wife should get her fair share.
The second thing he talks about is just how much money the Government get from the scheme. The Government guarantee is critical—I do not think anyone will dispute that it is needed—but there is a real question about how much the Government receive in return for it. The current arrangements have netted the Government more than £4 billion since 1994. That is right: pensioners are subsidising the Government. Billions of pounds have been pocketed by the Chancellor without the Treasury making any direct payments into the scheme itself. Dessie feels that the Government are taking the cream off the top of the miners’ money, and who could disagree with him? When I spoke to him recently and asked what his friends from the pit thought about the pension deal, he said, “Nick, there are not so many here now.” Some 6,500 miners passed away last year alone.
The Government have a duty of care to those who are left and to their families for all that they have done. I call on the Minister to do two things to help set things right. First, will the Government implement the proposals that the trustees have made about protecting pension bonuses? That means that miners will have a larger guaranteed pension pot. Secondly, the Government must bring forward a review of the current sharing arrangements, which should consider the Government taking a reduced share, so that more money can go to retired miners and their widows.
Dessie and his generation just want fair play. They have put in decades of physically tough and dangerous work to dig coal and keep the economy going for all of our futures. The Government must repay that debt to them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Everyone has been very good at keeping to time, but I will have to reduce the official time to six minutes to make sure that everybody gets a fair chance.
Danielle Rowley (Midlothian) (Lab)
I swear that, for the past few times that I have spoken, the time limit has been reduced just before me, but I do not blame you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It is truly an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), who just gave such an emotional and personal speech. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for his speech and for the debate as well.
I am honoured to represent a rich mining community, home to the Lady Victoria Colliery, which was Scotland’s first super-pit, with a workforce of almost 2,000 at its peak. It was nationalised in 1947 by a Labour Government who invested in working class communities. A thriving mining community grew up around this pit in Newtongrange and in other Midlothian towns which, like many other mining communities, have suffered since the closure of the pits.
The site of the colliery is now home to the National Mining Museum, which is a fantastic museum and events base. It ensures that the role and the national significance of the mining industry and the impact that it had on the lives of those who lived in mining communities are never forgotten, and yet mining communities are being forgotten by this Government. Their voices are being ignored and they are being unfairly and unjustly treated, as we have heard from all parties in this debate today.
We have heard about the average miner’s pension, but some retired miners and their widows are living on roughly £60 a week at the bottom, and that is just disgraceful—absolutely disgraceful. It has also been reported that at least 6,000 ex-miners have had their pensions cut, and that is despite the huge profits that are being made by the Government—an estimated £10 billion over the past 20 years under this current arrangement. At the time of the agreement, it was estimated that the scheme would generate a £2 billion surplus over 25 years, but, as we heard from some of my colleagues, that has been underestimated and there is actually more.
The amount given to ex-miners must be re-evaluated. The Government have been rewarded with huge undeserved sums and, as we have heard today, they are treating the mineworkers’ pension scheme as a cash cow. It was meant to be a safety net for miners, not a money earner for the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent used a phrase that I thought was particularly illuminating. He said that pensioners were subsidising the Government. Is that not disgraceful?
The work of miners in Midlothian and across the country was integral to the development of the wealth of our country. Britain developed in part on the backs of miners, and we have to show our gratitude to them, we absolutely do. The miners’ work was very physically demanding and, as we have heard, it has led to many retirees living with associated health conditions.
I would like to take the chance to pay tribute to the Lothian miners’ convalescent home, Whatton Lodge, in East Lothian for all the work that it does looking after retired miners and their families. It celebrated its 70th anniversary recently. It does great work for miners in Midlothian and across the Lothian area.
I am glad to have been called to speak in this important debate. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) talked about not even having been born when some of the pits were closed. I think that I just pip him on being a little bit younger. It is so important to have young voices from across the Chamber speak in this debate, because we must ensure that the voices of miners are not lost.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is talking about young people. This year in my constituency of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, the Auchengeich miners commemorate 60 years since 47 miners died in a fire—paying the real price of coal. Their children grew up fatherless, with no money, and people are still suffering today. That is the real price of coal. The Government should give the money back to the miners.
Danielle Rowley
My hon. Friend is right that this has to be an intergenerational debate. We have to show solidarity with retired miners and their families.
I am so proud to be from a mining community, but also from a mining family. Both my grandfathers were miners. In fact, my granda Ron Curran celebrated his 92nd birthday with me on Saturday, and it was a great event. He always fought for justice for miners, and I continue to do so in his honour.
Andrew Bridgen
The hon. Lady talks about coalfield communities. Does she agree that they are gritty, proud, and among some of the hardest working and most honest communities in the country? These are not communities that expect something for nothing—they worked for everything they got—but what they do expect is what they are due and deserve from their pension fund, which they have worked so hard for.
Danielle Rowley
It has been really good to see the solidarity shown from both sides of the House on this issue. Earlier, the hon. Gentleman mentioned investment in pit areas. Miners typically stay in those areas and invest in them, and not only do retired miners tend to stay in the areas where they worked; they also give so much back. There are some fantastic retired miners and widows of miners in my area, such as Alex Bennett and Margot Russell, who have done amazing work locally and have given so much back. I was going to say that these people should be rewarded, but this is not about giving them a reward; this is about giving them what they worked for, and that is so important.
Ian Lavery
We should not be pleading for the miners to get justice in this Chamber. These are deferred wages. The miners actually put the money in the pot in the first place. From 1987 to 1994, there was a contributions holiday for the National Coal Board that cost £1.2 billion. We are talking about deferred wages that the miners worked for; they paid the money into the bank account out of their own pockets, and here we are pleading for justice.
Danielle Rowley
My hon. Friend is bang on. These are absolutely deferred wages. This is money that belongs to retired miners.
The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) has already committed to exploring options on a cross-party basis, but will he commit today to meeting ex-miners, the NUM, pension trustees and Members across the House from mining communities, and then review these arrangements urgently?
We all seem to agree that this arrangement is unfair and unjust, and it seems not to be based on facts or evidence. It cannot be right that the Government are making so much profit and the pensioners are being left with basic allowances. Miners created the wealth, and they should be able to access it for a dignified and well-supported retirement. I echo the calls of hon. Members across the House, and call for an end to this pension theft for retired miners and their families in Midlothian and across the country.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate and I thank the Benchbench Business Committee for bringing it forward.
I really hope that tonight’s debate will give the Government an opportunity to reflect on their position and put right the injustice felt by thousands of former miners in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and across the country. We must consider what has been contributed over past decades. Thousands of miners, as we have heard, gave the best years of their lives and worked in dangerous conditions. In many cases they gave their health, and in some cases even their lives, for the coal industry. There can probably be no greater price paid for coal than the Aberfan disaster in my constituency in 1966 when 116 children and 28 adults lost their lives.
My paternal grandfather was killed in Ogilvie colliery in 1944 when he was just 32 and my own father was just one year old. On my mother’s side, my great-uncle was killed in 1962 at Elliot colliery in New Tredegar at just 19 years of age. Sadly, these losses were replicated all too often across the coalfields and over the decades. In addition, hundreds, if not thousands, of miners suffered poor health over many years, including my maternal grandfather, who suffered many years of ill-health due to his many years as a miner.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
It would be very remiss of me not to mention my predecessor, Siân James, whose early life as a miner’s wife was immortalised on the big screen in the movie “Pride”. It was with Siân that I visited the Gleision mine in September 2011 and looked into the faces of the women who prayed that their men would be returned to them safely. Unfortunately, they were not. Miners have always risked—and, sadly, all too often given—their lives just for doing their job. Does my hon. Friend agree that those who did survive and reach pensionable age should not now be struggling on a paltry pension while the Government are rewarded with vast sums of money from a scheme that they have not paid a penny into—not a penny?
Gerald Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and agree with her. She talks about the injustice of this, which I will come on to later. I pay tribute to her for the campaigning work that she has done in Swansea East. I also pay tribute to her predecessor.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned some of the disasters that mining communities have faced. I cannot but mention the Gresford disaster in north Wales in which my paternal grandfather lost his life. Clearly, there is a moral case for why the Government need to act on this, but there is also a really good financial case, because we are not talking about that much money. It really is imperative that they act.
Gerald Jones
I agree with my hon. Friend’s comments. The history of our coalfields is littered with examples of the sacrifices that our communities and miners made, and it is important that this is recognised.
In more recent years, conditions improved and so did the terms of employment. The Government acting as guarantors for the scheme in 1994 was the right thing to do to make sure that the value of the pension fund did not decrease. That is why it is now essential for the Government to address the injustice and unfairness felt by miners over the pension scheme and the way it has been handled over the past 25 years. As we have heard, the Government have benefited from huge payments over the years. However, we must ask them to reconsider their position and whether it is still appropriate for them to benefit from such huge payments. Miners in areas like mine, and across the country, did so much to support the generation of power for the nation. Indeed, the coal and iron works in my constituency helped to power the country for many years, going way back to the industrial revolution. Those former miners therefore deserve fairness and a guarantee that that they are looked after.
Miners have had to fight injustice before, for compensation for pneumoconiosis and other diseases. Many former miners feel that the way in which the pension fund is currently administered is certainly not fair and equitable. Too often, they have been let down. My first involvement in politics was as a 14-year-old during the miners strike in 1984 when communities like mine were supporting the miners in the year-long fight for jobs against an uncaring Tory Government.
In April, I was pleased to co-sign a letter co-ordinated by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), who has done so much on this issue over a number of years, calling on the Government to review their position on the sharing arrangements with the fund. It seems grossly unfair that miners are receiving an average pension of £84 per week—in some cases, a lot less. If we contrast this with the £4.4 billion the Government have received, it is hard—in fact, nigh-on impossible—to justify. It is indeed, as others have mentioned, a disgrace. It is certainly not fair, as the Government have not had to contribute anything to the scheme. They must have made far more money than was ever forecast to be the case. It is therefore time for a review.
The balance of risk was very different in 1994, when British Coal ended. People are much more informed all these years later. At the very least, the Government should conduct a review to ensure that they treat miners and their families with fairness. That does not appear to be the case at the moment.
The surplus share arrangements of the pension scheme were altered in 1994 from 70-30 to 50-50. Independent legal or financial advice to offer a due diligence approach does not appear to be evident. Was it ever sought or obtained? These were and are huge sums of money belonging to the miners. At the very least, in the apparent absence of such advice, it would be fair and transparent for the Government to undertake a review, so that the evidence and opinions of those affected or involved in the scheme could be taken into account.
Finally, membership of the scheme has decreased over the years and now stands at 160,000. The Government’s financial risk is therefore in decline, yet the 50% ratio is still the same as 25 years ago. There is a sense of urgency. The former miners are not getting any younger, and I am sure we all agree that they should get the benefit from the scheme while they are alive. We need action now, and I hope we will get some answers from the Minister this evening.
Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones), and I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on securing this important debate.
As the MP for a former mining community, I want to begin by stating how proud I am to know and represent the ex-miners and their families in Leigh. They are the pride of our town, and their stories are legendary. The coalmines were the beating heart of our community, and we owe the miners an enormous debt of gratitude for their service to our towns. It is for that reason that their struggle is so heartbreaking. For decades they bravely worked to serve their towns, and now they feel we have let them down. Some feel they have been exploited, and many are angry that they have not been given the respect and support they feel they have earned.
To treat former miners and their communities in the way they have been treated in the past few years, while reaping more than £4.4 billion for the Government coffers, is the height of disrespect. The £4.4 billion that the Government have received should have been used to invest in the miners’ towns, give them a high standard of living and ensure that their health and finances were fit to give them the dignity in retirement that they deserve.
Jo Platt
I will not, because I know that a few Members are waiting to speak, and we are short of time.
The sad reality is that the miners have faced real hardship and neglect. Their finances have not been protected, with hundreds of cases of miners and their families living in poverty after their retirement, and their health has been endangered. Communities like Leigh have not been given the investment they deserve to keep our economy and society strong after the pits closed.
Towns like Leigh were once the beating heart of the country, but after decades of neglect, Leigh is at the bottom of the social mobility rankings, without the resources to rebuild its economy. The truth is that our post-mining community are not asking for much. They are not asking for some lavish lifestyle—they just want what they deem to be rightly theirs, but every step of the way they have had to fight tooth and nail for the healthcare, pensions and respect that should have been granted.
Jo Platt
I am sorry, but I am not going to give way.
If it were not for brave and relentless fighters like Colin Rooney, who campaigns on behalf of the south Lancashire coalfield, we would never have the incredible campaigning force that we see today, which deserves enormous respect. Anyone who speaks to our ex-miners knows that they give it to you straight, and when they see injustice, they do not stop fighting. For this Government to ignore their plight and leave this injustice burning would be reprehensible. They have a duty to start setting right the wrongs that these men have suffered.
If we needed more evidence that this Government have no regard for our ex-miners, a few weeks ago, in response to my question, the Prime Minister said that she was proud to be raising safety standards in mines—forgetting that her predecessors closed them all. Raising safety standards in closed mines is perhaps the only achievement that the former Prime Minister can safely claim.
This debate goes further than just miners or the miners’ pensions that must be re-evaluated. This debate reaches to the way we as a society care for those we sent into dangerous conditions, those who lost their jobs when the pits were closed and those who have seen their communities neglected, so we must today send the message that the indignity will end. Our ex-miners are still the beating hearts of towns such as Leigh, and now we must all give them the respect they deserve for their service to their local communities.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
It is a great privilege to speak in this debate. I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), who is almost my constituency neighbour, on introducing this debate. In Bishop Auckland, I obviously represent hundreds if not thousands of former Durham miners who are affected by this injustice. As other hon. Members have said, mineworkers did difficult and dangerous work. They built the wealth of this country for over 150 years, and we owe them a huge debt.
One of the things in the Chief Secretary’s letter that really jumped out at me was her claim that the scheme works for beneficiaries. It patently does not work for beneficiaries. She says that the guarantee of value for individuals is that there should be no reduction in cash terms in the overall value of the mineworkers’ pension. What that means is that people can and, in fact, do see reductions in the real values of these pensions. This is deeply unfair. The Treasury has had £4,438 million from the surpluses of the scheme.
Andrew Bridgen
Does the hon. Lady agree with me that in this debate, for once, the right hon. and hon. Members taking part in it are not asking the Government to put their hand into their pockets, but asking the Government to get their hand out of the pockets of the former miners and their widows?
Helen Goodman
Well, I think we will hear whether Treasury Ministers see it in quite that way at the end of the debate.
The other unfairness is that, as hon. Members have said, the 50-50 split is completely arbitrary. No reason has yet been given as to why the split should not be 70-30 or even 90-10. Another point worth bearing in mind is not just that the mineworkers contributed to the scheme, but that for many years miners were not well-paid industrial workers. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) is not going to correct me, but my recollection is that, in 1972, the average wage of a miner was £26 a week. By no stretch of the imagination were people having a high standard of living, and the very least they can expect is that they and their families have a decent and dignified retirement.
Not only is this unfair, but it is also urgent. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) spoke beautifully about the impact on his family of the accidents and ill health that came with being a miner. In my constituency, the wards where the former miners live have a healthy life expectancy fully 10 years less than in other parts of the constituency. These are not one-off anecdotes; this is a whole systematic impact on communities.
My final point is that this is completely affordable. I think we have heard that the value of the pension to individual miners is now about £4,000 a year. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) said, the Treasury has grabbed the £4 billion, and having done this deal it is trying to hold on to it. I would like to set this in context. This is a Government whose Members are seriously considering electing as the next Prime Minister of this country somebody promising tax cuts worth £4,500 to everybody with an income over £50,000 a year. Surely if there is any commitment to justice in this country, before there are any more tax cuts for any wealthy people, the mineworkers should get their money.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am sorry, but we have to reduce the time limit to five minutes.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
I thank the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for securing this important debate. I agreed with every single word of his speech. He made an unimpeachable case and the motion should be supported this evening by the Government.
It has been four months since our last debate on this issue. Despite calls from several hon. Members and a petition signed by more than 100,000 people, which I was proud to present to the Prime Minister at No. 10 Downing Street in March with the hon. Gentleman, there has been little progress. I presented the petition alongside campaigners Ken Sullivan, Gareth Hughes, Emlyn Davies and Neville Warren, who have worked tirelessly for justice. I pay tribute to them for their work.
Coalmining shaped the Wales that we know today. Our landscape was reshaped by massive slag heaps and our population shifted en masse from rural Wales to the coalfields, creating vibrant communities, only for them to be ripped apart by the brutality of Thatcherism. The miners strike of 1984 remains vivid in my memory. I was only eight at the time and clearly oblivious to the forces at work. However, the events of that year and their aftermath left a lasting impression on my political thinking. I do not come from a mining family. However, many of my school mates did and I remember to this day the impact of that strike on their wellbeing as that year-long struggle developed.
My father, however, was a trade union shop steward with the electricians union and it was clear to me what side of the fight we were on as a family. This year my father told me, out of the blue, that his grandfather was killed in a mining disaster underground at a pit near Llanelli, which just goes to show that for Wales the coal industry is deeply personal for the entire nation, which is why today’s debate has added significance. I became acutely aware of the power of the British state to destroy Welsh communities and became convinced that the best way to protect my country was the creation of a Welsh state, as opposed to leaving economic powers in the hands of Westminster.
In many respects I come from a frontier community, which borders post-industrial and rural Wales. The Amman valley sits on the anthracite coalfield, which produces the best coal in the world. To our west lies rural Wales, to the north the beautiful wilderness of the Brecon Beacons, to the south the coast and the great industrial urban centres of Swansea and Llanelli, and to the east the Welsh coalfield valleys, which stretch the whole way, more or less, to the English border. The people of the Welsh coalfields are extremely proud people. Community bonds continue to be strong. Our communities continue to be vibrant. What we lack in comparative economic wealth we make up for in social vitality. That is the legacy of the mining industry and mineworkers.
One obvious example for me is the continued importance that the communities I serve place on sports clubs. I am deeply humbled to serve as the honorary vice-president of Ammanford rugby club and Penygroes rugby club. It is a tradition for me to wear the ties of local sporting clubs in this House. Today I am wearing the tie of Ystradgynlais rugby club. Although that is outside my constituency, in Powys, the eagle-eyed will have noticed that the Ystradgynlais crest features a miner’s lamp.
Our debt today for the incredible communities that we are lucky to live in in my part of the world lies with the mineworkers of the past. The conditions that they worked in were terrible, causing long-term health damage for thousands. The least that they deserve for their contribution is dignity, but successive Westminster Governments, both blue and red, have let them down. Twenty-five years of injustice have been inflicted on them, while the miners—the people who produced the wealth in the first place—are receiving as little as £10 a week from the scheme. As we have heard in today’s debate, the average pay-out is only £84. As we know too, at least £4.4 billion has been siphoned off by the Treasury.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
The time that the Fife miners spent working in the pits has obviously had a greatly detrimental effect on their health. Is it not time that we had an immediate review? Time is of the essence and this is a wrong that we need to put right now.
Jonathan Edwards
My hon. Friend makes a vital point. I suppose my question for the British Government this evening is this. If they are so confident of their case, what do they have to lose by agreeing to an independent review?
The 50-50 surplus arrangement has served the British Government extremely well. As we have heard, it was negotiated during the privatisation of the industry in 1994 by the then Conservative UK Government. There was a review by the Labour Government in 2003, but they decided against any adjustments. The Treasury argued that the guarantee arrangement enables the trustees of the scheme to authorise riskier investment strategies, enabling greater returns for the mineworkers’ pension scheme which are then passed on to pensioners, as well as, of course, to the Treasury. Nobody is disputing the importance of the guarantee or the logic of that argument. The question at hand is whether the British Government should be receiving such enormous sums for their role as the guarantor. Considering the secure nature of the MPS, it seems clear to me that the British Government cannot justify their current claim on the generated surpluses.
I have to tell those on the Treasury Bench that the general feeling out there in mining communities is that this is the latest in a long line of injustices perpetrated by the British Government on the miners, their families and the coalfield communities. About 22,000 people in Wales are affected by this scandal. I was so proud to present the petition calling for an urgent review to Downing Street in March. If the Minister values the hard work of the miners who endured in terrible conditions and their invaluable role in shaping the coalfield communities we live in today, and considering the length of time since the last review, the British Government should accept the motion.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I come from a mining family. Both of my grandfathers were coalminers. One worked in the Garw and Llynfi valleys and the so-called south crop, and the other worked in coalmines close by. Today, I represent a former mining constituency. My constituency contains the village of Senghenydd, which in 1913 saw the worst mining disaster in the whole of the British coalfield: 439 men and boys lost their lives in an absolutely horrific explosion. More recently, the collieries of Bedwas and Penallta closed immediately after the miners strike of 1984-85. They were two of the largest collieries in the whole of south Wales and the effect on the local area was devastating. What is more, no real attempt was made to provide alternative employment.
The legacy of coalmining in my area left two deep scars. The first is the issue of miners’ compensation for dust. That issue loomed large during my first years in the House. After a long campaign and a hard fight, many former miners did receive the compensation they needed. Not all of them. There were surface workers who did not get any compensation, even though they suffered from dust. Nevertheless, it was a hard fight.
The second big issue is the mineworkers’ pension scheme. As we have heard this evening, this has not been resolved. The essence of the problem is that the Government and the scheme’s trustees came to an agreement to share the surplus of the scheme 50-50. Essentially, that was an arbitrary division. By 2000, it was clear that the scheme was not working as many people intended it to work. The Coalfield Communities Campaign argued at that time that it was too generous a split for the Government. It queried the actuarial advice, saying it was too cautious. Perhaps we have to cast doubt on the advice itself and whether proper advice of any kind was provided. It would be good, as has been called for, if we saw from the Government the advice received at the time.
A review did take place, but because of market instability it came to the conclusion that there should be no change. The result has been that the surplus has become a real surplus. It has escalated hugely, so that from 1994 to November 2018 we have seen a surplus going to the Government of £4.5 billion. That is a heck of a lot of money by any standards—a real windfall.
The Government have used the justification that much of the money is used to help former coalfield communities. I would make the point that that should not be the case, because money should be provided from other resources. I also have to question whether that money has in fact been used to help those former communities. What is absolutely certain in my view is that that money should also be going to help former miners and their widows. That is where, morally, it ought to go, in total. That is why we need a commitment to a fundamental review, the objective of which should be that the full benefit of the pension scheme should go to the miners and their widows. In short, we are asking this evening that the miners should, at long last, have justice.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and there have been some excellent contributions tonight. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for bringing forward this important issue and I commend the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for leading the debate. He gave an excellent speech, which illustrated the key issues at the outset, detailing his family mining history and giving the personal example that, sadly, his dad died before reaching pension age. He was correct to highlight the dramatic death rate: an average of 10,000 miners in receipt of their pension are dying a year. The death rate is rising, which means that the longer that this Government do not take any action, the more of a windfall that generates for the Treasury. That is why action is needed soon. He also highlighted the generally low pension rates that miners in the miners’ pension scheme receive. As we heard, these are not huge sums of money. That money is still difficult to live on, and the example of somebody getting just £8.50 a week was really illustrative. Overall, his contribution was measured and well delivered.
We had 12 other contributions from Back Benchers, with cross-party agreement, which is really good. I pay testament to the work by and contribution from the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), who unearthed the lack of actuarial advice back in 1994 and the unfairness in the fact that £1 billion spent in coalfield communities is well dwarfed by the £4.5 billion that the Government have taken out of the fund. As others have said, the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) made an emotional contribution about the effect on his family. I have signed early-day motion 235 in support of changes to the 50-50 split and of the cross-party letter organised by the hon. Gentleman. Frankly, the Government response was really poor and it is good that that has been widely rebutted tonight. I come from a wider coalfield and coalmining area and I was proud as an MP to witness the unveiling of a new memorial to all the miners that were killed in Muirkirk and the surrounding villages. It is right that that goes down in lasting memory.
It has been a real disappointment that Governments of all colours have benefited from the 50:50 arrangement and that, to date, sadly, none have been willing to make any changes. In fact, if we look at the ministerial responses over the years, we see that they are actually all the same. It does not matter if it is a new Minister, a Tory Minister or a Labour Minister; they have all trotted out the same arguments, which appear to be the fact that the guarantee was welcomed at the time, that it reduces the risk on the miners’ pension scheme, that it provides an RPI uplift on pensions and that it generates higher investment return. Those are moot points. Of course, the guarantee’s existence is a good thing. However, given that the UK Government received a surplus of nearly £4.5 billion by 2018, the argument that a 50:50 split is still a fair risk and reward for the Government providing that guarantee has less and less credibility. That is further highlighted by the fact that the long-term success of the fund has not changed, despite recessions and stock market crashes along the way. As others have said, 25 years on, the risk has diminished greatly. It really does take a special type of blinkers from this Government to ignore any moral arguments on change. It is a fact that mining communities have suffered badly with the loss of coalmines, with guys left unemployed or seeking employment in poorer paid jobs. Others who have worked hard all their lives are now in poor health and widows are struggling to get by. No wonder it rankles that the UK Government are effectively still making money at their expense.
What Governments have also overlooked are the contributions holidays that were undertaken in the 1980s—money that otherwise could have been allocated for the benefit of mineworkers. Moreover, the reduced risk to the MPS resulting from the guarantee is welcome, but it is often overlooked that in 1994, during privatisation, adopting that model not only reduced the risk in the private sector but allowed the Government to get a higher return from the privatisation. Those are further things that need to be considered in the bigger picture.
Labour and Tory Ministers have long argued that the guarantee has allowed higher-risk, higher-value investments to be made and thereby resulted in returns higher than they would otherwise have been. This is correct, but the Government bandying around figures about a 33% increase is not helpful because they are based on assumptions that suit them. In addition, it is not just the fund that has grown; the UK Government’s investment reserve also benefits from the success of the performance of the MPS. That has increased in value from £1.1 billion in 2014 to £1.5 billion in 2017, which has allowed the release of £475 million to the Government in the last financial year. These are huge sums of money the Government are benefitting from. Clearly, even if we change the 50-50 split, they will still make large sums of money.
Another Government line that has been attempted over the years is that MPS trustees are happy with the current arrangements, but that is patently untrue, as the hon. Member for Easington highlighted. The trustees have written to Governments in the past, but they say that they still will not engage and make the changes, so that is another dead duck from the Government.
We need clarity about what the UK Government hope to achieve. The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth has asked her officials to explore the trustees’ options for revising the scheme, so what are the Government’s aims and ideas? What progress has been made in the year since she asked that this happen? Critically, what does she mean by her comment that the revisions have to be to the “benefit of all parties”? It is clearly impossible to do the right thing by changing the share percentages without there being a financial detriment to the Treasury. That sting in the tail looks like an in-built wrecking mechanism. We need to know what she means.
I pay tribute to the Coalfield Communities Campaign for lobbing the Government and for calling this the miners’ money. In 1999, it highlighted that the average pension was then just £38 per week; today, it is about £65 per week, although some figures say it is £85. This is critical considering the benefits that would accrue if we altered the split percentages. It also shows that, although the pensions have grown with the higher investment return, the miners are not exactly living in the lap of luxury, so that is another false start in talking about percentage increases.
In 2002-03, the campaign by the Coalfield Communities Campaign led to a proposal that the split change to an 85:15 split, but the then Minister, Brian Wilson, dismissed this as
“off the radar screen in current circumstances”—[Official Report, 10 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 186WH.]
When will someone in government be brave enough to suggest what could be considered and what they would consider fair?
As I have said, the Government have benefited to the tune of £4.5 billion to date. They have not been slow to reduce tax thresholds for those earning the most money or to introduce corporation tax reductions for the largest multinational companies. These measures, along with those on inheritance tax and other things, are projected to cost the Treasury £80 billion, according to figures from the Library based on previous Red Book projections by the UK Government. Surely, then, now is the time to do the right thing for the benefit of the remaining 158,000 members of the MPS, carry out the review and get a fair and equitable split, rather than this 50-50 split.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
We have had a tremendous debate, which has combined passion, eloquence and reasonableness. Most importantly, not a single Member has put forward an iota of defence for the situation in which we currently find ourselves; indeed, support for the idea that that there must be justice has come from some of the most unlikely sources in the House. However, the subject of the debate saddens me considerably.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) on securing the debate. No doubt, he shares my sadness about the fact that—as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman)—the Government have taken £4,438,000,000 out of the miners’ pension fund since 1994, while miners and their wives and families are receiving an average of just £84 a week. The juxtaposition of those two figures takes the breath away. It simply cannot be right.
As we were reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), the pension fund did not come about until fairly late in the day. For many years, miners had no pensions. A scheme was set up to give them some reward, albeit not an enormous reward, for their life of service. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Easington, they worked throughout their lives in the dark so that we could have light, and sacrificed their health and their futures to keep this country going through the worst of times so that we could all continue to have light, health and wellbeing—and this is their reward for their life of service to this country: to have pensions as small as those. I cannot imagine the hurt that must be caused to the miners who see their meagre pensions coming in while the Government walk away, for nothing, with huge sums year after year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) spoke of a bonanza and a cash cow. I would add the word “plunder”. The Government are simply plundering the money that should be there for the miners and their families in the future. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) said in his eloquent contribution, there was no actuarial basis for the original split, and there was an arbitrary change in the split that was there before the fund was closed and came into being as it is today. It turned out that the Government had not contributed any money to the fund up to the time of privatisation, and they have continued not to contribute any money to this day.
The Government say, “The pensions are better than they might have been had the fund not worked well.” However, the only changes that have come about are bonuses as a result of the 50% on the miners’ side, not the 50% coming to the Government. The Government have sat back and taken the money year after year, and continue to do so. That plunder goes on. The investment reserve that was set up at the same time as the fund obtaining the 50-50 from the surplus has paid out £475 million in the last year alone, again on the basis of no risk. We should ask ourselves whether this should continue. Because of an original risk that was said to have been taken in relation to a guarantee in 1994, regardless of circumstances that arose subsequently, the plunder continues unabated. That is an injustice, and it needs to be dealt with urgently, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington said and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) reminded us, the membership of this fund is declining rapidly year by year: 280,000 members in 2008, but 158,000 members now, with 138,000 being paid and a small number having deferred.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent pointed out, 6,500 miners passed away last year, and it is estimated that over the next 10 years that fund will be down by another 50,000 members. That means hundreds of thousands of miners will have lived their lives with pensions grossly inadequate for the service they provided, watching the plunder go on before their eyes and passing away before anything can be done about it. We in this House surely cannot accept that we are going to stand by and allow another 50,000—another 80,000, another 100,000—miners and their families see that injustice continue. It is imperative that we do something urgently.
In response to a written parliamentary question, the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth stated in July 2018 that she had
“asked BEIS officials to work with the Trustees to explore options for revising the scheme to”,
as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) pointed out,
“the benefit of all parties.”
I cannot conceive what further benefit it would be possibly justifiable to give to the Government after all this money has gone out over these years.
Andrew Bridgen
I have done a quick calculation: if it is correct that there are currently 158,000 beneficiaries and the surplus taken of the Government share of the fund is about £4.45 billion, that is over £28,000 for every surviving beneficiary that the Government have already taken from that fund.
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point—possibly with the aid of his calculator—that I had not put forward this evening, and it shows the scale of this injustice. He is right to state that on the Floor of the House for us all to hear.
The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth stated that she had
“asked BEIS officials to work with the Trustees to explore options for revising the scheme to the benefit of all parties.”
I think not; it needs to be to the benefit of one particular party to the scheme. If she was correct in stating that she had asked BEIS officials to work with trustees to explore options for revising the scheme, where are the changes? What has happened? My understanding is that nothing has happened—there have been no talks and there has been no action—and that all this is actually a few warm, or lukewarm, words about possible changes to the scheme when nothing is under way.
My expectation this evening is that the Minister will stand up and tell us two things. First, I want him to say that talks are going on to revise the scheme for the benefit not of all parties but of the mineworkers and that in fact I am wrong in saying that nothing has happened. I want him to say that something is happening. Secondly, I want him to agree that there should be not only talks to revise the scheme but a promise this evening that fundamental action will be taken now to change the amount of split that there is in the scheme and an acknowledgement that the risk to the Government is effectively nil and that they have effectively ridden freely on the backs of the miners for many years. I want the Minister to say, “This has to stop now and we are committed to making sure there will be justice for the miners in the future.”
I am confident, on the basis of this evening’s contribution, that that is what the Minister will say now, even if he was not thinking of saying it before, but I do hope that he had that in his mind before the debate began, because, given the eloquence, passion and support from all in the House this evening, that is the least he should do at the end of this debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Andrew Stephenson)
I would like to start by paying tribute to all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to today’s debate, and to the many emotional and passionate speeches reflecting the importance of this issue. This is a question about real people and their incomes. It is about real people who have done some of the hardest work in our country, and about the respect and loyalty owed to them by their Government.
This subject is really important to me because, like many of those who have spoken today, I have a strong family connection. My family worked in the pits in the north-east for generations. My grandfather, George Stephenson worked at the Windlestone colliery in County Durham, following in the footsteps of his father, John. My uncle Bert worked at the Dean and Chapter colliery and then at the Mainsforth colliery. My great aunt Daisy and great uncle Tom spent most of their working lives at the National Coal Board in Team Valley in Gateshead. I grew up with stories of hard work, tough times, soot black baths and three pints after a hard day’s work because you could not taste the first through all the coal dust.
The Whips are rarely mentioned in this place, but the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Whip, the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), is on the Front Bench this evening. Her grandfather worked in the mines and her great-grandfather was in charge of the pit ponies at Boldon colliery in County Durham, so we both have strong links with the mining industry. I know that the same goes for one of my predecessors in this role, the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth, my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry). Her connections to mining communities were so strong that she had to pass responsibility for their pensions over to me.
Stephanie Peacock
The Minister refers to his predecessor. In my Adjournment debate back in February, she agreed to a meeting with me, coalfield MPs and the trustees, but unfortunately, despite several emails, that meeting never happened. Will the Minister commit today to a meeting with us?
Andrew Stephenson
I am always happy to meet anybody, and I am more than happy to meet people who have asked for meetings today. I believe that my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), who took on responsibility from my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, did have a meeting, but I am always happy to have further meetings on this topic or any other.
I was just going to clarify that the connections of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes were so strong that she had to pass over her responsibility for this topic. Her mother-in-law is a beneficiary of the scheme that we are discussing today. Her mother-in-law’s late husband, Bill O’Neill, was a leader of the coke workers union and I understand that he died very young as a result of his years of service underground. At the age of 16, my right hon. Friend’s husband turned down a job in the Keresley pit, but that did not stop him helping to organise port blockades to prevent Polish imports while he was a student, and getting into trouble with his university to protect—in his view—British coal. It is because we appreciate the importance of fairness to mining communities that my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, when she was in post, dedicated a considerable amount of time to this issue and instructed officials to do the same. She spent time understanding the arguments and concerns of all sides, thinking and talking through alternative proposals and weighing up the merits of the cases presented.
It has been four months since the last Adjournment debate on this matter. Since then, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth has met the scheme’s trustees, and my predecessor as business and industry Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford, has met campaigners and coalfield MPs. Officials have also met the scheme’s trustees. For my part, even though I have been in post for only two months, I have taken an interest in this debate not just because of my family background, but because a number of the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken today have collared me in the corridors since my appointment.
I have reviewed the trustees’ proposals, which my officials have been considering for some time, and I wrote to Her Majesty’s Treasury last week giving them my full support. I will be meeting the chair of the trustees, Chris Cheetham, on 24 June. Central to the trustees’ proposals is protecting existing bonuses. Under that option, if there is a deficit in the future, members will still see their guaranteed pensions continue to rise in line with RPI, and their current bonuses will not be eroded. Without that additional guarantee, members may not be able to get any increase in payment, possibly for many years. The proposals put to my predecessor by the trustees offer benefits to all pensioners, who will see their pensions secured into the future, even if the scheme was to go into deficit, by protecting the bonuses that have accrued to date. The trustees, who include former miners, believe that that is an important way of protecting future revenues for scheme members in the event of a future scheme deficit, because bonuses accrued at past evaluations could be eroded.
The trustees’ proposals would mean a significant additional liability for the Government. In turn, that creates an additional risk of a sizeable call on the public purse. However, I support the trustees’ aim to protect the revenues of individual pensioners. My officials have provided an analysis of the proposals, which I have now shared with Treasury colleagues. As I have said, I am dedicated to the best for miners across the country, which is why I am immensely proud of the scheme and of the investments that we are making to transform mining communities across the country.
Ian Lavery
I agree that this has been a fantastic debate, with everyone who participated believing that justice should be done for the mineworkers. Will the Minister say whether the trustees’ proposals include a review of the 50-50 split?
Andrew Stephenson
They do not. There are six proposals, which I have written to the Treasury about, and the trustees felt that protecting existing bonuses earned is more important than a review of the 50-50 split at this time.
Edward Miliband
The motion states:
“That this House calls on the Government to carry out a review of the existing arrangements for the sharing of the surplus generated by the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme.”
As I understand it, the Government will not vote against the motion, so will the Minister tell us what he is going to do after the motion passes, because it calls for precisely such a review?
Andrew Stephenson
As I just said, I will be meeting the trustees, and their proposals relate to six points, about which I have written to the Treasury to share my analysis.
Edward Miliband
But this House is about to pass a motion agreeing to a review, so the Government are going to have to do something about that. That is the point, and I think we would all be interested to know what the Minister intends to do.
Andrew Stephenson
I am setting out my Department’s position. Whether a review is undertaken is a matter for the Treasury, and the Treasury’s position was set out in a letter from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to MPs on 14 May. That position has not changed. I am sure that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and other colleagues in that Department will want to reflect on any motion passed by this House, but I am trying to update the House in response to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, who asked what the Government were doing about the proposals that had previously been under discussion—the proposals that have been brought forward by the scheme’s trustees.
The proposals have been considered for several months. They are balanced, and I support them. With the support of my Department, I have formally written to the Treasury to say that we support the proposals, because the trustees have identified that protecting already accrued bonuses is more important than the 50-50 split.
Alan Brown
The Minister seems to be saying that the proposals being considered are from the trustees and they have not proposed any changes to the 50-50 split. Is it not the case that the trustees have said today that the Government are not willing to discuss a change to the 50-50 split? Is he saying that he thinks it is fair to maintain that 50-50 ratio?
Andrew Stephenson
The trustees have made it clear that protecting bonuses already accrued is their priority, rather than renegotiating a greater share of future surpluses. I have not met the trustees, and I have already given the House the date when I will be meeting them. I have seen the six proposals from the trustees, which have been considered by my predecessor and his predecessor, and I acted swiftly in my first two months in office to ensure that my Department supports those proposals and will write to the Treasury encouraging their adoption.
Stephanie Peacock
The trustees’ proposals are important. However, speaking to that is a red herring and does not answer what this debate is about. Every single person who has spoken in this debate has talked about the 50-50 split. Will the Minister please get up and answer that point?
Andrew Stephenson
I certainly will. I think I have only two minutes left, and I was going to come on to exactly that point. I was addressing the question of what has been done to date.
I began by saying that we owe the miners loyalty and respect, which includes being honest. In this case, the honest answer is that the current position, whereby the Government guarantee arrangements and split the surpluses, is a fair settlement. It is reflected in the fact that successive Governments of all political persuasions have retained the split currently in place.
Helen Goodman
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Surely the Government cannot ignore a motion passed by the whole House following a Backbench Business Committee debate.
Mr Speaker
The short answer is that that is not a point of order, but it is open to the Government to do that. Whether it is politically wise is another matter. In the event that Members are disappointed, I feel sure they will trouble the Backbench Business Committee for further debates, which may continue ad infinitum. I am sure the Minister would not want to countenance such an unfortunate, even grisly, scenario.
Andrew Stephenson
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The guarantee gives recipients security because, of course, they know future outcomes can never be known. As referenced earlier, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has responded to the letter from the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), sent on behalf of a cross-party group, by saying that she will not be reviewing the current arrangements.
I believe that all of us here today are united by our commitment to fairness for our miners and mining communities. Although we may be divided on the best way to deliver that, I can assure the House that I will seek to agree changes to the scheme that benefit scheme members and protect taxpayers.
Grahame Morris
We were doing so well in this debate, and I am heartened by the many contributions, especially from Conservative Members. I say that not to be mean-spirited but to acknowledge the contributions and the sympathy shown for the arguments that have been made, which I appreciate. I had hoped the Minister would be rather more positive in his approach to those contributions.
We have had brilliant contributions from the hon. Members for Mansfield (Ben Bradley), for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant), for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), from my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and from my hon. Friends the Members for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), for Midlothian (Danielle Rowley), for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones), for Leigh (Jo Platt) and for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman).
We have also had notable interventions—too many to list—including from the youngest working miner to come into Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), and from my inimitable hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner). We have had some terrific interventions, including from the hon. Members for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) and a number of others.
Justice knows no age and, irrespective of the ages of the Members of Parliament debating this issue, I think we can recognise the injustice that the miners, their widows and beneficiaries are suffering. The Treasury forecast was that it would receive, at best, £2 billion, but it has received more than £4.4 billion and there is an ongoing commitment.
The motion, which I hope the House will agree, instructs the Government to conduct a review of the existing surplus sharing arrangements. My understanding is that the trustees want to do that, too.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House calls on the Government to carry out a review of the existing arrangements for the sharing of the surplus generated by the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme.
Edward Miliband
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) having secured this debate, the House has now passed a motion stating:
“That this House calls on the Government to carry out a review of the existing arrangements for the sharing of the surplus generated by the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme.”
I wonder whether you could give us some guidance, Mr Speaker. With the House having passed, without opposition and for the first time in 25 years of this scheme’s operation, this very important motion, can we use your good offices to persuade the Government to carry out the will of the House? It was very open to the Government to divide the House on this motion, but they choose not to do so, which must mean that they agree with it. Presumably, that means they are going to do something about it, if this House’s deliberations and possible votes are to be meaningful.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman is a natural optimist, and I say that in no pejorative spirit. I am sad to have to advise him and the House of the correct procedural position. I am not making any evaluative judgment; I am simply making a statement of what is. The situation is that the only votes that bind in this place are votes on legislation and votes on taxation. This vote does not bind. It is an expression of the will of the House. I am sorry to say that there have been many occasions on which Backbench Business Committee debate motions have been passed but have not been implemented subsequently by the Government. I rather fancy that this matter will be returned to again and again and again if Members feel that the settled will of the House has not been honoured in practice. I will also add that a situation in which the settled will of the House is not then honoured in practice is bad for Parliament—period.
Business without Debate
UK Foreign Policy: China and Hong Kong
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I am delighted to have the opportunity to bring this matter to the House for what has turned out to be a more topical debate than we had realised at the point when I was successful in obtaining it. I do not want to detain the House unnecessarily, but it is worth reminding ourselves about the particular, special legal and moral obligations that we in the United Kingdom have towards Hong Kong and its people. I will précis those briefly, and I do that not to insult the intelligence of the House, which will be well acquainted with them, as will those who are following our proceedings, but because it is sadly no longer universally accepted that these legal obligations subsist. The message should go from this Chamber that we in this House are very much of the view that they are continuing and subsisting legal obligations.
The Sino-British joint declaration enshrines the principle of one country, two systems. That was intended to guarantee a 50-year period, from the ending of colonial rule in 1997 to 2047, when the way of life of the people of Hong Kong would not change. As the Minister himself said today, it is a legally binding treaty which is registered with the United Nations and continues to be in force. The sad truth is that we in the United Kingdom have not always been as vigorous as we ought to be in the fulfilling of our obligations, legal or moral, towards the people of Hong Kong. For a second, I should pause to reflect on what view on this matter would be taken by the late Lord Ashdown, a man who was a doughty fighter in the cause for the people of Hong Kong.
As I was going over my notes in anticipation of tonight’s debate, an email dropped into my inbox. It does not come from a constituent so I shall not name the sender—in fact, it is addressed to another Member—but it highlights and articulates very well sentiments that I have seen expressed by many others in a similar position. The author writes:
“Before this Bill was tabled, as a BN(O)”—
British national overseas passport—
“holder residing in the UK and planning to naturalise in the near future, I thought I could go back to the country of my birth to see my family, especially my old parents. Once this Bill is passed, which the HKSAR and Chinese governments fully intend to do, I fear that I will not be able to visit my natal land and return to Britain because I took part in the Umbrella Revolution in 2014 and because of my active involvement in activist work in the past.”
He goes on to say:
“The handover has been done, and I fully understand that Her Majesty’s government does not have the power to undo this mistake. At the very least, the British government should start considering the possibility of rectifying the status of BN(O) holders—we are British subjects who are treated worse than any British subjects and other non-British nationals.”
He continues:
“I would like to share my personal experiences in this regard, if I may: The number of times I made myself clear to the immigration officers at Heathrow airport that I am British, the attitude I received from these officers was universally humiliating and soul-destroying. I was born British, and my British status was stripped away from me and my fate was left in the hands of a notoriously authoritarian regime, the PRC”—
the People’s Republic of China. That is the very human cost and the very human face of the matter that I bring to the House this evening.
Of course, this is not the first time that we have dealt with this issue today, and I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) the urgent question on the extradition arrangements that are up for amendment. At the end of his comments to the House earlier this afternoon, the Minister said in relation to this debate that he would want to speak
“more generally later about the relations between the UK, Hong Kong and China.”
I confess that that was very much what I had anticipated this debate would be about.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that China is a member of the UN P5 and of the World Trade Organisation and therefore does believe in an international rules-based system? Hong Kong has one of the strongest independent legal systems in the world and the extradition Bill is described as one of the worst threats to that legal system of any Bill introduced so far. As such, the Chinese Government would do well to heed the large number of protestors on the streets in the past few hours.
Mr Carmichael
I differ from the hon. Gentleman only in the smallest grammatical sense, in that as a member of all those various international bodies, the Chinese Government ought to believe in, adhere to and demonstrate respect for international law. In this particular care, they are manifestly failing to do that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The one country, two systems agreement between China and Britain is under threat. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the real need to balance our global human rights obligations with the need to secure a trade deal does not mean that we forget those obligations? Furthermore, does he agree that we can attempt to use our influence and trade to seek the better understanding of acceptable human rights standards throughout the world, and that the two can and must go hand in hand?
Mr Carmichael
I absolutely agree with that. I am a strong advocate of human rights and often preach the gospel of their universality, but I am not starry-eyed about it, especially when it comes to working with countries that do not reach or have not yet reached the standards that we adhere to in this country. I will always engage with countries where I think there is an opportunity for improvement, but we have to see that improvement. As far as the People’s Republic of China is concerned, we are not seeing an improvement. In fact, if anything, we are going backwards: I think of the treatment of the Uyghur Muslims in the Xinjiang province; I think of the treatment of the people of Tibet; and I think of the treatment of religious minorities right across the People’s Republic of China and of the people of Hong Kong.
As I have said, I had anticipated that our debate tonight would rehearse a number of the areas that we have spoken about in the past. I was thinking about the treatment of the Umbrella Movement protesters; the closure of political parties; the expulsion of the Financial Times journalist, Victor Mallet; the creation of the new offence of insulting China’s national anthem without any effort to define what that insult might be and how it would be constituted; and the abduction of booksellers. In fact, when we consider all these things, it is impossible now, especially given the demonstration of support that we saw in Hong Kong at the weekend, to consider any of these things without considering the position in relation to the extradition arrangements and the Bill, which is currently coming towards the Legislative Council. These issues all tie in to this question of extradition.
You spoke earlier, Mr Speaker, about our mutual friend Benedict Rogers. In fact, in preparing for my debate tonight, I had recourse to an opinion piece that he had recently published. I want to read just a bit of it for the benefit of the House, because it illustrates perfectly how the position of the booksellers in particular and the other causes that I have mentioned all tie into this question of the extradition legislation. He wrote:
“‘If the extradition law is passed, it is a death sentence for Hong Kong,’ said Lam Wing-kee in a crowded coffee shop in Taipei. ‘Beijing will use this law to control Hong Kong completely. Freedom of speech will be lost. In the past, the regime kidnapped its critics like me illegally. With this law, they will abduct their critics legally.’
Yet Lam Wing-kee, 63, knows from first-hand experience what the consequences of this change to the extradition law could be, and how the Chinese Communist party behaves. On 24 October 2015, Lam, who managed a bookshop and publishing business in Causeway Bay that sold books critical of China’s leadership, was arrested as he crossed the border into mainland China in Shenzhen. There then followed an eight-month nightmare in which he was first imprisoned in Ningbo and then moved to Shaoguan, a small mountain town in Guangdong province where he was assigned to work in a library—better off than in prison, but still not free and completely cut off from the outside world.
‘I was not physically tortured, but mentally I was threatened and subjected to brainwashing,’ he said.
When he was first arrested, Lam was forced to sign two statements: surrendering his right to inform his family of his whereabouts and his right to a lawyer. Over the eight months he was held in China, he was forced to write confessions more than 20 times. Several times he was filmed, with an interrogator behind him whom he could not see, and these were then broadcast on national television—one of many forced televised confessions that have become a feature of Xi Jinping’s regime.
‘I didn’t write what they wanted me to write, they would write it for me,’ Lam said. ‘If my confession was not satisfactory, they would tell me what to write.’”
That is the reality of the criminal justice system to which we now countenance, or see Hong Kong countenancing, returning people from Hong Kong. That is exactly why it was decided, back at the time of the creation of the joint declaration, that matters such as this should be excluded from it, and that surely is why it is now wrong that we should sit back and just watch the People’s Republic of China ride roughshod over that agreement and the legal obligations into which it entered in 1984.
This afternoon, I was privileged to speak by telephone to Dennis Kwok from the Hong Kong Legislative Council, and he said to me that the Second Reading of this Bill will be on Wednesday—the Minister knows that. He accepts that the remaining stages will be done over the course of possibly the next two weeks at most. When I asked the Minister today what that would mean for the consultation to which our Government aspired, he declined to answer—unsurprisingly, perhaps—so let me ask him again. If the Hong Kong Executive go down this road and the Bill passes all its stages by, say, a week or a fortnight on Wednesday, what is the Government’s position going to be? How on earth will they possibly get the wider, longer, more meaningful consultation on which they have pinned so many hopes thus far? I just do not see it happening.
If the Minister will not answer that question, will he at least give the House some assurance that there is a plan B, that we are taking steps and that the message is going to the Chinese Government now that if that situation comes to pass, our Government will not just sit by and watch this tragedy—that is exactly what it would be—unfolding? Our Government need to do more. We need to assert the rights of the people of Hong Kong that we undertook to guarantee when we left in 1997.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I really appreciate the fact that we are having this debate because it is a pressing issue, as I know the Minister is aware. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me on two points. First, does he agree that we have a duty of care to the people of Hong Kong until 2047? Secondly—this is a very selfish concern, but I wonder if the Minister also shares it—does he agree that we have extradition treaties with Hong Kong, so it is possible that we could extradite someone for a fair trial in Hong Kong but that they could end up being tried in China?
Mr Carmichael
That is absolutely the case. I hope that our Government would take assurances that that would not happen if they were to extradite anyone to Hong Kong. But, frankly, if the Government of Hong Kong are able to disregard the joint declaration in the way that they do, I am afraid that I do not set any great store by their willingness to abide by the assurances of the sort that we might expect in the normal course of things. It comes back to the point about adherence to and respect for the international rule of law and a rules-based order system.
There is a great deal more that I could say, but I know that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) wants to speak for a couple of minutes and I am keen to ensure that the Minister has every opportunity to give the fullest explanation of the Government’s position, especially given the number of hon. Members who have stayed behind for this debate.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for calling this debate and for allowing me to speak very briefly in it.
Among other things, the agreed one country, two systems approach recognised the difference between the practice of common law in Hong Kong, and the rule of law under the control and guidance of the Communist party of China on the mainland. That is why there is currently no extradition treaty between Hong Kong or any common law jurisdiction and China. If the argument, therefore, is that things have changed, it is surely for the Hong Kong Government and Chief Executive—whose responsibility, as she reminded us this week, is to the people of Hong Kong—to make that case. The Foreign Office has, therefore, rightly expressed concern about the proposed changes. It said that they must be subject to the “highest levels of scrutiny” and called for time for
“proper consideration of all alternative options and safeguards.”
In practice, as the right hon. Gentleman has explained, the legislation could be pushed through in a fortnight, while several hundred thousand protesters may demonstrate again that their views are not being fully considered.
The irony is that this issue arose over the absence of an extradition treaty with Taiwan, and Taiwan Ministers have said that this proposal will not solve the required extradition of the man from Hong Kong who is currently in Taiwan. Therefore, what was urgent is not going to be resolved, what was not urgent is being rushed through, and what is at risk is the confidence of business and the freedoms of speech that have made Hong Kong so successful and its financial markets so important. When the UK, the EU, Canada and the US—all great supporters of Hong Kong—are concerned, Hong Kong should worry that its exemption from the US-China trade wars may not continue unchallenged. I therefore urge the Minister to talk directly with Hong Kong’s Chief Executive, Carrie Lam, who is well known to us all, and to urge her to reconsider the Government’s approach to this business.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
My hon. Friend refers to business in Hong Kong. Does he agree that, if the new extradition treaty goes through, Hong Kong’s reputation as a safe place to do business could be seriously undermined to the point that major international businesses may consider relocating their bases in other jurisdictions? Is that not a concern that we should be addressing?
Richard Graham
It is certainly true that the British chamber of commerce in Hong Kong has privately expressed considerable concern over the proposals, and the American chamber has been more outspoken still—so, yes, there are concerns.
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for initiating this debate and for continually highlighting developments in Hong Kong. I also express my gratitude for the contributions and sincere interest—perhaps silent interest in some cases—expressed by a number of hon. Members here, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). Clarifying with the Hong Kong Government what these proposals will mean is clearly something that I intend to do in very quick order.
This was billed as a slightly more general debate, and given that we had an urgent question earlier, I do not wish to spend this time entirely by simply covering the same old ground, important though that ground is, but let me start with a few words about the UK’s relationship with China. We believe that we have a constructive relationship based on a strong economic partnership but also our position as leading nations of the world. The UK and China are both, of course, P5 nations of the United Nations. Trade and investment links are at record levels, and people-to-people links, particularly among Chinese students—the largest single cohort in the UK—are thriving.
The UK’s approach to China is pragmatic. It maximises the benefits of co-operation while doing its best to protect our national security. As G20 members with seats on the UN Security Council, the UK and China can do more than most to address a range of global challenges. From medical research to sustainable development, we have co-operated, and will continue to do so, for our mutual benefit in ways that support global prosperity, security and stability.
Of course, this partnership has its challenges. China’s growing influence is putting pressure on the global rules-based system, and we regularly express our very real concerns about issues, including its stance on human rights, its respect for certain international agreements and its failure fully to protect intellectual property. But we work with China where doing so is in line with our values and protects our national interests, including the security of our people and businesses. We are clear and direct where we believe that China’s actions are incompatible with those values.
The UK Government are acutely and continually aware of our historical responsibility towards Hong Kong, specifically as one of the joint signatories of the 1984 joint declaration that established the principle of one country, two systems. That joint declaration is a legally binding treaty registered, as I said, with the UN. Its objectives clearly apply to both signatories—the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the UK. It remains in force and remains relevant to the conduct of life in Hong Kong. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that it remains faithfully implemented for the period up to 2047, as the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) rightly mentioned.
The one country, two systems principle provides Hong Kong with the foundations for success as a truly global financial centre and prosperous world city, as touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). It safeguards Hong Kong’s capitalist economic system, its high degree of autonomy, its system of common law, its independent judiciary, and the rights and freedoms of its people and those who are lawfully residing there. However, as the Government’s most recent six-monthly reports have made clear, we believe that important areas of the one country, two systems framework are coming under increasing pressure. I take this opportunity to reassure the House that we engage in an ongoing and frank dialogue—a sometimes private, but frank dialogue—with the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities about the implementation of the joint declaration.
Turning to our relationship with the Hong Kong Government, I want to stress that we have warm, constructive and positive links across a wide range of other issues. As an example, just last month, I joined the start of the inaugural UK-Hong Kong Government-to-Government financial dialogue, led on our side by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. This involved the two Governments discussing co-operation between our globally leading financial services centres, building on rich industry-to-industry links. I welcome the decision for the UK to be the partner country for Hong Kong’s Business of Design Week this year. It is the largest design festival in Asia and it is our pleasure to support Hong Kong in this area. It is also a great opportunity to showcase the global reputation of the UK’s creative sector.
It is also right that we take the opportunity to turn our minds collectively to the ramifications of the Hong Kong Government’s contentious proposals to change their extradition laws, following a highly publicised homicide in Taiwan, allegedly carried out by a Hong Kong national. Civil society groups, including organisations that represent legal professionals and businessfolk in Hong Kong, have aired deep concerns about both the content of the proposals and the short consultation period. They fear above all that Hong Kong nationals and residents risk being pulled into China’s legal system, which can, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland pointed out, involve lengthy pre-trial detentions, televised confessions and an absence of many of the judicial safeguards that we see in Hong Kong.
Mr Carmichael
The element of the two systems arrangements that I think most people consider most important is the existence of an independent judiciary in Hong Kong. That is why, when people hear about so-called concessions being made on human rights protections, they insist that those protections are written into law, because they are then judicially enforceable. Is the Minister prepared to take that message back to the Executive?
Mark Field
Absolutely, and I entirely endorse what the right hon. Gentleman says.
We note that the Hong Kong Government have tried to provide reassurance that no one will be transferred to China for political, religious or ethnic reasons and welcome their recent efforts to react to the unprecedented level of public concern—we understand that roughly one seventh of the population of Hong Kong was on the streets, peacefully during much of yesterday afternoon. However, we are clear that those reassurances and the changes proposed fail to address fully a number of core issues that we have raised.
We have been and will remain unequivocal about our concerns. The Foreign Secretary recently issued a joint statement with his Canadian counterpart, setting out our concerns about the potential impact of the proposals on the large number of UK and Canadian citizens in Hong Kong, on business confidence and on Hong Kong’s international reputation, but of course it also applies to the many other non-Hong Kong nationals who are living and working on the island and the New Territories. The joint UK-Canadian statement noted that the proposals risk undermining the rights and freedoms set out in the joint declaration and are at odds with the spirit of one country, two systems.
Our consul general in Hong Kong, Andy Heyn, has made statements on this issue locally over recent months, including in a TV interview, where he set out our concerns. UK officials have had a number of conversations with the Hong Kong Government and other interested parties about the proposals at working, technical and senior levels. We have had full and detailed discussions with Chief Executive Carrie Lam, both bilaterally and as part of an EU démarche, and we will continue to have such discussions.
We have had a dialogue with a number of members of the Hong Kong Legislative Council and Executive Council. The issues we have raised include the potential implications for our bilateral extradition treaty with Hong Kong and the potential consequences for the UK business community and other British citizens living in Hong Kong. We have urged the Hong Kong Government to allow for a longer consultation period, given the fundamental importance of the issues raised. We believe that the proposals must undergo full and proper scrutiny, including in the Legislative Council, and I am as concerned as the right hon. Gentleman about the notion that they could be rushed through within the next fortnight or so.
I believe that Hong Kong’s lawmakers and members of civil society have put forward a number of alternative solutions, including the additional human rights safeguards, which must now be included in the proposed legislation. We believe that proper consideration must be given to all those alternative solutions as part of a comprehensive, ongoing consultation.
Despite those concerns, we do not assess that the proposals in themselves breach the joint declaration, although we will clearly keep that in mind, as the treaty did not explicitly deal with extradition arrangements. Nevertheless, the proposals undoubtedly would reduce the separation between the justice systems in Hong Kong and on the mainland and, therefore, would provide a very worrying precedent.
As the House will be aware, the operation of the court system in mainland China is very different from the one that applies in Hong Kong. Voices from within Hong Kong and the wider international community have expressed concern that fear of extradition to China could cause a chilling effect on Hong Kong’s rights and freedoms and, more insidiously, might result in increased self-censorship. Most recently, the Hong Kong chamber of commerce has called for wide-ranging protections in the legislation.
As Members have rightly pointed out, the rule of law is the absolute cornerstone of one country, two systems, and confidence in it is essential for sustaining and maintaining Hong Kong’s reputation as a global financial and professional services hub. That has been made abundantly clear to me in my two visits to Hong Kong as a Minister. I am hoping obviously to visit the island at some point later this year for a third time. Ultimately, I believe it is imperative that any changes to the extradition arrangements from Hong Kong to mainland China respect Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and will not impact on the rights and freedoms set down in the joint declaration.
It is now, as many of us will know, almost 22 years on from the handover of Hong Kong to China and the UK Government’s commitment to the joint declaration remains as robust as ever. We do issue six-monthly reports and, in the two years I have been a Minister, we have expressed concern, at each and every six-monthly report, that there has been a diminution in the exercise of one country, two systems, at least as far as too many political rights are concerned. We are committed to playing a rightful part in helping Hong Kong to prosper to go forward. Where we identify risks to Hong Kong’s continued success and autonomy, we will have no qualms in raising them. We shall continue to stress to the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities that, for confidence in that system to be maintained, Hong Kong must continue to enjoy a full measure of the high degree of autonomy and the rule of law as set out in the joint declaration.
I am grateful to all Members of the House, and particularly to the right hon. Gentleman, for the opportunity to state the Government’s position on this very important issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Gibb
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and other hon. Members for highlighting the issues around school attendance. To answer my hon. Friend’s question about how the money is spent, the requirement is for it to be reinvested in the attendance system in the local area. The system is intended to be cost-neutral. Many areas spend it on supporting projects to improve school attendance locally.
[Official Report, 5 June 2019, Vol. 661, c. 144WH.]
Letter of correction from the Minister for School Standards:
An error has been identified in the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double).
The correct response should have been:
Nick Gibb
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and other hon. Members for highlighting the issues around school attendance. To answer my hon. Friend’s question about how the money is spent, the requirement is for it to be reinvested in the attendance system in the local area. The system is intended to be cost-neutral. Many areas spend it on supporting enforcement projects to improve school attendance locally.
International Development
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Rory Stewart
We are very clear that we do not tie aid spending. There may be situations in which it is beneficial. For example, we have just put £70 million into British universities to find a universal cure for snake bites. That is a very good example of how we can solve a global public health problem through investment in British universities, but that is not tied aid; it is because British research and development, particularly the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, is the leader in this area.
[Official Report, 6 June 2019, Vol. 661, c. 268.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for International Development:
Errors have been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist).
The correct response should have been:
Rory Stewart
We are very clear that we do not tie aid spending. There may be situations in which it is beneficial. For example, we have put more than £70 million into research, including with British universities, to develop new drugs, such as a universal cure for snake bites. That is a very good example of how we can solve a global public health problem through investment in British universities, but that is not tied aid; it is because British research and development, such as at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, is a leader in this area.
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
Cystic Fibrosis Drugs: Orkambi
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 231602 relating to access to Orkambi and other drugs for people with cystic fibrosis.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I will read the petition, if I may:
“Children & young adults with CF endure lifelong suffering & early death. They need Orkambi and other precision medicines as they are developed. Sufferers in the EU, US & Australia can access the drugs, but not the UK. Hundreds have died in the 3 years since these drugs were licensed. All MPs who debated the petition in March were passionately in favour of supplying the drugs. Despite an ever-increasing abundance of evidence as to the drugs’ effectiveness, CF sufferers still do not have access. Case studies report miraculous improvements in health. Consultants nationwide have asked the NHS to make the drugs available. Doctors have expressed distress at seeing children die whilst the drug they need is on the shelf. After 3 years, conclude negotiations and fund these drugs.”
I pay tribute to Catherine Meredith, who started the petition, and the 108,144 people who had signed it as of this morning. Many hon. Members present are here because of their constituents and their long-lasting championing of cystic fibrosis treatment and the need to get these drugs to market as soon as possible.
Cystic fibrosis is a severe, devastating and progressive disease. It is a genetic disease, so we know the exact number of people living with it—70,000 around the world. It is considered by many to be a Celtic disease; the UK has 12% of all sufferers, which makes it an important place for research and an important market for pharmaceutical companies, such as Vertex, that have been working on treatment.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing a clearly important debate. If Orkambi were available on the NHS, my constituent Amelie-Rose Sullivan, who is only two years old, would be able to take that life-saving medicine. Having spoken with her family, I understand that she has needed antibiotics on five occasions, which involves a two-week course each time—a cost to the NHS. Antibiotics might not have been needed if she were taking Orkambi, which underlines the need for Orkambi to be available. Ultimately, it would be better value for the taxpayer and our constituents.
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Before I led a similar debate for the Petitions Committee roughly this time last year, I went to the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, as I did this morning, where I met and spoke to a lot of parents whose children are suffering, as he has mentioned. This morning, I met a number of adult sufferers, who I will speak further about in a minute. One of them, who is 43, described the disease—this is harsh, especially for any sufferers watching—as his lungs filling up and effectively drowning. That is pertinent to me, because my father died of mesothelioma 30 years ago, after a year of suffering. This man is 43; I cannot imagine that suffering. Early treatment for children, however, stops that build-up in the first place and allows them to keep their lung capacity higher for longer, so they can have a proper standard of living.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I suspect that my fellow Petitions Committee member shares my concern that families are being put in the terrible position of having not only to deal with a devastating illness and diagnosis, but fight for a treatment that they know is available and that other people across Europe and across the world are receiving. Whether it is cystic fibrosis, Batten disease or phenylketonuria, or PKU, it is wrong that families are wasting their precious energy, which they would like to channel into looking after their children, into fighting for a treatment that could solve many of those medical issues.
Paul Scully
I totally agree with the hon. Lady. It is frustrating to look at access around the world; there is even an interim solution in Scotland. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister about how that may pan out. Scotland has given interim access, including for compassionate use, and further access to some sufferers who can use Orkambi with a view to reporting back in August.
It is disappointing to find that people living with CF, in their ingenuity, have had to resort to looking at a buyers’ club. The Vertex drug is patent pending in Argentina, so another company is making a copy that can be sourced for £18,000 a patient—still a lot of money—rather than £104,000. That £18,000 comes out of their pockets, however, which defeats the idea of the NHS being free at the point of need.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
It is bad enough if a child is suffering with an illness for which there are no medicines to help, but it is incredibly cruel for the patient and the family when they know there is a drug that can help their child.
Paul Scully
There are clearly two sides to the negotiations. The NHS has to understand that CF sufferers are not just names on a spreadsheet; they are real people. We are all here as politicians to represent our constituents, but we are humans first and politicians second. We have to remember the humanity. On the other side of the negotiations, Vertex needs to make sure that these patients—the people living with CF—are not just names on a shareholder report.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comprehensive introduction. The fundamental core of the problem is the greed of Vertex and its unreasonableness in the discussions. Should the Government not play a much stronger role in dealing with the issue of generics? That is the demand of those who are suffering, such as my constituent Nicola Johnson and her son George, whose capacity is steadily reducing. The Government need to get a move on with that alternative route.
Paul Scully
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that Vertex has to be reasonable, because the UK is effectively the biggest market for a pharma company that comes in to tackle CF, for the reasons that I have mentioned. It has to understand that the issue is not all about its share price in the long term. As a free-market liberal economist, I recognise that private companies must be allowed to deliver fair profits for their shareholders, which will further research and future investment, but they are sailing close to the wind if they are profiteering from human suffering.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for leading the debate. I spoke in the previous debate on the subject in the main Chamber. It is right to focus on Orkambi and Vertex, but the issue is actually the process of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. If we cannot assess issues such as antimicrobial resistance and new antibiotics in the NICE system, or get a positive answer about them, we need to look at its assessment. I hope the Minister is open to that.
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Clearly, a portfolio of drugs is coming through the system. The original drugs treated only 5% of cystic fibrosis sufferers, but now the figure is 50%. The triple therapy that is being researched can benefit up to 90%, and clinical trials show an increase of 10% in some people’s lung capacity in a single week of using the drug. It is disappointing that Vertex has not included the triple therapy in its negotiations about the portfolio. None the less, my hon. Friend is right that the NICE system needs to be reviewed to take an interesting and innovative approach to drug research in future.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
There are those who are listening to the debate but are not experts like the families who live with this every day, but lung transplants are a common procedure. The lungs fill up and do not function, and lung transplants are often the only option. How does NICE take that into consideration? It cannot do so when it is looking at the viability and cost-effectiveness of Orkambi.
Paul Scully
My right hon. Friend makes a really interesting observation. This morning I saw a number of people, some of whom have had a lung transplant. Orkambi was able to get them to the point where they could have a lung transplant in the first place. I spoke to most of the people via video link, because they could not be in the same room as me due to the risk of cross-infection and aspergillosis hitting their lungs. Aspergillus gets in our lungs, and most of us just bat it off and do not have an issue with it. However, it can adversely affect these people’s lung functions, or even be fatal. That is how debilitating the disease is. What struck me about all this are the mental health issues behind it, which I will come back to later.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving us such a comprehensive overview of cystic fibrosis. A constituent of mine, Joanne, has contacted me regarding her daughter Lauren, who suffers from cystic fibrosis. Access to treatments such as Orkambi, which has already been mentioned, would be absolutely crucial to managing hers and so many other people’s conditions in our country. Hon. Members might know that 16 May marks a year since the Prime Minister called for a speedy resolution to this issue. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to hear the actions that the Government can take, and are taking, to open up access to these lifesaving treatments for people such as Lauren in my constituency?
Paul Scully
One of the reasons why NICE was set up in the first place was to take politics out of drug development. We need to ensure that we have the balance right between the Government intervening and the clinicians—the people who can make their assessments without political interference—making their decision. None the less, we clearly must have a view.
One of the things that some people have suggested—I think it was intimated in an earlier intervention—is Crown use of patents, to allow the use of generic drugs and effectively remove patents from pharmaceutical companies. Obviously, that is in extremis. There is an inherent problem with the potential lack of investment in future research, should we start taking away patents from private companies.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful speech, and I stand here today representing my constituents. Does he agree that when factoring in costs, NICE should also factor in the ongoing costs that not treating cystic fibrosis will bring? It needs to factor in the cost of the additional mental health treatment and other health treatments that will be needed, and possibly even the cost of lung transplants. This is not a simple comparison with the cost of treatment; other things need to be taken into account.
Paul Scully
The hon. Lady has hit on a really crucial point. The underlying thing that I took away from my meeting with the people living with CF this morning was mental health, which ran through all their situations.
I heard from Oli Rayner, who talked about the fact that he is 43 and has dedicated his whole life to staying alive; he had effectively been told that he would not make 10 years. He was then told that he would not make 20, then 30. This is a guy who has now got cystic fibrosis-related diabetes and a number of other conditions. He has had a lung transplant, and he had Orkambi to get him to that stage. The fact is that his lungs are now doing what he wants them to do, without his having to think about it. We can imagine the mental issues that he had before.
Jessica Jones told me that people with CF are very good at living. Yvonne Hughes said she felt broken. One lady, Carly Beale, told me that she had been on the original Orkambi trial. The NHS had not prepared her for when Orkambi stopped at the end of the trial. She had suddenly improved and started to get her life back—perhaps a life that she had not had in the first place—and she was not ready to have it taken away from her. She said that it is almost worse that this drug exists but she cannot get access to it. She said, “I’d rather it didn’t exist than have it dangled in front of me in expectation.”
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I am really pleased that there is now cross-party working on this issue. Life expectancy is a very sensitive issue for cystic fibrosis patients and their parents. I am aware that Conservative MPs have been sending round a letter that points out—as if the letter’s recipients ought to be grateful—that life expectancy for CF patients has now increased to 40, although I think it is more like 31. It seems a little insensitive, and I hope that MPs present would report that back.
Paul Scully
It is an unfortunate manner of phrasing. There is no doubt about the fact that median life expectancy has increased. For someone born now, the projection is that they are likely to have a median life expectancy of 47. It is clearly an improvement, and hopefully these drugs will carry on extending that. It is a matter of wording, and I do not think any offence was intended.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
I think my hon. Friend will win this year’s prize for taking the most interventions in a debate, such is the level of interest in this debate. I know the Minister will have taken note of the cross-party interest, and I hope that Vertex is also taking note of just how much interest there is among Members of Parliament.
I am here today because Elaine and Chris Colborne came to see about their three-year-old grandchildren, James and Alex. Although it is terrible for any parent—I am one myself—to see their child suffering, it is even worse for a grandparent in some respects. They see the little child suffering, and they also see the anguish of their child—the parent who on a day-by-day basis has to live with the consequences and the pain that comes from CF. This is a hugely important debate and we agree that it is not just about Orkambi; it is actually about the pipeline of other drugs that are coming through. Even if we were to solve the problem with Orkambi, we might be in a situation in which new drugs come forward in the future. We need to tackle the issue, not just this particular drug.
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we are looking at that pipeline, which is so important. That is why this process is different from the kind that NICE is used to. I hope that NICE can be accommodating enough to suit the pipeline, and that Vertex can come back with its triple therapy, which will help so many people.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on opening this important debate. Although we can get hung up on process, NICE, NHS England and, dare I say it, Her Majesty’s Government, is it not true that real people’s lives are at the heart of this? As I understand it, Vertex has been offered the most generous settlement in the entire history of the NHS. Is it not time that the company now took the brave decision to accept a very generous deal?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Vertex has a pipeline that should help its shares—their value has doubled over the past few years, and I am sure they will do very well in future—but we must have a balance with shareholder value, so that the company can continue to invest and continue its research. As he says, this is about human beings, their quality of life and their lives.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman has struck a chord with the points that he has raised, which have been heard by Members of different parties. We must also make this cross-channel, and Northern Ireland cannot be left out of this arrangement. I know the chief medical officer has been in discussions with NICE and the Department to ensure that no postcode in the whole of the United Kingdom is left out of a settlement in this matter.
Paul Scully
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Northern Ireland must surely be in there too.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
This debate is primarily about the availability of Orkambi in England. The 540 of my constituents who signed the petition and Rebecka and Matthew Bow, who contacted me on behalf of their daughter, Sofia, are really keen to see progress in Wales. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important for health across the UK that we work together to ensure that there is a co-ordinated approach with Vertex to make Orkambi available right across the United Kingdom?
Paul Scully
The hon. Gentleman is right. Cystic fibrosis is a rare disease that particularly affects this part of the world, so we must find a way of working together across the whole of the UK.
James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling case. I know that this issue matters to him and to many others in the Chamber. One of the many issues that victims of this wicked disease face is that they cannot congregate and make the case for themselves—such is the risk of infection. It is therefore incumbent on us to make a cross-party effort to amplify their cause. They face the inflexibility of NICE and the rigidity of Vertex’s pricing, but they now have the hope that the Minister will hear anew the campaign from colleagues from across the House.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in this instance, per-patient pricing is not an accurate conclusion for Vertex to reach? It should take the deal on the table and begin to save lives; its indecision to date is costing lives.
Paul Scully
The hon. Gentleman has absolutely nailed it. That is very much the point. This is about human beings, and we are dangling something in front of them that they just cannot access. The fact that people go off to Argentina and spend their own money to get the drug is ridiculous. That is a really important point.
Paul Scully
I will make two more points about mental health, and then I will let someone else intervene.
As I said earlier, Oli Rayner said that he effectively spent 10 years preparing to die. He even cold-called a vicar to plan his own funeral. He is now 43 and has a relatively clean bill of health after having a lung transplant. It is outrageous that he had to do that.
I want to raise with the Minister the case of Carlie Pleasant, who ironically works for the NHS. She has CF and has had to go to the hospital a number of times. Her HR manager has told her that she has had too many days off sick, and that she has reached the trigger point. Basically, she has been told that she may be able to make up for it if she is not off for the next couple of months. She has a husband and a young child, she is running a home and she is trying to keep her job and pay her mortgage. How much pressure does that put on her mental health?
There must be thousands of sufferers in a similar situation across the country. We are talking about a life-saving, quality-of-life drug. When we, and especially the Government, try to ensure parity of esteem between mental and physical health, we must all ensure that that balance is reflected not just by treatments but by everybody in the health system and every employer.
Anneliese Dodds
I am very grateful indeed to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is making a very persuasive case, and it is obviously supported by many of us. Returning briefly to his point about buyers’ clubs, he will be aware that many sufferers and their families have already made significant financial contributions to CF research. The Oxford group, made up mainly of parents and grandparents of people with CF, has raised more than £174,000 for research just since 2003. They are obviously very upset at the current impasse, as they have made that contribution and they now feel that they have to do it again through buyers’ groups. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is totally unacceptable?
Paul Scully
The hon. Lady is right. The fact that people have to resort to such things is ridiculous given that we have a comprehensive health system. It is about time Vertex recognised that there is plenty of time for it to make a reasonable profit on its drugs portfolio. It is not helping the situation. There are a number of people from the Cystic Fibrosis Trust in the Public Gallery, but unfortunately, as the hon. Member for Bury North (James Frith) said, many sufferers cannot be here because of the danger of cross-infection. They are hopefully watching the debate on television or on their computers.
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is being extremely generous in giving way. On the issue of shareholdings and profit, when I was doing research for this debate, I came across something in the Wall Street news that told me that Vertex gives a higher than average return on investment. Most companies that operate in this area give a return on investment to shareholders of 20%; last year, Vertex gave 45%.
Paul Scully
I am just about to conclude. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) made an interesting point. In order not to top the record, I will be finishing very soon.
Luke Hall
It is absolutely devastating that we are having a debate in Westminster Hall again about an issue that still has not been resolved. I thank my hon. Friend for his commitment to it. He opened the previous debate, when the Chamber was completely full, and he has opened this debate fantastically well. Does he agree that the message that should go out from this debate is that a permanent deal must be agreed with Vertex as soon as possible? We cannot rely on buyers’ clubs or any other mechanism.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful case that we all accept. A moment or two ago, he mentioned somebody he met earlier today who suffers not only from diabetes but from cystic fibrosis. Could we imagine a situation in which someone who has type 1 diabetes and needs insulin to survive has it taken away? Although the two conditions are completely different, is there not some equivalence between the two?
Paul Scully
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; that is a really good point. Actually, the diabetes came from the cystic fibrosis, but he is right to talk about the medication in that way.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a persuasive speech. This issue is important in my Havant constituency, as it is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who is sitting next to me. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) agree that while we praise the work of the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, we should also commend it for the research into the condition that it does itself? I urge hon. Members from across the House to support any bids for funding that it makes to the NHS or other funding bodies so it can continue its important work in this field.
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have been to the Cystic Fibrosis Trust twice, and I was absolutely blown away. It is the kind of organisation that I got into politics to help. I met Lynsey Beswick, who works there—she may be in the Public Gallery. She is a CF sufferer, and she has just climbed Snowdon. I would struggle with that, and she has reduced lung capacity. [Applause.] That is the first time I have got a round of applause in Westminster Hall; I am not sure it is to be encouraged. Lynsey, that is for you.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
My hon. Friend is giving personal experiences of how this illness has affected individuals. I met Ayda’s family last week to discuss how it affected them. I have been thinking about the benefits that the introduction of the drug could bring about. One is a saving to the NHS through not needing to use other drugs. The family would need fewer visits to the hospital, which would have an effect on patient care and would free up time for the hospital to look after other patients. Does he agree that it would also bring about a significant improvement to family life, not just for the individual, but for the extended family too?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The young son of the lady who had her Orkambi withdrawn at the end of the trial asked her, “Mum, what was the worst day of your life?” She said, “It was when that drug was taken from me.” Her son—from memory, I think he was seven—said, “You know what? That was the worst day in my life as well.” This is about the extended family and the people around the patient. A number of hon. Members have talked about the cost per patient, but it is not just about the patient; it is also about their friends, family and loved ones.
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. I met my constituent Jack when I went to visit our local hospital. It is not surprising that I met him, because he spends six months in the hospital every year. He is now running out of treatment; he has tried everything. He is on 30 tablets a day, and he is on nebulisers. He is trying treatment after treatment, and the treatments are running out. Patients like Jack need this drug urgently, because there is almost nothing left.
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. People are desperate; this has been dangled in front of them and it is about time that we acted.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to her place—it is fantastic to see her serve as well as she does. I know that Vertex and NICE will be listening to the debate, and I hope that they act. It is so important that that we get this right and get it done now, for the sake of the thousands of people across the country who look to politicians to do things. I talked about the independence of the system, but we need none the less to do everything we can to bring the parties together to ensure that they deal with the matter. As I keep saying, this is about human beings, their life expectancy and their quality of life. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)
Order. Seventeen would-be speakers are listed for the debate. Back-Bench contributions will conclude at 6.58 pm to allow for the Front-Bench speeches and the proposer’s summing up. I will therefore put a six-minute time limit on individual contributions. I call Kerry McCarthy.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Bailey; it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for introducing the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee.
As we have heard, Orkambi is a life-changing treatment that stands to benefit 4,000 cystic fibrosis patients in the UK—40% of the total number of people with the condition—and which was licensed almost four years ago. In some ways, the debate has almost moved beyond Orkambi, because other drugs now being developed would help an even greater proportion of patients. Vertex’s ongoing refusal to offer a price for Orkambi that the NHS can afford means that those patients are still unable to benefit from the treatment.
I will point out—this is important to what I will say next—that in 2017 alone, Vertex earned £2.5 billion from the sale of Orkambi, while its chief executive was paid more than £17 million. Pharmaceutical companies such as Vertex play an important role in the development of innovative medicines and money goes into that, so I entirely accept that they should make a profit as a result, but to pursue excessive reward at the cost of patients’ lives is, I believe, morally bankrupt.
I will speak about alternative approaches. A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to meet an Argentine drug company that has come up with a generic alternative to Orkambi. I also met two parents, one of whom was fortunate enough to be in a position to be able to spend a six-figure sum on Orkambi for his young son, who was, he said, doing well on it. He was clearly in a very privileged position to be able to do that. The other father was not in that position and was looking at the buyers’ club approach that has been mentioned and that featured on “Newsnight” on Tuesday. He said that if he had to sell his house to afford to buy the drugs at the reduced price—around the £18,000-mark—he would do so, because his son is far more important to him than the place he lives.
I was introduced to the Argentine drugs company by a Bristol-based international organisation called Just Treatment. With a range of experts in the field, Just Treatment has made contact with the generic manufacturer of the drugs, which can supply a safe and effective version of Orkambi at a cost for individual CF patients of about £23,000 per patient per year—just 30% of what Vertex charges. If there were a buyers’ club, the price could come down.
The term “buyers’ club” comes from the Hollywood film, “Dallas Buyers Club”, which gave a fictionalised account of the buyers’ clubs that popped up in the ’80s and ’90s because of the lack of access to HIV treatment. The clubs enable patients to understand their right to procure more affordable generic versions of drugs that they would otherwise struggle to access.
In Argentina, a small number of people have CF, and only a couple of hundred would benefit from Orkambi, of whom 120 take the generic alternative and seem to be doing well. The longest that anyone has taken it is 18 months, so although it is early days, treatments seem to be going well. Initial discussions with the generic manufacturer suggest that once 500 patients sign up to receive the drug, the cost would drop to just 20% of that demanded by Vertex.
Clearly, whether it costs £18,000 or £23,000, the drug is still not affordable for most people, which is why I would argue that although that is a step forward for some, the Government need to step in and help patients. The most effective way they can do that is by pursuing a Crown use licence for Orkambi. A few months ago in the House, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) mentioned that possibility in the context of access to medicines for CF patients. In the legal provisions set out in section 55(1) of the Patents Act 1977, the Government have the power to suspend Vertex’s patent on Orkambi and overturn its monopoly. One of the Government’s primary objections to that route has been the concern that it could take years to develop a generic product, but as I have said, a generic product is now on the market, is being tested and is available for patients in the UK, although only three boxes can be provided at a time and it is still unaffordable at the price that I mentioned.
The Government should also explore the funding of a large-scale clinical trial, which would enable the NHS to use research exemptions in intellectual property rights law and allow it to use the generic version of Orkambi. That approach has been used before, with the HIV prevention medication PrEP, or pre-exposure prophylaxis, and ensured that tens of thousands of patients were able to access that drug while its expensive branded counterpart was still under patent—I would be particularly interested in Minister’s response to that. A trial could be set up in anticipation of a Crown use licence, providing data necessary to support regulatory approval of the generic version of Orkambi.
If the Government are unwilling to pursue either of those routes—I cannot see why they should be reluctant to do so—there is another alternative that goes down the buyers’ club route: providing personalised health budget payments to help patients meet the cost of the generic drug. People are absolutely fed up of the deadlock between Vertex and the NHS, so I urge the Government to look at those more imaginative solutions.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. My first introduction to cystic fibrosis came before I became an MP. I wrote some newsletters and did some public relations work for the Cystic Fibrosis Holiday Fund, the main objective of which was to provide holidays and ancillary facilities to under-18s who suffer from cystic fibrosis. On the basis of medical advice that was given in 2000, we now cannot take those children away together, so the fund spends most of its time generating respite break grants and providing the Family Revitalise programme. Those initiatives are both important, but do not compare with making available Orkambi or any of the other drugs that have been mentioned.
Two families in my constituency have children with cystic fibrosis. I have spent time with both families, and have seen that largely the children are happy, normal children who enjoy all the things that other children enjoy. Hanging over them, however, is the threat of a double-lung transplant just to stay alive.
Orkambi changes lives, and we need to look at ways that we can make it available. A number of structural difficulties were identified during the conversations that I have had on the matter. The first is one of commercial incentive and risk. To compound that point, one can look at the relative strength in numbers of those who suffer from diabetes or from cystic fibrosis: diabetes accounts for 4 million people, while cystic fibrosis accounts for only 70,000. A major hurdle is therefore already built in for those with cystic fibrosis to overcome. We should not forget that.
The issue of the time taken, which has already been raised, goes back to criticisms of the NICE process. The criticisms that I would make fall into three types: first, NICE adopts the same evaluation process for a drug that might treat tens of millions of people as it does for a drug that treats a few hundred thousand or, indeed, a few thousand. We need to bring home to NICE that that is not a right way to proceed.
Secondly, the same evaluation process is also used whether the drug is taken for a brief period or a long one—in other words, whether it is a short use cancer-related drug or, as in the case of Orkambi, it must keep being taken over many long periods. That factor needs to be built into any evaluation of the drug as well.
The third criticism that I would make of the NICE process is that it is too focused on short-term benefits, and not on long-term benefits, which we know that Orkambi can produce. As has been mentioned, the data released by Vertex show that after 96 weeks of treatment, the rate of lung function decline reduced by 42%. That is a major long-term thing to hang on to. Furthermore, the net value of Orkambi is hard to calculate and therefore to capture accurately. A number of direct costs need to be taken into account, such as the cost of hospitalisation, and there is evidence that Orkambi starts to reduce the number of other medicines that need to be taken.
We have heard that Orkambi is available in many other countries in Europe, although I hear that the Spanish Government are having difficulties with Vertex, in the same way as we are, over the availability of the drug. The agreement that was reached with Vertex to make Orkambi available was a disappointing affair. We need to put on the pressure to ensure that that happens and that generic drugs are brought forward to be used instead. The example often cited is Ireland—both families in my constituency mentioned the situation there—and it is interesting to note that success story of the use of Orkambi. It has been very successful there, and we should all take that to heart in making progress to ensure that young people suffering from cystic fibrosis have access to this drug.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Ind)
I thank my constituent, Cathy Meredith, who started this petition. I also thank Oli Rayner and the many others living with cystic fibrosis who, sadly, cannot be in the Public Gallery with us today because cystic fibrosis is such a curiously isolating condition—those suffering from it cannot be in the same room as others because of the risk of transmitting resistant infections.
I will start with some context on the cause of cystic fibrosis, which is a mutation in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator gene, affecting the production of a protein that in turn has consequences for the balance of salts and fluids moving across membranes, leading to an accumulation of thick, sticky mucus in the lungs and other organs. The point, however, is that although 10,000 people in the UK live with cystic fibrosis, it is not really a single condition: there are many mutations of the CFTR gene. That has consequences for the types of medication to which people will best respond. We need to think of cystic fibrosis not only as a rare genetic condition but as a series of much rarer conditions. That is important to note.
We now have some real hope for progress with the CFTR modulators, but we need to make that progress much more rapidly than we are. The negotiations between Vertex and NHS England have dragged on for far too long. The patients living with cystic fibrosis and their families have been lost in those discussions. We need not only to return to thinking about them, but to bear in mind the implications that go far beyond those living with cystic fibrosis.
The NHS has a responsibility to consider the wider cost of drugs, including the opportunity costs—what we cannot treat if our NHS budget is consumed completely by the ever-rising cost of drugs. For the NHS to have that responsibility is a tough message for all of us, which is why we need bodies such as NICE to make the decisions to ensure fairness for all patients who rely on NHS resources. To put that in context, the drugs budget in 2017-18 was £18.2 billion. A little more than half of that was for hospital drugs and, over the past seven years, the costs of those drugs have increased by 119%. We therefore have to bear in mind the implications of taking a free-for-all approach to drugs costs, which the Minister will not want to do.
The Government are trying to get the parties around the table. Unfortunately, the gap is huge between what Vertex continues to demand for the drugs and what the NHS is offering based on recommendations from NICE. The gap is not small; it is considerable. Other companies have come to the table to negotiate their prices, so I call on Vertex to look again at what is happening. It is absolutely disgraceful that families have to resort to such things as buyers’ clubs; the inequalities that that creates are horrific. We need Vertex to focus on what is happening.
I am also concerned about some of the points made during our Health and Social Care Committee inquiry into Vertex. For example, we asked the company directly whether drug supplies had been destroyed because they were going off date, and we were told that that was not the case and was very unlikely to happen—but it has been happening. That is wholly unacceptable.
To come back to the alternatives, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) touched on the issue of Crown use licences, for example. One of the areas that our Committee considered was possible referral to the Competition and Markets Authority. In fact, we have now heard that that would take many years, so unfortunately the area does not look like one we can pursue further. However, given so little progress since our inquiry, the Committee wrote to all the parties involved in the negotiations—NHS England, Vertex and NICE—to ask where we are now.
The most promising idea that we should take forward to apply pressure is that of interim agreements, such as in Scotland. An interim price is agreed, further research is carried out and all parties agree to a review based on the outcomes of that further research. That is being managed in Scotland and other places, as we have heard from other speakers today, and I urge Vertex to do that here. We all recognise the need for a fair price to enable further research to take place. We all recognise that many other drugs are in the pipeline, particularly a very promising triple therapy, which NHS England has now agreed to take off the table so that it does not distort future pricing. That is a sensible thing to do at this stage, so that within the current offer we look just at the three existing treatments. At a later stage, we can come back to look at the triple therapy evidence. I urge all parties to come to an interim agreement at least, and to continue to put patients front and centre in everything they do.
Finally, I would like to touch on the political aspect, because both President Trump and US Secretary of State Azar have repeatedly referred to using their muscle in trade negotiations to increase the price that European countries would have to pay for their drugs. They have referred to the NHS “freeloading”, for example. That is very worrying. We all need to be aware of the dangers of a future trade deal and the implications that it could have on negotiations for a range of other products. I hope that those points have contributed to the debate. All parties need to focus on the people at the heart of the issue: the patients who are living with cystic fibrosis.
Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)
I gave the Chair of the Select Committee a little latitude, but that may not be available to other speakers. I call Sir Mike Penning.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
We all hoped that we would not be in this debate again, a year on from the last one. It is a tribute to the House that we have come together, from across the House, for a debate, which probably should take place in the main Chamber, about what is in my opinion an immoral situation, frankly: families are still waiting for a drug that we know can extend lives and prevent a serious need for invasive and very painful surgery. The situation causes a lot of worry among extended families.
Across the Irish sea in the Republic of Ireland—a country that is poorer than us in GDP terms—and in other countries that are also poorer than us, the deal has been done. It is not just a shame but a blight on our proud NHS that we have not come to an agreement one way or the other with Vertex and that we have not made a decision about whether we will go down the Crown use licensing route if Vertex cannot do a deal with us. We could have started that way back—they said it would delay everything, but we are here now, and there are patents being developed around the world. The situation is not of benefit to Vertex—we have heard about its shares—because it has not been able to sell its product in a country with a prominent number of CF sufferers.
Why is this happening? Is it just about cost? Is it just because civil servants and Vertex do not care about the lives of those wonderful people and their children? Is it about greed, or is it about how we procure drugs, as we have heard? When NICE was brought in, it took the politician, quite rightly, out of the decision making. But we cannot be outside it, because we are here as representatives of people who are suffering in constituencies around the country. We are here to be their voice. They have done fantastically well—the campaign group is brilliant: one of the top campaigns out there—but we do not seem to get anywhere. We have to look at how NICE looks at whether something is value for money. How can we value someone’s life? How do we value someone having a lung transplant later in life? What if they are not well enough to have that lung transplant, and they die early? What about the cost on not only physical health but mental health?
Let me stretch the House’s imagination a little. I used to be the roads Minister. Understandably, everybody wants roads—they want bypasses here and there. I had a simple way of looking at them: we would look at the benefit-cost ratio and say, “If we put money into that pot, what is the benefit to the community?” It would be £1 billion for a bypass, but the community benefit would be £3 billion, for example. Clearly, the way that NICE is looking at this drug is that there is not a good cost-benefit ratio, even though we know how much benefit there would be. NICE needs to look down the other end of the telescope.
Things have changed since NICE was set up—medicine has changed and drugs have changed, as the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), mentioned. There are generic drugs coming down the line that are fundamentally targeted at certain illnesses, particularly ones that people inherit and are born with. Those drugs can turn off that switch and make the situation better, but NICE was never set up to deal with them. I was a shadow Health Minister for four and a half years; we looked at how NICE could develop and where to go with it. NICE is quite fixed, but because we politicians tell it to be. The House set up NICE—those with a long enough memory will remember when we did—with the Department of Health.
The key is for NICE to look at this issue differently. We can set up trials and we can find out why Scotland has an interim agreement, but the trials are there now. How immoral is it that someone was put on Vertex and their life expectancy got better, but it was removed? We are not talking about millions of people—surely, Vertex could have addressed that. We cannot sit here or in the main Chamber next year debating exactly the same thing that we debated last year. I do not care what colour the Government are: if there is a change of Government tomorrow morning, the issue will be exactly the same. Minister, for the sake of humanity, and families and loved ones, we have to do something about this, and we need to do it now.
Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey.
It is just two years ago last week that I was elected Member of Parliament for Colne Valley. Over the past two years, it has been a real privilege to serve and speak up for my constituents. One day, however, will stand out more than most for me, among many amazing and challenging days. It was Friday 31 May, when two children visited me in my constituency office. One was nine-year-old Tristan with his grandpa John, and the other was one-year-old toddler Charlie with his Mum and Dad. I had had a busy advice surgery that afternoon, but went straight to meet Charlie in one room, while Tristan waited patiently in another. They were in different rooms to avoid cross infection as they both suffer from cystic fibrosis.
They had come to see me to each hand me a letter in which they described their daily challenges living with cystic fibrosis. The letter also described how access to just one particular drug might make their daily battle with the disease a bit easier, and might result in both children living longer lives. One-year-old Charlie, along with his parents, would benefit if he could access the necessary drug from such an early age. Charlie handed over his letter to me, which I must admit was a bit soggy and chewed by the time I got it. It was a joy to be with him and his parents.
Tristan also handed me a letter. Following the death of Tristan’s father in 2016, Tristan’s grandpa and granny, John and Frances, look after Tristan as his guardians. The family have experienced more than their fair share of loss. Like Tristan, his uncle Adam suffered from cystic fibrosis, and died aged 25 in 1999. I can only imagine the immense pain and grief and incredible frustration of losing a son, yet still, nearly 20 years later, being unable to access the drugs that already exist and that would improve the life of their grandchild. I cannot express how much admiration I have for Tristan and his family, and for Charlie and his; they have campaigned with the Cystic Fibrosis Trust to improve the lives of others.
What is this drug? It is called Orkambi; it already exists and it would improve the lives of children such as Tristan and Charlie. It is made by the pharmaceutical company Vertex, and the fact that it is not already available to those who need it is shameful. There are at least 2,834 people currently dealing with cystic fibrosis in England who could benefit from Orkambi.
Why has Orkambi not been made available? The current situation is that Vertex, NHS England and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cannot agree a price. We know that Vertex declined a £500 million offer from NHS England, and we know that the NHS has made a new offer, which currently remains confidential. Vertex did not consider £500 million an adequate sum, but it did, allegedly, consider it okay to destroy 8,000 packs, or a 600-year supply of Orkambi, as the deadlock continued. The lives of children such as Tristan and Charlie seem to be deemed acceptable collateral damage in this boardroom-style version of healthcare provision.
I urge Vertex to consider the NHS’s current offer with the lives of children such as Charlie and Tristan at the forefront of its mind. This seems to me to be a straightforward ethical decision for Vertex, which should be willing to compromise on its profit margin in circumstances where the lives of children are at stake. Let us be clear: Vertex is not struggling to make ends meet. It is a $43 billion company. That is about the same as the GDP of Bolivia or Tunisia. Vertex’s chief executive officer received a total salary of around $19 million in 2018, making him one of the best paid CEOs in the pharmaceutical industry. As ever, the problem is not that there is not enough money, but that big business is not willing to spend it.
This situation, in which children’s lives are held to ransom, must not continue. Vertex and NHS England must agree a deal soon, or an interim solution must be found, as happened in Scotland. Children’s lives must not continue to be held hostage. Tristan’s grandpa has already lost a son to this condition. There is simply no excuse for not prolonging and improving Tristan’s life. I will continue to campaign with Tristan and his grandpa, and Charlie and his parents, until this drug is made available to them and they are able to get on with their lives.
I will finish with a direct plea from Tristan’s grandpa, John Binns:
“We don’t have time – please don’t waste it. It’s costing lives and there are too many cystic fibrosis angels already.”
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Ind)
We have been campaigning on this issue for well over four years; I think this is the fifth or sixth debate we have had in this Chamber or the main Chamber. We have met two Prime Ministers, two Health Secretaries and several Health Ministers. We have a new Health Minister with us today. We welcome her to her place, and we hope she will be able to unlock this issue in a way that her predecessors did not. I cannot remember how many cross-party letters we have delivered to Downing Street. There have been countless meetings between MPs, Vertex and the Cystic Fibrosis Trust. However, four years after this drug was licensed, it still is not being made available to the people who need it.
Imagine how many people’s lungs have suffered irreparable damage in that period. Imagine how many people have seen not just the quality but the length of their life reduced over the past four years. I pay tribute to the brilliant people from the Cystic Fibrosis Trust who are with us today: David Ramsden, Nick Medhurst and the brilliant Lynsey Beswick, whom we heard about earlier. Most of all, I pay tribute to the army of parents and carers who work so hard on this issue all year round. We are in this room today because of the inspirational work they do. It is humbling and heartbreaking to meet them and listen to their stories.
I became involved in this issue because I met Carly Jeavons, whom the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) spoke about. She is from Dudley, and she took part in a clinical trial for Orkambi. Before being put on that trial, she had to choose between leaving work, with all the financial hardship that would cause, and struggling on in work with her health getting worse. She had to take 90 tablets and do two hours of physiotherapy a day. Her lung function was 44%. She had to spend two weeks in hospital every three months. That is not an unusual story, by the way, for people with cystic fibrosis.
Carly told me:
“Orkambi has changed my life. I quickly became well enough to start to live a more normal life again as a working mum. My health has remained stable…hospital visits have massively reduced,”
and unplanned admissions are now non-existent. Since she started having Orkambi, she has been able to go on holiday for the first time, she has got married, she has started a family and she has started a business. She makes a much bigger contribution to the economy. People talk about the cost of providing these drugs; what about the contribution that people who are given Orkambi can make to the country and the economy? Let us think about that.
I did not really understand the impact that having a condition such as cystic fibrosis has on the rest of someone’s life. I mentioned Lynsey a moment ago. I hope she does not mind me telling everyone this. She is in her 30s, and she told me that, at a time when her friends are getting married, planning families, developing their careers, starting businesses and making long-term plans, people such as her are deterred from doing those things. It was heartbreaking to listen to her tell me that, so I cannot imagine what it is like for her.
I hope people forgive me for being blunt, but people in Lynsey’s position are just not able to plan for their future in the same way because they do not know how long they have to live. Every day that people who could be helped by Orkambi are denied access to it is another day for which their lungs suffer irreparable damage. It is not like breaking a leg—a leg can be fixed and become normal again, but someone’s lungs will not recover.
I understand that Vertex wants to make a profit. Of course it does, and of course it needs to be able to fund future drug developments. But surely it would make sense to sell a lot of a drug at a slightly lower price than to sell nothing at a really high price. I am not an expert on pharmaceutical company economics, but that seems to me to be worth looking at.
What assessment has the Minister made of the case for Crown use licensing, where the Government take control of the situation and ensure that these drugs are provided? What assessment has she made of the case for the Government providing the cheaper drugs that are available elsewhere? It is a disgrace that families have to buy them from Argentina.
The Minister is new to the Department, and we really hope she will work night and day to get this sorted out. She should get NHS England, NICE and Vertex in a room and not let them out until they have come to an agreement. That is what we need to happen. Will she also meet the cross-party group of MPs who have been working on this issue, and the parents and the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, so we can discuss it in more detail than we are able to this afternoon?
The situation is urgent. The system has not worked. People with cystic fibrosis have been put in an appalling position. This really does need to be sorted out now.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Bailey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) and all the other Members who have made thoughtful and powerful contributions. As we heard, it is now more than a year since the Prime Minister called for a “speedy resolution” to this crisis. For years, patients and their loved ones have seen their health decline, knowing that a possible solution has been sitting on the shelf the whole time. I will use two personal stories to illustrate why this issue is so urgent and important.
My constituent Clare Dempsey has been advocating for patient access to Orkambi and the associated precision treatments on behalf of her son, Jake Wright, who is nine and was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis at birth. His story is an insight into the relentlessness of treating the symptoms of the disease. He has to take 200 tablets a week, undergo two hours of physio a day and use nebulisers morning and night. Every year, he spends two weeks in hospital in isolation, receiving intravenous antibiotics. Jake has lost 16% of his lung function and a recent CT scan of his lungs showed early signs of bronchiectasis, which can leave lungs more vulnerable to infection. Precision medicines such as Orkambi that tackle the underlying causes of CF could have prevented those irreversible changes to Jake’s health. Imagine how it must feel as a parent to know that.
There is also the associated emotional and financial pressure on families. Clare is a cancer researcher by profession, but she has had to go part time to care for Jake. Not only is the NHS losing her skills but she is unable to earn money for the family, who have had to put their house on the market. If the root causes of Jake’s cystic fibrosis go unaddressed, the level of care he will need from his family and medical professionals will only increase. We talk about cost-benefit analyses, but NICE cannot take into account that effect on families, the NHS and wider society. We need to bear that in mind carefully when talking about this issue.
I want to talk about another affected family. My constituents Sadie Lawty and her husband Steve Sanders have a three-year-old daughter, Eloise, who is a lovely young girl I have had the great pleasure of meeting. She was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis when just two weeks old. It was a bombshell to Sadie and Steve, because as far as they knew there was no family history of it. At the time, they were told there were many reasons to be hopeful, because a new family of pharmaceuticals that targeted the underlying causes of cystic fibrosis had recently been introduced. They were given hope, but their hope has been frustrated.
Orkambi has existed for the whole of Eloise’s life, and its positive effects are long established. The frustrating reality for Eloise and her family is that they are no closer to accessing it than when she was first diagnosed. As we heard in Jake’s case, there is never a day off when combating the condition. Medicines have to be administered around the clock and there are endless trips for assessments and treatments. In fact, while we are having this debate Eloise’s parents are taking her to the doctor’s for her annual review, essentially to find out how much damage has been caused by cystic fibrosis so far.
Accessing Orkambi could help sustain Eloise and offer her parents some longer-term peace of mind. It is not a wonder drug, but it is a source of hope, so it is frustrating for Eloise’s family that their hope has been dashed. Eloise is doing well at the moment; hopefully that will continue. She will start nursery soon. At three years old, she has a while before the cumulative effects of cystic fibrosis really set in, but many people cannot afford to wait much longer.
I think back to my first brush with the condition, when I had a girlfriend who was a nurse. She was looking after a very charming young man who sadly died while still in his teens. That brought home to me the personal tragedy involved with this condition. It is therefore vital that the Government take responsibility for pulling people together and finding a solution among NICE, the NHS and Vertex as quickly as possible.
There are potential ways forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) outlined solutions such as Crown use licences to overturn the monopoly and access to drugs through clinical trials. The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), talked about the interim arrangements in Scotland, which may provide for a way forward. Whatever that way forward is, we need to find it.
I am pleased to see the Minister in her new role and hope that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) said, she will really grip on to this issue and try to find a solution that delivers for all the people I talked about, for the people who need the drug now, for the people in the Public Gallery, and in memory of the people who died. I plea with her to get the Government to get people around the table and find a solution.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. Like others, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for bringing about the debate and allowing us once again to give the Government a jog and tell them to get this sorted out once and for all. We are all aware of cystic fibrosis. It affects all of our constituencies. It is a life-limiting condition that affects more than 10,000 people in the UK. It is a condition with no cure as of yet, and half of those who have it will die before their 31st birthday.
We are also aware that there is a drug available. Orkambi, developed by Vertex, treats not only the symptoms associated with cystic fibrosis but the underlying causes. One of these patients is four-year-old Harriet Corr from Jarrow, whose parents Emma and Chris are here today. They desperately want a better quality of life for their daughter. They contacted me because they were frustrated and upset that Harriet could not get access to this life-changing drug as it is not available on the NHS in England. An even bigger blow to them is that if they lived an hour further north, in Scotland, Harriet could qualify for it next year. Why? The NHS in England and NICE do not deem the drug cost-effective and have spent more than two years negotiating a price, without success.
It is totally unacceptable that a country with the second highest number of sufferers, and one that leads the way in cystic fibrosis outcomes, now risks falling behind many other European countries and the USA and allowing people with the condition to become physically sicker than necessary all because an agreement on the economics of treatment cannot be reached. We all know that because of that we have had five parliamentary debates, and still there has been no action from the Government. These drugs need to be on the NHS now, because every day without them is another day of suffering for the people living with the condition.
If people want to focus on the economics, the evidence is clear. As Members have outlined, this treatment prevents the condition from escalating, thus preventing more expensive treatment further down the line. It would reduce the number of times patients used the NHS and hospitals throughout the year, which would obviously be a saving to the NHS and—more importantly—a better outcome for patients and their families.
Let us look at the human aspect of the debate. Families are well aware that access to the treatment is not a cure for the condition, but it certainly helps those affected live as normal and fulfilling a life as possible in the short time they are with us. The NICE appraisal methods fail to recognise that. How can a cost be placed on a child with cystic fibrosis and their ability to manage their condition, to go to school, to play with their friends, to go to university later on in life and get a job as well as easing the burden of care on their families and carers? Why should Harriet and her family not have a worthwhile quality of life and get to do the things many of us take for granted?
Time is running out for some patients, and we are calling on the Government to act now to resolve this matter urgently. I thank Members from across the House for pushing this case forward. I also pay tribute to the campaigners, who have fought hard, organised a petition and shouted so loudly that surely this Government, in the fifth or sixth richest country in the world, can no longer ignore them.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. Kick-starting a social media campaign, meeting local politicians and working tirelessly alongside organisations such as the Cystic Fibrosis Trust—do those sound like the actions of a five-year-old? Ivy Weir is a remarkable local campaigner who I am lucky to have living in my city. With the support of Gemma, her dedicated mother, Ivy lives with cystic fibrosis. She has carved a path into uncharted territory when it comes to accessing Orkambi.
Ivy helped me send out 650 letters to all MPs asking them to take part in the #StrawfieChallenge. She has been on national news, alongside her mother—committed campaigner Gemma Weir—calling for that change. She has helped deliver hundreds of letters to 10 Downing Street, calling for Orkambi to be free on the NHS. Ivy, Gemma and other CF activists have shown immense dedication and resilience in the face of adversity; now we in Westminster must do the same.
There have been five parliamentary debates about access to these medicines, yet we still see no light at the end of the tunnel. Over a year ago, the Prime Minister called for a speedy resolution to this emergency; there has still been no progress. We have the chance to improve the lives of thousands of people across our nation. There has been enough dialogue; now we need to see action.
As we have heard today, over 10,000 people in the UK live with cystic fibrosis—one in every 2,500 babies born. In the last four years, this genetic disorder has tragically claimed the lives of 210 people. What makes these figures more harrowing is that drugs are available to relieve many of the symptoms and greatly improve the standard of living for those with CF, including improving life expectancy.
Orkambi can make a real difference. The obstacle to the widespread implementation of these drugs is the cost; I find that morally repugnant. We live in a nation that forged an NHS from the ashes of world war two, that prides itself on universal healthcare for all and that is the envy of the world, because healthcare is free at the point of delivery and based on clinical need, not ability to pay. As such, the UK is a global bastion when it comes to cystic fibrosis outcomes. However, if Orkambi and other drugs are not rapidly added to the list of drugs available on the NHS, we will lose this valued status. Letting costs stand in the way of saving lives does a great disservice to the principles the NHS is rooted in: universality, equality and fairness.
The Health and Social Care Committee has done vital work in carving out potential ways forward. Its recent calls for interim access would allow negotiations to continue, without the unnecessary suffering of those living with CF. However, the non-binding nature of the suggestions means that three months on, no such agreement has been set in motion. Where NHS England and Vertex remain at loggerheads, NHS Scotland has established a deal with the pharmaceutical company. This will create a brutal postcode lottery. The level at which people suffer from cystic fibrosis is currently determined by where they live in the UK. I am confident that this was not the NHS envisaged by its founders nearly three quarters of a century ago.
I have seen the effects on my constituents in Portsmouth at first hand; I will make every effort to ensure their concerns are raised. In 2017, I wrote to the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt) in his capacity as Secretary of State for Health, urging a swift response. In 2018, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), on his appointment, asking him to do the same. In 2019, I wrote to the Prime Minister, asking her to intervene. Now is the time for leadership on this most pressing of matters. We must see progress and we must see it quickly.
It has been announced that Vertex Pharmaceuticals could potentially develop treatments for 90% of those who live with CF over the next five years. If solid, robust negotiating foundations are not established now, that could undermine patient access for generations. Today, I call on the Department of Health and Social Care, Vertex and the Prime Minister to make this a national priority and help to bring an end to the suffering of thousands of people across the UK.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey.
Leading up to this debate, I spoke to constituents, one of whom described the mental strain of knowing that a drug was available but could not be prescribed to their child. Another parent talked about the administration of 22 drugs, and the physio and hospital appointments that were needed, as well as the stress of their child being admitted to hospital. Their child is now 21 years old and there have been no changes, even though there is a miracle drug that could transform their life. Another constituent, Jack, who is seven years old and at the start of his journey, desperately wants hope for his future.
We are at the cutting edge of a generation of pharmaceutical breakthroughs that have the power to transform the lives of people who experience a range of medical diagnoses. It is an exciting point in our journey with medicine, and it could be transformative to patients and carers. To deny therapy is ethically abhorrent. Many Members today have said that this is about negotiation, but I say that negotiation is not the answer. We should not be wrestling over drugs time and time again; we need a completely different framework for addressing the cost of pharmaceuticals.
NICE needs an overhaul to ensure it is fulfilling its role and looking at patients’ life course. I know that it does that work, but it needs to look at its effectiveness over a patient’s life course and at the economic value it can bring not just to medicine, but to the wider economy. It also needs to ensure that the levers are in place for it to look at a portfolio of drugs, as opposed to looking at drugs one by one.
We need to understand how much the NHS can afford to pay for the benefits of new drugs, taking into account the health benefits that could be achieved with the money the NHS must find to pay for them. This assessment, based on a NICE appraisal, could inform a debate about national rebate agreements in the current pharmaceutical price regulation scheme. There are several costs involved: the manufacturing cost, the price the NHS can afford, the NICE assessment and the market price, which is driven primarily by the US market. That is a cause of frustration.
The argument among academics is that a mechanism of a national value-based rebate should reflect the difference between the amount the NHS is willing to pay for the benefits and the manufacturer’s asking price. That would provide better incentives for manufacturers to make long-term investment choices, recoup costs and deliver for the NHS. It would also provide fairer rewards for innovation; manufacturers that produced more effective drugs at affordable prices would not need to pay a rebate, but those that charged more would pay a higher rebate. That would not impact the list price for the global market, and the rebate could be spread across the portfolio to provide better opportunities for manufacturers to bring new products to market.
That would take the politics out of NICE and NHS England. Canada is currently developing something similar, to ensure that drugs reach the places they need to reach. It can be further incentivised: should a manufacturer not supply a product when its production costs mean it could do so without making a loss, it could lose its patent. That would provide the required leverage. We need to hold discussions about this not just across the sector, but with the European Medicines Agency; the impact could be greater with more countries on board.
[David Hanson in the Chair]
People will have seen reports about the generic drug from Argentina, and we have heard about it in the debate today. We cannot allow inequality in access to pharmaceuticals in our country to grow, because it creates health inequalities. People who can pay will be able to afford that drug, and they will have better health outcomes. In the light of the ethics of the debate, the Department of Health and Social Care needs to move fast, now.
We need to be alert when it comes to trade deals with the United States, which is significant to the debate. The US will clearly want to drop the carrot of big pharma in front of Ministers, but that is a serious trap. The President talked about the NHS being “on the table” in his speech about trade negotiations, and we must be alert to the real agenda. It is through big pharma that he will get access to the NHS. As we have already heard, with respect to the size of the NHS drugs budget, that is a way of controlling it. We need to be on top of that.
Instead of drug-by-drug negotiation, we need a framework leading automatically to the leverage required to procure medicines. That will make such a difference. It will remove the uncertainty about different pharmaceuticals, as we move forward through the exciting developments that are taking place. Let us take the politics out of the process and enable NHS England and NICE to do their jobs, even under a new contract. I ask the Minister to do her job and to put a new framework in place.
Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this hugely important debate, Mr Hanson. I thank all the constituents who signed the petition, and those in the Public Gallery.
I am not surprised that my constituency featured so high up on the list of respondents, because my constituent, Elle Morris, became the face of a poster campaign this year pleading for life-changing drugs to be available to UK sufferers of cystic fibrosis. I was lucky and privileged to know Elle, who was from Nantwich, and to have her visit us here in Parliament. She sadly passed away in her parents’ arms at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children on 3 January 2018.
Elle had undergone a successful double lung transplant in July 2017, but complications set in when microbacteria, which originally infected her lungs, got into her bones. Sadly, despite treatment, which included the removal of part of her sternum and rib cage, she passed away. Now her image is being used in a campaign pleading for others to get access to the potential life-prolonging treatment drug, Orkambi. Her face has been displayed on four of the country’s largest digital screens, in Birmingham, the south-east, south London and Manchester, promoting #OrkambiNow. It goes without saying that we in Crewe and Nantwich are exceptionally proud of everything that Elle achieved in her short life, and all that she continues to achieve. Her campaign group, Elle’s Wishes, documented her brave journey, including her support, alongside the successful campaign run by the Daily Mirror, for opt-out organ donation.
Ahead of today’s debate I asked Elle’s mother Becky, a friend of mine, whether there was anything specific that she wanted me to mention to the Minister. Becky is an amazing credit to her daughter and continues to campaign tirelessly for CF sufferers. She said:
“Orkambi becoming available is so important to Elle’s memory and it would prevent future heartbreak and suffering to other CF patients and their families. It’s that step closer to maintaining health, and preventing more damage to a sufferer until a cure can be found. Organ donation is the only option currently and the cost is huge, and as we found not always successful as it suppressed the immune system which is vital for CF sufferers to keep strong and built up. If it was your child, would you do anything possible to keep them alive and as healthy as can be? Is there really a cost between a child and their health and their life? Elle was a true CF warrior and fought so hard. She appreciated life so much, the simple things like the countryside, school, spending time with her friends. She loved her home and her cups of tea. She could have potentially still been enjoying those things and looking forward to her 14th birthday in January 2020 but instead she didn’t reach her 12th birthday. Please, please, as a bereaved mother missing her beautiful daughter every day consider doing everything you can to help those that still have hope. Why should they suffer? Yours Becky Whitfield.”
I have many other constituents, as we all have, who are fighting CF or supporting family members who are suffering. It is frankly not good enough that Orkambi, which we all know can help to save lives, is not currently available on the NHS unless compassionate grounds are given. We have debated the subject before, and we know that cystic fibrosis affects about 10,400 children and adults in the UK, that Orkambi will change cystic fibrosis care for the better, and that it works for eight in 20 people. About 50% of individuals with cystic fibrosis in the UK have the genetic mutation that Orkambi can tackle, so the approval of Orkambi for use on the NHS could benefit about 5,200 people living with cystic fibrosis. Orkambi has been shown to slow decline in lung function by 42% and cut the number of infections requiring hospitalisation by 61%. It gives patients not only more control over their lives but a greater quality of life.
Orkambi is available for patients in other countries including Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Italy, Greece, and the United States. I agree with the Health and Social Care Committee that it is hugely disappointing that NHS England and Vertex are yet to come to an agreement. I ask the Minister to explain her understanding of the position that has been reached. The Scottish Medicines Consortium has managed to agree a figure, and we must do the same.
It is disgusting that, while children such as my constituent die from their condition, it is reported that a pharmaceutical giant such as Vertex can charge the NHS an unaffordable price for a life-changing drug and get a huge increase in its revenue. Vertex reported that its net income more than doubled in the last quarter from $158 million to $337 million. It said that the jump in profits was
“largely driven by the strong growth in total CF product revenues”.
It is frankly disgraceful that we live in a world so driven by profit-making and the market that such companies can hold lives to ransom in that way. I challenge Vertex to waive confidentiality so as to give evidence for its claim to have made
“the best offer in the world”
to the NHS.
The NHS has made its proposals public. That big pharmaceutical firm must do the same if it is to have any chance of having the public’s confidence that it is behaving in an ethical way. Failing to do so only helps to build the case against the continuation of the marketised pharmaceuticals industry in its current form. Perhaps it is time for Government to reconsider their role in the sector and to intervene, with legislation or by other means, to prevent such situations, where profit margins become the primary concern, rather than the lives of children who suffer from CF, like Elle.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hanson. I am grateful to be called to speak in this incredibly important debate on behalf of my young constituent, Oliver Ward, who is seven years of age. I raised the issue in Prime Minister’s questions last week, and I intend, if I get the opportunity, to raise it with the Prime Minister again before she leaves No. 10 Downing Street.
I want to pay tribute to Oliver and to his mum, Emma Gadie, who has campaigned tirelessly on CF. In particular, she has raised the issue of the battle with Vertex for Orkambi. She says her little boy is her hero, and has described his daily routine, which includes taking up to 23 pills a day, and having incredibly rigorous physio just to be as normal as he can be during the day.
It seems to me that the situation is a perfect example of predatory capitalism. Vertex has a turnover of $45 billion, and the chief executive rakes in something of the order of £15 million a year—I think I am right in saying that he has £100 million in share sales to his name—and yet he is holding the NHS to ransom. People are literally dying while the business behaves in an intolerable way. I saw a tweet recently in which Vertex was celebrating its 30th birthday, but some sufferers do not make it beyond 31. It is utterly despicable. I try to be non-partisan and non-party political about it, but it is about time the Secretary of State got into a room with Vertex, NHS England and NICE and sorted it out.
The Prime Minister said on 16 May last year that she expected a “speedy resolution” to the situation. Frankly, the Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), should spend more time sorting out this incredibly important issue than travelling around the country trying to ingratiate himself with Tory party members in order to get himself into 10 Downing Street. This is appalling. It is not going away—hon. Members on both sides of this House are not going to let it go away—and the Minister must take action following this debate.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I add my thanks to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for securing this debate.
I will focus on two key things: asking the Minister a series of questions on potential remedies for this situation, but also using my time to speak about Rachael and Ethan, a mother and child in my constituency who are forced to live with the realities of cystic fibrosis every day, and the adverse impact that the actions of the company Vertex are having on their lives. Ethan is 11 years old. He has a big smile and loves pizza, trampolining and spending time with his friends, but sadly that is where the similarity to other 11-year-olds ends, since every day his life and that of his mum Rachael are dominated by the strain of dealing with cystic fibrosis.
To put this in context, because his lung function has declined to just 54%, in the past four weeks alone Ethan has coped with two separate full-day hospital admissions, 14 days of intravenous antibiotics, which are administered by his mum twice a day at home and take 45 minutes each time, and two sessions with a psychologist to help him to overcome needle phobia brought about by years of blood tests. All that is on top of his regular daily cocktail of medication and a physio session of a minimum of 22 minutes every day. Yet none of those treatments are designed to cure Ethan. They are simply designed to treat his symptoms—symptoms that are expected to get worse the older he gets. They attempt to slow down the irreversible lung damage that will slowly cause him to suffocate. He knows that. In 2017, half of all people who died with cystic fibrosis were under the age of 31, as has already been stated. It is a statistic that his mum Rachael is only too aware of as she spends the majority of her time caring for her son.
We know that Vertex drugs could change the lives of cystic fibrosis sufferers and their families, since they fix the underlying genetic mutations that cause the condition, but, as we have heard today, Vertex is more interested in 45% investor returns than in 20%. That seems to be its priority. Although the chronic underfunding of the NHS is a contributing factor in this story, it is by no means the only reason why a deal has not been reached. The unforgivable actions of Vertex Pharmaceuticals, which admittedly does important work in research and development relating to the treatment of cystic fibrosis, mean that it continues to put patients’ lives at risk as it seeks to extract the highest possible price from our NHS. When Alexander Fleming created penicillin, he had it publicly patented so that it was accessible to all, and it became a revolution in modern medicine. Should we not be legislating for pharmaceutical companies to do something similar and put patients, not profits, at the centre of their development?
I have a number of questions for the Minister. How do we approach this matter systematically, so that we are not back here time and time again, as we have heard? The reality is that we have a socialised—dare I say socialist—healthcare system, which treats people’s health on a collective basis, based not on their ability to pay, but on their need. That is quite revolutionary. However, that healthcare system operates in an international pharmaceutical industry based on rapacious profiteering. How do we square that circle? I suggest the answer lies at the European level, not the US level. Ultimately, the EU’s being one of the biggest healthcare markets in the world gives the European Union immense clout in imposing its will on international pharmaceutical companies; that is one of the reasons I want to stay in it.
My other question is a philosophical one: what is a fair price for years of investment and research? Who determines what is a fair price—our collective democracies, which enable these companies to exist, or a handful of corporate executives whose primary motivation is to maximise profit? Who determines that price? At the moment, I do not think that the balance is correct.
Finally, has the Minister considered the use of compulsory licensing, allowing a UK company or other company to make cheap generic copies? That is allowed under World Trade Organisation rules; the definition of an emergency is up to the host country that needs to use it, and from initial research it is something that could be used and has been used before. I know that is not something she would want to do initially, but ultimately, would she consider it if Vertex refuses to move?
I will leave hon. Members with a quote from Ethan, who had his 11th birthday on 5 June. He said:
“I want to live a long life, because then I get to see some things and do things, so please fund The Triple”.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) on setting the scene so well for us, and all the right hon. and hon. Members who have made such fantastic contributions on a subject in which we all have a deep interest.
This is an issue that I have spoken on many times in this Chamber and indeed outside it. I have received emails from constituents with photos of their children, begging me to do something to give these precious little ones a better quality of life. If ever we needed to be reminded of the importance of this for the children, as every hon. Member has said, that is such a reminder.
Let us be clear: cystic fibrosis is not only, tragically, a life-limiting disease, but a disease that massively impacts on the quality of life and the life experiences of the sufferers and their families, because the families live the children’s tragedy as well. Cystic fibrosis is one of the UK’s most common life-threatening inherited diseases. It is caused by a defective gene carried by one person in 25, usually without their knowing it. That is more than 2 million people in the UK, and if two carriers have a baby, the child has a one in four chance of having cystic fibrosis.
Around 10,400 people in the UK have cystic fibrosis; that is one in every 2,500 babies born. It affects some 100,000 people in the world. According to the most recent report from the UK Cystic Fibrosis Registry, based on people with CF who were recorded as alive from 2013 to 2017, half of people born with cystic fibrosis in 2017 were expected to live to at least 47, but the 132 people with CF who died in 2017 had a median age of 31. That is a massive difference and we cannot ignore it.
Parents are begging me, begging us, begging this House to ensure that those years are of the best possible quality. After numerous trials, some carried out with Northern Ireland constituents, Orkambi seems to be a drug that does exactly that for many people—enabling the best possible quality of life. My most recent correspondence from Richard Pengelly, the permanent secretary for health in Northern Ireland, outlined clearly that he does not have the power to do what we all need him to do and what he wants to do:
“Let me say that I share your disappointment that the progress in making this drug more widely available has not advanced as we had hoped. At the heart of this matter is the inability of the manufacturer Vertex to come to agreement with the relevant UK Health Technology Assessment bodies.”
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
When we have the most senior civil servant in Northern Ireland, along with NHS England and virtually everyone else who has any dealings with the issue, saying, “Look, we need action, we are powerless to move,” does that not throw the ball firmly back into the Government’s court to resolve the matter with the company?
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for those words. This is not an easy subject for the Minister to respond to, but it is one that has captured the interest of us all on behalf of our constituents, and we need the Government to grasp that and move it forward to the next place. We look for that.
If the Republic of Ireland is able to come to some arrangement with Vertex, if the Scottish Parliament is able to do similar and if, according to the background information, it is possible to go to Argentina and buy a year’s course of drugs for one patient at £23,000, compared with £104,000 for a year’s supply here, that tells me that something can be done if we had the willpower to do it, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) has said. We can look around at our UK neighbours and look toward Scotland, whose Government have reached an agreement with Vertex.
The permanent secretary went on to say:
“In the absence of this positive NICE determination, the Health and Social Care Board…may take into account guidance produced by other appropriate HTA”—
health technology assessment—
“bodies based in other UK countries such as the Scottish Medicines Consortium…when making decisions about access to new drugs.”
I say to the Minister that I have made a comment about the Republic of Ireland, but I also make a comment about Scotland, because I think that the process enables us to use what Scotland has done as an example for us elsewhere.
The permanent secretary continued:
“The Department is aware that Vertex have re-applied to the SMC for consideration of approval for Orkambi, and that in the meantime there is currently limited access to the drug in Scotland via their PACS”—
peer approved clinical system—
“Tier 2 scheme, which is broadly analogous to our Individual Funding Request Process.
If Orkambi is approved by the SMC, details of the funding models in place, which are currently bound by commercial confidentiality, will be shared with the other UK countries. This will allow for us to have full access to the evidence and costs associated with this therapy and will inform any further decisions on access.”
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Thelma Walker) referred to the destruction of some medications. Whatever the reason for that was—whether they had run out of time or whatever—I think it is disgraceful that people have destroyed some medicines rather than letting them be used by the general public, by those who need them. If that is not unacceptable in this day and age, I do not know what is. It is absolutely disgraceful; it really annoys me.
It is simply terrible that we are in a position where our hand are tied. I say again to the Government: look to your Scottish counterparts. I firmly believe that we can and must do more from this place and that that must start with acknowledging that the NICE guidelines do not currently take into account the differences, when it comes to pricing, between treatments for rare diseases and a new antibiotic strain. We need a new form of assessment for rare diseases and I would like to see that taking place as soon as possible to ensure that the mummy of my two-year-old constituent, who is asking me for this drug in order to give her child as normal a life as possible, can look forward to securing the best for her child. That is what every Member has said here today on behalf of their constituents.
Again according to the background information that I have, in May 2019 the Government said in response to a parliamentary question that discussions between Vertex, NHS England and NICE were ongoing. You know something? They have been ongoing for more than a year. Let’s get them sorted. Time is passing fast. I am joining colleagues in asking the Department to make the administrative changes necessary to end the Orkambi stalemate with NICE and to put in place a body designed specifically to address rare disease patients and their needs. We acknowledge that NICE does a tremendous job in ensuring that safe, cost-effective medicines are available on prescription, but we need a different set-up for those whose illnesses are very different and for the sake of my constituents and those represented by other MPs who have spoken today. I am asking that those decisions be taken and the changes made to enable Richard Pengelly, the permanent secretary at the Department of Health in Northern Ireland, to do what he knows he needs to do and allow the prescription of Orkambi to those whose lives would be radically altered and enhanced by it. It would give them life-changing opportunities. As others have said, give those children a chance.
David Hanson (in the Chair)
The previous Chair set a time limit on speeches of six minutes, which has been successful, in that all right hon. and hon. Members have been able to take part in the debate, but it leaves us with a maximum of one hour and 10 minutes for the Front-Bench speakers to respond. Front-Bench speakers, who have more than the normal 10 minutes, can be more flexible and take interventions should they so wish.
The other point I wish to make is that because the winding-up speeches have started early, some Members who have spoken in the debate are not present for these speeches and they should be. If you are watching on television, please return to the Chamber now. This is an important debate; you have contributed to it and you should be present for the Front-Bench responses.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for setting out in his opening speech facts that a lot of us did not know and facts that some of us did. It was a very useful start to this wide-ranging and well attended debate. I will just ask this question, though: how many times do we have to debate this very serious subject?
Again, I have to declare a personal interest. I am a cystic fibrosis carrier. My late husband was, too. My children are carriers, and my granddaughter, Saoirse Grace, has cystic fibrosis—mutations F508del and D1152H. I do not understand to any great degree what the last part of that actually means, but I do know that she is not the worst sufferer of cystic fibrosis. She has the best kind, if you like. She is pancreatic sufficient, and for that we are always grateful. Saoirse will not directly benefit from Orkambi, but along with 90% of people with cystic fibrosis in the UK, she will benefit from the triple therapy coming down the line. Those therapies will deliver unprecedented improvements in acute lung health and reductions in pulmonary exacerbations—a key driver of decline.
Approximately 900 people in Scotland live with cystic fibrosis. NHS Scotland estimates that one in 24 Scots has a CFTR mutation, which, if carried by both parents, would lead to a child being born with cystic fibrosis. England has the highest prevalence of cystic fibrosis in the world, with 1% of the world’s population but 12% of the world’s CF population.
There should be no postcode lottery for treatment. The UK Government should follow the Scottish Government’s lead on cystic fibrosis treatment. For people in England to receive Orkambi, NHS England would need to pay Vertex £500 million over five years and £l billion over the next 10 years. However, in a debate on CF and Orkambi last year, it was stated that the costs of Orkambi can be offset by reduced hospital admissions, and other benefits should also offset the cost, as has been stated in the Chamber today. Vertex has stated that its offer to NHS England for the provision of its CF drugs represents the lowest price for Vertex’s portfolio of CF drugs in any country in the world. I point out that I am not here to make a case for Vertex; I am here to make a case for people with CF who need this drug.
The Scottish Government recently announced that NHS Scotland and Vertex Pharmaceuticals had reached a deal to provide interim access to Orkambi and Symkevi, through a system known as peer approved clinical system tier 2, while the Scottish Medicines Consortium reviews the relevant evidence for Orkambi. PACS tier 2, introduced by the Scottish Government in June 2018, involves an individual application for patient access to drugs not recommended by the SMC and not routinely available on the NHS.
The Scottish National party believes that the UK Government need to do more to facilitate interim access to Orkambi and other drugs to treat cystic fibrosis and to get NICE to re-evaluate making the drug more widely available for people living with the illness. In England, NICE said Orkambi was too expensive for the NHS in 2016, and since then Vertex and NICE have been unable to reach an agreement that will bring these drugs to patients. The UK Government are showing a lack of flexibility by only urging Vertex Pharmaceuticals to fully re-engage with the NICE appraisal process and to accept the offer that the NHS made in July 2018. Vertex has said that the methods used by the Scottish Government to obtain the drugs reflect the innovative nature of medicines that have the potential to extend life for patients with rare diseases such as cystic fibrosis, and that it is hopeful that, through that process, all eligible patients in Scotland could have access to its medicines soon. If Orkambi and Symkevi are accepted by the SMC, which makes decisions independently of the Scottish Government, eligible patients in Scotland could have access to these precision CF medicines in 2019.
In the interim, Vertex and the Scottish Government have agreed a confidential discount that would be applied to approved PACS tier 2 applications. The Scottish Government also asked Vertex to provide access to the medicines at a discounted price to the list price while they finished the contract negotiations, and Vertex said, “Of course.” Vertex stated that it would be willing to do exactly the same thing in England.
There is agreement across the Chamber that Orkambi, Symkevi and Vertex’s triple therapy should be available UK-wide. I have no desire to get into the argument between NICE and Vertex in England. I want England to do what Scotland has done. I want children across the UK to get the benefits of these drugs. As has been said, this problem will exist whatever view we hold of Government at the UK level. However, political will must be exercised in the process of getting those with cystic fibrosis the drugs that will improve their lives and futures.
Finally—I will not take too long, Mr Hanson—I give my heartfelt thanks to all the parents and guardians of CF sufferers, and to those affected by cystic fibrosis, for their continuous campaigning and awareness-raising. It is awful that they have to keep doing that. I ask the Minister, please do not let their work be in vain.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson, in this very important debate. I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for opening this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee and for his excellent opening speech, in which he took many interventions. I thank all hon. Members for their passionate contributions. I counted more than a dozen speeches by Back Benchers, but I lost count, because I was distracted by the mouse that joined us. Given that it has been such a busy day in the main Chamber, this debate has shown how important this issue is to the House, as well as to all our constituents who have signed this important e-petition.
Access to drugs for patients with cystic fibrosis is an issue that is incredibly important to us all. I congratulate, in particular, my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn), and the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) on their tireless campaigning on this issue, along with patients, campaigners and charities, such as the Cystic Fibrosis Trust. I commend the trust for its expert briefings and support to patients and their families over many years.
Finally, I thank the 108,144 people who signed this e-petition, 310 of whom live in my constituency. As has been said, we debated a similar e-petition in March 2018, and there have already been five parliamentary debates about access to such medicines. I hoped, as others did, that by now cystic fibrosis patients would have access to the drugs that they need and deserve. Unfortunately, that has not been the case.
Just over a year ago, on 16 May 2018, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce), the Prime Minister called for a “speedy resolution” to the crisis. However, the only speedy thing has been the deterioration of the health of cystic fibrosis sufferers while they wait for a resolution of the crisis.
More than 10,000 people in the UK live with cystic fibrosis, and it is thought that around 50% of CF patients could benefit from Orkambi; that is more than 5,000 people. Although that is a lot of people, in NHS terms it is a small cohort. And yet Orkambi is still not available to patients, despite being licensed for use in the UK since 2015.
The UK is currently a world leader in cystic fibrosis outcomes, but that is changing. People with cystic fibrosis are physically sicker than they would be if these medicines were available to them. NHS England continues to make offers to Vertex, including the largest ever financial commitment in its 70-year existence, but that was rejected. Since then, an even better offer has been made, but again Vertex has been unwilling to accept it.
I know that that is frustrating for patients and their families, who have waited years for access to these life-saving drugs. We are all frustrated on their behalf. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Thelma Walker) Valley mentioned, in March it was reported in the news that nearly 8,000 packs of Orkambi had been destroyed because they were past their sell-by date. That would have particularly stung patients and their families. Those drugs were valued by Vertex at £104,000 per patient per year. With my limited maths skills, I reckon that means that more than £60 million of drugs were destroyed by Vertex—drugs that could have been given to patients.
It is an outrage that Vertex would destroy so many packs of a life-saving drug while in a cost dispute with NHS England. So many patients could have benefited from those drugs. It was spiteful of Vertex to watch those drugs go out of date so they would have to be destroyed. In the midst of all that, Vertex reported a 40% rise in its revenues, with net income doubling in the previous quarter. I am sure I am not alone in feeling shocked and angry at that.
By refusing to play fair with NHS England, Vertex is holding lives at ransom, and patients and their families are the ones left suffering. Therefore, I was not surprised by the feature on “Newsnight” last week about parents and families establishing a cystic fibrosis buyers’ club to buy the generic drug Lucaftor from Argentina. The stress and frustration that families face because of Vertex mean that they now feel they have no other option but to take matters into their own hands.
Laura Smith
It is great to hear my hon. Friend’s response. It seems perverse to me that the interests of big pharmaceutical companies can hold such enormous sway in this country, to the extent that cystic fibrosis sufferers can be left without their treatment—treatment that has the potential to prolong their lives significantly.
Mrs Hodgson
I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that the Minister will have some ideas about how this drug company can be held to account and not be allowed to continue in this way. I hope the Minister agrees that the situation should never have been allowed to get to this stage.
Lucaftor has the same active ingredients as Orkambi, and the Argentinian pharmaceutical company Gador is offering a price of £23,000 per patient per year, which drops to £18,000 if patients and their families can get together a group of more than 500 patients to purchase Lucaftor as a collective. That is significantly lower than the £104,000 Vertex wants for Orkambi. I say “want” deliberately—it is not the cost, but what Vertex wants. Of course, for many patients in the UK, Lucaftor will still be way too expensive to access, so it is not a feasible alternative at all. That is why NHS England and Vertex need to come to a conclusion that puts cystic fibrosis patients first, and ensures that they have access to the life-saving drugs they need and deserve.
Kerry McCarthy
I thank my hon. Friend for all her support on this issue. I agree that the issue with the Argentinian solution is that in a buyers’ club where people have to pay privately, the drugs will still be out of reach for many people. However, the fact that Gador is offering this drug for so much less than Vertex is charging for a similar product means that the NHS could, if it decided to trial the drug, buy it for 4,000 patients who would benefit from Orkambi. Therefore, no one would have to pay for it privately. The NHS could fund it, but at much less than Vertex is asking for. I ask the Minister: why is that not the solution?
Mrs Hodgson
I was going to come on to that, but if a point is worth making once, it is worth making twice. I will make it to the Minister as well, so she will have plenty of time to think about it.
As we all agree, patients and their families should not be put in the position—as some are—of having to pay thousands of pounds for their treatment. Family income should not determine who lives and who dies. That is why the NHS was founded—so that all could have access to the same excellent treatment, regardless of means. That was true 70 years ago when the NHS was formed, and it is still true today.
As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam pointed out, our NHS is there for us all and should not be held to ransom by a pharmaceutical company, but neither should access be denied because of unfit processes and systems in the NHS. Over the years, as a shadow public health Minister, I have met many patient groups, including those with cystic fibrosis, who are missing out on life-changing medicines because their condition is not rare enough and is therefore not deemed by NICE to be cost-effective. We need an appraisal process that is fit for purpose and that will capture rare diseases such as cystic fibrosis effectively.
Without drugs such as Orkambi, patients and their families are being harmed physically and psychologically. Every day without the drugs that patients need makes their condition worse and threatens their lives. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that patients with rare diseases have access to the medicines that they need and deserve? It is about access not just to Orkambi, but to other precision medications such as Symkevi and the next generation of cystic fibrosis drugs that could help patients who are suffering.
Vertex recently announced the headline results for its fourth cystic fibrosis medicine, a triple combination therapy that could radically transform the lives of nine in 10 people who live with cystic fibrosis in the UK, delivering unprecedented improvements in acute lung health. That is amazing news, but patients fear that they will never be able to access this ground-breaking drug. I urge Vertex to put patients first and consider the real-life impact of this cost dispute on patients and their families.
Vertex and NHS England must come to an agreement urgently, because patients have already waited far too long. If an arrangement cannot be made soon, will the Minister personally step in and pursue the alternatives that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East mentioned, such as a Crown use licence or a clinical trial? Cystic fibrosis patients need urgent access now to the drug that they have been denied for three years. It is time the Government considered all alternatives.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Seema Kennedy)
It is always a particular pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I pay tribute to the more than 100,000 people who signed the petition, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in the debate; I am sure that they will be rushing back for the wind-ups.
I have been very touched by the stories that we have heard today and the compassion shown by my hon. Friend and all hon. Members in speaking about cystic fibrosis and its physical effects, emotional effects and effects on mental health for those who live with it and for their families. It is a debilitating condition, and I know how absolutely desperate sufferers and families are for access to treatments.
I recognise the great work undertaken by the Cystic Fibrosis Trust and its strong voice in supporting families and bringing cystic fibrosis to the attention of parliamentarians. I also pay tribute to my young constituent Lucy Baxter, who was on “BBC Breakfast” this morning and who lives with cystic fibrosis. She spoke to me very soon after I became a Member of Parliament and is an absolute inspiration to me and to the whole cystic fibrosis community.
Today’s debate has been heartfelt and passionate. The stories that we have heard clearly make the case that Orkambi and other drugs for people with cystic fibrosis should be available on the NHS at a price that is fair and affordable. The Government and I share that view. As the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), set out so clearly, we must remember that the NHS must use its budget fairly for the good of all patients. That is why we rightly have a system whereby experts, not politicians, determine the fair price for medicines, based on robust evidence. That system has helped many thousands of patients to benefit from rapid access to effective new medicines.
Karl Turner
Forgive me, but I genuinely do not know the answer to this—I find it completely confusing. If the Republic of Ireland and Scotland can get an interim agreement, why cannot we sort this out for patients here in England?
Seema Kennedy
I will talk about the interim measures, but I think the more important thing that we need to grip is having a permanent solution for everybody living with cystic fibrosis.
Throughout the negotiations, which are rightly being led by NHS England, the Government have been crystal clear that Vertex must re-engage with the NICE process. I know that hon. Members have questions about that process, and I will try to address some of the points that have been raised. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) raised more detailed points for me to consider; if I do not address them, I will write to her with more detail, but there are some points about the NICE process that I will address later in my remarks.
Jim Shannon
Would it be possible for the Minister to give her Department’s and her own opinion on the buyers’ group that is seeking to buy similar drugs from Argentina for cystic fibrosis? Have the Government given that possibility any consideration?
Seema Kennedy
I shall turn later in my speech to that specific avenue that some sufferers have gone down.
Dr Wollaston
The Minister referred to the importance of Vertex engaging with NICE. Does she share my concern that when I wrote to Vertex and NICE about the failure to make progress, Vertex assured me that it had contributed “substantial new evidence” on the three products in question, yet I subsequently heard from NICE that it had received only
“an overview of the clinical evidence”,
rather than genuine engagement? Will she join me in calling on Vertex to properly engage with the process, so that we can get the full evidence base on which to make these decisions?
Seema Kennedy
I agree with the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee and urge Vertex to re-engage with the NICE process. To date, unfortunately, it has continued to refuse to accept the process or has suggested unacceptable conditions on the NICE value assessment of its product, which would render the outcome meaningless. That comes despite NHS England’s latest proposals offering to reimburse Vertex ahead of a positive NICE recommendation, which for a deal of this size is unprecedented; agreeing to implement real-world data collection, as the Committee has called for, to help Vertex to demonstrate the value of its medicines; and offering significantly increased prices in comparison with their offer last July.
NICE has a 20-year history and is internationally renowned and independent. Its methods and processes for the development of its guidance have been in place for 20 years, but it recognises that it needs to evolve. It continues to review its procedures to ensure that they remain fit for purpose; it is now undertaking a review of its technology appraisal methods in line with the commitment in the 2019 voluntary scheme, and it encourages all stakeholders to engage. NICE has recommended 75% of the drugs for rare diseases—some of which I will touch on later—that have been assessed through its technology appraisal programme for the eligible patient population.
Last week, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry made it clear that
“NICE is the cornerstone of NHS efforts to ensure the price being charged by a company represents the value being delivered.”
Commenting on the current situation, it said that
“the APBI would always encourage companies to fully engage with NICE at all stages of the process.”
Furthermore, it commented on the current structure of NHS England’s proposed deal with Vertex, saying that
“the structure of the offer represents exactly the sort of flexibility the industry has been calling for, for some time.”
However, Vertex is willing to accept only its own valuation of Orkambi; I draw your attention, Mr Hanson, to comments directed at Vertex by Members from across the House, including those made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson).
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate, because of important statements in the main Chamber.
My constituent William Smith, who is a pupil at Cooper Perry Primary School, has cystic fibrosis. Along with his entire class, he presented me with the facts of his case and with letters to the Government, and they made it quite clear that they expect not only the Government but Vertex to come to a decision on this matter. Is it not absolutely vital that a company such as Vertex should engage with the Government given that the lives and futures of people such as William Smith, my 10-year-old constituent, are at stake?
Seema Kennedy
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Members from across the House have told very moving stories of their constituents, the lives they lead, and the stresses and the strains put on them by the lack of an agreement on this matter. However, other drug companies are developing medications for rare diseases, and agreements have been reached on those. I will turn to them very shortly.
We can look at what happened in Spain earlier this year, when Vertex did not accept the terms of Spain’s health outcome-related proposal. The Spanish proposal, which is similar to the recent NHS England offer, is based on the ongoing collection and interpretation of real world data. Why is that not acceptable to Vertex? I also note that dialogue between Spain and Vertex has been ongoing for three years, which is similar to the situation here in England.
We will never walk away, but Vertex must now agree to engage with NICE and we urge it to accept all the flexibilities that NHS England has put on the table. There is nothing unusual about Vertex that means that this is not the right thing for it to do. Recently, we have seen deals reached as part of the NICE appraisal process, including that for ocrelizumab, which is an innovative multiple sclerosis drug, that for Spinraza, which is for people with spinal muscular atrophy, and that for axicabtagene ciloleucel chimeric antigen receptor t cell, or CAR-T, treatments.
Given that Vertex remains an extreme outlier in both pricing and behaviour, it is no wonder that patients and families have been looking at alternative solutions to secure access to this drug, and we have heard about the buyers’ club. Hon. Members have also talked about Crown use licensing, and the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) talked about large-scale clinical trials.
Unless Vertex changes its approach and behaves responsibly, I have a moral obligation to look at these other options. Of course NHS England and NICE will carry on the negotiations, because a negotiated outcome is the desired option. However, I have no alternative but to look at these other options on the table.
Clive Lewis
I thank the Minister for giving way. I raised the issue of compulsory licensing, which the Government have within their armoury. Of course it would be a measure of last resort, but given that we are dealing with people’s lives, the quality of their lives and a company that is quite simply being intransigent, and greedy, surely that option should be considered. That would send a message to those pharmaceutical companies—that global pharma industry—that if they are going to be greedy and put people’s lives at risk, despite being made fair offers, this option could be used by our Government.
Seema Kennedy
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam said in his opening speech, which was very well made, we recognise the importance of British pharmaceutical companies and that companies invest hugely in developing new drugs. However, as the other examples of drugs for rare diseases that I have given show, it is possible to go through the NICE appraisal process and reach an agreement with NHS England. As one hon. Member who is no longer in their place said, this is an offer for a long-term agreement.
Vertex is an outlier, and I would like to put that on the record.
Seema Kennedy
Yes, and I hope that I will be able to remember the hon. Lady’s question.
Mrs Hodgson
At this point I should clarify, for the benefit of the campaigners who I have spoken to about the Crown use licensing option, that it is not an immediate solution from their point of view; I understand that it would take at least a couple of years. If an agreement can be reached, there would be an immediate outcome. That is why the campaign is called Orkambi Now; it is about trying to get the drug now. Although the Crown use licensing option would be an option to consider if nothing else can be found, it would not give the sufferers and their families the drugs as quickly as we would like.
Seema Kennedy
As always, the shadow Minister makes an excellent point. Crown use licensing is not something that any Government would consider lightly. It is very rarely used in health. It has probably not been used—my officials will correct me if I am wrong—since the 1970s.
The ideal thing is to get a deal, and deals have been done with other pharmaceutical companies; that is the point I want to make. As I have said, Vertex is an outlier in this regard, but that does not mean that I do not have an obligation to look at other options. I will do that.
Kerry McCarthy
I really welcome the fact that the Minister is saying so passionately that she feels she has a moral obligation to act. The question is: when? I say that because Vertex has been in these talks for a very long time now. How much longer will it be given before the Minister decides to look at the other options?
Seema Kennedy
Now. We will look at other options to consider what other methods we can use. As the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West said, Crown use licensing has other risks, so the best option is to get a deal. However, we will look at other methods that might enable families to receive the drugs they need.
Some Members have said that Orkambi is available in other countries and asked, “So why not here?” Although that is true, it is also true that other countries have faced problems in agreeing an acceptable price with Vertex; around 50% of the global cystic fibrosis population is unable to access Orkambi. It is not approved for reimbursement in Spain, which I have touched on, or in Portugal, and it is not used routinely in France. It is also of note that the Canadian equivalent of NICE has rejected the drug, saying that the benefit of Orkambi is small and uncertain.
We do not have sight of specific commercial agreements where Orkambi is approved and we do not have the same population needs, as we know, because of the specific population that the UK has; compared with other countries, the UK has a very high proportion of people with cystic fibrosis. So I am not able to make comparisons with other countries. Cystic fibrosis affects about 10,500 people in the United Kingdom—a far higher figure than in other countries. It represents 12% of the global cystic fibrosis population. The UK is a very important market for Vertex.
I thank all Members who have spoken so passionately here today. In particular, I thank the people who have joined us here in the Gallery; I pay tribute to them for all that they do to support their family members. I also thank those people, such as Lucy Baxter, who work so hard to raise awareness of this issue. I thank members of the Health and Social Care Committee, which is carrying out a very thorough and transparent inquiry into this issue, helping to shine a light on it.
As we have heard in great and moving detail today, cystic fibrosis is a devastating, life-limiting condition, and the bravery of those affected should be an inspiration to us all. Drugs that improve sufferers’ quality of life should be available where appropriate, and I urge Vertex to do everything it can to price its medicines fairly and in a way that reflects the health benefits to patients.
NHS England and NICE will, of course, continue their efforts to reach an agreement with Vertex. Access to treatment for all patients is, and always will be, a priority for this Government. My Department has a moral obligation to look at other options now, and that is what we shall do.
Paul Scully
You have joined us halfway through the debate, Mr Hanson, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I thank all colleagues across the Chamber for their contributions. I thank the Cystic Fibrosis Trust for pulling together such a fantastic and insightful meeting this morning, and all those who participated, including the Minister’s constituent, Lucy Baxter. Lucy described cystic fibrosis phenomenally well, capturing it in one sentence: it is like breathing through a straw and then going running. It is that tiny lung capacity that really starts to illustrate the issue that these people live through, from day to day.
We have heard a lot about NICE and possible changes for that portfolio drug—system proposals. We have heard a lot about the need for Vertex to yield somewhat in the negotiations; as the Minister said, it is the outlier. I caution colleagues as they look at the alternatives, whether Crown use, compulsory licensing or a buyers’ club. Yes, we need those weapons in our armoury for the negotiations, but there is always the possible unintended consequence of fallout—the risk for future research into rare diseases of all sorts—if we start to undermine a market that clearly, however, needs to be looked at in relation to big pharma and how it can hold the NHS over a barrel. We just have to be careful about unintended consequences.
I also thank Alasdair Mackenzie, the Community and Outreach Engagement manager for Parliament. He joined me this morning at the deliberations with the Cystic Fibrosis Trust because of his personal interest. His partner, Becky, died of cystic fibrosis just a few years ago. His insight, and his sharing of Becky’s experience, were invaluable to me in my contributions this morning.
I wish, again, to put on the record my thanks, and to give all speed to the Minister, NICE and NHS England in our negotiations with Vertex. I hope that we can bring this matter to a resolution and give that life-saving drug—that quality-of-life drug—to all those thousands of people across the country as soon as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 231602 relating to access to Orkambi and other drugs for people with cystic fibrosis.
Written Statements
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Low-Carbon Generation: Smart Export Guarantee
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Chris Skidmore)
I am pleased to announce I will be laying legislation today to introduce a new supplier-led subsidy free Smart Export Guarantee (SEG). This will ensure that homes and businesses, who export their surplus low carbon electricity to the grid, will be able to receive payment from their energy suppliers. The SEG will come into force in Great Britain from the end of December this year.
The UK has made substantial progress in building a successful renewables industry as part of our move to a low carbon economy. In 2017, businesses active in the low carbon and renewable energy economy generated £44.5 billion in turnover and employed an estimated 209,500 full-time equivalent employees. Our modern Industrial Strategy sets out how the Government will ensure that the UK continues to benefit from the transition to a low carbon economy.
Developments in technology and the industry, supported by the Government, have driven down the cost of small-scale low carbon electricity generation to a position where some projects can now be built without subsidy. This is in line with our vision that electricity generation should be competitive, and market based.
However, from responses in our call for evidence in July last year2, it was clear small-scale generators can struggle to access the electricity market, while some larger suppliers are unfamiliar with smaller players in the sector. Responses suggested that following the closure of the Feed in Tariffs Scheme (FITs), some form of Government intervention remains necessary while markets for small-scale low carbon generation are still emerging.
The SEG will address this by requiring licensed electricity suppliers to offer a tariff for electricity exported by small scale low carbon generators, such as households with solar panels. This means small scale generators will be able to fully participate in the UK electricity market. This new requirement will apply to suppliers with more than 150,000 domestic customers. Other smaller suppliers can also voluntarily participate in the SEG.
Other than a few core conditions, such as payments having to always be greater than zero, this policy is market-led. The rates paid to the small power producers will be determined by the market rather than set by Government. This is unlike the FITs, which was funded through levies on consumers’ energy bills.
The SEG will complement the deployment of smart, flexible technologies such as storage and demand- side response. A smart and flexible system could save £17-40 billion across the electricity system to 20503. The policy will encourage electricity to be sold at the times when it is most needed and market prices are highest.
Previously, the amount of electricity exported by small scale generators has often been unmeasured and flowed to the grid without metering. The rollout of smart meters allows a more precise approach, which in turn will make it easier to manage the electricity system as the number of small scale generators, as well as electric vehicles and small-scale storage batteries, increases.
Suppliers will also be free to choose the form of the tariff they offer and be encouraged to try different approaches, provided they meet the SEG requirements. This will allow simple tariff offers to be implemented quickly, with an expectation that increasingly smart approaches will be implemented.
The deadline for compliance will be from the end of the year to provide enough time for suppliers to make necessary system changes to operate the SEG. This will not preclude suppliers from offering export tariffs in advance of the deadline, as some are already doing.
To ensure that the market is delivering meaningful and innovative tariffs, Ofgem will report annually on the provisions made by suppliers for small-scale exporters. This will include the range, nature and uptake of SEG tariffs. If we consider that insufficient progress is being made, we will consult on reviewing the operation of SEG.
The SEG will ensure that small-scale low carbon generators are reimbursed for the electricity they export to the grid and can act as a springboard to the development of a robust and competitive market solutions. SEG allows the private sector to innovate and invest, while small-scale generation technologies can compete on their own merits. We expect that the electricity market to grow smarter and more flexible, and consumers will be offered an increasing range of innovative smart products and services. These services will support the integration and optimisation of onsite low carbon generation.
I will place in the Libraries of both Houses, copies of the “Government response to the consultation on proposals for the future development of small-scale low-carbon electricity generation” which sets out further information on the SEG.
1 Final results from the Low Carbon and Renewable Energy Survey on the low carbon and renewable energy economy in the UK, including direct and indirect activity, employees and turnover, available at:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/enviromentalaccounts/bulletins/finalestimates/2017
2 The future for small-scale low-carbon generation: a call for evidence (July 2018) at: https://www.gov.uk/government/ consultations/the-future-for-small-scale-low-carbon-generation-a-call-for-evidence
3 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/568982/An_analysis_of_ electricity_flexibility_for_Great_Britain.pdf
[HCWS1609]
Great Britain China Centre: Tailored Review
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
I am announcing today the publication of the recent tailored review of the Great Britain China Centre (GBCC), an arm’s-length body of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).
The GBCC was established in 1974 and focuses on strengthening the UK-China relationship by “building trust and supporting dialogues between Government, judiciary and policy makers on key rule of law and reform issues”. Since 1974, it has played an important part in delivering UK expertise on democracy and democratic institutions.
The principal aims of tailored reviews are to ensure public bodies remain fit for purpose, are well governed and properly accountable for what they do.
In conducting this tailored review, officials engaged with stakeholders in the UK and overseas, including across UK Government, civil society, as well as with GBCC’s board, staff and management.
The review concluded in April 2019.
The review found that “GBCC continues to perform an important function in the UK-China relationship; makes a positive contribution to UK priorities in China; and represents good value for money for the taxpayer”. The review also contains a number of recommendations to strengthen GBCC’s governance and its relationship with the FCO.
Copies of the review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1607]
Immigration: DNA Evidence
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
Today I am announcing the publication of the Home Office response to Darra Singh’s review of the Home Office response to the mandating of DNA for immigration purposes. The Home Secretary commissioned this review to provide independent oversight of the effectiveness of remedial action taken by the Department when the incorrect mandating of DNA evidence came to light last year.
The review recognises the considerable efforts made by the Department, once the issue came to light, to assess the scale of the problem and prevent its recurrence, and to identify those affected and take remedial action, including reimbursing DNA testing costs where appropriate. The review acknowledges that good progress has been made to update guidance on DNA and to provide training on this issue.
While the review acknowledges the hard work behind the immediate response, it comments that the effective direction provided by the critical incident process could have been put in place at an earlier stage. The review also identifies areas where the Home Office’s approach to sampling, data collection, and assurance in this instance could have been improved.
The Department accepts the recommendations made in the report and has already taken action on them. Furthermore, beyond this specific issue the Department is focused on meeting the individual needs of the public we serve by improving customer service, ensuring we better protect the vulnerable and focusing on becoming more of a listening organisation.
I will arrange for copies of the report and Home Office response to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The Home Secretary and I would like to thank Darra Singh for his considerable effort in producing the report and its recommendations.
[HCWS1610]
Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Employment (Alok Sharma)
The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council will take place on 13th June 2019 in Luxembourg. Kelly Tolhurst, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, will represent the UK.
The Council will be provided with a progress report on the directive on equal treatment. Conclusions will be presented to the Council for adoption on: Closing the gender pay gap; implications for the safety and health of workers in the changing world of work; and the EU Council Auditors' report on the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived (FEAD).
Under the agenda item on the European semester agenda item there will be a high level policy debate on the employment and social policy aspects of country specific recommendations.
Under other business, the presidency will give updates on current legislative proposals: a regulation on European social statistics and revision of the regulations on the co-ordination of social security systems. Information will also be provided on presidency conferences, gender balance on company boards and the work programme of the incoming Finnish presidency. The Maltese delegation will provide additional information on the outcome of the EU-Arab high-level meeting on disability rights and prioritising gender budgeting in the future multiannual financial framework.
In the margins of the meeting, representatives of the Government of each member state will make a decision on which member state will host the European Labour Authority.
[HCWS1608]
House of Lords
Leave of Absence
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, later this week I am due to travel to and speak at a special conference in Paris, where I will meet Speakers of second Chambers from across Europe and Africa. The theme of the conference is “Bicameralism: An Asset for Democracy”, and accordingly I seek leave of absence from your Lordships’ House on Friday 14 June.
National Health Service: Pensions
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Naseby
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to review the tax rules relating to National Health Service pensions; and whether they intend to have a public consultation on the issue.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am aware of concerns raised by NHS doctors about the impact of annual allowance tax charges. Although there are no plans to have a public consultation on the tax rules, on 3 June the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced his intention to consult on introducing a new pension flexibility for high-earning NHS clinicians affected by annual allowance tax charges.
Lord Naseby
The Answer that my noble friend has just given is most welcome, but it is perhaps a little tardy in the sense that this problem has existed for some time. The people who suffer are NHS patients, as consultants do not feel able to take on extra work. Is it not time that there was a total review of NHS pensions, as a whole lot of anomalies have developed over time? I now declare a second interest, as my wife is a retired GP. Prior to 1988, there was equality of contributions for men and women and equality for the beneficiaries, whether they were widows or widowers. However, for 24 years, despite having paid equal amounts, the future beneficiaries of female doctors—their husbands or partners—have had no benefit. Against that background—there are other examples—instead of a short-term review, is it not time that the NHS looked at all the anomalies that have arisen over time and tried to put them right?
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, in the interval between my noble friend tabling his Question and today, the Government made a significant announcement on 3 June aimed at addressing the very problem that he addresses in his Question, and no doubt he can claim some credit for that chain of events. On the point about the impact on patients, between 2018 and 2019 57% of GPs who retired took early retirement. Some consultants are unwilling to take on extra sessions because of the impact on their pensions, and that has an impact on the quality of service that we can provide. On his more detailed question, I understand the sense of injustice that he feels about the circumstances that he has described. I will see whether the consultation that begins at the end of the month can be stretched to include the broader review that he has just proposed.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, are not the Government being more than a little tardy in response to this situation? After all, they introduced the pension arrangements in 2015 and it is clear that they made a right mess of them in some respects. In addition to the range of people whom the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, spoke about a moment ago, both ends of the medical profession—younger doctors and consultants—are greatly aggrieved at the provision of pensions under the 2015 legislation. I just wonder why the Minister can say with equanimity that we are getting round to a consultation.
Lord Young of Cookham
It is important that noble Lords understand the background to the changes. One of the most expensive tax reliefs is pension tax relief. It costs £50 billion per year—roughly half the budget of the NHS. Two-thirds of that goes to additional, or higher-rate, taxpayers. The reforms introduced over the last two Parliaments were aimed at targeting the relief more effectively and saving £6 billion that could be redirected towards other priorities. Less than 1% of taxpayers will be affected by the taper of £40,000 that was introduced, and more than 95% of those approaching pension age will not be affected by the lifetime allowance.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a past president of the BMA, and as someone with an NHS pension whose husband does not stand to gain particularly by my death; so be it. Do the Government recognise the seriousness of the situation, given the open letter from the BMA to the Prime Minister published in the Financial Times today? The 50:50 suggestion that came from the Secretary of State is not the solution to the problem. Clinical services are already being severely jeopardised by consultants who drop their additional sessions; waiting lists are therefore already rising and those facing retirement have decided to carry on with leaving the NHS, thereby worsening our workforce problems.
Lord Young of Cookham
We join the noble Baroness’s husband in wishing her a very long life. So far as the issue she raises is concerned, the BMA asked us to introduce this flexibility earlier this year. The chair of the BMA council said:
“This is a step in the right direction”.
The Secretary of State is willing to discuss other models for pension flexibility; we very much hope that, if we make these changes, high-earning clinicians will be able to attend to more patients while saving for their retirements without incurring significant tax charges.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, senior officers in the armed services face the same problem. I raise this because I know that the Minister will follow up on it. One showed me his tax returns: a £5,000 increase in income led to an additional tax payment—in just the first year—of just under £17,000. This is driving away not only senior officers but especially the high-fliers who, with early promotion, get into this conundrum very early in their careers.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, the Armed Forces Pension Scheme continues to be one of the best available defined-benefit occupational schemes. Service personnel on the AFPS are not required to contribute towards their pension throughout their career. However, we continue to monitor the differences between the various schemes to ensure that they are fair and provide appropriate support to the workforce.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister not recognise that this is not a problem confined to the NHS or indeed the armed services? It arises because the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, reduced the size of the pension pot from £1.8 million to £1 million over a short period of time. As a result, if people with final salary pension schemes reach the age of 55 and do not retire but continue, they are taxed at an outrageous 55%. The remedy lies in the Treasury undoing the mess that it created in the first place.
Lord Young of Cookham
There are a number of contenders for the leadership of our great party at the moment. If my noble friend feels this is a cause which will gain currency in my party, no doubt he will pursue it with one of those candidates. However, I return to what I said a few moments ago. The changes we made were progressive, to ensure there was not an inequity in the tax relief benefit.
Museums
Lord Lee of Trafford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the challenges and opportunities facing national museums.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and declare an interest as chairman of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, DCMS-sponsored museums operate independently, at arm’s length from the Government. However, Ministers and officials routinely engage with them to discuss policy, finance and other matters. Our national museums’ remarkable work is reflected in their enduring popularity, with four among the top 10 most visited museums worldwide. The Government are committed to fostering an environment in which museums can flourish, seizing opportunities and surmounting occasional challenges while ensuring the whole nation shares in the extraordinary benefits museum confer.
Lord Lee of Trafford
I recently had the pleasure of visiting the impressive new V&A museum in Dundee. The council leader and tourism officials told me how the museum has brought a real sense of pride to the city and boosted visitor numbers at other attractions there. Thus, V&A Dundee joins the list of regional affiliates, such as the Imperial War Museum North, Tate Liverpool, Tate St Ives and others, which have stimulated regeneration and spread tourism. Should the Government now be doing much more, and being much more proactive, in encouraging and part-funding other national museums and galleries to similarly develop more regional affiliates? Loaning exhibits, worthwhile though that is, is surely not enough.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I acknowledge the success of V&A Dundee, and setting up satellite museums under the same banner in other locations around the UK certainly sounds like a good idea on paper. However, it is down to the trustees and leadership of museums to decide how to deploy resources and display their artefacts and treasures. In 2018, the Government published a partnership framework to support and enable the national museums to act ever more strategically as a whole on how they work with the wider sector. Contrary to what the noble Lord said, experience has taught the sector that partnerships offer a successful approach for jointly curated exhibitions and galleries, exchanging skills, and so on. In 2016-17, the national museums loaned objects to 1,356 locations across the UK.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, I hope the Minister recognises the importance of small museums. The most successful small museum in London is the Cartoon Museum, which has been running for 20 years. This week, it moves to new and enlarged premises in Wells Street, near Oxford Street. I hope he and other Members of this House will visit this museum—they might see themselves there. It is the only public building in London that aims to send people out happier than when they entered.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
All I can do is acknowledge what my noble friend said. We have heard an extremely good marketing campaign from him.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, in his initial remarks, the Minister referred to “occasional challenges” that the museum sector might face. What advice would he give to museums and other arts organisations, which are currently facing considerable challenges in securing private and corporate donations? A number of high-profile difficulties have been experienced recently, in a climate in which the Government have steadily reduced the real value of public funding to this sector. What advice does he have for the sector in these circumstances?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
We acknowledge and applaud the amount of private funding that goes to museums and we very much want that to continue. The noble Baroness alluded to certain high-profile issues, particularly one that was in the news this morning. The Government are very appreciative of BP’s long-standing support for the arts; its preferred model of long-term partnerships is especially valuable to cultural institutions. To answer the question, the funding of museums has to be a collaboration, led, we hope, locally by local authorities and private funding.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, our museums are treasure houses of artefacts from around the world. Does the Minister agree that it would enhance understanding and appreciation if the items were better labelled to show how they were—how can I put this kindly—acquired from around the world?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Lord is right. I think most museums have moved on from displaying items in glass cases, which perhaps are not especially helpful, particularly to schoolchildren. It is important for museums to optimise their visitor numbers by displaying items in the most interactive way and thinking about what they are doing in running their businesses.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that one of the defining characteristics of our great museums is the scholarship embodied in their staff? Does he also accept that the pay for these people is often derisory and, in consequence, many of our great national museums are short on highly qualified and expert staff? This is a problem that needs looking at. Does he agree?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
It is a problem that all museums would acknowledge, there is no question about that, but I say again that it is down to the trustees and museum leadership to decide how best to deploy their resources to maximise access to collections and programmes, and, indeed, employ staff. At the same time, I pay tribute to the tens of thousands of dedicated and passionate volunteers nationwide, whose vital work brings so much to visiting audiences to museums and galleries.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as trustee of the People’s History Museum. Could the Minister explain to the House why our museum is listed on the DCMS website as being sponsored by the department, yet it removed its funding as far back as 2015-16? We are a national museum and all the other national museums attract government funding.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I do not have sight of the website right now, but I will certainly look into that. I say again what I said in answer to a Question on a previous day: entry to the 15 national museums remains free. These 15 museums firmly come under the Government.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, a few months ago I visited Cardiff and went to the museum there, which was absolutely buzzing, particularly with young people, because Major Tim Peake’s space capsule was on loan from the Science Museum. Although I understand my noble friend’s comment about loans, an imaginative programme of loans—I understand that Dippy the dinosaur is again a major attraction—that uses such exhibits nationally has a marvellous educational role and lifts the profile of the local museum.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Yes, the noble Lord makes a very good point. To be helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Lee, it may be that other V&As start up, but the noble Lord, Lord McNally, makes a very good point: it helps enormously to have tours such as those of Dippy the dinosaur and Tim Peake’s capsule because it wakes up the museum and allows schools to take visitors there, which is beneficial for all, particularly for their education.
Nuclear Energy: Small Modular Reactors
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in identifying a design for small modular nuclear reactors.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and in so doing draw attention to my interests as set out in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, there are many designs in development around the world for application in a diverse range of markets. The Government are assessing eight advanced modular reactors through the AMR R&D programme. We have received the feasibility studies and will announce any contracts for promising designs in the summer. We are also considering a proposal from the UK SMR consortium to the industrial strategy challenge fund. We will make a decision on this soon.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply and pleased that the Government continue to encourage the development of this technology. Can he confirm that the Trawsfynydd site in north Wales is still being considered as a trial site to test a whole range of different designs for generation III and generation IV SMRs?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I can confirm to my noble friend that Trawsfynydd remains a potential site; it has been neither ruled in nor ruled out. We believe that small and advanced nuclear reactors have the potential to drive down costs through technology and production innovations.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, may I add my support to the bid made in favour of Trawsfynydd? The old nuclear power station there is half decommissioned, but the lake is too small for a full new nuclear power station. Given that the Wylfa project is, to say the least, in doubt, will he look positively at the Trawsfynydd option for SMRs in order to keep this technology alive in north-west Wales?
Lord Henley
The noble Lord speaks with great experience on this subject. He was involved in the building of Trawsfynydd, more years ago than he probably cares to remember. I note what he says; he is correct to say that the lake is on the small side for a full-scale nuclear reactor, which might make the small modular reactor more appropriate, but as I said, nothing has been ruled in or out.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, any decision on SMRs should be taken within the context of the best possible carbon-free energy system. Does the Minister share my view that nuclear is competing not with windmills and photovoltaics but with energy storage, because in future the baseload can be provided either by nuclear or by effective storage? The Minister paints a picture of activity within his ministry. Can he guarantee that the same amount of effort will go into developing effective methods of bulk energy storage as is going into nuclear power?
Lord Henley
I completely agree with the noble Lord. The advantage of nuclear is that it provides baseload but if, as he says, we make further progress on storage, the variables in renewables would have the same effect. Therefore, we will continue to provide equal priority to advances in technology for storing electricity.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, in their reports on small modular nuclear reactors, both the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology and the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee made the point that the UK’s ability to deliver on the development and implementation of small modular reactors depends on our skills base. We have a significant lack of skills. What are the Government doing to develop those skills in nuclear science?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I accept the points that the noble Lord makes and refer him back to the nuclear sector deal, which is a collaboration between the Government and the industry. In that, we accepted that there was a need to develop our skills base, which we will continue to do.
Lord Cunningham of Felling (Lab)
My Lords, it is important to continue the research and development of small modular nuclear reactors. I compliment the Government on that, even though progress is slow. Can the Minister enlighten the House as to whether all the money originally allocated for that project has been taken up? It is not clear. In the meantime, as well as Trawsfynydd, Moorside in Cumbria has disappeared from the planning process. As the Minister rightly says, many existing nuclear reactors providing significant amounts of baseload will inevitably come to a conclusion before too long and we are apparently not in a position to replace them. While I recognise the importance of the point made about storage, it will not be there in time on that scale, capacity and ability.
Lord Henley
My Lords, the point I was making about storage was that it needs further research, because there are potentials there. I acknowledge the noble Lord’s expertise from his former constituency interests, and his interest in Moorside. He knows that we were disappointed that Moorside fell through but the site is still there, and it too might be looked at for small modular reactors.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, following up on the question just asked, who would fund an SMR programme at Trawsfynydd?
Lord Henley
My Lords, that will depend on whatever proposal is put forward.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that at Sellafield there is a university technical college for training 14 to 18 year-olds? Last July, 80% of its leavers became apprentices in the industry and 20% went on to study nuclear and STEM courses at university. We are providing the expert staff of the future for not only Sellafield but other sites.
Lord Henley
I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding the House of the success of UTCs and, in particular, the UTC in that area.
Asylum Seekers
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Scriven
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they identify, support and track the applications of people seeking asylum on the grounds of gender identity or sexual orientation.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, while the Government do not specifically track applications from asylum seekers based on their gender identity or sexual orientation, we remain focused on supporting all asylum seekers, including LGBT people and those who are vulnerable.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, as has just been said, the Home Office does not collate or collect central data on the journey of LGBT+ individuals seeking asylum on issues such as the accommodation they are granted, the length of time taken for each case or, if held in detention, how long they are there. So how can the Home Office, with any certainty or credibility, say that LGBT+ individuals seeking asylum do not suffer discrimination, either directly or indirectly, if it does not have the data to evidence that?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, it is important to consider that, for all people claiming asylum, if that claim is not granted, they are sent back to their country of origin. I understand the vulnerabilities of LGBT people in some countries. For that reason, we provide support in this country when people return to their country of origin. We give them various types of support, including long-term accommodation, legal and medical support, and family tracing, which is incredibly important for someone returning to their own country.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Have the Government not committed to publishing annual data on the number of asylum claims based on sexual orientation? If they have, when will annual publication begin?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The Government collate data of asylum claims based on sexual orientation. I understand that almost 6,000 asylum applications lodged between 2015 and 2017 stated sexual orientation as the basis of their claim, although my noble friend will be aware that sexual orientation might not be the first basis for a claim.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, we have seen two very unhappy incidents of homophobia in this country in the last few days—at the theatre in Southampton and on the bus in Camden. Does the Minister agree that denying the dangers facing many asylum seekers, at best, displays a lack of understanding of minorities on the part of the Home Office and, at worst, amounts to real prejudice?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the Home Office understands the dangers faced by LGBT people, and our hate crime action plan, launched in 2016, acknowledged them. I know of the two cases that the noble Baroness is talking about, which are very disturbing indeed, so I reject any suggestion that we do not take vulnerabilities, particularly those related to hate crimes meted out on people because of their sexual orientation, very seriously.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
It is my understanding—I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that, in 2017, 1,900 applications were made on the grounds, in whole or in part, of sexual orientation. In that year, there were approximately 1,400 appeals, of which 487—nearly a third—were successful. The number of successful appeals was greater than the number of applications granted. I have two questions. First, of the 487 successful appeals involving sexual orientation, which were the top three countries, in terms of the number to which those who appealed successfully would have been returned had their appeals not been successful? Secondly, of those people whose asylum case applications were, in whole or in part, on sexual orientation grounds, were declined in 2017 and were then returned to their relevant country, how many have subsequently been the subject of persecution or discrimination in their relevant country, because of their sexual orientation? I assume the Government have some idea of the answer to both questions because, if they do not know the answer to the second, how do they know that asylum application declinatures have proved correct?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, when determining asylum claims, the Government will take information from a variety of sources, including the FCO. I cannot answer all the noble Lord’s questions just now, but I can say that of the top five countries for sexual orientation-based asylum claims by volume, the largest by far was Pakistan.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Does the Minister agree that asylum claims on the grounds of gender identity or sexual orientation raise specific difficulties and sensitivities? Is there a special unit in the Home Office containing individuals with particular expertise who look at asylum claims on such grounds and, if not, why not?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The answer to the noble Lord’s question is: yes, absolutely, these claims are very sensitive, both when they are being determined and, if the individual in question finds themselves in detention, there are further sensitivities around the detention estate, particularly with those from certain countries. I acknowledge that. The training undergone by case workers both outside and inside the detention estate is specific to the issues mentioned by the noble Lord.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a high proportion of the problems that arise from such asylum applications stem from the appalling human rights records of a number of members of the Commonwealth? Surely one solution to the problem—but only one—is for pressure to be brought to bear on those countries that fail to recognise any form of human rights. We must make progress not in the long run but in the short term.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My noble friend raises an important point. Certainly during CHOGM last year, the Prime Minister and others raised issues of human rights. The churches have a big presence in the Commonwealth and can bring some pressure to bear. I understand that the Kenyan Government are now committed to reviewing the penal code to align it with the constitution and to adopting an anti-discrimination law which provides protection irrespective of a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
Courts and Tribunals (Online Procedure) Bill [HL]
Monday 10th June 2019
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Courts and Tribunals (Online Procedure) Bill [HL] 2017-19 View all Courts and Tribunals (Online Procedure) Bill [HL] 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 176(Rev)-I Marshalled list for Committee (PDF) - (6 Jun 2019)
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 6, which is in the first grouping. On Amendment 1, HMCTS has acknowledged that its assisted digital programme will not be sufficient to support everybody to engage with online processes and has therefore made a commitment that digital services will not be mandated. In relation to the reform agenda, it has been stated that HMCTS will continue to make provision for litigants to continue to use paper documents in accessing family court proceedings. It is therefore concerning that Clause 1(1)(a) would allow the Online Procedure Rule Committee to make rules requiring certain proceedings to be initiated electronically, and that Clause 1(1)(c) would allow rules requiring parties to participate electronically.
The purpose of this amendment is to make it crystal clear that people with particular vulnerabilities will not be required to participate in court proceedings, particularly family proceedings, in a digital way. I think the Government have been too optimistic when looking at the proportion of the population that is digitally excluded. The figure they have is that 18% of the population do not use computing equipment, but I would argue that that number is far too low. When one looks, for example, at the population using internet banking or similar sensitive issues, it is only 56%. I believe it would be helpful if it were clearly stated in the Bill that there will not be an expectation for parties to engage with any family court proceedings online and that paper channels will always be available to anyone who chooses to use them.
Amendment 6 is also part of this group. Clause 1(6) would allow the Online Procedure Rule Committee to set out circumstances under which proceedings should be transferred to a full court hearing, and therefore no longer come under the OPR. Although it may be useful to provide some clarity as to when cases can be transferred, I would be concerned if this resulted in any restriction of judicial discretion, and that any individual case could be transferred to a court hearing if it was required. The purpose of Amendment 6 is to make this point explicit in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 3 is in my name and in the names of my noble friend Lord Beith and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. This amendment seeks to have the Bill offer a choice to parties between filing forms and other documents under the Online Procedure Rules by electronic means or submitting them on paper. At Second Reading, the Minister said that the Government recognised,
“that not all court and tribunal users will be able to engage online and so paper routes will continue to be available for those who need them”.—[Official Report, 14/5/19; col. 1506.]
The noble and learned Lord has repeatedly said that litigants will have a choice between filing documents electronically and filing paper documents, the intention being that paper documents will be scanned into the online file and available thereafter to be accessed online if desired. That promises a perfectly acceptable arrangement, but I suggest that we need a guarantee that it is going to happen.
For many, this is a matter of considerable importance. While no doubt the electronically literate with access to computers and the internet will choose to produce and file documents online, Lord Justice Briggs, as he then was, recognised in his review the difficulties that would face litigants who are unable to use or access computers. Such difficulties are compounded by the facts that for many there are serious financial challenges in accessing online resources, and that in many areas of the country access to acceptably fast broadband is unavailable. In spite of some progress in this area, I interpose that our inability to guarantee fast broadband across the United Kingdom is shocking.
If the Government intend to ensure a choice for parties between online and paper documents, there can be no good reason for them failing to spell that out in this legislation. Whatever the Government’s good intentions may be, there is no guarantee that a future Government will honour a commitment that is not on the face of the statute. This is not a matter where a statement of intent by the Minister will satisfactorily safeguard future litigants. There can be no downside to incorporating the choice in the Bill.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I can easily follow my noble friend because he has said much of what needs to be said. With Amendment 4, I am trying to explore what the circumstances are in which it would be possible for people to revert to the traditional procedure rather than the online one. I am in favour of the Bill being introduced—I have called for it on many occasions and strongly support it—but the Constitution Committee has pointed out that it raises some issues that need to be clarified and sorted out, and this is one of them.
What are we trying to do here? Are we trying to create an online system that is advantageous, beneficial to the parties and much less cumbersome as well as saving time for the judicial system? Are we then going to encourage people to make use of it in the expectation that they will? The piloting of more limited projects in this area indicates that we have good reason to be optimistic. So is that what we are doing, or are we setting up a system in which it will be almost impossible to insist on conventional court proceedings even in circumstances where both parties think that is right? The question then arises whether you could have circumstances where one party to a dispute could insist, even when it was to the detriment of the other, that the more cumbersome procedure was used. I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on that question. Where both parties are quite clear that there are good reasons for a hearing in court, why should they be precluded from having one if our assumption is that this is a system that would be attractive to users and make the court system function more effectively, particularly in large numbers of money claims of relatively modest size?
One of the ambiguities that surrounds this Bill is what it is really for—whether it is the route to a very wide use of online systems or whether it will be confined in this way. Different statements at different stages of the Bill’s progress have had both a narrow and a wide interpretation. Although Briggs referred to money claims, I think there are wider expectations that make these general issues rather important.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I support what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Beith. I declare an interest as a barrister practising in offline courts. That was the reason I did not participate at Second Reading.
The Briggs report has been referred to, which said at paragraph 6.13 that there are persons,
“living mainly in rural areas with no access to broadband, those who cannot afford a lap-top or desk-top computer, and those who for a variety of understandable reasons regard moving to computer after a life spent communicating on paper a step too far”.
I agree with previous speakers that it is unacceptable that the Bill says nothing about such potential litigants. The Minister accepts that their interests must be accommodated—they need to be accommodated in the Bill.
That is the view of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, on which I served with the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. Our report said at paragraph 16 that, against the background of what was said by Briggs,
“forcing people to choose between online proceedings or not pursuing legal claims at all risks excluding large numbers of people from the justice system”.
For that reason, your Lordships’ Constitution Committee has recommended that the Bill must place duties on the Lord Chancellor to ensure that adequate provision is made to enable access for the sorts of people I have mentioned.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 10 in my name gives the right to respond, in addition to the person initiating the claim, to choose whether the new procedure applies. Amendment 11 then provides that, in the event of disagreement between the parties, the relevant court or tribunal will determine which course to follow—the matter just referred to by the noble Lord. Indeed, I concur with all the issues raised by the three Members of your Lordships’ House who have spoken already in this debate.
I confess that my drafting is somewhat less than elegant, but this is an important issue, given the difficulty that many will have with an online process, stemming from unfamiliarity with the process or medical or mental health issues. The report of the Constitution Committee of 7 June, to which reference has just been made, raises serious concerns about the process that go beyond the matters referred to in these amendments but are most apposite to them.
The committee declares:
“It is unsatisfactory for legislation to be drafted in a way that fails to acknowledge the fundamental right to a fair hearing, both at common law and under the European Convention on Human Rights. While ministers may have no intention of using the powers provided by the Bill to undermine the right to an oral hearing, it is incumbent on Parliament to frame the powers it confers in a way that acknowledges and respects fundamental constitutional principles”.
The committee expresses its concern that,
“the Bill confers broad powers on ministers to limit oral hearings in a much wider range of cases than is currently envisaged”,
and suggests:
“One way to secure appropriate control over this power would be to require not just consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, or the Senior President of Tribunals where appropriate, but their concurrence”,
in those proposals. In other words, consultation has to be taken seriously in these circumstances—perhaps more seriously than in most, given what is at stake here for the workings of our legal system.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I support the intentions of Amendments 1 and 6 in the name of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and Amendments 10 and 11 in the name of my noble friend Lord Beecham. In summary, they remove the potential requirement that people must choose between online proceedings and not pursuing legal claims, strengthen judicial discretion on the need for a full court hearing and protect the right of parties to proceedings to seek oral hearings.
It is right that courts and tribunals be modernised, but in utilising new technologies access to justice must not be undermined. The impact assessment notes that the conventional economic rationale for government intervention is based on efficiency or equity arguments. The rationale here is efficiency, referencing,
“outdated processes … costly for both the Government and court users”.
A reliance on an efficiency rationale must not prejudice access to justice, but I fear that that is the Bill’s potential impact. Clauses 1 to 3 give Ministers extremely broad powers to replace traditional proceedings with online ones, allowing for the possibility of online proceedings being the only option in the absence of Clause 3 regulation permitting a person to choose between online or conventional proceedings.
The Minister can give assurances as to the Government’s intentions but they are not binding over time. The Government argue that additional safeguards are not needed, but the Online Procedure Rule Committee’s powers will be far greater than those of any existing rule committees. Indeed, concerns about access to justice are heightened because the Bill confers powers to limit oral hearings in a wider range of cases than was envisaged by Lord Justice Briggs’s recommendation to introduce an online court to resolve low-value civil money claims. I quote the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, at Second Reading:
“Effectively, this Bill covers all non-criminal proceedings … this is a serious, wide-ranging Bill with wide-ranging consequences”.—[Official Report, 14/5/19; col. 1511.]
It may be argued that protecting access to justice is implicit in the Bill, but I believe that Parliament needs greater confidence; it should not rest on judicial intervention or ministerial assurance to address concerns about ministerial powers. I recall the Minister addressing this House on the draft Employment Tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013 in response to concerns that such fees would restrict access to justice. He asserted:
“We believe that the mitigations we have put in place will properly protect access to justice for those seeking to bring claims”.—[Official Report, 8/7/13; col. 85.]
In July 2017, the Supreme Court unanimously held that, as the order prevented access to justice, tribunal fees were unlawful and must be quashed with immediate effect.
As many noble Lords have said, curtailing the use of oral hearings will have a particular impact on access to justice for vulnerable court users with limited digital means, digital literacy and general literacy skills. The Constitution Committee observed that,
“the Office for National Statistics concluded that … 5.3 million adults in the UK … could be characterised as ‘internet non-users’”.
However, the committee noted that this figure may understate the problem. It said:
“Such figures do not take into account those with limited digital skills, for whom basic browsing and messaging may be within their capabilities but the complexity of online legal forms may not”.
People with limited general literacy skills will be disadvantaged by proceedings conducted solely in writing without access to oral hearings. As has been referred to, the charity Mind reports how people with mental health problems are disproportionately likely to experience digital exclusion, struggle with digital engagement and are nearly twice as likely to experience legal problems.
The Government’s objective is to devise new rules that will focus on users being able to solve grievances and resolve their issues online at the earliest opportunity, as well as to encourage more people to resolve disputes before they reach the hearing stage. If the Government are right in their assumptions, which are still to be tested, many people will prefer to use online proceedings voluntarily and efficiencies will be gained. However, that is not compulsion; people should retain the right to seek access to an oral hearing. Ministerial powers with the potential to require people to choose between online proceedings or not pursuing legal claims carry the real risk of incompatibility with the principle of access to justice. Amendments 1, 6, 10 and 11 seek to address that risk.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s view was expressed at Second Reading, but Amendment 1 seems to strike at the heart of what is required. Clause 1 states,
“may authorise or require the parties”.
to use electronic means at hearings. That suggests the possibility of compulsion that would not exclude any section of the community. The amendment I find slightly difficult is Amendment 3, which states,
“may be filed by electronic means or on paper or a combination of both at the choice of the party”.
I would have thought that it should be one thing or the other. I imagine that it might cause confusion if you have an electronic bit and then a bit on paper stuck in, unless there is a clear way of showing in the electronic bit that there is another bit to follow. It is that part of the amendment that I find slightly difficult.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I am reminded that these provisions will apply to family law procedures. Of course, it may improve the resolution of family issues, which will benefit the children involved, but there is a concern that it may make resolution more difficult and thus adversely affect the children in those families. Has the family test been applied to the Bill? I do not see that in the accompanying notes and perhaps it is not appropriate to apply the family test to it. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell me whether the family test has been applied.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 1, 3, 4, 6, 10 and 11, which relate to the operation of the online procedure and how we can ensure that people using it are not disadvantaged. I intend to turn first to Amendment 3, which covers whether a user can choose between digital and paper channels. Then I will move on to Amendments 1, 4, 6, 10 and 11, pertaining to the online procedure and the matter of choice.
Amendment 3 suggests that claimants and respondents should have the choice of whether to use paper or digital channels when engaged in the simplified online procedure. I can confirm that the Government agree with this point, and indeed there is provision for this already. Essentially, where the online procedure comes into place, it will be possible to access it either by way of the digital portal or by way of a written document of claim. Other written documents may also be used when employing the simplified online procedure. The intention, which already applies to some of the digital procedures we have in place for small debt, is that the document will be scanned into the system and will therefore be part of the process. The idea is to ensure that parties are not excluded from the simplified procedure that will be brought in under this online procedure simply because they feel unable to employ, or are incapable of employing, the digital process itself. However, there is a distinction between that and the situation in which, when dealing with debt claims of under £25,000 for example, a claimant or any other party would be allowed to opt either for the simplified procedure that will be promulgated under the online procedure or to have recourse to the existing Civil Procedure Rules and the more complex procedure that pertains there. It is not intended under the Bill that claimants should have an option between the simplified procedure and the more complex procedure. I shall come on to develop that a little more in a moment.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to confirm that we have no plans to remove the availability of paper channels for citizens under the remit of the Online Procedure Rule Committee. Of course, it is our intention to create a digital service that will be easy to access and use—indeed, so easy to access and use that it becomes the default choice for the majority of users. We recognise, however, that not everyone will be able to use it, or wish to proceed with that digital choice without support. For that reason, a paper route will remain open.
We want to be clear that users can expect an equity of service, regardless of whether they proceed with a digital approach or a written claim. Where different parties choose different channels, we will seamlessly join them together by means of a scanning and printing service, so users who want to send and receive papers will still have that choice—they will not need to resort to the online portal. To that extent, I offer my assurance that paper channels are still available and will be available under the Online Procedure Rules. The Bill will do nothing to remove them.
Lord Pannick
Does the Minister accept that nothing in the Bill guarantees that? He gives us an assurance, but surely it would be better to write that into the Bill.
Lord Keen of Elie
If every time we legislated we decided to guarantee everything from A to Z, we would end up with very long Bills. The position is this: there is the ability to proceed by way of the paper process. Nothing prohibits it, there is no inhibition on that process, and there is no intention to introduce such an inhibition.
Turning to Amendments 10 and 11—
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Before my noble and learned friend leaves Amendment 3, I understood him to say he would accept it, so that it would go into the Bill—although without, I hope, the choice of the combination.
Lord Keen of Elie
No, I do not accept the amendment. What I say is that there are existing means by which we can assure people that they can proceed by way of a digital portal or by way of a written claim, which will be scanned and taken into the online procedure process once it is up and running.
Lord Pannick
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way again, but I must press him. We are dealing here with fundamental issues of access to justice. Surely if the Minister recognises that paper procedures must always be available to litigants, it is absolutely vital that the Bill says so.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am afraid I cannot accept that. There is nothing in the Bill that would prohibit the employment of such a paper process once the online procedure is up and running. Indeed, the noble Lord will appreciate that, when it comes to the making of rules by the relevant committee, the process will involve the judiciary as well as the Executive.
We have heard reference already to the idea of consultation, and we will in due course look at amendments to the Bill that seek to shift the question of consultation to one of concurrence. Therefore, we will be in a position to rely on not only any decision-making on the part of the Executive but also the contribution of the judiciary to how it sees that these processes should best be applied in the interest of all litigants. I emphasise “all litigants” because, when we seek to simplify the court process and reduce its potential cost, we are doing so for the benefit of litigants in general. We will come to concurrence and consultation later.
We must bear in mind that this is not a case of Ministers dictating what the relevant rules will be. It is a case of the Executive setting out the machinery by which a rule committee can come into place and set out appropriate rules and regulations for the online procedure, in consultation with the judiciary and with its input, and potentially with its concurrence.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
I am sorry to press the point, but does the Minister accept that without the guarantee in the Bill of his intention, we could lose this procedure at some stage in the future, and that this House may well wish to see that guarantee entrenched in the Bill, so that primary legislation would be necessary to remove the procedure?
Lord Keen of Elie
I quite see that this House might wish to see it in primary legislation, but the position is this: a committee will be formed to put forward appropriate rules and regulations for the online procedure, under the essential supervision not only of the Executive but of the judiciary. There may come a point, at some unforeseeable time in the future, where the judiciary is of the view that it is no longer necessary to employ paper as a form of application or entry into the judicial process. I do not anticipate that happening—there is nothing here to suggest it will happen—and I do not see that there is a requirement for such a guarantee in the form of primary legislation. We intend to form an Online Procedure Rule Committee that will be well qualified to determine the appropriate routes into the online procedure for all parties concerned, including those perhaps not digitally competent or confident. That remains the position.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
Perhaps I may press the Minister on one point. It is easy to see that there is a distinction between an online procedure and the way the court works. If it was made clear that the online procedure is largely geared to ensuring that the systems that lie behind it operate efficiently across the system but that, in using that procedure, if people did not want to go online the court would undertake to scan the documents in—if that distinction was made—would the Minister accept that what really is needed, because these amendments do not grapple with the problem, is a guarantee to the litigant that he can go to court, hand in a piece of paper and it will be scanned into the system? That is all.
If that is the effect of these amendments—and it is limited to that—would that not achieve everything and give an opportunity to increase access to justice? In the current system access to justice is a figment of the imagination, but the use of an online procedure would enable this to happen. Will the Minister look at this issue again in the light of my suggestion to him?
Lord Keen of Elie
I hear what the noble and learned Lord has said and I will take account of those observations in going forward to the next stage of the Bill. However, at present it is not my intention to accept any of the amendments so far laid in respect of this matter. If there is a way through by which we can underline the right of a party to make an application on paper to the relevant online procedure once it is up and running, that would essentially achieve the objective that we have and I believe the House has. However, I do not accept that it will be achieved by means of the present amendments.
Baroness Corston (Lab)
The Minister will know that in a recent Constitution Committee meeting we discussed the Bill with him at length. If there is to be no indication in the Bill that there is a possibility of making a paper application to the court, what advice or direction will be given to this Committee to make it plain that there will be that advice? We know that a significant proportion of the population of this country might be able to use email but cannot use on online form.
Lord Keen of Elie
We intend to appoint a committee of experts to formulate these rules, including judicial members. They will have regard to the need for access to justice. Certainly, we have confidence in the ability of such a committee to formulate rules that reflect the need for all members of the community to have access, not only those who are perhaps more digitally alert and astute than the minority. We lay our confidence in the fact that there will be such a committee, that it will make regulations and that it will do it under the aegis of not only the Executive but the judiciary, and the Lord Chief Justice in particular.
Baroness Drake
Does the Minister accept that Clause 7 gives the Minister powers to override or disallow the views of the Online Procedure Rule Committee? However meritorious its views, the Minister would have the power to override them.
Lord Keen of Elie
There are circumstances in which the Minister may give directions to the committee—I accept that—and that reflects the current position with regard to the other rule committees already in existence, including the tribunal rules, the civil rules and the criminal rules. It exists by way of an executive direction and is there for good reason as a fallback. I understand that the power has been used only once with regard to the existing committees, to address a potential anomaly in the existing rules. It is an exceptional power but it is there because it reflects the existing power in the provisions for the other rule committees.
Lord Woolf (CB)
I apologise for not being at Second Reading but perhaps the Minister will indulge me by helping me with the purpose of Clause 1(1)(a), which states:
“For proceedings of a specified kind, there are to be procedural rules which … must require that kind of proceedings, or one or more aspects of that kind of proceedings, to be initiated by electronic means”.
Lord Keen of Elie
It is to ensure that where, for example, there are debt actions below a certain level—let us take a figure of £25,000—they must be initiated by way of the Online Procedure Rules, the simplified procedural rules, rather than by way of the existing Civil Procedure Rules. It is for that purpose that the paragraph is there. In other words, it will not be open to a party who wants to make a small debt claim to decide they want to use the more complex and potentially more expensive Civil Procedure Rules as distinct from the Online Procedure Rules and the simplified procedure that goes with them.
I shall address Amendments 10 and 11, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, alongside Amendment 4, which I believe was tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Beith, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, as well as Amendments 1 and 6, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby.
Amendments 1 and 6 concern the continued availability of physical proceedings rather than online proceedings. Amendment 4 seeks to allow the parties to proceedings to choose whether to engage with the online procedure or the current procedural rules. This is a point that I just sought to touch upon. Amendments 10 and 11 are intended to deal with those cases where one party wishes to leave the online procedure, but another does not.
This is not what the Bill is intended to achieve. The Bill provides the flexibility for a case to progress via the online rules, or via the traditional rules of the civil procedure if necessary. Where a case is so complex that that the online procedure is clearly inappropriate, it will be for the judge to determine, and he will have the discretion to do so, whether a case should remain within the online procedure or should proceed by way of the traditional civil rules instead. Where both parties make a representation that the case should not proceed by way of the online procedure, then of course the court will hear those representations and take them into account, but ultimately it will be for the court to decide the appropriate procedure for the disposal of any claim. That is as it should be and is as it is with regard to our existing civil procedures. Ultimately, it is for the court to make these procedural decisions, not for the parties to dictate them, but of course their views will be taken into account. Equally, where parties, or one party, are of the view that an oral hearing will be required in circumstances where it might not ordinarily have been anticipated, it will be open to that party, or the parties if they are agreed, to make those representations to the court in order that the court can make the final decision about the appropriate procedure to be employed. Again, that is as it should be. It is ultimately for the court to decide the most appropriate process and procedure for the disposal of individual claims.
Under Amendment 4, users would in effect have the right to choose whether to use the Online Procedure Rules or the traditional rules. Similar points are made in the other amendments. We do not consider that that is the appropriate way to proceed. Users will have sufficient control over proceedings to ensure that they have access to justice, which will not be limited in any way, and certainly not in a way that would intrude upon any rights under Article 6 of the convention.
The online procedure system is simply designed to offer the ordinary user an easier way to access justice, while giving parties the choice to remain in a position to make paper applications to the online simplified procedure rather than engage with the digital portal. I reassure noble Lords that we are not seeking to impinge in any way upon the parties’ right of access to justice, but ultimately we must leave it to the court to determine procedural questions brought before it, albeit that it will make those decisions subject to the representations by or on behalf of the parties to the proceedings.
As I mentioned in passing and in response to the noble Lord, Lord Beith, where a physical hearing arises, it will be for the parties to make representations. Ultimately, it will be for the court to determine on the material before it whether such a physical, oral hearing is required for the disposal of a case. That, I suggest, is as it should be.
I hope that that also reassures the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, with regard to judicial discretion. That, ultimately, is paramount, and nothing in the Bill or that we would anticipate in the regulations to be made pursuant to the powers under the Bill would undermine that judicial discretion, which ultimately has be exercised in the interests of justice and for the benefit of the parties. With that, I hope that the noble Lord will consider whether at this stage it is appropriate to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, before that happens, I express my apologies for not being able to take part at Second Reading. I thank the Minister for asking his office to contact me and I am sorry that I delayed replying until Friday. I just want to comment on the family test. This was introduced in 2014 to be applied to Bills and involved a number of questions such as, “What kind of impact might the policy have on family formation?” and “What kind of impact might it have on stability in the family?” Although the test is not mandatory, this seems an appropriate Bill to have had it applied to, and I simply express the wish that in the future it might be applied to Bills similar to this one.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I have some difficulty with Amendment 1 and the answer that my noble and learned friend has given. As I understand it, the amendment deals with rules. It is not judicial discretion but rules that may require the parties to participate in the hearing by means of electronic devices. Therefore, it is not a question of the judge in charge of the case making that decision; the preliminary rules will require it, and the judge will be bound by that. He will say that he is sorry to whoever comes along with a bit of paper and explain that they are not able to do that because the rules dictate that it has to be done by electronic means, so they will have to get themselves a computer.
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect to my noble and learned friend, my understanding of the position is that the rules will require that certain forms of action—for example, small debt action—should be commenced under the simplified Online Procedure Rules by way of the digital portal, whether you go through electronically or, as I mentioned before, by way of a paper application. However, once that process is in train, there will be a retained judicial discretion to decide whether the case should remain under the simplified online procedure or whether it would be more appropriate for it to be removed from that procedure and to proceed under the ordinary Civil Procedure Rules to an oral hearing.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this short debate, which has covered quite a wide area. I understand the point made by the Minister about these being civil actions for relatively small amounts of money, and not having the discretion as regards initiating proceedings on paper if that were the case. Although this is the main focus of the Bill now, it has wider connotations—a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Some of us, including myself, are thinking about this from other perspectives such as the family jurisdiction.
When addressing Amendment 4, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, made an interesting point, asking what happens when both parties agree to proceed with online proceedings. I thought he intimated that there should be an expectation that they would indeed go ahead with online proceedings. Certainly, from the perspective of somebody who sits in the family jurisdiction, I would say that that would not be appropriate. Whether matters go ahead either online or otherwise should be retained as a judicial decision because it is not unusual for parties to agree to something that is inappropriate in the family courts; the court needs to take a separate view.
Having said that, I thank the Minister for addressing the points; I suspect we will return to them at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“( ) Civil Procedure Rules, Family Procedure Rules, Tribunal Procedure Rules, employment tribunal procedure regulations and EAT procedure rules must determine for the relevant jurisdiction which proceedings can be governed by the Online Procedure Rules Committee.”
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
My Lords, Amendment 2 addresses Schedule 2 on the Online Procedure Rule Committee, how it relates to proceedings under the standard civil, family and tribunal procedures rules, and when these do not apply. Although I appreciate the importance of a clear process indicating which rules govern proceedings—and giving precedence to one committee does achieve that—I am concerned that the result will be the OPRC being able to make decisions about the appropriateness of online procedures for cases without input from the Family Procedure Rule Committee or other relevant jurisdictional committees. Amendment 2 could resolve this issue by clarifying under Clause 1 that the relevant jurisdictional rule committee must determine which proceedings can be governed by Online Procedure Rule Committee.
On Amendment 8, Clause 1(1)(b) would allow the OPRC to designate any family proceedings to be dealt with online. While I appreciate that the aim of the legislation is to be permissive, with the details to be delegated to the OPRC, I am concerned that no limits are set out in the primary legislation in relation to the appropriateness of online processes within the family court. At Second Reading, I raised concerns about the appropriateness of full video hearings in the family court. The president of the Family Division has said that, in the vast majority of cases, face-to-face hearings would normally be required for contested cases involving oral evidence, multiparty cases concerning litigants in person, or any cases concerning children. It can be the case that not all participants have to be present in court. I know that is fairly common practice in other parts of the country, depending on the distance to be travelled, when turning to the family court. But the general expectation should be that anything to do with the family jurisdiction—any contested matter—should be held in person and not online.
I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I refer to Amendments 7 and 8 in this group. I suspect that the inclusion of a reference to criminal justice proceedings is otiose; I hope so. No doubt the Minister will confirm that, in which case I will not press the issue; it would be entirely unnecessary, as indeed it should be.
There is a concern about possession claims for homes. We in your Lordships’ House are all aware of the great pressure on the housing sector and the vulnerability of a great many people in private rented accommodation in particular. It seems sensible that they should not be included in the general proposition of reverting to digital processes, because I suspect they are the least likely to be able to cope with that way of proceeding. I hope the noble and learned Lord will give that some further consideration, although he may not necessarily respond one way or the other today. Given the state of the housing market and the well-known difficulties experienced by so many tenants—and the difficulties they would have in proceeding under the provisions of the Bill, particularly in the absence of legal aid and advice in so many parts of the country—it would be wrong to include them in a system which would effectively give them no recourse to advice and support.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I share the concerns behind these amendments. There are plainly specific types of proceedings which it is wholly inappropriate to determine online. Perhaps the strongest example is any proceedings relating to the welfare of children. In my view, it is inconceivable that it would ever be appropriate for such matters to be so determined. Yet the powers under the Bill are quite sufficient to allow that to happen, because Clause 1(1)(b) allows for rules which may authorise or require proceedings,
“to be conducted, progressed or disposed of by electronic means”.
This is just one of the many examples of the Bill, which is wholly desirable, failing to include sufficient limitations to preclude the use of these powers in ways that we would all accept are inappropriate.
It may be that the proper answer to this concern is for the Government to support the amendment we are coming to in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. That would ensure that these powers cannot be used without the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice. I respectfully suggest that the Minister needs to recognise that there is a problem here. The Bill is so broadly drafted that it will allow the exercise of powers in ways that we would all accept are inappropriate.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd
I have one question for the Minister. There is an outstanding consultation paper on the housing court, looking at whether we should bring together all the various complicated forms of housing legislation before one tribunal. How will taking out one of the parts of what would be a housing court matter affect it, when what we are dealing with is the procedural system to be applied rather than detailed means of service and hearings, which is what this is about? It would be helpful to have that explained.
We would be rash to assume that paper service of proceedings comes to people’s attention more readily. Certainly, we have found that if you want to get people to attend jury service, or some other things, it is much better to send them a text rather than a brown envelope; they normally respond to texts. That is modern thinking. I think noble Lords will find that people more readily respond in that way. This is much more a detailed matter of procedure.
Lord Pannick
Does the noble and learned Lord accept that the powers in this Bill cover far more than process? As I have indicated, Clause 1(1)(b) is concerned with rules as to how proceedings are,
“conducted, progressed or disposed of”.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd
I accept that, but I think it is part of the terminology used. That is why, in the intervention I made earlier, I said that it is important to appreciate the difference between a simplified procedure and the way the court works. Unfortunately, despite everything the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, did to try to simplify civil procedure, the White Book has grown from 2,000 to 3,000 pages.
We need to go back. It is an unfortunate tendency of lawyers to ossify everything. This is an attempt, using electronic means, to make access to justice easier and to simplify it, but we plainly need safeguards. I am sure the best safeguard of all is the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice, which I am sure would solve most of these problems yet allow access to justice to use 21st-century methods to make it cheaper and—if I may, with some trepidation, say so in this House—to conduct litigation without the need to deploy expensive lawyers.
Lord Beith
My Lords, the weakness in this part of the Bill seems to be that there are no limitations on or barriers to the total extension of the online procedure to all civil, family and tribunal proceedings. Nobody is actually suggesting that, but the absence of any barriers means that we can stray into that territory before there has even been a serious debate about how we could use online procedures in some of these areas. It is fairly obvious for small money claims and promising in a number of other areas, but the Bill is so wide that its lack of any specified criteria or other limitations is worrying.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I begin by responding to the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. This is a piece of enabling legislation—a very welcome one, I suggest—it is not a case of us bringing in powers without limits or regulation. It will establish an expert committee, including judicial representatives, legal representatives and others, that will be able to call upon the expertise of others in particular areas as and when it comes to address them. I will come on to that in a moment in the context of family law. It will operate under the umbrella of not only the Lord Chancellor—or, in the case of employment tribunals, the Secretary of State for BEIS—but the Lord Chief Justice. It does not give free rein to some individual in the Executive to determine how court cases will be determined, but I emphasised that it is concerned only with civil procedure. As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, acknowledged, the reference in his amendment to criminal procedure is otiose and unnecessary.
Over and above that, I seek to anticipate something that will arise repeatedly in the debate—the position of the Lord Chief Justice regarding the operation of this matter overall, a point we touched on at Second Reading. I am conscious of the desire in some quarters that certain of the Bill’s provisions should provide not simply for consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, which, let us be clear, is a formidable requirement: if you consult with the Lord Chief Justice you consult with him, and if you do so you do not ignore his advice or opinion. Indeed, if you did, it would be open to him to make a report to Parliament under Section 5 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which I think one of my officials referred to as the nuclear option. It is not one that anybody would want to encourage.
I am conscious of the suggestion that, in some areas, we should move from the idea of consultation with the Lord Chief Justice to one of concurrence. That, in a way, touches on many of the issues that arise in the Bill. I can go no further at this stage than say that I have that under active consideration and would anticipate returning to the point on Report. I do not give any unequivocal undertaking, but I indicate that I appreciate how and why certain aspects of the Bill, if moved from consultation to concurrence, would meet some of the concerns, particularly those expressed by the Constitution Committee, regarding this matter. I make that general observation at this stage, because it is a point that we may well return to with regard to certain further amendments.
As I set out at Second Reading, the intention is, as far as possible, to make online procedure the preferred procedure for the commencement and defending of cases that fall within its remit. Of course, our ambition is to develop services that are easier to access and to use, so that over time, digital channels become the default choice for at least the majority of users. I emphasise “majority of users”, for the reasons which we have already touched upon.
As we have set out, our initial intention is that this procedure would consider civil money claims up to a value of £25,000 before widening its remit to cover other proceedings, so it is a question of taking it step by step to see how these procedures will work. It is not our intention that the OPRC would start to remake rules across other jurisdictions immediately. We want to complement and build upon the work of the existing committees in this area, to see whether this incremental approach to the extension of the OPRC’s remit can be successful. But no proceedings will be brought into the Online Procedure Rules without the views of the judiciary, of the committee and, in particular, of the Lord Chief Justice being taken into account—whether by consultation or by way of his concurrence.
Amendment 2, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, appears to be intended to transfer the regulation-making power set out in the Bill from the Lord Chancellor to the existing procedure rules committees—or at least make it subject to that. In effect, it would be for those existing rules committees to decide when proceedings may be subject to the Online Procedure Rules. We consider that this would pose a number of serious practical difficulties.
First, it would place the legislation required to bring proceedings under the remit of the Online Procedure Rule Committee on an entirely different footing from that for the existing rules committees for civil, criminal and tribunal. It would be on the basis of a negative resolution statutory instrument developed by an independent rules committee, as opposed to an affirmative instrument laid by the Government, and that, in itself, would not allow for the appropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny which should be applied here.
The second difficulty is, I am sure, entirely unintentional. Under the existing civil procedure rules committees, there is a means by which—for example, with regard to employment tribunals and employment appeal tribunals—the Secretary of State in the case of the employment tribunal or the Lord Chancellor in the case of the employment appeal tribunal, can direct the making of regulations or rule-making powers. I do not believe that that would be a consequence one would seek in the present context.
Thirdly, the three existing rules committees cover three entirely independent jurisdictions, and it is unclear how they might decide among themselves which proceedings should be extended to the Online Procedure Rule Committee and which should not. We anticipate that in itself creating very real practical difficulties over the administration of the future Online Procedure Rule Committee. This is why we do not consider that this amendment would have an acceptable outcome.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, touched on housing. At present there is no intention to proceed with the simplified Online Procedure Rules in respect of housing cases. However, housing cases are governed by the Civil Procedure Act 1997, and are therefore subject to the Civil Procedure Rules, meaning that they would potentially be subject to the OPRC in the future. If and when that were to occur, it would be after consultation or concurrence with the Lord Chief Justice. It would occur because the committee had determined to proceed in that way—a committee which at that stage could be joined by suitable experts in housing law, and other related experts. Only at that stage would it be contemplated.
I notice, however, that although that is not presently anticipated, it is currently possible to initiate some housing enforcement claims online, through the Possession Claim Online website. That has been operational for almost a decade. There have been no difficulties—certainly no reported difficulties—over access to justice because of the use of that Possession Claim Online website. So I accept the potential width of the Bill.
This brings me to Amendment 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, the issue of family proceedings and the concern that has been expressed there. There may well be situations, such as those posited by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, where one would never anticipate online procedure or digital process being appropriate for types of family law cases, such as those concerned with children and their welfare. Nobody is suggesting otherwise, but it is not necessary for us to list particular exclusions, because in doing so one is liable to overlook something. It is far better for us to ensure there are appropriate safeguards in place, such as by judicial input, whether by consultation or concurrence; by having an appropriately qualified committee with the ability to bring in experts, particularly on areas such as family law or child welfare; and by ensuring that we proceed incrementally only where the introduction of these simplified procedures is in the interest of litigants. There are circumstances in which it may be in the interest of litigants, in family law cases, to have access to a simple, inexpensive online procedure for the resolution of some types of dispute.
Lord Beith
To support that approach, perhaps the Government should be using different language from that used in the Explanatory Notes in paragraph 1, which says:
“We expect the Committee to focus on the civil and family jurisdictions in the first instance”.
That is pretty broad.
Lord Keen of Elie
It is intentionally broad. Again, this is not going to proceed without the input of the judiciary, in particular the Lord Chief Justice, and without application to the formulation of rules of a committee with expertise in all these areas. I suggest it would be counterproductive to introduce at the outset statutory limitations on the operation of these simplified procedures. That is an unnecessary straitjacket, given the way the legislation is formulated and how the simplified Online Procedure Rules will be introduced, not only by the Executive but by the judiciary and relevant committee. In these circumstances, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Beecham
Did the Minister imply that it would be possible to bring forward provision to include housing, presumably by secondary legislation? Is that what he has in mind? If so, would it be an affirmative or negative resolution?
Lord Keen of Elie
To clarify, I believe I said that many housing issues are currently governed by the Civil Procedure Act 1997. They are therefore subject to civil procedural rules and could, in turn, be subject to rules introduced by the OPRC for digital access. There is no present intention to address that in the context of housing. I went on to add that, at present, there is an online procedure for some forms of housing claim, such as possession claims, which can be made through the relevant website. I emphasise that housing cases fall within the wide remit of this legislation, but there is no present intention to embrace them within the OPRC.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I understand the central point made by the Minister: that he does not want any statutory limitations on the relationship between the various committees. My Amendment 2 gave one model of a relationship between the two committees. I shall withdraw the amendment, but there is no statutory relationship between any of the committees at the moment. That may have to be developed over time. It may not be for this Bill, but all the committees will have to have a close working relationship which will have to be developed one way or the other. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) Online Procedure Rules must provide that a party or potential party to proceedings governed or to be governed by Online Procedure Rules is entitled to assistance, to be known as “Designated Assistance”, with the conduct or progress of such proceedings, to be made available in accordance with section (Designated Assistance).”
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, Amendments 5 and 13 in this group are in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Beith, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. Our amendments would incorporate in the Bill a requirement that the Government provide necessary assistance for parties or potential parties to online proceedings, both claimants and defendants, who need help navigating them.
At Second Reading, the Minister promised:
“All our online services will be accompanied by appropriate and robust safeguards to protect and support users and to ensure that access to justice is maintained. In pursuing this approach, we recognise that there will be people who will need help accessing a new digital system”.—[Official Report, 14/5/19; col. 1506.]
He promised that the Government would put in place a comprehensive programme of support, which he described as “assisted digital”, which would include help for court users by telephone, online or by other electronic means or face to face. I pointed out in that debate that the Briggs review had stressed the importance of ensuring that access to justice was not compromised by the introduction of Online Procedure Rules. The Briggs report described the success of the online court as “critically dependent” on providing digital assistance for those who could not cope with computerised procedures.
The Constitution Committee, under the section of its report headed “Access to Justice”, argued eloquently that, with 5.3 million adults in the UK who could be characterised as “internet non-users” and with 29% of people over 65 having “zero digital skills”, not including those with limited digital skills or limited access to computers or broadband, the Bill makes no provision to safeguard access to justice in the way promised by the Minister at Second Reading. The committee recommended that,
“the Bill places a duty on the Lord Chancellor to ensure that adequate provision is made to enable access to online proceedings for those with limited digital means, digital literacy, or general literacy”.
We agree. At Second Reading, not only the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, but the noble and learned Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, called for a statutory commitment to digital assistance.
Once again in this group of amendments, I reject the assurance that it is safe to rely on an extra statutory statement of intention by the Government. That is especially true on a matter of such importance to the success of this reform in terms both of access to justice and of the rule of law. This commitment could and should be clearly expressed in the Bill in a way that would make it much more difficult for future Governments to resile from it. I make no apology for putting forward a similar point in relation to designated assistance to that which I made in relation to filing documents on paper.
Our amendments are comprehensive but flexible. Amendment 5 would introduce the general duty to provide assistance to a party or potential party to proceedings under Online Procedure Rules in accordance with the detailed provisions set out in Amendment 13. That amendment would give the Government flexibility on who should provide assistance and how. Designated assistance could be provided either directly through HM Courts & Tribunals Service, under contract with outside organisations, or through the voluntary sector. It would be for the Minister to determine what assistance could be provided by telephone, what by electronic means and what in person or by other reasonable means.
Our amendments are concerned with outcomes rather than structure; different providers might provide assistance in different but complimentary ways. However, in determining what assistance must be provided, and by what means, the appropriate Minister is to be subject to an overriding requirement that he or she should consider that assistance sufficient to enable the party receiving it to have a reasonable understanding of the nature of the proceedings, of the procedure under the Online Procedure Rules, and of how to access that procedure. The assistance will have to cover the completion of online forms—easy for lawyers and officials, perhaps, but often a nightmare for lay litigants. It will also have to cover the kinds of evidence that may be necessary to support or establish a claim or defence. Designated assistance should also be available about the requirements and meaning of the Online Procedure Rules. The requirement for assistance on the kinds of evidence required to establish a litigant’s case is particularly important and will save parties, and ultimately the courts, considerable time and trouble. Far too often, proceedings fail or are delayed because litigants in person are unaware of the kinds of evidence they are likely to need to establish their cases. Assistance with this aspect at an early stage of online proceedings may do much to help reduce costs, delays and frustration.
Those who may say that this is a step too far in favour of the courts service providing legal advice are missing the point of these reforms. The days are over when the court office tells litigants to go and seek the advice of a solicitor on generic issues such as this, for precisely the reasons expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, in relation to hiring expensive lawyers. If online proceedings are to work well and improve rather than stifle access to justice, they have to be targeted on enabling litigants without lawyers to use the courts successfully. Perhaps at this stage I should declare the same interest as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in relation to my being a lawyer in offline courts. That is the point of these reforms. It will be achieved only if parties are provided with the kind of help our amendments would require.
An important further point is that for litigants whose first language is not English and who have no familiarity with English, interpretation or translation should be available to enable them to understand proceedings in a language familiar to them. Far too often, the need for lawyers arises even in relatively simple cases where intelligent and capable litigants whose command of English is limited are obliged to instruct lawyers simply because they receive no help in understanding proceedings in their own languages. I beg to move.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I support this amendment. I am a patron of the charity Best Beginnings, which has produced an application that can be downloaded from the NHS store for mothers around the births of their children. We are finding that it is tremendously effective in reaching black and minority-ethnic mothers in particular, and mothers on the lowest incomes. This has been developed with all the royal colleges, and it has taken time, money and a real strong effort from the charity over many years to develop such a good product that reaches out particularly to families for whom English is not the first language. One of the key selling points of this app is the videos attached to it. Mothers will see people like themselves talking about what it was like to experience depression or how to breastfeed and communicate with your infant. They can identify with those parents.
There is a tremendous opportunity here to make something which is really effective and helps litigants in person and people whose first language is not English to understand how to approach these matters. The noble Lord’s amendments are very important to ensure that there is a commitment up front to producing the best possible means for families and others to engage with the digital technology available and to get the best outcomes for them and their families.
Of course, with a product such as this—I am not pushing this one specifically—there are back-end analytics through which one can tell in an anonymous way exactly how often it is used and who uses it, so there would be plenty of feedback on how well it is working. I hope that the Minister can give a reassuring answer to the noble Lord.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I am supportive of Amendments 5 and 13, which outline the sort of assistance that is very much required. For Amendment 13, my preference is that the particular agency should be in some way connected with the Courts & Tribunals Service so that judicial supervision is available in respect of it. One institution that strikes me as very useful in this connection is the law centres, which were recipients of legal aid in my time. They are an economic way of providing legal assistance—much more economic than the expensive lawyers to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, referred. Of course, it is not very good to have recourse to the inexpensive and cheap lawyers, because you are apt to spend more in the end. This is an excellent idea and requires the Minister to think quite hard about how it should be done.
This brings me to my Amendment 14, which is a slightly different matter. There are various skills available in electronic matters. You may have recourse to the internet and yet not be very sure what you have reached when you get there. There is a risk—it may not be large, but there is a risk—that if there is a court portal for certain things, you may find yourself on a website which is supposed to be the court portal but is actually run by people with a more private interest in litigation than the courts would have. I suggest Amendment 14 for consideration, which would require the Lord Chancellor to make arrangements to try to secure as far as possible that this does not happen to the rather inexpert people who may be using the internet, of which I regard myself as one.
Lord Beith
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has reminded me that it is well known that the application system for the US ESTA visa waiver scheme has a number of such sites which exact charges, to which people are not liable because of the very modest charge on the official site itself. I will simply point out that HM Courts & Tribunals Service is already working on this sort of thing. There are 18 locations in which it is providing face-to-face digital support, or at least is said to be providing it. The Government have been working this up on the pilot schemes, so it seems to me another ideal opportunity, which the Minister should not neglect, to accept that the Government are actually on the right lines on this.
It would be rather more reassuring if the Bill contained some obligation to provide this kind of support. If it is not there, the Bill will be open to the charge from many people that it is creating a new system without ensuring that people can use it. The means are beginning to be developed by the Government, so I hope that they provide some statutory basis for them.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd
I make two brief observations. First, I support the introduction of the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and emphasise that HMCTS provides a lot of advice on various areas and, because it is now jointly accountable to the Lord Chief Justice as well as to the Minister, its independence ought to be seen. Secondly, if Amendment 13 is adopted, I would hope that due regard is paid to the provisions of the Welsh Language Act; subsection (5) does not do so properly at present.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, before my noble and learned friend replies, I gently support the amendment and the way in which it was proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. The policy behind the Bill is clear and sensible: it is to provide easier access, cheaper access and cheaper administration of litigation in certain types of cases. It seems from Clause 2 that the ambit of those cases is broad at the moment. For the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, if we do not provide appropriate assistance—if not in the terms expressly set out in his and his supporters’ amendments, at least in some form—I fear that the good intentions behind the policy and the Bill will lead to the unintended consequence, again spelled out by the noble Lord, of a breakdown of the smooth operation of the system because people either do not understand the system or, having got into it, do not understand the technicalities behind internet access. As others have mentioned, that will lead to delay, expense and frustration within the justice system, which the Bill is surely designed to do away with.
I, for one, am certainly not wedded to any particular wording—like the noble Lord, Lord Marks, I am much more interested in outcomes—but the Government need to apply their mind to providing cost-saving and effective forms of assistance. It is not just to the elderly or people with language difficulties, whom the noble Earl mentioned a moment ago, that we need to offer our help: we need to make the system work well and efficiently and be genuinely part of the justice system.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I begin by saying that I entirely agree with noble Lords that digital support for those who want to access online services will be paramount to the effectiveness of the proposed changes in civil procedure. We are of course conscious that not all court and tribunal users have the confidence or ability to use digital channels unaided.
On the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, HMCTS already has an assisted digital strategy in place quite independent of the Bill. For simple support needs, HMCTS staff will talk users through queries over the telephone. In cases of more complex needs, there is provision for face-to-face support, currently being piloted by the Good Things Foundation, which is a charity that specialises in digital inclusion. That means that people can be taken through a digital process step by step. As the noble Lord, Lord Beith, noted, that support is being piloted in 18 locations throughout England and Wales, and in fact will now be rolled out across the country, in order that there is general access to it. We have that digital assistance in place and want to see it developed. We understand the need to ensure that such assistance is available.
We are also seeking to simplify some online forms, essentially by way of a “save and return” process. One frustration encountered by some users of online forms has been that, when they find themselves half way through a form, they decide to consult an appropriate oracle about how to complete the second half of the form but, by that time, the first half has disappeared. Simple steps like that can enable people to use these systems far more easily. We are entirely conscious of the need for such assistance.
I hear what noble Lords say about wanting to see some expression of willingness or intent in the Bill; I would be happy to discuss that further with them before Report. I cannot accept the proposed amendments in their present form—I will not seek to detail why at this stage—but we are willing to discuss an expression of intent that may appear in the Bill. I will leave the matter there at this stage.
Amendment 14, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, concerns fraudulent activity from persons perhaps pretending to act on behalf of the court. Of course, we take cybersecurity and online fraud extremely serious across all government services. We have cybersecurity professionals involved in the development of all our systems, including new digital services. Those are assessed by the Government Digital Service before they are ever rolled out for public access, so we have a means of ensuring that these systems are fit for purpose. Of course, we understand the importance of building appropriate data security and privacy measures into all such technological systems. Indeed, our systems are subjected to regular checks to ensure that there is no improper access or misuse. HMCTS has developed a risk assessment framework aligned to Government Digital Service standards. My understanding is that, on the basis of the present offerings online, it is unaware of any fraudulent websites claiming to offer access to such sites. Of course, we will maintain vigilance in that regard.
There is perhaps a distinction to be drawn here between some scams and the sort of online scam where somebody claims to be from Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs and invites you to send them your bank account details so that you may be the happy recipient of a tax rebate, but you then discover that your bank has inadvertently been emptied rather than credited. In the context of the court process, we are vigilant against fraud but there is no scope there for that sort of fraud. As I said, we have not encountered fraudulent use, or attempts at fraudulent use, of the websites in so far as we already have certain online channels with HMCTS, so we would not consider it appropriate to accept the noble and learned Lord’s amendment at this stage. That said, I would be happy to discuss further the other amendments in the group. In the meantime, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Marks, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. It appears that we are all committed to seeing a modernised and simple online procedure that enhances, rather than damages, access to justice. We regard it as essential that there should be a statutory commitment to designated assistance for the parties. For that reason, I am extremely gratified to hear the Minister say that he will discuss such a commitment in some form with myself and other noble Lords between now and Report. Of course, we welcome that invitation and will accept it.
I will just say one further thing in answer to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, about the providers of such assistance. As the Minister said and as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, pointed out, we have in place not only the service provided currently by HM Courts & Tribunals Service but also by such law centres as still exist and by charities such as the Good Things Foundation and the charity mentioned by the noble Earl. I am wary of being too dogmatic about the providers that could by agreement with HM Courts & Tribunals Service provide designated assistance in the future. I hope that, when the Bill leaves this House, we have an acceptable commitment to designated assistance to help litigants in the future. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Judge
“( ) Regulations may only be made under this section with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice.”
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, since Second Reading, when I argued in support of these amendments, I have had a meeting with the Minister and, notwithstanding his customary courtesy, I was unable to persuade him of the good sense of these amendments. Listening to his response to today’s debate, it is quite obvious that we cannot expect a Damascene conversion on his part, but did I detect the tiniest shining light—the dawning of a better understanding of why these amendments should be made? If I detected a light, it was only a faint one and I shall certainly not turn the lights off. If we are talking about dawns, nor shall I allow any clouds to obscure my meaning.
We have discussed the issues and I shall not go over those that have already been ventilated in our debate. Lord Justice Briggs’s report is admirable and I continue to support it, but it was a report directed to a small feature of the system of litigation. The Bill, as has been said but is worth repeating, has the potential to cover every single aspect of the administration of civil justice, every single aspect of the administration of family justice and the entire tribunal system. It is difficult to exaggerate the level of interference with the administration of justice in all the areas that the Bill would give to the Lord Chancellor. As I say, the issues have been addressed and I shall not repeat them, but I have heard the Minister say on a number of occasions, “It’s all right because there is the committee with a judicial involvement”. Indeed, in answer to an earlier debate, he pointed out the happy differences between this committee and the Family Procedure Rule Committee, the Civil Procedure Rule Committee and so on. But there are two that he did not grasp and they are the ones that matter.
This is a committee on which the judiciary will be in a minority and it is the first such committee. It will be a committee of which the majority of the members will be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Let us pause and think about that. The majority will be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and presumably it will be for him to dismiss them if he disagrees with them. That is consistent with the pernicious modern tendency, which I have go on about before, of our being asked to vest greater powers in the Executive—in this case in one Minister. We have become inured to it and it is particularly incongruous in the context of the administration of justice, where, as a matter of constitutional necessity, everyone accepts that the powers should be separate.
Since the constitutional reforms made in the early 2000s, ultimate responsibility for the administration of justice is vested not in the Lord Chancellor or in any other Minister of the Crown, but in the office of the Lord Chief Justice, an office I had the privilege to hold. At the time, none of the judges was urging any such change; we did not want to get rid of the Lord Chancellor. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, was not the Lord Chancellor at that time, but we were very happy with who we had had and did have. It came as a complete surprise to the judiciary, therefore, but it has come, and the consequence is this: a reduction in the responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor for the administration of justice, and a significantly enhanced responsibility of the Lord Chief Justice. He is responsible for what happens in the court system, and that must be understood when we are contemplating this Bill.
With one important exception—important for a reason to which I shall come—under the Bill in its present form, in the discharge of his responsibility for the day-to-day running of the family courts, the civil courts and, to the extent that he has responsibility over the tribunal system, the tribunal courts, the Lord Chief Justice is granted what is pushed as a “privilege” to be consulted by the Lord Chancellor if the Lord Chancellor and his committee have any proposals for change. However much the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, may be frightened of what the Lord Chief Justice may say, a political Lord Chancellor disagreeing with the Lord Chief Justice can simply disregard whatever he may say. It would for years, no doubt, be done with appropriate courtesy—and I hope that, in years to come, it will always be done with appropriate courtesy—but there is no guarantee even of that. But pause here because, after these changes have been implemented, the responsibility if they fail to work will fall not on the Lord Chancellor but on the Lord Chief Justice—even if, when consulted, he or his predecessor argued against them. In those circumstances, limiting the role of the Lord Chief Justice to consultation is absurd.
The change in the relative responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice has been understood and acknowledged in earlier arrangements. Thus, for example, when the question arises of whether court proceedings in England and Wales may be televised—and, if so, which part of such proceedings may be televised and what damage there may be, if any, to the administration of justice depending on what proceedings are televised, or how the administration of justice may be advanced if part of the proceedings are televised—that decision is not vested exclusively in the Minister, who may after all have political reasons for his decision; it requires the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice. On disciplinary proceedings, if a judge has misbehaved or misconducted himself or herself, there is a requirement for concurrence between the holders of the two offices. What is more, the Bill itself, in Clause 6(2), recognises circumstances in which concurrence is appropriate. The amendments proposed to this and the remaining clauses are therefore entirely consistent with a provision in the Bill and with other provisions outside it.
Concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice, and where appropriate the Senior President of Tribunals, is necessary surely when an issue affects the administration of justice on a day-to-day basis. That is what the Bill is about: the administration of justice, day to day. Questions of how proceedings in whichever area of law may be conducted and how they may not; whether, and if so in what circumstances, they must be conducted digitally or on paper; whether and how the interests of litigants who are not proficient are upheld, as we discussed earlier—that is all part of the day-to-day requirement of what goes on in our courts. There is one final consideration, which always seems to me to matter hugely: whether the unsuccessful litigant leaves court satisfied, not of course with the result but with the idea and conviction that he or she has been heard and understood. “Even if the judge got it wrong, he listened to me”, seems a very important part of the administration of justice. These are all questions for the day-to-day search for justice.
In the context of the Bill, which proposes at some stage along the line of history to give wide powers to a Minister, consultation alone is a meaningless handout from the Executive to the judiciary. More importantly, alone it offers no sufficient protection to the citizen against inappropriate Executive interference with the administration of justice. I beg to move.
Lord Garnier
My Lords, in agreeing with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, given his anticipation of beneficial light emerging from the Front Bench, I caution him that, as so often happens in these matters—particularly when the Government are giving something away, such as consultation—the light at the end of the tunnel ends up being the light of the approaching train. I urge that we temper our enthusiasm for any blandishments from the Government—not that my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench would ever be guilty of offering anything as vulgar as a blandishment.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has made all the points that need to be made and has made them better than I possibly could. However, if one strips away the words “the Lord Chancellor” and replaces them with the words “Secretary of State”—and Clause 6(2) condescends to do that, because clearly the Lord Chancellor cannot agree with himself and has to agree with his schizophrenic self, the Secretary of State—and if one strips away the ancient legal title and office of Lord Chancellor, one finds that one is in fact dealing with a political Minister in a spending department at the Ministry of Justice and that he or she will be placed under all the pressures of both self-interest and Cabinet responsibility that go with being in a spending department. If it is inconvenient for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow the Secretary of State to agree with the Lord Chief Justice, he will disagree with the Lord Chief Justice. We should not be under any misunderstanding about that.
In the what must now be 20 years since the removal of the office of Lord Chancellor as head of the judiciary—and I am standing behind one of the finest exemplars of that office—with that position having now gone to the Lord Chief Justice, the metaphorical gap and indeed the actual distance between the law and Parliament has grown immeasurably. The understanding between the law and those who administer it and politicians has grown immeasurably. One only has to look at the record of some Secretaries of State for Justice who have succeeded my noble and learned friend and who do not have that intimate knowledge of the administration of justice to understand the difficulties and dangers that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, anticipates—and have happened already.
While I support the sensible policy behind the Bill, all kinds of little niggles pop up from time to time which will destroy its purpose. They will make it less beneficial for the public good than it would otherwise be, were the suggestions made in the previous debate by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and in this current debate by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, taken into account. As a supporter of the Bill and the Government, I urge them not to allow themselves to be swept down the river of consultation when the river of agreement is a much safer journey to take.
Lord Beith
My Lords, the messages are getting more complicated and conflicting between approaching trains, rivers and nuclear options. Perhaps we should recognise that we are replaying debates in which some of us were involved when it was attempted to abolish the Lord Chancellor overnight and there emerged from that process the system we have now. It is very relevant to the noble Lord’s amendment and to the powerful points he has made in support of it. The change in the role of Lord Chancellor, quite correctly emphasised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, as Secretary of State for the Government as well as Lord Chancellor, stretches forward to influence what we ought to be doing in this legislation.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Beith, I have added my name to the amendment tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Judge to ensure that the powers which are being conferred on the Lord Chancellor can be exercised only with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice. My reason for doing so is essentially the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and my noble and learned friend Lord Judge: the powers conferred by the Bill are exceptionally broad and there need to be adequate controls.
The Minister’s response before this afternoon essentially amount to, “Don’t worry—there are sufficient means through committees that will ensure that these powers are never used inappropriately, far less abused”, but as my noble and learned friend Lord Judge mentioned, the Lord Chancellor has the power to appoint the majority of the committee. The most effective means of ensuring that these powers are used only in an appropriate manner is to ensure that they may be exercised only with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice. As the Minister indicated during one of our earlier debates this afternoon, to amend the Bill in this way would considerably help to resolve many of the other defects in it which we have been debating.
My noble and learned friend Lord Judge made a point that is so important that it needs to be repeated: there is nothing novel about legislation requiring the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor. This very Bill, at Clause 6(2), states that the Lord Chancellor’s powers to make regulations relating to the committee may be exercised only,
“with the concurrence of … the Lord Chief Justice and … the Senior President of Tribunals”.
Therefore, I suggest to the Committee that the question is not whether in principle ministerial powers should ever be constrained by a need to obtain the concurrence of the Lord Chief justice but whether that restriction is appropriate in relation to these powers. In my view, such is the breadth of the powers that we are conferring and so intimately do they address the fair administration of justice, which is after all the business of the Lord Chief Justice, that his or her agreement should be needed for their exercise.
Whether it was a blandishment or otherwise, I was very pleased earlier to hear the Minister give a commitment to consider this issue actively before Report. I very much hope that, on Report, the Minister will feel able to table an amendment or amendments to address this issue or, at the very least, to support amendments in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Judge.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Having had the honour of holding the office of Lord Chancellor when the Lord Chancellor was the head of the judiciary, I think it is right for me to say a word or two about the present position.
It is very important to remember that our constitution recognises three arms: the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary. The judiciary is a distinct arm from the Executive. The Executive have responsibilities in relation to the judiciary, and of course the judiciary has responsibilities in relation to the people of this country in a way that is unique. If somebody else is entitled to say, without getting the ultimate agreement of the Lord Chief Justice, “We’re going to alter your procedures in the court. We’ll tell you about it and we’ll consult you but, if you don’t like it, we’ll do it all the same”, that seems to subvert the idea that the Lord Chief Justice is the head of the judiciary. The judiciary must act according to procedures and, if you alter the rules or procedures without his agreement, it seems to me that you subvert his position as the head of the judiciary as distinct from the Executive and the legislature.
Incidentally, I cannot help remarking at this stage that the judiciary has been silenced from having any part in the legislature. I regard that as an extraordinarily retrograde step. I hope that some day it will be put right by a responsible Government and that we will have the very great advantage of hearing in the House of Lords not just all past Lord Chief Justices but the present one as well.
The Lord Chief Justice’s agreement seems to me absolutely essential. Indeed, I would like to feel that he would be the initiator of changes in procedure as a result of committee recommendations. His responsibilities will be encroached upon if these procedures do not work.
My only other remark is that the reference to the Secretary of State in Clause 6(2) is probably to the Secretary of States for Wales, the language of Wales being important in this connection.
Lord Woolf
My Lords, I hope it will not be inappropriate, in view of the elegant and powerful speeches already made, for me to say these few words. I was a party to the concordat, the importance of which was that it established the new relationship between the arms of government, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, referred, until the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. I hope it will suffice to say that everything said in support of this amendment seems four-square with what was said in the concordat, indicating when the consent of the Lord Chancellor or that of the Lord Chief Justice would be required. These were heavy burdens that my successors as Lord Chief Justice had to carry in consequence of, first, the concordat and then the Constitutional Reform Act. It would be so easy to allow legislation of this sort to undermine the spirit of the concordat and the provisions of that Act by creating a precedent, which could be pointed to subsequently, indicating that the clear distinctions of relevant situations where the consent of the Lord Chief Justice should be required are not as they were previously understood to be.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I simply add that the crowded Benches behind me will support the amendment. We are entirely in sympathy with all that has been said.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I begin with a simple point of clarification, although it may be that confusion reigns only in my mind. Where the Bill refers to the Secretary of State, it refers to the Secretary of State for BEIS, because of his responsibilities with regard to employment tribunals. Where it refers to the Lord Chancellor, that reference includes of course the Lord Chancellor’s appointment as Secretary of State for Justice. I say this lest there be any confusion about the two references in the Bill.
As I indicated at Second Reading, we have a number of concerns about the implications of these amendments. The Bill has been drafted precisely to ensure that the existing constitutional balance is protected. I will elaborate on that in light of some observations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, with reference to Amendment 28, which concerns the Minister’s power to direct the committee to include provision in the online procedure rules to give effect to a specified purpose.
I stress that this is not a novel power, nor would it apply only to the Online Procedure Rule Committee. The same power already features in the legislation which underpins the committees for the Civil Procedure Rules, Family Procedure Rules and Tribunal Procedure Rules. That is because Clause 8 reflects similar provisions in Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act 1997, Section 79A of the Courts Act 2003 and Part 3 of Schedule 5 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. That power was one agreed by the then Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice under the concordat of 2004 and given effect in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. The safety valve within the 2005 Act is Section 5, which confers upon the Lord Chief Justice the statutory right to make a report to Parliament if he is concerned about an issue relating to the administration of justice. I emphasise that this is not a novelty. The provisions of the Bill were drafted to reflect the existing statutory underpinning of the other civil rules committees with regard to civil jurisdiction, family jurisdiction and tribunal procedure.
In turn, Amendments 29 and 30 seek to ensure that the Lord Chief Justice concurs before the Lord Chancellor can make regulations under Clause 9. Clause 9 requires consultation with both the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals, the latter in the context of tribunal procedure. Again, we suggest that this is as it should be. It is anticipated that, as in the past, these regulations would be used to make minor revisions to legislation; for example, to regularise and modernise terminology to match that in the new rules and ensure that the rules operate as intended. In other words, they will be used to make operability amendments. It is in these circumstances that consultation is considered to be the appropriate approach.
Lord Judge
My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate. It has been short, but it matters. Perhaps I may answer two points made by the Minister. First, the difference between this committee and the committees to which he referred is that there is a majority of judicial members on all of them, whereas this committee has a majority appointed by the Lord Chancellor. That is a huge difference.
Secondly, although Section 5 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 gives the Lord Chief Justice the right to send a letter to Parliament expressing his concerns, I am willing to tell the Committee that there were occasions when I felt like writing such a letter, but it seemed to me that the first thing such a letter would do was to enmesh the Lord Chief Justice in a political quarrel. If nothing else, I could have seen the Government looking after the Lord Chancellor’s interests and therefore objecting to the Lord Chief Justice’s letter. I could see some Oppositions trying to twist the Government’s tail, thinking that they would support the Lord Chief Justice. The whole idea of that was a sop, because the reality is that if you use your nuclear option, you do not just blow up everybody else; you blow up yourself and your own case.
Subject to those two matters, and to further discussion with the Minister, for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
“(c) one of each of the following—(i) a barrister in England and Wales, and(ii) a solicitor of the Senior Courts of England and Wales, and(iii) a legal executive, and(iv) a magistrate of England and Walesappointed to the Committee by the Lord Chancellor.”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, this amendment would extend somewhat the involvement in the committee that the Lord Chancellor will appoint across the relevant professions and service. It seems sensible to reflect the breadth of the legal service and the legal community. It would not be hugely burdensome in numbers. It seems to make sense. I hope the Minister will feel able, if not today then subsequently, to accept that this would be desirable.
I do not think I need to elaborate. The amendments are clear enough about the intention and the numbers to be involved. I hope the Minister will at least look at this again and recognise that it is in the interests of the changes that are about to be made to accept these suggestions. I beg to move.
Lord Judge
I will make just one small comment. If the appointments of these additional people are in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, he will end up with a majority of six to two on the committee. If the amendments are to be pursued, I respectfully ask that the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice to the appointment should be required.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd
With the utmost respect to my predecessor, it would be usual for a magistrate to be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice rather than the Lord Chancellor. That would slightly affect the majority, but otherwise I agree with the points made.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, it appears that we might avoid both potential problems if we retain the present membership of the proposed committee. Before I turn to the detail of the amendments, it may be helpful if I make some general remarks about the committee’s composition. We certainly support the need for a small, focused and agile committee responsible for making new court rules that are simple, tailored for the benefit of ordinary users and, therefore, understandable. In his final review of the civil justice system in 2016, Lord Justice Briggs as he then was anticipated—I accept—a very differently constituted committee of experts from across various disciplines reflecting users’ needs. A smaller committee allows the standing members to increase and adapt their membership quite easily every time they consider a different topic. That therefore allows them access to a greater spread of expertise and to ensure the rules are made by those who have an understanding of how they are most suited to the user.
The purpose of Amendment 15 from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is to add legally qualified members, or members with legal experience, to the committee. As I have indicated, we consider that there is considerable benefit in beginning with a small committee, but one where the membership and expertise can be adapted over time. We consider that adopting the amendment would create issues about who is appointing the membership of the committee and whether there was a disproportionate power of appointment between the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice.
I remind noble Lords that the intention is that the online procedure will apply in the first instance to civil money claims up to the value of £25,000, but over time we of course want to widen the procedure’s scope so that it covers the civil procedures, potentially including family and tribunal proceedings. It would be difficult to see the value of insisting on an expanded legal membership at this stage without first gauging the overall value that could be addressed by bringing in specific experts in the area of specific proceedings being considered. In addition, as I said, Clause 6 would allow for the committee’s composition to be changed to incorporate particular experts or disciplines and particular areas of expertise if or when the committee came to address such issues as tribunal jurisdictions or some forms of family jurisdiction.
For similar reasons, we are not persuaded of the need for Amendments 16 and 17, which seek to add an additional member with IT expertise. Again, the argument is the same. Under Clause 6, the committee will have the ability to bring in additional expertise as and when it requires it, and that flexibility is seen as a considerable benefit.
In Amendment 18, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, seeks to ensure a gender balance on the committee. Of course we support the wider aim of ensuring greater diversity among all senior appointments to public bodies but, to be truly effective, public bodies must bring together a mix of people with different skills, experience and backgrounds. The obligation with regard to appointment is always guided by the code of practice of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, which sets out the design principles and procedures for appointments with diversity in mind, including gender diversity. It is by these means that we can preserve accountability for diversity. That process is monitored by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and is subject to a published report each year. We are certainly not complacent about the idea of gender representation at all levels on all committees, but we think it better that it is seen through the wider lens of the Equality Act, which protects a broader range of groups, not just gender. At this stage, we are not inclined to accept that there should be an express provision on gender balance.
Amendments 20 and 21 deal with the number of committee members required to agree the rule changes. Amendment 21 from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, would increase the number needed from three to five, and that would perhaps be a consequence of an extended membership. Amendment 20 from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, would require a simple majority with regard to matters, rather than just the current number of three. I can see that there may be an advantage in having some flexibility here, if we look forward to the point where the committee decides to exercise the powers under Clause 6 and extend the numbers in the committee to embrace further areas of expertise. I would like to give further consideration to that point in light of that, because it seems that underlying this there is a point that we should address before Report. With that, I invite noble Lords not to press their amendments at this stage.
Lord Beecham
Does the Minister accept the possibility that if there is not a requirement to reflect gender balance, there should at least be a requirement to report on it periodically, as part of the provision of the Bill?
Lord Keen of Elie
Respectfully, it appears that there is already statutory provision for just such a report, because the appointments will be monitored by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, who will make an annual report for that very reason.
Lord Beecham
Lord Beecham
My Lords, this is a fairly simple amendment requiring there to be an affirmative resolution, rather than a negative one. We are perhaps overdone with negative procedures. I suggest that this is an important area which should be subject to the affirmative process instead of the negative one.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, might I be permitted to respond with equal brevity to the noble Lord’s proposed amendment? Our concern is that this should be a small committee which has the ability pursuant to Clause 6, for example, to extend its membership to other areas of expertise, and that it should be able to move relatively swiftly to do that. That is why, in this area and others covered by amendments including Amendments 26 and 27, we embrace the negative procedure. We are concerned that, if we introduced the affirmative procedure, it would be necessary to take the matter through both Houses of Parliament, with the potential for significant delay from time to time. In fact, we simply want to effect new draft rules following consultation with the Lord Chief Justice. Regarding the consultation provisions as well, we suggest that the negative and not the affirmative procedure is appropriate here.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
My Lords, if I may say a word out of turn, I am grateful to the Minister for what he said about my Amendment 20 and for saying that he will consult about agreeing something along its lines. I also want to make a point about Amendment 15, which we have also passed, which is that magistrates are represented under statute, under the other rule-based committees.
Lord Keen of Elie
I will briefly clarify the position for the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I was not undertaking to consult to agree, but to give further consideration to the matter before Report.
Lord Beecham
“(za) must be piloted by the Government in a period determined by the Online Procedure Rule Committee before they may be fully and permanently implemented,”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, there are two or three amendments in this group that look to the Government to pilot the processes embodied in the Bill. That seems a sensible way of dealing with these changes. Amendment 24 would require the Minister to publish a written statement on the progress and findings of the pilot scheme. These are major changes in our legal system, so it is necessary to look carefully at how they are working before deciding that they will remain part of the system. This is a major change, and it would help if the Government accepted the notion that progress will be reviewed and an opportunity given to consider how it is working. Further, the procedure should be an affirmative resolution.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, our Amendments 31 to 33 in this group require a statutory review between three and four years from the date on which the Bill becomes law. They also require a report to Parliament from the appropriate Minister, prepared in consultation with the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals, both of whom will be able to contribute independently to the report, should they wish to. The Minister’s answer to these suggestions to date has been that the Government will carry out a post-legislative review, so there is no need to incorporate a requirement for such a review into the Bill. Once again, I regret that we do not agree. Non-statutory promises have a nasty habit of being fulfilled well outside the time limits promised. Indeed, such reviews often seem to have as many delays as Crossrail. Statutory time limits, while not fool-proof, at least concentrate the minds of Ministers and officials. Furthermore, without further primary legislation, they do not bind future Governments. In any case, the requirement to review and report guarantees a certain thoroughness to the review and resulting report that might not otherwise have existed.
We regard as particularly important the requirement for the Government to consult the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals in preparing the report and to have the opportunity to report to Parliament. That will guarantee that a judicial perspective is brought to bear on the review and formal report to Parliament. In this case, we regard the combination of judicial and political input as very important. Reviewing the operation of the legislation makes that combination important, as with making the changes and decisions that we discussed in the group of the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. We also support the amendments in this group on further piloting these online procedures. Careful piloting and a staged introduction could avoid costly mistakes and improve the procedures as they are developed. Both providers and users will be able to see and report on what works and does not.
Lord Keen of Elie
I first turn to Amendments 22 to 24, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and address the issue that the rules should be piloted by the Online Procedure Rule Committee before they come into effect. I will then come on to Amendments 31 to 33, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and supported by the noble Lords, Lord Beith and Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that when services are introduced, they are already subject to ongoing testing. HMCTS is rapidly testing and adapting new online services, based on user feedback and service data. That is important because it ensures flexibility and improvements in practice and procedures that enhance access to justice. Piloted online services cannot be rolled out to the public more widely without such rigorous independent assessment carried out by the Government Digital Service, and then confirmation that they are fit for purpose. In addition, some projects are also being more formally evaluated through their development by HMCTS itself.
Reference was made to a number of piloted measures in the existing digital portal for debt actions. The difficulty is that, if we accept measures of the kind proposed in these amendments, we will add a layer of bureaucracy to the rule-making process beyond current practice, thereby reducing the flexibility to respond to user needs and technological changes. The Bill permits the use of practice directions, which can support projects through development before formal rules are set out in statute, so one does not have to go to a formal set of rules immediately; one can simply have a practice direction that assists the piloting of particular projects.
I mentioned before the example of online civil money claims and the pilot that went live in March 2019, which is underpinned by practice directions that require the consent of the Master of the Rolls and the appropriate Minister. Such a project worked closely with the judicial sub-committee to develop the pilot. I emphasise that there is already a clear process in place through which such proposed rules are tested, piloted and reviewed. To that extent, we consider Amendment 22 unnecessary.
Amendment 23 would again limit the flexibility of the OPRC to make the small, minor changes required to respond quickly to changes in user needs or perhaps new technology. It would add time and consequently cost to the development of the online process. We do not consider it appropriate to go down that route.
Amendment 24 would require us to publish six-monthly reports. We regard that as simply unmanageable given the number of pilots across the services that we are in the course of transforming. Again, there is the issue of cost, so we are not persuaded of the need for such steps to be taken.
Amendments 31, 32 and 33 would place in the Bill a requirement for a formal review of the Act to which the Lord Chief Justice and Senior President of Tribunals were able to contribute independently. Clearly, reviewing legislation which has been passed by this House is of great importance. That is precisely why the Government already require departments to carry out post-legislative scrutiny of all Acts within three to five years after Royal Assent. We therefore consider this amendment unnecessary because post-legislative scrutiny of this legislation will be conducted—I emphasise, will be conducted—within that timescale.
Regarding the reference to the Lord Chief Justice and Senior President of Tribunals, of course, their views are incredibly important and are taken seriously. There would be no question of us laying a report on this or other courts legislation without taking account of their opinions. Again, we consider the amendments unnecessary, understanding the importance of what underpins and has prompted them. I hope that, with these assurances, noble Lords will accept that the amendments are unnecessary and I invite them not to press them.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, having listened to the Minister, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I approach this amendment with some trepidation, but I shall explain it in this way. It removes paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the Bill, which itself provides for the omission of Clause 7(1); namely, the requirement for the Online Procedure Rule Committee to consult such persons as it considers appropriate and to hold meetings unless inexpedient to do so.
Lord Keen of Elie
That is not a question that I am able to answer now because I cannot foresee the future, but I shall take further instruction on the matter and write to the noble Lord on the current position. I beg to move.
Ford in Bridgend
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales. The Statement is as follows:
“With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the future of Ford’s engine plant in Bridgend, south Wales. On Thursday, Ford announced the start of a consultation with its unions concerning the potential closure of the Ford Bridgend engine plant in south Wales. I am not going to understate what a bitter blow this is to the 1,700 skilled and dedicated workers at Ford in Bridgend and their families, to the many more people and businesses who supply the plant and to the town of Bridgend and the wider community.
Our focus will be on working with Ford and the unions to understand the challenges and opportunities and gain the best outcomes. I have spoken to the company, unions and colleagues across the House. Colleagues at Jobcentre Plus are standing by to provide advice and support to those who require it in the local area, if required.
I live close by and absolutely understand the importance of this plant to the local community. The site has been worth over £3 billion to the local economy over the last 10 years. The town of Bridgend has proudly been home for 40 years to a world-class engine manufacturing facility. Ford has relied on Bridgend and Dagenham to supply fully one-third of its total engines worldwide, a fact of great pride.
We have known for some time that the production of the Sigma engine was coming to its natural end and that the Jaguar Land Rover contract would not be renewed, but the news that the Dragon engine may no longer be produced in the UK is disappointing. It is very disappointing that it could be taken out of UK—in fact, out of Europe—to be manufactured in Mexico. That underlines that this is not a decision about Brexit. This decision was about the challenging conditions faced right across the global automotive sector.
Bridgend has been particularly impacted by the downturn in Ford’s share of the passenger vehicle market in Europe, with volumes for the new Dragon engine falling significantly below installed capacity. Ford is restructuring its business across Europe significantly to decrease structural costs and allow for investment in future electrification. To that end, it is optimising its European manufacturing footprint and reducing operations in France, Germany and Spain.
Bridgend is significantly underutilised, with projections for the number of engines that it will produce falling far below what would be commercially viable in a single plant. Bridgend also faces a significant cost disadvantage compared with other Ford facilities around the world building the same engine. I have spoken to my right honourable friend the Business Secretary, colleagues in the Welsh Government, the trade unions and representatives since Ford’s announcement, and my honourable friend the Minister for Business and Industry and I have spoken to local Members of Parliament. Together, we will continue to engage with all stakeholders and elected representatives. While I know that the honourable Member for Bridgend cannot be in the Chamber today, I spoke with her on Friday.
We in the UK Government are committed to working with the Welsh Government and the local community to ensure that south Wales’s justified reputation as a place of industrial excellence in manufacturing and technology is maintained and expanded. On Thursday the Welsh Government’s Minister for Economy and Infrastructure announced the establishment of a task force to work with partners over the difficult weeks and months ahead to help find a sustainable long-term solution for the plant and its workforce. UK government departments and I will play a full and active part in that. This builds on an existing group that has been working jointly since it was confirmed that production of the Jaguar Land Rover engine would end in 2020, and it will be important that that also builds on the Honda task force, working together to support the automotive industry.
We are already looking at opportunities to attract new investment to the area. I remain optimistic that south Wales is an attractive proposition and place for industry to operate from. In fact, over the last two years I have been to Japan, China and the USA to promote the opportunities that Wales presents for the advanced manufacturing sector and our modern industrial strategy. Later this year Aston Martin will begin production of the DBX engine, which has created 750 jobs, and last September it announced a further £50 million that will make south Wales the home of its electric vehicle range.
I and many other colleagues across this House have worked hard over the last three years to make the case for investment in Britain to investors in this country and around the world. Despite the devastating news for south Wales operations, Ford’s commitment to the UK will remain, as a major employer of some 10,000 people, with other significant operations in the country, including Ford’s technical centre in Dunton, Essex, which is home to Ford’s European market-leading commercial vehicle business; Ford’s engine facility in Dagenham, east London, where it will continue to produce diesel engines; Ford’s mobility innovation office in London, where it will develop future mobility solutions for Europe; and the Halewood transmission plant, a joint venture between Ford and Getrag producing transmissions for cars such as the Ford Fiesta.
It remains the case that Ford, as an American company with a century-long history of operating successfully in the United Kingdom, undoubtedly recognises our international reputation for being a place to do business, with skilled and motivated staff, with access to innovation and strong determination to make those strengths even greater during the years ahead. That is the Government’s ambition, as is well-evidenced by the steps that we have most recently taken to build on the successes of our automotive sector deal. Our Advanced Propulsion Centre has awarded grants worth £800 million to more than 150 organisations across the United Kingdom. Just last month my honourable friend the Minister for Business and Industry announced a further £28 million of support to further enhance our UK Battery Industrialisation Centre in order to give an investment of over £100 million in a world-leading facility, enabling industry and academia to put the United Kingdom at the forefront of bringing battery technologies from the lab into the next generation of vehicles to drive our streets. Working with industry, £80 million of investment through our Driving the Electric Revolution programme will see support for innovation in electric motor technologies. We are determined to ensure that the United Kingdom continues to be one of the most competitive locations in the world for automotive and other advanced manufacturing.
While the announcement of this consultation by Ford is a disappointing blow, the Government’s bold mission to put the United Kingdom at the forefront of the design and manufacturing of zero-emission vehicles presents significant new opportunities for the United Kingdom. This includes new industries and ventures that will be well suited to the skills and expertise of those dedicated workers at Ford and its suppliers. I remain committed to ensuring that Bridgend and other parts of Wales benefit from this work. In this way, we will continue to work with the Welsh Government and our very many partners across the industry as we seize the opportunities for Britain to provide great jobs and careers for hundreds of thousands of people across our country during the years ahead. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for repeating what is by any standards a desultory Statement. It seemed odd from where I was sitting to hear those words coming from his mouth in particular; they seem so mealy-mouthed. After all, 1,700 people are without work and communities will be ravaged. For all the task forces, which are starting from scratch since this has all happened so suddenly, there will be a huge period of thinking and reflecting. Some of the initiatives announced in the Statement pertain to the whole of the UK, and there is little for us to rejoice about in their specific application to Wales.
This is indeed a dark day. Since the 1980s and 1990s, when traditional industries folded up—with such great consequence to Wales, as the Minister will know—it is what has been happening down the M4 corridor that in many ways has kept the economy buoyant, brought hope and replaced those traditional heavy industries that have now gone.
We must just express our deep sadness and perhaps scratch our heads a little. After all, Bridgend manufactured 620,000 engines in 2017—one every 30 seconds. The plant makes a total of five different engines to support the production of seven Ford models. These engines are exported to Germany, Spain, Russia, the USA, China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Thailand and Mexico. Bridgend also makes V6 and V8 engines for the Jaguar XJ, XF and XK. I must apologise to the House: the recent removal of cataracts from my eyes places the reading of a document at this distance in no man’s land. With glasses I cannot see it, and without glasses I cannot see it. For all that, I want simply to say that the output from Bridgend has been considerable. Undertakings were given only recently that led people to suppose and hope that there would be better days ahead. All the activities that depend on the car industry will be similarly affected.
I think we will hear from all sides of the House some bewilderment at the blanket statement that this cannot be put down to Brexit. It seems to me that the uncertainty that has been created by this long and tedious process that Members all over the House have felt to be so damaging will bring sadness of its own kind. In Securing Wales’ Future, a White Paper from the Welsh Government that appeared within a year of the referendum in collaboration with Plaid Cymru and the Labour Party in Cardiff, emphasis was placed on maintaining and preserving work opportunities and conditions, on setting ways of achieving all that and on the necessity of maintaining confidence in the jobs market.
The uncertainty has clearly had its part to play. Ford has blamed global challenges for its decision, but, as highlighted by numerous manufacturers, falling diesel sales and the impact of a potential hard Brexit are creating a perfect storm for the sector. Today’s figures, we are told, are evidence of the vast cost and upheaval Brexit uncertainty has already wrought on UK automotive manufacturing businesses and workers—not just in Bridgend, but in other places, too. Prolonged instability has done untold damage. The Secretary of State for Wales has just recently endorsed the candidature of Boris Johnson for the leadership of the Conservative Party and our eventual new Prime Minister. No clearer exponent of a hard Brexit exists than he. Consequently, faced by the increasingly likely and to be feared hard Brexit, we will not see conditions improve or create what from this side of the House we have constantly asked for—better workers’ rights, greater security in the field of work and support for communities centred on industries such as the car industry.
This is, as I began by saying, a desultory Statement about a very sad situation. We are not convinced that the Secretary of State or Her Majesty’s Government have done all that they can, and we seek reassurances from the Minister that these task forces that have been put in place and this commitment to the future will benefit Wales as much as any other part of the United Kingdom. We were sold the promise that we would lose nothing in our economy as a result of leaving Europe, that our economy would remain buoyant and that the support from Westminster to Cardiff would not see us lose a single penny. Here is the mood music created by this sad closure impending in Bridgend. We can only regret it and ask Her Majesty’s Government to rise above the conflicts among their own numbers that currently mark this moment in their history and give greater attention to the needs of workers and communities in Wales and the United Kingdom at large.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I draw attention to the interests in my name in the register and thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, notwithstanding his optical challenges, for his very eloquent statement. I associate myself with almost everything he said; I will not attempt to repeat it, but the loss of the Ford Bridgend plant is huge. It is not just the 1,700 workers; it is the whole community—the subcontractors and the infrastructure that supports that factory. I agree with the GMB’s assessment that this is a disaster, not just for that area but for the UK car industry.
Following on from the final point of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, could the Minister tell us what talks Her Majesty’s Government had with Ford in the lead-up to this announcement? What help were they able to offer Ford, which in the end proved not to be enough? How far did the Government go to prevent this happening? They had fair warning. In April, Ford warned that it would reconsider its UK investments if MPs could not agree a Brexit deal that offers a smooth departure from the EU. This really points up that Brexit is absolutely a factor in this Statement, notwithstanding the point that the Secretary of State has made. It is also another dagger in the side of the industrial strategy.
For the avoidance of doubt, can the Minister update your Lordships’ House on how the Government are getting on with negotiating the smooth exit strategy that Ford and the rest of the car industry need? How many meetings have been had in Brussels since the extension of the exit date? How many times has the Prime Minister met with anybody in Brussels to bring forward a new proposal to Parliament? Indeed, when might Parliament expect a new proposal to deliver the smooth exit that business says it needs as a minimum level? The Minister may plead that this is above his pay grade—modestly, I would suggest—but this, above all issues, is front and centre in all the decisions that his department, BEIS and all the other departments in this country and Wales are dominated by. It must be dominating his waking hours. I hope he has an answer to the question: how are you getting on with the negotiations?
I thought that the situation was bad last term, but that stasis is nothing compared to what we are seeing now. The PM, as we know, has stepped down and the Government have gone into a sabbatical of self-immolation—if you want to see what setting fire to yourself looks like, just look at what Michael Gove managed over the weekend—while Britain’s advanced manufacturing is crying out for stability and direction. In the words of the SMMT’s chief executive:
“This ongoing uncertainty is corrosive, both on the operations … and on their reputation”.
That is another reason why Brexit is causing this to happen. The reason Ford pulled out is that it is losing confidence in the UK trading environment.
Of course, it is not just automotive. A recent paper from the Royal Economic Society finds that the confusion following Brexit has caused an output loss—a cut in GDP—of 1.7% to 2.5% up to the end of 2018. Today’s announcement of a drop in GDP of 0.4% in one month is a shocking reminder, but we should not be surprised. We were warned. In fact, the ERG’s favourite economist, Patrick Minford, explained some time ago that a no-deal Brexit would see manufacturers go the same way as the coal industry. That prediction is now being priced into every industrial and commercial decision made today, and it is the workers of Bridgend who are falling foul of that today.
In the FT, the Business Secretary is quoted as saying in this context that there are “grounds for optimism”. I am sure the Minister will agree with his colleague, because Ministers have to agree with Secretaries of State, so could he please answer just this one question, if none of the others. On this rainy day, what are the grounds for optimism for the workers of Ford Bridgend?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, first, I wish the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, a speedy recovery from his cataract operation. It is very good to see him here at all, and he did an excellent job putting his case.
I shall try to answer the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Griffiths and Lord Fox, in the order in which they were made, if I may. First, there is a consultation here. I agree that this is serious—it is a devastating body blow, and there is no doubt of that—but we must appreciate that a consultation will be going on. Secondly, we know that the manufacture of the Dragon engine will continue until at least February next year, and the Jaguar Land Rover production still at the plant will continue until September next year. I am not making light of the issues, but it is important to get them in the proper context.
Both noble Lords touched on the task force. I think it is fair to say that the task force system was a creation of the Welsh Government. I was privileged to act as chairman of one in relation to a previous job problem—the closure of the Murco oil refinery in west Wales—and I can say with confidence that such task forces are very effective at bringing agencies together to talk about ways to mitigate problems. The first meeting of this task force will be within a week, and both Ken Skates from the Welsh Government and the Secretary of State, Alun Cairns, will be at that meeting, as will representatives of the unions. I understand that the consultation and discussions going on so far between the Secretary of State, the unions and Ken Skates have been very constructive.
It is very important that situations such as this do not become a political football. That is not to say that political points will not be made, but what is important for the people in Bridgend is that we act responsibly to seek new jobs, to find out what we can do to ensure that the highly skilled workforce there—including some excellently paid jobs in that town and the surrounding area of Ogmore and the south-west Wales valleys—is properly served by the work we do. I think that is the intention of all those involved.
On the point about Brexit, it is very important that we do not misrepresent what this is. I am not saying that there is not a discussion to be had on Brexit, and I will come to that, but it is very clear from what was said by Ford and from the context of the Statement, with significant job losses in Germany—5,000 being talked about—Spain and France, that this is not simply about Brexit, or it would just have been about jobs being lost in Britain.
That said, I accept—and noble Lords would do well to reflect on this—that Ford, Honda, Nissan and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders have all called for support for a deal. Indeed, they have all called for support for the deal that has been voted down: the Prime Minister’s deal. I say to noble Lords that, yes, it is important that we get a deal, but there is a deal that these manufacturers have been urging support for which does not attract support from most Members of parties opposite. I make that point advisedly.
I accept that this is also an issue about the supply chain. That will be discussed in the context of the task force. The supply chain is also a factor with Honda. What has been offered in support for Honda’s supply chain will also be offered here. It is worth noting that the automotive sector deal, which is a significant part of the business strategy, has expended £16 million on supply chain assistance.
Noble Lords also need to see that the context of this is the move from diesel and petrol to electrification. The support we are giving to electrification—low-emission vehicles and infrastructure—is significant here. Thoughts about how we can develop that would really help the Welsh workforce, and indeed the British workforce, going forward.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, 40 years ago, as the Welsh Secretary, encouraged by Jim Callaghan, I provided the incentives for Ford to come to Bridgend, including, unconventionally, selling it the freehold in order to clinch the deal. The balance sheet over the years has been good jobs and good, planned industrial relations. Very little notice to Governments has been given of this calamitous decision. Will the Minister confirm that the usual yardstick of a total 4:1 loss in jobs can be expected, as happens in other industries? Secondly, can he assure me that stricter labour regulation and redundancy legislation in other countries, such as applies in Valencia, if the plant is still flourishing—I visited it as a Back-Bench MP—and Mexico have not affected this decision? Despite current denials, Brexit has loomed large over recent decisions in the whole of the automotive industry.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, first, I acknowledge the massive role that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, had in the establishment of the Bridgend plant, very close to his former constituency of Aberavon. I agree with him that the supply chain is important. I have no specific figures on that, but it is not just the supply chain; the broader economy suffers in a situation such as this. The unemployment rate in Bridgend is very close to the national average—I think it is marginally above—but this is clearly an important situation.
I have no specific knowledge of redundancy legislation in Spain and Mexico, but I will write to the noble and learned Lord, if I may. As for trade union relations with Ford, Ford’s treatment of workers in previous job situations has been fair. I do not want to talk it up too much, but it has been fair. I know that that will be very much on the mind of the task force. I am also confident that the Secretary of State will want to talk to the noble and learned Lord about his experience of Ford, and I hope that he is available, as I am sure that that would be helpful going forward.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, this is obviously a miserable affair. The Statement mentioned China. Is it not a fact that the entire worldwide motor industry is now in a state of turmoil with the rise of Asia? China has not yet even begun its impact on world car markets, but it will be massive when it comes. On top of that, there are the changes in technology, with the move to electric vehicles. The war on diesel clearly has not helped and nor, frankly, has Brexit. Otherwise, why would the motor industry have cut its output in the past month by 24%? That is a devastating impact.
One understands all that, but is not the time coming when we should have a strategic overview on all those problems? We have had Honda, JLR, the Nissan problem with Renault and the question of their future production here. Now, we have Ford. We are not just talking about motor manufacture but every conceivable component of a vast industry employing 822,000 people in all. Surely the time has come for a really strategic insight into how this kind of transport will develop here and how we fit into the world of rising China, America and Latin America, all of which will be in the motor manufacturing business and the transport business on a colossal scale. We have not seen anything yet.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the benefit of his experience on this issue. I very much agree that we are dealing with a global situation; this is not simply about Europe or Brexit. I accept that there are Brexit issues relating to the economy, but the far more important issue here is the move away from diesel and petrol towards low-emission vehicles and the growth of markets in China and India in particular.
On strategic responses to this issue, we have the automotive sector deal and we committed £250,000 to the Faraday challenge on battery storage, which is important. A couple of weeks ago, I had the great privilege of going round Northern Industrial Battery Services Ltd in Welshpool, which is significantly attached to what BEIS is doing and provides a useful glimpse into the future. We need to move towards battery storage and low-emission vehicles, which is a large part of why the automotive sector has seen this period of turbulence. That turbulence has not been limited to this country, of course: as I indicated, this is going on pan-Europe. I take seriously what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, says, but I assure him that we are very much there.
I should add that we are investing in infrastructure in the low-emission and electric sectors. I am sure that, like me, noble Lords have noticed a greater prevalence of battery-charging in our cities now.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I really must challenge the Minister on the total non sequitur in the Statement that this decision is not about Brexit, as engines will come from Mexico. Is he not aware that, in January, a Ford executive—Bob Shanks—said that a no-deal Brexit would be,
“catastrophic for the UK auto industry and Ford’s manufacturing operations in the country. We will take whatever action is necessary to preserve the competitiveness of our European business”?
Is the Minister not aware that Ford executives made it clear to Welsh Government Ministers that the danger of a no-deal Brexit was a contributory factor in their decision to close the Bridgend engine plant? What discussions have the Government had, or will they have, with the Welsh Government to create an aid package that will persuade Ford to suspend its decision until it is known whether we are to suffer a disastrous no-deal Brexit outcome?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord knows that I have immense respect for him but, on the move to Mexico, I rely not on the Statement but on what Ford has said. It made it quite clear that this decision would have been taken independently of Brexit. That is not to say that Brexit is not an important issue for the economy, but that debate is different from the one on this particular decision. We would do well to listen to Ford.
The noble Lord makes a significant and fair point about aid packages and assistance, which I am sure the task force will begin to look at next week in its first meeting. In the meantime, consultation is ongoing so there is time to look at this issue, although I accept that there is a degree of urgency. That will be one of the early things that Ken Skates, as the Welsh Government Minister, and the Secretary of State will want to look at with the unions and others when the task force meets.
Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register as the president of the Jaguar Drivers’ Club in Britain. Ford is simply joining the queue after Jaguar Land Rover and Honda in closing plants. Although the Minister is absolutely right to emphasise that the transfer to electric technology is causing this issue—we do not deny that—the number of motor vehicles produced in this country has fallen by 45% in one year. That is horrific. Uncertainty over our future trading relationship with the rest of our big market in Europe is causing this issue. These companies are all internationally owned but no international investor will consider the major investment in new technologies that we need as long as this uncertainty exists. The Minister needs to take that message back to his colleagues.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I can be led only by what the companies concerned are saying in relation to potential job losses, which is that this decision would have been taken regardless of Brexit. The noble Lord says that the economy in general is not benefiting from the Brexit uncertainty—indeed, that it is being harmed. He is absolutely right. I do not think that there is any doubt of that. As I said in answer to an earlier question, Ford, Nissan and Honda have all said that we need a deal; they have also said that people should support the deal that was put forward—a point I have already made. We must be realistic about this particular decision. The appropriate response to secure jobs should include investment, pushing the low-emissions sector in the automotive sector deal—as we are doing—and ensuring that we support battery storage and so on.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, quoted a senior Ford executive saying that Brexit was entirely to blame, but the Minister seemed to contradict that completely. Either one of two different Ford executives is lying or somebody has misunderstood something, because those statements are complete opposites. On closing Bridgend, which is a terribly sad occasion, has Ford indicated whether it will move electric car production there instead, or will that go to the rest of Europe, which Brexit is not affecting?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord was here to hear the Statement.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has made a number of comments about a no-deal Brexit. Is he aware of an Oxford University study published in April predicting that the UK car industry could shrink by almost half by the mid-2020s in a no-deal Brexit? If so, does he agree that the election of a Conservative leader and Prime Minister who promotes no deal is not in the interests of the British car industry?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, fascinated as I am by the ongoing leadership election, I do not have any role in it—not until it comes to the membership, at least—so I will not give any commentary on it. However, I agree with the noble Lord about the need for certainty in the economy; he is absolutely right about that. I also agree that a no-deal Brexit is not in the interests of the British economy. The vast majority of candidates accept that and are working towards a deal, which is desirable. If we are talking about the wider economy, however, we come back to the fundamental point on the delivery of Brexit: that there was a vote and that the vote cannot be ignored. To come back to the point about helping the highly qualified, highly skilled, well-paid workforce at Bridgend, we will do the best we can for them by seeking fresh investment and ensuring that the possibilities touched on by the noble Lord are there to service not just Europe but the rest of the world with electric vehicles.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the anxiety over the future of Airbus. Of course, Airbus is based in north, not south, Wales but it could lose 7,000 employees and 400 apprentices could lose the opportunity of an occupation. The supply chain could also suffer. This is because the Government insist on going ahead with Brexit without a fair deal or any deal at all. Why on earth do the Government not realise that their actions could decimate the workforce in Wales again, not only in Airbus but in the agricultural industry? I hope that the Government will look at Bridgend and at least say, “Yes, Brexit is partly responsible. Let us now halt this insanity of withdrawing from Europe”.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I understand some Members’ desire to make this about Brexit but it is important that we focus on the job in hand, as I said. The noble Lord knows that I have immense respect for him, but we do not want to be in the position of talking down the excellent production of and workforce at Airbus. There really is no call for that. We should focus on helping the workforce at Bridgend.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, as someone who worked in the motor industry early in his career, I know that although the executives in the industry are cautious about what they say, they need Brexit like a hole in the head, whether it is with a deal or no deal. That is because there is a seven-year investment cycle in the industry. It is not about what is happening in the short term but about what is going to happen as each production line comes up for investment, as is now the case in Bridgend. The whole industry risks being destroyed by the uncertainty—not just on whether there is a deal in the next few months but over the next five years while we try to negotiate a deal going forward. That is the problem for the motor industry and surely that is why it is at risk.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, again it is important that we as politicians do not seek to interpret what executives in the car industry say. They are sufficiently strong to know their own minds and they are not backward about coming forward and telling Governments what they feel. If they say that this decision would have been made anyway and that it is not related to Brexit, we must take them at their word. It does not do any good at all to claim that this is about something that it is not. That is not to say, as I have now repeated many times, that uncertainty in the economy is a good thing; it is not and we all know that. That is why we need a Brexit deal and I hope that noble Lords will take that message back to their leaders so that we can come together and get a deal before the end of October.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I hope that I can raise one more point. The Minister said that Brexit had played no part in this and that this position had been accepted by Welsh Government Ministers. Did he not hear Ken Skates AM yesterday morning on the radio making it perfectly clear that Ford had told him that a no-deal Brexit was a contributory factor in this decision?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I have worked a great deal on the Welsh economy with Ken Skates. I did not have the privilege of hearing that interview but I did have the privilege of seeing what Ford had said in relation to the job losses. That is the point I was making.
Grenfell Response
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, with the permission of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on the Government’s response to the Grenfell Tower fire. I am also writing to the chair of the Select Committee to provide a formal report on progress, a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House. But before I begin, I would like to take a moment to thank all those who responded to the serious fire in Barking, east London, yesterday afternoon. The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham provided emergency accommodation for those residents who needed it, and we will continue to work with the council to ensure that residents receive the support they need at this most difficult time. While the cause of the fire has yet to be confirmed, I have asked the Building Research Establishment to investigate the fire, working with the London Fire Brigade. I have also asked the independent expert panel on wider fire safety issues to provide urgent advice to the Government. We will take account of the findings of the investigation and the advice of the panel in our further work on reviewing the fire safety guidance. The local authority and the building owners are reviewing fire safety for the rest of the development, and I remain in close contact with the London Fire Brigade. I will also be visiting the community later today.
As we mark two years since the devastating events of 14 June 2017, I know the whole House will join me in remembrance and solidarity with the people of north Kensington. I want them to know that this House is behind them in honouring the loved ones they lost, in helping those left behind to heal and rebuild their lives, and in our determination to ensure that nothing like this can ever happen again.
This unprecedented disaster has been met with an unprecedented response across government, our public services, local government and the voluntary sector. I am hugely thankful to everyone involved, especially our emergency services and the public and voluntary sectors. In total, we have spent over £46 million of national government funds and committed a further £55 million to help meet rehousing costs, reimburse the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea for Grenfell site management costs, deliver new health and well-being services, and deliver improvements to the Lancaster West Estate. More than £27.8 million of the nearly £29 million raised through the generosity of the British public has also now been distributed, thanks to the Charity Commission. Those affected are also getting vital support from the NHS, with a further £50 million committed over the next five years to addressing long-term physical and mental health needs. To date, nearly 8,000 health screenings have been completed, including for more than 900 children, with over 2,700 individuals receiving or having received treatment for trauma, including over 600 children.
We are determined to make sure that those affected remain at the heart of the response to this tragedy. That is why my right honourable friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner continues to meet families regularly in his role as the Grenfell Victims’ Minister. It is why the Prime Minister recently appointed two new panel members for phase two of the Grenfell Tower public inquiry, to make sure it has the necessary diversity of skills and experience. And it is why the community will be pivotal to decisions about the long-term future of the site as the Government take ownership of this to ensure sensitivities are respected, and they are fully engaged in additional environmental checks after concerns were raised.
Testing has started to assess any risks to health. We will ensure that all appropriate action is taken. One of our biggest priorities has been rehousing the 201 households who lost their homes, with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea acquiring over 300 homes to meet their needs and provide choice. I am pleased that all 201 households have accepted permanent or temporary homes, with 184 households in permanent accommodation and 14 in good-quality temporary homes. This represents significant progress since last year, but I am concerned that three households remain in emergency accommodation, including one in a hotel. I have asked the Independent Grenfell Recovery Taskforce, which was set up to ensure that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea better supports residents and rebuilds trust, to look into this. I have been assured that the council is taking an appropriate and sensitive approach, given the complex needs of these households, to find the right long-term solution for each of them.
A new home is undoubtedly an important step on the road to recovery, and it is vital that this is reinforced by long-term support such as the recovery services co-designed by the council in partnership with the community and local health partners. It is essential that we build on this collaboration, with the council listening and the community being heard. That is fundamental to laying the foundations for a new and stronger partnership between residents and those who serve them.
Central to this relationship, and indeed to so much of the work flowing from the fire, is the need to rebuild trust. Above all, this means ensuring that people are safe, and feel safe, in their homes. With that in mind, Members will be aware that we launched a consultation last week on proposals to implement meaningful reform to our building and fire safety regulatory systems following the independent review led by Dame Judith Hackitt. It will provide a clear focus on responsibility and accountability and give residents a stronger voice to achieve the enduring change that is needed. Alongside this, the Government have also launched a call for evidence on the fire safety order to determine what changes may be required to strengthen it. This follows the recent launch of a new fund to expedite remediation of buildings with unsafe ACM cladding in the private sector and protect leaseholders, adding up to a £600 million commitment from the Government to make buildings in both the private and social sectors safe.
This builds on other significant measures we have undertaken, such as a ban on combustible cladding, a review of the building regulations fire safety guidance—Approved Document B—and tests on non-ACM materials not only to keep people safe now but also to fundamentally transform the way we build in the future, through legislation, yes, but more crucially through a change in culture. But I know that we must continue to challenge on what more needs to be done.
People living in buildings like Grenfell Tower need to trust that there can be no repeat of what happened that night, to trust that the state understands their lives and is working for them. That is why the social housing Green Paper, published last year, and the new deal it sets out for people living in social housing matter so much. My thanks go to the many residents who engaged with us on this for their invaluable contribution. We are assessing the consultation responses and finalising our response. The deal it proposes aims to rebalance the relationship between residents and landlords, address stigma and ensure that homes are safe and decent. In addition to our drive, backed by billions, to boost the supply of social housing, it is a deal that promises to renew our commitment to people in social housing, ensuring that everyone, no matter where they live, has the security, dignity and opportunities they need to build a better life.
This, ultimately, is what we hope for for the bereaved and survivors and for the strong, proud people of north Kensington, who have shown us the power of community. They, and we, will never, ever forget those who died in the most horrific circumstances.
I know that the pain of that loss continues as they wait for answers and to see justice done as the police investigation and public inquiry continue their important work. But they should know that they are not alone. The Government, this House and, indeed, our whole country will always have a stake in the future of Grenfell. I have every faith that this remarkable community, working in partnership, will move forward, rebuild and emerge even stronger. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for repeating the Statement given by his right honourable friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup in the other place earlier today. I refer the House to my relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I join the noble Lord in paying tribute to the London fire brigade, the other emergency services and the staff of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham for the way they responded to yesterday’s fire. They are true public servants, one and all, and we owe them our thanks and gratitude for the exemplary way they carry out their duties.
I welcome the reviews referred to in the Statement, but more needs to be done to ensure that the regulations in force are fit for purpose, and this needs to be done urgently. While progress has been made in many areas, and is to be welcomed, things are generally moving too slowly. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell the House what he is doing to inject more speed into matters.
I join the noble Lord and others in remembering those who lost their lives on that terrible night two years ago, and I am thinking of those who were injured and their families and friends. I also pay tribute to all the emergency services, the local authority staff, civil servants, the faith communities and the community at large in north Kensington, who have done so much to get people back on their feet.
What have the Government learned over the past two years to ensure that the initial response from the local authority, which failed two years ago, will not happen again? Specifically, I am concerned about the department’s thinking, as opposed to any recommendations that will come out of the public inquiry. That thinking will, I am sure, have played some role in how events last night in Barking and Dagenham were dealt with. It would be good if the noble Lord could update the House.
I was pleased to note that the honourable Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner meets regularly with the families. Can the noble Lord tell the House when was the last time the Secretary of State sat down with the families and others in the community for a formal discussion, as opposed to the event today in Speaker’s House? When did the Secretary of State last meet both the leader of the council, Councillor Elizabeth Campbell, and the chief executive, Mr Barry Quirk?
Clearly progress has been made in finding people new accommodation, but we need to get the remaining households into permanent accommodation as quickly as possible. It is now two years since the fire, and a new permanent home is an important milestone on the road to recovery.
In respect of the consultation launched last week, does the noble Lord accept that there is some urgency here? Across the country, people living in blocks of flats want to see action. I have no doubt at all about the good intention but, as I said, it is the pace of change and reform that concerns me.
The Statement referred to the social housing Green Paper, and I was surprised to hear reference to the need to “address stigma”. I grew up on a council estate and see no stigma about it whatever. Council estates are full of law-abiding, hard-working citizens. My parents always paid their taxes and their rent, and they worked hard. I do not see the stigma there. What worries me is that, if that is the Government’s view, how is it impacting government policy? It would be good to hear the noble Lord’s view on that.
I also want to make reference to the position of the blocks that are in private hands. We need to make urgent progress with the recladding programme. I was obviously pleased that the Government announced additional funding, but will we get to the point when, if progress is not sufficiently quick, we will name the owners of the blocks with dangerous cladding? Will we set a deadline for when the work needs to be done—say, September this year or some time early next year? Are the Government considering giving additional powers to local authorities under the Housing Act 2004 to include fines or other action if the owners of these blocks are not moving quickly enough? Where blocks are not being dealt with quickly enough, will the Government consider allowing local authorities to apply for that funding to actually do the work? We need to ensure that people are safe. It would be good to get a response from the noble Lord on those points.
What about other public buildings with dangerous cladding, such as schools and hospitals? What are we doing there?
I understand fully that the noble Lord may not be able to answer all my questions, but I am sure he will respond to me in writing, as he normally does.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I associate myself with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and with the sentiments of the Statement in what it has to say about both the Barking fire and the role of the voluntary and emergency services at Grenfell. I should perhaps remind the House that, during the coalition Government, I had some responsibility for building regulation policy. I welcome in particular the referral of the Barking fire to the independent expert panel. It seems to me that, if there are further lessons to learn, we need to learn them quickly and make sure that the appropriate action is put in place promptly.
We should very much recognise the fantastic work done by voluntary and community groups in the two years since the fire. It has been quite outstanding; they have brought the community together, and we should celebrate that amid all the tragedy of the fire itself.
I welcome the information in the Statement on rehousing residents. There is a little more to do, but it is good to know that progress is being made. I also welcome the progress on meeting the physical and mental health needs of residents, and carrying out proper testing of potential toxicity around the site.
I include in my congratulations the often maligned British public and their £29 million of charitable giving to relieve hardship, and the stout work done in distributing the funds appropriately in the area.
However, I have some questions for the Minister. Is he aware of the Building magazine survey of building contractors, published last week, which shows that very few firms have yet taken any serious steps to change their supervision and inspection regimes on projects, or their monitoring and recording procedures on the buildings they put up? The change of culture referred to in the Statement does not seem to be happening. The recommendations of Dame Judith Hackitt’s inquiry, as far as they are applicable to the industry, seem to have made no practical difference, despite the urgency of action. It is not really surprising that Dame Judith herself has publicly expressed concern that her report has now gone into the “too difficult” box.
Given that, does last week’s consultation have a proper timeline? Some might say that it is not really in accordance with the Minister’s often expressed views that we should do things “at pace” in relation to this tragedy. We are now two years on, and the consultation and a somewhat minimalist pilot scheme have just been launched. Can the Minister give us some assurance on, or timeline for, when legislation and statutory instruments will be in front of Parliament to change the regulations now in force and the culture of the construction industry? As I am sure the Minister is absolutely committed to do, that is all designed to ensure that we never have another Grenfell Tower tragedy.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Stunell, for the very appropriate way in which they addressed these issues, their reasonable response and the support that they indicated for public servants, who really have committed to this work, not just on Grenfell but more recently in Barking. Too often, we do not underline how much we owe our public sector, particularly the emergency services. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, for what he said about the generosity of the British public and the £29 million in donations. If you really want to understand a country, you look at its voluntary sector and how people are supporting it through charitable donations—it speaks volumes. Also, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, more than anything else, the dignity and humility of the victims of Grenfell—the survivors—in how they have conducted themselves throughout what must have been an extremely difficult day in the anniversary week of Grenfell is certainly worth mentioning.
I shall try to cover the questions raised and, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, kindly suggested, pick up any other points in a letter which I will copy to the Library. However, first, I will give an update on the position in De Pass Gardens in Barking. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is there this afternoon to thank the emergency services, to see first-hand what happened and to understand it. Clearly an investigation is going on and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, for what he said, based on his experience as a Minister, about the appropriate response of that investigation going on with expert assistance. Thank God no one was seriously injured. Two people suffered from smoke inhalation but there were no serious injuries.
The Borough of Barking and Dagenham has stepped forward to assist with accommodation. Clearly, people there have lost their property, their homes and their memories. It is a serious situation but everything is being done that may be done to assist there.
I pay tribute to the firefighters, the first of whom were on the scene in less than six minutes from the time the first 999 call was received. We should note that, and applaud and thank them for it. It clearly helped in an awful situation and we will no doubt come to that again.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about the Secretary of State engaging with families and specifically referred to Elizabeth Campbell and Barry Quirk. The last time he saw them in a formal setting was on 21 May at a ministerial recovery group, which happen fairly frequently. As the noble Lord rightly acknowledged, the Secretary of State met with Grenfell United earlier today at the reception and the Housing Minister, the honourable Member for North West Hampshire, met Grenfell United last Monday—he tends to engage more frequently than the Secretary of State—and the Victims Minister also holds regular casework surgeries as appropriate.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about speed. He knows that I tend to get as exasperated as he does, understandably, about what sometimes seems slow progress. It is perhaps like the fire engines getting there yesterday—I am sure that would have seemed much longer than six minutes to the people suffering on the ground in the fire. There is obviously a process to go through in relation to the Hackitt review.
We are making progress with document B independently of the consultation on the need for appropriate legislation. As I have always said, there is a need to proceed at pace. The Secretary of State is committed to appropriate legislation but we need consultation with people affected to see exactly what form the legislation should take. That is going forward. It is not in the “too difficult” box. I did not have the opportunity to see the survey of building contractors that the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, referred to, but it underlines the need to take action and the appropriate change to the law is going forward. We owe it to all the people affected by the dreadful event of two years ago to ensure that we get it right.
Any points I have missed I will pick up by letter.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I attended the reception hosted by the Speaker in another place for Grenfell United this lunchtime. It was humbling to hear again the testimony of those affected by the disaster. I commend Grenfell United for the generosity of spirit it has shown in campaigning for building safety measures to ensure the safety of all residents, right across the country, now and in the future.
However, it was clearly frustrated and angry that, even after two years, thousands of people are still living in dangerous buildings and that not enough action has been taken to put things right. In the Statement, the Secretary of State acknowledged that there is a lot more to be done and, as chair of the National Housing Federation—which I declare—I know that housing associations are working hard to ensure that their buildings are as safe as possible. How does the Minister intend to engage with Grenfell United in responding to the range of issues in its campaign for safer buildings?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments, with which I associate myself. I too was at the Speaker’s reception earlier, as I was last year, and it is humbling to see the dignity and humility of people who have lost so much and to appreciate that they are focused on learning the lessons and how we can seek to ensure that this should never happen again. We must do that and we must learn from that.
There was a great deal of literature at the meeting but I have not yet had the opportunity to look at it, but I will discuss it with the Minister of State and the Housing Minister and decide what we should do in relation to the valid points brought forward. It is a great opportunity to engage with Grenfell United on the basis of the suggestions it has put forward, on how we approach dangerous buildings and what we do in relation to them.
The noble Baroness did not ask specifically about the removal of cladding but we are now in a position in the social sector where 87% of buildings have had work either begun or completed in relation to what is necessary for the removal of cladding; 13% have a plan in place but the work has not yet started. As to the 175 buildings in the private sector—I will correct the number if I have got it wrong—the £200 million we have committed has galvanised this. We are beginning to see success there, although it is slower. I will give the precise figures in a write-round letter so that everyone has them to look at.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry
My Lords, I echo the praise that has already been given to the emergency services following both Barking and the Grenfell disaster. I welcome the Statement’s recognition of the power of community and its commitment to a new and stronger partnership between residents and those who serve them, for trust to rebuilt and, in particular, for the council to listen and the community to be heard.
The Minister will be aware of the recent report of the Bishop of Kensington, one of the faith leaders alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. Will the Government encourage serious engagement with this thoughtful report arising out of his conversations with local residents, his identification of their sense of loss of agency and his inspiring call for a renewal of a properly local democratic culture? Does the Minister agree that this careful report shows how Grenfell has much to teach government and society as a whole about the reimagination of welfare, housing and community life—the kind of reimagination that will be necessary to effect the long-term social changes that Grenfell deserves as its legacy?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for that contribution. I readily acknowledge the importance of faith institutions, both generally and specifically in relation to Grenfell, and the contribution of the Bishop of Kensington. I also reference the work done by Muslim Aid and the local mosque, which was also significant. Very often faith institutions are the most trusted and the most responsive. They are there on the spot, they are local, and they have been significant players, if I can use an inappropriate phrase, in relation to what is right about the response in Grenfell.
As the right reverend Prelate rightly said, the community is central to this and the planning to ensure that this kind of situation does not happen again has been greatly assisted by the faith organisations. We want to study what the Bishop of Kensington has put in his report and I know that the Minister for Housing and the Minister for Grenfell recovery will be engaged in that. He is right about the importance of democratic culture and community. It is a good way of putting it.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and associate myself with the remarks made about the community response and the emergency services, which did a wonderful job in supporting that community and saving lives. I draw the attention of the House to my interests in local government as set out in the register. The Minister will perhaps not be surprised if I share my utter frustration at the lack of speed with which action is being taken to put right the wrongs that led to that awful fire. In May 2018 Dame Judith Hackitt’s report Building a Safer Future was published. The Government swiftly and rightly accepted its recommendations. That was excellent. At the end of 2018 the Government published their implementation plan for the Hackitt report, but sadly no timetable was attached to it. Dame Judith had written:
“There is no reason to wait for legal change to start the process of behaviour change … A sense of urgency and commitment from everyone is needed”.
Where is it? Why have changes not been made? Why can we not get going with what everyone accepts is the right thing to do, making changes to prevent future disasters of the sort that occurred at Grenfell and giving people confidence that they are living in secure and safe homes? Will the Minister give us a sense of urgency in his response?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks. To reassure her, there are two points to be made. First, we are having a consultation on Dame Judith Hackitt’s report and the framework changes that are necessary. I think consultation is right before one proceeds with legislation in that situation. However, that has not stopped us doing things in relation to urgent action. As the noble Baroness knows, we have also banned combustible ACM cladding on buildings. The Secretary of State has acted decisively with progressing Approved Document B, which should be ready at the end of July. Behaviour change has been highlighted and has therefore started, but I accept that there is more to be done. I, too, sometimes get frustrated and wish that we could do it more quickly, but it would be wrong and inappropriate to suggest that we have not done some very important things. Indeed, we have ensured that ACM cladding is coming off social and private-sector blocks. That has meant the commitment of some considerable amount of public money, but it is the right thing to do.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and I agree with many—all, I think—of the points that have been made, but two underlying issues do not seem to have been addressed. The first is the clear failure of the authorities in this instance—it appears also to be true of Barking—to listen to the concerns of residents. In Grenfell, there were anxieties about not only the cladding but the lack of containment between flats, which used to be a common feature of most council blocks, the removal of the piping in the ducts, the lack of a sprinkler system and the lack of an effective alarm system. All those things had been raised months and years before the tragedy happened by the people who lived there, and by and large they were ignored. From the instant reports from Barking, it sounds as though a very similar situation arose there. It is part of what is often a failure of the authorities to recognise the expertise of the people who live in these premises and understand the situation. Unless there is a more responsive attitude by the authorities, regrettably, we will see more of these tragedies. Whatever we do to change the law and the regulations, effectively the best policers of the situations in those buildings will be the residents themselves, and we need to listen to them.
The second aspect, which would reinforce that, is resources. It is not just a question of the regulations. We know that in most local authorities building regulation has become a Cinderella service, and quite frequently seriously understaffed. Unless we—from the Government through to local authorities—put more people into building regulation, planning departments and the Health and Safety Executive, the buildings we put up now will not be fit for purpose, in the same way that Grenfell eventually and tragically turned out to be not fit for purpose. Those two features also need to be addressed as part of the culture or agency for the people who live there, to whom the right reverend Prelate referred, as a comprehensive and holistic solution to these issues.
Finally, it is still not comprehensible to those who were living in Kensington and know the situation that there have been no prosecutions. Until that is remedied, this tragic episode cannot be truly finished.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for that important contribution. I shall take his three points in the order he made them. The first was on the failure of the authorities. It is a very fair point, and something we are focused on. He will understand that I cannot comment on the situation in Barking; it is very early days and we have not yet analysed it sufficiently to be able to comment on it. However, I accept that something central to the messages that we are getting and to common sense is that the people who know their housing best are the people who live in it. That fundamental lesson needs to sink in and be taken forward.
I know that noble Lords and many others think the public inquiry is painfully slow, but 200,000 documents are being examined and will inform the response of the three commissioners. I very much welcome the additional two commissioners. They will be very helpful, but I agree with the point the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is making. In relation to resources, the budget is important. Changes in regulations will no doubt feature in the spending review, but I would not disagree with that either.
In relation to prosecutions and the police situation, the noble Lord will know that the separation of powers is such that I cannot comment in any detail on what is happening. Indeed, I do not know in any detail what is happening, but interviews have been held under caution. In such a situation, one would expect there to be potential for ensuring that those who are to blame for aspects of this are brought to justice. While the matters that relate to the police are quite rightly not within the control of government on a daily basis, it seems that work is happening in that regard.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests as set out in the register. I want to raise two issues about tenants’ rights, both of which have been proposed by Grenfell United. The first is that there should be a new, separate consumer protection regulator to protect tenants and change the culture of social housing across the country—in other words, not just leaving everything within the remit of the current system of regulation. That idea has merit, and I hope the Government will be willing to look at it. The second relates to freedom of information. Grenfell United is—in my view, rightly—calling for an extension of the Freedom of Information Act to cover tenant management organisations and housing associations, to give tenants the right to see critical information about their homes. Have the Government done anything about that, as previously proposed? It seems to me that tenants, as occupiers of their dwellings, have a right to know what their landlord knows about their property.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for the constructive way in which he approaches these issues, as always. I have not yet read the document that Grenfell United distributed today but I will no doubt have that opportunity, as will other Ministers. Obviously, in the context of the social housing Green Paper and the subsequent legislation, there will be an opportunity to look at some of these points. Certainly, the point that the noble Lord made about freedom of information seems a very sensible way forward. I do not want to commit us to anything at this stage, other than to say that we will look at this issue very seriously along with the other proposals that have been made. As I said, these people know the situation better than anybody else and we do right to consider what they say.
National Health Service Commissioning Board and Clinical Commissioning Groups (Responsibilities and Standing Rules) (Amendment) Regulations 2019
(4 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
That this House regrets that the National Health Service Commissioning Board and Clinical Commissioning Groups (Responsibilities and Standing Rules) (Amendment) Regulations 2019, in the rate increase that the National Health Service pays to care homes to cover the costs of services, include an unrealistic “efficiency expectation” of 3.1 per cent that may lead to further shortfalls in social care funding; and further regrets that Her Majesty's Government still do not have a long-term funding package for social care, which is urgently needed to alleviate financial instability in the care home sector (SI 2019/789).
Relevant document: 47th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, first, I declare my interests as outlined in the register.
If ever a statutory instrument were crying out to be discussed on the Floor of the House, this one must rate pretty highly for a number of reasons, not least the instability in this sector and the lack of, and disgraceful delay in bringing forward, a long-term strategy for the social care sector. I might do the parliamentary equivalent of a scream if the Minister uses the words “soon” or “imminent” with regard to the strategy.
The somewhat dry words of a statutory instrument, particularly this one, conceal a reality—the lives and security of people for whom we have a responsibility as a society, as family members and in our communities, and this is the reason for my Motion to Regret. Each threat to a care home that houses the oldest and most vulnerable people in our community means, literally, that people will die. They will die when they are moved or they will become ill from the stress of not knowing what the future holds for them or where they might end up living. They wonder whether the people who look after them will be kind and caring.
At the beginning of Carers Week, this seems an appropriate debate. Carers care for their loved ones in their home, but there are also many carers who support their loved ones in residential care when caring at home becomes impossible and too demanding, particularly for older carers.
This instrument increases the rates that the NHS pays to care homes to cover the costs of services that must be carried out by a registered nurse, called the FNC rate. As noble Lords know, accommodation and social care costs are the responsibility of either the local authority and/or the individual, subject to the outcome of a needs assessment and financial assessment.
The 4.7% increase this year is influenced by the outcome of a Supreme Court case on the Welsh FNC rate and by a subsequent review by LaingBuisson. Information about this is helpfully included in appendix 1 of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report that goes with this statutory instrument. The rate that has been set includes a 3.1% “efficiency expectation” of nursing home providers. Given the recent reports in the press about financial instability in the care home sector, it begs the question of how realistic that assumption is. These changes took effect on 26 April 2019, rather than 1 April as is usual, and the Department of Health and Social Care published a statement on 5 April saying:
“The findings of the study were delayed, following requests to improve the robustness of the data collected and an increase to the sample size of surveyed nursing homes. With an overall budget of approximately £675m for NHS-funded Nursing Care in 2018-19, any changes to the NHS-funded Nursing Care rates have significant financial consequences for both the NHS and nursing home providers”.
The background to the additional information that the Department of Health and Social Care has provided is that in August 2017 the Supreme Court ruled against the Welsh local health boards on how they had set the FNC rate in Wales. The administration and operation of the Welsh FNC rate is separate from the rate in England. However, the basis for FNC in legislation is very similar in Wales and England, and the judgment of the Supreme Court also impacts on how the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care must set the FNC rate in England.
The Supreme Court judgment set out an expanded definition of what constitutes nursing care by a registered nurse and stated that the FNC rate should pay for the costs of everything within that definition—that is, direct and indirect time on nursing care; paid breaks; time receiving supervision; stand-by time; and time spent on providing, planning, supervising or delegating the provision of other types of care which in all the circumstances ought to be provided by a registered nurse because they are ancillary to, closely connected with, or part and parcel of the nursing care which the nurse has to provide.
That definition is being applied to the FNC rate in the context of the LaingBuisson study, which has shown that FNC costs have continued to increase at a sustained and above-inflation rate since the last full study of FNC in 2016. Since 2016, the pay component of the national tariff has been used to apply inflationary uplifts to the FNC rate, so it is believed to be appropriate to accompany this with an efficiency factor. I fail to see how that is justified.
I thank the department for that explanation. However, I looked in vain for a sign of any upgrading for the care staff who work in care homes. Of course, there is none. Why is that? When do the care staff who carry out such important and personal work get the pay, training and recognition that they deserve? When will the funding for residential care be resolved? How can the NHS long-term plan possibly be delivered if the funding of social care is not also resolved?
The truth is that the UK is running out of care home places and care home operators are collapsing. The Guardian published an article on 6 June detailing concerns about care homes collapsing under financial pressure and the impact that this is having on vulnerable people. The British Geriatrics Society has warned that,
“soon there will not be enough”,
care homes,
“to look after the growing number of vulnerable older people needing specialist care”.
More than 100 care home operators collapsed in 2018, taking the total over five years to more than 400 and sparking warnings that patients in homes that close down could be left with nowhere to go but hospitals, and we know what that means in terms of costs and bed blocking.
Three out of five MPs say that people in their constituencies are suffering because of cuts to social care, with three-quarters saying that there is a crisis in care in England. That is according to a recent poll by the NHS Confederation, which leads Health for Care, a coalition of 15 organisations. In other words, there is a rising demand for social care but the cost of care is rising far more quickly than the money that local authorities pay for it. In some cases that money is being cut and in many others it is not rising at all.
The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services has shown that councils had £700 million of social care cuts planned in 2018-19, despite growing demand. I do not see how that is consistent with the regulations before us today. Major operators to suffer financial difficulty include Four Seasons Health Care, which was put up for sale after rescue talks failed, seven years on from the high-profile collapse of Southern Cross Healthcare. It was reported that a care home which was part of Four Seasons Health Care had left a patient without medication for two days.
These are our most vulnerable members of society and we have a duty to care for and protect them. However, they are being let down by an underfunded sector that is under constant and growing strain. Care England has called for the Government to put more money into social care to avoid a shortage of beds in a sector that provides care and accommodation for more than 400,000 residents. The future of funding for the sector is due to be laid out this year in a much delayed government Green Paper intended to address a £3.5 billion shortfall expected by 2025.
So, with care homes already crumbling under the pressure of an underfunded sector, it becomes a greater concern that the increase in charges may exacerbate the existing situation. There is concern that these charges will leader to further shortfalls in social care funding. Furthermore, these regulations come at a time when there is a lack of clarity surrounding the long-term care plan, which is needed to alleviate financial instability in the care home sector. Can the Minister confirm the impacts that these regulations may have on an already struggling care home sector? How do the Government plan to keep people in appropriate care settings with the recent care home closures, and when will we see an appropriate care plan? I beg to move.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I share some of the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton—she has dug out a few that I have not mentioned or even thought of. Many of us here will have had friends or family in receipt of this funding. My mother received it towards the end of her life. By way of clarification, can the Minister confirm whether FNC is funded in the same way as end-of-life care? If so, is there the same sort of uplift?
It would be good to look at this in the context of a Green Paper. I know that that is a dig and something that we say frequently, but so much of this would be much easier to debate in your Lordships’ House if we had a Green Paper to read and could try to understand the Government’s intentions.
These changes will impact on CCG funding with effect from 26 April, so the increase is not within the CCGs’ budget for this year. What will the extra cost be to CCGs? Is there likely to be an in-year top-up to cover it, however small?
The patients we are talking about will be resident in nursing homes. I wonder whether the sector was consulted about the changes. What was its reaction to LaingBuisson’s estimate of a 3.1% efficiency uplift? What was LaingBuisson’s rationale? If the Minister has that in her notes, I would be interested to know where the 3.1% came from. Why was it not 3%? I am sure that a lot of people would like to know that—not least the sector.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD)
If my noble friend will allow me, I would like to ask a question. Is it not the case that the people who work in this sector are, by and large, extraordinarily low-paid while caring for some of the neediest people in this country? The collapse of so many providers in the sector suggests there is something fundamentally wrong, to which efficiency savings do not seem a realistic response.
Baroness Jolly
My noble friend makes a very good point. The majority of people who work in the sector are care workers on the basic minimum wage, or something related to that. What we are discussing this evening is nursing care which will be paid at a union rate; nevertheless, it is stretching the sector.
The Minister knows about the shortage of nurses, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, spoke about the shortage of care workers. Why do we have restrictions on agency nurses’ nursing hours of 10% of the total? Clearly, we cannot have agency nurses covering the whole thing; everyone across both health and social care frets about agency nursing and its expense over and above that of paying for directly employed people. But what is a nursing home to do if there are no salaried nurses available? Is the 10% smoothed over a month or a year? Is this realistic? How realistic is it for less than 10% of nursing hours to be delivered by the agency? This will be locally variable—relatively straightforward, perhaps, in city settings but where my noble friend and I live in Cornwall, people such as agency nurses are like hens’ teeth. This is not straightforward, and I am not convinced that it is absolutely workable.
This measure looks hurried, but I suppose any increase is welcome. I await the Minister’s response to some of the comments that I have made and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford) (Con)
My Lords, I open with an apology for the state of my voice. I shall do my utmost to make myself heard and make it to the end of my speech. If I do not manage to answer all the points made, I shall write not only to the two noble Baronesses who have raised questions but to all those present in the debate, and will place a copy of that letter in the Library.
I would also like to identify myself with the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, regarding Carers Week, and to pay tribute to all those carers in this country who make tremendous sacrifices for those they care for. We should all thank them for the work they do. Our system would not cope without them; we should all be very grateful.
I turn to the questions that have been raised. NHS funded nursing care is of course an incredibly important part of the health and care system, supporting the provision of nursing care in nursing homes. The NHS funded nursing care rate plays the important role of ensuring that neither individuals nor local authorities have to pay for nursing care, which is the responsibility of the NHS. My department is seeking to ensure that nursing home providers are paid a fair rate for employing registered nurses, so that nursing care can be provided to all who need it. On the point that was just raised, it is helpful to know that the average pay for registered nurses in the independent sector has now risen from £23,400 to £29,400, so that is the benchmark we are talking about.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, raised the issue of the nursing care rate for 2019-20, which my department set in regulations in April. This was done, as she said, following the LaingBuisson report into the costs of providing NHS funded nursing care to nursing home providers, after further consideration by my department. Following this work, the rate has increased by 4.7%, which is a significant increase above inflation, as has been recognised. The efficiency expectation, which is regretted in tonight’s Motion, should be seen in the context not only of this above-inflation increase but in the context of the significant increase of 40% which came in 2016-17; that is part of the picture that the efficiency expectation was put in place to address.
It is only right at a time of continued and much-needed investment into nursing home providers—ensuring they are able to employ and retain registered nurses—that the Government and the NHS also expect those providers to deliver as efficient a service as possible and value for money to the taxpayer. The 4.7% increase in the nursing care rate for 2019-20 is a far larger increase than that being seen in the vast majority of prices across the wider public sector and NHS; this is because of the priority that we have set on that rate. For example, the NHS national tariff is increasing the majority of prices in the NHS by 2.7% for 2019-20. The national tariff has also asked most NHS providers to make efficiencies of 3.1% across 2018-19 and 2019-20, and the Government believe that while still getting an above-inflation increase, nursing home providers should be able to do the same.
The LaingBuisson report provided evidence showing that many nursing home providers are already delivering nursing care more efficiently than others, so there is variability in the system. The study shows wide variation in the cost of delivering nursing care, even when factors such as region or provider size are taken into account. Efficient providers surveyed were shown to deliver an hour of NHS funded nursing care for 18% less than others. Additionally, the study showed that nursing home providers are increasing their use of agency nurses, as has been discussed. An hour of agency nursing costs 47% more to providers, and so, obviously, to the NHS. We believe that providers can work to reduce the proportion of their workload covered by agency nurses, as we have required other parts of the NHS to do, in a sustainable way.
There is a need to ensure value for money in important NHS services and to maintain their sustainability. The Government believe that efficiencies can be made in relation to the rate this year—for example, in the use of agency nurses. However, this is still within the context of a significant and above-inflation increase to the nursing care rate. That is why we think that the rate set is achievable.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, also raised the important issue of the need for a long-term funding settlement for social care and financial sustainability for the sector, as she has on more than one occasion in this Chamber. The Government have already given councils access to around £10 billion of additional dedicated funding for social care over this spending review period. This includes a £240 million adult social care winter fund for 2018-19, and again for 2019-20, to help local authorities. It is the biggest injection of funding for winter pressures that councils have ever received. As a result of the measures the Government have taken, funding available for adult social care is increasing by 8% in real terms from 2015-16 to 2019-20. Councils have responded by increasing their spending on social care, so the money has gone where it was supposed to, which is always encouraging.
Local authorities were also able to increase the average fees paid for older people’s residential and nursing care by 6.4% in 2017-18, which we believe brought more stability to the market. When we look into the detail of the figures we see that, while there has been a reduction in the number of care homes, the overall number of social care beds has remained broadly constant over the last nine years, with an increase in nursing beds and care home agencies. As in any market, there will be inevitable entries and exits of care organisations, but we feel that there is some consistency. It is more reassuring than it may appear on the surface.
As we have also discussed, social care funding for future years will be settled in the spending review, where the overall approach to funding of local government will be considered in the round. We are also looking ahead to ensure that the social care system is sustainable in the longer term so that we can continue to deliver as our society ages. This is why the Government have committed to publishing a Green Paper at the earliest opportunity, setting out proposals for reform.
I hope I have answered the majority of the questions raised by the noble Baronesses. If I have failed to respond to anything, I hope they will allow me to write.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the Minister for that answer. I am not completely convinced about the stability of the care home sector. I think we have some major problems coming down the line. Of course, like the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, I welcome an increase in payment for nursing staff, because that is absolutely essential. However, we have to take seriously the issue of social care staff who work in homes or a domiciliary setting. They do not get the attention or esteem they deserve, or the training they need, and they are certainly not paid sufficiently, yet we still expect them to deliver the best possible service. This statutory instrument is not the place where that can be solved, but it amplifies the challenges we face here.
On that basis, I thank the Minister for getting through that answer without completely losing her voice. We heard everything she had to say. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.