House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Mims Davies)
We are pleased to announce that we will be reviewing the guidance as part of the civil society strategy published last year, and we still anticipate launching the review before the summer recess. In fact, I hope to do it next week.
Alex Norris
Up and down the country, there is less and less for our young people to do. The Government’s own civil society strategy says that youth work and youth services can be “transformational”, so why has funding for them fallen by 70% since 2010?
Mims Davies
This Government are committed to supporting youth activities and our young people. In fact, I have had several meetings just this week on the youth charter and our vision for young people over the next 10 years. The National Lottery is supporting positive activities for our young people through £80 million of funding, and of course we have the National Citizen Service.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Government’s serious violence strategy rightly placed programmes for young people at its heart. Will the Minister assure the House that that strategy is going to start delivering those projects on the ground, to divert young people away from gangs and crime?
Mims Davies
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. The Secretary of State and I were part of the Prime Minister’s summit on serious violence in April this year. It is right that we take a multi-agency approach to tackling knife crime and serious violence. The Government are investing £200 million in the youth endowment fund to support interventions with young people, and particularly those who are at risk.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
On Independence Day, may I congratulate all my American cousins on this fine day when they broke away from Britain? I still have my green card from when I emigrated.
Youth services should learn from what is done in the best cities in the United States. It is high time that we put proper Government resources into youth services and stopped relying on charities, although partnerships are good. The fact of the matter is that in most constituencies, youth services are on their knees.
Mims Davies
I thank our charity sector for the work that it does in this area. The hon. Gentleman is right that we should not rely on charities, although we must learn from and listen to them, and listen to young people. In terms of lessons from America, one issue that came up in the knife crime summit was that particular social media platforms are allowing groups to come together, organise and cause more problems on our streets. This Department is determined to ensure that we work together, in both my sector and that of my hon. Friend the Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries, to support and keep our young people safe.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I agree that local authorities have a role to play in youth services, as well as the charitable and voluntary sector, but does the Minister agree that the private sector also has a role? In my neighbouring constituency of Grimsby, a youth zone is being proposed, funded by local entrepreneurs. Does she agree that that is one way forward?
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for raising entrepreneurship, which seems to be a theme in our party at the moment. Looking again to America, we can and must learn from altruism and philanthropy. I thank people for giving directly back to their community, which we encourage in the civil society strategy.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I am delighted to see so many of my former Whips Office colleagues, including the Chief Whip, in the Chamber to hear me speak at the Dispatch Box for the first time—no pressure.
UK Youth, a leading national charity, estimates that the National Citizen Service underspent by more than £50 million this year. Many organisations are desperate to support our young people. Will the Minister explain what plans the Government have to reallocate the underspend to the many fantastic charities that support our wonderful young people?
Mims Davies
I welcome the hon. Lady to her post. I know that she is very passionate about this area and was part of our knife crime summit in April. I met UK Youth and the NCS yesterday as part of our youth charter work. Work is going on with the Treasury to ensure that all our youth sector is supported, including through the underspend of the NCS.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
The Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries (Margot James)
The Government’s superfast broadband programme has met its target and is now providing superfast coverage to 97% of premises, including 94.8% of premises in my hon. Friend’s constituency. In addition, we have just launched the rural gigabit connectivity programme, with £200 million of funding, to begin to deliver even faster, gigabit speeds to the most remote and rural parts of the UK.
Daniel Kawczynski
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Clearly, improved access to superfast broadband in places such as Shropshire will reduce the number of car journeys needing to be made. What assessment has her Department made of that improvement in helping us to reach the net zero carbon contribution target we have set?
Margot James
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Although we have not conducted a specific study on the environmental impact of faster broadband speeds, we have considered it as part of a wider evaluation. We have found that the use of cloud computing has an effect in reducing commuting time, and we will be exploring this more specifically in our superfast broadband programme evaluation next year.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
May I ask the Minister, in using the word “rural”, not to forget communities in the south Wales valleys that can be quite socially isolated? Will she set out what funding she will put in place to deal with the geography of some of the south Wales valleys, which are still suffering with painfully slow broadband?
Margot James
I think the hon. Gentleman asked me a similar question last summer, and I am delighted to say that his intervention last year led directly to my recommending to the Chancellor that he include the Welsh valleys in the first pilot of the roll-out of the rural gigabit connectivity programme, so the hon. Gentleman can hold us to that. I also want to mention that the voucher scheme has been enhanced, so that small and medium-sized enterprises in the Welsh valleys will now get access to a voucher worth £3,500 and residents a voucher worth £1,500 to connect on to the public buildings that the programme will connect.
Joseph Johnson (Orpington) (Con)
In my hon. Friend’s excellent work in rolling out broadband to rural areas, will she ensure that we do not inadvertently neglect urban and semi-urban areas in the London borough of Bromley? Areas around Down and Farnborough village have woeful access and, sadly, BT does not have plans to roll out the fibre needed to upgrade it. Could she possibly help?
Margot James
I will certainly help my hon. Friend. He points out that suburban and urban areas have a really worrying lack of access not so much to superfast, but certainly to decent speeds. We are incorporating those via incentives to the private sector to connect. That is now going very well indeed, with Openreach alone connecting 20,000 premises a week.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
As more and more of our banks are closing branches across the country, it is becoming vital for people, particularly in rural areas, to have access to online facilities and good broadband. The way this has been rolled out, particularly in Scotland, has not suited rural communities. Can the Minister assure me that there will be discussions with the Treasury, the Scottish Government and the local authorities that will be involved in the future to ensure that our communities in Scotland actually get a better service and are able to access finances?
Margot James
I sympathise with the hon. Lady. Unfortunately, there have been appalling delays to the procurement system underpinning the Scottish Government’s R100—Reaching 100%—programme. I am reliably informed that they are almost at the end of that process and that they are about to award contracts this autumn. It has been a painful process, but my officials have been discussing it with the Scottish Government, and I am confident that it will be improved. We also have programmes from my Department that are already rolling out in Scotland.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister will be aware that, under the confidence and supply agreement with the Democratic Unionist party, the Government have set aside some hundreds of millions of pounds for rural broadband across all of Northern Ireland. What discussions has she had with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in Northern Ireland to ensure that that rural broadband roll-out is completed?
Margot James
I know that in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and in the rest of Northern Ireland there has obviously been a delay in deploying that budget on account of there being no Government in Northern Ireland. My officials are in discussions with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to ameliorate that situation, and I will write to him with the latest details.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Jeremy Wright)
We have asked the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation to review the potential for bias in the use of algorithms, and it is considering usage in both the public and private sectors on crime and justice, financial services, recruitment and local government. The centre will publish an interim report later this month, and it will make recommendations to the Government early next year. We will then decide how to proceed.
Chi Onwurah
The past 10 years have seen the most revolutionary and rapid changes in how technology is used in public services, politics, work and leisure, yet the Government have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to implement the most basic digital protections, and they are behind even Google and Facebook in calling for regulation. The Secretary of State talks about another review, but algorithmic bias is a threat to all our citizens in the form of algorithmic rule. Will he take the opportunity to get on the front foot and put in place regulations to protect our citizens?
Jeremy Wright
We are on the front foot, and the hon. Lady’s characterisation is entirely wrong. The world looks to the UK as a leader in this field. I talk to counterparts across the world about the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, and they are interested in a move that we are making that no one else has yet made. As the hon. Lady knows—she has looked carefully at this issue—the online harms White Paper will deal with a range of issues and produce regulation that is, once again, world leading.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Jeremy Wright)
The Government are disappointed with the BBC’s decision on the licence fee concession for the over-75s. Taxpayers want the BBC to use its substantial licence fee income in an appropriate way, to ensure that it delivers for UK audiences. The Government expect the BBC to consider further ways to support older people, and I recently met the BBC management to discuss what more it could do.
Gavin Newlands
The BBC is not a benefits agency. Both Tory leadership contenders have condemned the proposal to remove free TV licences from the over-75s, and stated that that must be reversed. The director-general has rightly said that the Government are responsible for the TV licence proposal, and that he would be open to conversations about reversing it. Will the Secretary of State tell the House when further conversations may happen, and when will that benefit cut be reversed?
Jeremy Wright
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the decision to transfer that responsibility to the BBC was taken in 2017 by this House in the Digital Economy Act 2017. I assure him that conversations about what more we expect of the BBC will continue, and we expect it to do more.
Jessica Morden
Without hiding behind the BBC again, will the Minister explain to my constituent, who rang up incensed, why his 86-year-old neighbour, who is a veteran and relies on his TV for company, should have his TV licence taken away? Last week the Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ellwood), who opened the debate on Armed Forces Day, thought that was unfair—does the Minister?
Jeremy Wright
Nobody is hiding behind the BBC. Legislation has now provided that this decision should be for the BBC to take, and if the hon. Lady listens to the BBC, that is exactly its message—it is its decision and responsibility. She makes a good point about veterans, and I have raised that issue with the BBC. I expect it to be able to do more for veterans, and it should.
David Linden
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) the Secretary of State referred to 2017, but in that year his party’s manifesto stated that there would be no cut to free TV licences. On Monday, people in Duke Street were infuriated by that move. There are 6,500 over-75s in my constituency. Will the Minister come and visit and tell them why he is planning to cut their free TV licence?
Jeremy Wright
I am happy to send the message that I share their disappointment, and I have made that clear on a number of occasions. In fact, we can go back further than 2017, because in 2015 the arrangement was made with the BBC that this responsibility would transfer to it as part of the charter settlement. The BBC has known about this for some time, and it had the opportunity to prepare for it. In our view, it needs to do better.
Rosie Duffield
In my constituency of Canterbury, there are some 6,250 households at risk of losing their free TV licence. Why are the Government failing to live up to their responsibility to older residents? Is it simply the case that they are entirely complacent about receiving their support in any upcoming general election?
Jeremy Wright
No, I do not accept that for one moment. The Government’s record on support for older people has been remarkable. We have been able to provide £1,600 more per year for those on the state pension than was managed in 2010 under a Labour Government. We have done more on loneliness than any Government before us. We introduced a Minister with responsibility for tackling loneliness. For the first time, we have a strategy on loneliness and we have put our money where our mouth is with £20 million of investment. I am afraid the Labour party in government did none of those things.
Mr Jim Cunningham
If it was a decision for the BBC, why did the Government put it in their manifesto? Does the Minister not think he has a moral obligation to make up the difference if the BBC has a problem? Many pensioners suffer from loneliness and for them the BBC is a lifeline to the world.
Jeremy Wright
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of loneliness, and I will repeat the points I have just made. The Government have done a huge amount to combat this very substantial social problem. The truth is that we still expect the BBC to do better in this area, but it is the BBC’s responsibility. The responsibility was transferred to the BBC in 2017, after it was agreed with it in 2015. The BBC itself has made it clear that this is now its responsibility.
Daniel Zeichner
In the London Evening Standard on 11 June, there was a very interesting headline on page two, stating:
“Tax campaigners defend axing of free TV licences for wealthy OAPs”.
Wealthy old-age pensioners? Will the Secretary of State join me in condemning the slippery language used by the editor of the London Evening Standard, an architect of this debacle? My 5,000 pensioners who risk losing their free TV licence in Cambridge are not wealthy.
Jeremy Wright
As the hon. Gentleman says, wealthy pensioners are not the only ones who will lose their TV licence. That is certainly right. That is exactly why we continue to say to the BBC that it needs to do better than it is doing at the moment.
There are some very interesting statistics that I should perhaps share with the House at this point. Last year and this financial year, the BBC has been sharing with the Government the cost of the over-75 licence concession. Last year, the cost of the concession was £677 million. The Government paid £468 and the BBC paid £209 million. This financial year, the cost is £700 million. The Government paid £247 million and the BBC paid £453 million. The cost of the concession as the BBC intends to operate it from 2020 onwards is, by its estimate, £260 million. That is substantially less than the BBC is paying towards to the concession this financial year. The BBC would say, and I would agree with it, that it is able to supply a good service this year while still paying £453 million towards that concession. That seems to be an interesting statistic.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Why not get rid of TV licences altogether for everyone and force the BBC to compete for its revenues like every other broadcaster? The supermarket equivalent would be forcing everyone, under threat of criminal sanction, to spend £150 in Tesco even if they shop at Aldi, Sainsbury’s, Co-op or elsewhere.
Jeremy Wright
I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. In previous years we looked carefully at whether this is the right way to fund the BBC, and the conclusion reached was that it is. The Government have no plans to change that fundamental funding model.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
Does the law allow the BBC to discriminate? If it does, should it not be the BBC that is responsible for bringing prosecutions, not the state?
Jeremy Wright
My right hon. Friend raises an interesting point. As I have said, it is of course a matter for the BBC to decide how this concession should be structured. It is open to the BBC, as it has demonstrated, to choose a model that does not offer a free TV licence to every over-75 year old. The question of enforcement is an interesting one that we will go on considering. I would hope very much that the BBC will take seriously the comments of my right hon. Friend and others about how this obligation should be properly enforced in the future.
Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
Perhaps the most difficult part of growing old is the loss of a husband, wife or partner—the person you have shared your every day and every thought with, often over a lifetime. There are nearly 600,000 widowed men and 1.5 million widowed women over the age of 75. An estimated seven out of 10 widows and widowers will lose their free TV licence. That is nearly 1.5 million people who have lost their life partner who will now be stripped of the comfort of their television by this Conservative Government. Can the Secretary of State live with that?
Jeremy Wright
The decision that has been made is to transfer that responsibility to the BBC. How the BBC chooses to exercise its responsibility is, as it and we say, its responsibility. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is a fair one, and it needs to be heard by the BBC as it decides what more it can do to help those who are in particular need or are particularly vulnerable. That is exactly the conversation that I am having with the BBC at the moment, and that we will continue. The decision for the hon. Gentleman is how he intends to back up the pledges that he has so far made to take that responsibility back to the taxpayer, and how he intends to fund that change.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Mims Davies)
I am excited and proud to be working cross-Government, with this Department leading, on developing a new youth charter for our young people—the Government’s vision for the next 10 years—and that work has continued this week. The Government invest in the Centre For Youth Impact to support sector-led evaluation and to build evidence of the impact of local youth services, and we are working with the National Youth Agency and partners to renew the youth worker qualifications and review that curriculum.
Tim Loughton
“Positive for Youth” was the Government’s last comprehensive youth policy document. It contained many good examples of joint project working between local authorities and charities and philanthropic businesses, a pledge to youth-proof Government policy, and a pledge to publish annually a set of national measures to demonstrate progress in improving outcomes for young people. When does the Minister plan to update the House on that progress?
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for his pertinent reminder to the Government and the House to focus on our youth. I believe that the youth charter will reaffirm the Government’s commitment. It will state that our young people should have a strong voice, and that we must listen to it and take note of the issues that they care about. It will set out how we should act on what they tell us and, more importantly, it will state that we are actively involving them in key policy making. It is vital that we do that. I had the youth steering group in with me just this week. So the sector is very much being heard, and will be reported back and listened to.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
The Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries (Margot James)
The UK’s independent broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, is responsible for radio spectrum planning, and Ofcom’s view is that due to the general scarcity of FM spectrum, the scope for additional frequency resources to be made available to commercial radio is extremely limited. Ofcom’s current priority for the use of remaining FM spectrum is community radio, and I hope that will be of benefit to Morecambe Bay.
David Morris
Will the Minister carry out an investigation of the audit suitability for FM spectrum in the north of Lancashire as soon as possible, to free up any spectrum service that should be licensed, to facilitate a new local service, as we need more local services in that region?
Margot James
I agree with my hon. Friend that we need more local services, but there is more than one route to that. I cannot undertake to commence a review of the north-west specifically, and it is for the independent regulator Ofcom to distribute remaining FM frequency, but I would like to reassure my hon. Friend that the development of small-scale DAB multiplexes will provide many opportunities for community radio stations, not least in the Lancaster and Morecambe area.
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Mims Davies)
As we have heard this morning, the UK is a world leader in tackling loneliness, and the first Government loneliness strategy was launched last October. It has been globally recognised, and includes the £11.5 million building connections fund, announced over Christmas, which is a partnership between the Government, the National Lottery and the Co-op Foundation. The first progress report is due later this year. Last month, we launched the Let’s Talk Loneliness campaign, which is all about reducing stigma. The hashtag alone has had 5.5 million impressions globally.
Gillian Keegan
I am proud of the work that the Government are doing on loneliness, but according to Age UK more than 2 million people in England over the age of 75 live alone. Loneliness is thought to be as harmful to our health as smoking 15 cigarettes a day. In Chichester, we have some fantastic projects such as the Rotary Club’s Building A Generation, in which every two weeks older people go into Chichester College and meet, and share experiences with, college students. What more support is available to encourage such innovative, community-based solutions for tackling loneliness and to help to spread them more quickly across the country?
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work done by all the great charities in her community to tackle loneliness at all ages. Support is available for community-based projects, including two pots of Government funding. There is £1 million for the Tech To Connect challenge—I know my hon. Friend is interested in tech—to address social isolation, and the fund will be managed by Nesta. We also have the Space To Connect fund, which will be part-managed by the Co-op and will have £1.6 million to open up community spaces. Everything happening in Chichester is helping people come together, and I welcome that.
Mr Speaker
These Chichester people seem very decent folk indeed. I think it is partly the effect of the Member.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Earlier this year, the Minister was good enough to come to a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on suicide and self-harm prevention and speak to us about the loneliness strategy. What steps will she take in response to the Samaritans’ paper on loneliness in young people, which is a particular concern?
Mims Davies
I particularly remember that meeting and I welcomed the opportunity to join her. We currently have 60 different policies across nine Departments, but I would like to point out that loneliness and isolation can affect people at any age and at any time—including young carers and care leavers. We need to support everybody of every age and every gender. I hope that the new policies that we are working on and will announce later this year will have a youth focus.
John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)
The Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries (Margot James)
The regulatory framework for commercial radio on FM and AM set nearly 30 years ago has not kept pace with market changes, and we have taken steps to address that. I welcome Ofcom’s October 2018 changes to the localness guidance, which will reduce the burdens on commercial radio while maintaining requirements for local stations to provide local news and other content.
John Grogan
Given that media giant Global has cut no fewer than 11 local radio studios in England, despite making massive profits, is there not a danger that under those weaker Ofcom regulations commercial local radio will increasingly lose its localness, and broadcasts will be made from London or several regional centres?
Margot James
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, but the localness guidelines are strict and tough, and will require large commercial radio corporations to have local studios. They will have to provide a serious amount of local news content, weather, driving information and so on, so I do not share his concern. It is up to Ofcom to police this, and it is doing a good job. We must remember that for local commercial radio, and indeed community radio, to be sustainable, they needed a lighter touch regulatory regime.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
May I briefly beg your indulgence, Mr Speaker, to congratulate St Fagans Museum in my constituency on winning the museum of the year award, which was presented last night in a ceremony at the Science Museum?
The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) said earlier that we needed more local radio, but the results of this deregulation have been job cuts and fewer stations in what is a profitable commercial sector. Is it not time for the decision to be reviewed to assess its impact on localness, and to ensure that local radio does not just become national commercial radio?
Margot James
The localness guidelines were published as recently as October last year, so I think it would be premature to announce a review of their impact, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that they were welcomed by both commercial and community radio stations. Ofcom has received about 700 expressions of interest in the small-scale DAB multiplexes for which we legislated last month. We hope to be able to complete that legislation by the end of the year so that Ofcom will be able to start issuing licences to hundreds of community radio stations up and down the country. I think that we will see a great growth in this fantastic sector.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Mims Davies)
The Commonwealth Games in Birmingham will be the biggest sporting event ever held in the west midlands. Last week the Government announced that the region would benefit from nearly £800 million of investment. The venues for the games will extend from Royal Leamington Spa to Coventry and to Cannock Chase. There will be 11 days of sport across the west midlands, along with cultural and business engagement, trade and volunteering. The hon. Gentleman should keep his diary clear, because the event will be showcased at the Walsall shopping centre on 20 July.
Eddie Hughes
I understand that the training venues will be announced later this year. Will the Minister put in a good word for the British judo Centre of Excellence in Walsall?
Mims Davies
The available training venues are currently being reviewed. I understand that there has already been an initial meeting with representatives of the British judo Centre of Excellence and the University of Wolverhampton regarding the possible use of their facilities. Many great sporting facilities in the west midlands and, indeed, across the United Kingdom will want to host training events, and I am sure that they will receive a very warm welcome from my hon. Friend.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Five junctions up the M6 from Walsall is the great city of Stoke-on-Trent, which stands ready to play its part. How will the Minister ensure that the benefits to which she has referred are felt throughout our region and not just in the conurbation, and what strategy does her Department have for a long-lasting legacy programme so that those benefits do not disappear once the games have ended?
Mims Davies
The hon. Gentleman has made an important point about the joy that will be felt not only in the west midlands but in the whole of our country. We should bear in mind the economic impact of the games in Glasgow in 2014, which brought more than £740 million to Scotland’s economy, and the £1.3 billion boost for the Gold Coast following the games in Queensland. We expect the Birmingham games to bring jobs and opportunities such as volunteering, with up to 45,000 people involved in delivering the event. This is a catalyst for a legacy in terms of facilities and on the ground, and I am working towards that result as we head towards “three years out”.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Jeremy Wright)
Semi-finals are dangerous places for England’s sports teams. I am sure that the whole House will wish to offer its commiserations to the Lionesses following Tuesday’s result, but also our huge congratulations on their performance throughout the World cup competition. Although it did not produce the result that we wanted, Tuesday’s match attracted the largest live television audience so far this year, and the team has sparked a significant change in the visibility of, and support for, women’s football and women’s sport generally. That in itself is a fantastic achievement. We also send our best wishes to the England men’s cricket team for their semi-final next week in a world cup that has given people around the world another good reason to visit the United Kingdom this year.
Tourism is a significant but often overlooked part of our economy, and last week we launched the tourism sector deal, the first of its kind. The coming together of industry and Government will mean more investment in accommodation, skills and apprenticeships and data to ensure that we attract even more tourists and business visitors. We also intend to ensure that everyone can visit by making the UK the most accessible tourism destination in Europe by 2025. Tourism matters greatly in many of our constituencies, and the sector deal will give it the long-overdue Government recognition that it deserves.
Thangam Debbonaire
May I associate myself with the remarks of the Secretary of State about the Lionesses, and also of course wish good luck to the England cricket team?
The epidemic of appalling online bullying demonstrates that the online world is effectively not abiding by the same rules as the offline world, and people are suffering right now, so now that the consultation on the White Paper on online harms has closed, will the Secretary of State urge the new Prime Minister to prioritise legislative time so that we can sort this law out and protect people who are suffering right now?
Jeremy Wright
Yes. I believe that this is a priority, and I believe that the next Government should see it as such, and I believe that we should see legislation coming forward in the next parliamentary Session. The hon. Lady is right; the consultation on the White Paper concluded yesterday, but as she will have heard me say before, I believe that this is a groundbreaking change that we need to get right, so the Government intend to continue to listen, notwithstanding the fair point she makes about the urgency of the situation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to take this opportunity—I hope the House will join me as I do so—to congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) and the other three members of the string quartet known as Statutory Instruments on their magnificent performance in Speaker’s House on Tuesday lunchtime; it was a virtuoso display of outstanding music—stirring, inspiring and admirable in every way. If you haven’t heard them, you haven’t lived.
Mr Speaker
Yes, particularly the cellist, as the Government Whip on duty chunters from a sedentary position to very considerable public benefit.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Will the Minister update the House on the prospect of the Bayeux tapestry coming to this country on loan after the Bayeux museum is temporarily closed after 2020?
Jeremy Wright
We very much look forward to that prospect. Of course, as my hon. Friend will recognise, there are some technical challenges to be overcome to ensure that the tapestry can be properly displayed and protected, but this is an example of Anglo-French co-operation of which we expect to see a great deal more in the future.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
More than 6 million people watched England take on Scotland in the women’s World cup and, as the Secretary of State just said, nearly 12 million people watched England take on the USA, and we send our condolences to the Lionesses. We have had some iconic and memorable moments. Hayley Lauder from my Livingston constituency got her 100th cap, and none of us will forget that magnificent celebration from Megan Rapinoe that made women and girls everywhere across the world say, “You can take up space; you can celebrate and you can be in sport.”
However, a recent study found that 65% of broadcast sport in Scotland was taken up by men’s football alone, and, as the Secretary of State knows, only 2% of print media is about women’s sport. We must do more to capitalise on the incredible results from the women’s World cup to make sure that women’s sport, and particularly women’s football, continues to be recognised in the way it has been.
Jeremy Wright
I agree with the hon. Lady; she has been a passionate advocate for this for as long as she has been in the House, and I am sure long before, and she is right. But I think we should recognise that some significant progress has been made over the last few weeks and months; even six months ago, if we had said in this House that we expected a women’s football match to have the largest live TV audience of the year so far, standing as we are in July, I do not think any of us would have believed it. So significant progress is being made. It was great to be able to see that match on the BBC on Tuesday and for there to be such a large audience for it. It is, as the hon. Lady says, inspiring girls and women to play more sport, and that is exactly what we want to see more of.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that one of the crucial aspects of tackling loneliness is raising awareness of the services, support and activities that are available in local communities, and what are the Government doing to achieve this?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Mims Davies)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this point, because it is so important. Nobody walks around with an arrow on their head saying that they are lonely. There are times in our life when we feel lost or isolated and we need someone to turn to, so the 1,000 social prescribers will be very helpful. I know that my hon. Friend has done something directly in his own constituency with an older people’s fair—an event around loneliness—to do just that, and I welcome all constituencies doing this.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
On behalf of all my colleagues on the Benches behind me, I would like to wish the very best of luck to the England cricket team. We also wish the best of British to all our British tennis players at Wimbledon, and we would like to thank the Lionesses for inspiring a generation.
Our children are facing a deadly obesity crisis. Obesity is rivalling smoking as a leading cause of cancer. Being healthy is about keeping fit and having a healthier diet, but the sugar tax has also been very welcome in promoting a healthier lifestyle, especially for children and young people. The Sports Minister has a responsible role to play in tackling obesity, so will she today publicly commit to resisting any call to scrap the sugar tax, even from her favoured candidate for Prime Minister?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. She and I share a great passion for getting and keeping our young people active. I hope to announce the school sports action plan, alongside colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education, before the summer recess. We are very close to this. All money that comes into PE and sport from the premium—the levy has doubled this—is important. I hope to see Government investment in school sport continue in any way, shape or form.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
As this is 4 July, Independence Day, and despite this week’s football result, will the Secretary of State, who like me has an American spouse, comment—positively, of course —on the very many benefits of our special relationship with the US?
Jeremy Wright
Neither my hon. Friend nor I would dare to do anything else, today or on any other day. He is right to suggest that this remains a very special relationship, not just in our households but across the nation.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Jeremy Wright
The hon. Lady passionately believes, as do I, in ensuring that help gets to those who need it. Those who are affected by problem gambling, and whose lives are ruined thereby, need help as quickly as they can get it. The reason that I think it appropriate to welcome the moves that have been made by those five companies, as she has done, is that this will deliver help quickly and in the sort of amounts that a mandatory levy was always designed to deliver. Having said all that, if those voluntary commitments are not met, the Government will reserve the right to pursue a mandatory route instead. But let’s get the help to those who need it as quickly as we can.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Manned by local volunteers, the local heritage centres in Desborough, Burton Latimer and Rothwell in the borough of Kettering do much to encourage an interest in local heritage in small communities that have seen much change as a result of new housing developments. What importance does the Department attach to encouraging the promotion of such venues?
Jeremy Wright
The answer is huge importance. My hon. Friend makes the important point that heritage is local as well as national. We can transform our communities in a number of ways, one of which is to give people clearer insights into the wonderful heritage around them. The heritage high streets fund will do that, as will many of the other measures that have been referred to.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Jeremy Wright
I will certainly look at what is happening at the Priory centre, but I know that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, as I do, that £8 million was found in the Budget to support Coventry city of culture, and we both look forward to it being a tremendous success.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Mims Davies
I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady. Sport England is active in communities to ensure that nobody is barred from getting involved in sport, and swimming is crucial as we come to the summer holidays.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
The Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries (Margot James)
We applauded the decision to pass the EU copyright directive, and I have met with bodies from the creative industries to discuss how best to implement it in the UK. That will take a certain amount of time, but we will be looking to protect the intellectual property and artistic creations of our designers and this country’s brilliant creative industries.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Solicitor General (Lucy Frazer)
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about how the justice system supports those who come before it, and witnesses and victims are an important part of that. One way in which the CPS supports victims and witnesses is through the pre-recording of cross-examination evidence, which takes considerable pressure off vulnerable witnesses. Following a successful pilot in three locations, the scheme was rolled out last month to a further six courts, including in Chester.
Justin Madders
The latest Home Office figures show that only 1.7% of reported rape cases even reach the charging stage, so what measures has the CPS put in place to support rape victims giving evidence? What is being done to support the other 98.3% of victims?
The Solicitor General
The CPS takes seriously its role in ensuring that prosecutions do come before the courts. As the hon. Gentleman will know, a cross-governmental review into rape and sexual offences is under way and has already completed its first stage of collecting evidence. We are now looking at the whole system for rape and other serious sexual offences to see how we can improve every stage, including getting more prosecutions and convictions.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
I will not go into the details, but we have had a sensitive local case in which a victim of child sexual exploitation was not supported. A trial did not take place, through no fault of her own. What further action can the Solicitor General take to ensure that victims are supported at all stages of the process?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Last month, I visited the CPS areas of London North and London South and talked about those very issues. I also visited SurvivorsUK, a charity that deals with male victims of sexual abuse, to talk about how we can support people before, during and after the process, which is a critical time.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
It is indeed shocking that 98.3% of reported rapes are not even charged. In a significant number of those cases, further evidence is sought from the police by the CPS, but it simply is not provided. Has the Solicitor General asked the police and her colleagues at the Home Office why that is happening?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of collaboration between the CPS and the police. I know that they work closely together, because I regularly meet the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is working with the police on matters across the board, including several relating to disclosure. I recently met Assistant Commissioner Nick Ephgrave to ensure that we get people to come forward. The number of recorded serious sexual offences is going up, but we need to improve on that, and steps are being taken by the CPS.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
With the greatest respect to the Solicitor General, this is an urgent situation and that is not an answer to the specific question. The reality is that the Crown Prosecution Service is referring matters back to the police, and the police are not coming back to the Crown Prosecution Service with that further evidence.
The Solicitor General mentioned a review in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), but something has to be done about this now. Will she undertake a forensic analysis of why these statistics are so bad, and will she do something about it?
The Solicitor General
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point that shows how the CPS and the police are working better together. The CPS is sending cases back to the police because it is reviewing those cases to ensure they are ready and will not fall when they go to court. Having spoken to the assistant commissioner, I know that 93,000 police officers have undertaken disclosure training to ensure they are better trained so that these cases are ready for trial and will secure successful prosecutions.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Lucy Frazer)
I know my hon. Friend takes very seriously the importance of getting appropriate sentences for those who are convicted, and he worked closely with my predecessor on extending sentences for those who had received lenient sentences. The ULS scheme remains an important part of the justice system to ensure justice for victims’ families.
I can tell my hon. Friend that, in 2018, the Law Officers referred a fifth of all eligible cases to the Court of Appeal and, of those, 73% were found to be unduly lenient. In answer to his question, we are looking carefully at the ambit of the scheme.
Philip Davies
It has been a long-standing promise of this Government to extend the unduly lenient sentence scheme to other offences. Apart from a bit of tinkering, they have basically done very little. May I urge the Solicitor General to get on with it and extend the unduly lenient sentence scheme so that we can have appropriate sentences? That would be good for victims and for restoring people’s faith in the criminal justice system.
The Solicitor General
I assure my hon. Friend that I am looking at this with the Ministry of Justice, but the increase in the number of offences is more than just tinkering. For example, since its inception, the ULS scheme has been extended to some sexual offences, child cruelty, modern slavery and, in 2017-18, a number of terror-related offences. This is something we are looking at.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Can we have clarity on how the scheme works? I have written to Ministers complaining about too lenient sentences and about too severe sentences, and I never hear back. Can we have an explanatory memorandum on how the scheme works and what the follow-up should be?
The Solicitor General
I am happy to do so. A few hon. Members have referred cases to me, and I always write back, so I apologise if that has not happened. If any cases to do with my responsibilities come to him, I would like to know about that. We can discuss how the system works in more detail outside the Chamber but, in brief, a large number of people write to us about cases, which have to satisfy a number of thresholds. The cases have to be referred within 28 days, the sentences have to fall within the scheme and they have to be unduly lenient, not just lenient. There has to be a prospect of the Court of Appeal considering this to be outwith the range. I am happy to discuss these issues with him in more detail.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Many of my constituents were shocked when a fatal stabbing occurred on a quiet residential street in east Barnet. Will the Government consider whether it is time to introduce a tougher sentencing regime for knife crime?
The Solicitor General
The Government have taken a number of measures in relation to knife crime, not only on which weapons can be carried but on the consequences of such offences, including restrictions on the use of the internet and curfews. The Government take this issue seriously, and I am sure the Ministry of Justice, which is in charge of sentencing, is considering these issues.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the Solicitor General believe this scheme is effective enough? We see that, of 943 applications under the scheme in 2017, only 143 were successful in seeing a change to a sentence. Is she prepared to review the scheme in the light of that?
Mr Speaker
I admire very much the hon. Gentleman’s American tie. He is auditioning for a new role as a fashion specialist.
The Solicitor General
I point out to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that 73% of the cases that were referred by the Attorney General’s office resulted in an increase in convictions. The reason for the disparity between the number of cases that are referred to my office and the number that go to the Court of Appeal is that a large number of them do not fall within the scheme in the first place, either because they are out of time or because the offences do not fall within the scheme. We must always remember that the judge has heard the trial, heard the evidence and read the pre-sentence report. Judges up and down the country are doing an outstanding job to ensure that, when crimes have been committed, perpetrators get the sentences that they deserve and victims get the justice that they deserve.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The Attorney General (Mr Geoffrey Cox)
The Crown Prosecution Service is working closely with the police and other Government Departments to prosecute these increasingly complex crimes. In that great county of Northamptonshire, in which the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) is situated, the Crown Prosecution Service prosecuted no fewer than 337 defendants for drugs offences and secured 305 convictions in the year to 2018. The conviction rate for drugs offences in England is over 90%, and last year alone 39,000 convictions were secured by the Crown Prosecution Service for these offences.
Mr Hollobone
Northamptonshire police have done much good work in recent weeks in raiding local cannabis farms and breaking up county lines drug operations linking London with Kettering and other parts of Northamptonshire. Does the Attorney General agree that, when the police catch people doing these awful things, it would help if the Crown Prosecution Service pressed for exemplary sentences to be awarded?
The Attorney General
I strongly agree that it is necessary for us to bear down on drugs gangs, and on county lines drugs gangs. My hon. Friend will know that the Government’s serious violence strategy makes that a priority. In just one week in May, in a targeted effort of co-ordinated law enforcement activity, there were 586 arrests in connection with county lines drugs gangs, and 519 adults and 364 children were entered into safeguarding measures. That is a particularly fine record. I also agree that sentencing must be commensurate with the gravity of the crimes. We will continue to monitor and follow the drugs sentencing guidelines that are connected with these crimes.
Nigel Huddleston
The Attorney General is well aware that drug trafficking is an issue not just for urban areas, but for rural areas, villages and towns. How is he assisting more rural agencies, the CPS and, for example, West Mercia police in tackling drug trafficking?
The Attorney General
My hon. Friend asks a good question in relation to rural crime. We must not forget that drugs offending extends into rural areas—quite often from the larger cities—and particularly into coastal communities such as those that I have the honour of representing. It is important that we do not lose sight of the rural dimension of drugs offences. I can assure him that we will be vigilant about ensuring that in the strategies of the Government, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, rural drugs offending is not omitted from our considerations.
Vicky Ford
In Chelmsford, we have found that the increased number of police on the ground, coupled with the firm use of stop and search, has led to a large number of arrests and then prosecutions. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is vital that all law enforcement agencies work together to tackle drugs gangs?
The Attorney General
I completely agree with what my hon. Friend has said, and it applies, if I may say so, not only to law enforcement agencies, but to other agencies as well. We cannot forget that, particularly in county lines offending, there is a wide range of other dimensions at play and safeguarding agencies are also very important.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Attorney General (Mr Geoffrey Cox)
The priorities of my office are set out in the published business plan for this year. In relation to the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, my priority continues to be to support the successful delivery of the Government’s objectives by giving legal and constitutional advice within the Government. I am of course also engaged in the support of preparations for future international co-operation between the Law Officers’ departments, and with prosecution and other criminal justice operations.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am pleased to hear that the Attorney General is committed to continuing to provide sound legal advice in the face of fantasy politics, which he has a good track record in. Will he confirm that it is the Government’s position that after a no-deal Brexit, article 24 of the general agreement on tariffs and trade cannot be unilaterally invoked to ensure a standstill in current trading arrangements, and that the EU cannot and will not be compelled to trade on that basis?
David Linden
If, as appears to be the case, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), of whom the Attorney General is a supporter, does become the next Prime Minister, will the Attorney General support the right hon. Gentleman’s refusal to rule out a Prorogation of Parliament for a no-deal Brexit? Does he agree that that would surely be an act of constitutional vandalism?
The Attorney General
That question will be reviewed at the time. The circumstances of any application for Prorogation are a matter not for me but for the Prime Minister and Her Majesty.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Will the Attorney General confirm that, with or without a deal, British citizens will still be able to assert their fundamental rights through the British courts after Britain has left the European Union?
The Attorney General
Of course, the United Kingdom, in all its jurisdictions, has one of the strongest records for the rule of law in the world. I have no doubt that that will continue.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Further to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), the Institute for Government has noted that if Parliament was prorogued to facilitate no deal, it would not be possible to pass any Bills or the remaining secondary legislation needed to prepare the UK statute book for such an outcome. Does the Attorney General therefore agree that leaving the EU without a deal and with no functioning Parliament would lead the country into a legislative black hole at a time when people throughout the country would be looking to the Government for emergency actions?
The Attorney General
The House has been given the opportunity of leaving the European Union with a deal on three separate occasions. I do not recall the SNP ever voting for one of them. The answer is quite simple: we can still pass a withdrawal agreement and leave the European Union in an orderly way, but it is now quite clear that the imperative to leave the European Union is overriding. We must leave, and in my view we must do so this year—on 31 October.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Lucy Frazer)
Sexual offences, especially rape and child sexual abuse, are devastating crimes, and across Government we are looking into how we can improve conviction rates and prosecutions in this area of law. As part of the March 2019 violence against women and girls strategy refresh, we have been collecting evidence to help to inform the making of policy going forward. That collection of evidence is now complete and we are now looking across Government at how we can improve the criminal justice system in this area.
Tim Loughton
Court business continues to be dominated by historical sex abuse cases, while conviction rates for recent crimes remain depressingly low. Does the Minister agree that the securing of convictions needs more up-front working, with victims, witnesses, social services, Victim Support, the police and other agencies, to make it easier for victims to come forward and to make the court system more user friendly? What discussions does she have with ministerial colleagues to that end?
The Solicitor General
It is absolutely right that we need to investigate those cases and work closely with stakeholders and inter-agency partners at an early stage, and that is exactly what the CPS and the police are doing. There is an inter-ministerial group on this matter, on which I serve, and we met last month to discuss these issues. A large number of stakeholders are involved in the study we are doing, including Women’s Aid, Refuge, Citizens Advice, the Survivors Trust and the Victims’ Commissioner, and they are all inputting in this important policy area. I am due to meet the Victims’ Commissioner this afternoon to discuss these issues further.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Newcastle’s sexual exploitation hub brings together the police, victim support and social services to provide a wrap-around service for victims of these horrendous crimes, particularly for vulnerable young women who often cannot access the support available for children, which is something that the Spicer review said needed to change. But there is no statutory funding for the hub; at a time when police and local authority funding is under such pressure, it risks losing its funding and ability to provide this remarkable support. Will the Minister look at providing statutory funding for hubs of this kind?
The Solicitor General
I am very pleased that the hon. Lady has raised the important work that is going on in her constituency and am very happy to discuss that with her. I was very pleased to see some joint working when I went to Wales: I saw how the courts and all the inter-agencies were working together—I attended an inter-agency group that was working collaboratively. Collaborative working is essential. I am very happy to meet and to discuss the issue with her.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) is wearing an admirably bookish tie—presumably a commentary on his learning and scholarship.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
It is ambition, Mr Speaker.
Fantasists wrongly and unsuccessfully twice accused me of serious sexual offences.
When my hon. and learned Friend attends her inter-departmental group, will she please make sure that each person reads the book “Behind the Blue Line” by Sergeant Gurpal Virdi? It is a deeply shocking account of how one of Britain’s largest institutions brought the apparatus of the state to bear on a campaign to destroy the life of one of its own finest officers.
I would welcome the chance to meet my hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney General, or both, preferably with the Home Secretary there as well, to decide on an investigation into how the CPS and the police did such shocking things.
The Solicitor General
I am very happy to give a commitment to meet my hon. Friend. I cannot speak for others, but I am very happy to meet him and will look forward to reading a copy of the book that he mentions.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
In relation to conviction rates for sexual abuse trials, I would like to ask the Minister whether she can comment further and perhaps in more detail—perhaps in a meeting with me—on how she is pursuing prosecutions, or how she is helping the court to pursue prosecutions, for women who are trafficked here for the purposes of sexual exploitation. They are often among the most vulnerable and often the hardest to reach as witnesses, but often the ones suffering the most egregious and appalling abuse.
The Solicitor General
I am very happy to meet the hon. Lady. I was with the CPS in Canterbury last week, discussing some of the crimes in the Kent area. I am very happy to discuss this very important matter with her.
Royal Assent
Mr Speaker
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measure:
Non-Domestic Rating (Preparation for Digital Services) Act 2019
Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) (Amendment) Act 2019
Church Representation and Ministers Measure 2019.
Serco Justice System
(5 years, 4 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
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the role of Serco in our justice system following the decision of the Serious Fraud Office.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Paul Maynard)
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker.
We very much welcome the fact that, subject to court approval today, the Serious Fraud Office has reached a conclusion in its investigations of Serco. These historical contracts ended in 2014 and were awarded as long ago as 2004. The agreement allows the parties to draw a line under the matter. Following the successful conclusion of this process, we see no reason why Serco should not continue to be a strategic supplier to Government and to compete for Government contracts.
We conducted an investigation of the matters raised in the agreement announced yesterday, and we are content that matters were resolved in 2013-14, when Serco reached a financial settlement of £68.5 million with the Ministry of Justice and undertook an extensive self-cleaning exercise.
Although we deplore the wrongdoing identified in the deferred prosecution agreement announced yesterday, we have confirmed that, since 2013, Serco has thoroughly overhauled its management, governance and culture and that these changes continue to be effective today. Serco is, and will continue to be, a strategic supplier to Her Majesty’s Government, working across the defence, justice, immigration, transport and health sectors.
Richard Burgon
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.
In 2013, evidence came to light suggesting that Serco may have been fraudulently charging the Government on its offender tagging contract, including for monitoring people who are dead. Serco had to pay back tens of millions of pounds to the Government and lost the tagging contract. A subsequent Serious Fraud Office investigation has seen Serco fined £19 million for fraud and false accounting linked to those prisoner tagging contracts. Does the Minister agree that this is just the latest scandal to hit our justice system involving the private sector in recent months? The private probation contracts were terminated early, HMP Birmingham private prison was returned to the public sector and new research shows disproportionate violence in private prisons. We have also seen the collapse of Carillion, meaning that prison maintenance works were brought back in house. Each time we are told it is an isolated case, so will the Minister finally admit that in reality it is a systemic failure?
Serco has £3.5 billion of current contracts with the Ministry of Justice. Given the findings of the Serious Fraud Office, will the Minister commit to a special audit of all existing Serco justice contracts? Those contracts include running prisons. The Government are currently receiving bids for a new generation of private prisons, so can the Minister assure me that Serco will not be allowed to run these new private prisons?
Finally, there is a current Justice Minister, not here today, who once worked for Serco as its chief spin doctor. Will this Minister guarantee that that Justice Minister has had no involvement in overseeing any current Serco contracts and will have no role in handing over any future lucrative contracts to his former employer?
Paul Maynard
The hon. Gentleman behaves as though this is somehow a new piece of information that has come to light. In fact, this is a very old piece of news, dating back to 2013-14, that has a very long tail. The SFO has conducted a very complex investigation into the fraudulent aspects of this behaviour, but in 2013-14 there was a vigorous effort on the part of the Government to investigate what Serco was doing and how it was managing these contracts that led to significant cultural change.
I am afraid that all we have heard today is a predictable ideological tirade of hostility towards the role that the private sector plays within our justice system, and it simply does not stand up to scrutiny. The hon. Gentleman raises the spectre of Carillion once again. Carillion was a very different affair; it cannot be compared at all with what is going on with Serco.
The hon. Gentleman also makes a point about the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), who has no Serco contracts within his ministerial responsibility—that is a complete red herring. The Ministry has already begun an audit into the contract for prisoner escort and custody services that Serco currently holds. We took action back in 2013-14, and this has transformed not just how the Ministry of Justice conducts its private sector contracts, but Government as a whole. We are confident that the ongoing work will ensure that we continue to deliver high-quality services at the best value for the taxpayer.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Is the Minister aware of whether any of the people involved in the original wrongdoing are still associated with the company?
Paul Maynard
I am not aware of any potential individual prosecutions arising from this investigation. What I can say is that, since the point of this investigation commencing, Serco has had a complete overhaul of its senior executives: it has a new chief executive officer, a new chief financial officer, a new chairman and an entirely new board. Serco has had a thoroughgoing overhaul and now recognises what went wrong in the past.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I congratulate the shadow Minister on securing this urgent question. He is right that right across justice, home affairs and other Government Departments, ill-conceived and badly managed contracts —on tagging, prisons, secure units, probation, immigration removal centres and asylum accommodation—are leaving vital public services in disarray.
The Government finally saw sense on probation, but elsewhere all that seems to happen is that the same small group of companies keeps getting more and more contracts, based on a race to the bottom towards cut-price service provision. Is it not time for a fundamental review of how these contracts are awarded so that the Government are not fishing repeatedly from the same small pool of companies? Even the auditors in this debacle have been fined for their role, so what steps will the Government be taking to improve oversight of this type of contract?
Paul Maynard
I always have a regard for the hon. Gentleman, who is a diligent and effective Member of this House, but I have to disagree with him on this occasion. The Opposition seem to have a blind spot regarding the role that the private sector can and should play in the delivery of services within the public sector.
In December 2018, as part of the programme of audits across Government as a whole, the chief executive of the civil service wrote to all Government Departments asking each to include a contract of audit activity in the implementation of the general outsourcing review, focusing on gold contracts—that is, those of high value and high criticality—provided by strategic players. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware, even if he looks north of the border, that in many of these very complex areas of public procurement, the pool of potential companies that can bid for them will, by necessity, be small. That means that we, as Government, have to do our bit to make sure that we audit and assess the delivery of these contracts on the part of these suppliers.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
What contingencies have the Government put in place for the risk that Serco ceases to operate, partly as a result of the fine?
Paul Maynard
We have absolutely no indication at all that the fine has had any impact on Serco’s ability to deliver its current contracts to the Government.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I think the Minister deserves a medal for coming here with such a positive outlook on what has been a major catastrophe. In the case of all these strategic suppliers, one of the really key issues is the Government’s oversight and management of contracts where things go wrong but the companies are too big to fail. What is his Department learning, and going to do differently, in making sure that the skills are there in the civil service to oversee these contracts and pick up the problems much sooner?
Paul Maynard
I am sure that there are few individuals in the House better qualified than the hon. Lady to assess the role of these contracts across Government as a whole, given her work on the Public Accounts Committee. Since 2010, one crucial change has been the introduction of Crown representatives in each of these business areas. That makes sure that Government have someone sitting inside the room making sure that decisions will be taken appropriately.
In my Department, we are reviewing all these contracts carefully, working with Serco and other private providers who work in the public sector to make sure that the quality of what they provide meets their contractual obligations.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
In the light of these rulings by the court, will the Minister undertake to review the wider operational activities of Serco in the public sector, particularly in relation to its management of asylum seeker housing projects in the city of Glasgow? Will he write to his colleagues in the Home Office about that, particularly because of the issue of gross intrusions of privacy by Serco housing officers, which is a major problem in Glasgow?
Paul Maynard
The hon. Gentleman raises an issue of which I personally have no knowledge within my own Department, but I am more than happy to offer to raise it with the relevant Government Department he mentioned, and I am sure that it will then get in touch with him to discuss it.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister has been uncharacteristically defensive and quite strident this morning. Some years ago, I had a hand in using the round robin technique to try to explore just how many of these general service companies were being used by all Departments, and what came out of that involved billions of pounds. That started a real scrutiny of what was happening. Is it not the truth that not just at Serco but at many of these general services companies—I am not ideologically opposed to the private sector providing good services—there was a lack of control and a lack of independent checking? The Serious Fraud Office regularly looks at this company: surely he is not complacent about that.
Paul Maynard
The hon. Gentleman accuses me of stridency. I think that is the first time that has happened to me in this Chamber—clearly, I must have had my Shredded Wheat for breakfast. I will have to revisit my breakfast diet, it is fair to say.
I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman has no ideological objection to the private sector having a role; he might want to have a chat with his Front Benchers. We often hear the idea that somehow the private sector cannot play a role but the third sector certainly can. I find that very hard to understand given that they are often supplying exactly the same things. We have areas of social enterprise that sit across the two, for example.
I recognise the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. He is a very diligent Member of Parliament, as Mr Speaker often observes. I look forward to future round robin parliamentary questions from him that will test the mettle of Government Departments yet further.
Mr Speaker
The expression “Be careful of what you wish for” springs to mind.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It seems that no matter what the specific wrongdoing or general incompetence of a private sector supplier, with a few warm words from the chief executive of the day, they have access to billions of pounds of contracts. Will the Minister put in place an analysis of the costs of private sector provision in terms of tendering, legal wrangling, profiteering and loss of skills versus the benefits of public sector provision? It seems as though it is simply public sector bad, private sector good.
Paul Maynard
It is never a case of “public sector bad, private sector good”. As I have just pointed out to Opposition Members, a broad range of potential providers—including many in the third sector, such as social enterprises—have a very important role to play in the justice system. [Interruption.] If the hon. Lady listened to the answer I am trying to give her, rather than speaking from a sedentary position, she would get an answer to her question. I never appreciate sedentary chuntering; it reflects badly on the Member conducting it.
The private sector continues to have a role to play, but as a Department we are very careful in inspecting what individual suppliers are doing through the Crown representative system and the work that our commercial officials in the Department do, to ensure that issues like this do not occur again. The hon. Lady acts as though it was all warm words back in 2013-14. It most certainly was not. As I pointed out in my response to the first question, there has been an entire leadership change at Serco. I often hear from the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) that in his own party, it is a case of new times, new management. It is the same with Serco.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
In the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) and I have seen all too often good work by the Government, but only after an event has taken place. The Minister mentioned the Crown representative system. Is it not time for that system to be overhauled, so that Government are better at preventing these problems in the first place, rather than learning the lessons after? What is his Department doing across Government to lead on that work?
Paul Maynard
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. The role of the Crown representative is relatively new, having been introduced under this Government. It continues to take shape. It looks different in different companies. When I was a rail Minister, I worked with a number of Crown representatives who performed very different roles in the companies that they were involved in. I understand the point, and I will mention it to the Cabinet Office, which has responsibility for this wider policy area.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his responses to questions. Can he outline what discussions he has had with the Ministry of Defence, to ensure that the MOD will get service provision at an appropriate price and only for services that are required, to prevent a repeat of this?
Paul Maynard
The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly valid point. I personally have had no contact with the MOD. However, I know that the chief executive of the civil service has contacted all Government Departments to ask them to review the contracts with the most “criticality”—that is the word used; it is not a word I like because it does not really exist. He is ensuring that all Departments are taking careful note of this issue.
Social Security Claimant Deaths
(5 years, 4 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
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if she will make a statement to clarify what documents concerning the peer reviews and coroners’ reports into social security claimant deaths since 2010 are held by her Department, and whether all of these were supplied to Professor Harrington and Dr Litchfield, the independent reviewers of the work capability assessment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
The Department holds the original commission and final report for all peer reviews of disability benefit claimants’ deaths up to 2015. All these documents are kept for six years from the date of the final report. In October 2015, we moved from conducting peer reviews to internal process reviews. That change means we now hold more information, including the original commission, all emails relating to the case, the final report and any recommendations resulting from the internal review process.
As the House may be aware, the Welfare Reform Act 2007 committed the Secretary of State to publish an independent report on the work capability assessment each year for the first five years of its operation. In 2013 and 2014, Dr Litchfield led the fourth and fifth independent reviews of the WCA. The Department fully co-operated with the reviews and shared all relevant information as requested. To assist the WCA independent reviews and in response to a freedom of information request, we carried out a robust search to supply all necessary information to the reviewers. The record of the documents requested by or shared with the independent reviewers no longer exists, in line with the Department’s document retention policy.
We take the death of any disability benefits claimant very seriously indeed and always conduct an investigation into the circumstances where we are informed that the claimant committed suicide. As the review contains extremely personal information, it would not be appropriate to declare which individual cases were shared with the reviewers on this occasion.
Debbie Abrahams
Thank you so much, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.
Let me refresh everybody’s memories following the point of order I raised about this yesterday. I have received a response to my letter of 10 May to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in which I expressed my concerns regarding the investigation and the information provided to the independent reviewers. I also asked for information on claimant deaths after being found fit for work following a work capability assessment, as well as on deaths in relation to the personal independence payment, and I still have not received any information on that.
In the reply from the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, nearly two months later, he said that although a
“robust and thorough search was carried out of information held by the Department…the outcome is that the Department does not hold any information”
in relation to what peer review reports were supplied to the independent reviewers. He also said that this was due to
“the length of time since the reviews were carried out, factors such as document retention policies, organisational changes and staff turnover”.
These documents relate to the circumstances of people’s deaths as little as five years ago. The independent reviewers were investigating the work capability assessment process, including the impact of assessments. It is deeply troubling that the Department appears to have no record of what was supplied to the reviews, especially as both Professor Harrington and Dr Litchfield say that they did not receive such documents. In the same response, the Minister tried to suggest that the reviewers did not request these reports. It prompts the question whether the Department’s record keeping systems are fit for purpose or whether these documents were deliberately withheld.
Can the Minister confirm that these documents were not sent to Dr Litchfield in 2013? Why does his Department not hold records on what information was supplied to Dr Litchfield and to his predecessor, Professor Harrington? The Minister said in his response that the retention policy is that the Department does not keep these records. I find that deeply concerning, considering other Departments’ requirements under the law to keep these data.
What steps will the Minister take to ensure any departmental reorganisation or staff turnover does not lead to the loss of such important and sensitive information in the future? Will he commit to an investigation into what happened to these documents, and will he report back to the House on the outcomes of this investigation? The Information Commissioner’s Office spoke to members of staff who were in the Department at the time of the Litchfield review. How many members of staff who were in the Department at that time still remain?
Has the Department approached Dr Litchfield and Professor Harrington about the information they received, and if not, why not? The letter I received yesterday from the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work stated that the Department shared
“all relevant information which was requested by Prof Harrington and Dr Litchfield”.
However, if they were unaware of the existence of these documents, how could they request them? Given that their remit was to examine the work capability assessment and that many of these reviews and coroners’ letters contained grave concerns about the assessment process, why did the Department not provide them?
Since 2015, the Department has undertaken 84 internal process reviews, and six more have been received. The Minister will be aware of the ruling in John Pring v. the Information Commissioner and the Department for Work and Pensions, which led to the redacted publication of peer reviews in 2016. Will he commit to publishing redacted reports of these internal process reviews?
We are talking about the circumstances of people’s deaths, as I have said. A Government’s first duty is to protect their people—all their people—but they are failing the sick and disabled, and this reveals the enormity of that failure.
Will Quince
The Department takes the death of any claimant extremely seriously and always conducts an investigation into the circumstances. The Department is continually working to improve its safeguarding practices, working with partner agencies and local government. The Department is presently undertaking a review of the departmental safeguarding policy and guidance available to staff, which will report in the autumn of 2019. The scope of the review is considering what more we at the Department can do to support vulnerable claimants, with an emphasis both on ensuring safety and on working with partners to provide the necessary support when and where necessary. The review covers all areas of DWP delivery activities.
The last independent review was in 2014. As I said in my opening response, we do not hold emails going back over 12 months, under our document retention policy. My understanding, however, is that the documentation was not requested by the independent reviewers, but we hold such information on the peer review process for six years. I should stress that we would share outcomes and lessons learned. As the hon. Lady rightly pointed out, we have about 20 to 25 internal process reviews a year —they do not all relate to suicides—but I would stress that we are fully compliant with the law when it comes to data.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
From my work in the Department, I know that Ministers take this issue extremely seriously, and they will be concerned to hear about the cases that were reasonably and sensitively raised by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). Will the Minister confirm that whenever a claimant dies, a thorough review is undertaken by the Department and that that is the right process to follow?
Will Quince
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and the way he put it. We take all cases of this nature incredibly seriously, and the Department has undertaken 84 internal process reviews since 2015. It carries out such reviews for a number of reasons, not only in cases that relate to suicide. I stress that these reviews do not mean that the Department was at fault, and in the majority of cases they contain very personal information that it would not be right to publish. Nevertheless, it is incredibly important to carry out such reviews because, where lessons can be learned, they should be. Indeed, in numerous cases, they have been learned.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
It is deeply shocking that the Department for Work and Pensions has not kept documents relating to deaths that could have been related to DWP activity. We know from a freedom of information request that such documents were not passed to Professor Harrington and Dr Litchfield who carried out the statutory review of the work capability assessment. Surely, it was the Department’s responsibility to ensure that those reviewers had all the relevant information.
The Minister’s letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) states that the documents have not been kept for a range of reasons, including document retention policies, organisational changes and staff turnover. Such bureaucratic language is wholly out of keeping with the pain felt by families and friends who are affected by the death of a loved one.
There is a systemic problem at DWP when it comes to meeting the needs of disabled people, and the facts speak for themselves: more than 1 million sanctions have been imposed on disabled people since 2010, and in 2018-19, 73% of PIP and ESA cases that went to tribunal were found in favour of the appellant. The Government are currently carrying out seven reviews into different aspects of the social security system where disabled people were wrongly denied the support to which they should have been entitled.
What action is the Department taking to ensure that any documents relating to deaths in serious and complex cases that were related to DWP activity are retained in future? Will the Government now accede to widespread calls for an independent inquiry into the way that assessments are carried out and demand that medical evidence about the impact of such assessments on the health and wellbeing of claimants is fully considered? Will the Government commit to an independent review into the deaths of ill or disabled people that may have been linked to DWP activity? The Department owes a duty of care not only to those who it assesses for support, but to those families and friends who have lost loved ones in the most tragic of circumstances. The DWP has failed disabled people again.
Will Quince
I am disappointed by the hon. Lady’s line of questioning. As I have had said twice already, we take incredibly seriously the death of any claimant, and we always conduct an investigation into the circumstances. The last independent review was in 2014, and under our data retention policy, emails going back more than 12 months were not retained. However, under the peer review, such emails are held for six years, and we would have shared outcomes and lessons learned. We would have shared further information with the independent reviewers, but my understanding is that it was not requested.
The hon. Lady raises broader disability issues. This year, we are spending more than £55 billion on benefits to support disabled people and those with health conditions, which is around 2.5% of our GDP, and more than 6% of Government spending. This year, spending on the main disability benefits—the personal independence payment, disability living allowance and attendance allowance—will be more than £6 billion higher than in 2010, and disability spending will be higher every year up to 2023 than it was in 2010.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I know that my hon. Friend takes these issues extremely seriously, but I am curious about two things. He said there were 84 internal reviews, but that not all were related to alleged suicides. How many were related to alleged suicides? He said that emails are destroyed after 12 months, and I am surprised by such a short period. Is that in line with the policies of other Departments?
Will Quince
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We do not know the number of suicides compared to the overall number of cases investigated under the internal review process. As I said, we carry them out for a number of reasons. Under the previous system, we did not hold emails going back over 12 months under the independent review process. Under the peer review process, however, we hold that information for six years.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) on securing the urgent question.
The Government’s austerity measures have led to a system that no longer considers people as vulnerable individuals in need of support, but views them with suspicion from the outset. It is sickening that, when faced with such serious allegations as people’s deaths, the Government took so long to admit their failure to send their own independent reviewer documents that Ministers knew would have linked the fitness to work test with the deaths of disabled benefit claimants. Why was that not deemed a top priority by the Government?
The Government seem content with private sector providers prioritising profits over people. How frequently does the Department assess the treatment of claimants by private sector companies? Will the Department follow the Scottish Government’s lead and introduce audio recordings of assessments as standard to ensure accuracy and transparency?
The public will struggle to have any trust in the Government to deliver these Government-commissioned assessments for employment and support allowance, PIP and universal credit. Will the Department undertake a review of all commissioned assessments to ensure they do not lead to similar circumstances?
Finally, we very strongly support the hon. Lady’s call for an independent inquiry into all deaths linked to the Government’s social security reforms. Will the Minister commit to starting that immediately?
Will Quince
We take the independent reviews, the peer reviews and the findings of coroners incredibly seriously. Where there are lessons to be learned, the Department absolutely looks at how we can improve our processes and procedures to improve the service we provide to claimants. On reviewing the third parties we work with, we are already trialling audio recording of assessments. We will consider the results and whether it is appropriate to roll that out further in due course. I assure the hon. Lady and other hon. Members across the House that we of course audit and take a very close look at all those who provide services to the Department.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)
When I raised the death of one of my constituents shortly after he lost his personal independence payment, I asked for an independent inquiry, which the Secretary of State refused. Given our exchanges today, will the Minister take the message back to her that I would like her to reconsider her decision? As the Prime Minister laid down for Hillsborough and the poisoned blood inquiry, it is the duty of Departments to produce information, not for the chair of an inquiry to fish for information crucial to the proper consideration of events that lead to someone’s death.
Will Quince
The right hon. Gentleman knows the huge respect I have for him and the respect the Secretary of State has for him. I understand that she has already taken into consideration what he put to her at oral questions. We take it very seriously indeed.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Before I ask my question, may I remind the House that no one in the United Kingdom commits suicide? People take their own lives. The word “commit” relates to a crime. Suicide is not a crime in this country and has not been for some time.
When seeking information on the removal of the six-month time limit for terminal illness claimants, I asked for information about people who died while waiting for a decision relating to PIP. Between 2013 and 2018, 17,000 people died while waiting for a decision on their PIP assessment. I asked for the same figures in relation to universal credit, but was told that they were not available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. How can the Minister say that he covers all deaths and takes them seriously when it is not possible to provide hon. Members with information on the deaths of people, many of whom have been found to be terminally ill, who have not been able to access universal credit?
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Lady for what she said on suicide. Language is important, and she was right to pull me and others across the House up for using that language. She raises a hugely important point. We are working closely with stakeholders in that regard, to see what more we can do, and I would be happy to meet her to explain in further detail the written answer that was given to the parliamentary question that she submitted.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
Five hundred and eighty of my constituents were displaced in the transition from disability living allowance to the personal independence payment—a loss of £2 million a year. What is the Department doing to track the outcomes faced by those who are not in receipt of Government support? I think particularly of a case of mine, where a young man was forced to rely on his mother’s financial support in the last months of his life before he died of a terminal brain tumour, because the Government rejected his claim for support. What will the Government do to track such cases?
Will Quince
What we are doing is spending £6 billion more, and we will continue to work with stakeholders where possible, to ensure that we can improve our processes.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Department has, as has been said, given us a number of reasons why this information is not available, but to the public and to those affected, it will seem that there can be only two acceptable or reasonable reasons—that the information was deliberately withheld and covered up, or that it was incompetence. To get to the bottom of this and to reassure the public, will the Minister give those of us who are asking today for that inquiry, the assurance that the Department will do everything it possibly can to get to the bottom of this?
Will Quince
In cases of this nature, our inquiries and investigations nearly always go alongside a coroner’s investigation. So it is important to say that there is already that independent investigation, and we do work very closely with coroners and supply information as required by them.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
When we consider the sensitive issue of death by suicide of particular claimants, I want to press the Minister specifically on the issue of assessments being carried out inappropriately. For example, if someone presents for an assessment with a mental health issue, quite often they find that they are being assessed by a physiotherapist. What actions are the Government taking to ensure that assessments are done properly, by those with relevant qualifications?
Will Quince
Under PIP, people with a mental health condition are five times more likely to be exempted than under the legacy benefit system. However, it is important to say that it was the Labour party that introduced the work capability assessment, in 2008, and that we have made significant improvements to the WCA since its introduction. We will continue to work with stakeholders and Members from across the House to improve the process where we can.
Business of the House
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mel Stride)
The business for the week commencing 8 July will include:
Monday 8 July—Consideration of a business of the House motion, followed by all stages of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill.
Tuesday 9 July—Second Reading of the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill.
Wednesday 10 July—Motion to approve the draft Environment (Legislative Functions from Directives) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, followed by a motion to approve the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2019, followed by a general debate on tackling climate change, protecting the environment and securing global development.
Thursday 11 July—A general debate on 20 years of devolution, followed by a debate on a motion relating to leasehold reform. The subjects of these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee, on the recommendation of the Liaison Committee.
Friday 12 July—The House will not be sitting.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business. He announced the Northern Ireland Bill for Monday. As I understand it, the Bill will be published only later today. Despite a motion allowing amendments, there will be a window of only about half an hour for hon. Members to table amendments. This is a really important Bill, and the Opposition were happy to work with the Government to ensure that they get certainty on the Bill. Will the Leader of the House have discussions with the usual channels to ensure that we get scrutiny of this important Bill? We have always approached Northern Ireland on a cross-party basis, so I ask him to please think again.
Last week, I raised the issue of a debate on the Cox report, and the Gemma White inquiry is coming up. Can the Leader of the House update us on when the House is likely to be able to consider that motion?
I know that the Leader of the House is interested in tweeting: perhaps he could tweet a clarification. Last week, I raised the issue of the Government’s Value Added Tax (Reduced Rate) (Energy-Saving Materials) Order 2019, and he said that it was an EU requirement under its regulations. In his answer to a parliamentary question in 2018, when he was a Treasury Minister, he said that
“it is right that Member States have flexibility in applying VAT on different products”.
Will he look again at whether it is possible for VAT to be changed on those materials, especially given the Prime Minister’s commitment to reduce emissions to zero by 2050? The Leader of the House said that it was not something that he would necessarily have brought forward, so I ask him again whether the Government have any plans to scrap VAT in this important area.
Perhaps the Leader of the House could also tweet the answer to this question. Who said that
“in a disruptive no-deal exit there will be a hit to the exchequer of about £90bn.”?
It was his right hon. Friend and former Treasury colleague, the Chancellor. I do not remember seeing no deal on the ballot paper. We did not get the sectoral analysis until we asked for it in the Chamber. The Leader of the House may say “It’s the will of the people”, but the people did not have the full information when they made their decision. I do not know whether he is aware of the message from the other place about the amazing cross-party support for a motion to set up a Joint Committee to consider a no-deal Brexit, which passed by 245 votes to 99. We all praise Select Committees, and this would be an important Select Committee because it would be a Joint Committee of both Houses. The motion would require the Select Committee to report by 30 September. As I am sure the Leader of the House knows, the first Council meeting will take place on 17 October, which is why it is important for us to have a discussion to decide whether we will sit through the conference recess and whether conferences will go ahead or Members will be here. It is an important time for the EU, so perhaps he will consider having a statement next week on those issues.
The Leader of the House wrote a lovely article in “Red Box” saying that he sees
“a large part of my role as promoting parliament—to do what I can to ensure that people trust and understand its vital role”.
Does he agree with a former Leader of the House, now a Government Whip in the Lords, Lord Young, who has said that he views with alarm the promises made by Tory leadership candidates? The shadow Chancellor has costed those pledges, and the total for the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) is £57 billion and for the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt) it is £43.4 billion—more than £100 billion in total. Paul Johnson from the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that both candidates were misleading people by implying that the Treasury’s Brexit war chest would fund their spending pledges and that if they intended to borrow more, they had not said how much. It is making Parliament look absurd that the candidates can make those pledges to win their election. The people one of them will govern will not even have a say. What can the Leader of the House do to stop candidates misleading people?
It took an urgent question for the House to talk about what happened with Serco. A screaming headline in The Law Society Gazette reads, “Serco subsidiary to pay £19.2m for lying to MoJ about tagging profits”. This is absolutely appalling. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), was very helpful earlier—he is a very helpful Minister—but I think that we need a statement in Government time.
I invite the Leader of the House to visit the all-party parliamentary group on legal aid next Monday, when we will celebrate the 70th anniversary of the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949, along with young legal aid lawyers. I am surprised that there are any left, but it will be good to see them there. The Leader of the House will know, I am sure, that since 2010 the number of cases assisted by legal aid has dropped from 900,000 to 15,000. This is about the rule of law and access to justice. If the Leader of the House could ensure that the Government will automatically fund legal aid for the families of victims of terrorist atrocities—a subject that I raised with him last week—that would be a nice way of celebrating the anniversary of the Act.
I know that you, Mr Speaker, went to see Richard Ratcliffe when he was on hunger strike. I saw “Speaker Bear” sitting on his chair. Both Richard and Nazanin have now ended their hunger strike. I said to Richard that I would raise Nazanin’s case from the Dispatch Box every week until she was freed. Will the Leader of the House please make representations, as the Foreign Secretary seems to have gone missing and is making promises that he cannot keep? I know that great things are in store for the Leader of the House, not least because he has a wonderful mentor in the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). Will he please stand in for the Foreign Secretary and raise the case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe? She is innocent, and she must be freed.
Earlier this week, Mr Speaker, you mentioned the loss of two of the House’s leading black and minority ethnic officials, Kamal El-Hajji and, of course, our own Speaker’s Chaplain, the Rev. Rose Hudson-Wilkin. Kamal was the first person with a BME background to be appointed to the role of Serjeant at Arms, and the Rev. Rose is now the Church of England’s first black female bishop. We are sorry that she could not be the Bishop of London, and I know that she was trying to be a Canon of Westminster, but I think that was taken away from her. She has been a great comfort to everyone on the parliamentary estate. She has been here during debates, and she has talked to us one to one. She has been a reassuring presence, and we are grateful for both her presence and her prayers. We wish the two of them well in their future endeavours.
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. I shall come to them in a moment, but let me start by saying that I have some bad news. Unfortunately, I have had to cancel the holiday that I suggested last Thursday. The hon. Lady did not, I think, take my offer seriously, as she never replied to it. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) was prepared to join us and provide the musical entertainment, but the appearance fee that he demanded was utterly disproportionate to his talent. Two pounds fifty and a couple of cans of Irn-Bru was a generous offer, and the hon. Gentleman should have accepted it. I mean, who does he think he is, Pete Wishart or something? Perhaps not.
Let me now deal with the hon. Lady’s questions. She rightly raised the business for Monday, and asked whether there would be time for sufficient scrutiny of the Northern Ireland Bill and the tabling of amendments to it. All I will say to her is that we are very aware of the importance of both those matters, and discussions are taking place in the usual channels.
The hon. Lady asked me about a potential debate on the Cox report. We did, of course, have a debate on that report recently, but she also raised the important matter of the Gemma White inquiry, which will be reporting soon. We are at one in respect of the desirability of a debate on that matter, and I am already engaged in discussions with my end of the usual channels with a view to such a debate.
The hon. Lady raised the issue of energy-saving materials again, and asked whether VAT was or was not applicable. More specifically, she asked whether it was a requirement of the European Union that we apply it at a certain level. That is my understanding, but given that the hon. Lady has pressed me again, which may mean that she has some information on this matter that she is keeping to herself—perhaps I am wrong; I do not know—I will check with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General, who I believe is the Minister responsible for that particular issue and tabled the statutory instrument.
The hon. Lady also raised the matter of the £90 billion that the Chancellor has referred to in respect of a potential no-deal exit from the European Union. Of course that is a figure that has been out there for quite some considerable time, not least in the analysis that the Government provided some months ago—an across-Whitehall report on the potential impact of no deal on the Exchequer.
The hon. Lady also raised the matter of the Joint Committee proposed by the House of Lords, and referred to the vote on that. We will of course consider that proposal very carefully when it comes to this House, but I would point out to the hon. Lady that there have been numerous opportunities in the past to debate at length the potential consequences of no deal. None the less, we will take the Joint Committee proposal seriously and have a very close look at that as a potential vehicle for further discussion of that matter.
The hon. Lady referred very generously to my lovely article, which was rather a kind way of introducing her remarks on that, and then she plunged into the costs of the various promises that the two candidates in the Conservative party leadership contest may have been putting forward. At one point she totalled them up to the dizzying heights of £100 billion, which pales into insignificance compared with the £1 trillion that her own party seems to be putting forward in additional borrowing, or indeed in additional tax to be raised from the hard-working men and women up and down our country.
The hon. Lady referred to Serco, but of course we have had an urgent question just this morning on the matter. She made some important points about legal aid. Justice questions are on Tuesday and, as I mentioned last week, the Justice Committee is looking at precisely the issue she has raised around the availability of legal aid to the suspected perpetrators of atrocities compared with its availability to those who have suffered as a consequence of their actions.
I applaud the hon. Lady for raising Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe again, as I know she intends to at the Dispatch Box every week as the shadow Leader of the House. I can once again assure her that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and others have been very engaged in ensuring that somebody who went to Iran simply for the purposes of a holiday and meeting family and friends is not incarcerated in the way she has been.
Finally, may I also welcome the hon. Lady’s comments regarding Rose Hudson-Wilkin and her appointment as Bishop of Dover? She will be much missed by this House, but will be a great asset and of great benefit to Dover.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
May I first sincerely congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking on the role of Leader of the House and say how lovely it is to be asking the questions rather than answering them?
My right hon. Friend will be aware that yesterday the fantastic diversity and inclusion awards were held, celebrating all the House of Commons and Digital Service staff here in the House of Commons for all the amazing work they have done to try and improve the rates of diversity and inclusion here. So will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating everybody—all the nominees and award winners?
Will my right hon. Friend particularly join me in congratulating all those who worked so hard across parties on a very long-term basis—and also yourself, Mr Speaker, who supported the work—on the independent complaints and grievance procedure, which was one of yesterday’s award-winning entries? May I also thank all the staff of the House of Commons, Members’ staff, trade unions and so many people across the House who have really helped to ensure that everybody in this place in the future will be treated with dignity and respect?
Mr Speaker
Before the Leader of the House replies, I should like to echo very much what the right hon. Lady has said. Yesterday’s ceremony was a very happy, even joyous, occasion on which we were able to mark and commemorate great progress while being very aware of the continuing challenges and the great deal of additional work that remains to be done. She herself won an award, which she has been too modest specifically to reference, and I think that she regarded it as a tribute to her, but also to all those who worked in her support. This is one of those situations in which we prefer to regard the glass as half full rather than half empty, but there is a fine line. I think we are deservedly proud of the progress, but we know that we still have a lot of work to do.
Mel Stride
Mr Speaker, I entirely echo your comments, not least those about the typical modesty and generosity of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) in recognising everybody who contributed to the team effort and achieved so much around the complaints and grievance scheme’s steering group, but that does not for one moment take away from the critical role that she played in ensuring that we made progress not just on that matter but—as I am increasingly becoming aware as I get deeper into my role—across the many matters that the Leader of the House rightly has an interest in. I also thank you, Mr Speaker, and the staff of the House, the trade union representatives and all those who have been involved in these important issues.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing another exciting instalment of business for next week. I join him and the shadow Leader of the House in paying tribute to Kamal El-Hajji and Rose Hudson-Wilkin and I hope will get an opportunity to pay fulsome tributes to both individuals in the next few weeks.
The Leader of the House would do well to abandon this place for the next couple of weeks, given what is going on with this leadership contest. I am even prepared to come on his holiday bus. I would bring my banjo and my cans of Irn-Bru, and I might even be prepared to waive my fee. I would even endure his rotten jokes, because surely we should do more than endure the purgatory of the business that we are facing right up to the summer recess. So, to spice things up a bit, may we have a debate about the Tory issue of the day—the return of foxhunting—and may we have the Foreign Secretary to introduce it before this particular fox is shot? When we are through with that, maybe we could have some legislation to reintroduce the children up chimneys Act, and then maybe a Bill to reintroduce work- houses before we move on to the dunking of witches. Such are the great offerings from the Tory leadership contest to keep us up to date with the modern zeitgeist.
Then can we have a debate about the precious, precious, precious Union? The Tories are beginning to sound like a demented Gollum who is about to throw the ring that unites them all into Mount Doom, which is probably quite apt. The Prime Minister is in Scotland today with yet another devolution plan—and no, of course it is not another desperate attempt to salvage the “precious”. This is the problem, and the Tories just don’t get it. For them, it is all about doing things to Scotland; it is never about listening to what Scotland actually wants or understanding the type of nation that we want to be. Scotland will never accept their buffoons’ Brexit. For them, Scotland is probably already lost. The “precious” is already beginning to melt in the pyre.
Lastly, can we have a debate about Brexit? You know how we were given all this extra time to try to resolve it? Maybe we should debate it occasionally. We have heard both the candidates for the Tory leadership saying that they are prepared to take this country out of the EU without a deal, and we have to start to prepare the parliamentary fightback. There is a huge moment coming, and it will be the no-deal Brexiteers versus parliamentary democracy. Democracy says no to the Brexiteers, and we now have to get ready for that fight.
Mr Speaker
Before the Leader of the House responds, I would just say to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), so that the business is not left unfinished, that there most assuredly will be tribute sessions for the Speaker’s Chaplain, the Rev. Rose, and for the departing Serjeant at Arms, Mohammed El-Hajji. Those are likely to be separate sessions—my office is in discussion about that matter—but the hon. Gentleman can be assured that, consistent with the principle of showing respect for people who have made an outstanding contribution in the service of the House, those sessions will take place.
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) for his usual cheery contribution to our proceedings, but he was playing the same old tunes, as he does week in, week out. However, I have discovered that he and I actually have something in common, because we share a love of the Rolling Stones. Indeed, I believe that the hon. Gentleman once recorded a cover of a Rolling Stones classic for charity. Given the Scottish people’s firm rejection of independence, the song could serve as the Scottish National party anthem, because it was “You Can’t Always Get What You Want”. The hon. Gentleman’s love of the Stones may explain why, when it comes to the Government’s record, he always paints it black and why, even after becoming the current longest-serving Member of a Scottish seat—18 years—he still can’t get no satisfaction. [Hon. Members: “Oh.”] I know that that was all unbearably cheesy, but that is the whole point of the jokes on these occasions.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that I should desert this place because there is not enough going on, but I point out that 44 Bills have completed their passage through the Commons during this Session. In fact, since the Prime Minister appointed me as Leader of the House, a new Bill has been introduced every three sitting days, so we are actually upping the tempo.
The hon. Gentleman called for further debates on Brexit. I think that many in this House would feel that we have probably had more than enough such debates, but I assure him that it is inconceivable that there will not be many more Brexit debates in the weeks and months to come.
Finally, Mr Speaker, I endorse, echo and say how pleased I am to have heard your remarks about time being made for Rev. Rose and the Serjeant at Arms so that we can thank them in the appropriate manner.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I join others in paying tribute to the Serjeant at Arms and the Speaker’s Chaplain. I also joined the protest at the Iranian embassy. I am also delighted to say that Southend-on-Sea was a regional winner in the Tiffin cup, which is another reason why Southend should become a city.
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the legal position of parents who have children with learning difficulties after those children reach the age of 18? The matter needs to be looked at, because those who really do know best about the needs of their children can currently be overruled by the state when it comes to their future welfare.
Mel Stride
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the success of the restaurant in his constituency. I completely appreciate the position of parents who have been caring and making decisions for their children, and it must be incredibly difficult when they do not have the automatic right to continue to do so when a young person turns 18. That would make an excellent subject for a debate, or if my hon. Friend would like to write to me, I would be happy to facilitate a meeting with the appropriate Minister.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will be delighted to know that, as a result of recent generous allocations of time for the Backbench Business Committee, we have now started to get a bumper bundle of applications from Back Benchers from across the House on a weekly basis. If and when time arrives, we already have a healthy list of debates pencilled in for future dates, including an important application for an urgent debate from the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) and the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell). We also have a long queue of unallocated debates following applications from Members from across the House, so with three weeks remaining before the summer recess, any time thrown our way will be greedily snapped up.
Finally, I chair the all-party parliamentary rail in the north group, and some of us regard the rail investment situation being more northern poorhouse than northern powerhouse. We recently had a presentation from Arriva Northern, which told us, gladly, that Pacer trains were to be phased out by the end of the year, but we found out only a few days later that that was fake news. Can we have a statement from the Department for Transport about rail investment in the north? It is time that the decades-old Pacer trains departed from all the stations in the north of England.
Mel Stride
I am pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman has great demand for debates. I am always happy to point colleagues in his direction when they have good ideas for debates, and I congratulate him on his excellent work.
The hon. Gentleman specifically raises the issue of rail in the north, and we have invested a record £13 billion in transport in the north. Investment across the UK in transport, and rail in particular, is at the greatest level since Victorian times. Of course, looking at investment per capita, more is going to the north of our country than to the south.
This issue of Pacer trains has also been raised in the Chamber this week, and I am happy to see whether we can organise a meeting between the hon. Gentleman and a relevant Minister, or to decide an appropriate way forward on that specific matter.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The Leader of the House will know that next week’s planned Westminster Hall debate on libraries has been postponed due to the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), being on compassionate leave. I know that you, Mr Speaker, and the whole House send our heartfelt condolences and deepest sympathies. None the less, she, you and the Leader of the House will want the debate to be rescheduled, because we need to know what the Government will do about the nationwide closure of libraries, through which new horizons are seen, new ideas are seeded and second springs start.
John Clare said:
“E’en the small violet feels a future power
And waits each year renewing blooms to bring,
And surely man is no inferior flower
To die unworthy of a second spring?”
And for you, Mr Speaker:
Are we a breed that no longer loves to learn?
Is ours an age where once-cherished books burn?
Or will we come again to seek and yearn?
To decipher, to distil, to discern?
Mr Speaker
I think we feel enriched, elevated and energised as a result of the right hon. Gentleman’s characteristically cerebral intervention.
Mel Stride
I begin by echoing the thoughtful comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) about the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow). Of course, the thoughts and prayers of the whole House are with her and her family at this very difficult time.
Mr Speaker, you suggested that our last exchange was of such cerebral quality that it should be framed and presented to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, and I have the framed copy here. I will, of course, present it to him directly after business questions.
Mel Stride
It is, indeed, splendid. I think I am right in saying, knowing John Clare well—I did not confirm this with my right hon. Friend prior to his question—that he may have been quoting from “The Instinct of Hope,” which includes the line
“And why should instinct nourish hopes in vain?”
Well, his hopes of me will never be in vain, for my instincts are always to deliver for one of those I admire most in this House.
On the very important debate that needs to be delayed, I am happy to meet him, and perhaps the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, to see what we can do to bring that important debate before the House as soon as possible.
Mr Speaker
That is really very satisfying indeed. I am now looking for a brief contribution.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
The injustice of the Windrush scandal continues. Many of the people in my caseload have still not had their cases sorted out. I do not know anyone who has been successful in claiming compensation, because the required level of evidence is so ridiculous.
I also know people who have been promised help that has not been delivered. To add insult to injury, one of my constituents, who was kept from returning home for years and who has finally been allowed home, has been told by the Department for Work and Pensions that he cannot claim universal credit because he has been away from the country.
Can we please have a debate in Government time, ideally on a votable motion, so that we can hold the Government to account and make sure that victims of the Windrush scandal can properly receive the compensation and benefits to which they are entitled?
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady raises an extremely important issue, and there is no question but that the events around the Windrush situation were deeply, deeply unsatisfactory. For that, Ministers have apologised. We have set up a compensation scheme, as she will know, and there is a taskforce engaged in ensuring that it operates effectively. That said, if there are any specific cases that she wants to bring forward, I would be keen to see them and to liaise with Ministers accordingly.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
The Tiffin cup has already been mentioned. You will be aware, Mr Speaker, that it is an important part of the parliamentary calendar, and it took place on Tuesday this week. I am delighted to say that a new restaurant in my constituency, Soi Kitchens—it started up in only February or March of this year—came second out of, I believe, 78 entries. Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the restaurant and ensure that as many Members of Parliament as possible are aware of the Tiffin cup? Will he encourage them to enter more restaurants next year, so that my constituents’ business could perhaps win first prize?
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to bring to the House the great success of Soi Kitchens. The House may be interested to know that the winner was Kuti’s Brasserie, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith), but that does not for one moment take away the huge success that Soi Kitchens has achieved. I will be desperately trying to find an excuse to go to Milford to sample its cuisine.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, you had vacated the chair last week when I asked my business question, but I had a great deal of help from the Leader of the House in relation to a constituent who had gone missing in Zante. I would like to advise him that, sadly, my constituent still has not been found.
I want to move on to a more positive question; unfortunately, I always seem to ask difficult questions about Bridgend, particularly in relation to the news about Ford. Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating the fact that Bridgend Further Education College has won the national award for further education college of the year? Bridgend College tops the league table in Wales for qualification completion, with a rate of 90% across all qualifications; it was awarded a double excellent in the education and training inspection carried out by Estyn; and the college’s staff survey shows that 98% of staff are happy to work there. Can we celebrate what a wonderful place Bridgend is to live, work and invest in, for anyone who is seeking to take over the Ford factory, because we have a population committed to the best in education and training?
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks about her missing constituent. It is deeply distressing that he has still not been located, but I am grateful that she brought the matter to my attention and we were able to meet immediately after the last business questions to see what could be done. Our thoughts and prayers are still with her constituent, and with his family and friends.
I am delighted to hear the news about Bridgend College. One of the most important drivers of social mobility in our society—I think we can all reflect on this, across the House—is education. It is one of the ladders by which we climb up in life, so it is wonderful to be able to celebrate the award that the hon. Lady’s further education college has received. The fact that it is a further education institution is important, because there must be parity of esteem between further education and universities in our country.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
It is not often that an MP receives emails from constituents praising their local council for not doing something, but that is exactly what has happened in respect of Rugby Borough Council’s urban meadows policy, whereby it is letting grass and wildflowers grow on areas that were previously mown. That encourages insects and a diversity of flora and fauna, and it looks very attractive, particularly when the flowers grow through. One constituent has drawn my attention to the fact that it also provides a disincentive for unauthorised parking in areas where people used to park. Could we have a debate to consider the environmental benefits of this approach?
Mel Stride
I both join my hon. Friend in congratulating Rugby local authority on the measures it has taken in respect of the urban meadows policy and congratulate him on his hard work locally on those issues. The environment is always a good subject for debate, not least because of the Government’s record in this policy area—the House will know that we are at the forefront internationally in having committed to net zero carbon by 2050.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Along with my colleagues, I welcome the announcement regarding UK Government funding for Birmingham 2022 and seek assurances that the Barnett formula will be applied with 100% comparability. Given the fact that Scotland has thus far lost out on £3.4 billion, due as a result of the confidence and supply agreement with the Democratic Unionist party, and with another DUP bung imminent, may we have a debate on the departmental application of the Barnett formula to ensure that Scotland is not shafted yet again by this Government?
Mel Stride
I will not use the same language as the hon. Gentleman, but having served in the Treasury until quite recently and been fairly intimately involved in two Budget cycles, the idea that Scotland has somehow been short-changed by our stewardship of the economy is grossly unfair. If he wishes to debate the Barnett formula, perhaps I should direct him towards an Adjournment debate, at which he can interrogate an individual Minister on that subject.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
Last week, the northern powerhouse Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), aborted a visit to Great Grimsby. I had hoped that that visit would involve an announcement, after nine months of waiting, that would start the OnSide Youth project in my constituency. Will the Leader of the House please explain why this much-needed initiative requires a ministerial cavalcade and long-range cameras, when surely a written statement, preferably before 22 July, would suffice?
Mel Stride
If the hon. Lady would like to avail herself of my time after questions, I would be happy to discuss the specifics of that issue, which sounds slightly complicated in terms of visits, not visits, dates and so on.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
My constituent was refused a home visit to assess her employment and support allowance entitlement, despite her GP having advised that her health needs absolutely necessitated one. After three weeks of stress, threats of sanctions and calls, my constituent spoke of feeling suicidal, before her GP’s recommendation was finally upheld. May we have a debate in Government time on the impact of sanctions on the wellbeing and mental health of social security claimants?
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady raises a specific issue relating to one of her constituents and ESA entitlement. If she would like to write to me on the matter, I would be pleased to look into it and make sure that the relevant Minister looks at it accordingly and that it is properly looked into.
Graham P. Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The Leader of the House mentioned £13 billion of transport funding for the north, but I am sure that figure would be met with great disbelief throughout the north. The latest dithering is over the reinstatement of the Colne-Skipton link to connect East Lancashire to West Yorkshire. That is shameful: it should be a priority for Government expenditure. In this zombie Parliament, perhaps the Leader of the House could ask the Government to hold a debate on how the expenditure of the two proposed candidates for the Conservative party leadership and office of Prime Minister will affect investment in the northern powerhouse. We could then discuss the lack of investment in the north.
Mel Stride
It is slightly surprising that the hon. Gentleman should continue to push on the issue of our commitment to the north in terms of expenditure, because the Mayor of Greater Manchester said:
“There is a tendency to be London-centric in the Labour Party and that tendency needs to be constantly challenged.”
That is why we, as a Government, have injected £13 billion —a record level—into better transport throughout the north, and why we as a party have planned central Government transport investment over the next three years that will be, as I said, higher in the north than in the south, on a per capita basis. We have also committed to more than £5 billion through devolution and growth deals.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
With the ongoing dispute at the Environment Agency over pay and with staff morale at Natural England being at an all-time low, will the Leader of the House organise an urgent debate on the relationship between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its key agencies, so that we can look at how it deals with its workforce issues?
Mel Stride
I think that that may lend itself particularly to an Adjournment debate. If the hon. Gentleman would like to drop me a line, I will make sure that I am supportive of any such request that he may decide to make.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Pharmaceuticals company Avara Avlon, which was sold by AstraZeneca two years ago, has gone into administration, leaving many long-standing employees, including my constituents, high and dry without the benefit of AstraZeneca’s redundancy and terms and conditions. Can we have a debate to highlight the need to protect TUPE conditions in cases such as this and to highlight what the employees and my constituents feel is AstraZeneca’s lack of duty of care?
Mel Stride
On this particular matter, involving a particular pharmaceutical company and the issues of TUPE, I would direct the hon. Lady to Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy questions on 16 July, when she will have an ideal opportunity to press Ministers on that matter.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Last week, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister dismissed accusations of Christian persecution in Pakistan, claiming that any examples are only individual incidents that do not constitute a trend and comparing it with knife crime in the UK—what a comparison. It is very concerning that any member of the Pakistan Government should view 1,500 people of religious minorities being charged with blasphemy in Pakistan since 1987 as not constituting a trend. This is only the tip of the iceberg. I travelled to Pakistan last year and heard at first hand horrific accounts of abductions, child marriages, rape, forced conversions and other forms of persecution that Christians and other religious groups face in Pakistan. This week, I went to the Backbench Business Committee and requested a debate— 67 Members of this House want to speak in that debate. Will the Leader of the House agree to set aside time to discuss the persecution of Christians across the world?
Mel Stride
I know that the hon. Gentleman, rightly, persistently raises—as he has done at more than one business questions since I have been the Leader of the House—the issue of religious persecution. He is absolutely right to do so. I know that his commitment to that particular issue has, as he has outlined, involved travelling to Pakistan and looking closely at some of the deeply disturbing matters that he has just raised. Given his persistence in raising these issues, perhaps he and I could meet at a time of his convenience and look at some of them and at the particular ways in which, using the parliamentary timetable, it may be possible to further the points that he is making.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I am proud to represent a borough that has some of the best schools in the country, so I am very disturbed that, in the past few days, Hackney New School has lost its fourth head in two years. The reason I raise this matter here is that it is a free school, which means that it is directly accountable to the Government. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate in Government time about how we ensure accountability of free schools in England and will he ensure that the Education Minister writes to me about that school?
Mel Stride
On the hon. Lady’s last specific question, I have no doubt that her comments will have been heard and I will certainly follow up to ensure that an appropriate letter is written to her on that particular issue. Obviously, I do not know the specifics of the school in her constituency, albeit that it may be a free school—obviously, I cannot be expected to know as much about it as the hon. Lady—but I do not think that we should conclude that, because there are some problems with some free schools, as would be expected given the large volume that there are of them, that means that free schools per se are not a good or a successful idea. The reality is that, compared with 2010, there are now 1.9 million more children in good and outstanding schools as a result of this Government’s educational reforms.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
May I say gently to the Leader of the House, who I know to be a fair man, that he should not underestimate the level of dissatisfaction with the Government’s approach to the Northern Ireland business on Monday? It seems to be a pretty transparent and poor attempt to stifle debate on issues such as abortion, equal marriage and restitution for victims of institutional abuse. Actually, it is an attempt not just to stifle debate, but to block any progress on them. I urge him to work through the usual channels and do the right thing: give us the proper time to scrutinise these important issues in this important Bill.
Mel Stride
The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important matter and he has my personal commitment to do just that.
Mr Speaker
I hope that that is reassuring. It is very explicit that, although there are ordinarily deadlines for the submission of amendments, it is possible for there to be manuscript amendments, and the decision as to whether manuscript amendments are permissible is a decision for the Chair. Therefore, the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), although legitimately concerned about this matter—and, I hope, reassured by the Leader of the House—should not languish in perturbation for the rest of the day because there is help at hand from the Leader of the House and potentially from other sources if necessary.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am finding it increasingly difficult to elicit any kind of response from HMRC to my letters on behalf of my constituents. The phone lines are often not staffed, attending HMRC parliamentary drop-ins brings no progress and chasing letters are simply ignored. But the plot thickens because alongside this, after two previous corrections from me, I have just received a third letter from HMRC to my home, informing me that I am an English taxpayer. Will the Leader of the House make a statement setting out the importance of HMRC responding to MPs’ correspondence, and can he investigate how much potential revenue may be lost to Scotland as a result of HMRC classing Scottish taxpayers as English taxpayers?
Mel Stride
Clearly I am not privy to the specific case that the hon. Lady has raised. However, I urge her to beat a path to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who has departmental responsibility for HMRC. If the hon. Lady requires my assistance in that purpose, it will be available. As to the observation that she might have been treated as an English taxpayer rather than a Scottish taxpayer, I would imagine that that might be slightly welcome, given that she might pay less tax as a consequence.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
As was mentioned at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, the company that owns Vauxhall Motors at Ellesmere Port has announced that we are going to get the new Astra model, but only if we avoid a no-deal Brexit. Now, I cannot help thinking that the reason the company has said this is that both the men who want to be the next Prime Minister have been talking up the prospects of a no-deal Brexit. Given that there is now a very specific threat to the livelihoods of many of my constituents because of a proposed Government policy, I am astounded that the Business Secretary has not been here to give a statement about how we are going to avoid those job losses. Please can we have a statement from the Business Secretary on this issue as soon as possible?
Mel Stride
I am not going to stray too far into the comments made by the two candidates to be the next leader of the Conservative party and Prime Minister, but my understanding is that both those individuals clearly recognise that it is better to have a deal, and that one of the reasons it is better to have a deal is to avoid the frictions at the border that would cause problems to car manufacturers and just-in-time elements of their production processes. As to how we might go forward, the hon. Gentleman is of course at liberty to propose this as a subject for debate, to request an urgent question on the matter or perhaps even to apply for an Adjournment debate, where he might have an opportunity to quiz the relevant Minister in some detail on the issues he has raised regarding Vauxhall Motors.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Families who adopt have specific support needs. Given that the all-party parliamentary group on adoption and permanence took evidence from over 1,600 people, including young people, about their specific needs, will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the future of the adoption support fund, which is due to end next year?
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Lady for all her work on this very important issue, not least as the chair of the APPG for adoption and permanence. I believe that she may have put in for a Backbench Business debate on the particular issue that she has raised. If she has a moment to meet me briefly over a cup of tea, I will be very happy to have a chat with her further about the matter and to see whether we can prevail upon the good offices of the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) to secure that debate for her.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Earlier this year, the Information Commissioner presented a substantial and important report to Parliament requesting an extension of freedom of information laws to outsourced public service providers, particularly drawing on the experiences of Grenfell and Carillion. I have discovered through a written question that the Government have responded in a letter that has been hidden away in the Library, but they are not proposing very much. Given the importance of this subject and the importance of the Information Commissioner’s work, can we not at least have a statement from a Minister?
Mel Stride
I do not know the specifics of the letter that has been placed in the Library, nor what it says, but I am sure that the Ministers concerned will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s comments.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Speaker, your enthusiasm for curry was very much on show at the Tiffin cup event on Tuesday night, when you made some quite inspirational remarks about the contribution that south-east Asian cuisine has made to this country. I invite the Leader of the House to recognise the excellent work done by all 69 nominees from across the UK who were put forward—in particular, that of Nakodar Grill in Dennistoun in my constituency, which won the Scottish regional heat and was then submitted to the final. That was fantastic. It is not just about the quality of food, which was ably judged by a team chaired by Ainsley Harriott, but the great contribution that these restaurants have made to local communities. Tony and Johnnie Ginda, who come from one of the first Asian families in Dennistoun, established that restaurant. Many thought it would fail, but they fought against all the odds to make it a huge asset to the community. They do amazing community work as well as all the work they do to provide fine cuisine in Glasgow. I invite everyone to try it out if they are ever in Glasgow. I think we should have a debate in Government time on the fantastic contribution that south-east Asian restaurants have made to this country’s heritage.
Mel Stride
I am not so sure about a debate, but perhaps we should resurrect the bus trip and go to visit all 69 of those locations, have a good meal and see just how good those places are—I know they are outstanding. I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the Gindas on the hard work that they have done and their deserved success.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I had hoped to be asking the Leader of the House to join me in congratulating constituents on the opening of the community pub in Ryton, Ye Olde Cross, which has been bought by community shareholders, but, sadly, I have something much more serious to raise. Just over a year ago, I raised in this House the loss of over 100 jobs that would arise from the Government’s decision to award the UK passport contract to a French-Belgian company. Last week, I was again at the delivery plant in Team Valley, being told about the loss of up to 171 additional jobs, this time on the money-printing side—a direct fallout from the loss of the passport contract. This is devastating for these highly skilled staff and for the local economy. Can we have a debate in Government time on steps to support these highly skilled print jobs for the future?
Mel Stride
First, Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy questions are on the 16th of this month, and that would be an excellent matter to raise with Ministers on that occasion. As to the loss of jobs around the printing of passports, the procurement arrangements and so on, if there are specific questions that the hon. Lady would like me to ask of Ministers, I will be very happy to facilitate that if she writes to me.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I am sure that all Members, and indeed the Leader of the House himself, are keen to try to reduce plastic usage or to recycle plastic where we can. It is therefore extremely important to have labelling on what plastics can and cannot be recycled. However, research from Which? has shown that 42% of the supermarket packaging that it analysed was either labelled incorrectly or was not labelled at all. Could we have a debate on plastic labelling so that we can ensure that what can be recycled is recycled, reduce the overall use of plastic and help towards the climate change crisis that we are now facing?
Mel Stride
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question because he raises an extremely important point. I think that right across the House we are all deeply concerned about plastic. This Government have taken a variety of important actions, not least reducing the use of single-use plastic bags by some 86% because of the charges that we brought in in that area, but there is always more to do. He is right to raise the issue of the labelling of plastics to make sure that it is appropriate. I wonder whether an Adjournment debate might be the best forum for bringing that matter forward.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Yesterday evening, I received the tragic news that a man had been fatally stabbed in Battersea. This is truly devastating, and what makes it more painful is that it seems to be happening too frequently. My constituents should be able to live freely and safely, but increasingly they feel as though they cannot. Could I ask Leader of the House two things? First, can we get a statement from the Home Secretary on the serious violence strategy because, as it stands, we are facing a national crisis and we do not appear to be hearing anything from him on this? Secondly, can we have a debate in Government time that will look into the root causes of the rise in violent crime, and the urgent resource that desperately needs to be put into our schools, our youth service provision and our police services?
Mel Stride
First, I take this opportunity to thank the hon. Lady for our recent meeting on nystagmus. I look forward to coming back to her on the points that I undertook to look into, in the hope of giving this issue a higher profile, which indeed it deserves.
On the tragic event in her constituency—the death of, I assume, one of her constituents—our thoughts and prayers are with the friends and family of that individual. She commented that these situations are occurring too frequently, and I cannot but agree with her—they are indeed. It is the Government’s view that there are complex issues underlying why these stabbings occur, such as young people getting involved in drugs, in gangs and in county lines. It needs a multi-agency approach that goes right across Government in order to unpick it, as the hon. Lady suggests. It also needs some finance. In the last Budget, £100 million was made available to make sure that we have the resources in order to undertake the work required. She specifically called on the Home Secretary to come to the House to make a statement. The Home Secretary has made various statements over time on precisely these matters, but I know that he will have heard her comments on this subject.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I am very privileged to have in my constituency the largest population of showpeople in Scotland. Can we have a debate on the forthcoming census, which would allow us to remind them that, for the first time ever, they can tick a “showpeople” box and be recognised in their own right?
My other question would be to ask you, Mr Speaker, whether we might be able to host some colleagues from the Showmen’s Guild in New Palace Yard who have kindly offered to bring some teacups and other fairground rides to put there. I wonder whether that is something that could perhaps be organised in the weeks to come.
Mel Stride
It is rather nice that the hon. Gentleman should have mentioned showpeople, who contribute in an important way to our culture and our society. I would be very happy, if he would write to me, to give some serious thought to how we make sure that the points that he has raised are better ventilated.
Points of Order
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Oh, a veritable flurry of points of order! I call the person who leapt to her feet with exemplary alacrity, speed and athleticism—Thangam Debbonaire.
Thangam Debbonaire
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on the need for Ministers of the Crown to speak accurately about the actions of Members of this place and the other place in legislative processes and to seek to correct the record as soon as possible when they inadvertently give information that turns out not to be correct.
The Prime Minister has been given several opportunities by me and others to correct the record and clarify that, contrary to what she said in reply to my question and one other last week in Prime Minister’s questions, which must have been misinformation that she had been given, the Labour Lords did not block or attempt to block the statutory instrument for the UK to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Despite emailing the Prime Minister, tabling a written question and asking her again yesterday following her G20 statement, the Prime Minister has chosen not to correct the record, but merely to repeat some of her previous statement.
Mr Speaker, what guidance do you have for the next Prime Minister on the subject of either giving accurate information about the actions of colleagues or, when misinformed and therefore inadvertently saying something that turns out not to be correct, correcting the record as soon as possible? The public deserve to know that all of us here do our very best to uphold the traditions of truth and accountability.
Mr Speaker
The short answer is: be accurate, and if you are not, acknowledge the fact and make amends. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her intention to raise that matter and for informing the Prime Minister. In responding to the hon. Lady’s point of order on 27 June, the Deputy Speaker encouraged her to pursue the matter by means of a written question. I note that the answer to her first question was disappointing to her, but that is, I regret to say, not an unusual experience for Members tabling questions to Ministers.
The best advice that I can give the hon. Lady in such circumstances is: persist, persist, persist—note my use of the word three times, its repetition twice. Quantity, persistence and, above all, repetition are at least as important as the quality of an hon. Member’s argument. The quality of the argument, of course, must pass muster, but it is a great mistake to think that if a point is made once and has the advantage of being true, it will be readily acknowledged as such by all colleagues or outside observers. Sadly, in my 22 years in the House, my experience has been that that is not unfailingly the case. It is therefore necessary to keep going—if necessary, on and on and on until satisfaction is achieved. The Table Office would be happy to advise the hon. Lady on further options available to her, and this process can potentially continue indefinitely until she has secured an outcome that suits.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
I will come to the right hon. Gentleman, but it would be a pity to squander him at too early a stage in our proceedings. The House will want to savour the experience of hearing him in his characteristically poetic form and mood, so we will come to him erelong. Meanwhile, we will hear a point of order from Marsha De Cordova.
Marsha De Cordova
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following the High Court ruling in 2017, the Department for Work and Pensions is now reviewing more than 1.6 million personal independence payment cases, to identify people entitled to additional social security support. Today the Department has released an update on its review, and the figures are deeply concerning. The Government had estimated that 14% of cases would see an increase in their award—an estimate that was cited multiple times in this place and outside it. But the figures released today show that just 0.8% of the cases reviewed have led to an increase in award. That is a significant disparity, and given the Department’s shambolic record, we need confidence that it is not yet another error. I seek your guidance, as I believe this is such an important issue that an oral statement should have been made to the House.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her intention to raise a point of order on that matter. I am bound to say that I have not received notice of an intention by Ministers to make an oral statement—
Mr Speaker
Oh! That is very helpful. The relevant Minister is in his place and veritably champing at the bit. Let us hear from the fella.
Justin Tomlinson
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I notified the hon. Lady on 24 June about the latest stats publication, with an invitation to meet officials, which, I am pleased to say, has been accepted. We will continue to keep the House updated through regular statistical releases, as is the usual practice.
Mr Speaker
I cannot be expected to act as arbiter on this matter. What the Minister has told the House is of interest and relevance, and doubtless the meeting, which I assume is scheduled, will go ahead, and it may well provide enlightenment or satisfaction. If not, and the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) wishes to return to the matter, she can do so in the first instance, having alerted those on the Treasury Bench to her continuing interest, through the judicious use of the Order Paper, upon which she will be advised by the Table Office. It is perfectly possible that these matters will be aired again in the Chamber erelong.
Mr Speaker
We have now arrived at this exciting moment—I call Sir John Hayes.
Sir John Hayes
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I waited in vain during business questions to hear any mention of the plight of those who suffer from spinal muscular atrophy, such as my constituent, 12-year-old Rae White. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence approved a treatment for this condition in May, yet it now has become clear that the roll-out has been delayed and the allocation may be partial. Quite simply, those who suffer deserve better.
Mr Speaker
I had no advance notification of that point of order, but the right hon. Gentleman has brought to the attention of the House an extremely serious and pressing matter. I do not know whether he is suggesting that there is any mismatch between a public statement of what would happen and what is now happening. If so, that is a matter of real parliamentary concern.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that there is some analogy or parallel between what he has just raised and the matter that has been raised on a couple of occasions in recent months by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), in relation to a different but very acute and serious condition and the availability or non-availability of the appropriate drug treatment. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to raise that matter further in the Chamber before the summer recess, I think I can say with complete confidence that he will have the chance to do so.
I thank colleagues for what they have said and the Minister on the Front Bench for helpfully springing to his feet to assist us.
Local Roads: Funding and Maintenance
Mr Speaker
We now come to the Select Committee statement. The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who chairs the Transport Committee, will speak on her subject for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, the Chair will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and call the hon. Lady to respond to those in turn. Members can expect to be called only once. Interventions should be questions and should be brief. Those on the Front Bench may take part in questioning. I call the Chair of the committee, Lilian Greenwood.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to make a statement to the House on the 10th report of the Transport Committee, “Local roads funding and maintenance: filling the gap”, which we published on Monday. The successful preparation of all our reports depends on the hard work of the Committee’s Clerks and staff, the diligence of the Members who make up our Committee—I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) in the Chamber—and the generosity of our witnesses, who give up their time to prepare for and take part in our sessions.
I particularly thank Paula Claytonsmith, Lynne Stinson, Lynne Wait and Anne Shaw for ensuring that we heard expert female voices in a male-dominated sector. I am sorry that the Roads Minister, the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), cannot be here today, but he has conveyed his sincere apologies, and I am sure he will pay close attention to Hansard tomorrow.
There is a plague of potholes blighting our local roads and pavements. This is not a new phenomenon, but one that successive Governments and councils across the land have failed to tackle. The consequences of this failure are all around us—we see them every day. I want to talk about the impacts of poor road and pavement conditions, why Government and local authority actions to date have been ineffectual and our report’s recommendations for tackling the problem.
On my journey to work, here in Westminster and out and about in my constituency, I see many examples of cracked and crumbling roads. Just today, a constituent emailed me about Green Lane in Clifton. Last week, Westminster City Council filled a pothole just around the corner from the Department for Transport that I had ridden into on my way home—I confess that it caused me to use some very unparliamentary language.
Our witnesses told us about the serious impacts that potholes have on the lives of pedestrians, cyclists, motorists and other road users. For example, poor pavements can strand older, frail and vulnerable people in their homes. Living Streets has found that nearly a third of adults over 65 felt reluctant to leave the house on foot due to the volume of cracks and uneven surfaces on surrounding streets, and almost two thirds of older people were worried about the state of street surfaces. Nearly half said that well-maintained pavements would make them more likely to go for a walk. Poorly maintained roads create real risks for vulnerable road users. DFT data shows that the number of cyclists killed or seriously injured due to defective road surfaces more than tripled between 2005 and 2017.
Local authorities must compensate motorists for damage to vehicles resulting from poor road conditions, and the cost of doing so has risen dramatically in recent years. Kwik Fit has estimated that the damage caused to vehicles from potholes in 2017 cost £915 million to repair, an increase of more than a third on the repair bill in 2016. Based on its share of Britain’s car insurance market, the AA has estimated that 3,500 claims had been made for pothole damage in 2017. The cost of this compensation ultimately falls on taxpayers, and it diverts money away from funding vital public services.
One of the most frustrating things about poor road conditions—this came through very clearly in our evidence—is the lack of any consistent reporting tool that drivers, cyclists, pedestrians and other road users can use to report problem potholes. Some councils have their own online tools, and there are nationwide sites such as FixMyStreet, but there is a lack of transparency around the whole reporting process, little clarity about what will be done and no guarantee that people will get a reply. Mark Morrell—“Mr Pothole”—for years a doughty campaigner against the pothole scourge, made a powerful case to us to fix this.
Why, year after year, do these problems persist? Why have successive Governments and local councils not done anything about them? In truth, they have tried, but their efforts have been inconsistent, and as a result the outcomes have been sub-optimal. They are constrained by three key things: funding, information and collaboration.
The key issue is funding. For decades, councils have complained that they do not have the funding to undertake a preventive—and, ultimately, cheaper and more effective—approach to maintaining their local roads and pavements. Successive Governments have responded to this by providing short-term, stop-start capital pots, such as the pothole action fund. Any extra funding is of course welcome, but the wrong funding in the wrong place at the wrong time means that councils simply mitigate the most obvious damage. It does not encourage the more effective, proactive maintenance that is the key to the long-term renewal of our local roads, as we heard from council after council.
The second issue is that councils sometimes do not have a full picture of the state of their road networks. If they do not know what they are dealing with, how can they plan and price maintenance properly? This lack of knowledge can be improved by innovating in data collection methods. There has been good work in this area in recent years, and there is a real desire on the part of Government and industry to work together to find solutions.
We heard about a similar willingness to innovate in the third area—good practice and collaboration. There is a real opportunity for initiatives such as the use of recycled plastic, self-repairing technology, graphene and even drones to bring down the cost of road repairs. We heard about the innovation and good practice going on across the country, but it was not always easy for this to be shared beyond individual councils and regions.
Our report makes a series of detailed recommendations to the Government to tackle these problems, and I want to highlight four of them. First and foremost, funding: there is not enough of it, and what there is is not allocated efficiently or effectively. Local government revenue funding has fallen by about 25% since 2010. The allocation within it for local roads is not ring-fenced, and it is often used by councils to plug gaps in other budgets. Capital funding, through the pothole action fund and other pots, is sporadic and time-limited.
To tackle this problem we recommend a front-loaded, long-term funding settlement for local councils in England. The DFT should champion it, and the Treasury should seriously consider it as part of the forthcoming spending review. This would enable local authorities to address the historical road maintenance backlog and plan confidently for the future. The settlement should not only include capital pots managed by the DFT, but roll up into a five-year settlement the revenue support elements of roads funding administered by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. This critical funding reform must not be an excuse for a budget cut.
Secondly, innovation is essential if the efficiency and effectiveness of local road maintenance is to continue to improve, which it must in the face of limited funding. It is right that the Government stimulate and encourage innovation, but the value for money of any investment is properly repaid only when new technologies, ideas and ways of working are scaled up and made available to all. In the light of this, we have recommended that the DFT work across government to collate all innovation funding for local roads in one place, establish as far as possible common rules for bidding and properly assess the benefits of innovation initiatives.
Thirdly, local authorities will be able to make better use of available funds for road maintenance only if they can target such funding well, and this requires good data. The DFT needs to be clear about whether the data it receives from local authorities on road conditions is consistent and allows valid comparisons to be made. It needs to be clear what it does with such data, how it is analysed and what action is taken on the back of the conclusions it draws. The DFT should also make it easier for the public to report road condition concerns and access local authority road condition data. We recommend that it does this by running an innovation competition to develop a platform the public can use to make online reports about road conditions directly to their council and to access real-time local road condition data.
Fourthly, making the best use of the available funding requires the sharing and adoption of good practice in road maintenance. This is a key role for central Government. The DFT should commit to monitoring and reviewing the current approach and reporting within two years on its effects and impacts. Local councils and industry are developing good practice in highway survey and maintenance. However, from the evidence we have received, it is not always clear that this is being widely shared. Regional highway alliances should be sharing good practice and benchmarking it against one another. The DFT could do more to facilitate this—for example, by providing a virtual good practice toolkit and repository, so that councils across England can find examples of good practice.
In conclusion, local roads are the arteries of prosperous and vibrant villages, towns and cities. They are critical to the movement of goods, as well as helping people to get around. The consequences of a deteriorating local road network are significant. It undermines local economic performance and results in direct costs to taxpayers. The safety of other road users is seriously compromised. This plague of potholes is a major headache for everyone. It is time for the Government to be bold, to take up our recommendations and to give councils the funding and the wider system of support that they need if they are to deliver for our constituents the roads and pavements they deserve.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her statement and her Committee on its excellent report. She says, very importantly, that best practice should be shared. Her report makes it clear that there are 153 local highways authorities managing the English local road network. Does she agree that it would be a good idea for the Department for Transport to get the best five in the same room in the department with the worst five, knock heads together and drive through some improvement?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is certainly our intention that the Department identify where there is very good practice and share that widely, so that other local councils can take up that good practice. We hope that it will also hold to account, as will their constituents, the councils that are not currently doing a good job in keeping their roads and pavements in a decent state.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I echo the thanks to the Committee staff and to witnesses, and I also thank my hon. Friend for her skilful chairing of the Committee. Does she agree with me that the evidence we frequently heard was that the funding streams are complicated, coming from two different Departments—the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as well as the DFT—and that the confusion caused by the bidding culture means resources are not necessarily allocated to the best places, particularly when so much of local government has been hollowed out?
Lilian Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and, indeed, for his contribution to our Committee, which is enormously valued. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that it is not just the quantum of funding that matters; it is the way in which it is delivered. It is about having long-term certainty about the funding that is available, not wasting resources on bidding for pots of money that come at the wrong time. The bidding is in itself a cost to councils, some of which are better than others at doing it. That is why we have asked for a long-term settlement, and we have asked for a single stream of funding, rather than it coming in dribs and drabs, which simply is not the most effective way to spend taxpayers’ money.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for her statement and her chairmanship of our Committee. I wish to raise a similar point to that made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). Does the hon. Lady agree that much of the evidence we heard and that we hear from our constituents relates to frustration at repeated ineffective short-term repairs? One of the main things that this report seeks to do is set in place a funding system so that councils know how much funding they will have in the medium and long term, and can therefore plan strategically and carry out sustainable repairs to our roads.
Lilian Greenwood
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is a valued member of the Committee. We have heard repeated evidence that councils are rushing around trying to fill the most dangerous potholes because they do not have the certainty of future funding. If they did have that certainty, they could plan ahead for maintenance and re-covering of roads, which is a much more efficient and effective way of doing things than the patch-and-mend approach in which a pothole gets filled, but if that is not done effectively, it returns, particularly when the weather is poor.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the comprehensive way that she laid out the scale of the pothole epidemic currently facing local authorities. What she said is underlined by a survey from the Asphalt Industry Alliance, which noted that the number of potholes filled by local authorities fell from just over 16,000 per local authority in 2012-13, to just over 15,000 last year. Does that not indicate that the scale of the problem is getting worse, not better? I commend the Committee for saying that what is needed is not the odd £420 million here or there, as we heard from the Chancellor in the Budget, but sustainable long-term, multi-year funding at the scale required.
Lilian Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend and I commend him, as a former shadow Roads Minister, for his interest and knowledge in this area. We heard from industry about a lack of data on the quality of roads, and one of our recommendations is that the Government improve those data. There is a bit of a mixed picture. There has been a slight improvement on some A-roads that are managed by local authorities, but as my hon. Friend recognises, for many unclassified roads, the picture has got worse. Funding is key, but as I said, it is not just about the quantity of funding; it is the way it is delivered. We call on the Government to consult with local authorities in deciding future arrangements.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate the Committee Chair on an excellent report. A week last Saturday, I attended a memorial service at Neston High School to mark 25 years since the death of Andrew Fielding who died on the A540 near the school. Ever since then his mother, Pauline Fielding, has campaigned for road safety improvements on that stretch of road, and although it is recognised that the road needs such improvements, we always seem to struggle with funding. If we could get that road, which is a major artery for the area, to be part of the strategic road network, that would open up lots more opportunities for funding. Will the review recommended by the Committee include consideration of whether certain roads should be part of the strategic road network?
Lilian Greenwood
The condition of our roads is an important part of road safety, and vulnerable pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists are put at risk when roads are not properly maintained. Our report focused on the local road network rather than the strategic road network, which is managed by Highways England. I cannot comment on whether the road mentioned by my hon. Friend is rightly allocated, but a large amount of funding has been put into the strategic road network, and we must place the same focus on our local road network, which is, as the Minister said, part of our national infrastructure and hugely important. Our local road network is a national asset, and we must take care of it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for the report, which included input from my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan), and the Government have set aside additional money to address potholes in Northern Ireland. Potholes are a daily nuisance in all our constituencies, not just because of their inconvenience, but because they pose a danger to cyclists, motorcyclists and those who drive cars. The Government refer to a 5 million pothole strategy by 2020-21. Does the Committee consider that strategy to be fully funded and a priority, because it is important to have a proactive response rather than a reactive one?
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and we want to move from a reactive to a proactive approach to mending our roads, so that local authorities can plan ahead. The pothole action fund has undoubtedly allowed local authorities to fill some roads and undertake work, but that often gets agreed within the year and is time-limited, so it must be implemented by the end of the financial year. That is not the most efficient and effective way to deal with the funding and maintenance of our local roads, and that issue lies at the heart of the Committee’s report.
Bill Presented
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Secretary Karen Bradley, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Secretary David Gauke, Secretary David Mundell, Secretary Alun Cairns, John Penrose and Kevin Foster, presented a Bill to extend the period for forming and Executive under section 1(1) of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018 and to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to report on progress towards the formation of an Executive in Northern Ireland.
Bill read the first time; to be read a Second time on Monday 8 July, and to be printed (Bill 417), with explanatory notes (Bill 417-EN).
Backbench Business
Sale of New Petrol and Diesel Cars and Vans
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to bring forward the date by which the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans will be ended.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee for producing the inquiry that inspired it. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) for presenting a report from the Transport Committee. That demonstrates the role that Select Committees are currently having in the life of our politics, and the importance of this Chamber in the absence of a lot of Government business.
Every transition in technology, or indeed social progress, generates resistance. Some people like to focus on the negatives and challenges, and use those as a reason for resisting or delaying change. I want to use this debate as an opportunity to talk about what needs to be and can be done, and shine a light on the many positives that will come from the move to electric vehicles.
Discussion of EVs usually starts with a focus on infrastructure or climate change, but as we are discussing what is ultimately a consumer product in a nation of car lovers, I will start by talking about the driving experience itself. I will start with what, in this day and age, is a confession: I love cars and I love driving. I am a proud member of the Association of Advanced Drivers and Riders, and I love watching Formula 1. Some time ago, however, a conflict began between my head and heart. My heart loved being a car owner and the freedoms that came with that, but my head knew the damage it was doing, and that by living in the centre of a city with a fantastic and award-winning bus service, I could afford to live without driving if I tried.
A decade ago I sold my car, and since then I have been an extremely happy user of the Brighton & Hove bus company, and an often irate user of Southern trains. Crucially, however, I have never regretted the move, particularly as new scientific data emerges on the impact that vehicle emissions are having on the quality of our air and on global warming.
As part of the BEIS Committee inquiry, not only did we undertake the normal avenues of parliamentary investigation, we also got out and about. We travelled to Norway to understand its outlier status as the world’s most successful country in the transition to carbon-free transport. We went to the Milton Keynes’s Electric Vehicle Experience Centre, where anyone can go to try out electric cars for themselves. As somebody who loves driving, I must admit that I was not really looking forward to it. I expected a sluggish, dull experience that pointed to a future in which people who enjoy driving will have to sacrifice their enjoyment for the sake of our environment.
I could not have been more wrong. All questions about range anxiety and charging times go straight out the window once you get going. The first thing you notice is how different the car’s interior is. Losing the need for a driveshaft and traditional gearbox means that designers and engineers have far more freedom to rethink the space used to enhance driver comfort and the passenger experience in an electric vehicle. Then you cannot help but notice how fast they are. There is no need to wait for the process of combustion in an EV, so initial acceleration, even in an entry-level model, is startling. I got a test of this when the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), who is in his place on the Government Benches, and I were going down the dual carriageway. I was on the inside lane and he shot past me on the outside lane. He certainly got around the first roundabout in Milton Keynes before me. You then become aware of the noise or, more accurately, the lack thereof. Few of us can afford cars whose engine noise is a thing of beauty, so doing without it altogether is a godsend.
Finally, because of the use of the reclamation engine to reclaim energy when decelerating, all but the most severe braking is done by lifting the accelerator pedal. It makes for an incredibly smooth ride, much smoother than that of the current automatic cars, although I cannot attest to the smoothness of the hon. Gentleman’s journey that day.
In short, we should not guilt drivers into electric cars. We should start by pointing out how brilliant they are. That is also borne out by the evidence.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
When my hon. Friend was on his mystery tour, for want of a better expression, did he visit the Jaguar Land Rover plant and look at the electric cars there, or did he go to look at the black cabs made just outside Coventry, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Rugby, and try a ride in one?
Peter Kyle
I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend’s characteristically generous and insightful contribution. The Committee visited JLR—I was not on the visit—and the London Electric Vehicle Company plant. Indeed, the hon. Member for Rugby was a participant in that visit, for obvious reasons. I will talk a little later about that experience and the contribution that that company is making to the streets of London, our capital city.
The proof that driving an electric vehicle is an exhilarating experience and one that consumers enjoy is also borne out by evidence. In Norway, where 30% of new cars sold are electric, 96% of first-time buyers say that they would never consider going back to conventional cars. Evidence also shows that prior to buying an EV, potential customers have concerns about range anxiety. New electric car customers, however, report feeling liberated from petrol stations. Evidence shows that people who buy EVs love them and promote them to friends. People like me who have experience driving them soon aspire to own one.
Just as electric vehicles provide a great consumer experience, we should also see the opportunity they provide for British business, which has not only challenges but huge opportunities in this regard. British industry has already proven itself a world-leading EV maker with the Nissan Leaf, Europe’s best-selling electric car, which is made right here in Britain, in Sunderland.
Our fantastic start is not being sustained, however, and there is no time to waste if we are serious about using the conversion to electric as an opportunity for British industry. Low domestic demand, Brexit and unambitious policy have meant that Britain has lost out on the world-class manufacturing opportunities we should be snapping up. Honda is closing its car assembly plant in Swindon to make its electric cars in Japan. BMW, Vauxhall and Toyota are shipping their high-value parts, including batteries, from abroad rather than making them here. Once these global patterns are established, it will become really hard for British industry to break in.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
On that point, Cogent Power’s Orb plant in my constituency makes very high-quality electrical steel and it is very keen to be a part of this industry in the future. What it needs from the Government is support for smaller companies to help to grow the supply chain. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government could help industry in this way?
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point, which is fundamental to not only saving the industry but exploiting it. It is about not just car manufacturers but the supply chain. It is part of a comprehensive industrial strategy that our country cannot afford to miss out on. We will only succeed in the way she mentions, and succeed in achieving the kind of ambition she has for her local industry and her local businesses, if the Government are an active participant in making that happen. That is the lesson we have learned repeatedly in recent decades and repeatedly in the past year alone.
Mr Jim Cunningham
Jaguar Land Rover is investing a lot of money in making electric batteries at its research and development centre in my constituency, but not enough has been done to create the infrastructure for electric cars that is badly needed. Does my hon. Friend not agree that more could be done in that area?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
May I just say that we have a very packed debate afterwards and that the opening speeches are meant to be approximately 15 minutes in length? I hope that helps.
Peter Kyle
I am very grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. You will be pleased to hear that I have got my speech down to 12 minutes. Interventions allowing, I will crack on.
My hon. Friend makes another very good point. It is great that we are making batteries in this country and I thank the Government for launching the Faraday challenge, which is important in inspiring and nurturing the sector, but we need to do a lot more. There is absolutely no doubt about that. The ambition of operators needs to be matched by the ambition of the Government for the electrical vehicle infrastructure itself. Otherwise, it will not succeed.
Right now, trends are emerging globally. We therefore have a window of opportunity that we cannot afford to lose. We must not miss out on this opportunity to establish Britain as a world leader in design, manufacture, assembly, and distribution for electric vehicles and their component parts. Industry cannot do that alone. As the interventions I have taken prove, the industry needs the Government to be an active and generous partner at these nascent stages of one of the world’s most significant emerging consumer trends.
Increasingly, electrified transport will become a normalised part of British life. People will experience it for themselves regularly from now on. As they do so, suspicion of its practicality will fall away. For example, in just 18 months’ time there will be 9,000 fully electric black cabs on the streets of London. As part of our inquiry, we visited the London EV Company and saw for ourselves the cutting-edge skills and technology being deployed by this great Coventry-based firm. Its product sets new standards, raising the bar on passenger comfort. Cab drivers love it, too. Next month, Brighton and Hove takes delivery of its first fully electric bus, and London already has several on the roads. When I was walking through Westminster a little while ago, I heard an extraordinary squeaking noise. I turned around and there was a double-decker bus. The only thing I could hear was the squeaking of the tyres as the bus made its way down the road. These are extraordinary innovations, which will transform not only our ability to tackle climate change, and the passenger and driver experience, but our lives in cities, because of the lack of the noise pollution that goes along with the combustion engine.
Our Government have a target of “almost every car and van” being zero emission by 2050, and for new cars and vans to be “effectively” zero emission by 2040. Our Committee found several faults with those targets. First, the phraseology used by the Government leaves plenty of room for interpretation. It is too vague to have bite. Secondly, the target dates themselves are miles behind other nations. China, India and Norway will all phase out petrol and diesel vehicles over the next decade, so why cannot we? Perversely, we are not even managing to beat countries within our own United Kingdom—Scotland has a target of 2032. Moreover, the motor manufacturers themselves are not hanging around for our targets. Honda will be producing electric-only vehicles within seven years, Porsche by 2030.
All those factors lead me to believe that when it comes to electric vehicles, the ambition of consumers, operators and manufacturers is outstripping that of our Government. If the UK is serious about being an EV world leader, as our Government claim to be, we must bring forward a clear, unambiguous target to achieve zero emissions from cars and vans by 2032. To achieve that target, Government will need far more ambition not just in its rhetoric, but in its action on the ground.
We need a revolutionary approach to charging infra- structure —not the incremental one that we have right now.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Would my hon. Friend accept that, as well as more charging points, we need a proper economic structure to maintain them? From my experience, that is not working on the ground. Does he agree?
Peter Kyle
I cannot disagree with my hon. Friend, particularly in an era when councils like Brighton and Hove City Council have experienced cuts of over 45% to their budget. We are investing massively in new infra- structure, but maintaining it will be a crucial challenge. We need to share the costs with the people who make money from the charging infrastructure, such as the electric companies, and the people who use the service. We also need to ensure that, for the sake of our climate change objectives, these things are subsidised as well. The cash must be there in the system.
The Government have absented themselves from the opportunity to become the driving force in making access to publicly available charging stations ubiquitous, and have instead devolved responsibilities to cash-strapped local authorities. As a result, a quarter of local authorities have not installed a single EV charging point in the last year. That is simply not good enough.
In the coming months, Brighton and Hove City Council will install 200 charging points across the city. Next week, I shall be joining one of the teams to see for myself what it takes to create a modern charging network. I am pleased to say that a representative of Brighton and Hove City Council who is leading on the programme is here with us in the Chamber today—I welcome Pete Turner to our debate.
Some 60% of EV charging takes place at home, which is why so many people feel liberated from being dependent on fuel stations; but for those of us who, like me, live in flats or high-density housing, on-street charging is essential. My street is scheduled to have two charging points installed in the coming months. Several London boroughs are converting street lights into charging stations.
So we know that the technology and expertise exists, and we really need to get on with it. My fear is that cities like Brighton and Hove will become exemplars in public charging facilities but others will not. That is great for people who want to drive to our city, but unless surrounding towns, cities and destinations are suitably equipped, it will not be great for people who live in Brighton and Hove who want to get out and about in their cars. Charging a car should not be a postcode lottery. EV owners should not have to do research before setting out on a trip. Infrastructure should be ubiquitous and should be evenly distributed throughout our country, and only active Government participation can make that happen.
Until EVs reach the scale of production that we have seen for conventional vehicles, their cost will remain higher. Until then, the Government also need to level the playing field with incentives. Tax breaks and other incentives work—there is no escaping that fact. Last October, when the Government suddenly cut the plug-in scheme, growth in sales of plug-in hybrids plummeted from 29.5%, which we had achieved in the previous 10 months, to just 1.7%. That was highlighted just an hour ago on the BBC website, where it was reported that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders had said that
“sales of plug-in hybrid cars had halved”
in the last year,
“while hybrid electric vehicle sales were down 4.7%.”
Transport accounts for 26% of our CO2 emissions, adding another layer of urgency to the need for electrification of our road transport.
As all of us who sat on the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee inquiry learned, the transition to electric vehicles is about a lot more than just cars on the road. Its impact will be far and wide. It will change patterns in daily life for most citizens. Implications for policy makers range from the infrastructure of our nation, such as electricity generation, to the distributional challenges for our national grid—and the ability to capitalise on new resources with millions of batteries to be drawn down on at peak times, just as we need to charge them at others. People’s homes will adapt, so that people can fuel their car from home.
Also, of course, the transition is inextricably linked to our ability to tackle climate change and the climate emergency, to meet levels of CO2 emissions reduction that our country and planet need from all of us. That is why this debate is so welcomed and so important. It is also why it is the start, not the end, of what I hope is ongoing parliamentary involvement from this point forward.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
May I suggest to everybody an eight-minute limit, in order to give equal time?
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), who during our inquiry became the most vociferous advocate for electric vehicles, drawing attention to the difference in the driving experience. I shall focus my remarks on the impact on my constituency and some of the business opportunities that arise as we run down the sale of vehicles powered by internal combustion engines.
I was an enthusiastic participant in the inquiry and I support the target that the Committee decided on—to bring forward to 2030 an end to the sale of new cars and vans powered by internal combustion engines. That will put the UK in the first tier of EV transition and will help harmonise objectives across the UK. That puts real pressure on some of our manufacturers, but it also provides some very serious opportunities.
I want to talk about commercial vehicles. As the hon. Gentleman said, this is not just about private vehicles but about commercial vehicles too. I shall refer to the London Electric Vehicle Company, which manufactures taxis in my constituency. I also want to make some remarks on charging infrastructure and some of the problems that we are experiencing in my constituency.
I admit at the outset that I am not a driver of an electric vehicle. I have recently been in the market for a new car, but I prefer it if somebody else takes the initial depreciation, so I run a car that is maybe one or two years old. There is not yet an effective market in second-hand electric cars, and there is some concern about the life of batteries. I know that an internal combustion engine car that has 20,000 miles on the clock at two years old is approximately a fifth of the way through its life. We do not yet know that about electric vehicles, and that market will develop. I am also put off by the capital value. On a like-for-like basis, the electric vehicle is currently approximately £10,000 more than the equivalent with an internal combustion engine, although I do very much recognise the lower running costs. I shall refer to those in respect of taxis.
I am also a little concerned about range anxiety. I use a car for travelling short distances around my constituency, but on occasions want to drive 100 miles or so to Westminster or 200 miles to visit friends, and I am concerned about being able to charge the car. I shall return to the subject of infrastructure later.
I am delighted by the opportunities for the west midlands economy and welcome the news in respect of Jaguar Land Rover, which is about to build on the I-PACE vehicle, currently on the market, by developing an all-electric XJ—its big saloon. That will be available in 2020 with 300 miles between charges, and provide a UK-manufactured opportunity to compete with Tesla. I know that the XJ is the car of choice for our Ministers and I very much hope that the Minister at the Dispatch Box will be driving an electric XJ immediately when they become available. It is good news for motor manufacturing at a time of Brexit uncertainty, and it is good news that the batteries will be manufactured at Hams Hall in Warwickshire and the motors will be built at JLR’s engine complex in Wolverhampton. That provides many opportunities for the supply chain.
I mentioned the London Electric Vehicle Company. I am delighted that it is in my constituency. It has produced 2,500 vehicles at Anstey in my constituency, and there are almost 2,000 on the streets of London already. If you see a taxi rank now, there is a pretty good chance that more than half of the taxis will be electric. Each such taxi reduces the CO2 emissions by 9.7 metric tonnes a year, compared with a diesel, and drivers can see savings of up to £100 a week because they no longer have to spend money on diesel.
One of the critical points about electric taxis is that for many people their first ever journey in an electric vehicle is in a taxi. It gives the taxi a pioneer role, and it is important that that is a good experience that people consider when they are purchasing. I was delighted to see the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt) driving a London taxi on the campaign trail only last week. We must encourage the switch, but the London Electric Vehicle Company has told me that lack of infrastructure is still a concern for drivers.
A second company in my constituency to benefit from the move to electric vehicles is Automotive Insulations. It is an important player and in many ways the go-to company for UK manufacturers in the supply of acoustic and thermal solutions. Acoustic material is what deadens the noise. In an internal combustion engine the acoustic material needs to deaden the sound of the engine, but the engine often masks other sounds, such as road noise, battery whine in electric vehicles and the noise made by other moving parts. So electric vehicles need different insulation material and Automotive Insulations is an expert in the field. It already supplies LEVC and the JLR I-PACE. It is also working on the new XJ. It has solutions designed for the Volvo Polestar, whose owners Geely also own LEVC, and is also working with Mercedes-Benz and BMW on developments. It is great to have its expertise in my constituency.
Grid infrastructure poses several challenges. An SME in my constituency provides extra power in the short term when there is inadequate power in the grid for people to recharge their vehicles. It supplies to two locations of interest, the first of which is Oxford Bus. Oxford has a low emissions zone. For visitors who want to tour the city and see the sights on a bus, Go Ahead needed to find a way to electrify its bus fleet. Its depot had insufficient power capacity and development would have taken too long and come at a prohibitive cost. Off Grid Energy in my constituency was able to provide a battery storage system to control the power available, limit the peak load on the network and store energy ready to recharge buses when they returned to the depot.
Off Grid Energy installed a similar system in Camden to provide power for a parcel delivery depot with 170 electric vans. If they all came back to the depot at the same time and wanted to recharge, there was not enough power in the grid, so Off Grid Energy’s batteries draw down power over time, giving the capacity to recharge. Those opportunities will continue to arise.
Charging is the key to solving the problem, and we need to make sure that we build in enough charging facilities for the growth in the market, especially if our objective is to go all electric by 2032. Rugby is at the centre of England and at the crossroads of the motorway network. It is great news that junction 1 of the M6 is getting a brand new motorway services, operated by Moto. I have made it my business to look at the provision of electric charging at the new service area. We might think that a new motorway service area would be an ideal place to include an extensive range of charging for people on their journeys, halfway between Manchester and London, but when it opens in July next year it will have just two charging points. That is extraordinary, and I have talked to the operator, Moto. It has an ambition to have 24, but it will open with just two. That issue needs to be addressed and I hope that the Minister will talk about how National Grid and Western Power, the power provider, can provide what people will need.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) on opening the debate and the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) on his speech.
Our 2018 Joint Select Committee report on air quality began by setting out the impacts of air pollution, and they bear repeating. Some 40,000 lives across the country are cut short every year, with an annual cost to the UK of £20 billion. The health of babies, children, older people and those with existing medical conditions, including lung problems and asthma is put at great risk. We noted in that report that successive Governments had failed to act and violated our obligations to ensure safe, clean air to breathe. Of course, air pollution is just one of the environmental challenges that we face. I welcome the recognition in this place that we face a climate emergency, but it demands urgent and radical action to end our contribution to global carbon emissions. It is therefore particularly timely for us to debate the Government’s plans to end the sale of new petrol and diesel cars.
Road transport is responsible for 80% of NOx emissions—air pollution—at the roadside, and 65% of the emissions come from diesel and petrol cars and vans. While there has been a significant reduction in overall greenhouse gas emissions, that is primarily as a result of changes in energy generation. Progress on emissions from transport has been stuck in the slow lane. Not only have transport emissions not fallen in recent years but they rose between 2013 and 2017, and the sector is now the UK’s largest generator of greenhouse gases, making up 27% of the total. Even though individual cars are becoming more fuel efficient and reducing their individual emissions, that is far surpassed by the increase in the number of vehicles on our roads, which is getting higher and higher.
The case for action is clear. The Government’s plans, however, are sadly lacking. The joint report welcomed the commitment to end the sale of new petrol and diesel cars, but the target date of 2040 is not ambitious enough. It is too distant to produce the step change that is needed in industry and local government planning and, as my hon. Friend has said, it lags behind the commitment made by other countries and car manufacturers. Norway has committed to selling only zero-emission vehicles by 2025 and a host of other countries have set the target of 2030. Even Scotland is on 2032.
The target is about banning the sale of vehicles. We know that the replacement of the whole vehicle fleet would take 10 to 15 years. If we aim for the end of the sale of vehicles only in 2040, we will have no hope of meeting zero carbon by 2050. Are we really prepared to wait 15 years after the end of the sale of vehicles to eliminate those vehicles that emit polluting carbon from our roads? I do not think that we are.
If we are to change the set-up, industry needs clarity on what will be required and when. There is undoubtedly an opportunity to move more quickly, as the Committee on Climate Change has recommended. The National Infrastructure Commission has called for a similar ban on the sale of new diesel HGVs by 2040. It is a real challenge to decarbonise our freight sector, but we should go faster and further where we can and we need more research on how we can do that.
Setting a more ambitious target of 2030, 2035 or even sooner is not enough in itself. The Government must also take steps to ensure that that target is met and that they have the policies to support businesses and people in the switch to cleaner vehicles. We know that many consumers are confused—the RAC’s motoring survey has confirmed that—so clear guidance is needed. There are simple options such as vehicle labelling, which is very welcome and should be extended to, for instance, the second-hand market.
As has already been said, we need a rapid roll-out of charging infrastructure. The Government should work with National Grid in relation to electricity demand, and liaise with local authorities to identify the barriers and take steps to overcome them. Of course, the Government are themselves a major fleet provider, and are able to ensure that their fleets consist of cleaner and greener vehicles. However, as we start demanding that people use electric vehicles and do so rather more quickly, we should be conscious of social justice, especially when we know that clean air charging zones are being introduced in some of our most polluted towns and cities. The Government must act to help those who are least able to afford to replace polluting vehicles with ultra low emission vehicles. They should consider the role of scrappage schemes, and target support at low-income households and small businesses.
I must sound a note of caution about the limitations of this debate. Electric cars and vans are not a panacea, and they are not the whole answer to air pollution or the climate crisis. First, even electric cars’ brakes and tyres produce dangerous particulates that have an impact on health, so simply changing to a cleaner vehicle is not the answer. Secondly, cars are not the only issue. I have to say that in our air quality report, we largely neglected to consider the rail network. While it is not a significant contributor at a national level, we know that emissions from diesel trains pose a serious problem in stations and depots. The Government have talked about decarbonising the railway, but they are also still talking about bi-mode trains, which, when they are not under the wires, are simply diesel trains.
The most important point, I think, is that air pollution and carbon emissions are not our only challenges. Inactivity and obesity are huge public health challenges, and congestion is a blight in nearly all towns and cities. We could move from dirty, polluting traffic jams to clean, green traffic jams, and that would not be right. We need more people to get out of their cars and on to public transport—this is Catch the Bus Week, and low emission buses have an enormous role to play—but we need even more people to be walking and cycling. Some 60% of journeys of one to two miles are undertaken by car, and that has to change if we are serious about securing a happy, healthy future for our country. Yes, we need cleaner vehicles, but we need so much more.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who, as ever, advanced cogent arguments in support of electric vehicles.
Last month the House agreed unanimously to set a target of 2050 for net zero carbon emissions. Concern was expressed in some sections of the press that the decision had been made “on the nod”, and that insufficient thought had been given to how it would be delivered and the economic consequences. I hope this debate will show how wrong that concern is. There is not only a political awareness of the steps necessary to deliver our commitment, but the political will to take those steps, even if they require difficult decisions.
One of the difficult decisions that we must take is to bring forward the date by which the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans will end. That is supported by the Committee on Climate Change and, indeed, the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, of which I am a member. I note that in addition to our call, similar requests have been made by four other Committees, which have cited the impact on health and air quality as well as the environment, and the need to support low- carbon industries. I am delighted that the Conservative Environment Network has joined those calls, asking for a 2035 target.
The price of electric vehicles is expected to reach parity with that of internal combustion engine-powered cars by the mid-2020s—not on some far-flung date in the future, but in just a couple of years. A little further down the line, in the 2030s, sales of electric vehicles are expected to overtake petrol and diesel sales. There are now more electric vehicle charging locations in the UK than petrol stations. Despite that milestone, however, the network is not fit for purpose, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), and poor provision of charging infrastructure is one of the main barriers to the growth of the market.
As it said in its report last year, the BEIS Committee found that my region contained just 244 publicly funded charging points, which equates to nearly 29,000 people per point. Although that is substantially better than the ratio across the border in Wales, where there are 98,806 people per charging point, it pales in comparison with the ratio in the north-east, where the figure is fewer than 4,000 people. Those three regions, which stretch across the UK, demonstrate the serious risk that access to sufficient charging points will become a postcode lottery, with someone from Newcastle standing a far better chance of being able to charge an electric vehicle than someone from Newport, Newquay or Knutsford.
A visible and extensive network of ultra-fast chargers is not just good for existing electric vehicle owners. Our Committee heard evidence that
“The principle reason people are put off buying an EV, is no longer range anxiety, but the lack of a viable national/urban Rapid Charger infrastructure.”
We also need to think more carefully about how to standardise the infrastructure. If we are to develop an electric vehicle network that mirrors the advantages of petrol cars, we need to ensure that all EVs and charging points are inter-operable. That does not just mean that charging points need to charge all EVs; it means that data and information sharing must be standard as well.
I recognise that the passage of the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 has empowered the Government to take the necessary steps, but, as the report states, they will require full use of the powers in the Act to deliver a network of this kind. That is why I am troubled that they have handed responsibility for the development of this vital national infrastructure to local authorities. That would not happen with HS2 or Crossrail. Local authorities have demonstrated that they have a big role to play in this project, but why do we expect them to deliver such a vital network with limited Government support and oversight?
I welcome the Government’s acceptance of our recommendation for planning guidance on the number of charging points installed in new buildings, which will help local authorities, but the Government need to recognise their responsibilities and take a lead in co-ordinating the financial and technical support that councils need to build charging infrastructure. Failing to do that will imperil the future of the entire electric vehicle sector.
Only yesterday, I received an email from a constituent about that very issue. He rightly pointed out:
“Given the importance of changing to electric cars in line with the Government’s climate change policy, I am amazed that building regulations only required the installation of a 16amp consumer unit in our detached garage which was built with our house only 18 months ago. This is insufficient to power a 7kw charger which requires a 32amp supply. As from July 1, in order to meet OLEV’s grant requirements a minimum of a 7kw charger must be installed—a 3.6kw/16amp charger is no longer allowed. Given the huge cost involved in increasing the amperage of a consumer box—i.e. cabling & trenching etc.—this may well prove to be a deterrent to purchasing an electric car.”
Unless our regulations are forward-thinking and focused on the future, there will be a risk of each generation of electric vehicle adopters being left behind in just a matter of years, which would fracture the user base and deter new entrants. That is doubly true in rural areas such as my constituency. All too often, the latest and greatest technology, from Uber to Deliveroo, has been rolled out in cities, only for my constituents to look on enviously as we wait for the once or sometimes twice-daily diesel bus.
I have set out some concerns about how the green revolution might leave rural communities behind in a book, “Britain Beyond Brexit”, edited by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman). I would strongly support Ministers should they adopt the recommendation of CEN, the European Committee for Standardisation, for there to be a right to request an electric vehicle charging point. That would give rural communities a chance to show that there is the demand necessary to make one viable. I would also be grateful if Ministers focused more heavily on how to build EV infrastructure for those who live and work in rural areas rather than just for those who travel through those areas as they go from big city to big city—after all, it will not be possible to decarbonise our country unless we decarbonise countryside.
If we can decarbonise our transport sector, the prize on offer is substantial: we would not only meet our climate change targets, but see improvements in health and air quality while supporting the British car industry, which is the jewel in our manufacturing crown.
A high-tech, clean future is possible, but unless Ministers help local authorities deliver the charging infrastructure, we risk being left behind as the rest of the world rushes to embrace this technology, and our world-leading position could be squandered by a lack of co-ordination.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) on securing this debate and commend him on what he said about the experience of driving an electric vehicle. He is also right that ambitious targets are important if road transport is to make the contribution it needs to if we are to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. But he rightly spent a lot of his time also talking about pathways to get there, because no target, however ambitious, implements itself: it requires action.
We have a mixed picture in that regard, however. There is good news: there was an increase of nearly 30% in the sales of alternatively fuelled vehicles last year. But more sobering is the fact that alternatively fuelled vehicles still account for only 6% of new vehicle sales, and electric vehicles—battery electric—and fuel cell vehicles account for just 0.7%. It is clear that a step-change is needed in the take-up of such vehicles if we are to meet the targets envisaged by the Committee on Climate Change that my hon. Friend talked about. That means that people need to feel confident enough about driving an alternatively fuelled vehicle.
The fact is, however, that anxiety about running out of power is still a barrier to both private and fleet buyers in making the shift to electric. The good news is that the range of electric vehicle batteries is growing exponentially. I am pleased to say that the Government have been more proactive than before in providing investment to speed up research and development to further advance battery technology here in the UK, but we are late to the game compared with some other countries, and I say to the Minister that a lot more needs to be done to stimulate that.
As has been said, infrastructure is a key part of the picture. Again, there are some welcome initiatives. The fact that we now have legislation in place allowing the Government to mandate provision and inter-operability of rapid charging points is good, but there is so much more yet to do if we are to achieve the step-change in charging infrastructure necessary to provide the confidence for a step-change in the take-up of electric and other alternatively fuelled vehicles. That must include providing answers about who is going to pay for the investment in the charging infrastructure at the scale needed and who is going to maintain it; my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) made that point earlier. It also requires tackling the issue of how to enable home charging, particularly for those who do not have off-street parking. We also need to see a lot more activism from the Government on the grid: how to avoid overload and how to make it easier for vehicles to become energy sources as well as energy users, given that the majority of their time is spent parked rather than on the move.
If people are to make the shift to electric, they also need to be able to afford to do so, and the price of new electric vehicles is still beyond the reach of most people. Solving that is not entirely within the gift of Government, but Government can help with the right consumer incentives. Ministers say that the fact that the numbers of electric vehicles and other alternatively fuelled vehicles being sold has gone up means that they can cut back on the plug-in car grant for electric vehicles and scrap it entirely in the case of plug-in hybrids. However, this market is still fragile and volatile—my hon. Friend the Member for Hove made that point very well—and customer incentives help stimulate both private sales and, crucially, the fleet market, whose turnover in new EVs is critical to driving the used car market, in which most motorists buy their cars. I say to the Minister that now is not the time to be reducing those customer incentives.
The pathway to net zero is not only about how to make sure there is a step-change in the number of alternatively fuelled vehicles on the road; it is also about the transition and how to ensure that on the way there the petrol and diesel vehicles on the roads are as clean as they can be to protect air quality and produce as little CO2 as possible. The good news is that a great amount has already been achieved in that regard. Technological advances mean that emissions from new vehicles on the road are just a fraction of what they were just a few years ago. But the picture is not all positive: last year, aggregate CO2 emissions from new cars rose for the first time in a decade. That happened not because the environmental performance of new vehicles has taken a dip; average new car CO2 emissions are 31% lower than in 2000. The biggest factor has been a nearly 30% drop in the sale of new diesels.
That drop is partly a consequence of the injury the automotive industry inflicted on itself through the VW dieselgate scandal, but it is also partly a result of the confused messages that have been coming out of Government about newer diesel engines—not least in the vehicle excise duty regime, which penalises the cleanest diesels on the road while leaving older dirtier diesels untouched. Little wonder, then, that both private motorists and companies leasing new vehicles have delayed plans to replace vehicles, with detrimental consequences for both CO2 and air quality.
There are lessons for the Government here about the need to end those confused messages, and those lessons particularly need to be learned in the approaching comprehensive spending review. I urge the Minister to look again at vehicle excise duty rates in relation not only to the supplement on new diesels, but, even more significantly, to the impact on vehicle taxes if the worldwide harmonised light vehicle test procedure, or WLTP, is applied unchanged to current VED rates. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders estimates that consumers would face an increase in costs totalling about £500 million, based on the size of the current new car market, if WLTP figures are applied to current rates of VED. It is difficult to see how that could add up to anything other than a depression in sales, and the sales that would be hit would be those of the most environmentally efficient conventionally powered vehicles.
We must also remember that if sales are down, that hits the health of the automotive sector, which is already rocked by the uncertainties of Brexit. If the industry is hit, the pace of investment in developing new generations of alternatively fuelled vehicles is also hit, undermining the very thing we are trying to achieve in the first place.
My plea to the Minister is to listen to what the sector is saying, to make sure that the policies adopted on vehicle taxation support rather than damage the market for cleaner petrol and diesel vehicles, and to support rather than damage the sector’s ability to invest in the way that is needed to enable the shift to electric and other alternatively fuelled and zero emission vehicles: by making them a more realistic and attractive option for many more people than they are now.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) for introducing this timely debate so well.
Using phrases that I hope will soon be consigned to the history books I want in my remarks to encourage the Minister to get the revs up, to find the bite and to accelerate our action on ending the sale of new petrol and diesel engines, and I want to speak very briefly about the three C’s in relation to this: the crisis, the context, and then the choice that we have.
We all know about the crisis: the climate crisis that this Parliament declared put clearly on the political agenda that we must take bolder, swifter and more radical action. That has happened in language, but not yet in deeds. We need Ministers to be bolder and swifter. I welcome the announcement that we will achieve net zero—that is a good ambition—but I am concerned that it is at risk of falling into the trap of being easy to say and hard to match. That is why we need to ensure that people find it easier to say “net zero” than “Paris climate change commitments” and that the actions are commensurate with that greater ambition. We must be much more honest about the enormous economy-transforming fundamental changes that are required to deliver net zero, not many years away but now, if we are to do that.
We are already missing out on our fourth and fifth carbon budgets as a country, and although the Ministers in the Department heap praise on achieving the carbon budgets as we are now, we need to do more heavy lifting to achieve those fourth and fifth carbon budgets, as was required before the net zero commitment, and now that we have that commitment, we must go faster still. That means reappraising policies made before the net zero announcement, and that must mean bringing forward the date for ending the use of petrol and diesel engines.
The context is also important. We are lagging behind our friends and other countries in banning petrol and diesel engines, and we are slower than many of our peers in rolling out hybrid, hydrogen and electric vehicle charging points, but it does not need to be that way. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hove has said, we are already a global leader in this area, so we are at risk of throwing away that natural advantage.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) said, we need to be clear on the two dates in this debate: the date for banning the sale of new petrol and diesel engines and the date on which there can be no more use of diesel and petrol engines on our roads in Britain. The Government are lacking ambition on both those dates, and I encourage the Minister to bring them forward. We cannot afford to wait until 2040 and 2050 in that respect. We must be bolder in our ambition, and that means not only putting forward an ambitious date but ensuring that that date is legally binding, because I do not want this simply to be a mission, as outlined by Ministers in 2018. I do not want it to be a vague hope or a chance encounter with reality. I want it to be a legally binding date that will focus the minds of industry and ensure that the Government of the day have a plan to incentivise the early retirement of these engines and ensure that EV charging points become the norm nationwide and not just in areas of best practice.
There is another element that we have not mentioned so far, and that is autonomy. By the early 2020s, more and more cars on our roads will be autonomous. They will not have a driver in charge of them. As we get into the 2030s, nearly all our cars will be autonomous, and they will be electric, as they should be. That is what must happen here, but it will mean a fundamental change. That autonomy will change the way we interact with our vehicles—cars, buses, trucks and vans—and we need to be clear that autonomy is in many cases quite scary. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove spoke about the fear of going into an electric vehicle for the first time, and many people will certainly fear using an autonomous electric vehicle, but they will reduce accidents and, in theory, create greater capacity on our roads.
We will have more cars on our roads, however, because at the moment we only have cars travelling on our roads with people in them. That sounds like a very basic point, but with autonomous vehicles, we will have cars, vans, trucks and buses on our roads with not a single person in them. The number of cars on our roads will also increase due to population change. I support the measures to encourage more people to walk, run, cycle and use public transport, but we must be honest and acknowledge that in many parts of the country, public transport systems do not have the volume and frequency necessary to achieve that change. That is why we need to recognise that the greater number of vehicles on our roads must be matched by a reduction in petrol and diesel engines.
In the 2107 general election, I put forward the idea of extending the M5 from Exeter to Plymouth to ensure that Plymouth can harness jobs and investment opportunities. I am glad that Labour Front Benchers have committed to undertake a study of that extension when in power, but we must be sure that it is accompanied by the quid pro quo of ensuring that no diesel or petrol engines are used on the motorway extension. We need to take action on climate change, while recognising that there will be an increase in the amount of cars on our roads.
In relation to the points raised earlier, I just want to add one thing. It is about how we deal with planting. This is not directly about petrol and diesel engines, but rubber crumb and brake pad emissions must also be built into this process, and if we are re-engineering and reimagining our whole transport system based on more electric engines and on ending diesel and petrol use, we need to be more inventive about how we plant alongside our roads. We need taller trees, mid-level bushes and low-level shrubs to capture particulates, to muffle noise and to ensure that there is a carbon offset.
All these things can be done if we have the ambition to do them, and I know that the general public want politicians to have more ambition here, so I ask the Minister to please bring forward the date to end the sale of diesel and petrol engines and to make it legally binding, so that the entire country can know that there will be no more diesel and petrol engines used on our roads.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it, and I thank those hon. Members who have pushed for it. The Government have finally acknowledged that there is a climate crisis, but the 2050 net zero emission target and the ending of sales of fossil fuel vehicles in 2040 are too late. I support the movers of this debate in proposing to bring forward the date at which we stop selling new diesel and petrol cars to 2030. The shift does not just impact on our CO2 emissions; many people across the country, including many in my constituency, are exposed to toxic air, and they want to see changes. Tens of thousands of people are dying from air pollution now, and the poorest people in society are being affected the most by air pollution.
Last week, I had the pleasure of joining the London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, in unveiling the Chiswick oasis, a 400-foot screen wall that protects St Mary’s Primary School and William Hogarth Primary School in Chiswick from the toxic air from the A4 next door. People from across the community came together and showed that they want to see action to stop the air pollution epidemic. Mayor Sadiq Khan has also introduced London’s ultra-low emission zone, which is set to reduce air pollution in central London by 45%, and his leadership in implementing low and zero emission bus fleets is already showing significant reductions in pollutants on roads such as Chiswick High Road.
We need to see national leadership now, however, and I come back to the type of fuels that cars, vans and other vehicles are using. We have to speed up the production and use of electric vehicles as a proportion of the fleet mix. We also have to help people to make changes to make this happen. Let us make it easier to scrap older and polluting cars through a Government-funded wide-scale scrappage scheme for polluting vehicles, to bring some income equality into the change that is needed, and let us have more electric car charging points. The Government provide some grants to plug-in vehicles and support for the roll-out of electric charging points based at home and at work, but for commercial vehicles—this debate is about vans as well as cars—and for users who are driving for most of the day, probably for work, fast charging points are essential.
Last month, research showed that there are just under 9,000 public charging points in the UK, of which only 1,500 are rapid charging points—those that can recharge a car battery to 80% in around half an hour. The roll-out of public and particularly rapid charge points needs to run ahead of the supply of new electric vehicles; otherwise, the demand for new electric vehicles will slow down. Overall, 29,000 charging points will be needed across Britain by 2030, of which about 85% will need to be either fast, 22 kW, chargers or rapid chargers, which are more than 43 kW. This will need Government help, such as grants to install rapid charge points, particularly in the less commercially viable places away from the town centres and major roads where there is a business case that is quite easy to prove for those schemes. We need schemes similar to the home charging and workplace schemes that are already in place for standard charging.
Tesla has raised a different concern with me: not a shortage of grants in this case, but our ancient common law. Tesla has a showroom in my constituency, and I was able to drive one of its cars to the West Drayton depot a few miles up the A4. I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle): yes, it was fun. Tesla is concerned because high-voltage cables will need to be installed for the rapid charging points, and our ancient wayleave laws make it difficult to run high-power cables across private land. The more landowners there are, the more complicated the process becomes. I am sure that the Government are addressing this.
Moving on, I share the note of caution mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who chairs the Transport Committee on which I serve. While the shift to electric vehicles will reduce our CO2 emissions, she noted that it does not answer the problem. Some of the particulates that pollute our urban environment, such as those from brake linings and tyres, will still be present even with electric vehicles, so we do need to address that issue and put in more mitigation where we cannot get away from using vehicles.
I have concerns about the assumption that we are talking about a straight switch from one type of private car to another. We are still over-dependent on large, single-person metal boxes on wheels to get around. However private cars are powered, they still take up room, cause congestion, emit harmful particulates and are expensive to own. Car use among young people has been in decline over the past 20 years, and that is set to continue. Cars militate against using active forms of travel that keep us fitter and are cheaper. We could do so much more to reduce our dependence on private cars and vans to make our cities and towns more sustainable and pleasant places to live.
Urban areas have seen a bigger roll-out of battery-powered cargo bikes, which can move quite large loads around our cities and could be used much more with Government incentives. We need to get on low-emission buses and cycle and walk more, and the Government could do more to provide cheap and easy alternatives, particularly for sub-three-mile journeys. Buses play a key role in helping us to reduce our dependence on the private car, but as the Transport Committee has found, 3,000 bus routes have been axed since 2010 and subsidies have fallen by £20 million in the past year, following cuts to local government grants.
In London and other cities, many people want to cycle for short journeys, but we need dedicated cycle lanes, better cycling infrastructure, such as storage, and stronger laws to protect cyclists. The Government need to ramp up the amount of investment in cycling infrastructure.
Finally, by moving forward the deadline for net zero CO2 emissions, we need to inject much-needed urgency into the policy. The clearest message that I have heard from the hundreds of people who have contacted me about climate change is that they want us to take urgent action. They do not want just more warm words; they want us to take the lead. Let us put the UK at the front of the global fight against climate change and air pollution by taking much bolder steps.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It really is a pleasure to speak in this debate today, because it is on an issue of great importance not only to our environmental commitments, but to the continued success of the UK’s automotive industry. As people will no doubt be aware, because I bang on about it, it is also important to my constituency, which is home to Nissan’s UK car plant. Just last month, the plant became the first in the UK to build its 10 millionth vehicle—an astonishing achievement and a real testament to the efficiency of the facility and the dedication of the workers.
Despite that good news, the overall picture for the automotive industry is worrying. A decline in sales of diesel vehicles, continuing uncertainty over Brexit, fears of a no-deal outcome, and the shift towards electric cars and autonomous vehicles are just some of the key factors that have led some in the sector to describe the current situation as a crisis. According to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, British car production fell for the 12th month in a row in May as output dropped to 15.5%. It is now clearer than ever that we need an urgent resolution to the ongoing Brexit stalemate and one that avoids the UK crashing out without a deal, which would be disastrous for the automotive industry.
While we must recognise the challenge that the transition towards electric vehicles presents to the automotive industry, it is important to see it as a great opportunity. Climate change is rightly back on the top of the political agenda, partly due to recent protests, including last week’s successful “The Time is Now” mass lobby. The deadly heatwave that swept across Europe last week should also focus our minds on tackling this issue. According to scientists, it was at least five times, and possibly a hundred times, more likely because of climate change.
As the shadow Public Health Minister, I am hugely concerned by illegal and harmful levels of air pollution across the UK, especially here in the capital. Air pollution damages the health of millions of people and is hugely dangerous for children, babies, older people, and those with existing health conditions. Successfully transitioning to electric vehicles is just one way of combating the climate crisis.
Nissan has been leading the way in developing EVs and the battery technology upon which they rely. The Nissan Leaf, made in my constituency, was the best-selling EV in Europe last year. The plant in Washington is also the only volume car manufacturer making a pure battery EV and has the first UK battery plant. Disappointingly, uptake of EVs in the UK lags behind other European countries, and the Government must be held partly responsible. They have failed to create an environment in which the EV market can thrive. Grants for EVs have been cut, and investment in the charging infrastructure has been insufficient, as we have heard from several hon. Members.
Perhaps most importantly of all, the Government continue to hold an unambitious phase-out date for new petrol and diesel models of 2040. By comparison, Norway’s target is for all vehicles sold to be low emission by 2025, the Netherlands and Sweden are aiming for 2030, and Scotland’s target is 2032. Although opinions vary on what the target should be, many in the industry have told me that the sector could absolutely cope with our target being brought forward to, say, 2035. The Committee on Climate Change recently called for the sale of new petrol and diesel cars to be banned by 2030, so does the Minister agree with the CCC?
If companies such as Nissan are to build on their successes by producing and selling EVs, the right conditions must be in place for consumers to feel comfortable about making that transition. Two of the key barriers to consumer uptake are concerns around sufficient charging infrastructure and the high price of purchasing an EV compared with a petrol or diesel vehicle. Last year, the Government cut the grant for EVs from £4,500 to £3,500, which Labour strongly opposed. We simply cannot expect people, many of whom were encouraged to buy diesel cars not that long ago, to be able to afford new EVs when they can cost up to £10,000 more than a petrol or diesel vehicle. Even if they cost less to run over time, that initial outlay is the barrier.
As for charging infrastructure, Sunderland is well served, as is the north-east as a whole, as the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) pointed out. I attended the launch of our new Fastned charging station in Sunderland just last month, for example. As she said, the current market-led approach could lead to an unequal and inefficient distribution of charging points, and if the Government expect consumers to make the change to electric, they need to set out a national strategic infrastructure plan for charging points and further support individuals with home charging.
Although it is welcome that, as of 1 July, all electric car charge points installed via the official homecharge scheme must now have smart features, that means that chargers installed outside of the scheme will not have to be smart. In order for the electricity grid to ever be able to cope with this new future of high levels of EV charging, the systems in place need to be as efficient and smart as possible, not only in homes, but in workplaces and public locations.
The SMMT published figures today showing that the UK car market is in decline for the fourth consecutive month and that alternatively fuelled vehicle demand fell for the first time in 26 months. It is clear that the EV market in the UK can thrive with the right conditions in place, and the Government should be ensuring that the transition away from petrol and diesel vehicles is seen as an opportunity by all.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I congratulate the sponsors of today’s debate on securing time to discuss this important issue.
I start in a similar vein to the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) by declaring, or admitting, my love of cars, driving and motorsport—not just Formula 1 but all kinds of motorsport. Perhaps worst of all, I own a 2.2 litre diesel car but, not just for the purposes of this debate, I am looking to change it as soon as possible.
Earlier this year, Scotland’s First Minister declared that
“there is a climate emergency. And Scotland will live up to our responsibility to tackle it.”
That means real and practical action across our whole society in how we go about our daily lives, and it means a positive role for Government in building up the infrastructure and support available to us all as we transition to a low-carbon economy. In Scotland we are creating the infrastructure that the future requires.
The UK Government’s words are warm, but their actions get nowhere near to matching them. As we have heard, Scotland aims to phase out fossil fuel-based vehicles by 2032, eight years ahead of this Government’s current plans. The average distance to the nearest charging point in Scotland is fully one third less than the UK figure, despite our much smaller population density, and we lead the world in our commitment to carbon neutrality by 2045, five years ahead of the UK Government’s commitments. Our commitment is clear, and our transition to a low-carbon society is well under way.
The Scottish Government have invested in one of the most comprehensive and widespread charging networks in Europe, with nearly 1,000 publicly available charging points. That is a great start but, obviously, there is much more to do. Another 1,500 charging points are in the pipeline through Scottish Government funding, and work on the first ever electric trunk road is well under way. The plans for the electric A9 are not only ambitious but are a transformational game changer and will turbo-boost the capacity and coverage of electric vehicles across a huge swathe of Scotland, including in communities where going electric simply has not been feasible or practical until now.
To put it in context, the A9 is Scotland’s longest road and stretches 273 miles from beginning to end. It serves as Scotland’s spinal road, linking the central belt to the highlands, passing through one of Europe’s fastest-growing and, in my view, best cities, Inverness. It also connects some of the most sparsely populated areas of Scotland.
Vehicles will be able to come off the Orkney ferry—an apt starting point given Orkney’s world-leading marine energy research programme—and be charged while overlooking John o’ Groats, before travelling the length of Scotland from Tain to Tomatin, from Dingwall to Dunkeld, and from Pitlochry to Perth using renewable, clean energy over every mile. Such practical action is needed across these islands to play a part in tackling the climate emergency we all face.
It is also instructive to look at what our neighbours in Norway have done. This year will see electric vehicles make up a majority of new car registrations in Norway, a world first, after years of already leading the way on electric car take-up. Electric car sales in Norway, with a population not dissimilar to Scotland’s, already outstrip those in the UK, with a population 11 times the size, and are forecast to grow further.
Norway is an energy-rich, progressive, independent country with the sovereign power to take the kind of radical action needed to promote low-carbon transport. The lessons for Scotland could not be clearer. In contrast, the UK Government’s track record on low-carbon transition has been nothing short of abysmal. The scrapping of plans for carbon capture and storage at Peterhead shows the lack of good faith on offer. The Tories’ 2015 manifesto was clear in pledging £1 billion for carbon capture and storage, which they ditched six months later. Perhaps if the plant had been due to be built in a Democratic Unionist party constituency, we might have seen a tad more support from the Government.
The report of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee could not be clearer about the importance of CCS, saying that
“the UK could not credibly adopt a ‘net zero emissions’ target in line with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5° C aspiration.”
The report demands that the UK Government
“move away from vague and ambiguous targets and give a clear policy direction to ensure the UK seizes the industrial and decarbonisation benefits of carbon capture usage and storage”.
If the UK Government do not want to seize those benefits, instead preferring to fall further behind the rest of the world, they should not drag Scotland down with them. Time after time, we have seen this Government, who have the power to drive real change, do very little to use that power. The Scottish Government, in contrast, are forced to weave their way through the Scotland Acts to show real ambition by setting targets and then meeting them.
We have seen the solar feed-in tariff scrapped, casting asunder an industry beginning to make real inroads and achieve critical mass. We have seen total underinvestment in our electricity grid, resulting in our power infrastructure creaking as more and more renewables come on stream. Much worse, we have seen the continued farce of clean, renewable energy from Scotland, particularly the north and the highlands, being penalised with exorbitant transmission charges, while gas and coal-fired power stations in the south of England carry on regardless. The decarbonisation of transport and the roll-out of electric vehicles now, alas, seems to be facing similar gridlock. This Government are stuck in first gear, meandering in the slow lane and being overtaken by the rest of the world, including the EU countries on which they want to turn their back.
I very much agree with the hon. Member for Hove and others in calling on the UK Government to recognise the leadership that the Scottish Government have shown over the years on electric vehicles and decarbonisation overall, and to ensure that we have the powers to work, as Norway has, towards a carbon-free transport network in preparation for joining Norway as a modern, progressive, independent European state.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) on securing and introducing this incredibly important debate, the context of which is the climate crisis and this Government’s failure to respond to it with any real ambition.
As my hon. Friend mentioned at the outset, while we have been debating the issue the BBC has reported that sales of low emission cars have fallen for the first time in more than two years—I think I am right in saying that sales have fallen by 4.9% on last year.
The Committee on Climate Change, the Government’s own advisory body, has stated that the UK is “way off track” on meeting its own carbon emission targets in the 2020s and 2030s. Those targets were set under the Climate Change Act 2008 introduced by the previous Labour Government.
The Government are even further off track on their Paris climate change agreement commitments, to which we must adhere if we are to have a chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change impacts. Transport is the worst performing sector of the economy. It accounts for a third of all carbon dioxide emissions and is now the UK’s largest source of greenhouse gas. Emissions are just 3% lower than in 1990, and they have risen since Labour left office in 2010.
Although vehicle technology has improved, reductions in transport emissions have been frustrated by growth in vehicle miles travelled on our roads. Between 1990 and 2018, vehicle miles travelled on our roads increased by 28% to 328 billion a year. If the Government wish to reduce transport emissions, in line with the UK’s targets, they must reduce the number of vehicle miles travelled on roads, which means giving greater support to public transport and active travel to encourage fewer car journeys. Unfortunately, the Government are heading in the wrong direction, with rising car use and falling public transport use.
We must decarbonise road transport by transitioning to electric vehicles and decarbonising the production of the electricity on which those vehicles rely. Reducing vehicle miles travelled on roads and switching to electric would also address poor air quality, which is the largest environmental risk to public health in the UK, as long-term exposure to air pollution can cause chronic conditions such as cardiovascular and respiratory diseases and lung cancer, which lead to reduced life expectancy. We know that poor air quality is responsible for between 30,000 and 50,000 premature deaths in the UK each year, and the Environmental Audit Committee estimates that the total health cost of air pollution ranges between £8.5 billion and £20.2 billion a year.
In order to improve air quality, it is necessary to reduce the number of vehicle miles travelled on roads in areas of poor air quality, to transition to electric vehicles and to improve internal combustion engine technology. The Government have not been doing these things, as evidenced by the fact that the UK has been unlawfully breaching nitrogen dioxide limits since 2010. Road transport is responsible for some 80% of roadside NO2 concentrations, but the Government air quality strategy dodged road transport and instead focused on wood-burning stoves. The Government should understand that their failure to invest now will have damaging long-term economic, social and environmental costs. The climate crisis and the air pollution crisis require bold and immediate action, which is not forthcoming from the Government.
The motion that we are debating is right to bring to our attention the lack of progress and ambition on electric vehicles. By international standards, the Government’s current phase-out date is unambitious. No country that has adopted a phase-out date for the sale of new diesel and petrol vans and cars has chosen a date later than 2040. Norway has a phase-out date of 2025, while Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands all have a phase-out date of 2030. The Government’s commitment that all new cars and vans will be effectively zero emission is also vague. The policy should be more ambitious and should require vehicles to be fully, rather than effectively, zero emission.
Phase-out dates are important, because they give manufacturers, businesses and consumers the clarity they need to inform the investments they will have to make. The view that the UK should have a more ambitious phase-out date is shared by the cross-party Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, whose report “Electric vehicles: driving the transition” recommended a date of 2032.
Although phase-out dates are important, what matters in reducing vehicle emissions is to ensure that as many as possible of the vehicle miles travelled on UK roads are completed in electric vehicles, as soon as possible. A phase-out date in and of itself will not ensure that that happens, which is why it is vital that the Government provide the necessary support to accelerate the transition. That means breaking down the barriers that are frustrating the growth of the EV market, and cost is one of the most important discouraging factors. I speak as the owner of a little Renault Twizy, which is completely electric.
Market projections suggest that EVs could reach price equivalence with internal combustion engine vehicles by the mid-2020s. In the meantime, however, financial incentives will be required to help to bridge the gap if the Government are to deliver on their ambition of growing the EV market. Vehicle costs remain a major barrier to EV uptake in the UK. The up-front cost of most electric vehicles is substantially higher; they cost up to £10,000 more than their internal combustion engine equivalents, even after the Government support.
I am heeding your instruction and advice to me earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wanted to mention a few other points, especially the Government fleet, private fleets and the industrial strategy, but given the time constraints, I shall leave my remarks there.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Andrew Stephenson)
I pay tribute to all hon. Members who have contributed to today’s debate, especially the mover of the motion, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), who eloquently set out the joy of driving an EV and spoke about the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee’s work in this area; the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who chairs the Transport Committee and has considerable expertise; and my hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), who also played important roles on the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee inquiry into electric vehicles last year. I am also delighted that the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) was able to contribute, never missing an opportunity to remind us that the Nissan UK car plant is in her constituency. I will try to address many of the points that were raised in the debate, but given the time constraints, I hope Members will accept that I will have to limit the number of interventions I take in order to allow time for the next —very emotional—debate on assisted dying.
The dangers of climate change are helping to drive a revolution in road vehicles, and everyone who spoke today shares the Government’s ambition that the UK should lead the way. We can all be proud of the fact that on 27 June, the Government set a legally binding target for the UK to achieve net zero by 2050, making us the first major economy in the world to legislate for a net zero target and continuing a proud tradition of leadership when it comes to tackling climate change. Achieving that target will mean working together across political lines and encompassing all parts of society. We will need clear, considered strategies, backed up by action.
Let me be clear from the outset that the Government and I share the ambition of all colleagues from across the House to have all new vehicles delivering as many zero emission miles as possible, as fast as possible. As has been said, the current targets are that by 2040, all new cars and vans will be effectively zero emission; and that by 2050, almost every car and van in the UK will be zero emission. We set out clear steps towards achieving the 2040 target in our strategy “The Road to Zero”, which was published almost exactly a year ago. We believe that 2040 is an ambitious but achievable target, which represents the right balance between environmental ambitions and deliverability, recognising the need for a period in which industry can develop the necessary products and we can address some of the barriers about which hon. Members have talked at length today.
Lilian Greenwood
Does the Minister recognise that it takes 10 to 15 years to replace the fleet completely? If we do not end the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles until 2040, we will simply not be able to decarbonise transport by 2050. How will he address that issue?
Andrew Stephenson
I will come on to that, but I think we are making good progress on a range of fronts, although significant barriers remain. Our wider commitments on climate change have been bold, and we have achieved a faster reduction in our carbon emissions than any other country in the G20 has done. There is no reason why we cannot go faster than the targets that we have set ourselves. Meeting those targets requires an adequate supply of ultra low emission vehicles, a strong consumer base and a fit-for-purpose infrastructure network.
Government cannot deliver our ambitions alone. At the heart of our strategy is a commitment to working in partnership with industry, business, academia, environmental groups, devolved administrations, local Government, consumers and international partners. We need new charge points in homes, workplaces and public places. The consumer experience of public charging needs to be improved. The system must be easy to use, affordable, efficient and reliable. That is why we passed the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018, which allows us to regulate further in this area; that is why on Monday the Prime Minister asked OLEV to undertake a review, setting out our vision for a core national network of rapid charge points along the country’s key roads; and it is why we are encouraging people to charge at home overnight, both on and off street.
On Tuesday this week, I attended a roundtable convened at 10 Downing Street with companies such as Jaguar Land Rover, LEVC, Tesla, PSA and the National Grid to discuss how we can best build on our core infrastructure network for electric vehicles in the UK. Those who were present were supportive of Government schemes, such as the up-front £500 off the cost of installing a domestic charge point; the provision of grants to businesses for workplace charge points; and the provision of grant funding to local authorities to install charge points for residents who lack off-street parking. We accept that we need to go further and faster; for example, by ensuring that all new homes are electric vehicle ready. We will soon consult on requiring every new home to have a charge point where appropriate.
We are already in a strong position. Government funding and leadership, alongside private sector investment, has supported the installation of more than 20,000 public charge points to date. That includes more than 2,000 rapid charge points—one of the largest networks in Europe. We want to build on that and encourage private sector investment to build and operate a self-sustaining public network.
Overall, we are investing nearly £1.5 billion between 2015 and 2021 to support ultra low emission vehicles and address the barriers to uptake. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) mentioned, we have grants available to offset the up-front cost of ultra low emission vehicles, which currently cost more than petrol or diesel equivalents. As an incentive to make the switch, our plug-in grants offer up to £3,500 off the purchase price of an electric car, up to £7,500 for a taxi and up to £8,000 for a van. We are also funding the development of new cleaner technologies. With £300 million of funding from OLEV, we are supporting vehicle manufacturers, technology companies and academia to deliver a major programme of research and development in the UK.
I am pleased to say that a year on from the publication of our strategy “The Road to Zero”, we are making progress against our ambitions. In 2018, the UK was the second largest market in the EU for ultra low emission vehicles, and there are now more than 200,000 of them on our roads. We are also building in large numbers—last year, one in five electric cars sold in Europe was made in the UK—and I am proud to say that Europe’s best-selling electric vehicle, the Nissan Leaf, was made in Sunderland, as the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West mentioned.
Let us not forget that this sector is hugely important to the UK economy: with a £77.9 billion turnover, it directly employs 165,000 in manufacturing alone. As someone from the north of England, that is particularly important to me. Manufacturing is still a major employer in my constituency, with companies such Wardle Storeys, part of Uniroyal Global, employing more than 150 people in Earby, making automotive components. That is why I am keen to see the industry’s rapid evolution, rather than revolution, supported by our automotive sector deal, which was published last year. As I speak, the Automotive Council, which I would have attended were it not for this debate, is meeting just down the road.
It has been a real privilege of my role to see at first hand some of the technologies and innovations that are already delivering for us on the Road to Zero. Just last week, I visited the BMW Mini plant in Oxford, and I have also visited Bentley in Crewe; the Advanced Propulsion Centre in Coventry, where I got to sit in—they would not let me drive it—the first all-electric Aston Martin, which will be built in St Athan, south Wales; and McLaren in Wokingham. We are supporting innovation in the sector, with the Advanced Propulsion Centre, the Faraday battery challenge and the connected and autonomous vehicles programme, focusing on the key technologies that will drive the global transition to low-carbon mobility and form the basis of future vehicle supply chains in the UK.
Battery technologies are of course integral to the market, which is why we have committed more than £270 million to the Faraday battery challenge, to ensure that the UK builds on its strengths and leads the world in the design, development and manufacture of electric batteries. In May, I announced additional funding for the UK Battery Industrialisation Centre in Coventry, a project in which we have so far invested more than £100 million and which will provide a stepping stone in our ambitions for a gigafactory in the UK. The Government and industry have committed around £1 billion over 10 years through the Advanced Propulsion Centre, to fund the research, development and commercialisation of the next generation of low-carbon technologies and keep the UK at the cutting edge of low-carbon automotive innovations.
We have reached the tipping point with the ULEV market and made a strong start on the Road to Zero, but we cannot be complacent. The closer that we can work together across Government, manufacturers, innovators and industry, the quicker we can make that transformation and allow future generations to enjoy the benefits of cleaner air, low carbon emissions and a thriving low emission automotive sector.
Mark Pawsey
Will the Minister comment on the fact that a new motorway service area is going to open with just two charge points? What can we do to accelerate the provision of charge points?
Andrew Stephenson
That is another shocking example. In the Road to Zero strategy, a copy of which I can lend to my hon. Friend, the Government announced that we would look into the best options for ensuring the adequate provision of electric-capacity connections at motorway service areas, and that work is under way. The key task over the next year is to sustain and strengthen our collaboration in the sector, as we stride towards our ambitious emissions targets for road vehicles and beyond.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House calls on the Government to bring forward the date by which the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans will be ended.
Assisted Dying
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Ind)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the functioning of the existing law relating to assisted dying.
Six years ago this week, on a sunny July day like today, my father made a decision. At home in Devon, in the bed that he shared with my stepmother for more than 30 years, with his family around him, he took communion for the last time, said a few words of goodbye to each of us, and asked the district nurses to switch off the oxygen and make him comfortable. He could have clung on to life for several more days, but he was ready to go and, after talking it over with my stepmother, made his decision. A few hours later, he slipped away, with my brother by his side. This was the best of deaths: the saddest moments in our lives, filled with love and gratitude, and even joy.
A few months ago, Geoff Whaley made a similar decision. Cut from the same cloth as my dad, he was a gentleman of the old school, but Geoff had motor neurone disease and recognised that he was likely to suffer horribly in the final days and weeks of his life. He knew that his only chance of a good death was to arrange to go to Dignitas in Switzerland. Geoff was a determined and organised man, but there were some things that he physically could not do. He needed his wife Ann’s help. When someone tipped off social services about their plan, the police turned up at the Whaleys’ door and Ann was interviewed under caution. That caution remains on her record.
Thanks to the support of Ann and their daughter Sarah, Geoff died on his own terms, but several months earlier than he would have needed to had the same procedure been available here in the UK. Under Swiss law, none of the family was allowed to be present at his cremation. Yet Ann would describe herself as one of the lucky ones, because she and Geoff could afford the cost—the air fares, the hotels and the fees—of going to Dignitas. Every year, hundreds of other people in our country face the prospect of great suffering at the end of a terminal illness—suffering that cannot be alleviated by our wonderful palliative care nurses—and have no legal means of doing anything to stop it.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way during what is a heartfelt speech, but will he please answer the question of why he feels that the vast majority of disability organisations in this country remain opposed to assisted dying?
Nick Boles
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. It is incredibly important to understand all the concerns raised, perhaps especially those from such groups. What I think drives that very understandable concern is the fear that although a law might start off tightly constrained, there will be what people refer to as “the slippery slope”, and it might then be abused somehow: there might be situations in which people come under pressure to take their own lives when, in fact, they do not want to do so at all.
All I would say to the hon. Lady—I am happy to have further conversations with her about this—is that in jurisdictions such as Oregon, where for 20 years now there has been a law of the kind that was proposed here, there is no evidence of that slippery slope argument leading to people being put under pressure. If ever there were to be such a change of the law here, it would of course be essential to have safeguards that would prevent that and ensure that disabled people knew they had the same right to life as any of us, for as long as they wanted.
Nick Boles
I will give way to the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) first.
Lyn Brown
This is an incredibly difficult debate for many of us; most of us will have personal stuff that informs our judgments about it. My mum died suddenly, riddled with cancer. I know that had this law been passed at that time, she would have spent her last months consumed by guilt and anxiety about when she should press that button. She would have worried about the pressure on me and my sister, about the cost of her care, and that people would have thought she was consuming resources that she should not consume. Sometimes when we have this debate, we do not consider collectively the pressure we would put on people by giving them that choice.
Nick Boles
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. All I would say is that the law could operate only with independent assessment—both by doctors and by a High Court judge, under the proposal in the most recent Bill—that would be clear that the person could not show any signs of coming to a decision under pressure or because they felt they were a burden.
Interestingly, talking to the Whaleys about Dignitas, I heard how the Dignitas doctors explained that if at any point Geoff had said anything like, “I think it is time to go. My family wants me to go; they are ready, we are here,” they would have sent them home. On no account would they allow somebody to go through with it if there was any indication that they might have changed their mind or that they might be prioritising other people’s feelings.
Several hon. Members rose—
Kate Green
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I thank him for the case that he is making. I support it, but I, too, recognise what a very difficult and sensitive issue this is.
In relation to disabled people and the concerns to which my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) rightly alluded, it is true that most disability organisations—perhaps all that I have spoken to—oppose the legislation that the hon. Gentleman and I would like to see, but that is not true of every individual disabled person, and we should acknowledge that. Is it not the case therefore that what we need to ensure is that we build into any legislation excellent regulation, excellent audit and an equal commitment to investment in assisted living alongside the investment in assisted dying?
Nick Boles
I could not agree more with the hon. Lady. The truth is that this is not in any way an alternative to the best possible palliative care; it is a complement to the best possible palliative care. We want to ensure that all those who want to choose to live out their lives and die naturally—even through a horrific illness with horrific symptoms—are given every support to be able to make that decision. Unfortunately, we also know—and all the evidence suggests this—that there are some people for whom palliative care cannot help in those final moments, and it is of them that I am thinking.
What do we think of a law that criminalises otherwise law-abiding people, such as Ann Whaley, who are simply trying to act with love in accordance with their marriage vows and their conscience? What do we think of a law that forces people in the final months of a terminal illness to take desperate and even dangerous steps, which may cause even more suffering to themselves and to the people whom they love, in secret and without any safeguards or support? What do we think of a law that denies hundreds of innocent people dignity and control as their lives draw to a close and condemns them to extreme suffering instead? I will tell you what I think, Madam Deputy Speaker: it is a bad law and it should be changed.
However, the purpose of today’s debate is not to propose a new law on assisted dying, but to understand the effect of the current law on people suffering from terminal illnesses, on their families, on the doctors, nurses and carers looking after them, and on social workers and the police. It is only when we have fully understood all the different ways in which the current law impacts on the British people that we should consider returning to the question, last debated in 2015, of what kind of change in the law might be justified.
To that end, I have a request for my hon. Friend the Minister. We all understand and accept that laws such as these are matters of conscience and that it is for Parliament to initiate a change of the law, but Parliament’s ability to gather evidence is very limited. On behalf of those affected by such laws, and in honour of Geoff and Ann Whaley, I ask the Lord Chancellor and his boss, the Secretary of State for Justice, to initiate a formal call for evidence on the impact of our existing laws on assisted dying, so that Parliament can benefit from a comprehensive assessment of the facts when it next decides to debate and vote on a possible change in the law.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I came into the Chamber in 2015 fully intending to vote for a change in the law. However, as I listened to the debate, although I was completely persuaded by the points that he is now making, I was unpersuaded that that was the right law or that the right people had been persuaded that it was the right law. What has changed between then and now that he thinks would bring the House to a different conclusion?
Nick Boles
I do not think that I have ever had a more intelligent set of interventions, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for another one. There has been change, but I do not want to pretend that the change has gone far enough, which is why we are not proposing, at this point, to bring forward a new set of legal measures.
Perhaps the most significant change is in the opinion of the medical profession. We have seen a number of royal colleges move from having a formal position of opposing assisted dying to having a position of being neutral about it, which reflects the fact that they will always have some members who are very much opposed to it, but they now have an increasing number of physicians who are in favour of it.
We have seen not so much a change as a consolidation of public opinion on this issue. In the latest opinion poll, which, frankly, is not very different from any of the opinion polls over the past couple of years, more than 80% of the British public support an assisted dying law for people in the final six months of a terminal illness, and well over 50% of people who declare that they have an active faith take that view. So although Church leaders, apart from the very honourable exception of the former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey, are opposed, their flocks are actually finding that they, too, believe that a change in the law is justified.
I also agree with the hon. Gentleman that, before any further proposals come forward, we should study closely the experience in the state of Victoria in Australia, for example. As he will be aware, New Zealand recently passed on Second Reading an assisted dying law, and there is the much longer standing experience of Oregon as well as Canada more recently. We should study all those and look at the precise legal and medical safeguards used to try to devise something that avoids many of the risks that have been raised by other hon. Members.
Sir Peter Bottomley
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin). In the Netherlands, the number of physician-assisted deaths is 3.5%, which, in this country, would translate into 21,000 deaths a year. There are about 5,000 suicides a year in this country, of which about 400 are estimated to be people dying at their own hand because they have a terminal illness that they do not want to live with. How can one explain to anyone else the difference between that 300 or 400 and 21,000, which is four times the number of suicides that we have at the moment?
Nick Boles
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, because it allows me to point out that the Netherlands law is a completely different law, and I would vote against it if anyone proposed it in the House of Commons. It is a law to enable people to commit suicide more or less whenever they want. That may work for the Dutch—I have nothing but respect for the Dutch people—but I could not vote for it, and I do not believe that it would get more than 100 votes in this House.
What we are proposing is something that has existed in the state of Oregon in the United States for 20 years, and it has never crept anywhere near being the kind of law that the hon. Gentleman is talking about. Yes, of course, there will be much more lax and liberal laws of assisted suicide in other jurisdictions. That is of no relevance at all to the question of whether, in the final six months of a terminal illness, a narrow assisted dying law, with legal and medical safeguards, can operate safely in the United Kingdom, as it does in Canada and in the state of Oregon. I am entirely confident that it can.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Nick Boles
I must wind up, because Madam Deputy Speaker has pointed out that there are many, many Members who wish to speak.
I am keen to hear from as many Members as possible during this debate. I will listen to all contributions with sincere respect, because this is a very difficult issue and one on which I myself have changed my mind since 2015. Before I sit down, I would just like to say a word on the role of religious faith in the debate about assisted dying.
I admire people who are blessed with religious belief. My own father was, and I envied him. Faith groups play a very positive role in our society and I salute them for it, but this country is a democracy, not a theocracy. When we make our laws, we must focus on men and women, not on God. Parliament was right to legislate to allow abortion for women in the early months of a pregnancy, despite the opposition of Church leaders. Parliament was right to legislate to extend the institution of marriage to gay people although most organised religions still consider homosexuality a sin. When Parliament next debates the reform of our laws on assisted dying, I hope that it is not religious doctrine, but humanity—our humanity as Members of Parliament and the humanity of all those suffering from terminal illnesses—that wins the day.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
As colleagues can see, many Members wish to contribute to the debate. If everybody is to have the chance to speak, speeches will need to be kept to about six minutes.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I will be very brief. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) for the eloquent way in which he has introduced this very important debate. I just want to refer to him one of my constituents, Mr Noel Conway, who has campaigned on this issue for many years, both through the courts and the media. I had the privilege of visiting him and his wife at their beautiful Shropshire home, where I spent the afternoon finding out about his daily life and how his wife is caring for him. As I am sure hon. Members will realise, it was an extraordinarily emotional afternoon, especially when I found out about some of the very difficult conditions my constituent is living under and the constant care that he needs.
I spoke to Mr Conway about the possibility of him travelling to Switzerland, and his answer will stay with me forever; he said, “No, I am an Englishman and I want to die in England.” I think that is extremely important, because although some constituents have the wherewithal, financial means and opportunities to travel to Switzerland to take things into their own hands, that is not always the case for all our constituents bearing in mind financial restrictions, but also the fact that some people do not want to leave our country to be able to die. This is their home; this where their families live; and this is where they want to die.
I have always been a Roman Catholic—having been born in Poland, I come from a very strict Roman Catholic family—and my Christian belief is very important to me, but I have disagreed with my own Church on numerous issues. As the right hon. Gentleman alluded to, in our views, the Church is not always right. Having now been in a same-sex partnership very happily for the past eight years, I, too, agree that although we can respect the church and our Christian beliefs, perhaps the Church does not always get everything right when it comes to how human beings behave, interact and ultimately decide to die.
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate to the Chamber. I have not decided how I will vote in future debates and my constituent Mr Conway knows that I have not yet decided, but I really appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has afforded us this opportunity to continue debating this matter until a consensus can be achieved.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) for securing this debate, and for the thoughtful and powerful way in which he opened it. Like him, I will share a personal experience, although mine is not as positive.
It is, by a coincidence, the eighth anniversary to the day of my receiving a phone call here in Westminster that my father had been found dead in his garage. The previous night, he had tidied up his belongings, left small piles of money to settle the bills with the newsagent and others, and written final notes. He had then walked to the garage, connected a hosepipe from his car exhaust into the car, taken an overdose and switched on the engine. As hon. Members can see, I do not find this easy to talk about, even after eight years, but I have done so before and I will do so today, not least because I know that he would have wanted me to, as somebody who had always believed in a change in the law on assisted dying.
My father’s experience shows how the existing law does not simply fail people, but leads to premature deaths. Now, I know that some of those opposing a change argue—I respect my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) for doing so—that it could lead to people taking their lives sooner than they would otherwise face their end. But my experience, and the experience of many others—I think that some of the statistics mentioned by the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) are understated—is that the existing law in itself encourages people to take their life sooner than they would otherwise do.
My father was 87. At that age, he had inevitably watched many of his friends go, often miserably. He talked in particular of one friend who had become confined to bed, doubly incontinent, and—having become both deaf and blind—unable to communicate with anybody. My father saw no point in that kind of life, and had always said that he would rather end things than face a degrading death. He was somebody who had made the most of his life: he had a tough east end upbringing in poverty, became an RAF pilot in the war and built a successful business career. He had his share of health problems, but faced them all positively. He was not afraid of pain, but he could not face the indignity of a lingering death, and I am sure that he made up his mind to take his life soon after receiving a terminal diagnosis of inoperable lung cancer. But he still died prematurely, and I am sure that what drove him to end his life at that point was the fear that if he did not act when he could and was still able to do so, he would lose the opportunity to act at all. He could not talk to me or his partner about it, because he would have made us complicit. The current law forced my father into a lonely decision and a lonely death.
Some people will say that we simply need to improve end-of-life care, and it is hugely important that we do. My father supported our local hospice and I raise funds for it. It does a great job, but no hospice can enable everybody to die with the dignity that they would want. Indeed, for my father, it was soon after his appointment with a palliative care nurse where together they talked about his last months that he took the decision to take his life. If the law had made it possible, he could have shared his plans with us, and knowing that he could, with support, go at the time of his choosing would have enabled him to stay longer. If the law had made it possible, he would have been able to say goodbye and go with his family around him, not in a carbon monoxide-filled garage. He, and many others like him, deserve better. We simply need to change the law.
I appreciate that there are those here whose personal beliefs—whose faith—makes my father’s choice unacceptable. I respect those beliefs. Live your life by them, but do not impose them on others. Let people have the choice at the end of their lives. Allow them dignity in dying as we would want them to have it in life.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I have been engaged in this issue since the very early days when I arrived in this Parliament in 1997, guided, along with many other right hon. and hon. Members, by the experience within my own wider family.
By 2040, nearly one in seven people is projected to be aged over 75, so we will be engaged in supporting an ageing population who will lead fuller lives, working longer, by adapting the workplace and ensuring that individuals can reskill throughout their life. But people will be living with chronic conditions, and multiple morbidities and cognitive impairments will become more common within our population. I have no doubt that our innovative and caring society will solve, or certainly ameliorate, these conditions, but the hard truth is that more of us will have to grapple with surviving with the pain and indignity of crippling progressive infirmity in later life.
If we do not change the law, even more people than the current one every eight days may travel to Switzerland for an assisted death—and, of course, there are all those people who do not have the means to travel and all those travelling to Switzerland early so that they can exercise the autonomy available to them there. I do appreciate the views not only of right hon. and hon. Members but of the public who express concerns over assisted dying. It is of course a controversial subject. However, the injustice and the tyranny of having no escape from pain and indignity that our law continues to impose on a growing number of our fellow citizens will not go away until we address it. In Oregon, since 1997, a total of 1,127 patients have died from ingesting these medications. Not only does the yearly figure barely rise above the 0.003% mark, but only 64% of those who have received prescriptions for the medications since 1997 have actually taken them.
When we discuss this emotional topic, the most grotesque characteristics of greedy, overbearing relatives are conjured up in some hypothetical dark fantasy, but these arguments about a slippery slope or the vulnerability of people simply ignore the fact that this applies only to terminally ill people. When the Assisted Dying Bill came to this House in 2015, its terms would require two doctors to sign off on the fact that the person would be dead within six months and the process to be overseen by a High Court judge. How many more measures would opponents of this principle want to satisfy them? The difficult truth is that for many, it is none. This is about the imposition of a faith-based view of the sanctity of life overriding any sensible application of personal autonomy for people in dreadful and terminal strife.
Crispin Blunt
No, I will not. I might want to pick up on the example the hon. Lady gave later in my remarks.
That personal autonomy on any individual application of universal human rights includes the freedom to control and direct one’s own life and, in this case, death. Yet again, despite a poll in March of more than 5,000 people showing that 84% of Britons wanted a change in the law on assisted dying, they have to contend with the moral certainties of those who are not suffering extreme pain and who are taking these decisions on their behalf—us. We have a responsibility to discuss this issue in an honest, compassionate and evidence-based manner, and we have a swathe of evidence available to us.
The whole Oregon experience entirely supports that this is a practical, sensible, humane and decent measure. Over two decades later, the opinion of the people has not changed one iota. This Parliament, in not facing up to its responsibilities, is party to increasing tyranny, pain and despair.
Ultimately, this is about potential control. Just as people exercise control over how they live, they should be able to exercise control over how they die. In reality, the vast majority of people will never take this choice, even when faced with it. With strong safeguards, Oregon, Washington state, Montana and Vermont have had no documented reported cases of abuse. Why, when the evidence is clear, do we deny everyone the comfort of some personal control over the end of their life?
To return to the point made by the hon. Lady, I wonder what her mother’s view was, because under the law, she could not exercise her autonomy. I am utterly certain that the hon. Lady would have wanted, with all the generosity in the world, to ensure that her mother had the full support available to her. Well, that just might not have been the view of her mother, in the pain and difficulty that she was facing. Why was she not allowed the opportunity to make that decision?
Lyn Brown
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; she would have argued that she should have had the right to take her own life, but let me put one statistic to him. He mentioned Washington state—51% of the people who took the tablets there said that their reason for doing so was that they were a burden to the people they loved. That is the exact reason that my mother would have done the same. We must weigh the evidence properly.
Crispin Blunt
The evidence is there to be weighed by two doctors and a High Court judge, and the hon. Lady’s mother and other people in those circumstances would have had the right to exercise their autonomy. It is that autonomy and that control that we are choosing to suppress. Sadly, for now, it remains that we have a cruel, outdated law that forces people to die earlier by traveling to Switzerland while they are fit enough to travel, or to suffer pain, indignity and degradation that we would never impose on a suffering animal.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
I regularly visit Ty Olwen, a fantastic hospice in my constituency, which is staffed by the most wonderful clinicians and volunteers. Ty Olwen is a beautiful, peaceful haven, providing dignified, loving and intensive palliative care for patients, as well as comfort for their loved ones. I am full of admiration for the work they do and the care they give, but sometimes that may not be the choice of the person who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness. Imagine for just one minute being given that diagnosis. Imagine, in time, knowing each day that you will never feel this good again and that eventually all your future holds is more discomfort, more fear and possibly a slow and painful death.
While I wholeheartedly believe that life is sacred—I have a faith, and it is my faith that gives me strength— I am a huge advocate of quality of life over quantity and for an individual’s right to make their own choices. I cannot say 100% which path I would choose if I was given that diagnosis, but I know for a fact that I would want to be able to make that choice, and I would want the same for loved ones.
I appreciate that assisted dying is an emotive and contentious issue that splits opinion in this House and across society, but when someone makes the decision to end their life with assistance while they are still physically able to do so and of sound mind, they will do so after much research, thoroughly discussing it with their family and considering the consequences.
As it stands, a UK citizen travels to Switzerland to end their life every eight days. I believe that if the law allowed assisted dying in this country, enabling people to choose to die surrounded by their loved ones in a familiar environment, that would bring comfort and solace to many people.
Under the Suicide Act 1961, while suicide itself is not a criminal offence, the act of encouraging or assisting someone else’s suicide is, leaving doctors and families facing prosecutions and up to 14 years in prison. There are many people who would, and do, choose to continue with their suffering, sometimes dying a painful and undignified death, rather than risk those consequences for their families.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I agree with much of it. Does she agree that there need to be various safeguards and that the law is outdated, and this may be a subject for the Law Commission to look into?
Carolyn Harris
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and we have to make sure that the right safeguards are in place.
A few years ago, I met a woman who had recently travelled to Switzerland with her terminally ill husband to end his life. She supported his decision to end his suffering on his own terms, and she watched the man she loved die a peaceful, respectable and comfortable death. She then returned home alone, where she was questioned by the police for facilitating his final journey. I watched this woman struggling to cope with the fear of prosecution on top of the grief that was already eating away at her.
I understand the concerns surrounding assisted dying, and the need to ensure that the decision is voluntary and one that has been expressed repeatedly over a period of time. As in most things, I still believe people should be given a choice. Palliative care is wonderful and it is the right choice for some, but for others assisted dying is their preference. The point is that everybody should have the right to control their own life, and ultimately their own death.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). I thank the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) for bringing forward this debate, because I am on something of a journey in relation to my approach to this issue. That approach has largely been shaped by speaking to the family of a constituent who, in July 2017, went to Dignitas in Switzerland, where she ended her life. Her mother and sister came to see me, and their experience echoes that of the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). I pay tribute to him for his bravery in outlining his experience with his father.
Anna, my constituent’s sister, said:
“To get to Dignitas in Switzerland Jemima had to be able to single-handedly plan, pay for and travel across the UK until she was outside its legal jurisdiction, all without any family support. In accompanying Jemima to Dignitas, I knew that my family and I were going to be subjected to a police investigation on our return from Switzerland. At the worst possible time, when we were grieving the loss of our loved one.
Jemima interpreted the UK laws as best she could so that she didn’t implicate us in her death but she was still terrified that we would be prosecuted on our return. Jemima was also really concerned that her degenerative diseases would deteriorate to the point where she would not be able to either plan the journey or to physically get to Switzerland under her own steam.
So Jemima made the decision to have an assisted suicide years before she needed to. The UK Government literally stole years of my sister’s life. I know if she had been able to exercise her ‘right to die’ in the UK, she would have chosen to stay with us for many more years to come.”
I think those are very powerful words.
Those who wish to end their lives now must leave the UK alone, despite their ill health, or leave with relatives who will face suspicion and investigation when they return home. This imposes a legal complexity that requires ordinary people, at a time of great stress, to understand and interpret complex areas of law and how it is enforced by the police, often without professional legal advice, because of the terms of the Suicide Act, as outlined by the hon. Member for Swansea East. I would like to focus on that for a moment. In the case of this constituent, I had to write to Cheshire police to ask what its approach was and how it enforced the law. The lack of clarity from police forces is deeply troubling, and although I was pleased that it said it would enhance constable training and update its website, I am deeply concerned that that guidance is still not online. That means there is a postcode lottery in this country regarding how a local police force will enforce the law, which makes an already complex legal picture even more difficult to navigate. Whether or not we change the law, the police must respond to these cases far more sensitively and be more transparent about how they handle them.
My constituent and her family were put through months of hell, waiting for an investigation to conclude. To face such scrutiny after a heart-rending loss is difficult, but for the police to then make a family spend month after month reliving their loss does not serve the interests of the family, the public or justice. Despite all that, my constituent had the resources to go to Switzerland and plan her own death.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
My hon. Friend says that her constituent had the resources to go to Switzerland and end her life. Does she know how much it costs to go to Dignitas? The whole package, plus recovery of the body, must be an eye-watering amount.
Antoinette Sandbach
Dignity in Dying estimates the average cost of a trip to Dignitas to be around £10,000, which is a substantial amount. Only one third of UK families have that much in savings, so under our current system, with its manifest cruelties, that option is inaccessible to two thirds of the country on financial grounds alone.
This week Jemima’s mother told me:
“I have become increasingly sure that under certain circumstances and with the right safeguards, a person should have the right to choose to end their life in this country. I know Jemima would have been with us for longer if she had been able to take that choice at home.”
Alongside her heartfelt plea for reform, and those of others, there must be two key criteria for any future proposals. First, assisted dying must be made available under certain circumstances, and there must be appropriate safeguards for patients, families, medical professionals and those who need to enforce the law. It is a difficult area, but I hope that Jemima’s story will help build a consensus that will allow us to take this issue forward, and that we will not continue to block future changes to the law.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and others for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject. Members have spoken movingly and from experience about their views.
I am someone whose views have radically changed. Until recently I was a vehement opponent of assisted dying, but I have changed my views and think I should explain why. That change is partly based on an understanding of why I was previously opposed to it, which was due to my own personal experiences. Two of those experiences were relevant, and I think they will resonate with many Members of the House.
One experience concerned my elderly mother who descended, as many do, into confusion and dementia, compounded by mental illness and depression. One week she would say, “Please, please end my life. I am a burden. I want to go”, but a few weeks later she would be enjoying the simple pleasures of life. I could see all too clearly that under a permissive system of assisted dying, people like my late mother would be extremely vulnerable.
My conviction at that time that assisted dying was the wrong route was compounded by my experience with my late wife, who contracted breast cancer and had a very long illness. She eventually died at home with good palliative care, surrounded by a loving family. She was vehemently opposed to assisted dying and wanted to live her life to the full. I guess that I took the view that that was her choice but should also be everybody’s choice.
I came to realise, however, that there are very different situations we need to understand. One thing on my conscience is that in my 20 years as an MP, two constituents came to see me to request help and political support for a campaign in the High Court to be allowed to die through assisted dying and, although I expressed sympathy, as one would expect, I declined to support their campaign. I was very wrong to do so. Both suffered from motor neurone disease, and I think many of us know of such cases. One has surfaced today: a man called Richard Selley in Perth, in Scotland, who is fighting for the right to assisted dying. I think we all know the nature of this condition. Although some people live with it, Professor Hawking being a famous example, in most cases it involves the physical degeneration of all bodily functions combined with absolute clarity of mind and very great suffering. It seems to me that we should consider the position of those living with it and similar conditions.
The argument that is deployed against doing so is that hard cases make bad law. That was quite well summarised by Lord Sumption, who gave the Reith lectures a few years ago, when he said assisted dying should be criminalised but that the criminal law should be broken. That is a somewhat strange way of putting it, but essentially what I think he was saying was that we should keep the law but turn a blind eye to exceptions and treat them compassionately.
I have thought about that argument, but it seems to me that the evidence is very strongly against it for a variety of reasons. However sensitive the Director of Public Prosecutions or the police might be—I am sure they are; the 2015 guidance is very humane—the sheer process of going through a criminal investigation and a caution is deeply traumatic, and probably the most difficult period of any person’s life. It is probably also difficult for the police who have to implement it.
We can all see from the evidence that the law simply is not working: from the fact that 300 people over the past decade have been through the pain—and, indeed, the expense—of the Dignitas solution, and the fact that about 300 people a year are killing themselves, often without medical support and in very painful circumstances. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) gave a very moving example, which I think showed the extent to which the law as it currently stands does not work.
When we put that together with the change in public opinion and the change in the views of the various medical bodies that would have to administer this and would be faced with the awesome responsibility of authorising assisted dying, I think the evidence is now very strongly in favour of a change to the law. I hope that when the opportunity arises, we will progress beyond the theoretical discussion to the practicalities of how we introduce humane legislation with proper safeguards.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) on initiating yet a further discussion on this subject. We have heard some passionate contributions, and very moving ones, including that by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), who delivered his speech with great dignity; I congratulate him on that.
We discuss a wide range of matters in this House, from rather mundane ones, such as those which we were discussing before this debate, to those that affect life and death. Nothing, of course, can be more important than issues that affect life and death.
I am not a lawyer; nor do I claim any particular insight. Indeed, I see through a glass darkly. I have an uneasy feeling, which I know is shared by some hon. Members, that we as a society are moving towards a situation in which assisted dying is legitimised, and I recognise that many would support that, as we have heard this afternoon. For myself, I believe life to be sacred and God-given, and I readily acknowledge that that is a view that is not universally accepted. However, I am sure we can all agree that life is uniquely precious, and that we should do all we can to preserve it, and I do not in any way question the motives of those, be they Members of this House or members of the public at large, who take a different view. Many will have reached those conclusions having witnessed the slow, painful death of a loved one.
I believe that any move to lay out a statutory framework is a further step, however small, towards an acceptance that assisted dying is in some way given the seal of approval. Some things are best left in the grey area.
We are today discussing the functioning of the current law, and it is perhaps an argument to say that it is not as clear as some desire, but surely the question is whether we can give clarity to such a complex matter—can we, as the Legislature, frame an Act of Parliament to cover all the complexities—or is it better, in cases that are presented to the prosecuting authorities or the courts, to leave it to them to consider the unique circumstances that each case presents?
Both my parents died of cancer and suffered in their final months. I well remember the telephone call from a specialist who, having received the results of the tests on my father, said, “We must hope that God is merciful and does not allow him to suffer for too long”. Although he did suffer, it was not for too long. In fact, he lived for a further six months after I received that fateful call. In his final weeks, which he spent in St Andrew’s hospice in Grimsby, I saw what comfort could be offered through palliative care. No longer did he suffer the periods of pain that he had had in earlier weeks—and that happened as long ago as 1988. Through my visits to St Andrew’s since, and to Lindsey Lodge hospice near Scunthorpe, both of which serve my constituency, I have seen the advances that have been made in the years since. Sadly, my mother died in hospital on the day that she was to be transferred to St Andrew’s.
In the case of both my parents, it is probably true that their passing was hastened by drugs, such as morphine, and no doubt others would argue that it would have been better had they been given the opportunity to shorten their lives by a few weeks or months, but I firmly believe it is better that the situation is left as it is. If one is old, frail, weak and seriously ill, one needs help, support and compassion—not the added worry and the nagging doubt over whether everything possible is being done to preserve one’s life.
Crispin Blunt
I congratulate my hon. Friend. He is making an extremely good argument so far, except that it does not address the wider benefit that comes from a change in the law here, which is about the knowledge that you have that control available to you as you enter a period when you might be contemplating these very difficult decisions. That is the principal benefit that would come from a change in the law. By leaving a grey area in the law, we deny nearly all of us the benefit of knowing that we have that control at the end of our life.
Martin Vickers
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and acknowledge that that is a deeply held view for him and many others, but I am afraid it is not one that I share.
Lyn Brown
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because, counter to that, there is the issue of vulnerability, which we have not really come to in this debate. On Friday an elderly couple came to me, terrified for their daughter, who was in a very expensive care facility. Their grandsons, who they love dearly, wanted to take that woman out of that expensive care facility because it was costing too much of their inheritance. We cannot have this debate in a vacuum; we need to understand people’s vulnerabilities—the vulnerabilities of my constituents’ daughter, the vulnerabilities of my mum, and the vulnerabilities of the constituent of whom the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) spoke, who ended her life. We must understand that this issue is a reality, and not just dodge the subject.
Martin Vickers
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. As I mentioned earlier, every situation is different and I think the complexity of framing a law that covers everything is beyond us, to be honest.
Susan Elan Jones
I am conscious that the late Lord Walton of Detchant spoke passionately on this subject. He was a great neuroscientist, but he was also president of the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, one of the great disability organisations. He spoke and wrote at length on the issue of vulnerability: it is a massively difficult ethical issue, but it has to be considered.
Martin Vickers
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention and I share those views.
Having spoken of the work of the hospice movement, I will take the opportunity to pay tribute to all those who work in, volunteer for and generously support the hospice movement, with a special mention for St Andrew’s in Grimsby, which is marking its 40th anniversary this year.
We all have to cope with the loss of loved ones, and such experiences raise—in the mind of any right-thinking person—the question of how to minimise suffering. If someone has previously indicated their wish to hasten their death, I acknowledge that it is extremely difficult, and a major moral dilemma, to say to them, “Sorry, that’s not possible.” However, I believe that any move to legalise assisted dying would be yet another step that lessened the value that we as a society place on human life.
The relationship between doctor and patient is crucial, and it could be compromised if the patient was anything other than 100% certain that the doctor was striving to maintain life. When we are old, weak and seriously ill, we need compassion and support, not the nagging doubt—
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I do not think this debate is about the sanctity of life, because the people who did not support the Bill last time believe it is legitimate to end a life early; the question is how to legalise it. It is not a moral question. On the point about the medical profession, plenty of evidence shows that people are acting in the grey area that my hon. Friend describes, leaving them with the questions he mentioned. That is not the issue either. The question is whether we can safely change the law in a way that does not create new or worse dangers.
Martin Vickers
I recognise what my hon. Friend says, but I do not think it is possible to change the law and cover all the varying circumstances. I regret the fact that many in the medical profession are moving towards support for assisted dying. The views of the public vary considerably at various times, and can be influenced by headlines, but I hoped that the medical profession would take a different view. Mention has been made of motor neurone disease, and I recognise the unique difficulties of that condition because I had an aunt who died from the disease.
I will finish shortly as I appreciate that I have taken interventions. I have a final question. Is the abortion law working as originally intended? I would argue that that is not case. A change in this law would open the door to a very different thing. Transparency is something we seek in many areas, such as financial dealings, but in this area I suggest that the grey area should remain.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am anxious to ensure that everyone is able to contribute, and I urge colleagues to be considerate to each other. I am now going to apply the six-minute limit.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I have made just a few notes for my speech, because this is a very important debate.
I picked up a couple of emails earlier from constituents. Some wished me to speak in favour of a change in the law, while others wished me to oppose it. I wanted to stand up today and explain why I would vote in favour of assisted dying if legislation were to be introduced in the House, because I grew up as a Catholic, I was educated in a good Catholic school, and I feel very strongly that when something becomes a religious issue we must be very careful about how we use our language, particularly when the issue involves life and death.
The debate is very pertinent to me, because I have a kind of counter-argument. My father died on 22 December 2011, and this choice was taken away from him. It was not like the situation described by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), whose father, having known that he was dying, sadly and tragically took his own life.
I feel very strongly about people being in hospital and being told that they will be fine and they are keeping going, given that in this case the decision was not a decision made by the patient and the doctor. That doctor took away our family’s choice, and the opportunity —not the choice, but the opportunity—to discuss with my father how he would end his life. He would not have been in favour of assisted dying—I can tell you that with my hand on my heart—but the information was kept from him, and from the family, that his medication was to be withdrawn, and he was to die a very painful and horrible death in a hospital bed just before Christmas because it was at the convenience of the hospital.
This is a mega decision, and one that each individual has the right to make, because we should have that choice; we should be able to choose how we end our lives. The choice was taken away from my father and from the family, and I will never forgive the clinician for that.
I believe that charities should play a greater part in this discussion, because talking about dying and death is a huge taboo in our society. The need to improve knowledge and understanding of death is key to the debate. Amazing work is done by people like Kathryn Mannix, a palliative care consultant in Wales. It is very important for these options to be available to us, and for us to be able to have the necessary conversations. There are many flippant conversations with my friends and family—“If anything is going to happen to me, you know what to do; I will have my savings, and I will have my paracetamol”—but we should not be having such conversations. It is our duty as Members of Parliament to ensure that there is legislation that enables people to decide how they want to end their lives.
I pay tribute to the people who are in the Public Gallery today, because they include many families who have either been in this situation or are in this situation currently. We need to remember that their journey is real, and we need to know that we must have this discussion. I will not use any religion, or my Catholic upbringing, as a reason for the discussion not to happen, or for a change in the law not to come about.
We have talked about the law in New Zealand, and, indeed, across the world. Let me also pay tribute to a good friend of mine, Louisa Wall, a Member of Parliament from Auckland in New Zealand. She too is in the Gallery today, and she has a great interest in the debate.
I hope that we will see that legislation, and I just wanted to explain to my constituents, and to everyone, how I would intend to vote.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Let us look at some of the reasons given by those advocating a change in this law. They say the current law is not working and point to cases such as that of Ann Whaley—a case surely deserving of our compassion, but one that contradicts their arguments for change. It shows that our current law is working.
No prosecution was proceeded with in Ann’s case. I understand how unpleasant it must have been for her to be interviewed under caution, but the CPS approaches such cases on the basis that if someone is in some way involved with the suicide of another person, yet has compassionate rather than self-interested motives, it is highly unlikely that they will be taken to court. Indeed, there have been only three successful such prosecutions in England and Wales in the last 10 years, and during that period just 148 cases were referred to the CPS.
The small number of cases and rarity of prosecutions indicate that our law is an effective deterrent to those with malicious or self-interested motives and protects against the very real danger of the abuse of the disabled, sick, frail or elderly and the danger that they could feel pressured into ending their own lives.
Why change this? Proponents of change argue, as we have heard from the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), for a very focused, very limited, legal change on assisted dying, but it would not stop there.
Nick Boles
Is it not the case that it has stopped there in Oregon for 20 years?
Fiona Bruce
In fact, that is not the case: in Oregon now there are clear public pressures for a widening of the law there.
Nick Boles
But the law has not changed in Oregon; it has remained exactly the same for 20 years.
Fiona Bruce
Let me turn then to the case of Canada, whose law in this area was also cited by the hon. Gentleman as an example we should follow. Just a few days ago, a clinical director from Canada came to this place and made a presentation. I was privileged enough to chair the meeting; it was called “ ‘Assisted dying’ in Canada? A cautionary tale.” To clarify, at about the same time as this House rejected assisted suicide here, in Canada there was a court case that decriminalised assisted suicide on the basis that it should be up to capable adults who clearly consent to the termination of life and are suffering intolerably from a grievous and irredeemable medical condition.
What the clinical director told us was startling. She told us of grave problems now being encountered in that country in connection with the practice of assisted suicide. She told us that in fact medical assistance in dying, or MAID as it is called there, involves in 99% of cases euthanasia, not assisted suicide. She told us of funding allocated to palliative care previously now being diverted for these purposes; of assessments being done on a very rudimentary basis, including even by telephone; of safeguards such as the 10-day reflection period being regularly shortened; and of MAID being used for non-terminal illnesses, even in a case of arthritis. There are now even proposals for it to be extended to so-called mature minors.
The suggested need for two clinicians to give consent is apparently being effectively flouted, too: all anyone has to do if they cannot find one of the clinicians from the first two approached to give consent is approach another and another until one who will give consent is obtained. Conscientious objection by practitioners is not statutorily provided for, so practitioners are feeling increasingly obligated to undertake this. In Canada the safeguards simply are not working, and I was interested to hear Baroness Meacher, the chair of Dignity in Dying, stand up at the end of that meeting and say, “We don’t want that in this country.”
Those advocating change argue that legal opinion has changed, but it has not. In the most recent court case—that of Noel Conway, who has been mentioned here today—arguments for a change in our current law were rejected not just by three judges of the divisional court, but by three judges of the Court of Appeal, and three judges of the Supreme Court, our highest court, then declined permission for a further appeal.
Advocates of change have wrongly and selectively argued that in a Reith lecture this year the former Justice of the Supreme Court, Lord Sumption, called for a change in this law. He did not. In fact, if his speech is read in context and comprehensively, it is clear that he said the very opposite. He did no more than state a fundamental principle of the criminal law—namely, that it is there to protect society by prohibiting acts regarded as unacceptable, and that one such act is encouraging or assisting suicide. He said that
“we need to have a law against it in order to prevent abuse”.
Yes, he referred to what he called the “untidy compromise”, which recognises that, as with other criminal laws, there can be exceptional circumstances where a person breaks the law for altruistic reasons, and that in such cases prosecution may not be warranted, but there is a world of difference between not prosecuting in such situations and licensing acts in advance.
Next, those arguing for change say that medical opinion is shifting. On what basis? A recent Royal College of Physicians poll of its members is mired in controversy. The RCP was, before the poll, opposed to any change in the law. However, this poll unprecedentedly required a super-majority of 60% of those voting to maintain the status quo. How strange! Bizarrely, the RCP’s council is now arguing that the result of this poll justifies a change in the college’s stance, despite the result of the poll showing that the highest number of those members voting—43.4%—opposed any change in the law and that the lowest number—25%—thought that the RCP should be neutral. Yet, strangely, the RCP has chosen to adopt a neutral stance. It is no wonder that the poll has been the subject of a referral to the Charity Commission for investigation. And for what? As Baroness Finlay said in another place, “neutrality adds nothing”. Let us also note that, within that vote, more than 80% of palliative care physicians wanted the RCP to remain opposed to change.
The fact that the British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners are set to consult their members is neither a surprise nor an indication of a change in their position. Professional membership consultations can be expected every few years. Indeed, the RCGP said five years ago that it would do this about now. It is to be hoped that both the BMA and the RCGP will reaffirm their opposition to any change in the law.
Finally, the proponents for change argue that public opinion is shifting, but it all depends on the question people are asked. That is the problem with the 80% figure that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford cited. The more deeply we probe this issue and the more aware people are of the implications of change, the more concerned people become. I can quote from another poll from February this year indicating that more than half the public say that
“some people would feel pressurised into accepting help to take their own life so as not to be a burden on others”
if assisted suicide were legal. Only 25% disagreed with that.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
It was a pleasure to join the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) in applying for this debate. I want to use my time to tell the stories of two constituents. The first is Vonnie Daykin, who has come to Parliament today to hear the debate. She has talked about how she witnessed her uncle and her father die of Parkinson’s and her mother die of motor neurone disease. She says that her mother went through living hell, but ultimately had no choice and was forced to suffer “until the bitter end”.
I also want to spend a little time quoting my constituent, Zoe Marley. Her words deserve to be heard in Parliament, so if I may, I will quote from an email that she sent me. She says:
“In January 2018 my mum Judith Marley was diagnosed with an aggressive cancer…She had nursed her own mother with cancer and had seen numerous ‘bad’ deaths. From the outset, she announced that she would not let the cancer do its worst, but would formulate a plan to escape the terror. No matter how marvellous the palliative care, she didn’t want it.”
That is her right, incidentally.
“She was a very private person; her death should have been a private affair instead of the circus that it became. On a warm July afternoon in 2018, she took a framed picture of her mum, a bottle of Drambuie and approximately 70 sleeping pills into the garden and in this most cherished place, she proceeded to attempt to take her life.”
After some considerable time, her daughter found her there; she had not died and then started to come round. Zoe was then placed into an impossibly invidious position, not knowing whether to call an ambulance. Her mother had already given her lasting power of attorney and did not want resuscitation—her legal right. Ultimately, however, because of the impossible situation that her daughter was in, she had to call an ambulance. Zoe says:
“Her wishes to stay at home and not be admitted to hospital were my priority as her LPA. But was I technically assisting her suicide? My lack of action could be considered supporting a suicide. I was terrified of the consequences of my inactivity. We waited but no change, the day was cooling down and I wanted her to be comfortable.”
In the end, an ambulance was called, and a doctor also attended.
Zoe writes:
“The doctor was unsympathetic. He said he had spoken to an on-call psychiatrist and that he was within his rights to call the police so they could take her to hospital. He was threatening and arrogant, telling me if Mum died there would be a police investigation and she would have a full autopsy. It all made me sick to my stomach. All this time my beautiful Mum laid outside while my daughter held her hand. I had somehow found myself embroiled with a medical team that had no understanding of how to interpret the law. The doctor called the police and three officers arrived. I have never had the police come to my door. It was demeaning and frightening. Once again I showed them my Mum’s paperwork and begged them to bring her inside. They seemed unsure of what to do, the expression ‘grey area’ was used a lot.”
To answer the point of the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), grey areas cause enormous distress, as in this case. Zoe continues:
“After much confusion they insisted they take Mum to hospital. I was now indignant and focused on what Mum wanted. I made it very clear I would obstruct them. I felt everyone was ‘trying to cover their backs’ which meant disregarding my Mum’s wishes.
Finally sanity prevailed, they contacted the A&E manager at our local hospital who realised even if they brought her in, the LPA would stop them from treating her. So finally at 3 am they brought Mum inside.”
Moving on a month, Zoe writes that the
“symptoms from the brain metastasis made their ugly appearance… The pain in her head was unbearable and the constant vomiting made keeping pain medication down almost impossible…
On Friday the 17th of August, Mum had had enough. She knew only torture lay ahead! That evening she took all the morphine and sleeping pills available to her and by Saturday morning she was dead.
That morning I called an ambulance. My family and I myself felt broken and traumatised. But our ordeal wasn’t over. I was questioned by the police all morning. I was heartbroken, the mental and physical torture I had to witness was now followed by a police interrogation.”
Can we in all conscience put families through this awful trauma? That is the reality of the grey area that currently exists in our law. It is the individual, not the state, who should decide, in a period of terminal illness, whether they want to bring their life to an end. That is why the law should change.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The number for the Samaritans is 116 123. If anyone thinks they need help or is contemplating suicide, other than in some of the circumstances that we have heard about, they should think about calling up, sending an email to jo@samaritans.org, visiting a branch, or writing to them.
It is obvious that a lot of people in many countries around the world want to end their lives because of depression or mental pressures, and people ought to start a debate like this by talking about that.
We then ought to get on to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who stated that this was not about changing the law. However, it was fairly plain from his speech and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) that they are talking about changing the law, and that was confirmed by the speech we just heard from the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb).
I have experience of some of these issues. My brother’s life support was switched off after an accident, and my mother died six hours early because of pain control. My father clearly told me he would never go into a hospice. He said he would go to bed and make sure he did not wake up in the morning. I asked when that would be, and he said, “When I stop playing golf.” The third time he gave up golf and put his clubs in my car, I rang my sister and told her what was happening. She told me he had said the same thing about when he stopped playing music.
A year later, I discussed with my father whether he might ever think of going into a home, and he said he would—he never did—and that he had thought about what he would take. He said he might take three CDs with him, because he might want to play music, but he had not actually played any music for six months.
My father’s story echoes what the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) said in an early debate on this subject about 20 years ago. Barbara Wootton, the founder of the national assistance service, had made him swear that, if she were in hospital and asked for drugs, he would go and get them from her bathroom cabinet and give them to her. She was in hospital for six months in awkward circumstances, but she never asked.
I spoke earlier of the equivalent of 21,000 people having assisted deaths or euthanasia in the Netherlands. In Switzerland, where Dignitas provides a service for some people, the rate is under half of that in the Netherlands and, I think, Belgium—that needs checking.
Some people say we might have an initial peak but that a second order, polynomial best-fit trend line will show that, in time, the rate of increase slows and the overall rate levels off. That may be so, but what is also so is that 15 jurisdictions in the past two years have decided against changing the law, and 96% of jurisdictions around the world do not have laws that go further than ours.
Of course there are difficult cases, but we should not use hard cases to justify a change that can lead—not will lead, but can lead—to a major change. Nobody in the Netherlands said in 2002 they were anticipating 5,000 assisted suicides or euthanasia cases a year. They did not say it. People may say that because Oregon has not changed further, things there will never change, but in Oregon they are having the same debates about euthanasia as we are having about assisted dying.
There is a whole series of expressions: medical aid in dying, physician-assisted suicide, physician-assisted death, aid in dying, death with dignity, right to die, compassionate death, end-of-life choice, medical assistance at the end of life and advanced care directives, and the like. I understand all that, and I have taken part in more of these debates than anyone else in the Chamber because I have been here longer—I am probably nearer my death than other Members are—but what I want to say to colleagues is that we should not build on individual cases.
Our first lodger was the first person I knew with motor neurone disease. In the days, weeks, months and years before he died, he never once suggested that he wanted to end his life. A constituent of mine—she has authorised me to give her name, but I will not—says that her family has Huntington disease, and most of us know what that involves, and she asked me to oppose this, so I shall.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I am glad the House has a chance to think about this again. I also remember Rob Marris’s Bill, which I voted against not because I was not sympathetic to the issues but because there was a lot of division among people in my constituency. The question of safeguards came up repeatedly, as I recall.
What has changed since then, as the Assisted Dying Coalition points out, is that the numbers going to Switzerland have virtually doubled. Parliament now finds itself in a position where we can decide to intervene and change the law, or we can accept random prosecutions, interviews under caution and denying assistance to people who seek it.
Contrary to what the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) said, I think we can draw much better conclusions about safeguards on the basis of Canada’s experience. In Canada, assistance is not available to non-residents, and that discourages suicide tourism. Assistance is not available to minors; it is not available to people who have a history of mental illness; and it is not available on the grounds of mental illness, long-term disability or any curable condition. The safeguards include ensuring that none of the legal witnesses or physicians involved has any legal or financial interest in the outcomes of the patient. Consent must be repeatedly expressed, not implied, and consent can be revoked at any time and in any manner. To receive a medically assisted death, patients must be experiencing intolerable suffering and must sign a written request expressing their wish to die. As we have heard, two independent witnesses are required. I would say that those are quite strong safeguards.
We have also heard that the view of the medical profession in this country has changed; I think the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) referred to the Royal College of Physicians, and I know that there will be a poll of the British Medical Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners.
Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to listen to tetraplegic Paul Lamb, who spoke at a humanist event in the House, and I was very moved by the case that this very rational and sane man made. Traditionally, the argument for changing the law is based on the Oregon model, as we have heard, and it generally refers to people who have six months left to live; that was the case with the Marris Bill. I have some difficulty with that, if we are to look at the matter again, because I think there is a problem with being precise about life expectancy. In addition, such a narrow position would not help someone such as Paul Lamb. Paul has been living with his condition for 29 years. He is in intolerable pain that can sometimes only be controlled with very strong medication, which blurs his consciousness and limits his life experiences. He wants the right to choose, if he reaches a stage where he has no quality of life.
We need to focus on quality of life, capacity for life and the rational, sound judgment of a person who makes such a decision. Life expectancy in itself does not tell us anything about suffering. We should be considering assisted dying both in the context of terminal illness and in the context of suffering and a lack of meaningful life. That is especially true when we are talking about progressive conditions, conditions such as locked-in syndrome or intolerable suffering.
Some people have strong views about this subject, and they are influenced by their Church or religious community. Those organisations encourage people to contact MPs, and I understand that it is always going to be like that, but the Supreme Court did ask this place to consider the case for changing the law, and the Court recognised that that was a decision that only Parliament could make. Having listened to Paul Lamb and thought about it again, I think that we should be wondering whether things have moved on since 2015. The poll that was released by the My Death, My Decision group shows that the level of support for a change in the law is now about 88%. I think that is significant, and I am surprised that people would want to ignore that.
Of course, as the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford said, we are a democracy. It is our job to wrestle with these decisions, not to rely on the fears of particular groups. It is our job to make sure that we get the safeguards right. It seems to me that the choice is simple. We cannot stop assisted dying; we can only prevent legal assisted dying, which would be open, transparent and open to change and challenge.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Ten years ago, I worked with some excellent doctors, nurses, patients and carers who were trying to improve clinicians’ communication skills to help patients gain a better understanding of long-term conditions and diseases—how to live with their disease and how to die with it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) said, not all clinicians are equipped with the skills necessary to have those conversations. I learned particularly about how lonely it is for people who are dying—it is often nobody’s role to talk about dying—and no one has exemplified that today more than my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). It is a very lonely place. I learned that people do not have the control and choice that they otherwise have in their lives, and I learned how hard is for clinicians to support people. It really opened my eyes and made me determined to change the law even before I came into this place.
It is a pleasure to work with the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) as co-chair of the all-party group. In that capacity, it was my absolute pleasure to welcome and host Geoffrey and Ann Whaley when they came to talk to MPs in February. I welcome Ann to the Chamber, as well as all the other families who have come here to listen to this very measured debate.
When the campaigners, who are very passionate on this subject, come to see me, I talk to them about how to talk to their own MPs, and the first thing I say to them is, “Try to look at the MP in front of you as a human being.” We know in this place and in this time in our politics that lots of people do not think we are human beings, and it is difficult, but we are human beings. I say to those campaigners, “You do not know what those human beings you are talking to have experienced in their lives or are currently experiencing in their lives. Please bear that in mind when you start to talk to us.”
We are here as human beings, but we are also here as legislators, and legislation is what we are trying to encourage with this debate. Through the all-party group, we are trying to help all of us human beings, with all our failings, prejudices and experiences, to understand the law as it operates, how it affects people and what we need to do to take our responsibility to change that. I am clear that the law needs to change, but I understand that many people have not got to that place. We want to try to help people. In particular, we want to try to get evidence. The call is not just to trade facts and figures, but to collect evidence. I really hope that we can help to move forward on that today.
The story of Geoffrey and Ann really did horrify me, although it is not the first time I have heard it. We have two committed, loving people being treated as criminals for carrying out what was an act of love and compassion. We should also think about the impact on people like those in our police services. Think about the poor police officers who were sent round as this lovely family were trying to manage a terrible situation. Think about the time taken out of their duties and the trauma for them as individuals. That is not acceptable; it is us abrogating our responsibility.
Geoffrey died comfortably at Dignitas only a week after he came to Parliament. He was clear that he was dying before he was ready, and he was terrified about the police investigation. As the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford said, he was a strong man. When he talked to us, the only time his voice faltered was when he talked about that knock on the door, because he was so worried about the impact on his family. He was clear about the hurdles that needed to be jumped to make the decision that he wanted to make, but he was also clear that he did not expect MPs just to change the law. He had high standards for us as MPs. He expected us to collect evidence and to challenge the evidence, and to do so very carefully. He was, as the hon. Gentleman said, cut from some old cloth. He expected us to do a diligent job.
Bob Stewart
It seems to me that the law is grossly unfair. If someone has the resources—we have talked about £10,000—they can go to an alien place and die, with a few family around, and their body can be brought back. But they have to have the money to do it. Currently, our law is not fair, because it differentiates between people who have the resources to end their life when they want to, without the pain and the indignity, and those who cannot afford it, who are the vast majority. That is wrong, and that is where the law has to change.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He must have seen the next point in my speech, because it is exactly that. Geoffrey and Ann’s story has been the prompt for this debate, but they are not the only family to go through this process. More than 400 Britons have died at Dignitas, and one Briton is dying in Switzerland every eight days. Every person who dies leaves behind a loved one facing the risk of prosecution. He is absolutely right: they have parted with more than £10,000. The family were very open with us that they could afford that, but most of my constituents in Bristol South absolutely cannot afford anywhere near that sort of money. This is a cross-party debate, and people have their individual views, but for me, as a socialist, it is eminently wrong that people who have resources can have that choice and those who do not cannot. That is one of the many reasons why I think we need to change.
The vast majority of people in this country who are dying of a terminal illness can expect a comfortable, dignified and pain-free life. The palliative care service is amazing, and I have worked with many clinicians over time, but they cannot alleviate all symptoms.
I just want to add that a third of patients in Oregon who request assisted dying do not use it. The autonomy that is granted by the choice is very comforting. Autonomy, choice and dignity are important. We must do better with our laws. Our law is outdated, unpopular and uncompassionate. It is time to look at the undue suffering that the blanket ban on assisted dying is causing people at the end of their life, because compassion is not a crime.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
This is undoubtedly a hugely emotive and controversial subject, but I thank the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) for giving us the opportunity to discuss it. I am convinced that I have not just a right, but a duty to work for changes in the law that will make it possible for people to have the individual right to choose their own time and manner of death. I am talking about people who, otherwise, will face a situation that will soon be very painful and that will also cause a great deal of stress to their family members. I have been lucky: I have not had to go through the sort of experience that we have heard about from other Members of the House.
Two years ago, I had a conversation with my husband about a friend who, we had just heard, had been given a terminal diagnosis. It was January. We said, “This year will be difficult. Christmas will be difficult. We will have to think about how to deal with it, but it will not be easy for him or for his family.” The irony of that conversation has never left me, because neither my husband nor the friend actually lived until Christmas, but the difference was that my husband died very suddenly. Our friend went through a long, painful, lingering death. If there had been a way that he could have been spared that, I would have wanted him to be offered that choice. There is also an irony in the fact that had I had the choice for my husband, I would have chosen the death that he had, rather than the one that our friend had.
The last piece of the ironic jigsaw is that, in this House, if we do make a decision on a change in the law, it will be a free vote, because we will regard how we vote on that law as a matter of conscience. Yet we have never taken up the challenge of giving that same choice, that same freedom of conscience, to the people who actually deserve it. If we are to take up that challenge—and I think we should—it will not be easy and it will not happen quickly. We will have to spend time on it. It will be extremely difficult for us all because we will have to examine our consciences and take into account the views not just of those who feel it is a necessary change, but of those who find it difficult for religious or other moral reasons. But we have a duty to do that.
Like probably every other Member here, I have received numerous letters from constituents this week, asking me to speak up for the change because they have been through experiences like the ones we have heard about so movingly today, and they want and need this change. We would sometimes do well to remember, as I am sure most of us do, that we are here to represent those people. We are told by Dignity in Dying, and in every other poll that has ever been done, that the majority of the public out there—84% at the last time of asking—believe that it is time for a change.
I saw the reports on television this morning about people who are currently facing this decision. They know that death is not far away, and would like to choose the manner of their dying. They would like to have what they believe is a good death. It is our duty to do whatever we can, for however long it takes, to ensure that they have that choice.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate; I thank the Backbench Business Committee for the time, and congratulate the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) and the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on securing it. I am also pleased to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine).
My starting point is the last debate on this matter on 11 September 2015—Second Reading of the Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill, which was sponsored by the former Member for Wolverhampton South West, Rob Marris, and was moved in the other place by the noble Lord Falconer. I do not often quote myself, but I am going to do so in this case. In fact, I think this is the first time that I have ever quoted me. I said on that occasion:
“There are three key issues here…it is about having the right to choose; secondly, it is about the need to protect the vulnerable against…pressure…thirdly, it is about treating every citizen with the same degree of respect and dignity…On the right to choose, this—I should declare an interest—is personal.”—[Official Report, 11 September 2015; Vol. 599, c. 666.]
As many colleagues know, before coming to this place I was a firefighter in the London fire brigade for 23 years, during which time I worked with asbestos. Its heat-resistant properties meant that the fire service used it for all manner of things. For example, we had asbestos gloves and hoods.
I do not know how many people have seen the terminal stages of those with asbestosis or mesothelioma. It is not pretty. It is not as bad as some of the deaths we have heard about—my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) spoke about his dad and we have heard about people with motor neurone disease—but it is not pretty. If that is what lies in store for me, I want the right to choose. I want the right to choose for myself and for everyone faced with that kind of situation, and I challenge colleagues who would deny me or anybody else the right to a dignified end.
Like most people, I want to die in my own home with my own family, and in as much comfort and as little pain as possible. Earlier, I tried to intervene on the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford regarding the references he made to Oregon. One statistic I have not heard quoted in the debate so far is that one third of patients who request assisted dying and meet the eligibility criteria in Oregon do not take the life-ending medication; rather, they want it as an insurance policy. Many actually die of their underlying condition—in some cases outliving their prognosis and not taking the medication because they want to live for as long as they can without suffering.
If I was to be denied the right to choose, I could afford to jet off to Switzerland—this point has been raised by several times Conservative Members—because I have the money, the savings and the pension. However, how many of my constituents in Poplar and Limehouse could afford to do that? Not many, and even if they could afford it, the uncertainty of whether their family members would be investigated by the police for having helped is a nightmare for somebody hoping to die peacefully.
The right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) and the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) quoted Lord Sumption. The fuller quote says:
“I think the law should continue to criminalise assisted suicide, and I think that the law should be broken from time to time…It has always been the case that it’s been criminal, but it’s also been the case that courageous friends and families have helped people to die…I don’t believe there’s a moral obligation to obey the law. Ultimately it’s for each person to decide.”
Coming from somebody who is a judge in the Supreme Court, that is absolutely breathtaking. The courts have challenged Parliament to address this issue and to clarify the law.
What we have is confusion. The clarification of the guidance by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) when he was the Director of Public Prosecutions, while done with integrity and courage, does not eliminate the risk of prosecution, or certainly investigation and caution. Different constabularies, different doctors and different standards mean that we have not just a two-tier system but a multi-tiered system, and it does not protect the vulnerable. The Bill proposed by the former Member for Wolverhampton South West had 15 safeguards written into it. The law is not as strong today as it would have been had my hon. Friend’s excellent Bill been passed. We need better safeguards, and the 2015 Bill would have provided them.
I want to conclude by thanking the families of the bereaved and campaigners such as Dignity in Dying for the progress that we are making on this issue—because progress is being made. Public opinion is changing. The Lords is almost there and the Commons is slowly coming in behind. I think that eventually we will provide the people of Britain with the right to choose their own end.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
I do not plan to take the full six minutes, not least because we have heard so many really eloquent and brilliant speeches today. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for their incredibly moving and powerful contributions.
I supported changing the law in 2015, and I would do so again. I pay tribute to the Members who came to this debate with an open mind and said that they have changed their minds for having the bravery and open-mindedness to do so. I still support changing the law because I believe that it is not working. I want to emphasise three areas where is not. First, there is the unfairness of the current situation. We have already heard that roughly one person a week goes to Switzerland. However, people go to Switzerland if they have the financial resource, practical resource, and, very often, emotional support to do so. We should not be condemning those without the financial resources to an end that is not of their choosing while other people can afford to go abroad. Even that, I would argue, would not be their first choice and is not the ideal situation, but at least they have the financial means and support to be able to make a choice of some kind. We should be giving that choice to everybody who needs it.
Secondly, the current law results in perverse outcomes. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central and the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) pointed out that it results in people dying sooner than they should. I am not going to repeat those remarks because they put it far better than I could. I pay tribute to them for their speeches.
Thirdly, I want to touch on the issue of palliative care. This debate is often framed as a choice between good palliative care and the right to choose how to die, but that should not be the case. Of course we need to invest in good palliative care—we need the best that we can get—but even with the best palliative care, we cannot stop all suffering at the end of life. A person should have the opportunity to choose their way of dying in addition to the availability of great palliative care.
I also want to respond briefly to three points from the debate. First, I agree very strongly with the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford in his request for a call for evidence to study the experience of Oregon and Canada. I do not share the pessimism of others that we cannot frame legislation that works for the people who need it to work, and gathering that evidence and learning from those examples will, I believe, allow us to do so.
I strongly disagree with the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), who said that introducing assisted dying will lessen the value we put on human life. If we value human life and if we value people, we should allow them to live the life they choose, and that includes the death they choose.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) quoted a statistic about the number of people in Oregon who gave being a burden as their reason for choosing assisted dying. That only tells part of the story, because people who request assisted dying in Oregon give several reasons—
Jeff Smith
People in Oregon and Washington give several reasons. In both those states, the most frequently given reason for requesting to die—by over 90% of people—is a loss of autonomy. Being less able to enjoy life is chosen by around 88%, and a loss of dignity is chosen by around 74%. It is important to tell the whole story with the statistics.
Lyn Brown
I really regret not putting myself down to speak in the debate, because I think there is an absence of understanding about just how difficult it is for many people in this country and elsewhere to withstand the pressures of family who might feel that they are a burden. We are tripping gently into a hellish nightmare for many people. I urge my hon. Friend to listen properly to what people say.
Jeff Smith
I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I accept that there is real concern, but I think we can create a legislative framework that takes account of those concerns and allows safeguards to be put in place to ameliorate those concerns.
In the end, it comes down to one key question: if faced with a terminal illness and a painful end, would we want the death of our choosing for ourselves and for our family? If the answer is yes, as I believe it would be, we should allow that choice for everyone.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), although I disagree with most of what he said. That does not mean that my mind is not open.
I wanted to take part in the debate in response to requests from constituents urging me to attend and represent their views. Unsurprisingly, their views are more or less equally split—from the retired GP who urged me not to support any changes, to those who were moved by the very sad case of Geoffrey Whaley to ask whether it would be possible for a change in the law to be made. We all know that this is an emotive issue that divides opinion, with strongly held views on both sides.
I was present in the Chamber the last time we debated this issue, when Rob Marris brought a Bill on assisted dying to the House. On that occasion, 85 Members were hoping to speak, and I was unable to make a contribution due to the huge amount of interest. We must remember that the Bill fell, with 330 Members voting against it and 118 for it. I am proud to say that I voted against the Bill.
I am grateful to be able to make a contribution today, but the views that I held in 2015 have not changed—that does not mean my mind is closed—and I will try to briefly outline why I still feel the same way. My concern then, and my concern now, is that in the current climate, at a time of overstretched NHS budgets and massively underfunded social care, if assisted dying were legalised, it would begin to be seen as an alternative to treatment and care. I believed then, and I believe now, that there is a real risk of a subtle but dangerous culture change in which vulnerable, terminally ill patients come to see assisted dying as a treatment option and the best way to stop themselves becoming a burden to their families, the NHS and wider society.
I worry also about our attitude towards people with disabilities. In 2015, a disability campaigner expressed their concern to me about changes in legislation having the potential to lead to value judgments being made about whether other people’s lives are worth living or not and to send out a message that suicide is acceptable in some cases. As the campaigner said to me,
“Someone taking their own life is seen as a tragedy, except if that person is disabled. Then it is seen as understandable.”
I do not believe that there have been any societal changes between then and now that have led to any alteration in attitudes towards those with disabilities, and those concerns remain valid.
The retired GP, whom I referred to earlier, told me that in her career she had been asked on a few occasions by terminally ill patients if she could end their lives for them. She said to me that when she had explored their issues, she found common themes, including the fear of being left alone without support, worrying about suffering from poorly controlled pain for the rest of their lives and the need not to be a burden on medical staff and carers. There were also psychological issues, including profound sadness and despair at their predicament, sometimes accompanied by depressive illness. However, she then told me that, once she had addressed these concerns properly, the request to end life was not made again, and in most cases it had been possible to achieve a dignified and peaceful death.
If we are to achieve this outcome, it will require good quality palliative care, which does not come cheaply. I speak as a vice-chair of the all-party group on hospices and end of life care. We need to look at the funding of hospices and palliative care, a huge proportion of which comes from charity fundraising, and we need to put the provision of good-quality end of life care on a much more sustainable basis. Some of my constituents who support changes in the law have said to me that they want to see changes because:
“Nobody should be forced to live in unbearable pain.”
I completely agree with that, and that is exactly why we need to make sure that patients receive better palliative care, and to ensure that better information and support are given to terminally ill patients and their families.
I welcome this debate, which forces us to ask the right questions about how we care for the sick and the dying, but I believe strongly that the answer lies in improving palliative care and making it accessible to all those who need it. We need to get that right, rather than changing the law on assisted dying.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee; the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) and the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who brought forward this debate; and those Members who have described in moving terms their personal experiences. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), who has just spoken in moving terms about the importance of good quality palliative care, because she is absolutely right. As far as I am concerned, this is a “both”: we need better quality, better informed palliative care and we need to change the law on assisted dying.
On Monday morning, I listened to Ann Whaley’s moving account on Radio 4 of the decision her husband Geoff took to die at Dignitas. Last night, I read Annabel Dixon’s blog in which she described, in such loving terms, her sister Jemima’s life and also her death at Dignitas. Both Geoff and Jemima decided, with their different but in both cases degenerative conditions, that the only way to have a good death—in control, a simple act, taking the medicines oneself, with their loved ones around them—and to get around UK legal restrictions was to die in suburban Zurich.
What struck me about both Ann’s account and Annabel’s account was the difficulty of having to go to Zurich, with the logistics of the journey and the pain of travelling as someone who is very sick, as well as the fear of prosecution, and then there is the cost of fees, travel and accommodation for everyone so that loved ones could be with them at their end. Geoff Whaley and Jemima Dixon, and others who have taken the journey to Zurich, had the capacity and the funds to make the arrangements. As others have said, the cost of going to Zurich is beyond the means of most people.
However, we have heard today of other deaths that were not happy—that were not with loved ones present, and where people could not, because of fear of prosecution, discuss their plans with their loved ones—and particularly the account of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield).
Clinicians often feel that they have to take control, and they cannot discuss what they do with anyone else. Very often that is about upping the dose of morphine until the person slips away or, as in the much more tragic story mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), about removing the drugs that were keeping a loved one pain-free and alive. Those actions also removed the possibility of that person and their family discussing their end, which was going to be soon but needed to be pain-free and calm.
Many constituents have written to me supporting a change in the law, and in 2015 I voted to support that change. I assure hon. Members who are concerned about such a change that this debate is not about disabled people, those with life-limiting conditions, or those considering suicide due to depression. It is not about frail elderly people who are worried about being a burden, and it is not about vulnerable people who are at risk of being exploited on their death.
Reading Anna Dixon’s blog gave me an understanding of the level of assessment and scrutiny that was required over several stages before the assisted death in Zurich was permitted. The change to the law under debate today is relevant only to people of sound mind with a terminal illness—those who can predict the rough timing, but also the nature of their own natural death, which will be undignified, painful, and traumatic if they cannot take control. It is relevant to those who want to choose when to end the suffering that they know they and their loved ones will experience.
As we have heard, public opinion is moving behind a change. People of faith are also changing their views. Yesterday I spoke to a colleague whose faith background would generally oppose assisted dying, but who is now minded to support a change in the law. The medical profession is also coming round to support a change, or at least move to a position of neutrality
I understand the concerns and worries raised by hon. Members today, but we can learn lessons from other jurisdictions that have already implemented the right to an assisted death, and ensure that those concerns are addressed as the law is drafted. We can learn from 20 years of experience in Oregon to ensure that people’s fears are addressed. The UK can, and must, learn from the experience of those states.
I support the proposal to task the Law Commission with looking at this issue. We have to change the law. We owe it to those who know what their final months hold without assisted dying, and who wish to choose the time and place of their passing, and who is with them at their end. We must remove the grey areas for those people and their families.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is almost four years since we last debated and voted on this issue, after Rob Marris introduced the Assisted Dying (No.2 Bill), which is now sponsored by Lord Falconer in the other place. I thought it was a thoughtful piece of legislation, and during the last debate I responded from the Front Bench on behalf of the Opposition. It was a highly charged debate, and 85 Members tried to speak. I was slightly surprised that the vote was so decisive, with 330 votes against the Bill and 118 in favour, particularly given that public opinion was then 80%—now perhaps 90%—in favour of such a change to the law. It is unusual for us to lag behind public opinion on matters of social legislation in such a way.
From reading that debate, and from some of the speeches this afternoon, I appreciate that a number of Members speak from a religious perspective. I entirely respect that and their right to make their own decisions, but I do not agree that they should be able to impose those decisions on me or those of my constituents who do not necessarily share that outlook. We have talked about choice, which is important, but I think this issue goes further than that. The ability to choose the time and manner of one’s own death under the circumstances that have been described, sometimes in horrific terms, is a basic human right. That is particularly true when we consider the issue of people’s means because, as many Members have said, someone’s ability to make that choice is restricted to those who can afford the organisation, time, money and support to go to Switzerland or somewhere else abroad.
The arguments about dignity and suffering have been very well made and are very difficult to rebut, but the more one looks into this the more compelling the case becomes. I met Ann and Geoffrey Whaley when they visited this House the week before Geoffrey went to the Dignitas clinic. Meeting them was one of the most profound things to have happened to me since becoming a Member. It was extraordinary to witness not just their courage but the certainty and the measured way in which they put forward their arguments. I pay tribute to them. They then had to go through the stress of a police interview. The fact that the police, I gather, interview in about 50% of such cases, is itself strange, but in 100% of cases the threat is there for those relatives—the feeling that the police might turn up on your doorstep at the most vulnerable time in your life.
There is also the risk of forfeiture, or at least having to go to the courts to apply for relief from forfeiture, because it is quite possible that joint assets cannot pass to a succeeding spouse, for example, because of their involvement in that regard.
Fiona Bruce
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise, though, that it is that concern that the police might call that protects so many vulnerable people from abuse? If we do away with that, there will be no reason for relatives not to support or even encourage vulnerable relatives to consider assisted suicide. What sanction will there be?
Andy Slaughter
I do not think the hon. Lady does herself any favours by making that argument. It is quite barbaric to think that relatives may sit in fear of a knock on the door from the police. The police themselves are in a very difficult situation. As Ann Whaley recalled, the police felt that they had to go through with an obligation which they perhaps did not want placed upon them.
Consider the case of Tony Nicklinson, who lost his case in the higher courts. I make no criticism of the higher courts— I think this is a matter for us rather than the judiciary—but he effectively had to starve himself to death to achieve the same objectives. The fact that people are going to their deaths earlier than they need to, and going through the most distressing of additional circumstances to do so, should prick our consciences rather more than it does. On the other hand, I do understand—this is why I have moved over a period of time—the arguments about undue influence and the slippery slope. It is important to look at what safeguards are there. I believe, from what we have heard today, that the safeguards are there, but I also believe that this is a balancing act.
Members will perhaps be aware of the case of another very brave man, Phil Newby, another sufferer of motor neurone disease, who is crowdfunding at the moment to take a case on the basis of proportionality. Yes, there are rights for those who are in a difficult circumstance and who might fear, or feel, pressure on them, but there are rights for those who are in great distress because they feel the need to end their own lives and are unable to do so.
The medical profession was mentioned by a number of hon. Members. I think there is a change of mood. If one looks at the Royal College of Physicians, the direction of travel even over the past decade has been from 70% of its members being against a change in the law to about 50% now. I think that trend will continue. I understand the additional pressures it would put on the medical profession. I understand that for some it looks like a conflict of interest and a compromise of their role, but I feel that everybody must take a mature view and I believe that opinion in the medical profession is changing.
I think we all support good quality palliative care for a number of reasons, including taking the pressure off the acute sector and off our hospitals. A palliative care setting can often be the best place to die. I am furious that the Pembridge palliative care unit, which serves my constituents, is being decommissioned; we only learnt of that last week. It is an excellent unit, and I will fight to preserve it. However, I do not believe that there is a conflict there with what we are discussing today. The two things sit alongside each other. They are both matters of compassion, and about doing the best for people in extremis in the most difficult parts of their lives.
So, with a lot of thought, I support what has been said and I congratulate the Members who tabled the motion.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On 4 June, in making the case for holding this debate to the Backbench Business Committee, the basic justification set out by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) was that a lot has changed since the House last debated these matters, and therefore it would be opportune for the House to have an opportunity to discuss them. I would like to go into that in some detail, in the short time that I have.
First, I want to say that I respect the views of others in the House greatly, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will respect my point of view, which may be very different from some of those expressed in today’s debate. I am a man of faith. My father was a man of faith; he died, and I know he believed in the sanctity of life, as do I. I believe that in my constituency of Strangford, the vast majority of my constituents also believe in the sanctity of life, and they also believe that the law should not be changed. I want to put that on the record at the start of my speech.
Both the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Physicians have moved to adopt a position of neutrality on the question of assisted suicide. The Royal College of Nursing actually adopted its position of neutrality some 10 years ago—six years before the Marris Bill came to this House. Neutrality is far from endorsement, and that has to be understood. It no more gives grounds to positively endorse assisted suicide in 2019 than it did in 2015.
The manner in which the Royal College of Physicians approached its poll, however, has had the effect of leaving a significant cloud hanging over it. In the 2014 poll, those who opposed assisted suicide were 44.4%; in the 2019 poll, they were 43.4%. The proportion opposed to assisted suicide is the largest by a significant margin, and almost identical to the 2014 result. For the Opposition side of the House—indeed, it is important for the whole House—I point out that in Tony Blair’s landslide 1997 general election victory, he received 43.2% of the vote. The Royal College of Physicians actually voted against this change by 43.4%. So there is a figure, when we come to stats in this House.
Before that poll, however, the council of the Royal College of Physicians, without consulting its members, decided that it wanted to go neutral, and structured the rules of the contest in such a way that that was bound to be the outcome. It took the extraordinary step of saying that unless 66% of respondents either opposed or supported assisted suicide, the college would adopt a neutral position. From that very moment, the result was a foregone conclusion. I want to talk about some reasons why it is the wrong one, and worded the wrong way.
Professor John Saunders, a former chair of the RCP’s ethical issues in medicine committee, wrote in The Guardian to accuse the college of carrying out
“a sham poll with a rigged outcome”.
Over 1,500 doctors and medical students signed an online petition expressing alarm over the college’s behaviour. Professor Albert Weale, chair of the college’s ethical issues in medicine committee, resigned in protest. He claimed that the RCP council failed to take notice of ethical advice that the committee had provided on the subject of the poll.
Jim Shannon
I am sorry; my speech is subject to a time limit.
Professor Weale commented:
“There is simply no point in the committee offering reasoned positions if they are ignored by council.”
The process has resulted in a legal challenge, which is ongoing, and damaging criticism from the Charity Commission as well:
“It is unclear whether the Council took into account that”
the majority of at least 60% required
“would make it almost impossible to achieve”
that majority.
In looking at the results of the RCP survey, it is very important to consider the detailed response to the 2019 poll by specialty. It reveals that those whose specialism means that they have a real expertise in the field of death and dying remain overwhelmingly opposed to assisted suicide: 80.9% of those participating in the poll working in palliative medicine were opposed to a change in the law. Some 48.3% working in respiratory medicine were opposed, 44.1% in geriatric medicine, 43.5% in neurology and 43.4% in gastroenterology. Again, those figures tell the story.
I appreciate that the Royal College of General Practitioners and the British Medical Association have said that they will poll their members on this issue, but we do not have any results yet. Both those bodies would be well advised to study the RCP experience and learn from its mistakes. In that regard, they would do well to study an important new paper written by the former chair of the ethics committee, Professor Weale. They would find it very helpful indeed.
There were questions about the wording of the ComRes poll. In Dr Al Baghal’s executive summary of his review of the poll, he says:
“Overall, we would caution MPs and the public…There are a number of problems noted with this survey.”
Those problems included the fact that the poll is likely to be unrepresentative because of the demographic profile of respondents; the fact that only one side of the argument was presented to respondents in the question wording, using emotive language including terms such as “unbearable suffering”; and the fact that response options for several questions were designed such that they led people to choose a certain answer, even if they did not have a strong opinion, and may have led to respondents tending to select positive options even if that was not their settled opinion.
The basic problem with the proposal to legalise assisted suicide remains unchanged. It costs about £5 to give someone a lethal dose of barbiturates. It costs between £3,000 and £4,000 to keep someone in a hospice for a week. In that context, the right to die for the eloquent and financially well off will become a duty to die for the vulnerable. That is how I and other hon. Members feel, and it is deeply shocking that anyone living in a so-called civilised society should avail themselves of a state-sanctioned means of killing themselves.
In both Oregon and Washington State, 52% of those questioned said that not wanting to become a burden was one of the motivations for their decision. I have no desire to live under a law like that, and no desire therefore to see the legalisation of assisted suicide in the UK. We need a system that supports and helps families so that no one feels they are a burden, and I will push for change on this rather than in the current law.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
There is no doubt that this is a deeply sensitive debate on matters of considerable gravity, and I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this important debate this afternoon. The topic of taking a life is not one that this House can or should debate lightly, and clear opinions—including strong points and robust arguments—have been expressed on both sides this afternoon, including by Members who have been directly affected. We heard from the hon. Members for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) and for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who all referred to personal experiences. We also heard the passionate and emotional speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). It is always difficult to stand up in this place and refer to very personal matters. Whether we agree on those matters or not, we should pay tribute to hon. Members who show bravery in talking about their experiences.
In the short time I have, I will seek to summarise the debate so far. We have heard arguments made about why the law on assisted dying should be changed. The primary point that is put forward for changing the law is that it would end individuals’ suffering in the final days, weeks and months of their lives after having been put through the tortures of terminal illness. A further point about individual liberty is also made, with hon. Members stating that we have free will, are responsible for our own lives and should be able to choose the time and place of our passing when we face a terminal illness. Many state that the safeguards that would be absolutely necessary should assisted dying be legalised can be put into place to prevent abuse of the system. Several hon. Members have mentioned the finances and the fact that if one has means, one is able to travel out of the country, but none of these issues should ever be linked to one’s ability to pay.
There is resistance to changing the law, and as some hon. Members have pointed out, any attempt to legalise assisted dying for people with terminal illnesses represents a slippery slope that can start with legalised assisted dying but then escalate to legalised assisted suicide and legalised euthanasia. Such a situation, it is argued, would be beyond what was originally envisaged in legalisation for assisted dying and could lead to further issues. For instance, people with terminal illnesses or chronic conditions, particularly the elderly, could see themselves as being a burden on their friends and families and could opt to end their lives to allow them to escape those perceived pressures. Another concern is that the elderly and those with medical conditions could be pressured into ending their lives against their will by a number of different people.
There has been some resistance from the medical profession—the British Medical Association has set out its opposition to the policy, and the Royal College of Nursing has refused to advocate it—although a number of Members have rightly pointed out that the profession’s position has also been shifting of late.
One of the positives that will emerge from this debate is that we are talking about death, because, as a country, we do not do that enough. Death is one of society’s last great taboos, which we still have not overcome. We close up and do not discuss it, because we think that by not discussing it we can avoid it—can prevent it from happening to our friends and family, to those whom we care about and to ourselves. We do not have these conversations often enough or engage in them deeply enough, particularly when a friend or family member is suffering from a terminal illness and approaching the end of their life. That is one of the reasons why palliative and end-of-life care is not as good as it could be, and why too many people are reaching the end of their lives in hospital rather than in their own homes, surrounded by their families.
There is no reason why we, as a society, cannot provide end-of-life care that provides full pain relief and soothes mental distress. That is why we have committed ourselves to providing free social care for those on the palliative care register, starting with those with the highest needs, so that no one will have to die in hospital for want of a social care package of support.
Time does not permit me to say much more; I have already exceeded my allocated time by a few seconds. Let me end by saying that this is a clear issue of conscience. Members on both sides of the debate have advanced strong and robust arguments. If we are to take one thing from the debate, it must be a commitment to improving the care received by those approaching the end of their lives and to giving them dignity in death.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Edward Argar)
With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will endeavour to conclude my speech a few minutes before 5 o’clock to allow the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) a few minutes in which to respond, if he wishes to do so.
It is rare for a Private Member’s Bill Friday to be one of the most memorable occasions in the House, but the debate that took place in 2015 on a private Member’s Bill on this subject was one of the most memorable during my time in the House thus far. It was a crowded House; the speeches were many and of an exceptionally high quality; and the Division saw an exceptionally large number of Members voting on a Private Member’s Bill. It was an example of the House at its best, debating a deeply emotive issue of huge significance in a dignified, informed and passionate but also respectful manner. The same is true of today’s debate, which it is a privilege to wind up on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government.
I have been contacted by a number of constituents with different views on this subject, as, I am sure, have many other Members. They have asked me to attend the debate and to speak in it. I had to say to them that while, as a Minister, I would endeavour to attend, I would not be able to speak; but, having been nominated by the Government to respond, I can now say that it is a privilege to do so.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford on securing the debate. Indeed, I congratulate all 26 Members who have spoken, including the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain). I will turn to their individual comments shortly, but all spoke with sincerity and from the heart.
Since that 2015 debate, legal and other developments and campaigns have served to keep this issue very much in the public eye. In respect of campaigners in the House, it behoves me to mention one of my hon. Friends who, by virtue of his ministerial office, can no longer campaign and speak about the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) did a great deal in this regard before becoming a Minister. We have seen various opinion polls and media coverage, most recently on Radio 4’s “Today” programme, focused on this issue.
The Government’s position remains that any changes to the law in this area remain an issue of conscience for individual Members of this House, and it is right that this is so given the strength of the deeply and sincerely held views on both sides of this debate. It remains a matter for this House to decide, not the Government, but a Government must implement and work with whatever this Parliament and future Parliaments decide. In the recent lectures by Lord Sumption, which a number of Members have alluded to, he touched on this issue, and while it is important that the courts should, and do, interpret the law, Parliament cannot and should not seek to avoid or outsource decisions on such profound moral questions to them. It is for this Parliament to debate and to determine the law in this area.
As I mentioned, powerful and moving arguments are put by both sides, and we have heard many of them today. Those speeches whether in favour of or opposing a change in the law were equally motivated by compassion and a sense of humanity. Those who oppose changes to the current framework do so from the basis of profoundly held views about the sanctity of human life and about the position a change could place medical professionals in, and because they have genuinely held concerns about whether vulnerable people, or people with a serious and terminal illness who are at their lowest ebb, may feel pressure, real or imagined, to take such a step, and they fear that no safeguards, however well-designed, could adequately protect against this.
We heard very powerful speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and the hon. Members for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and although the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) did not make a speech, she intervened on a number of occasions powerfully and movingly.
Those who advocate change again do so on the basis of sincerely held and equally strong views. No one can fail to be deeply moved by the situations in individual cases described by people as they set out the terrible choices they and their loved ones faced, and in that context, I pay tribute to the dignity shown by Ann Whaley in her campaigning on this issue, reflecting her situation and that of her husband, Geoffrey, which I know has deeply moved Members of this House and, indeed, those outside this place.
I would like to recognise those across the country who have campaigned, including a number of my constituents—for example, those in the Leicestershire and Rutland Dignity in Dying group. They have contacted me, as I am sure different groups and individuals will have contacted other Members or even come to see them to set out with conviction, sincerity and always courtesy their reasons for wishing to see this House reflect on the law and consider changing it. They wish to see the law changed to allow those who are terminally ill and in great pain, and who have the ability to make such a decision, to decide what they wish to do with their own body and life and their right to have a choice in ending that life with dignity, and with assistance if they need it, without fear for them or their loved ones. They have set out, as I said, their case with equal dignity, and I pay tribute to them all now.
I turn to the Members who spoke very powerfully in support of changes in this space, and I pick out to start with of course my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford, who spoke deeply movingly and, I know, on a very personal basis. He asked a very specific point about a call for evidence. I know that he has recently met and spoken to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice, where he put, with typical eloquence and persuasiveness, his case. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is reflecting carefully on the case that the hon. Gentleman put to him.
Other hon. Members spoke movingly from a personal perspective in arguing for a change. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) spoke with incredible dignity and courage in sharing his very personal story with us and those beyond this place, and he did it because he believed that that was the right thing to do to advance this debate. I pay tribute to him. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and the hon. Members for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) for their very personal stories, and to the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) for his willingness to share a very personal story reflecting his position. I would say to him that, whatever view one takes on this issue or others, the willingness to change one’s mind is a sign of strength and never of weakness.
I will reference other hon. Members, but I will not go into what they said, owing to pressure of time. They are my hon. Friends the Members for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) and for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and the hon. Members for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). I think that I have referenced every right hon. and hon. Member who has spoken. They all spoke with passion, with clarity and with a true sense of the tone in which we would wish the House to conduct this debate. I pay tribute to them all.
This has been a humbling debate to listen to and to have the opportunity to wind up. The views on both sides of the debate have been reflected with eloquence and dignity in the House. This Parliament has a responsibility to the people we represent. It has a responsibility to deliberate on behalf of our nation on the most difficult questions that we consider, and this is certainly among them. It is right that the House continues to do this, and I believe that the tone and content of this debate reflect how those who send us to this place would wish us to conduct ourselves.
Nick Boles
I should like to thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and your colleague Deputy Speaker very much for chairing this debate so well. I should also like to thank all hon. Members for contributing to it so powerfully and persuasively. I would particularly like to thank Ann Whaley for attending the debate. She has inspired us all to be here, and, whatever arguments we have made, I know that we all think she is a truly marvellous woman. Her husband would be very proud of her today. I would also like to thank all the other family members and those suffering from terminal illnesses who have taken the trouble, at a time of great stress in their lives, to join us and to observe our debate.
I should like to end on this note. I have changed my mind about this issue. Many people have changed their minds about it, and I hope that more people will change their minds about it so that we can get on and change the law and make this country a more humane place for people to live and die.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the functioning of the existing law relating to assisted dying.
Business without Debate
NHS Procurement and Subcontractor Exclusion
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)
I requested this debate this afternoon not only to put right a wrong that has been done to a long-established business in my constituency, but to highlight wider issues about Government procurement policy, particularly in relation to the national health service. The Government rightly talk about delivering a Brexit that supports UK businesses, jobs and our standard of living. However, this sorry story illustrates how, even before Brexit, we are unable to create a level playing field for our companies, let alone back them up. In this case, the EU cannot be blamed for a lack of transparency or fair competition, or for the exclusion of a UK company from an NHS preferred supplier list.
Under NHS ProCure22, the Department of Health and Social Care appointed Kier as a tier 1 provider to decide who should be the preferred providers for floor covering in NHS facilities. In May 2018, without any competitive tendering or other transparent process, it was announced that three overseas companies would be on the preferred supplier list—two French companies, Tarkett and Gerflor, and a Swiss company, Forbo. James Halstead, a UK plc from my constituency with a 50-year track record of supplying NHS institutions was not on the list or even given the opportunity to tender or participate in dialogue with Kier.
Halstead is highly successful global business that we are proud of in Radcliffe, with a global turnover of £250 million and a UK turnover of £83 million. The NHS currently accounts for approximately 15% of that UK turnover. A significant proportion of that is now at risk, and there is the also potential reputational damage of being excluded from the list for unstated reasons. Many NHS organisations are understandably asking Halstead why it is not on the list. That would be bad enough in any circumstances, but things have been made worse by the recent track record of the three overseas companies.
In October 2017, the three companies were found guilty of price fixing over a 23-year period in France, and the French competition authority fined them a total of £302 million. They were found to have discussed minimum prices, price increases, sales policy and other sensitive information, such as their trading volumes. The French regulators discovered that the companies had also exchanged confidential, recent and detailed information on their sales volumes and commercial forecasts. That information was exchanged through the SFEC, a sectoral trade union in France, which was in charge of collecting the information and sharing it with manufacturers. It is surprising—some would stay staggering —that seven months later these same companies were given a monopoly as preferred suppliers for the NHS. In addition, it is worth noting that Tarkett pays no UK taxes whatsoever. To be clear, it is not breaking any laws in doing so, but that does not mean that there are no ethical and fairness issues.
I have several questions for the Minister, and if he is unable to answer them today, I would be grateful if he wrote to me in detail. What criteria did Kier use to draw up the preferred supplier list? In the absence of competitive tendering, what process did it use? Why were Halstead and other suppliers not included on the list or given the opportunity to put their case? What consideration was given to the probity of the three overseas companies in view of the sanctions imposed on them in France?
Will the Minister assure me—this is incredibly important—that Kier will be instructed to add Halstead, and any other appropriate company, to the list as a matter of urgency? Will the Minister initiate a review of all such NHS contractor lists with a view to identifying how many are drawn up without a competitive tendering or transparent process? Finally, will the Minister issue an instruction in due course that NHS staff and third parties, such as tier 1 providers, appointed on the NHS’s behalf to commission goods and services should have a duty to be proactive in encouraging UK companies to apply or bid, depending on the relevant process?
I believe that this case has wider implications for UK Government and NHS procurement policy than simply the effects on the business in my constituency. I want to make it clear that this is not about saying that, in an unlawful manner, the NHS or the Government should favour UK companies over foreign companies. That is not the case whatsoever, so officials should not try to deflect us away from the substantive issues here. The issue is that a UK company with a good track record, a history of financial probity, and quality goods and services should be on this list. It has never been sanctioned by any regulatory authority. In contrast, these three overseas companies were significantly sanctioned, less than a year before the NHS’s decision, for price fixing—basically operating a cartel in France—over a 23-year period.
Clearly this is not a matter of direct ministerial responsibility and, having been a Health Minister, I do not hold the Minister personally responsible for individual procurement and tendering decisions, but Ministers are responsible for policy and oversight in this area. There has either been incompetence by those charged with these responsibilities or, frankly, something stinks in Kier’s decision-making process in this case.
I would be incredibly grateful if the Minister responded to my substantive points, considered the wider implications for UK Government and NHS procurement and put right, as a matter of urgency, the wrong done to Halstead plc in my constituency.
The Minister for Health (Stephen Hammond)
It is a pleasure to respond, and I thank the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) for securing this debate to highlight an issue about which he rightly feels very strongly, as it affects a company in his constituency.
The title of this debate highlights the two things the hon. Gentleman wants to raise. The first is the specific issue and, as I have some time, I will talk a little about procurement processes with subcontractors in general, too. He highlights an issue with a specific framework contract that, as he rightly says, is managed by my Department.
The specific issue the hon. Gentleman raises is on the use of subcontractors in the flooring industry under the construction framework ProCure22. The issue was originally raised through the Government public procurement review service, hosted by the Cabinet Office, back in December 2018. A response was provided by officials at the time and is on the Government website.
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of direct questions, which I will tackle later in my speech. I hope to satisfy him but, if not, I will, of course, be very happy to write to him.
The issue, as the hon. Gentleman says, is that one of the suppliers under the P22 framework is using three companies based in the European Union and that a supplier in his constituency is not being used. He is not seeking to suggest that suppliers be excluded for unlawful reasons, but he is suggesting that the supplier in his constituency has been excluded because there was not a fair competition. That is the essence of what he said.
On the competition question, the hon. Gentleman will know that my Department and the Cabinet Office provided a response saying that, although we have some influence over subcontractors under the ProCure22 framework, this only relates to certain tier 1 subcontractors that are primary supply chain members. They are required to pass a certain series of checks with the authority before they can be registered. Those checks are limited to organisations undertaking certain roles and do not extend to the suppliers of flooring products. The principal supply chain partners have been selected through an appropriate procurement process, in line with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. Those companies are then free to build their own supply chains, which is where the company in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is at odds. The company leading the supply chain is not always bound by public sector procurement regulations. I am obviously aware of the French authorities imposing a fine on the three companies at the end of 2017, and I want to address some of his remarks on that in a moment.
Officials in my Department have met supply chain partners on a regular basis, and we seek wherever possible to encourage the use of UK-based SME subcontractors. As the hon. Gentleman said, we have a duty to the public sector to deliver value for money. It is for our supply chain partners to demonstrate that that is the case with each of their products.
I think the hon. Gentleman is concerned that my Department has not replied to a letter from Halstead—the aggrieved company in question—of January this year. I can confirm that the Department received the letter from DWF lawyers, acting on Halstead’s behalf. The letter was addressed to me on 16 January, and my Department has a record of a reply being sent on 13 February, referring DWF to the response that had been published on the public procurement review service that I referred to earlier. If the hon. Gentleman does not have a copy of that reply, or if he finds when he speaks to Halstead that it does not have a copy or the lawyers have not passed it on, I will be happy to sort that out.
Officials in my Department have engaged with Halstead directly—that engagement started in March 2018—to explain how the framework operated. I hope that the company will be able to confirm to the hon. Gentleman that officials have responded fairly promptly to any questions that have been raised. I understand that Halstead has used that feedback and is currently bidding to form part of the supply chain.
The hon. Gentleman asked a large number of very specific questions, and given that the House has a little bit of time tonight, I thought I might try to respond to them now rather than writing to him.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
I take an interest in this matter because I have a large and very successful district hospital in my constituency. I listened with care to what the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) said. It seems to me that what we want in public procurement—not just in the NHS, but across the public service—is for the best contractor to do the best job at the best price for the public purse, but always in a framework, as the hon. Gentleman wisely said, of fair competition. If that has not happened in this case, does the Minister believe that that is because of a structural problem with the P22 framework, or is a local difficulty to blame?
Stephen Hammond
I want to speak about the overall process later in my speech. Having been to Nottingham to open the national procurement centre for the NHS last week, I am clear that we should have the best procurement processes in place to ensure that money from the public purse is spent wisely. That is even more important in the health service than it is in almost any other part of the public sector, because money spent wisely means better patient care, and that is key.
I hope that I will be able to prove to my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman that the problem with this contract was not with the framework itself, but with how one particular company chose to apply the criteria. I am not saying that the company necessarily applied the criteria inaccurately or wrongly, but it did not do so in a way that we would normally encourage.
Mr Ivan Lewis
I thank the Minister for the openness and frankness of his response so far. His last comment was very telling, because he acknowledged that in these circumstances, Kier perhaps did not behave in accordance with best practice or what would usually be expected, even if it did not do anything unlawful. If possible, I want clarity on whether the Minister or his officials have had, or will have, strong words with Kier about what the situation has exposed and the unfairness that has been applied to the company in my constituency. Will he or his officials have that conversation with Kier about what is expected of it, or have they done so already?
Stephen Hammond
To be absolutely clear, I was not suggesting that Kier had not necessarily followed best practice, and it certainly had not acted unlawfully. I was suggesting that, as I said a moment ago, we would encourage all the people who use the frameworks to ensure that there are opportunities for UK firms to be on those frameworks.
Let me try to answer directly some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions. He asked what criteria Kier used to draw up the supplier list. As I explained, in respect of how the framework is set up, the Department ensures that the principal supplier on the framework is there correctly, appropriately and legally. It is not for the Department to comment on the criteria that private sector organisations use to draw up their supplier lists. The Department sets out the expectation of the principal supply chain partners, and our expectation on them is to ensure that supply chains provide value-for-money, quality services for the public sector. Understandably, because of the nature of what is being procured, each supply chain partner will have its own processes and prequalification criteria.
The hon. Gentleman asked me directly what processes were used in the absence of competitive tendering. Again, it is not for the Department to comment directly on the specific processes, but I can confirm that each of the supply chain partners needs to follow its own internal policies, and those policies and procedures must align with the requirements of the framework.
The hon. Gentleman asked directly why Halstead and other suppliers that were not included on the list were not necessarily given the opportunity to put their case. The Department does not have visibility of which suppliers were given the opportunity to put their case; however, Halstead is now discussing that with the supply chain partners. As I said, Halstead has spoken to officials at my Department, and that communication goes back as far as March 2018. I understand that Halstead is now using that feedback and is bidding to form part of the supply chain. We give the undertaking that the application will be considered fairly and scored against the set criteria.
The hon. Gentleman asked me directly about what consideration was given to the probity of the three overseas companies, given that sanctions were imposed on them in France.
Stephen Hammond
As I said earlier in my remarks, each principal supply chain partner must make sure that their internal policies and procedures align with the requirements of the framework, but it is not for the Department to tell each principal supply partner how to set out their criteria, nor the specific processes they should use. The hon. Gentleman rightly made the point that is my Department’s responsibility to ensure that the policy is correct. I hope he is hearing that my Department ensures that the right procedures and processes are in place and that the individual principal supply chain partner must choose the most appropriate one for the right framework it is on. I hope he will accept that.
I was just about to refer to the issue of the three overseas companies that were chosen and the sanctions that were imposed on them. As I said earlier, I am aware that the French authorities imposed the fine on the three companies at the end of 2017, but those convictions were imposed after the preferred supplier list was established. Clearly, the Department does not have sight of the contractual agreements between the supply chain partners and the suppliers. The supply chain partners are not within the scope of the Public Contract Regulations 2015.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I could assure him that Kier would be instructed to add Halstead to the list as a matter of urgency. He will know, obviously, that it is not within my remit or my ability to instruct private sector organisations to engage with specific companies, but I can reassure him that Halstead is currently bidding as part of the refresh of the Kier supplier list and its application will, I know, be scored on the merit of the criteria set. I hope that that reassures him.
I want to turn briefly to how the Department supports and encourages small and medium-sized enterprises and subcontractors more generally. Clearly, we have been dealing with some very specific issues, and that underlines the complexity of the procurement landscape. The understanding of who exactly subcontractors are, and the work that they undertake, is, by its very nature, not well understood unless it is for a very major significant construction project. NHS organisations would usually expect the Crown Commercial Service or the regional procurement solution to identify and track the supply chain of the suppliers providing the goods, works or services. However, there is currently a limited understanding of the suppliers on locally negotiated contracts.
The Public Contract Regulations 2015 clearly allow public sector organisations to permit subcontracting within supply chains as long as the subcontractors meet the minimum standards set out, and the hon. Gentleman knows that I have just set those out. Where issues in subcontractor performance arise, the regulations also allow for the subcontractor to be excluded.
The Department’s SME action plan for 2019-20 highlights the actions that we are taking to make it easier for SMEs to work with the whole of the health supply system. The Department has a target of 23% of our direct and indirect spend with SMEs by the end of March 2022.
Peter Heaton-Jones
Notwithstanding the note that the Minister might just have been passed—[Interruption.] This is an important point. I have mentioned already the fine hospital that I have in my constituency, but I also have many fine SMEs, which need to be on a level playing field when it comes to being able to tender for these sorts of procurement contracts. What I am looking for the Minister to give me and, I am sure, to other hon. Members with fine SMEs in their constituencies is an assurance that they have that level playing field and that they can get these contracts.
Stephen Hammond
I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. It is absolutely the commitment of the Government to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises are not excluded from any form of public sector procurement. I am pleased to say that the Department has published an action plan to that effect. I am actually the Minister in charge of ensuring that that action plan is implemented, and I am pleased to say that the Cabinet Office holds meetings of ministerial champions across Whitehall to ensure that, as a Government, we meet our targets.
Mr Lewis
May I ask the Minister about a really important point of clarification? Are Kier or similar organisations fulfilling that function required to publish the basis on which they make these decisions? The Minister has said that it is not for the Department to tell such organisations how to fulfil their responsibilities in drawing up these lists, but are those organisations required to publish, openly and transparently, the basis on which they make decisions about their preferred suppliers?
Stephen Hammond
What I can say to the hon. Gentleman—he has heard me say this twice, and I am happy to have a longer discussion with him outside this debate—is that there is a process in place whereby principal supply chain partners are on the framework. If they are on that framework, they have to ensure that their policies, procedures and the criteria they intend to use align with that framework. As private sector organisations that have been contracted by the public sector, they in turn have subcontractors, and they have to ensure that the processes they use to contract those subcontractors are compliant with the framework. I am happy to set that out in writing for the hon. Gentleman, if he would like me to. Clearly, the Department cannot and does not instruct principal supply partners to detail every aspect but, as I have said to him before, we have to be reassured that the processes and procedures they use are compliant with what we have set out in the framework.
This has been a fascinating debate because it gets to the heart of what we want to do. If we want to have a vibrant economy, we must have transparency regarding how companies contract for public sector contracts and the supply thereof. What the hon. Gentleman has rightly done on behalf of his constituents is to ensure that the Department is clear and has investigated that the processes and procedures being used were the correct ones, and that if, as he believes, his constituents were unfairly treated, the Department looks into the case. My officials have been in regular contact with Halstead since 2018 and I am pleased that it is now able to refresh its application for the subcontract list. I am also pleased to have had the chance briefly to set out the Government’s overall ambitions to ensure that all small and medium-sized enterprises are able to bid for Government contracts.
Question put and agreed to.
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
Forced Displacement in Africa
(5 years, 4 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
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Tenth Report of the International Development Committee, Forced displacement in Africa: Anchors not walls, HC 1433, and the Government response, HC 2357.
As ever, Mr Evans, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, not least because you serve as a distinguished member of the Select Committee on International Development. In February of this year we released our report on forced displacement, and last month the Government published their response. A year ago we invited submissions on all aspects of this broad issue, and I am grateful to everyone who gave evidence to our inquiry, both in person and in writing. I thank all members of the Select Committee for their participation.
As part of our inquiry, we visited Uganda, Kenya and Ethiopia to look at first hand at the UK’s support for Governments, UN agencies and non-governmental organisations that are providing shelter and services for those forcibly displaced in east Africa. We were extremely grateful for the assistance, engagement and openness that, as ever, we encountered on that visit. We are also hugely grateful for the hard work of staff from the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office in making the visit a success, and for the broad range of interlocutors from the Governments in the three countries, the United Nations, various multilateral organisations, and of course civil society. In the context of today’s debate, I particularly thank the refugees and host community members who we met as part of those visits for their courage in sharing their stories and experiences with us.
Globally, we are in the midst of the greatest displacement crisis on record. Last month, on World Refugee Day, the latest data was published, showing that 70.8 million people around the world are displaced from their homes—more than the entire population of the United Kingdom. It is an increase of more than 2 million on the previous year, and to compare it with 10 years ago, the figure in 2009 was 43.3 million. Most of the people who are displaced remain within their own country—internally displaced persons, in the jargon. A further 29.5 million are refugees or asylum seekers—in other words, they have crossed an international border. However, we say that regardless of whether those displaced people are still in their own country or have crossed a border, they are among the most vulnerable anywhere in our world, and most at risk of being left behind as the world strives to achieve the sustainable development goals.
More than 20 million of those displaced people live in sub-Saharan Africa; by definition, in some of the poorest countries in the world. Seven of the top 10 countries of origin for refugees and three of the top 10 countries for hosting refugees are in sub-Saharan Africa, yet the African refugee crisis rarely makes the headlines, even compared with other refugee crises in recent years. We were impressed by the generosity that we saw during our visit to east Africa. Uganda, Ethiopia and Sudan each host around 1 million refugees and asylum seekers, but we know that generosity alone is not enough. The African Union has declared this year to be the year of refugees, returnees and internally displaced persons.
Last December, the United Nations—including the United Kingdom—signed up to a new global compact for refugees, the aim of which is to improve support and share responsibility for hosting displaced people more equitably between the wealthier and poorer countries of the world. That global compact recognises that a number of countries are responsible for hosting most refugees, and that often the countries shouldering the greatest burden are those least able to afford to do so. That is certainly the case in sub-Saharan Africa.
The refugee compact is ambitious and has the potential to make a life-changing difference to millions of refugees around the world. That will require a global effort, which needs to include robust accountability and indicators of progress to ensure that those commitments are translated into practice. As a Committee, we plan to hold the Government to account for the promises they have made, but we also recognise that the UK has an important part to play in pushing for robust accountability at an international level.
Funding, sadly, is woefully insufficient. The recommendations in our report simply cannot be achieved without plugging the gaps in funding to support displaced people. Based on evidence, we identified that the begging-bowl approach to raising international funds—crisis by crisis, annually or every other year—needs to be overhauled in line with the commitments made as part of the refugee compact, recognising that countries hosting refugees are providing a public good.
We also raised concerns that any new mechanism should not encourage low or middle-income host countries to take on yet more debt. Schemes such as the World Bank’s IDA18 regional sub-window for refugees and host communities are getting money through to the countries that need it, which is welcome. However, much of that funding comes in the form of loans, rather than grants. In the context of increasing anxiety about a new African debt crisis, we question the appropriateness of an approach that makes those countries borrow to support refugees. We urge DFID to look again at how it can work with multilateral organisations such as the World Bank to reduce the financial burden that loans undoubtedly place on refugee-hosting countries.
Throughout our inquiry we sought to establish how far DFID is supporting people who have been forcibly displaced, which has not always been a straightforward task. Scrutiny of the Department’s expenditure in that area is challenging because of the way the data is held and published. It has left us unable, for example, to determine the split in spending between support for refugees on one hand, and for IDPs on the other. In the Government’s response, the Department says that its focus is
“on vulnerability rather than status”,
and therefore that
“we cannot necessarily break down that support based on the migratory status of recipients to determine what percentage of beneficiaries are refugees, IDPs,”
or
“members of a host community”.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having secured the debate. What consideration has the International Development Committee given to displaced people of Christian faith across the whole of the middle east and Africa? I am ever mindful that 1.7 million Christians were displaced in Syria, 1.3 million were displaced in Iraq, and hundreds of thousands have been displaced in Nigeria. When it comes to looking at migrants and those who have been displaced, what particular consideration did the Committee give to those of Christian faith who have been persecuted and had to leave?
Stephen Twigg
The focus of this inquiry was east Africa, because we felt that it merited specific attention. However, in the previous Parliament our first report was on the Syrian refugee crisis, and one of the things that we highlighted was that Christians, and indeed some other minorities, faced particular challenges in the context of that crisis. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Nigeria; I will say something about north-east Nigeria in a moment, but he is absolutely right to say that Christians and a number of other minorities face particular challenges when it comes to displacement. It is very important that that is addressed, and I hope the Minister will feel able to respond to the important point that the hon. Gentleman has made.
I get it when DFID says it is determined that support should be based on vulnerability, but we need to be able to assess whether the funding being allocated is enough, particularly to reach the most marginalised internally displaced people. There are around 13 million such people, often living on the fringes of society in some of Africa’s poorest, often conflict-afflicted countries, and the number is going up. In 2017 the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre recorded more than 8 million new displacements, with more than half of all new conflict displacement taking place in the region, including more than 2.2 million in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and almost 2 million in South Sudan. I have privately expressed real concern to the Minister—I put it on record today—about reports of what is happening now in north-east Nigeria. More than 825,000 people there are described as being beyond the reach of aid.
IDPs are some of the most vulnerable people in the world, yet they remain largely forgotten in these debates; they do not have the same protections under international law as refugees and they were not included in the refugee compact. Providing support to IDPs, whose care remains the responsibility of their own Governments, is a complex policy challenge. Christian Aid told us that
“75% of IDPs do not live in camps, yet camps receive the majority of funding for IDPs.”
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
As my hon. Friend knows, I am very much involved with Sudan. We visited northern Darfur last year. One of the problems with the camps in such places is that they have become permanent settlements. That has resulted in conflict with the indigenous population, who do not want a camp on the edge of their town. There is a belief that these people will one day return, but in Darfur they are never going to return, given all the problems in Sudan at the moment. Does he agree that we need to look at the impact of forced urbanisation, because that will be a growing problem?
Stephen Twigg
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. I will say something about Sudan a little later in my speech, but he is absolutely right to raise the specific context of Darfur. Similar challenges exist. I will say a bit more in a moment about some of the progressive policies that a number of African Governments, including the Ugandan Government, have pursued. Those tensions often do exist, and it is incredibly important that policies pursued support the host communities and the displaced communities. We have a good example of that with the approach taken in Jordan, but we need to learn lessons from that for other parts of the world, too.
DFID needs to support Governments in Africa to uphold the principles of the Kampala convention, which contains legal protections for IDPs, while encouraging other countries that have not yet signed up to do so.
I will say something about the particular vulnerabilities of women and girls who are refugees or internally displaced. Protection is a critical part of our response to forced displacement. It is important that DFID ensures that the highest standards are applied to safeguarding refugees through its own work and, critically, that of its partners, as well as ensuring that the right mechanisms are in place to support anyone who experiences or feels threatened by sexual abuse and exploitation. As we know, tragically that sometimes includes aid and health workers.
Putting women at the forefront of refugee responses is one way we feel as a Committee that protection could be improved. We took powerful evidence that suggested giving women a much more senior and prominent role in refugee response and humanitarian support for refugees could make a real difference in safeguarding some of the most vulnerable people.
We were alarmed by reports of cases of corruption, mismanagement and other harmful conduct at the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. That came to light during this inquiry and during our previous inquiry into sexual exploitation and abuse. Where such cases arise, the UN must act urgently to put safeguards in place while it investigates to prevent disruption to life-saving operations. DFID, in turn, has a responsibility to react swiftly and proportionately to protect UK aid and, above all, to limit the impact on refugees who rely on the UN’s services.
Despite those extremely serious cases, we found that overall UNHCR does an extraordinary job under incredibly difficult circumstances as the sole agency mandated to protect refugees around the world. Given that its work remains more important than ever, and its challenges greater than ever, its efforts to protect some of the most vulnerable people in the world need to be supported by the UK. We received good evidence that DFID is one of the most generous donors in the world in responding to emergency situations, and UNHCR thanked DFID for its support.
DFID is also a leader in supporting refugee education, and I welcome the commitment to prioritise the education of children in crises in the refreshed DFID education policy paper last year. Only half of refugees in low-income countries get even basic access to primary education, compared with a global figure of 90%. Since it was established in 2016, the Education Cannot Wait fund has helped provide education to hundreds of thousands of children and young people. The United Kingdom has been a strong supporter of Education Cannot Wait, and I warmly welcome the Minister’s recent commitment that we will increase our commitment to the fund in its forthcoming replenishment. She will not be surprised that I take another opportunity to urge the Government to make that pledge as soon as possible and to put a higher figure on their commitment. The earlier we make a pledge, as we have demonstrated this week with the Global Fund, the more likely it is that other donors will follow. That will ensure that this excellent fund can play its part to support education in emergencies.
Evidence to our inquiry showed the need for refugees to be integrated wherever possible into national education systems in host countries. I am pleased that the Department agreed with the recommendation that it should work with host Governments and communities wherever possible to facilitate that integration. I hope the Minister can say a bit more about how the Department will provide the technical and financial support needed to achieve that. Throughout our inquiry, we heard about the importance of enabling refugees to be self-reliant, including giving them the right to work and to move freely. Professor Alexander Betts told us:
“If refugees can be self-reliant and achieve autonomy it is better for them, their communities, the host societies, and indeed donor assistance.”
For obvious reasons, I realise that granting refugees unfettered rights to work is challenging for Governments in many parts of the world, but we were impressed by some of the progress we saw. Uganda has arguably the most progressive policy in the region and possibly the world in that regard. Since 2006, refugees living in Uganda have had freedom of movement, subject to some limited restrictions; employment rights; and equal access to services such as health and education. Refugees are granted a plot of land to cultivate. During our visit, Committee members saw at first hand the care and attention that refugees give to those plots of land.
This January, the Parliament of Ethiopia revised its existing refugee laws, making it easier for refugees to obtain work permits, live outside camps and access education. Central to that is the Ethiopian jobs compact, which seeks to create at least 100,000 jobs, including at least 30,000 for refugees. DFID has rightly invested heavily in the jobs compact. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact has been very positive in its assessment of the compact. If we want countries such as Uganda and Ethiopia to continue with policies that are progressive and, let us face it, potentially unpopular in their own countries, we must equip them with the resources and support they deserve.
The UK Government, however, need to look at what example this country is setting through our treatment of refugees and asylum seekers here. Evidence to our inquiry emphasised the importance of donors leading by example, including by allowing asylum seekers in the UK the right to work. We concluded that DFID cannot ask the poorest countries in the world to grant refugees the right to work while the UK Government significantly limits those rights here in our own country. It is extremely disappointing that the Government rejected our recommendation, and I urge them to reassess that policy. Little could carry more weight with our partner Governments in Africa than the UK practising what it preaches.
For the many refugees who cannot return home, integration into their country of asylum is often the most desirable means of rebuilding their lives. That comes at a big financial, logistical and political cost for host countries. Our ability to advocate, as we do, for refugee integration in Africa is hampered by the United Kingdom’s limited commitment to integrate refugees here in the UK through resettlement and asylum.
Lucy Hovil, chair of the International Refugee Rights Initiative, gave evidence to us. She said:
“At the end of the day, this is about political will. Who has the leverage to persuade Governments that are hosting enormous numbers of refugees to begin to offer local integration, without a similar level of commitment?”
Resettlement is a really important option for refugees who cannot return home. Yet at a time when more resettlement places are needed than ever, the number available is sharply in decline, largely because of the policies of the Trump Administration in the United States.
In 2017, the last year of figures, the UNHCR was able to submit only 75,000 refugees for resettlement—a 54% drop from the previous year. In this country, we have policies to be proud of in our resettlement of some of the most vulnerable Syrian refugees. However, we have been much less open to vulnerable refugees from sub-Saharan Africa, taking in just 448 in 2017-18. Providing those limited resettlement opportunities is a crucial part of the responsibility principle, which is at the heart of the refugee compact.
The UNHCR has said that it would like the UK to increase our total resettlement numbers to 10,000 places a year—almost double the current number. It is not a large number, particularly in contrast to the numbers taken by some of the poorest countries in the world. The Assistant High Commissioner for Refugees, George Okoth-Obbo, told us in evidence that that would both
“help people and have an incredible demonstration effect.”
He said:
“The word I would use for that would be ‘tremendous’.”
It would show those countries hosting the lion’s share of refugees that we in the UK are willing to shoulder some of that burden and provide people with alternative opportunities to rebuild their lives in the UK.
Jim Shannon
I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. Does he recognise that within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland there are many communities who wish to help, including faith groups, Church groups and community groups? Such organisations could help the Government to do that.
Stephen Twigg
The hon. Gentleman is right. It is for the Government to decide on the numbers, but there is an enthusiasm and commitment in constituencies including his and mine and, I am sure, those of Members across the House, among faith communities, other communities and local authorities. I know that because when Syrian refugees came to Liverpool there was real enthusiasm and positivity. Although 10,000 would be a really significant contribution, it is not a large number of people; it is 30 refugees for each constituency. That is not a large number, and the hon. Gentleman is right to make the point that there would be a moral purpose to which faith communities and others would absolutely sign up.
The Committee, which is cross-party, endorsed the UNHCR’s call to increase resettlement places to 10,000, and we added the rider that we felt that at least a quarter of those places should be for refugees from sub-Saharan Africa. We were disappointed but, if I am honest, not surprised that the Home Office, and the Government collectively, rejected that recommendation. The progress that the UK has made with the Syrian vulnerable persons and vulnerable children resettlement schemes shows the capacity to scale up resettlement schemes quickly if the political will is there. Given the severity and urgency of the refugee crisis in Africa, a similar response is required. I hope that the Government will reconsider our recommendation.
I will finish by talking about some broader issues. We were very worried that the Government’s approach to forced displacement is too influenced by the desire to control the number of people coming to Europe. Migration is, perfectly understandably, central to the UK’s strategies on aid and on national security and defence. Both those strategies focus heavily on refugees and migrants travelling to Europe and the implications of that for the UK.
We received evidence expressing concern that the focus on Europe risked detracting from tackling the root causes of displacement—hence “Anchors not walls”. Action Aid said:
“The emphasis on preventing the movement of refugees towards Europe is short-sighted, unlikely to address the symptoms of deep-rooted power imbalances, structural inequalities or underlying drivers of conflict and climate change”.
There is real concern, for example, about the European Union emergency trust fund for Africa, to which the UK contributes both directly and through our contributions to the EU budget and the European development fund. Care International told us:
“EU Trust Funds…were not established with a vision to reduce poverty or meet humanitarian needs or human rights, but to stem migration flows to the EU.”
Programmes funded by UK aid should surely be driven first and foremost by the objective of protecting people on the ground, many of whom are the most vulnerable people in the world. That should surely be reflected in all our work in this area.
We also heard widespread unease about the human rights implications of some of the UK Government’s work on irregular migration, particularly with regard to Libya and the Khartoum process. The 2017 report of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact cited significant concerns about the potential for the UK’s support to the Libyan coastguard to breach the “do no harm” principle. There are serious concerns that the programmes are returning vulnerable migrants and refugees to Libyan detention centres, where Amnesty International have told us that migrants and refugees are
“routinely exposed to torture, extortion and rape.”
ICAI’s follow-up report said that
“DFID has taken action to strengthen analysis and risk management”,
but noted that
“the cross-government Conflict, Stability and Security Fund (CSSF) has more to do in this area.”
The UK’s involvement remains a cause for apprehension. As a Committee, we are very worried that policies pursued by some parts of the UK Government risk conflicting with others. There is a pressing need for a more joined-up approach to migration across Government.
We concluded that the Government need to take a comprehensive look at all their policies on migration and displacement. We called for a national strategy to bring much-needed clarity and transparency, to consolidate the work that DFID is doing with that of other Government Departments to identify and resolve areas of conflict, facilitate better cross-Government working and create a coherent narrative that should reflect the UK’s position as a progressive voice in the debate on displacement and migration.
Dr Drew
By chance we visited the Khartoum process in Khartoum, and we were struck that it was nothing to do with Sudan, because they were mainly Ethiopians and Eritreans. I was not sure on what basis those people would be persuaded to go back. It would be useful to know the current status of the Khartoum process, given the state Khartoum is in. Is it an extant programme, or has it stopped?
Stephen Twigg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think the answer is that it is still an ongoing process, but perhaps the Minister can give us a definitive response.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Harriett Baldwin)
All our migration programmes in Sudan have been suspended in the light of the current political and security situation. We are working with partners including the EU to ensure that all programmes in which the UK has a stake are also suspended. The regional operational centre in Khartoum has been temporarily relocated to Nairobi.
Stephen Twigg
I thank the Minister.
I am conscious of time, so I will draw my remarks to a close. We were disappointed that the Government rejected the recommendation for a coherent cross-Government national UK strategy on displacement and migration. I welcome the fact that the Department has responded positively and has agreed in whole or in part with 31 of the 34 recommendations that directly apply to it, but unless the Government as a whole address the inconsistencies in the policies of different Departments, we are at risk of failing some of the most vulnerable people in the world. It is time for the Government as a whole to practise here in the UK what we preach on the global stage.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Evans.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) for securing this timely debate and for all the work that he and the International Development Committee do to scrutinise the work of the Department. The Committee’s extremely important report, “Anchors not Walls”, shines a light on the lives of some of the most vulnerable and marginalised people in the world. I was pleased to see the focus on education, which not only is a right but can help to protect girls from forms of exploitation such as trafficking and child marriage—highly pertinent threats for teenage girls in the region.
Like many hon. Members, I remain distraught by the number of people forcibly displaced. One person or family displaced is tragic, but 20 million is horrendous and intolerable. I feel passionately about the subject as a British-born Nigerian and as a representative of Edmonton, which is a special, vibrant and multicultural place. Many of my constituents come from countries such as Nigeria, Ghana, Jamaica, Somalia, Zimbabwe, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Turkey, Yemen, Uganda or Cyprus—to name just a few. I have not named them all; please do not be offended. Most have ties to countries affected by high levels of displacement.
There are more than 1 million refugees in Uganda, in one of the most progressive arrangements on the planet. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Filippo Grandi, said:
“Given the record numbers of people needing safety from war, conflict and persecution and the lack of political solutions to these situations, we urgently need countries to come forward and resettle more refugees”.
CARE International’s report, “Suffering in Silence”, profiled the 10 most under-reported crises around the world, which are due to climate change, conflict and war. They are in North Korea, Eritrea, Burundi, Sudan, DRC, Mali, Vietnam, the Lake Chad basin, the Central African Republic and Peru. They have gone on for far too long and it is the poorest and most marginalised civilians who pay the price.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Nigeria, I strongly support the Committee’s report, particularly its assessment that humanitarian crises in Africa are often overlooked. I want to highlight in particular the hidden crisis unfolding in the Lake Chad basin. One of the most severe humanitarian emergencies in the world, it has displaced more than 2.2 million people, half of whom are children. More than 10.8 million people across Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad and Niger need humanitarian assistance. At times, the crisis seems intractable.
The scourge of violence in Nigeria is under-reported and, sadly, not acted on earnestly by the Federal Government of Nigeria. The crisis in the Lake Chad basin is in its 10th year. Escalating violence, including deliberate targeted attacks on civilians, has characterised the conflict, hindered humanitarian access and rendered any long-term development impossible. Long years of conflict with Boko Haram and the Islamic State in West Africa have perpetuated the humanitarian crisis throughout the four countries of the Lake Chad basin, but the roots of the crisis are long-standing. It is the product of widespread inequality, political marginalisation and competition for scarce resources, particularly water, and other developmental challenges, which have contributed to its severity and complexity.
Boko Haram’s violent conflict, which broke out 10 years ago in north-east Nigeria, has involved a horrific campaign of attacks on civilians and mass abductions—we all remember the Chibok girls. All too often, the words of adolescent girls in fragile and conflict-affected areas go unheard because, unfortunately, politicians and policy makers fail to listen to them. Today, I want to share the words of Kwanye, a 16-year-old girl living in the Lake Chad basin. She said:
“I could not continue my education because girls were being kidnapped from my school. Everyone wanted me to get married but I refused because I wanted to go to school. I had good grades, friends and was happy at school before the crisis. I always thought education would give me a better life. But one night, everything changed. I lost my parents, uncles and siblings in the crisis. I constantly read my old books so that I don’t forget. I can’t go to school when I can barely afford to eat.”
Kwanye’s words are truly harrowing, but that is the situation not just for one girl or for a handful of girls; right now, around the world, 39 million girls like Kwanye have had their education disrupted as a direct result of a humanitarian crisis.
Equally worrying, recent Plan International UK research found that 13 million girls are completely out of school because of conflict, disaster and long-term displacement. The region around the Lake Chad basin is the worst place on earth to be a girl seeking 12 years of quality education. A girl in Niger is 20 times more likely to be a teenage mother than to finish secondary school. The killings and destruction have spread into four countries—Cameroon, Chad, Niger and Nigeria. Increasingly, host communities take in as many displaced civilians as possible, but most host families are poor and fear the repercussions of the now-developed violent confrontation engaged in by Boko Haram and the region’s security forces.
In February 2017, the countries of the Lake Chad region—Cameroon, Chad, Niger and Nigeria—donor governments such as Norway, Germany, the United States and the United Kingdom, and international organisations gathered for the Oslo humanitarian conference on Nigeria and the Lake Chad region, at which $672 million in financial support was pledged for 2017 and beyond. The humanitarian response in the Lake Chad region was scaled up significantly as a result: more than 6 million people were reached with assistance in 2017 and a famine was averted in north-east Nigeria.
In September 2018, a high-level conference on the region was held in Germany, which built on the achievements, partnerships and commitments of the Oslo conference. It focused on three thematic pillars: humanitarian assistance and protection, crisis prevention and stabilisation, and building resilience for sustainable development. I ask the Minister to explain how the Department plans to mobilise resources to meet the immediate and longer-term needs of those affected by the crisis, particularly the most disadvantaged and vulnerable groups.
According to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, in 2018, 541,000 new displacements were recorded in Nigeria; 200,000 of them occurred in the middle-belt region and the rest were due to Boko Haram. Almost one in three women report having experienced sexual violence committed by members of Boko Haram, the security forces or the armed forces during the conflict. Violence against men and boys is also prevalent, with many killed, detained or recruited, or otherwise unaccounted for.
The Nigerian Government urgently need to propose action to ensure that security operations identify better ways of distinguishing between combatants and civilians. They must also investigate and challenge abuses and exploitation by authorities, and take concrete steps to ensure that fundamental human rights are respected. When there is evidence that human rights have been violated, those cases must be sent to the International Criminal Court. I ask the Minister, what assistance is the UK offering the Nigerian Government via non-governmental organisations to ensure that all the evidence is being securely collated and documented?
In February, the African Union declared 2019 the year of refugees, returnees and internally displaced persons, so this is the year for us to be proactive, and I urge all UK parliamentarians to act. Will the Minister explain what DFID’s long-term plan is for managing migration and forced displacement sustainably and fairly through the global compact for migration and the global compact for refugees? The UK’s humanitarian work cannot and must not depend only on the ebb and flow of pity and shock. Today, more than ever before, we need international solidarity and respect for international laws and norms. We already have the universal declaration of human rights, which is more than 70 years old, the 1951 refugee convention, and the sustainable development goals.
I ask the Minister to use this opportunity to say that the UK will put refugees at the heart of its foreign policy and uphold human rights around the world. It is imperative that the UK reinforces a collective, multifaceted approach to addressing the crisis and its root causes. I end with the words of Kofi Annan:
“Internal displacement is the great tragedy of our time. The internally displaced people are among the most vulnerable of the human family.”
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Thank you for chairing this debate, Mr Evans. I congratulate all those who created this report: the Select Committee members, the staff team, and all those who contributed evidence and shared their experience. I think it is an excellent report that is full of detail and has great recommendations. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) made an excellent opening speech, which really did the report justice.
The global refugee compact states:
“Countries that receive and host refugees, often for extended periods, make an immense contribution from their own limited resources to the collective good, and indeed to the cause of humanity.”
The SNP will continue to be an advocate for the most vulnerable. We call on the UK Government to do more. The UK Government have been slow in filling the 480 places they promised for unaccompanied children; only 220 of those places have been filled so far, which means there are 260 unaccompanied children alone out there who could be helped today by the UK Government. It is imperative that they fulfil their commitment—I would prefer it to be more—and ensure that those 260 children are helped.
Education is a long-term challenge, and is easily disrupted by outside events. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) recently led a debate in this Chamber on education for the most vulnerable and marginalised people. The “Send my friend to school” campaign brings to the ears of children in these nations the issues that are faced by those who cannot attend school and do not have access to a good education system. It is amusing because, when we speak to young children in our constituencies, not all of them are all that enthusiastic about going to school, but they really see the benefits of it and believe that everybody should have a right to education. It is great to meet so many young people who are incredibly passionate about ensuring that everybody receives an education. Imagine not being able to learn. Imagine the impact on individuals and communities if children are not able to learn. It is unimaginable that we would allow that for our own children, so we should do everything we can to ensure that children across the world have access to education.
Samara McIntyre, a teacher in Aberdeen, has done everything she can to teach young people in Kittybrewster Primary School about access to education and refugees more widely. When I was brought in to speak to her class, I was given the most intense grilling I have ever received. Those young people were so passionate and they could not believe that we are not doing more. They were absolutely sure that there was more that could be done. They sat me down and said, “You need to do more. What are you going to do?” I am standing here today asking the UK Government to do more.
I want to highlight a few of the things we have been doing in Scotland, particularly on education. The Scottish Government have helped 73,000 Malawian children to stay in school by supporting a feeding programme, and our Pakistan scholarship scheme has helped to support more than 400 women and 1,400 school children to continue their education. We have also started the Livingstone fellowship scheme, which allows doctors from Zambia and Malawi to come to Scotland for specialist training. They take that back to their countries and use their knowledge.
Recommendation 14 in the report is about women and women’s empowerment. I believe that we will not empower women unless we educate them and ensure that they have access to appropriate healthcare and contraceptive choices, so that they can make the choice about what they do with their bodies. Where they desire it, they can choose not to have children and so can escape that poverty trap. That is incredibly important. That is even more vital in post-conflict zones, where there are often a huge number of internally displaced people, and access to medical facilities can be incredibly patchy. Contraception is perhaps not the first thing that people think of when providing medical aid, but it is greatly important for the empowerment and support of women.
I want to flag up an issue that I discovered in a UK Government Home Office paper on trafficked women from Nigeria. It says:
“Trafficked women who return from Europe, wealthy from prostitution”—
wealthy from prostitution!—
“enjoy high social-economic status and in general are not subject to negative social attitudes on return.”
I raised that issue a couple of weeks ago with a Home Office Minister in the Chamber, and the document is still online and has not been changed. I am hugely concerned about that use of language. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) also mentioned it in the Chamber this week. It needs to be changed, because the UK Government should not have that view of women who have been trafficked and used in prostitution.
On the SNP’s support for women, the UN special envoy to Syria invited our First Minister to provide support and training to female peacemakers in negotiation and communication skills. The Scottish Government and the SNP will continue to do all we can to empower women and help them to rebuild their communities.
The report says that the UK must practise what it preaches. We agree that the UK should commit to taking 10,000 people per year after 2020. That represents a meaningful but, we believe, realistic increase over the current commitment. We are playing our part in Scotland—these are not hollow words—and we commit to continuing to do so. We have already taken almost 20% of the Syrian refugees, despite the fact that Scotland has less than 10% of the UK population. We are doing what we can, and we promise to continue doing so, but we need the UK Government to make commitments on that.
On the UK practising what it preaches, the point has been made eloquently that the UK should allow asylum seekers to work. A study from 2016 showed that if 25% of asylum seekers switched to self-sufficiency through work, it would save the equivalent of £46 million in 2017-18 prices. It would not just save money; it would ensure that people are better integrated into our society. It would reduce some of the negative social stigma from other people who are not refugees looking on and saying, “This person is an asylum seeker. They are not working; they are just living on Government handouts,” when many of them are highly trained and really want to work.
We can do more, we should do more and we must do more. We are talking about the most vulnerable people on the planet. Who are we if we do not do everything we can to support them?
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Evans. Let me start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) not only for securing the debate, but for the hard work that he did, along with his staff and colleagues on the International Development Committee—let me curry some early favour by acknowledging that that includes you, Mr Evans—to produce this report on forced displacement in Africa and to hold the Government to account on one of the most important crises of our time.
I want to reflect on a few things that my hon. Friend said, because they bear repeating. He mentioned that forced displacement affects a wide range of people—the internally displaced, people in camps and people outside the country but not in camps—but the one thing they have in common is that they are vulnerable. In our drive, as he characterised it, to achieve the sustainable development goals, we will leave those people behind if we do not act to support them and help them rebuild their lives. We must acknowledge every time we have this conversation that displacement happens into the poorest countries. My hon. Friend made the point well that those countries provide an exceptional public good, but those who shoulder the greatest burden are those who are the least able to do so.
I will return to the “begging bowl” approach, but while I am reflecting on what my hon. Friend said, let me mention that I was visited yesterday by a senior colleague in a major aid organisation for a private briefing on Yemen. We talked about Yemen but, as often happens nowadays, we got on to the climate emergency. He rightly said that the climate emergency has already reached the countries we are talking about—certainly those with the very least—so the idea that we have to wait for something to happen and then run around desperately trying to get the funding to tackle it is a nonsense. Regrettably—we really should regret and reflect on this—this is the new normal, so there is no need to wait for it to happen before we act.
Everyone who spoke mentioned the role of women. My colleagues in the shadow international development team, the Leader of the Opposition and I received a delegation of Syrian women politicians, who told us about their experiences. They said in particular that they felt constantly, from the beginning to where they are today, that their roles were gendered for them. In conflict, on the road to reconstruction and everywhere in the middle, women’s roles are gendered for them: they must be peacemakers and care givers, but not leaders. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby made a very strong case for the benefit we would get from female leadership in such situations. I hope the Minister heard that and reflects on it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) started her speech by referring to education. When we think about humanitarian crises and displacement, we think about meeting immediate needs—ensuring that people have shelter and that their healthcare and nutrition needs are met—but education is an exceptional form of immunisation in itself. That is why we want everyone in our communities to have access to it. That was really brought to life by my hon. Friend’s example from Niger: a girl is 20 times more likely to be a teenage mother than to finish school. That really is quite something.
My hon. Friend also made a really important point about the 10 years of experience in the Lake Chad basin, where 2.2 million people have been displaced, half of them children. Incidents such as the Boko Haram abduction become massive global stories but then go away. Although Kwanye was not an abductee, her story—one of lost education and lost opportunities—is just as stark and important. I do not think I can put it better than my hon. Friend did when she said that these people need solidarity, not pity and shock. That is really important as we reflect on how we engage on an ongoing basis. Our pity and shock can be useful at times, but an ongoing, consistent, bankable, reliable sense of solidarity would be a much stronger approach.
The numbers on forced displacement are staggering. Last year, a person was displaced every two seconds, and 68.5 million people have been forced to flee their homes: for every one of us living in our beautiful country, there is a person on the move, without a home of their own. We know that those millions of people fleeing conflict face poverty, persecution and other forms of insecurity. They face incredibly perilous journeys: they can be exploited, raped or attacked on the way, just seeking safety. The majority of them are prevented from getting to a safe point where they can start a new life. Instead, they tend to get stuck in so-called gateway countries such as Libya, where they are locked up and blocked from reaching their safe final destination.
Many of the people who are trapped in a third country, unable to return home or to start a new life somewhere new, face a bleak future. Last week—this sort of thing brings it home—I met campaigners from Western Sahara, who talked about the 50,000 Sahrawi people who fled Moroccan forces in 1975. The majority ended up in refugee camps in the Tindouf province of Algeria. There are now 90,000 people in those camps, many of whom are the original 50,000. That was 45 years ago. I have been walking this planet for 35 years, so they have been there, stuck in stasis, for 10 years longer than I have been around. Time has moved on for the rest of the world—imagine the changes between 1975 and 2019: the world is a completely different place—but not for them. For them, time has stood still. They have spent whole lifetimes without enough food, water, healthcare, housing or education—the things we build our lives on.
As we know, that experience is not restricted to Western Sahara. There are far too many displaced people living a life in limbo in camps across Africa—in Kenya, Uganda, Libya and Tanzania—and beyond, in Jordan, Bangladesh and Lebanon. If we do not act, that will be the future: decades-long stays in camps for millions of people on the move. That is a real stain on our conscience.
The report does so much to keep the light shining on this issue. I am grateful that the Government agreed with many of the Committee’s recommendations—that really ought to be reflected in this discussion—but I want to draw attention to three points. First, no one can do this alone. The global compact on refugees was a huge step towards international co-operation, but if Governments on the frontline of the displacement crisis are to meet their obligations, they need the money to do it.
That brings me back to what the Committee called the “begging bowl” approach, in which Governments have to ask for more every time to help them meet a new challenge. Will the Minister consider again the Committee’s recommendation to set up, with our international partners, new grants and funding mechanisms that would enable long-term, sustainable financing of international responses—again, solidarity rather than shock? Can she tell us any more about how the Government intend to approach the global refugee forum in December and the mooted UN high-level panel on internal displacement to keep up the momentum towards international solutions?
Secondly, DFID can and ought to keep raising the technical standards on international refugee responses. The UK has real influence in the UNHCR, which is a good thing, and we should continue to drive organisational reform there. Refugees must be able to get better information about what is happening in the homes they fled, especially in terms of safety, before they decide whether to go back. When voluntary return is not possible, refugees ought to be offered routes to integrate locally rather than staying indefinitely detained and excluded. I hope the Minister will commit to learning quickly some of the lessons—good and bad—from Jordan, Ethiopia and Bangladesh on voluntary returns and local integration, and to doing more in those areas.
Thirdly, I want to touch on what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby and the Committee characterised as the “practise what we preach” approach, which is about honouring our own obligations here in the UK. The Committee made clear, reasonable and powerful recommendations, for which we heard support in the debate, in particular about easing the restrictions on asylum seekers’ right to work in the UK. Prior to taking up this role, I was on the Select Committee on Home Affairs, and that is something we recommended. We should also increase resettlement numbers to 10,000 annually, as recommended by the UNHCR, with a quarter of those places reserved for refugees from sub-Saharan Africa; and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton mentioned, put in place a coherent cross-Government strategy.
There is pressure on global north democracies to try to keep the migration crisis away—out of sight and out of mind—because it is politically difficult. It was politically difficult for generations of colleagues before us. I hope that perhaps in my generation we might get towards having a proper, sensible and honest conversation with our voters about it.
The sticking-plaster approaches of trying to incentivise potential migrants to stay at home or funding coastguards to shut down the Mediterranean will not work. There are those who would push us towards hoping that other countries will do it, without us doing so ourselves, but that will not work. When other countries pander to the far right, we see what that means: people drowning in the Mediterranean; the captain of Sea-Watch 3, Carola Rackete, arrested in Lampedusa because her crew put saving lives before politics; choosing to build walls and put children in cages; and allowing others to drown in the Rio Grande.
We would all reflect on those things and say, “Never here,” but we must understand that no one gets there in one leap. It starts with “Go home” immigration vans, with locking up people who have done nothing but be migrants to this country, and with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender migrants being sent home to face persecution. If we go on that journey, we lose our claim to be part of the solution and become part of the problem. That is what the Government and Parliament must consider: what side of history will we be on? Will we be part of the solution, or will we contribute to the problem?
I look forward to the Minister’s response. I again thank hon. Members for their contributions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby for securing the debate.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Harriett Baldwin)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans, particularly as you are a member of the International Development Committee. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) on securing the debate and thank his Committee, through him, for having written a very good report on an issue that is too often overlooked. The report has shone a strong spotlight on it. The debate allowed us to raise some issues considered in the report and to cover the Government’s response. I was glad that we were able to fully accept 22 of the report’s 34 recommendations and partially accept a further nine. In fact, we disagreed with only three, two of which were for the Home Office, while one was a cross-Government matter. I will try to respond to the range of points made in this wide-ranging debate.
The Government fully recognise the scale of the issue, and I hope in my remarks to outline what we are doing not only in our country but, in terms of my responsibilities, across Africa. As I said when I gave evidence to the Committee, we take a needs-based approach to humanitarian issues, so the difference between refugees and internally displaced people is not one that we formally recognise. Legally, of course, there is a difference when we are evaluating the need, so we stand ready to help both internally displaced people and refugees, as I hope I made clear to the Committee.
The point about sexual exploitation was well made. I reassure hon. Members, as I did earlier this week, that in the light of the allegations made in The Times last week, we have checked and ensured that that was not a DFID-funded programme. However, as that example highlights, there can be no let-up in our work to ensure that the highest standards are maintained by the industry and that we get commitments from all our suppliers.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby keeps tempting me on Education Cannot Wait. I am particularly tempted because I do not know whether I will be able to go to the UN General Assembly later this year—I hope I will. He knows that I share the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for the “Send my friend to school” campaign, which connects young people with the right of young people all around the world to go to school. No one could be more committed than I am to the cause of education in emergencies, education for girls and the power of education to make the world a better place in the 21st century. We have announced that we will continue to be one of the leading donors to Education Cannot Wait. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby will know, the amount is not yet finalised or announced.
The hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) also raised the importance of education and girls’ education. Not everyone knows that Boko Haram basically translates to “Western education is evil”, which shows how it is feared and how powerful education is for the cultural reasons that she outlined, as well as for the economic impact it can have. Every year someone spends in school adds 10% to their lifetime earnings.
I assure the hon. Lady that we are doing everything we can to encourage the newly re-elected Nigerian Government to tackle the challenges in north-east Nigeria. It was tempting for them to say in the run-up to the election, “Look, we’ve solved the problem. Everything’s okay.” We all recognise that it is not okay. Our North East Nigeria to Transition to Development programme is our top programme in Nigeria and is worth £85.9 million. I assure her that the problems around the Lake Chad basin are at the forefront of our agenda.
The hon. Lady will know that near Rann, many refugees were chased over the border into northern Cameroon and that there was a process of refoulement to take them back to Nigeria. We were able to intervene with the Cameroonian Government to say, “That is not how you treat refugees.”
That brings me to how refugees are treated. Everyone cited the great example of Uganda, which is exemplary. I want to say for the record, though, that in the UK refugees can work from day one. It is important to make the distinction, however, between refugees and those who seek asylum, which is a route often used by people who come as economic migrants. I hope we can all agree that irregular migration, where people risk their lives and those of their families crossing the Mediterranean, doing incredibly dangerous things and putting themselves in the hands of people smugglers, is not something that we can encourage or incentivise. Global compacts are valuable in outlining our desire to regularise such paths, and asylum seeking is clearly an area where there can be and has been abuse. That is why we are careful that, only once 12 months of delay has occurred—through no fault of the person claiming asylum—can they then work in shortage occupations. The Home Secretary has committed to keep that area under review, but I want to make that distinction because I do not think the general public always understand it.
I hope the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby saw the announcement we made on World Refugee day about our approach post 2020, when we will merge all schemes into a single scheme, which will enable us in the first year to offer 5,000 places to refugees. He will be aware that that number is an increase and that the numbers of people coming in under the schemes are ahead of the commitments we have made. I will give Members an update.
In terms of the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, the most recent data shows that, against our commitment of 20,000 by 2020, we will be at nearly 16,000 by the end of the first quarter. The gateway protection scheme is for 750 people a year. As of March, 9,427 people have come under that scheme, including 762 this year. The mandate scheme has no specific annual commitment, but as of March 2019, 423 people had been resettled. Some 1,410 have been resettled under the vulnerable children’s settlement scheme, against a commitment of up to 3,000 by 2020, including 687 in the year to March 2019. In total that is 23,000, plus about 750 per financial year. It is important to note that we very much welcome community sponsorship schemes, and the numbers for those can be counted in addition.
I mentioned the latest on Sudan in my earlier intervention, and it was important to get that on the record. Libya was also raised.
Stephen Twigg
I welcome what has been said about resettlement. Can I ask her, as the Minister for Africa, to liaise between the Foreign Office and the Home Office to look at the options for refugees from sub-Saharan Africa, particularly those with vulnerabilities? One of the strengths of the Syrian scheme was that it recognised that there are certain minorities, for example disabled people, who particularly benefit from the chance to come here. Could we look at something similar for sub-Saharan Africa?
Harriett Baldwin
I know that the hon. Gentleman’s recommendation was for a specific quota. From 2020 onwards, rather than focusing on a particular country, that is widened to one global scheme, without specific target numbers for particular areas. That widens things geographically and addresses some of what he is looking for.
On Libya, at the United Nations Security Council yesterday, we tried to get condemnation for the attack on the detention centre, as Members will have seen. I want to say for the record that neither the UK Government nor the European Union fund Libyan detention centres—there is sometimes the allegation that we do. We fund humanitarian programmes, and with humanitarian programmes, the principle of doing no harm is observed. I want to reassure Members that we properly apply risk assessment mitigation and monitoring to all the programming in Libya.
On the debt versus grant point, the vast majority of what we do is through grants, so we do a lot of grant funding. The World Bank programme is additional. It is debt-financing and it is extremely concessional, but it is a welcome additional layer of support, coming on top of the grant funding that we already do.
I pay tribute to the wonderful Scotland-Malawi partnership. It was great to hear about the specific work to help girls to stay in school. When I was in Malawi, I met some of the young women who walk miles every day to go to school, and miles again at the end of the day, who were thoroughly enjoying being able to stay in school for so much longer. I will take back the point that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North raised about the wording on women returning “wealthy from prostitution” on Government websites. I will look into that and see if we can get it erased.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) spoke of how climate change is exacerbating the situation. It is doing so in the Lake Chad basin, which has been dramatically reduced. It is clearly exacerbating the movement between herders and pastoralists in central Nigeria, which has been an area of terrible conflict, and other things across the whole of the Sahel—Darfur was also mentioned. That is why we are stepping up what we are doing not only on climate, but also in the Sahel. There is more that we can do on the use of things we have invented, such as more drought-resistant millet, and there are different interventions with trees that can make a difference. There is always scope for us to scale up what we are doing to tackle these issues.
The Grand Bargain was mentioned. We have committed to do more through medium-term funding and funding that is not earmarked for specific projects, and that is meeting our side of the Grand Bargain.
I cannot say who is going to go in December, but there will be good UK representation. I have also noted down voluntary returns—the UK position will always be that all returns for refugees should be voluntary.
I think I have touched on all the recommendations and on the cases where we did not agree with the recommendations. I hope I have clarified the position on refugees having immediate access to the labour market in the UK, I hope I have highlighted the offer that we have made for the post-2020 refugee resettlement offer, which is an increase, and I hope that we can all agree, as politicians, that this is about balance. Were we to do what the German Chancellor did a few years ago, I think that might very well undermine the welcome that refugees across the UK get as part of this resettlement scheme. There is certainly a really strong welcome across my constituency, and I hope that is the same in other hon. Members’ constituencies. It is about balance and also not creating incentives for people to risk their lives through irregular migration routes.
The overarching strategic framework, which hon. Members asked about, is obviously the sustainable development goals. It is about peace and making sure that we work to resolve conflict. It is about people and making sure that their human capital is developed. It is about making sure that we save our planet. It is about making sure that we work in partnership with all the organisations mentioned, including Education Cannot Wait—I give a shout-out to the global fund for education in emergencies, which is hosted by UNICEF, as we often fund through that as well. It is about prosperity and making sure that the progress that the world has made on reducing extreme poverty continues into the future.
I assure hon. Members that these are important issues that are at the heart of the Department for International Development’s work. Through the global compact for migration and the global compact on refugees, we have a global framework to work together on; it is cohesive and forms a good, forward-leaning framework. The UK can be very proud of what we are doing. We do more than just practise what we preach; we also help others and we can all be very proud of that.
I conclude by thanking the Select Committee for its report; we will get on with implementing the recommendations we accept.
Stephen Twigg
I thank the Minister and everyone who participated in the debate. Let me respond briefly on three points. The first is education, which I think everyone has spoken about. I absolutely echo what the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said about “Send my friend”, a brilliant campaign that has brought the issue of access to education to the fore of debate in this place, as well as among the wider public.
On resettlement, I need to correct my earlier mental arithmetic. I said that 10,000 divided by 650 was 30, but of course it is not; it is 15—I doubled the figure. So it would only be 15 refugees per constituency, not 30. I welcome what the Minister said. The announcement on World Refugee Day came after the publication of our report. That announcement is progress. I particularly welcome what she said in response to my intervention, because it gives some hope that refugees from sub-Saharan Africa might get a larger proportion of those resettlement places in future. I still encourage us to be a bit more generous and get to the 10,000 figure that UNHCR has recommended. The Minister is right to say that it is a question of balance, but 10,000 is still a very modest number when compared with the numbers coming into countries such as Uganda and Ethiopia.
The focus of our report was east Africa, but we have had a number of contributions—not least from my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor)—on what is happening in the Lake Chad basin and north-east Nigeria. There is clearly a challenging set of issues, which I know the Minister is focused on because we have spoken about it. I hope there might be an opportunity on a future occasion, either in Westminster Hall or the main Chamber, to look in more detail at the Government’s strategy on the Sahel, the Lake Chad basin and Nigeria, because there is a huge challenge there. I was very struck by the figure—I think it is from the UN—of 825,000 people in north-east Nigeria who are beyond the reach of aid; the aid organisations cannot even get to them. I hope that is something we can return to. I thank all Members—including you, Mr Evans, for your chairmanship.
Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)
Thank you. It has been a superb debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Tenth Report of the International Development Committee, Forced displacement in Africa: Anchors not walls, HC 1433, and the Government response, HC 2357.
Tier 5 Religious Worker Visas
(5 years, 4 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
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered changes to Tier 5 Religious Worker Visas.
It is, as always, an immense pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Gapes. I thank colleagues on the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this debate; it is greatly appreciated. I also pay tribute to my co-sponsors, my friends the hon. Members for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen). I have always believed that our politics is better when we work cross-party to tackle injustices, so I am particularly grateful to them for joining together on this occasion.
More than 70 right hon. and hon. Members expressed support for this Backbench Business debate, and I know from conversations with colleagues across parties that the changes introduced by the British Government have caused great consternation in constituencies and parishes all across these islands. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who cannot be here today, has been inundated with correspondence from more than 120 constituents in three Catholic parishes because they are particularly concerned about the changes. Likewise, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) wanted to put his opposition on the record, but for diary reasons he cannot make it to the debate.
This is an opportunity to air those concerns with the Minister, who I know will listen attentively before responding. Before I go any further, I express my sincere thanks to Anthony Horan from the Catholic Parliamentary Office in Edinburgh and to the Bishops’ Conference for an excellent briefing in advance of the debate. We have only 90 minutes and I want to ensure that all colleagues get a good opportunity to air their views, so I will confine my speech to around 10 minutes, but I will of course be happy for colleagues to intervene.
Concerns about changes to religious worker visas were first raised with me by my good friend Father Liam McMahon, the parish priest at St Michael’s in Parkhead. Essentially, at the tail end of last year the British Government introduced a change in regulations that meant that visiting clergy could no longer enter the UK via the tier 5 visa route and would instead have to apply via tier 2. The changes, which came into force on 10 January, are causing something of a headache for a whole host of religious organisations, but particularly the Catholic Church, which requires visiting clergy to cover for periods of illness, holidays, religious retreats and even for priests who are away on pilgrimage with their parishioners.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his speech—I am sorry that I cannot stay for the whole debate. He is right that the changes affect all faiths and denominations, including the local gurdwara in my constituency. In the Sikh community, there is a pattern of bringing priests over for short periods each year, which enriches their faith, and enables them to share ideas and philosophies and to train each other. That is inhibited by the rule changes.
David Linden
The hon. Lady is right to put on the record the concerns of her local gurdwara, and I am glad that she has been able to represent it.
I mentioned some of the reasons why those in the clergy might be required to be away from the parish. It is not unusual and is perhaps best demonstrated in the situation of my own church, Parkhead Nazarene, where our senior pastor, Ian Wills, is currently away on a three-month sabbatical. We are blessed to have a wider pastoral staff team—Shelley, Dave and John are keeping things ticking over—but sadly that luxury is unavailable to other congregations or denominations.
Catholic parishes and dioceses regularly used the tier 5 religious worker visa route for priests to come to the UK on supply placements. That is important because a supply placement priest would typically lead the celebration of holy mass, including the celebration of the sacrament of marriage. He would also lead funerals, including the support of bereaved family members, and would routinely visit sick and elderly members of the local community. It is important that the Minister realises that those tasks do not simply stop when the existing parish priest falls ill or goes for a well-earned holiday or religious retreat.
Surely we would all agree that, in an age when social isolation and loneliness are increasing, the church is so often the place where people can gather as a community, to support each other and engage in friendship. The church is not only a place of worship, but a hub for the local community, providing both spiritual and practical support to the sick, the elderly and the vulnerable. Parishes may host tea and coffee mornings, cafés, youth clubs, pensioner clubs, soup kitchens, food banks and toddler groups. They provide a safe space for counselling and addiction meetings—Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, for example—as well as financial support for struggling individuals and families, especially through voluntary groups such as the Society of St Vincent de Paul.
Clearly, without the support of visiting priests, Catholic parishes will simply be unable to provide the present level of service to the local community, and that would be a crying shame. The Bishops’ Conference is crystal clear that much of the positive work in and around Catholic parishes, which engender a great sense of community, is seriously compromised by the changes to the immigration rules. My colleagues will elaborate on that point. The new arrangements more than double the cost incurred by parishes, making supply cover effectively unaffordable. Basically, the cost of applications will go from £244 to £610, which nets an extra £366 per application for the Home Office.
The tier 2 minister of religion visa route also imposes strict language requirements. I saw in the press this morning that the Home Office is putting a lot of emphasis on the argument about the English language. Even priests who undertook seminary formation in English may still be required to sit an English language test before coming on supply placements. That strikes me as bizarre.
The British Government’s changes will quite simply have both practical and financial implications for parishes. The Home Office needs to understand that visiting clergy not only allow the local parish community to continue to function, but benefit and enrich the whole community, which gains from a cultural exchange and the sharing of knowledge and experience by priests or clergy from other parts of the world. When I visit parishes, more often than not I hear about communities being educated about life in other countries. That opens up avenues for local parishes to support communities in need.
I am somewhat intrigued about why this draconian change for visiting clergy was made. As far as I understand, there have been no problems or abuses of the system by churches bringing supply placement clergy to the UK. It is not just the Catholic Church that has expressed concerns about the change; the Church of Scotland is also urging the British Government to reverse the decision. The Rt Rev. Dr Susan Brown, who convenes the Church’s World Mission Council, said that she had been “shocked” by this “retrograde step”, and is on record as saying:
“The benefit of the time spent in the UK is not just to the individual or to our churches but whole communities. Having the opportunity to have a minister from one of our partner Churches overseas brings a wealth of learning to people about faith and about global issues. Scotland is a welcoming country and we believe that the Church of Scotland can play a great part in this, but if the UK government continues to thwart efforts to invite people to spend time in Scotland for legitimate reasons by making the process more difficult and more expensive then we will be the ones to lose out. We strongly urge the UK government to reverse this change in the visa system.”
This is probably not the Minister’s natural brief, but he is standing in today, so can he explain why those changes have been introduced? Would he at least concede that they have led to an unintended consequence for local parishes, and does he acknowledge the difficulty that many dioceses now find themselves in? I gather that the Minister for Immigration has agreed to meet faith leaders early next week. That is genuinely very welcome news, and I hope that the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland and others are welcome to send a delegate to that meeting.
The Minister knows from the amount of casework that I raise with the Home Office that I have profound differences with the Government on how I would wish to see our immigration system run. I freely acknowledge and accept that, and tempted though I am, I am not going to enter into a wider ideological debate about the hostile environment, “Go home” vans, or any of that stuff. However, surely we can all agree that the changes to the religious worker visas have led to unintended consequences, which are in turn leaving parishes and dioceses in an incredibly, and unnecessarily, difficult position. It is within the Home Office’s power to reverse this retrograde decision, and—as I am sure the Minister is about to hear—I, along with other colleagues, call upon him to do so.
Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Gapes. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for securing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for it. The issue is of great concern to parishes in my constituency, as it is in others, not least because many Catholic parishes rely on tier 5 religious worker visas to bring priests to the UK on supply placements, which allows cover for illness, retreats, outings and, of course, much needed holidays. The hon. Gentleman has covered many of the salient points and concerns in his remarks, so I intend to be brief.
I am disappointed not to see the Minister for Immigration, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), here, but I am sure that the Minister who is here will convey to her our concerns. I simply ask the Minister this: where is the evidence that the changes were necessary? Where is the evidence that large numbers of people were coming to the UK on tier 5 religious worker visas for another purpose? Where is the evidence that ministers of religion are coming in large numbers to the UK to preach, despite not having the English language skills necessary to do so? Is it not a matter for the parish to determine whether a priest or a minister has the appropriate level of English to preach to their congregation? The alternative in many cases is that services will simply not go ahead at all, and we all know the impact that can have when people, many of them elderly or at risk of social isolation and loneliness, lose out on the opportunity to come together as a community to worship, to support one another, and to seek spiritual and practical help.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
My constituents, particularly those at the Sikh gurdwara, rely on tier 5 for religious workers to come in. They do not want the tier 2 so that their religious workers can be here a long time, and neither do they want to stay indefinitely. It really is a short-term issue and religious workers are being absolutely excluded. In my constituency they have already spent more than £1,000, having been refused a visa while the change of policy went through. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need something in the interim, a bit like the old tier 5, so that short-term religious workers can come in and read from the holy book, which is what they need to do? They are not lecturers or cultural exchange people; they are religious workers who do not want to stay here for a long time.
Ged Killen
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I absolutely agree. Another senseless decision seems to be based once again on the ideology of the Conservative party, rather than on any evidence. The Catholic Church in Scotland is in no doubt whatever that the changes will mean fewer priests will be able to come to Scotland to support local parishes. Perhaps the Minister can tell us, if he is aware, what assessment has been made of the likely impact of the changes. How many people have been refused under the new system who would have been granted a visa under the old one? Is the Home Office aware of how many other people are likely to be refused entry at a later date?
We all have casework that demonstrates how often the Home Office gets decisions wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) raised in a debate in this place just a few weeks ago concerns revealed in the Financial Times that the Home Office is using algorithms to process visa applications. Many of my constituents have had applications inexplicably refused, usually because of Home Office errors, which were later overturned following an intervention from my office. As the hon. Member for Glasgow East said earlier, we do not want to get into the wider debate, but I will mention the recent example of my constituent Sabir Zazai, the chief executive of the Scottish Refugee Council. He was being honoured by Glasgow University for 20 years of remarkable contribution to civil society, but his father almost missed out on going to the graduation ceremony, where he was to receive his honorary doctorate, because he was refused a visit visa. That is exactly the type of case that speaks to the heart of the issue that we are talking about today, although we are talking about a different tier of visas.
Mike Gapes (in the Chair)
Will the hon. Gentleman speak to the actual motion?
Ged Killen
I apologise, Mr Gapes, but it does speak to the wider issue where mistakes are made all the time. We already have an under-resourced Home Office, which is why we get so many mistakes, making decisions that are not based on any logic, evidence or fairness, but on ideology, and often getting the decisions wrong and causing enormous hurt to individuals and families. In this case we are talking about what was a relatively straightforward process for ministers of religion to come to this country and we are making it needlessly more complicated, which will inevitably lead to more incorrect decisions and will have a huge impact on local parishes up and down the country.
We are left with the question of why we are doing this. What problem are the Government attempting to fix? We know the problems they will create: parishes in constituencies such as Rutherglen and Hamilton West will be unable to maintain the high level of service that they offer in communities that often badly need it. Coffee mornings, youth clubs, bingo nights, food banks and counselling services are all compromised by the changes. I ask the Minister to convey to the Immigration Minister the concerns raised today, and I ask them to seriously reconsider the decision.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. It was also a pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) introduce the debate. I wish to discuss some points that this debate generates.
The hon. Gentleman set out the background issues very clearly. As he pointed out and as the letter from the Catholic Church clearly points out, the debate is held in the context of the supply of priests, particularly in the summer, and allowing the laity to continue to attend mass. So there are two issues at stake: the laity attending mass and the priests being allowed a holiday. I am all for priests being allowed a holiday, just as I am all for MPs being allowed a holiday. As an aside, when I first came into this House, a very senior Member said to me, “The person you should acquaint yourself with to get the right sort of status is the suffragan bishop.” Members can interpret that as they wish. Whether the popularity of MPs and suffragan bishops has taken the same turn is something I will leave for others to decide.
We have heard about a change whereby visiting priests are required to apply under tier 2 rather than under tier 5, and that is producing problems, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) illustrated, as well as costs for various communities. There are also English language burdens they have to suffer and a little more red tape than under the current scheme. However, I do not think the problem is widely shared among all religious communities. The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) nods. I will illustrate how it is not the case in some communities.
I accept that it is a case for the Catholic Church and for many others, but we live in a world where it is very difficult for anyone to recruit priests. Although this is perhaps the subject of an additional debate on another occasion, I point out that Anglicans are in a much better position because they have admitted women as priests. They therefore have an enormous supply of priests who are available and ministering. Whether the Catholic Church wants to take up my suggestion is a matter for it to decide and I will not interfere.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I am sitting here as a Catholic utterly stunned by what the hon. Gentleman suggests. He is here in Westminster Hall suggesting that the Catholic Church should change its policies because of what he perceives to be an issue and because of the actions of the Government. Honestly?
Mike Gapes (in the Chair)
Order. I know it is tempting to have a wider debate, but will Members, including Mr Howell, focus on the motion before us?
John Howell
Thank you, Mr Gapes. To respond briefly, I was not suggesting that; I was leaving it to the Catholic Church to decide. As I said, we can debate that issue on a separate occasion, but I think my point is a valid one.
I made inquiries in the Anglican Church about whether it has this problem. The answer was no, it does not have this problem, for a number of reasons. First, there is a supply of Anglican women priests, so the supply issue is taken care of. Secondly, Anglican ministries are organised increasingly in teams, so someone is always around; because all the members of the team do not take their holiday at the same time, someone in the team is always available to cover for others in the ministry. It is important to bear that in mind.
Carol Monaghan
The Catholic Church organises in teams as well, but the smaller groups within the archdiocese have priests who are already stretched to the absolute limit. When one takes a well-earned break, the others are simply asked to do even more. For them just to pick up the slack, as suggested, is unsustainable.
John Howell
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, but I return to mine: we live in a time when it is very difficult to get enough people to come forward for the priesthood of whichever denomination.
David Linden
The hon. Gentleman will realise that in my speech I quoted the Very Reverend Dr Susan Brown, who is both a woman and a member of the Church of Scotland, which permits female clergy. If the Church of Scotland, which is not the Catholic Church, acknowledges that this is a problem and one not specifically related to gender, does that not drive a coach and horses through his argument?
John Howell
I am tempted to say that if it is not just a Catholic problem, perhaps it is a Scottish problem.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s argument. Does he accept that the issue that we should be debating is whether the changes are right in principle? They might not affect every single religious grouping to the same degree, but the question that we parliamentarians should talk about is whether the changes are right in principle.
John Howell
I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention, but I do not see the two as different; I see them as all part of the same problem. I will go back to my comments on the Anglican Church.
Valerie Vaz
The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time in allowing us to intervene. I am a Roman Catholic, but I speak on behalf not just of that Church but of the religion directly affected by the changes, which is the Sikh religion. He is right when he talks about the Church of England, but that is exactly it: it is the Church of England; many of the others are international religions and therefore need religious workers to come here. More to the point, does he not agree with having an interchange of people of different faiths coming to this country, whether of the Catholic Church or of any other religion? Does it not mean that we are able to look beyond our shores, therefore helping international relations, and not only understanding each of our own religions here but understanding them internationally?
John Howell
I am happy to refer to the Church of England as part of the Anglican Communion, which is a worldwide organisation that exists in so many countries that one might have thought that if there were a problem, it too would experience exactly the same problem, because there are exchanges of people between different countries, dioceses and parishes.
I will take my glasses off to read what Christian Concern said, because it is in quite small print. It states that
“it is possible to enter the UK as a ‘business visitor’ to undertake some preaching…provided the person’s base is abroad”.
That is the basis on which the exchange of Anglican personnel takes place; it is not that the Anglicans do not invite colleagues from the Anglican Communion to come over to preach in their churches. I have been to many services at which the preacher has come from a country overseas. We need to ensure that we do not get two things confused: the restrictions on the priesthood, which I know exist, for whatever reason; and the changes to the immigration system.
Last, I mention my close contacts with the Jewish community. I appreciate, from conversations beforehand with the hon. Member for Glasgow East, that his view is that the Jewish community in Scotland has similar problems. However, I asked my Jewish colleagues exactly where the problem was likely to occur in the Jewish community, and most if not all of those I questioned did not see this as a problem for them. Again, we have to go back to this being a much more complex question than simply one of visas.
I offer those reasons up as a view on the issue and to widen the debate.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes.
Since we have just heard from the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) about women priests, I take this opportunity to place on record my congratulations to the Reverend Rose Hudson-Wilkin on her appointment as Bishop of Dover—our loss but most definitely the Church of England’s gain down in Dover.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) on securing this debate. I was happy to support his bid at the Backbench Business Committee. I also thank the various different campaign groups and constituents who have been raising awareness of the issue for several months now, especially those from the Catholic community who are in effect being penalised by the Government’s policy decision to change the criteria for visas for religious workers and ministers of religion.
My simple first question to the Minister is this: what is the Government’s message to the parishioners of the Immaculate Conception church on Maryhill Road in my constituency? Throughout the month of August, they will not be able to worship at their church at the usual Sunday evening mass, because the usual arrangements for cover and supply priests are no longer possible, thanks to the change of policy. Why are the UK Government, led by a professed Christian who forever speaks about the importance of faith to our culture and society, going out of their way to deny our Christian communities the right to worship? That is the direct effect of the policy change.
I will look briefly at the background, the deeper roots, specific examples—some of which we have already heard—and some possible solutions. Ministers have heard several times in recent weeks, not least from SNP Members, that despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, the evidence is clear that the hostile environment is still alive and well in the Home Office and UK Visas and Immigration. Whatever consultation the Government claim to have carried out and whatever notice they claim to have given to faith communities, it clearly was not enough, as the extent of the difficulties caused by the change has only become clear in recent months as parishes made plans for the summer.
The rationale for the changes introduced in December last year, whereby ministers of religion may no longer apply for temporary religious worker visas under tier 5 of the immigration rules, seems to be largely based on proficiency in the English language, which leads to my second question to the Minister. This was not really about Christian or Catholic ministers, was it? Looking at the detail of the policy in the explanatory notes, written statement HCWS1159 dated 6 December 2018 states that the rules are to prevent
“religious workers to perform roles, that include preaching and leading a congregation, without first being required to demonstrate that they speak English to an acceptable standard.”
It is pretty clear that the change is targeted at religions—one in particular, I suspect—that do not usually conduct their forms of worship in English. It stands to reason that faith communities that conduct services primarily in English would not have much to gain by bringing in preachers who are not fluent in that language.
The second aspect of the change is the 12-month cooling-off period, which clearly smacks of security concerns far more than the risk of visitors simply overstaying their permit for a few weeks or months. If the Government chose to introduce that change for security reasons, they should have the guts to make that clear. Whether or not the consequences are unintended, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East said, they are real.
We heard some specific examples; I mentioned one in my constituency and I am aware of many more across the archdiocese of Glasgow. The decision puts massive pressure on our own priests and ministers, who may miss out on the opportunity for rest, retreat or physical recuperation if they are unwell. They have to choose between their own long-term wellbeing and the provision of often vital services in their parishes, many of which reach out beyond the immediate faith or worshipping community that they serve.
I have a personal connection with three very good Malawian priest friends who are studying in Rome, Fathers Dan, Isaac and Kondwani. They first had to complete their seminary training in Malawi in English; they are probably proficient in at least than one vernacular language; they will probably have proficiency in Latin and, because they live in Rome, they will be proficient in Italian, too. They have been unable to acquire tier 5 visas this year that, in previous years, would have been routine at a cost of around £200. One of the sponsoring parishes is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands)—St Conval’s in Linwood. It reckons that to bring those priests over under the new process would have cost well over £1,000, between the visas and the various test and proofs required. That is totally prohibitive and leaves parishes across that diocese struggling to cope.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I am grateful that my hon. Friend raises that point; it is not the first time that he has assisted with issues relating to Linwood, particularly in connection with Malawi. Not only did Father Michael McMahon of St Conval’s get in touch with me but the Bishop of Paisley, Bishop John Keenan. Father Michael has just come back from a trip to Malawi with St Benedict’s High School; he said that not only can the parish not afford those elevated costs; the wider diocese cannot absorb them at all. Simply put, there are no winners from the policy change at all.
Patrick Grady
The complete opposite is the case: the change is having a detrimental effect. In the past, visiting priests would have come for two or three months perhaps, spending a couple of weeks in each parish. They would have built warm and supportive relationships and they would have come back on a regular basis. Now, those parishes have to strip back their worship schedules and many other support services that run alongside them. That is repeated across Scotland and the United Kingdom, as we hear.
The Bishops’ Conference of Scotland has said that in all the years it has sponsored priests through the tier 5 process, it has not been aware of any abuses of the system. Visiting priests are tied by religious vows to return to their home diocese at the request of their bishop, to say nothing of their own personal and family ties. Once again, the base assumption of the Home Office’s immigration rules is that the streets of mother Britannia are so paved with gold that the only reason anyone would want come here is to abscond while on their visa and sponge off the NHS and the welfare state. That is simply not the case, and it is insulting to those visitors to suggest otherwise.
What are the solutions? The simple solution would be simply to undo the change and revert to the previous system. At the very least, the Home Office, at ministerial level, must be prepare to continue to engage directly with all the stakeholders across the UK who are interested in this issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East said, I believe a meeting is taking place with the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, but Ministers should be willing also to meet the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland and its representatives. I am sure that Ministers know the Catholic Church in Scotland has its own history and governance, which is distinct from that south of the border.
What is really needed is a deeper, more fundamental review of the overall immigration rules and the hostile environment. The Vote Office kindly produced an extract of the immigration rules for me, which are vast. The document comes with an erratum. With the greatest respect to the drafting officials, it is so complicated; no one could keep track of it. One correction, to the
“Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules, presented to Parliament pursuant to section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 11 December 2018, HC1779”,
states:
“On page 8, for change 6A.13 where it reads, ‘… paragraph 245ZP (f)(2) …’ it should instead read as, ‘… paragraph 245ZP(f)(iii)(2) …’.”
I tracked that down on page 41 of a document that runs to hundreds of pages. This is what small Catholic parishes are being asked to get to grips with when trying to bring over their priests. That is why the whole system needs to be fundamentally reviewed. Other Members have touched on wider issues in the immigration and visa system. The all-party parliamentary group for Africa and the all-party parliamentary group on Malawi are to publish a report on that in a couple of weeks. I hope the Minister will confirm that his colleague the Minister for Immigration plans to attend that launch on 16 July.
As I said at the start, the experience of anyone navigating this system is that it is designed with deliberate hostility, suspicion and to minimise the chances of a successful application. That is seriously beginning to harm the global reputation of a Government who at the same time are spending millions on a campaign to say that we are open for business and that Britain is great. For a middle eastern academic trying to come to a university conference, an author from Belarus trying to get to the Edinburgh book festival or a west African roots band wanting to play at Celtic Connections, it is not great and we are not open for business. Now, it is not great for a simple priest who wants to come and help communities pray for a few months over the summer. Those are all real, verifiable examples.
All Ministers will be wondering over the next few weeks what their legacies will be. Here is an opportunity for the Home Office to reverse this policy and launch a wider review of the overall visa system. Otherwise, the legacy will be one of shutting the door, in pursuit of an ideological and arbitrary net migration target, perpetuating a hostile environment that has done nothing but damage this country’s economy, culture, society and global reputation.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) on securing this important debate. The removal of tier 5 visas for visiting clergy was first brought to my attention by my friend Monsignor Peter Smith of St Paul’s Parish in Whiteinch. Monsignor Smith was part of the original team that met the Government as the tiers were introduced. At that time, the Government suggested that there was no need for tier 5 visas. However, Monsignor Smith argued strongly for having access to tier 5 as well as tier 2. He pointed out that not all our visitors wish to be on the path of leave to remain, as tier 2 allows.
Priests who come here are all incardinated in their own home diocese. We do not want to change or disturb that. The tier 5 route allows us to have priests here for short terms. As the number of clergy decreases, for whatever reason, more is expected of the few we have. Priests often have responsibility for several parishes, so they are battling to provide spiritual leadership and to administer God’s work. Monsignor Smith himself is seriously ill—in any other profession, he probably would not work. But we are not talking about regular work. These people are living out their vocation and dedicating their lives to their faith communities.
In the Catholic Church we have many lay people who are stepping up to take on some of the responsibility and provide some sort of service when priests are extremely stretched, but they cannot provide the sacraments, celebrate mass or perform baptisms. We need priests, but when they are stretched to the limit we have to look at other ways. Even the priests who are serving in such a way must have time to refresh, reflect and renew themselves spiritually. Breaks from the parish are therefore essential to enable their continued service. The tier 5 visa allows archdioceses to get priests to the UK to allow our own priests time to recharge.
Many visiting priests are already in the EU as postgraduate students at universities in Rome or Louvain, so it is less expensive to bring them here to help. These priests are keen to experience more of Europe while they are away from home, and it suits parishes to be able to have their services during the summer vacation. They regularly go to the same parish, year after year, and build up a relationship with the parishioners. It is a win-win situation.
I understand the desire for good English for tier 2, but visiting priests are here for only a short time and congregations are so thankful to have them that any potential language difficulties are simply not an issue. Bear in mind that mass used to be said in Latin and most people had no understanding of that.
The tier 5 priest is a visitor to the parish. They bring a vision of the church beyond our borders and the parishioners love having them. They cope with less than perfect English—although, in many cases these priests probably have better English than myself and some of my colleagues—because it is only for a few weeks and not a permanent arrangement. Everything that the parishioners gain from having that priest outweighs any potential difficulties. Tier 5 visas need English of a lesser standard than that required for tier 2 visas.
I had a letter from a constituent recently who accused the SNP of being anti-faith— specifically anti-Catholic—as a result of these visa changes. I politely pointed out that much as we would love powers over immigration to be devolved to the Scottish Government, these ill thought out visa changes are the work of this Tory Government. I direct my constituent’s comments to the Minister and ask: are these changes simply incompetence, or are the Government now deliberately targeting Christian faith communities with their hostile environment? That is how it appears.
I wrote to the Home Secretary about the issue back in April and finally got a response from the Minister for Immigration two weeks ago. She said:
“These changes align our visa arrangements with the Government’s wider commitment to building strong integrated communities.”
Can the Minister explain how depriving Christians of their faith leaders could possibly lead to strong, integrated communities?
The Minister for Immigration has repeatedly said that tier 2 visas are a possibility, but we have heard why that is not suitable. The English language requirement, along with the increased cost, makes this utterly unsustainable for most parishes that are already financially stretched. Without the presence of tier 5 priests over the summer, many of our priests will be deprived of their time to recharge and many parishioners will be deprived of services. It will come to a point that we will simply have to close the parish while the priest is on holiday.
Parishes are more than just a faith community; for many people, particularly the elderly and the vulnerable, they are a vital lifeline. I think of my own elderly parents, because their church is such an important part of their life; it is what gets them out of the house in the morning and gives them great purpose. Without it, serious problems with loneliness and isolation for many elderly people would be caused.
Ultimately, we need both types of visa: one for temporary summer placements that are usually repeated for a short period of time over a number of years, with no path to leave to remain; and one for more lengthy placements, where tier 2 would be more appropriate. The UK says that it champions freedom of religious practice, but the removal of tier 5 visas for visiting priests calls that into question. How can Catholics fully practise their faith when mass cannot be celebrated because of these policies? We have seen many groups targeted in this hostile environment. Surely this Government are not now targeting God.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I had not intended to speak, so thank you for giving me the time to do so. I will be very brief and ask the Minister just a few questions.
As I mentioned earlier, I have a gurdwara in my constituency that has found it difficult to bring priests in. The point about the tier 5 visa is that such priests read from the holy book, which is not in English, so they are required to speak the Sikh language—the Punjabi language. The priests want to be here for only a short time. Having heard everything that hon. Members have said, would the Minister consider interim measures? Otherwise, can he say how I can bring in the priests? They have been refused twice, and there is a new system in place. How is it possible for them to come here? I have been told by those at the gurdwara that they are desperate to get them in. No other member of the congregation can perform the function that the priests can undertake.
Could the Minister also say what is happening to the licence system? Is it currently suspended? Many gurdwaras and other religious places apply under a licence, under which there are checks and balances to ensure that they can bring in their religious workers. What is happening to that system? Finally, could the Minister arrange for the Minister for Immigration to meet hon. Members as soon as possible to discuss our individual cases?
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is good to see you in the chair, Mr Gapes. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) and the hon. Members for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton), and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) for securing the debate—it is truly a cross-party campaign as well as an interfaith campaign. I pay tribute to all hon. Members who have taken part today. The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) made a particularly brave speech, but I say gently to him that I think he slightly missed the point. His argument was that the changes that the Government have introduced have not been too bad. The whole point, that all hon. Members have focused on, is that there has been absolutely nothing at all to justify the changes being made in the first place.
As hon. Members across the House have already explained, the tier 5 religious visas were operating perfectly smoothly for the many churches and religious organisations that relied upon them, until these unexpected changes were made in December last year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East said, what we are talking about is churches bringing in overseas ministers and priests a couple of times a year—perhaps in the summer, or at Easter or Christmas—to allow local religious leaders to take congregations on a trip, to go on retreat, to recover from ill health or even just to have a holiday.
We are talking about not only Christian churches, but other religions too. I have heard directly about a Buddhist temple and a Sikh gurdwara that have been negatively impacted. The hon. Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) made important interventions about how important these routes are for gurdwaras in their constituencies.
In my constituency, parishioners from St Lucy’s in Cumbernauld were among the first to contact me about the issue. Father Campbell wrote to me at the end of April, saying that the changes
“will have a vast impact on me and our parishioners here, as we rely on Father Alex Mpaggi coming to allow me a holiday in July and to accompany 50 parishioners to Lourdes in France, also in July.”
Those are the nuts and bolts of what these changes have almost destroyed.
This is about the support that visiting priests and celebrants can provide. It is important to say, as hon. Members have done today, that visiting clergy in themselves enrich the life of the churches that they work at with their new ideas and approaches, and by sharing knowledge of different cultures. That point was made by the Rt Rev. Susan Brown from the Church of Scotland, as quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East in his speech.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) said, over the course of time close relationships are built up between parishes and priests. For example, Father Mpaggi has been coming to St. Lucy’s in Cumbernauld since 2013. When he comes he leads worship, carries out the celebrations of holy mass, including marriage, and conducts funerals and supports the bereaved. All of that is now put in jeopardy.
As other Members have explained, churches and other places of worship are not only about worship, although that is obviously their central function; they also form important parts of their communities, and indeed are communities in themselves. It is about the youth clubs, the coffee mornings, the pensioner clubs, the mother and toddler groups, the food banks and the soup kitchens. The same visiting clergy also help to carry out those important functions.
These arrangements were working well, but now they are not, because the changes that the Immigration Minister introduced are already having a negative impact. The Home Office has more than doubled the cost to parishes. As Father Campbell has told me, that means “making supply-cover effectively unaffordable”. He expressed concern about the impact that the changes will have on the health of local priests if they cannot afford to bring in the support that they need and have relied on in recent years. Those costs arise not only from the visa fees, but from unnecessary English tests. As Father Campbell points out:
“Even priests who have undertaken seminary formation in English may be required to sit an English language test before coming on supply-placements. This will have both practical and financial implications”.
My first big question for the Minister is: why? Where is the evidence, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) put it? Why did the rules have to change? What is the justification? Is the problem so significant that it merits creating all these other problems for our churches?
The Immigration Minister’s written statement, letters and answers firstly point to some sort of problem with ministers of religion coming over and taking on roles such as preaching and leading congregations while not being able to speak a good standard of English. Her various responses have also referred to the need for integration. So far, I find those explanations flimsy and utterly unconvincing.
As one of the 100 or so constituents who contacted me said:
“I have attended services in Synagogue where the language used was Hebrew and in other faiths where the language used was Hindi, Guajarati or whatever. That may not suit the British Government but it is a reality”.
In short, is it really any business of the Government if religious celebrants spend short periods here and preach in different languages? The shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Walsall South, made that point very strongly, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West.
Similarly, integration of the religious workers, which the Immigration Minister referred to in her various letters, is not really relevant here. As the shadow Leader of the House also pointed out, nobody is proposing that these people will live here permanently or become settled here. In fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West powerfully pointed out, the integration argument is completely the other way round, because community integration and social solidarity are undermined if these religious workers can no longer come to do all the work they have previously.
As a spokesperson for the Bishop’s Conference of Scotland said today:
“Catholic parishes, without the support of visiting priests, would be unable to provide the level of service to the local community that it does at present, such as Masses, weddings, funerals, comforting the bereaved, tending to the sick and needy, and many other works of charity including food banks and soup kitchens.”.
I have seen no good reason for these changes, and certainly none that justifies creating all these other consequences.
Now, let us be incredibly kind and imagine for a minute that the Minister manages to explain today why exactly these changes have been made in this particular way. That is being very optimistic, but in any event it would still not be an end to the matter. Even if, having listened to the Minister, we took the view that reform was necessary, surely there must be another way to accommodate the needs of all the churches we have heard from without undermining whatever strange purpose the Home Office is pursuing? Surely it cannot be beyond the wit of the Home Office to come up with something that is a better fit, and a more reasonably priced fit, for those ministers and priests who come just for very short stays to support the work of our churches from time to time?
Tier 2 is not designed with these scenarios in mind, and neither is the new tier 5. Nor, I believe, is the business visitor route, which is not even something that the Home Office has until this point prayed in aid. Why not offer a low-cost two or three-year visa, for example, which does not have the same stringent requirements regarding English qualifications, which allows applicants to work as ministers or to lead worship, but which sets a maximum stay of a certain number of weeks or months in any calendar year to prevent any circumvention of the tier 2 requirements? Surely the Government could work up something along those lines?
As the shadow Leader of the House said, it is important that that is done as a matter of urgency, even on an interim basis, because this is harming parishes and other religious organisations right now, this very summer. I join the calls on the Home Office to engage in discussion about how the impact of these changes can be reversed, or at the very least ameliorated. I also join the calls for Ministers to meet representatives of churches, including churches in Scotland, to discuss the impact that these rules are having.
Finally, I turn to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), powerfully flagging up the poor consultation and policy-making process. That takes me back to one of my hobby-horses, which is how we go about making immigration policy. Is this not the perfect example of why leaving it to the Home Office does not work? I dare say officials believed that they had thought through all the implications, but they had not. Meanwhile, MPs were barely aware that changes had been made, and if they were aware, they were, as my hon. Friend pointed out, completely unable to decipher what they meant or what the implications would be.
That is why, when the Immigration Bill was in Committee, I proposed an exciting, shiny immigration equivalent of the Social Security Advisory Committee, so that experts could scrutinise Home Office proposals, flag up concerns, allow others to give input and give MPs advice on what needed further scrutiny. I was sad that my proposals did not have the Committee as excited as I was. Seriously, though, we do need to think how we go about consulting and scrutinising immigration rule changes.
In conclusion, I again commend hon. Friends and colleagues for bringing this debate on an important issue. I hope that the Home Office will listen and provide a better route for visiting priests and ministers to keep coming and carrying out the vital temporary work that they do. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North said, if we had a better system of scrutiny, we could hopefully avoid these mess-ups happening in the first place.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) on securing this important debate about religious workers’ visas.
For some time, the House has heard about the hostile environment, which would appear to be a hostile environment for religious ministers. The Government have cast the change as a matter of regulatory tidiness and of ensuring that religious ministers can speak English, but as the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) points out, why would a congregation that routinely conducts its services in English try to bring across a priest who did not speak English?
Religious ministers have been removed from tier 5 visas and are now obliged to apply for tier 2 visas, for which an English language proficiency test can be included in a successful application. Ministers must know, however—and have received representations to this effect—that the change is unwieldy, costly, bureaucratic and discriminatory. Ministers must have been made aware by representatives of a range of faith communities that the measures are a blockage to faith communities, to the religious ministers they need to lead them, whether temporarily or for a little longer, and to good community relations. Yet here we are with a Minister defending a policy that many in the community question.
In fact, Ministers announced this change to long-standing policy towards the end of the parliamentary Session last year. Can the Minister tell us what consultation was conducted prior to that change? What were the results of that consultation, and what risk assessments were done for Ministers by Home Office officials before the decision was taken and the policy announced? Do Ministers understand that Catholic priests, rabbis, imams and many others need holidays and cannot be on call 365 days a year, or that they have to visit loved ones or go abroad for further study? They might even get ill, and they need people to stand in for them as occasion arises.
As we have heard, the shift to tier 2 is costly, time-consuming, bureaucratic and unnecessary. We have heard about the issues with English language at tier 2, and about the fact that tier 2 visas are much more expensive than tier 5 visas and put a considerable financial burden on faith communities. As a whole, tier 2 visas are also subject to a numerical cap, which is surely folly. It means that people who we need for our economy and public services may be refused a visa solely on the grounds that the number has already been met, and religious ministers have to compete in that total.
In explaining the change of policy, Ministers have stated that:
“This change will prevent migrants from using the tier 5 Religious Worker route to fill positions as Ministers of Religion, and instead direct them towards the appropriate”—
the Opposition would query that appropriateness—
“category of tier 2…The ‘cooling off’ period will ensure tier 5 Religious workers and Charity Workers spend a minimum of 12 months outside the UK before returning…This will prevent migrants from applying for consecutive visas”.
So, there you have it: this whole discriminatory rigmarole is an effort to prevent people, of whatever religious faith, from using what Ministers seem to think is a loophole to come into this country on a permanent basis. I hope that, having listened to Members from across the House, the Minister recognises that no one is talking about a loophole but about the very real needs of faith communities. Maybe he will tell us how many people he thinks sneak their way into the country under a religious cloth. A handful? Dozens? What evidence can Ministers provide for that outlandish proposition?
We pride ourselves—or used to—on being a religiously tolerant society, but these measures do not seem religiously tolerant to those of us here today or to the wider community. This discriminatory policy is causing distress in faith communities of all types across the country. It should be a matter of concern for those of all faiths and none. In 30 years in the House, this is not the first time that I have seen immigration measures brought in willy-nilly to target a specific community—for example, the Muslim faith—but catching all sorts of faiths. If the Home Office has a particular ill in mind, it needs better drafted legislation and better conducted administration.
We should not dictate to anyone who their faith leaders should be. We should recognise and honour the contribution that faith communities make to our society. The Government should take note of the debate, meet hon. Members from across the House and—I sincerely hope—change policy as a result.
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. You may wonder what the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service is doing responding to a debate on immigration. You are not alone. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) expressed regret that the Immigration Minister is not here to respond to the debate. He is not alone in that view. I think I heard that 70 Members supported the debate through the Backbench Business Committee. Clearly, any Minister must listen to that; that is a serious weight of Members expressing concern. I genuinely congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) and his partners on securing the debate. I will do my very best to answer the central questions directed at the Government about why the changes were made.
I state right from the start that I know from conversations with the Immigration Minister, who genuinely cannot be here today, that she is well aware of the growing sensitivities and distress around this issue—weighted in, but not exclusive to, Scotland. She is alive to that, and as the hon. Member for Glasgow East is aware, she is next week meeting representatives of most faith leaders to discuss this issue at a roundtable, and I understand that bishops from Scotland are invited. I am absolutely persuaded that she is disposed to engaging and listening to concerns on this and other subjects, and I am sure that she will listen to requests for meetings as well—I reference the specific request of the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz).
Carol Monaghan
We appreciate that this Minister is not the one who we would have liked to see here, but although the Immigration Minister has now agreed to meet faith representatives and Church leaders, that took six months of asking. There has been a genuine unwillingness on the part of the Immigration Minister to meet those Church leaders.
Mr Hurd
I am not sure how fair that is, because I do not know the background to those conversations. However, I know the Immigration Minister well. She is the listening type, and I think she is entirely sincere in saying that she recognises the sensitivities that have emerged from this policy change.
Before I go into why there were changes, it is always helpful to assert the common ground. Many Members—the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) was particularly powerful on this—spoke about the importance and the value of faith communities in all our constituencies. I think she spoke for many of us in expressing the importance of those communities, not least in giving many people a sense of strength and purpose. I absolutely recognise that from my constituency and the extraordinary work of churches such as Emmanuel Church in Northwood, the Northwood and Pinner Liberal Synagogue and St Martin’s Church in Ruislip, to mention three.
We all know the fundamental truth of that, and I think we all agree with the point about the added value of contributions made by members of religious institutions from overseas, which is at the heart of the debate. That is why the immigration system maintains dedicated arrangements for religious workers, with two dedicated visa categories providing for those seeking to come to the UK to fill long-term vacancies and shorter-term postings. As hon. Members know, the requirements necessarily differ between the two, to ensure that the system is used in an appropriate manner.
The adjective “generous” is not often attached to the Home Office, but we think that this is a generous offer. However, it must be balanced against ensuring that those wishing to lead congregations, regularly performing the primary rites and rituals of their faith, are subject to stronger requirements than those coming to the UK to fill supporting roles for shorter periods. We believe that those tasked with leading roles within our churches, synagogues, mosques and temples must be able to demonstrate a strong command of the English language, which is fundamental to the change to tier 2. The changes that the Government have introduced ensure that all those seeking to undertake such important roles can explain their teachings in English to all in the community, not just to their congregation.
Stuart C. McDonald
This is fundamental: are churches, mosques and synagogues not better placed to assess the level of English required for priests and other religious leaders to lead worship in their communities, and whether applicants coming in under tier 5 have the skill required?
Mr Hurd
I completely understand that point, which was raised earlier. The Government’s position is that it is important that the same rules apply to all, in the interests of fairness, hence the test centre requirements. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that exemptions exist where applicants have been awarded a recognised degree.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the root of the changes introduced in January 2019 was the June 2018 Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government consultation on the integrated communities strategy. The Green Paper set out the Government’s intention to strengthen English language skills by supporting UK residents and strengthening requirements for those who wish to come here. The rationale behind that approach is that ministers of religion play a visible role in our religious institutions and must therefore be able to integrate with the wider communities in which they live and serve, rather than only being able to speak to their congregations.
Valerie Vaz
The Minister is doing an excellent job—he is an excellent Minister; I say that with sincerity—and he has been very helpful so far, but he is confusing social cohesion and religion. I made the point that the Sikh holy book is not in English. The priests who are required to come over have to read it in their language.
Mr Hurd
I absolutely understand that point. On the hon. Lady’s direct question on the specific problem of her constituent, while I obviously do not know the individual case, one of the three visa entry routes may well be relevant for the role that she described, not least the visitor visa route. With respect, she should engage on that directly with officials, which I can help to facilitate.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister is indeed doing a sterling job in difficult circumstances. On integration, the other fundamental point that the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), made earlier was that nobody is saying that these people want to come and live here, so integration is not really relevant. They have a job to do over a very short period and then they head back to their home countries. Integration really is not at the heart of this issue, or should not be.
Mr Hurd
My understanding of the situation is that, in large part because the Government recognise the importance and value of the contributions to our religious institutions made by people from overseas, we have three separate visa routes in to try to facilitate that process. The changes made in January 2019 require individuals seeking to enter the UK as a minister of religion to use tier 2, demonstrating their command of the English language. To be clear, tier 2 is for religious leaders such as priests, imams, rabbis, missionaries and members of religious orders taking employment or a role within a faith-based community. Those applicants can come for up to three years, with an option to extend for up to six years, and possible indefinite leave to remain after five years’ continuous—[Interruption.]
Mike Gapes (in the Chair)
Order. I would be grateful if hon. Members did not all shout out at once but allowed the Minister to continue his speech. If Members wish to intervene, can they please do so without making too much noise?
David Linden
I am incredibly grateful to the Minister for giving way. I sense that, although he is the Fire Minister and is trying to fight fire here, he understands that he has been asked to flog a dead horse today. The fact is that people do not come to be here indefinitely. They come here to cover a month to enable priests or other faith leaders to go on holiday, so the idea that we are talking about people coming here indefinitely and integrating is surely for the birds.
Mr Hurd
Some may want to. That is why we have the different tiers of visas for people in different circumstances. I completely understand that the heart of the concern, particularly among Scottish Members of Parliament, is not about individuals who want to stay here longer, but about people coming in to fill gaps over the summer. I completely accept that point. I am just trying to set out, because I was asked to, what the policy background is and trying to answer the fundamental question posed: why have the Government made the changes?
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister is being very generous with his time. I think that we have just come to the nub of the issue. He is describing different visas, but I think what we have discovered in the course of this debate is that none of them fits the circumstances of what we have been describing this afternoon—people who come temporarily but nevertheless want to carry out the roles of leaders of congregations and ministers of religion. Short-term visas do not allow people to lead a congregation, but the longer-term visas are completely inappropriate, because people are coming only for short-term visits, so we need to invent a new visa. I think that is the ultimate point.
Mr Hurd
I am not sure that the Government agree with that position, but it is clearly one held by the hon. Gentleman and other Members of Parliament, so it is clearly something that needs to be discussed and tabled at the roundtable next week with the Minister for Immigration and in subsequent follow-up. That is the nature of this place: we change rules; we make laws. We do that, believe it or not, with good intentions, although conspiracy theories have been articulated this afternoon. We do impact assessments. Then—as in this case—after a few months, issues begin to arise and concerns need to be dealt with. In the democracy that we live in, it is incumbent on the Government and the Minister at the time to listen very carefully, engage with those who have a problem and, in a democratic process, work through that. And I am absolutely sure that the Minister for Immigration will do that.
Patrick Grady
The Minister is being generous with the time available, and I appreciate that this is not his specific brief, but he is talking about the reasons for the Government’s decisions and he has mentioned conspiracy theories. I think that, when I said that I think there are security reasons behind this change, I saw the Minister shaking his head, so is he prepared to say that it has not been introduced because of security concerns and because of particular religions where the visiting ministers of religion would not necessarily have proficiency in English?
Mr Hurd
I certainly do not think that is the case. If I understand the hon. Gentleman’s line of thinking—it has not been made explicit—he needs to recognise that the original instinct came from the previous Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in terms of the integrated communities strategy. That might possibly undermine the hon. Gentleman’s point.
With your permission, Mr Gapes, I shall try to answer directly the fundamental question of the what and the why for the policy. I have set out that the new requirement is for individuals seeking to enter the UK as a minister of religion to use tier 2, demonstrating their command of the English language. We are also introducing, as has been noted, cooling-off periods for the tier 5 religious worker and charity worker routes. Applicants who have held a visa in one of those categories will not be permitted to hold another visa in the same category for 12 months after expiry of their leave. The immigration rules had previously permitted tier 5 religious workers to fill roles that may include preaching, pastoral work and non-pastoral work. That allowed an applicant to come to the UK and fill a role as a minister of religion without demonstrating an ability to speak English. That is no longer possible and, as we have discussed, applicants must use tier 2 to accommodate that.
The cooling-off period for the tier 5 religious and charity worker categories was introduced because we had become aware of a small but increasing number of religious and charity workers who were living in the UK on a near permanent basis, returning overseas for only a brief period to renew their visa. On the point that was made, I do not detect in the change and I am certainly not aware that underlying that are concerns about security. It is more concerns, as I said, about people using the system to live in the UK on a near permanent basis, which was not the original intention.
The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), and others asked about the process of consultation. There is a sense that people have been bounced into this and that the ground was not prepared, so let me restate that the changes were included in the “Integrated Communities Strategy Green Paper”, which was published on 14 March 2018. Stakeholders were invited to respond. The Minister for Immigration chose to write directly to faith leaders in December 2018, before the rules took effect. That letter set out the detail and explained the rationale behind the changes. As I have said, the Minister for Immigration is extremely clear about her wish to hear directly from religious leaders themselves, and that is the context of the meeting that she is chairing next week. She wants to listen to concerns and discuss the future system.
The Government therefore feel that there was consultation and communication. To what degree the messages have been absorbed and people have focused on them is obviously open to debate. It is quite possible that people have started to focus on them only as we have got closer to the time when applications are made and positions need to be filled. We understand that, but the Government’s view is that we did engage, communicate and consult, and if people have problems, we need to see the evidence; the process needs to be evidence-led. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) stirred the debate up, but he also made the important point that in the Anglican community, there does not seem to be an issue. The Government must listen to evidence, but those with problems and concerns must present evidence in those discussions.
Ged Killen
I am glad that the Minister is talking about evidence, because he was also asked in the course of the debate what evidence the changes were built on. It seems to me that the Home Office was trying to fix a problem that did not exist and has ended up creating a whole range of new problems. Is there an evidence base? I appreciate that the Minister is up against it today, but does he have in front of him an evidence base that was used to inform the decision?
Mr Hurd
I am grateful for the empathy shown by the hon. Gentleman in saying that I am up against it. He should come to more police debates.
The changes that seem to be causing the most difficulty for hon. Members are the changes to the visa arrangement from tier 5 to tier 2. I have tried to explain that these changes are rooted in the strategy incubated in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which focuses on the importance of reinforcing the need for English language skills and is rooted in a policy directed at greater social cohesion. In relation to the cooling-off period for tier 5, I think I was clear that that was driven by evidence of a small but growing misuse of that system, with people effectively here on a permanent basis. [Interruption.] I have been asked a straight question, and that is a straight answer.
Stuart C. McDonald
If these visa changes were introduced on the back of a consultation from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which is a devolved issue, then that consultation would have nothing to do with Scotland at all. That may be one reason why the particular circumstances that we have been speaking about have not made their way into the Home Office’s thinking about these visas. That might be something the Home Office wants to reflect on for the future.
Valerie Vaz
The Minister has not touched on the issue of licences, which I raised. He mentioned that there was a small but growing problem about misuse. The whole point about the licensing system is that there were checks and balances, and that places of religion were allowed to bring their workers in under these licences, which are constantly monitored by the Home Office. What is happening to that system? Is it completely gone? Is the Minister not aware that the licensing system prevented the abuse?
Mr Hurd
Either the Immigration Minister or I will have to write to the hon. Lady on that point. I am simply stating that one of the drivers for the cooling-off period was a sense that people were effectively here on a permanent basis, which was not the intention of the original visa policy.
We have heard a lot about those who come to the UK on a temporary basis, perhaps to cover for a minister of religion while he or she is on holiday. To be clear, the Government absolutely recognise that that is a legitimate activity. We certainly have no wish to leave any communities bereft of a spiritual leader while the normal incumbent has a holiday or is otherwise absent.
Remarks were made, which I thought were wildly off target, suggesting that we are targeting God or penalising the Catholic community, as if we were targeting Christian communities. These changes do not mean that we are targeting any particular group. All faiths are treated equally. Of course, we do not want communities to be bereft of spiritual leaders while the incumbent has a holiday or is otherwise absent.
That is precisely why the immigration rules for visitors specifically refer to those coming for religious purposes. Among the permitted activities for those coming on a visit visa, or for a visit without a visa if they are a relevant national, the rules state:
“Religious workers may visit the UK to preach or do pastoral work”.
This provides an opportunity for ministers of religion to officiate at a wedding or funeral, for example, and even to conduct a weekly service on an adhoc basis.
The visit rules rightly do not permit a Minister of religion to undertake paid work. If the intention is to provide cover for a holiday incumbent on a prolonged basis, which involves remuneration, we believe that the visiting Minister should have a work visa. That position is no different for a locum doctor providing cover for a GP or a supply teacher in a school, or anyone else coming to the UK on a temporary basis to provide cover for a full-time worker.
Anyone in that situation does require a tier 2 visa, as we have elaborated. It is right that those rules apply in the normal way to ministers of religion, not least because tier 2 contains an English language requirement. This ensures that visiting ministers of religion have the required level of English reflecting the important role that faith leaders play in ensuring community cohesion.
Carol Monaghan
I thank the Minister for being so generous with his time. Of course, priests are not paid. They get living expenses and a small allowance. That is very different from a salary that a doctor or teacher would receive.
Mr Hurd
I understand that point. I am just trying to set out the differences between the three different visa routes that exist, to try to help people come into the country to support religious communities.
I hope that I have set out—I do not feel I have agreement on it; clearly there is a vigorous debate and discussion to be had on this—why the Government have done what they have, and why we believe that we did consult on this matter in an appropriate way with impact assessments. If there is hard evidence of genuine problems, of course it is incumbent on the Government and Minister to listen. It is worth reflecting that since the changes that we have discussed were made in January 2019, like for like grants are actually up by 6%, so it is clear that the Government are not seeking to restrict the practice of faith in the UK, as has been suggested—wildly, in my view.
I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East for securing this debate and for his continued interest in this vital element of life in the UK. The Government are entirely sincere in their commitment to continuing engagement on these sensitive matters.
David Linden
My overwhelming feeling is that the Minister has been sent here to defend a policy that, in his heart of hearts, he probably realises is a bit of a mess. I thank hon. Members who have come today on a cross-party and interfaith basis and made a compelling argument.
I am sure that the fact that the Minister for Immigration has agreed to a meeting with faith leaders next week is not a coincidence with the timing of this debate. I and many colleagues have been writing to the Home Office about the matter since as far back as April, but miraculously we all started receiving letters only at the end of the week to tell us that that meeting would take place. That may be a coincidence; I do not know. I leave it to the Minister to decide.
It is important that people should not think that this debate affects only Scotland. It does not; our application to the Backbench Business Committee was signed by Members from right across the UK, including some very senior members of the governing party. Given the sheer number of hon. Members who have been contacted about the issue, I would like a commitment from the Minister—a simple nod of the head will be fine—that after the Minister for Immigration’s meeting with faith leaders next week, an update will be circulated to Members of Parliament.
David Linden
I see the Minister nodding. I am grateful.
We must not let go of the issue, because it is very serious and is causing great consternation in parishes right across the country. It is incumbent on all of us to stand up for those parishes and make sure that we fix this injustice.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered changes to Tier 5 Religious Worker Visas.
Written Statements
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Radioactive Waste: Geological Disposal
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Andrew Stephenson)
For over 60 years our country has benefited from nuclear technology. It provides clean energy to our homes and businesses and will continue to play an important role as we transition to a low carbon economy. We also have a long history of using radioactive materials to treat and diagnose serious illnesses, to deliver research and development and to help deliver industrial processes. Radioactive waste is created from a variety of sources including electricity generation, defence and healthcare. Most of this waste is low in radioactivity and is disposed of safely every day by skilled nuclear engineers across the country. However, some materials remain radioactive for thousands of years and require more specialised disposal facilities. Currently this waste is held safely in stores above ground. But this is only an interim measure, a permanent solution is needed. Geological disposal is internationally recognised as the safest and most secure means of permanently managing this type of waste.
A geological disposal facility will contribute to the Government’s industrial strategy, which identified the key role the nuclear sector has in increasing productivity and driving clean growth. It is a multi-billion pound infrastructure investment and will provide skilled jobs and benefits to the community that hosts it for more than 100 years. It is likely to involve major investments in local transport facilities and other infrastructure.
I am today laying before Parliament the revised national policy statement for geological disposal infrastructure for the relevant period ending—21 sitting days post lay date—pursuant to section 9 (8) of the Planning Act 2008. At the same time, I am also laying, pursuant to section 9 (5) of the Planning Act 2008, the Government’s response to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and publishing the Government response to the public consultation on the draft national policy statement.
The national policy statement for geological disposal infrastructure sets out the need for such disposal infrastructure to safely and securely manage the UK’s inventory of higher activity radioactive wastes. It provides an appropriate and effective framework for the Planning Inspectorate and the Secretary of State for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to examine and make decisions on development consent applications for geological disposal infrastructure in England. The statement is based on existing Government policy for managing higher activity radioactive waste. This national policy statement sits alongside the “Working with Communities” policy document that was published in December 2018 and sets out the framework for managing this type of waste through geological disposal and the process for how we will work with communities to find a location for this facility. That process is now under way.
A public consultation on the draft national policy statement was undertaken from 25 January 2018 to 19 April 2018 and the statement was also scrutinised by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, which considered written evidence as well as information from oral evidence sessions. I would like to thank the Committee for its very helpful report and recommendations, and also those who contributed to the subsequent debate on this issue in the House of Lords in September 2018.
The Government have considered the consultation responses and the report of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee in producing this revised version of the national policy statement.
Copies of the national policy statement for geological disposal infrastructure and Government’s response to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee will be laid before Parliament. I am also publishing these documents on the Department’s website, with the Government’s response to the public consultation on the draft national policy statement and the equality analysis for the national policy statement.
[HCWS1688]
Consumer Contracts Regulation
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)
Today, I am publishing the statutory report on the Objectives of Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellations and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013. This report sets out the conclusions of the review of these regulations.
A key foundation of our modern industrial strategy is delivering a strong, transparent and attractive business environment in the UK. The strength of the UK’s business environment is founded on our fair and open regulatory frameworks. For our regulatory frameworks to remain fair and open, they must meet the ever-changing needs of the modern consumer, the modern business and the modern world.
There is often an imbalance of power between businesses and consumers; these regulations were intended to empower consumers and create a fairer balance between the two. This was to be achieved by increasing transparency surrounding contracts they are entering into and give them the time to understand the product and consider its price before deciding to enter the contract, building consumer confidence and willingness to trade remotely in the process.
The regulations also implement the EU consumer rights directive, an obligation we are committed to meeting under the single market. But the UK has a strong history of protecting consumer rights, which is achieved not by the creation of new legislation and its enforcement but always seeking to understand whether, and how well, we achieve our underlying objectives. This report will set out objectives intended to be achieved by the regulations, assess the extent to which those objectives have been achieved, assess whether those objectives remain appropriate, and, if so, the extent to which they could be achieved in a way that imposes less regulation.
As part of the review, we made the call for evidence, which ran from 7 March to 1 May 2019. We are acutely aware of some of the issues highlighted by the response, such as the challenge of consistent enforcement. The Government’s consumer White Paper will set out our proposals for the next phase of action to strengthen the consumer regime and will be the vehicle through which the Government consider this, and a range of other issues not addressed within this report. The Government’s consumer White Paper is due to be published later this year.
Overall, it was the expressed view that the regulations continue to meet the objectives for which they were established and that these remain appropriate five years on from them coming into force. Following comments we will, however, be reviewing the existing guidance to ensure that it is sufficiently clear to support the regulations.
I will be placing a copy of the statutory report on the Objectives of Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellations and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1691]
Response to Opposition Day Debate: Over-75s Licence Fee Concession
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Jeremy Wright)
On 8 May 2019, the House debated a motion calling on the Government to guarantee the maintenance of free TV licences for over-75s beyond 2020.
The concession which was debated by the House, was introduced in 2000, and allows every person over the age of 75 in the United Kingdom access to a free TV licence. The concession was funded by the Department for Work and Pensions in full between 2000 and 2017.
In the 2015 funding settlement, the Government agreed with the BBC that Government funding for the concession would be phased out between 2018 and 2020, with control of the concession passing to the BBC from June 2020. The Government and the BBC agreed this was a fair deal for the BBC; in return, the Government committed to close the iPlayer loophole and committed to increase the licence fee in line with inflation, among other measures. The Government are clear that the future of the concession from June 2020 is the responsibility of the BBC.
Parliament made this decision and legislated to put it into effect. Transferring responsibility for the concession was debated extensively during the passage of the Digital Economy Act 2017, which was agreed by Parliament.
The BBC announced on 10 June 2019 that from June 2020 only those who are over 75 and in receipt of pension credit would continue to receive a free TV licence.
The Government are disappointed that the BBC will not protect free television licences for all viewers aged 75 and over. We recognise that television is a vital link to people of all ages, but particularly so for older people who value television as a way to stay connected with the world. That is why we have guaranteed the over-75 concession until June 2020 and that is why we believe that the BBC can do more to support older people, and why we have asked them to do so.
The debate was an opportunity to acknowledge the importance of the BBC to every licence fee payer in the UK. The BBC is one of the UK’s most treasured institutions and is part of the social and economic fabric of the country. It is a world-class broadcaster and a cultural institution producing some of the best television and radio in the world.
[HCWS1692]
Windrush Generation: Compensation Scheme
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
The Government deeply regret what has happened to some members of the Windrush generation and when I became Home Secretary I made clear that responding to this was a priority. The compensation scheme I launched in April is a key part of this response.
The compensation scheme has been open to receive claims since April 2019 and the Home Office is now in a position to start making payments.
Specific legislation to give direct financial authority for payments made under the scheme will be brought forward to Parliament when parliamentary time allows. In the meantime, it is lawful for the Home Office to make payments for compensation scheme claims, without specific legislative authority for this new expenditure. As Home Secretary I am able to consider other factors, including the sound policy objectives behind the scheme and the importance of righting the wrongs suffered by the Windrush generation.
I have therefore written to the permanent secretary today formally directing him, as accounting officer for the Home Office, to implement the compensation scheme for the Windrush generation and to ensure that compensation payments can be made pending the passage of the legislation. The exchange of letters relating to this direction can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/correspondence-on-the-work-of-the-home-office-windrush. This direction has been issued on the basis of regularity.
I am committed to providing members of the Windrush generation with assurance that they will be appropriately and promptly compensated where it is shown that they have been disadvantaged by historical Government policy. A direction to proceed is therefore optimal to ensure the Government are acting in the best interests of affected members of the Windrush generation.
[HCWS1693]
Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council
(5 years, 4 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 8 July 2019 in Brussels. The deputy permanent representative to the European Union, Katrina Williams, will represent the UK.
This extraordinary meeting of the Council is held to deal with the traditional “spring package” of items relating to the EU semester, which exceptionally were not available in time for its meeting on 13 June. The Council is to approve non-binding country specific recommendations (CSRs) to member states, and it will receive a joint opinion of the Employment and Social Protection Committees assessing the 2019 CSRs and the implementation of those from 2018. The Council will also adopt guidelines for the employment policies of the member states 2019, the substance of which is rolled-forward from last year’s guidelines.
Additionally, there will be policy debates on the “economy of wellbeing” and on “employment aspects of the strategic long-term vision for a climate neutral economy”.
Under other business, the Commission will provide information on international developments in the area of social and employment policy.
[HCWS1689]
Survivor Pension Benefits
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
I would like to make the following statement on behalf of myself and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss).
Supreme Court judgment in Walker v. Innospec and others
The case concerned a challenge in the Supreme Court to paragraph 18 of schedule 9 to the Equality Act 2010, which allows defined-benefit occupational pension schemes to restrict access to survivors’ benefits for survivors of a civil partnership or same-sex marriage to benefits based on accruals from December 2005 onwards. The Secretary of State was joined as an interested party. The challenge was made under EU directive 2000/78/EC (Directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation).
The judgment was issued on 12 July, with Mr Walker winning his appeal. The Supreme Court decided that the exception in schedule 9 should be dis-applied and that Mr Walker’s husband is entitled on Mr Walker’s death to a spouse’s pension for the whole of Mr Walker’s service, provided they remain married (Mr Walker had accrued a pension from 1980 until 2003).
The Government respect the decision of the Supreme Court. It is now clear that same-sex civil partners or spouses are entitled to survivor benefits in the same way as opposite-sex spouses.
Impact of the judgment on public service pension schemes
Following the Court ruling, the Government have decided that in public service schemes, surviving male same-sex and female same-sex spouses and civil partners of public service pension scheme members will, in the majority of cases, receive benefits equivalent to those received by widows of opposite-sex marriages. The exception to this may be in specific schemes where, in the past, improvements in female members’ survivor benefits have led to increased contributions. Departments will consult on and take forward changes as soon as possible. Schemes will notify their members of changes and any actions they need to take.
All same-sex survivors of a public service pension scheme member will benefit from this change. How much they benefit by will be determined by a combination of factors, including when the deceased was employed, their pensionable earnings, the length of any pensionable service and the specific benefits of the scheme to which the deceased belonged.
Impact of the judgment on private pension schemes
While the Government are responsible for public service pension schemes, private sector schemes are individually responsible for ensuring that they are compliant with the judgment.
It is therefore not for the Government to direct private sector schemes in this instance, and any action taken by the Government in respect of public service pension schemes should not be interpreted as the minimum requirement for private pension schemes in considering how they respond to this judgment. These schemes will need to take their own advice to ensure that they are legally compliant with the judgment going forward.
The Government’s response to the review of survivor benefits in occupational pension schemes
During passage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 the Government committed to undertake a review of differences in survivor benefits in occupational pension schemes. A duty to conduct this review was duly enacted in section 16 of the Act.
The review was conducted jointly by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and HM Treasury (HMT), which are the Departments with policy responsibility for private and public service pension schemes respectively, and was published on 26 June 2014.
The review considered the differences in survivor benefits in occupational pension schemes between different categories of member and the costs and other effects of eliminating those differences by the equalisation of survivor benefits. The review investigated the differences between:
same-sex survivor benefits and opposite-sex survivor benefits provided to widows;
same sex-survivor benefits and opposite-sex survivor benefits provided to widowers; and
opposite-sex survivor benefits provided to widows and opposite-sex survivor benefits provided to widowers.
The review considered the extent to which same-sex survivor benefits are provided in reliance on paragraph 18 of schedule 9 to the Equality Act 2010 and the extent to which same sex survivor benefits and opposite sex survivor benefits are calculated by reference to different periods of pensionable service.
The review further considered survivor benefits provided to same-sex civil partners and those provided to same-sex married couples. The law treats same-sex civil partners equally to same-sex married couples for the purposes of survivor benefits in pension schemes because these relationships provide comparable rights and responsibilities. There is no significant difference between them. As such, any differences in the benefits provided to survivors of same-sex civil partners when compared to same-sex spouses would be difficult to justify. The review therefore gave no further consideration to differences between these two groups.
The review demonstrated that there are a variety of differences in treatment in survivor benefits in occupational schemes in respect of rights built up in the past. These differences reflect the change in social attitudes over the last 60 years and the subsequent introduction of new forms of legal relationships. As new groups have been brought into survivor benefit provision, changes have generally been applied prospectively to benefits built up from the point of that change.
The Government support equal treatment of survivors of all legal relationships, and Parliament provided that survivor benefits must be built up equally for all these groups on accruals from 5 December 2005 (when the Civil Partnership Act 2005 came into force).
The Walker judgment has clearly changed the legal position relating to survivor benefits in respect of same-sex unions, and the Government have acted; public service pension schemes will now implement changes to provide that survivors of registered same-sex civil partnerships or same-sex marriage will be provided with benefits that replicate those provided to widows of opposite-sex marriages, with the exception of specific schemes where survivor benefits depend on making the correct contributions. As was made clear earlier in this statement, private pension schemes must take advice and act accordingly in complying with the judgment.
Following careful consideration of the review’s findings, the Government have concluded that, aside from those changes brought about by the Supreme Court judgment, they will not make any further retrospective changes to the existing provisions in respect of occupational pension schemes to equalise survivor benefits. While this means that the differences in survivor benefits for accruals in past periods will remain for some, these will work their way out of the system in time.
[HCWS1690]
House of Lords
Royal Assent
Thursday 4th July 2019
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sharia Law: Marriages
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Cox
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in implementing the recommendations of the independent review into the application of sharia law in England and Wales published in February 2018 (Cm 9560), in order to protect Muslim women, and what assessment they have made of Resolution 2253 (2019) by the Council of Europe that all Islamic marriages should also be registered as civil marriages.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, further work on the issues raised began in the spring, as announced in the Integrated Communities Action Plan. This work will explore reform possibilities in relation to the issue that some people may marry in a way that does not create a legally recognised marriage. This exploration will be conducted independently of the wider Law Commission review of marriage ceremony law.
Baroness Cox (CB)
My Lords, in thanking the Minister for his reply, I ask whether he is aware that my Question is almost identical to the one I asked on 28 February. I have had no response, nor seen any evidence of progress on this crucial issue, which causes such suffering to Muslim women through the application of sharia law. Many come to me desperate, destitute and even suicidal, with no rights following asymmetrical divorce inflicted by their husbands, or trapped in unhappy polygamous marriages. The recommendations of the sharia law review and the message from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe are totally consistent with the objectives of my Private Member’s Bill, which requires all religious marriages to be registered, thereby giving women the rights they so urgently need. Therefore, I ask the Minister for an assurance that the legislation will be introduced with great urgency, as so many women are suffering in ways that would make the suffragettes turn in their graves.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, we understand and recognise that there is a very real issue here, but it is more of a social issue than a legal one. I cannot accept that the proposed way forward set out by the noble Baroness in her Private Member’s Bill is appropriate. Her proposals would effectively deregulate marriage ceremony law and undermine the safeguards in it, including those relating to sham and forced marriages.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
I disagree with my noble friend the Minister. It is not a social issue, but a legal one. Therefore, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that this needs to be looked at urgently. We can have a register that allows imams to register nikah ceremonies easily. We need to do this as quickly as possible.
Lord Keen of Elie
My noble friend is perfectly entitled to disagree with me, and I in turn disagree with her. Let us be clear on what the position is, because some of this proceeds on a misapprehension. It is perfectly possible to perform a lawful marriage in England and Wales under sharia law provided that the relevant mosque has been identified and registered by the registrars as a place for the performance of that ceremony, and a person has been identified by the registrars as suitable to be present for that ceremony. The law of England and Wales has then to be adhered to. Sharia law is not the law of England and Wales; it has no standing. Our national marriage law prevails in these matters. I reiterate: we understand and appreciate that there is a social issue here, because many are not aware of the true position of our law in respect of marriage. Indeed, many are not prepared to adhere to that in circumstances where one or other party may be ignorant of their true position and its consequences.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, the Council of Europe, referred to in the Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is very clear that where human rights are concerned there is no room for cultural exceptions. The independent review, commissioned by the Government in 2016, is also clear on its main recommendation that Muslim women undergoing Islamic marriage must be protected by British civil law. Too many vulnerable women are suffering and will suffer until the Government pull their finger out and implement this recommendation.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, with great respect, some of what has been said by the Council of Europe in its Resolution 2253 does not reflect the true position of marriage law in England and Wales. In particular, the reference to civilly registering a marriage is inept. It does not reflect the true position of our law in England and Wales. Civil registration per se is not a route to a lawful marriage.
Lord Desai (Lab)
My Lords, in the present circumstances, what is the position of triple talaq? Is it still possible for a Muslim man to divorce his wife just by saying, “Talaq, talaq, talaq”? Is the Minister aware that in India a Bill is before the two Houses of Parliament to reform the triple talaq Act? Will Her Majesty’s Government follow that example?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, divorce in England and Wales is determined by the national law. It is not determined by religious observance or religious laws. Therefore, it will be necessary for a party seeking a divorce from a lawful marriage made in England and Wales to proceed under our national law. We appreciate that there are social difficulties regarding some religious groups in circumstances where a person might believe that they have been divorced under religious provisions, whether of the type the noble Lord just referred to, under sharia law, or indeed sometimes regarding the get in the context of the Jewish religion.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
Does the Minister agree that culture should never trump human rights and that all citizens of this country should enjoy equal protection under the law?
Lord Keen of Elie
It is essential that all citizens have equal protection under the law. It is also important that they are treated equally under the law.
Lord Garel-Jones (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that it is perhaps a little misleading to refer to sharia rules as law? All religions have a perfect right to set out the regulations of their faith, but is it not wrong to refer to those regulations as law? With the exception of the Church of England’s ecclesiastical and religious regulations, they are subject to UK law. Consequently, does my noble friend agree that if sharia regulations—for example, on the treatment of women—conflict with UK law, then UK law, being sovereign, overrides these regulations?
Lord Keen of Elie
My noble friend is absolutely right. Clearly, national law must be adhered to. I do not take exception to the reference to religious law, or sharia, in a social context. There are parties who wish to adhere to that because of their religious beliefs, but they must understand that it is subject to the law of the land, and that sharia is not the law of the land and has no standing as such.
Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions officials from the Home Office have had with the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in the last month.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, as sponsors to the inquiry, Home Office officials have a responsibility to protect the inquiry’s independence and ensure that it has the resources it needs to deliver its terms of reference, as set out in the IICSA management statement. Regular discussions have taken place in the last month regarding such sponsorship.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, is it not ironic that, while so-called complainants with substantial criminal records are accorded anonymity as witnesses before IICSA, those who stand accused, such as Harvey Proctor and Lord Janner, still have no anonymity, no right to cross-examine witnesses and no right of defence, and can still be freely attacked, even when they are dead? IICSA is not listening to Parliament. Is this not precisely what Sir Cliff Richard was referring to yesterday when launching the FAIR campaign, a petition for pre-charge anonymity now being supported by thousands every day? The law is an ass and should be reformed. I ask noble Lords to listen to the excellent episode of “The Moral Maze” broadcast last night on BBC Radio 4, in which these matters were dealt with beautifully.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, on the first point, the hearings are inquisitorial and enable the inquiry to test witnesses and their evidence. All core participants are provided with the evidence; their legal teams are permitted to propose questions for the witnesses and apply to the chair for permission to put them. Regarding the point that the noble Lord made yesterday, I cannot comment on the handling of specific investigations but, as I said then, current police guidance is very clear and adopts a similar approach to that advanced by the petition to which the noble Lord refers. Suspects’ identities should not be released before charge, save in exceptional circumstances and with proper oversight. I am not aware of evidence to suggest that the police are not following that guidance.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, for too many years, victims of child sexual abuse have been ignored; it is now their time to be heard. What consideration have the Government given to special provisions where serious allegations of child sexual abuse are made against those who have died or are otherwise unable to defend themselves?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I wholeheartedly agree with the first part of the noble Lord’s question. For too long, those victims have been ignored. On the anonymity to which he refers—we talked yesterday about his Bill—I explained in my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, about the presumption of anonymity, save in exceptional circumstances.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend accept the seething discontent in your Lordships’ House about the way in which the reputations of Sir Edward Heath, Leon Brittan and Greville Janner have been trashed? Can she not see that this House wants something like a royal commission to be set up on this issue, appointed by the Government and given six or nine months to report?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I of all people am very aware of the anger in your Lordships’ House. Let us get to the heart of what IICSA is about: I am also aware of the historic issues that need to be tested and explored through that inquiry, for all those people for whom some of the historic events have not yet been addressed.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
As the Minister said, the College of Policing’s guidelines advise officers not to,
“name those arrested, or suspected of a crime, save in exceptional circumstances where there is a legitimate policing purpose to do so”.
Yesterday, in the debate on the Question in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, two noble Lords referred to the desirability for a judge or a court to have to approve the release by the police of the name of an individual arrested or suspected of a crime but not charged, as opposed to that approval being given, as now, by a chief officer following consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service. I am not quite sure of the Government’s position on this point. Do they believe that the present College of Policing guidelines satisfactorily address the issue of anonymity until charged for those arrested or suspected of any offence, or are they now seriously considering whether the decision to name an individual not yet charged should be judicial, rather than for the police?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Perhaps it would be helpful if I went over what I said yesterday. The College of Policing’s authorised professional practice guidance on relationships with the media makes it clear that suspects’ names should be released to the media prior to charge only in exceptional circumstances if there is a legitimate policing purpose to doing so—for example, where there is a threat to the public or for the prevention and detection of crime. This approach recognises that there is a risk of unfair damage to the reputations of those arrested, particularly if they are never charged. The noble Lord asks whether we support this approach. Yes, we do; as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, we have every evidence that the police are sticking to that guidance.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Does the new guidance mean that never again will a police officer pronounce, having talked to a complainant, that his evidence was credible and true?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The issue of Operation Conifer allowed the police to look at the guidance and make sure that it is as clear as it can be. As I said, there is no evidence that the police are flouting that guidance. I hope that that situation will continue.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, child abuse is endemic in many institutions and has been historically. What is being done to ensure that people who are now older, but who suffered so terribly in different institutions, are still encouraged to come forward, give evidence and seek justice? We know that many have already committed suicide or died, but it is very important that we do not forget that those children and young people need protecting.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Baroness is absolutely right; many of those children are now well into adulthood, and it is very important that people feel that they can come forward and give their testimony to the inquiry. More than 320 individual victims and survivors are participants in the inquiry, as well as a number of other survivor groups and institutions. To date, the inquiry has received almost 2 million pages of evidence, while more than 300 witnesses have given evidence.
Railways: South-eastern Franchise
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask Her Majesty's Government what estimate they have made of the cost to the new South Eastern franchise arising from any increase in track access charges proposed by HS1 to the Office of Rail and Road.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the periodic review process that will determine the new track access charges for HS1 from April 2020 is ongoing and is the responsibility of the independent rail regulator, the Office of Rail and Road. In line with the published draft franchise agreement, the operator of the new south-eastern franchise will be held harmless to any regulated track access charges proposed by HS1 and agreed by the ORR, following regulatory scrutiny.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer, but she will be aware that HS1 has applied for increases in track access charges of 25% for domestic south-eastern trains, of 40% for Eurostar services and of 75% for the freight that has to use that line. Will the Minister remind the ORR of its duties under the 1993 Railways Act and subsequent legislation, and I quote,
“to promote the use of the railway network in Great Britain for the carriage of passengers and goods”,
and,
“to protect the interests of users”?
I suggest to her that for the regulator to allow such increases will dramatically harm passengers in the south-east by increasing fares. Is it not better to protect the passengers, rather than to line the pockets of the pension funds, including the Korean pension fund, which now owns that piece of track?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Lord for his observations. As he well knows, this process is ongoing, so any increases are not yet confirmed. But my department expects the independent regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, to provide a robust and rigorous challenge to HS1’s proposals, as part of the review process. I am aware that this process has been going on for 18 months and is continuing.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, Eurostar operates in a multimodal travel market that includes airlines, and HS1 is already the most expensive railway in Europe by a big margin. If the Government are serious about reaching zero carbon by 2050, this is just the kind of cost that needs to be kept firmly under control. It is not acceptable for the Government to hide behind the regulator. Can the Minister give me an assurance that the Government will make it clear to the regulator that costs like this must be well controlled?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I assure the noble Baroness that the Government are making it clear to the regulator that we expect a robust and rigorous challenge. It is of course independent, but we recognise the importance of Eurostar, both for environmental reasons and for providing extra capacity on a different mode of transport. We support high-speed passenger services to Europe.
Lord Haselhurst (Con)
My Lords, is it not of great concern that cross-channel operators, whether of freight or passengers, would be severely affected by the proposals as they currently stand? Is it not a bit bizarre that the long-awaited new trains for the Anglia region, which will make a once-in-a-lifetime journey there, will have to be carted on freight trains, as they are not allowed to go under their own steam, incurring extra cost? Are these not reasons why my noble friend should keep a close eye on the current discussions to ensure that a fair solution is found?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I reassure my noble friend that we are keeping a very close eye. Obviously, the new trains are freight like everything else when they are being transported, but we are concerned by the proposed significant increases. As I have said, we will be looking to the ORR to provide that robust challenge.
Lord Snape (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that it was perhaps an unfortunate business for the coalition Government—which I recollect included the Liberal party—to vote to sell Britain’s first high-speed line to a foreign-based consortium? Does she agree with my noble friend that such consortia will be more concerned about their return to Canadian teachers, as well as South Korean pensioners, than the plight of passengers travelling between St Pancras International and Ashford? Whether she agrees or not, what is she going to do about it?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Lord for that comment. I do not agree—surprisingly enough—that the sale of this asset to investors, foreign or otherwise, was a bad idea. Long-term infrastructure investors can provide a useful source of capital to assets precisely like this. This is why the ORR is involved in this process: it will determine if the concession agreement is being met and the outputs that HS1 must deliver in the next control period. It will look at the asset management plan, the regulatory framework, the structure of the charges and the charges themselves.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister clarify the press reports about franchising that have appeared today, indicating that the Government may give the state-owned LNER a five-year extension of its franchise?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I am afraid that the noble Lord has me stumped on that one, because I have not seen those press reports. I will certainly write to him if I can find out any more information.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, does not this debate reveal that there is still a contradiction in the Government’s own transport policy on the benefits of freight traffic being on rail? This extraordinary increase in charges from HS1 should be investigated. The Government have not answered the question from the noble Baroness on the Liberal Democrat Benches about whether this is compatible with the Government’s transport policy.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The Government absolutely support the movement of freight on rail. We were interested to read the report on freight by the National Infrastructure Commission. It is a very good study, and we will be taking forward further work in this area. I remind the noble Lord that we have invested £500 million through the strategic freight network fund and made very important investments at some of our ports and elsewhere. We also provide rail freight subsidy through the mode shift revenue support grants for national rail track of £15.6 million, which takes 800,000 lorries off the road.
Councils: Funding
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Local Government Association’s initial findings of its survey of council finances, published on 2 July, what steps they are taking to ensure that councils have sufficient funding to fulfil their legal duties.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise the vital work that councils do to support their communities. That is why the 2019-20 settlement confirmed that councils’ core spending power will increase by 2.8% in cash terms, including an additional £650 million for social care. This is a real-terms increase in resources to support critical services. The department is preparing actively for the spending review, which is the right place to take long-term funding decisions.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, the research just published by the Conservative-led Local Government Association—referred to in my Question—shows that one-third of local authorities fear they are going to run out of funds by 2022-23, rising to two-thirds of councils by 2024-25. In the light of this disturbing and sombre news, does the Minister have any words of encouragement, hope—something—for hard-pressed local councils and their civic leaderships as they end their conference today in Bournemouth?
Lord Young of Cookham
Local councillors and local government officials have done remarkably well to maintain, and in some cases improve, the quality of the services they provide despite, since 2010, a reduction in grant until recently, which was necessary to balance the national accounts. I recognise that they have done that without excessive rate increases. Looking forward, I have seen the report to which the noble Lord refers and welcome the Local Government Association’s attempt to quantify the pressure on resources. That information will be used by Ministers to feed into the spending review to make the case for a proper settlement for local government.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I also remind the House of my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association. Local government will be pleased that the Minister thinks that the sector is doing “remarkably well”. Indeed it is, but does he accept that local government is facing ever-rising costs in service provision at the same time as increasing pressure on income, not least from business rates in the retail sector? Do the Government accept that this situation is turning into a crisis and would benefit from urgent cross-party discussions across national and local government, looking forward to the spending review but also examining fair funding, assumptions about council tax levels and the future of business rates?
Lord Young of Cookham
I say to the noble Lord that I was a vice-president of the Local Government Association—until I was expelled for introducing rate-capping in the 1980s. On the serious issue he raises, extra funding announced in last year’s Budget means that the Government will have given councils access to £10 billion of dedicated funding that can be used for adult social care, which is the real pressure point, in the three-year period to 2019-20. That is a combination of the adult social care precept and the better care fund. As for his invitation to cross-party discussions, those are always welcome: it is always helpful to have consensus on how local government is funded. Announcements on fair funding and the business rates retention scheme will be made alongside the decisions of the spending review.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
What can be done to ensure adequate funding for trading standards officers, who do such an important job on product safety? Fake airbags, dangerous tumble dryers: this disturbing list could get longer unless priority is given to this work in the spending review. It does not require huge sums of money, but it does require better resourcing.
Lord Young of Cookham
I pay tribute to the work done by trading standards officers, whose case is championed by my noble friend. As she will know, local government does not like funding that is ring-fenced, so the resources for trading standards are included in the block grant. As I said a few moments ago, there has been a real increase in the funding for this year’s settlement; I hope that when we get next year’s settlement, there will also be a useful increase. It is then up to local government to give priority to the services my noble friend referred to.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, has the Minister read the report by the Children’s Commissioner for England, an in-depth study of spending by local authorities on children’s services? It highlights that 2.32 million children in this country are suffering from significant risk factors and that by 2025 we will need to spend £10 billion a year to meet these children’s needs. Does he agree that we need to fund local authorities better so that they can provide the essential early support to families, so that children at risk do not need to be taken into care, foster care or residential care?
Lord Young of Cookham
The noble Earl makes a powerful point. In the Budget last year, £410 million was added to the social care support grant for adults and children. The case he has just made, reinforced by the report he refers to, will reinforce the case to be made by Ministers at MHCLG in their discussions with the Treasury about future funding.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, given the Government’s advocacy and indeed imposition in many parts of the country of directly elected mayoral systems, and given the enormous pressure on local government finance, will the Minister tell us whether these new systems represent good value for money in comparison with more traditional methods of local government administration? If he does not have precise figures to hand, is it not worth at least examining the comparative costs of the two systems of local government?
Lord Young of Cookham
The Government have not imposed mayors on parts of the country; they have elected to have mayors. There has been no imposition. In all the cases involving combined authorities and local mayors, local government has come to the Government and asked that these powers be given to them. I think the noble Lord will find that he is misinformed that we have imposed this structure on local government.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, has my noble friend had an opportunity to read the report today on social care from the Economic Affairs Committee? Will he note that social care and local authorities have seen a real-terms cut in resources and that 1.4 million elderly people are not receiving the care they need? Does he not recognise that shifting the burden on to local government and relying on business rates results in postcode inequality, as different local authorities have different demands and different abilities to raise resources? Should this not be funded centrally, and done urgently?
Lord Young of Cookham
I took the precaution of getting a copy of my noble friend’s report, which was published this morning. For the last 30 or 40 years, Governments have been trying to bring together health and social care. If you are an elderly person in need, you are not interested in a bureaucratic argument as to whether yours is a health or a social care problem; you want the support that you need. The dilemma my noble friend’s report addresses is that health is provided by national government and is free at the point of use, while social care is provided by local government and is means-tested. He addresses that problem by suggesting that local government should provide social care but it should be free and be funded by central government—that is the nub of the report. It is a hard-hitting report that expresses noble Lords’ frustration at the delay to the publication of the social care Green Paper. I very much hope that his report will accelerate a solution to this long-standing problem.
Business of the House
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That the debate on the Motion in the name of Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe set down for today shall be limited to 2 hours and that in the name of Lord Young of Norwood Green to 3 hours.
Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
Serco
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to an Urgent Question asked in the other place earlier today. The Statement is as follows:
“We very much welcome the fact that by court approval today the Serious Fraud Office has reached a conclusion in its investigations of Serco. These historical contracts ended in 2014 and were awarded as long ago as 2004. The agreement allows the parties to draw a line under the matter. Following the successful conclusion of this process, we see no reason why Serco should not continue to be a strategic supplier to the Government and compete for government contracts.
We conducted an investigation of the matters raised in the agreement announced yesterday and we are content that the matters were resolved in 2013-14, when Serco reached a financial settlement of £68.5 million with the Ministry of Justice and undertook an extensive self-cleaning exercise. While we deplore the wrongdoing identified in the deferred prosecution agreement announced yesterday, we have confirmed that since 2013 Serco has thoroughly overhauled its management, governance and culture, and that these changes continue to be effective today.
Serco is and will continue to be a strategic supplier to Her Majesty’s Government, working across the defence, justice, immigration, transport and health sectors”.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, this issue arises out of the Government’s infatuation with the concept of privatising public services—in this area, largely in connection with prison and the probation service. In these areas, privatisation has been a signal failure. Why has it taken six years from the revelation of Serco’s fraudulent charging for the offender tagging contract between 2010 and 2013 to secure the payment of £19.2 million? Deloitte has also been fined £6.5 million for its role in the scandal. Why do the Government apparently intend to continue to allow these companies to tender for government contracts of this or other kinds?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, the noble Lord refers to an infatuation of this Government. I remind him that the contracts with which we are concerned go back to 2004, at a time when, at least as I recollect, there was a Government of a different complexion. It was that Government who let these contracts to Serco in 2004 and for many years thereafter.
The resolution of the matter between the Ministry of Justice and Serco took place in 2013-14, when there was a financial settlement of £68.5 million. As to why it took six years for the criminal matter to be concluded by DPA, that is of course a matter for the SFO, to which we lent all our assistance during the course of this very complex inquiry.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, could the Minister confirm that this is not the first time that allegations of this nature have been made against Serco and G4S? Is he aware that it is alleged that they were charging the Government for electronically tagging and monitoring people who were either dead, in jail or had left the country? Could he confirm whether any further contracts are being offered to Serco and whether it is a fit and proper organisation to undertake these tasks? Why have no criminal charges so far been brought against this organisation?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I will not comment upon suggested other allegations. There has been a thorough investigation by the Serious Fraud Office with regard to events between 2004 and 2014, and that has resulted in the deferred prosecution agreement, as indicated earlier. We are content that Serco, having carried out a thorough and extensive exercise in cleaning out those involved in this matter, is in a position to accept further contracts from the Government going forward, subject to the same rules and regulations that apply to other third parties. Therefore, it will continue to do so. I make no comment on G4S. It may be the subject of continuing inquiries, and it is not appropriate for me to say any more.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the law officer who introduced deferred prosecution agreements into our criminal justice system when I was in government, and I have also been instructed by the Serious Fraud Office on two of the deferred prosecution agreements—with Standard Bank and Rolls-Royce—since they came into force. Does today’s news and the Statement not illustrate the good sense of the deferred prosecution agreement system? It allows companies to come to terms with their wrongdoing, to compensate the victims of their wrongdoing and to pay a suitable penalty for that wrongdoing, while at the same time not causing collateral damage to the contractors, employees and pensioners of those companies who are not affected by, for example, a company being shut down. The events which caused the criminal conduct are to be much regretted, but surely the new board and management have in this case done precisely the right thing in coming to terms with the wrongdoing and making account of it to the public, and, having cleaned its debts, can now get on.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I entirely concur with the observations of my noble and learned friend. The underlying purpose of deferred prosecution agreements is as he has set out, and the consequences are as he has referred to. It would have been wholly inappropriate to see the jobs of many employees put in jeopardy because of the nefarious activities of some in management, who have now been removed.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, with the Carillion scandal, the Capita scandal and the Serco scandal, do the Government not see a pattern? Will they not learn a lesson and realise that these services—particularly in the NHS—are better in public ownership?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, there is no pattern indicated by the parties to which the noble Lord referred.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, does my noble and learned friend not accept that many of us feel that penal matters should not be in any way administered by private companies? It is about as appropriate to have a private prison as it would be to have G4S guarding Buckingham Palace. I have held that feeling all my political life. Will my noble and learned friend accept that I am not unique in that?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I am prepared to accept that the noble Lord is not unique. Be that as it may, we currently have no proposals to contract out the guarding of Buckingham Palace or any other royal institution.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, when the Government are approaching these matters, do they evaluate or take into account the invaluable contribution to the quality of the service when people are working for it directly and taking pride in that, rather than feeling that they are working for the profits of a private company?
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect to the noble Lord, people can quite rightly take pride in the fact that they are working for a service even where it is privatised.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, what lessons have the Ministry of Justice and other government departments learned from this instance? In particular, are the Government satisfied with the adequacy of the contract management arrangements that they have in place, and have they enhanced them as a result of the various incidents that have been discussed in your Lordships’ House today?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Lord for his question. In December 2018, the Chief Executive of the Civil Service wrote to central government departments asking each to include contract audit activity as part of the implementation of their outsourcing review. As part of this programme of audits, the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence have invoked contractual audit rights on five contracts with Serco, and those audits are under way.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that private prisons are 47% more violent than publicly run prisons? How does he explain this? Is this to do with the difficulties facing those prisons or is it something to do with the culture within private prisons?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I am not in a position to comment on the statistic that the noble Earl refers to. However, clearly there is an issue of violence and, indeed, of self-harm in all our prisons which we are anxious to address.
NHS: Future UK Trade Deals
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
That this House takes note of the case for protecting the National Health Service in future trade deals entered into by the United Kingdom.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, it is my privilege to move this Motion. I am grateful to my party for giving me this opportunity to speak on this issue, to the House’s Library for the comprehensive briefing it prepared, and to others who have sent in briefings, particularly the BMA.
It is important that we have this debate to give us a chance to shine a light on the challenges and threats that we may soon have to face in the event that—with a new Prime Minister at the helm—come 11 pm on 31 October, the UK leaves the EU without any deal. Without a deal, there will be no implementation period and trade deals will become more urgent. I fear that while we have been focused on the withdrawal agreement, other countries have been gearing themselves up for trade agreements with us, with access to the NHS’s £127 billion budget in particular being the ultimate prize that many would like to get their hands on.
The NHS was born in 1948 with a promise to provide care based on need and free at the point of delivery. It was an act of faith—a venture of belief that was needed in a still unstable world. To this day, the British public see their taxpayer-funded, free at the point of use health system not just as a source of medical treatment but as a vital expression of national values—of equity and compassion. I argue that it is one of the more important bits of glue that still keeps us together. Last year, the NHS celebrated its 70th birthday. It maintains its position as the top health system in the world among the 11 countries ranked in the Commonwealth Fund report, getting top marks for patient safety, efficiency and affordability.
The NHS—even, I acknowledge, with its challenges—stands in stark contrast in both principle and practice to healthcare systems elsewhere that link treatments to the ability to pay. Throughout the world, the fear of illness is a real concern for far too many people, but that fear is greatly increased when they come to add the cost of treatment for it. We in the UK, thank God, are relieved of that. It is little wonder that the NHS is so overwhelmingly supported and loved.
Given the emotional connection, respect and affection that the British public have for their NHS, it is hardly surprising that concerns over budget cuts and funding were cynically expropriated by the Vote Leave campaign in 2016. Noble Lords will not need reminding of Vote Leave’s claim that the UK would send to the NHS the £350 million being paid weekly to the EU. This was a harmful and shameful stunt emblazoned on the side of a red double-decker bus—another great British emblem—which the head of the UK Statistics Authority called,
“a clear misuse of official statistics”,
in a letter to Boris Johnson.
What Mr Johnson and the Brexiteers carefully concealed by omission is that the EU affords a degree of protection for the NHS from predators and profiteers by limiting market forces’ intervention in public health, education and consumer interests through standard setting. Unless covered by a negotiated leaving deal, that will disappear. Instead, any country may seek a trade deal with the UK and might sign up to one only if it has access to the NHS and its many treasures.
The prospect of a trade agreement with the US has raised concerns about what impact future trade terms might have on the NHS. Make no mistake, the Government are desperate for a deal with the USA. President Trump made several characteristically contentious statements during his recent visit to Britain, but his assertion that the NHS would be “on the table” in discussion of any post-Brexit US-UK trade deal was by far the most contentious. Conservative politicians, many of whom had thrown their hat into the ring to succeed Mrs May, were at pains to denounce this possibility. They echoed Mrs May’s claim that the NHS will remain as it is today; it will remain free at the point of use. “The NHS is not for sale”—her words, not mine. “We continue to stand by the principles of the NHS”, she said.
However, as many observers were quick to point out, the NHS has long been on the table. Despite the common idea that the UK health system is a public sector endeavour, the private sector, including American-owned companies, already plays a significant part in it. For several decades now—boosted by the Health and Social Care Act 2012—private firms have run NHS services for profit. In 2017-18, the NHS in England spent £13.1 billion on care provided by non-NHS organisations, equivalent to nearly 11% of the health service’s total expenditure. These companies have made no secret of the fact that they see Brexit as a key opportunity to expand their operations and market share. Since the British public voted to leave the EU, corporate lobbyists have been working to ensure that any future trade deal delivers maximum benefit and opportunities for their clients.
When working on a Lords Private Member’s Bill for greater transparency in public lobbying in 2017, I was alerted by a City confidante to focus on what might be happening with the NHS in the context of a UK-US trade deal post Brexit. I distinctly recall being told that some City lobbyists were almost wetting themselves at the prospect of the money to be made by gaining greater freedom and entry to trading with the NHS and its mammoth budget. Although this would not be privatisation in the traditional sense, it would nevertheless be an appropriation of NHS assets, with private companies pocketing more of the UK’s £170 billion annual health budget, even if they do not actually own the NHS. This represents a significant threat to the model of universal healthcare that we created and now enjoy in the UK.
Some campaigners have also raised concern that the terms of a trade deal with the US would allow investors to claim compensation if they lost access to NHS market, and that that would prevent any future policy change to reduce the current level of privatisation in the NHS. Similar concerns arose during the failed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership talks between the EU and the US and was one reason why those talks collapsed.
Another area of significant interest is pharmaceuticals, where the US is expected to try to incorporate a new reimbursement strategy in a trade deal. Last year, at the behest of corporate America, President Trump accused the rest of the world of freeloading on the US, resulting in high prescription drug prices in the US. He claimed:
“When foreign governments extort unreasonably low prices from U.S. drug makers, Americans have to pay more to subsidize the enormous cost of research and development”.
He particularly blamed countries that,
“use socialized healthcare to command unfairly low prices from U.S. drug makers”.
This is because large state-funded health services such as the NHS buy drugs in enormous volumes, and therefore use their massive bargaining power to set the price at the lowest possible levels. Left to the market, prices are often significantly higher for America’s fragmented insurance-based private sector counterparts. President Trump vowed,
“to make fixing this injustice a top priority with every trading partner … America will not be cheated any longer”,
while his Health Secretary Alex Azar has threatened to use trade talks to try to push up drug prices outside America.
Big pharma spends hundreds of millions worldwide opposing any measures to limit drug prices, and the great success of the NHS’s NICE regime has been a prime target for some time. An outline of negotiating priorities for a US-UK deal issued by the Office of the US Trade Representative included a,
“Procedural Fairness for Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices”,
section, which vowed to:
“Seek standards to ensure that government regulatory reimbursement regimes are transparent, provide procedural fairness, are nondiscriminatory, and provide full market access for U.S. products”.
Although one hopes it is unlikely that any Government would cede to such a demand, the NHS’s ability to hold down drug prices and demand cost-effectiveness before approving their use may be challenging, especially for a weakened Britain desperate to replace lost EU trade after Brexit.
The weakening of what in trade terms are known as non-tariff barriers—including domestic and EU-wide regulations demanding that drugs, technology and staff meet strict standards of safety and utility—may prove a key demand and, in my view, represents a significant risk.
Patient data is another prime area of interest to commercial healthcare firms. The NHS database holds the medical records of 65 million people—a priceless treasure trove of data for technological giants and healthcare firms, for whom real-world data is far superior to clinical data. Experts have warned that data could be a bargaining chip in a trade deal, and there is a risk that the public would not even know about this.
Trade negotiations have transformed in recent years. Recent deals have incorporated a digital trade section setting agreements on e-commerce and data access, and similar terms can be found in the White House’s negotiating objectives for the UK. The US wants data access, powers to use that data under its own laws, full intellectual property protection for its algorithms and an unrestricted market in which to sell the final products. Accessing such data ethically will obviously create concerns. Indeed, a group of Lords are concerned about this, and I believe further comment may be made on it later in the debate.
While the strict GDPR controls cross-border data flows, after Brexit Britain will be free to implement a new data-protection regime. The Americans would like us to have, as the US negotiating objectives put it,
“state-of-the-art rules to ensure that the UK does not impose measures that restrict cross-border data flows”.
Britain has not negotiated a trade deal independently of the EU for decades and appears unprepared for talks with the US. Indeed, while the American Government have already published their negotiating objectives, no equivalent document has materialised to date. In response to Questions in March 2019, the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, said that the USA’s objectives “are not surprising” and that it is too early,
“to say exactly what will be included in the future UK-US deal”.—[Official Report, 6/3/19; col. 611.]
Since then, there has been a public consultation on what the UK should seek in the UK-US deal. What now are the objectives and what will be the agenda in the forthcoming trade deals? Will the NHS be on the agenda? Dr Liam Fox has said that it should be. Is that government policy? If so, just what are the Government prepared to offer the Americans in the NHS and what chance will Parliament have to scrutinise and influence the outcome of those negotiations?
These are now decisions for the next Prime Minister. It is therefore imperative that both Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt move beyond platitudes about the value of the NHS and are open and transparent about their stance on these key areas. While wholesale privatisation remains unlikely, the NHS must be protected from creeping privatisation, whereby an increasing proportion of services are contracted out until it is nationalised in name only. Immensely valuable assets such as data should not be traded. Neither should changes be permitted that allow drug prices to rise, thereby requiring other NHS services to be cut to pay for them.
I hope that the Government will openly commit to specifically excluding the NHS from future trade deals and investor protection mechanisms, and to honouring the high regulatory standards currently enjoyed. If not, they should remember that that grossly misleading propaganda on the side of that double-decker bus will not be forgotten and a real price will be paid for it in due course when the public discover just how they have been duped.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, are we are very tight for time in this debate, so I ask for noble Lords’ co-operation in looking at the clock. When it flashes, that suggests that something should happen.
Baroness Fairhead (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, for tabling this debate as it raises two topics that sit at the heart of our country’s identity and of our future—the National Health Service and our future trading relationships. I hope that this debate will flush out two things. The first is that although there is quite properly a fierce desire to protect the NHS for everything that it represents and provides to the UK people, it must not be under threat from trade deals, and we will have the Government’s continued reassurance on that. Secondly, as importantly, having been so reassured, this House must be able to reaffirm how important global trade is to our nation, provided of course that it is underpinned by fair and open international rules. My hope is that this debate will be followed by others that identify trade opportunities and highlight the tremendous benefits that they can bring, including in the vital sector of life sciences.
But first, the NHS. We all agree on the vital importance of the National Health Service. It is at the core of our culture and our national identity. Its impact and reputation were displayed most vibrantly last year, its 70th birthday. I had the privilege last year of representing the UK as a Trade Minister and saw the respect in which it is held worldwide, renowned for its excellence, quality and professionalism and for the dedication and compassion of its extraordinary staff.
We hold a number of elements dear. It should remain universal—open to all who need it. It should be free at the point of use and continue to provide healthcare excellence. Of course, we realise that those must be efficiently supplied within the limits of affordability. But it is worth pointing out that, according to Professor Meredith Crowley at the University of Cambridge, the UK and the US have similar outcomes while the UK spends just 8% of its GDP on health compared with 18% in the US.
I turn to some of the genuine concerns raised by the noble Lord and will add a couple of others. The first concern is that our healthcare will be privatised—owned, controlled and even regulated by foreign companies or countries. However, the UK has always maintained its right to regulate in the public interest. It has been clear that decisions on how to run public services are made by UK Governments including the devolved Administrations, not by our trading partners.
Some elements have indeed been opened up under the policies of Labour, Tory and coalition Governments: building management and some elective surgeries. Department of Health and Social Care accounts for 2017-18, the most recent annual figures, show that only 7.3% of spend by NHS commissioners was in the private sector, and that was slightly down on 7.7% the previous year.
What is more, our international public procurement commitments do not apply to the procurement of UK health services. As the Nuffield Trust recently reported,
“a trade deal would not have the power to stop the NHS being a free, universal service”.
Moreover, in my time as Minister, I saw how the Government have gone out of their way to protect the NHS. It is not just words. The draft WTO schedules retain an explicit exemption for the NHS. This, the Government have repeated, will not change in any future trade deal.
The second concern is that standards will be lowered. Again, I recognise why this is challenged, but the Government have been clear that any free trade agreement, whether with the US or another country, must maintain our high standards for businesses, workers and patients as a priority. The British people will accept no less. This, too, has been acted on. The transition agreements have retained all the protections. It is worth noting that newer trade agreements go further; for example, CETA, the EU-Canada trade deal, explicitly states that standards will not be lowered to gain trade advantage.
The third concern is that the NHS will be forced to pay considerably more for pharmaceuticals as a result of the US aim of achieving procedural fairness, which the noble Lord mentioned. I read the article by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, in the House, and I agree with him that that is a point which it is hard to see the Government ceding. The aim of free trade agreements is to secure trade to the benefit of the UK. Higher prices would be unlikely to achieve that.
The fourth concern is, as the noble Lord said, that our medical records data will be misused. There is little doubt that the NHS database is a hugely valuable UK asset. Used properly, it has the potential to provide answers to some of today’s most challenging healthcare issues. We must embrace that, but it is right that the use of such data must be controlled and must absolutely comply with our rigorous data privacy requirements. I believe that that is very much the Government’s intention.
A final concern is the use of investor state dispute settlement mechanisms. It is claimed that foreign companies could force regulatory change and that they could force the Government to open up the National Health Service to competition. However, on this point the legal position is clear. Nothing in ISDSs can force a Government to regulate in a particular way. The Government have been clear that the NHS will continue to be free at the point of use for everyone who needs it.
I understand why some of the recent comments might have heightened concerns, but it is worth pointing out that President Trump did appear to clarify them later, saying, “I don’t see” the NHS “being on the table”, as he did not consider the NHS to be part of trade. However, to reassure both this House and the country, will the Minister repeat the assurances previously given?
Provided these concerns are adequately and appropriately addressed, there is much to look forward to in trade opportunities globally. I saw for myself the innovation, energy and excellence of UK exporters but, while we punch above our weight, we still punch below our potential. That is as true in life sciences as in other sectors. For example, I have seen first-hand the appetite for Healthcare UK—a joint business and government initiative to promote UK healthcare, including the NHS. What it has brought back to this country has achieved real benefits. I have also seen the excitement created overseas from the two life sciences sector deals, which are part of the UK’s industrial strategy. A lot more can be achieved.
I remain firmly of the view that trade, properly pursued, is a real force for good. For the people of the UK it supports jobs, investment, innovation and wealth, and for consumers it provides greater choice, more innovative products and services, and often lower prices. Therefore, alongside my request for reassurance from my noble friend about the ongoing commitment to the NHS, I urge this House to make more use of its expertise in debating trade issues and opportunities to make sure that we play our full role in helping the UK to harness existing trade deals and develop new ones.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, on securing this important debate, which follows hot on the heels of the progress of what started as the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill, which I will refer to later.
I thought that it might be worth going back to look at the very beginning of the NHS—its embryo stage rather than its birth. One hundred years ago, Lloyd George created the Ministry of Health, following on from a decade of Liberal reforms, including the National Insurance Act, setting up the contributions for the old age pension, and the Housing Act to build homes fit for heroes, with sanitary conditions to improve public health. The embryo of the NHS developed very fast. In 1942, William Beveridge, another notable Liberal, published his famous report. He was very clear that it was about more than just providing a health service. He said:
“Now, when the war is abolishing landmarks of every kind, is the opportunity for using experience in a clear field. A revolutionary moment in the world’s history is a time for revolutions, not for patching ... Social insurance fully developed may provide income security; it is an attack upon Want. But Want is one only of five giants on the road of reconstruction and in some ways the easiest to attack. The others are Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness”.
The NHS sits as the absolute foundation stone in tackling those five things.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, said that the NHS today is free at the point of need or the point of use. That phrase was used very much as the NHS was born immediately after the Second World War, but what does it actually mean? Unfortunately, I think that as this debate progresses, we will see that it means different things to different people.
I am aware, as many others are, of many services that are currently contracted out from what would have been seen as the original NHS contract between government and hospitals. GPs’ surgeries are, after all, privately run, but they operate to a very clear mandate from the NHS. One can have specialist medication delivered directly to one’s home, and many of the non-clinical services are now contracted out and are all part of the NHS that we are proud of.
However, Brexit has demonstrated that one of the lesser-known pillars of protecting our NHS is also at risk. Not many people know that we are protected by the EU directive on public health procurement. This is an issue that I have raised repeatedly in your Lordships’ House. I just want to note that it directly governs the way in which all public bodies, not just the NHS, can purchase goods, services and works, and it seeks to guarantee equal access to and fair competition in public contracts in EU markets. There is no need to publish procurement advertisements cross-border, which, as Ministers have repeatedly said in Parliament, is a key tool in preventing mass privatisation of the NHS.
If we proceed with Brexit—noble Lords will know that I hope we do not, but we must prepare for the event that we do—and should we leave with no deal, leaving the single market and the customs union, the NHS will lose its biggest but most invisible protector: this directive, which governs all public sector procurements in all member states. It defines those processes and standards and ensures fair competition for contracts; frankly, it also gives us protection against creeping privatisation.
To protect NHS institutions particularly, but not only, from American corporations looking to buy in after Brexit, we must write this EU directive into UK law. The NHS, as we all know, is completely dependent on this. It is in danger. If we do not transfer the directive into UK law, there is nothing to stop the lowest bid for any service always winning wherever it might originate from and without any standard of care.
While there was understandable concern about the TTIP discussions, this EU directive provided a guarantee that US companies could not come in and cherry pick our NHS. On 18 November 2014, the noble Lord, Lord Livingston of Parkhead, answered my Question in your Lordship’s House by quoting an EU Commissioner, saying that,
“Commissioner de Gucht has been very clear:
‘Public services are always exempted... The argument is abused in your country for political reasons’
That is pretty clear. The US has also made it entirely clear. Its chief negotiator said that it was not seeking for public services to be incorporated. No one on either side is seeking to have the NHS treated in a different way ... trade agreements to date have always protected public services”.—[Official Report, 18/11/14; col. 374.]
During a debate in March 2018 in which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and myself spoke, the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, responded to our questions on procurement. He said:
“I can tell them that we have implemented out obligations under the EU directive. The Government are absolutely committed that the NHS is, and always will be, a public service, free at the point of need. It is not for sale to the private sector, whether overseas or here. That will be in our gift”—
that is, the Government’s—
“and we will not put that on the table for trade partners, whatever they say they want”.—[Official Report, 29/3/18; col. 947.]
In contrast to the confidence of the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, over protection of the NHS, alarm bells have been ringing for me ever since then, not least after President Trump and the US ambassador to the UK both commented that the NHS should be “on the table”, despite the fact that President Trump was asked to modify his words.
I am grateful that the BMA has repeatedly called for the NHS to be excluded from any future trade agreements. Its unequivocal message for the next Conservative Party leader and future Prime Minister is very simple: profit should never take priority over the protection of the health service and the health of citizens. It is a shame that neither candidate has chosen to respond.
Clinicians, managers and directors across the health and social care sector know that remaining in the European single market and maintaining open-border arrangements with free movement of healthcare and medical staff is vital. But if we leave, the most important things we must do are to re-enact in full the EU directive on public procurement and insist that the NHS and social care bodies which tender for contracts use it very clearly and carefully. It is vital that the NHS should be exempt from rules on competition that could lock in competitive procurement of publicly funded healthcare services across the UK—the devolved nations and England.
I agree with the BMA, which is calling for investor protection and dispute resolution mechanisms to be excluded from any future agreement with the United States or other trading partners. This will protect the ability of all four nations of the UK to regulate in the interests of public health.
So why am I so concerned? When we read the first published draft of the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill, alarm bells started ringing for some of us. I will quote from it:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision … to give effect to a healthcare agreement”—
and,
“make provision about set-off arrangements between countries or territories”.
It said that a “healthcare agreement”,
“means an agreement made between the government of the United Kingdom and either the government of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or an international organisation, concerning either or both of the following”—
which would include,
“healthcare provided in the United Kingdom”.
Because of an alliance between the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Jolly, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and others in both our teams and, increasingly during the progress of the Bill, the support of learned judges and learned counsel, we were able to show that the Bill was not re-enacting the reciprocal healthcare arrangements between the EU and the UK but providing the basic foundation for completely free trade agreements. We managed to persuade the Government not to proceed in that way, so I am pleased to say that the Act’s final title is Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Act 2019, but I think we saw the true colour of the Government.
I am particularly concerned that Liam Fox stated that,
“the government of the day of whatever party … would determine exactly what the regulations were around the NHS”.
That answer is just not good enough. It is really important that we provide protection for our NHS. It cannot and must not be put up for sale, in part or in whole. Parts of it cannot be sacrificed. We have a duty to ensure that we put in all the protections that we need for any trade agreements that are negotiated.
I ask the Minister, as I have asked before, and I would be grateful for a clear answer: will the Government re-enact the EU directive on public procurement in full in UK law? Everybody, including previous government Ministers, agrees that this is the fundamental protection for the NHS under any future trade agreement.
Lord Desai (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness who, as usual, made an excellent speech on the problem before us. I thank my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe. I do not want to praise the NHS; we know that we love it. The issue is not about whether we love the NHS. To a great extent, saying that we will protect the NHS is a statement that can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Every Government that I know of said, “The NHS is safe in our hands”.
However, in the 55 years I have spent in this country, the NHS has changed dramatically. What we want to protect—the core values that are popular with the public—is the concept of being free at the point of use. That is the core that people want to protect and that will command 100% of public support in our negotiations on a free trade agreement. We will go to a free trade agreement because those agreements, by and large, mutually benefit both sides. Trade agreements require give and take. It is not possible to say, “You give me this, but I won’t give you anything in return”. We must be absolutely clear about what precisely we want to protect as the core of the NHS and what is not so much up for sale, because that is a romantic description, but up for exchange—that is, what we will give to get something else. I say this because it is easy to go on in praise mode and forget that a trade agreement is a matter of negotiation.
One thing that has changed about the NHS is the purchaser-provider distinction. Noble Lords may remember that we have been discussing the NHS’s problems with funding, and keeping up with research and patient satisfaction, since the 1990s. We said that we should distinguish between the purchaser and the provider. The purchaser will always be the public; the state purchases health services and sees to it that they are free at the point of use. However, the provision of health services is not necessarily just in the public sector. Private sector providers can also be in the NHS and sign contracts with it. Those providers are not from just the domestic private sector. Actually, “domestic private sector” is a meaningless term because a British provider can be owned by Americans. That is capitalism, it is a very subtle system. So, we have agreed that private providers can supply services to the NHS. We also know that we buy medicines from not just British providers but others because the state does not manufacture medicines.
We have always had the valuable jewel of the NHS, constructed and kept free at the point of use with great difficulty, but it has been swimming in a tide of increasing privatisation. When it was founded, the idea was of state ownership, Fabianism and all that. It all changed in the 1970s; we are now in a very different world altogether. We escaped the full extent of the effect of privatisation because we went into the European Union, which was also socially democratic, by and large, even when it was right-wing. The Germans had a right-wing but socially responsible philosophy. That is why the public procurement directive, described in detail by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has been very useful to us.
We have to decide at some stage what the core that we want to protect is. I do not agree that we will not let other people profit from the NHS. We are not going to exit capitalism; we are going to exit only the EU. We are not going to rebuild a system in which everything is done not for profit. It is not possible. Forget it. Decide on the core and the precise principle. Do we want the public procurement directive in there? That is a crucial decision. We have to be prepared for the free trade agreement negotiations and be clear in our mind on the precise core of the NHS that we want to protect. We already know that eyes and teeth have gone; we all go somewhere else for them. We also know that we often escape to the private sector when elective surgeries are available only after a delay because of rationing in the NHS. We have to decide precisely what the NHS we want to protect is. It is not possible to rule the NHS completely out of an agreement because that agreement will not start. Let us be clear about that. It would be good to have a non-nostalgic, non-romantic notion of what we want to protect. There is no doubt in my mind that we want to protect it—it is a unique institution and we must protect it—but we have to do so in an intelligent way, not in a way in which we will lose everything.
I mention just one thing about which there will be controversy: data. For some years now, the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, who will follow me, has urged your Lordships’ House to think of the NHS’s dataset as an asset that we can earn money from. Once upon a time, we said that data were very valuable and that we cannot sell them, but every time I use my smartphone, my data are being sold. Data being sold is no longer a no-go area. We have to be clear: will we sell NHS data? That is a crucial point for whoever negotiates. Will the sale of data help the NHS’s finances or hurt its intellectual property rights? That is the question to be examined.
All I want to say, as I will not take up my full 10 minutes, is: beware of romanticism, nostalgia and thinking that we live in a socialist world. That world is gone.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Desai—and yes, I will be covering that area. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for putting down this timely and important debate.
Others will wish—some have done so already—to raise concerns about the extent to which health policy-making, the commissioning and provision of NHS services and the pricing of drugs and life-critical equipment could be impacted by future trade deals that might flow from the UK exiting the European Union. These are all noble concerns worthy of exploration in the time we have today, but I want to draw attention to an issue that I feel strongly about and that I fear has been neglected, despite its critical importance. I am in no doubt that the future of our health services, particularly new life-saving treatments and technologies, will be data-driven in many important respects. I am persuaded that the data which will underpin them—health data about UK citizens, which the NHS currently stewards on their behalf and with their consent—is very much on the table. It will provide a key focus for forward-looking trade negotiations, or else serve as an increasingly important bargaining chip, no matter what the Government might say about the NHS not, in and of itself, being up for grabs.
I have spoken at length on other occasions in this place about the potentially unique value of UK health data, as have other noble lords, and do not wish to repeat myself in this debate, when we are focused on making the case for broad-ranging and increasingly urgent protective measures. I will simply say that trade negotiations and the deals that result from them are all about capturing value, and it must be captured in the public interest, as well as for public benefit, at this pivotal time. I remind noble Lords that today is 4 July, and the people are said to have willed us to take back control of our laws, our borders and our money, not lower the drawbridge, roll out the red carpet and herald a great health data giveaway.
Notably, a question was asked in the other place on 18 June about this very issue, focusing on our future trading relationship with the United States of America. It followed President Trump’s recent state visit, and I note, without prejudice, that the response of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care did not offer the questioner the comfort sought at that time. The Minister stated that,
“the NHS is not on the table in trade talks. We now have that assurance from the Americans. NHS data must always be held securely, with the appropriate and proper strong privacy and cyber-security protections”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/6/19; col.114.]
All well and good, you might think, but in practice health data is not owned by the NHS per se and is not, as a matter of interest, subject to the control of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in any meaningful sense—at least, not where future trade negotiations are concerned.
The adequacy of the USA’s data protection provisions, which make it possible for us to share data with American companies, is currently determined by the European Union and covered by the EU-US Privacy Shield, which has been criticised for, among other things, data protection deficiencies, concerns about surveillance and, more recently, the lack of protection it affords where data is transferred for commercial purposes. Notably, however, under Schedule 1, Chapter 5 of the EU exit regulations, passed in this place back in February, the Secretary of State for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will have sole authority to define what data is and is not on the table in international trade deals which the UK might enter into in the event that Brexit goes ahead, including patients’ data.
More precisely, the Minister will be able to specify, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has already stated, the adequacy of a third country; a territory or one or more sectors within a third country; an international organisation; or a description of such a country, territory, sector or organisation. As such, he or she will be empowered, Henry VIII-fashion, to make or break the digital elements of future trade agreements that we might agree or acquiesce to regarding data controlled by our NHS. I want to make plain my concern. Any exercise of these new powers before a comprehensive public engagement effort is undertaken and an explicit and meaningful commitment is made to radical transparency could result in mass opt-outs on the part of the general public and do irreparable damage to patient care, as well as to our vital life science and technology industries.
Happily, the same section of the regulations affords the same Secretary of State the opportunity to rule out or take off the table the data controlled by our publicly funded and accountable health sector globally, until such time as those measures are put in place. Will the Minister therefore commit to such a protection in the interest of building and maintaining public trust in the Government’s otherwise welcome strategy: namely, to maximise the value of healthcare data while ensuring a fair distribution of associated benefits?
In conclusion, can the Minister comment on the Government’s appetite to blaze a trail in data protection for NHS patients, at the same time as championing our much-heralded global and entrepreneurial future? A new Prime Minister could lead by way of international example and develop a new, dedicated health and care privacy shield so that safeguarding individuals is approached as the flip-side of a coin which proactively and proudly promotes some of UK plc’s best future industries.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. He said that the data we give as patients to the NHS is owned by the NHS; I remember that when I first became Secretary of State one of the many questions I asked was: “Who owns the data that patients give to the NHS?”. Many of the answers that I got followed the same pattern. There was discussion of the processes by which it was managed but I kept asking, “Who owns it?”. Inevitably, as with all these processes, it ended up with: “Well, you do, Secretary of State”. That was very often how it worked, I am afraid. One of the reasons why I continue to believe that the Health and Social Care Act 2012 made a big and substantial difference is because for the NHS, the Act created its independence to a much greater extent than used to be the case. The NHS owns itself rather than constantly, in every respect, being owned and controlled by the Government. That independence for the NHS is really important.
I should declare an interest. Your Lordships will know that I have pursued health matters in both Houses for a very long time, but I declare an interest as a patient of the NHS, which I have been repeatedly in the last two years. If there is anybody who has a reason to express gratitude to the NHS, I have that responsibility thanks to what it has done for me. I understand what “free at the point of use” means; I would be a bankrupt person if I was paying for everything that I have received from the NHS over the last two years. That incites envy on the part of people from other countries, including—I would say especially—my friends in America, among whom it incites a dramatic sense of envy. It is depressing how different the political debate concerning health is in the United States from that which applies here. The idea that President Obama was so heavily resisted, and by so many, in trying to pursue more equal access to healthcare in America is utterly incredible to us in this country. How and why did that happen?
There is a dramatic difference between the way in which the American political and commercial world views health and the way we view it here. That is why I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, for securing this debate now. It is a useful moment to put a few things on the table. When we put things on the table, it is to make clear where we start from. As the noble Lord said, were we to enter a trade negotiation with the United States now, we would not have quite the same negotiating objectives as those published by the US trade representative—but we should.
I will not repeat what my noble friend Lady Fairhead said, because she said it better than I could and covered a lot of important ground. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, brought admirable clarity to the way we think about these issues. Let me rapidly establish some propositions.
The negotiations on TTIP demonstrated that we can and should exclude foreign companies from health services that receive public funding or state support. That was in the EU negotiating mandate for TTIP and clearly has to be reproduced in any negotiating mandate we have for a US trade relationship. It was why Cecilia Malmström said in a letter to Unite the Union, back in 2016:
“TTIP poses no risk whatsoever to public services in the EU, including the NHS; nothing in TTIP would affect how the NHS in the UK operates at the moment; and nothing in TTIP would prevent a government from reversing policy as regards the involvement of private operators in the NHS”.
If that is reproduced in any future negotiations with the United States, it will provide ample reassurance. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that there is nothing to stop us reproducing what we have had in the past in our public contract regulations. The point is that we just have to do it. That is straightforward and I see no grounds for us not doing so.
There is nothing in the General Agreement on Trade in Services under the WTO that requires us to introduce healthcare services. They are excluded under the GATS. The Agreement on Government Procurement, which we debated during the Trade Bill, also does not bring healthcare into its coverage. From all of that, the protections and limitations are clear. Frankly, in any trade negotiation, whatever the United States says in an ideological sense about everything being on the table, it does not expect any of that to be available to them for negotiating purposes.
We know precisely what President Trump thinks about trade with the United Kingdom. He looks at our roads and sees German cars, when he wants to see American cars. He knows that we have a dramatic deficit on trade in agricultural products and that they come from Europe, because of the nature of the protectionist regime he sees in Europe, and he wants them to come from America. I am not going to get into a debate about cars and agriculture. It is not about the provision of healthcare services. If a hospital corporation in America wants to provide operations for NHS patients, it can do so through a UK company, as some presently do.
Ironically, American companies such as Humana, Aetna and Optum—which is a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group—have provided services in the United Kingdom. They did so under the framework of external support for commissioning, which was established by the Labour Government in 2006-07. Again ironically, during the passage of the subsequent 2012 Act, Humana said it was going to withdraw from providing services to the NHS in the United Kingdom, because it did not see a future for private contractors in the NHS. That was during the passage of the 2012 legislation. There is nothing in the 2012 Act that requires competition. The Health Select Committee published a report, which was grievously misplaced, in that it said that competition is the operating principle of the NHS, under the Act. It is not; clinically led commissioning is the operating principle. Section 26 of the 2012 Act does not include a duty of competition; the driving principles for commissioners under the Act are the duties of integration and quality. The committee said Section 75 should be repealed. If it were, it would only have to be replaced by a new Section 75 which gave exactly the same power to make regulations, but the regulations do not have to require competition, competitive tendering and the like.
Where are the Americans going to look for something? We have to be very careful, because they really want to get American medicines and medical devices available through the NHS without the Government interfering in the pricing structure. It is not just here; it is right across the world. They see that 50% of the expenditure on medicines takes place in America yet they are only one-third of the international medicines market. There is a disparity in what they pay relative to large, single-payer systems across the globe, of which we are one, and they want to stop that. They want us to pay more, in the erroneous belief that in consequence they will pay less. In reality, they pay more because they have a system where their payers cannot control prices through the exercise of their purchasing abilities. The market system in America is open to very high prices, because of the third-party payment issue. The Americans are pursuing this, and we have to resist it. We have to resist investor-state dispute settlement applying to our regulations for pharmaceutical and medical device pricing. We have to make sure that, through our pharmaceutical price regulation system—or, as I would wish it to progress, something a little more transparent —we have a value-based price for the medicines and devices that we buy. None the less, we should allow the purchasing capacity of the NHS to be deployed effectively for the price that we want, and not give the United States, through any trade agreement, the ability to put investors in front of a tribunal to stop that happening. We must retain the right to control our medical pricing system.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, I am always grateful for an opportunity to speak about the NHS, so I am particularly grateful to my noble friend. I am the first to admit that my commitment to the NHS is emotional or perhaps, as my noble friend said, nostalgic or romantic. I owe my life to it and never cease to be grateful, as is the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for all the skill and support which saved my life when I had almost no chance of survival. Any suggestion of a threat to the NHS sees me running to its defence.
I am, of course, not blind to the fact that the private sector already plays a significant role in healthcare provision and that this was boosted by the 2012 Act. However, many who are trying to work around those reforms are discovering that it is co-operation, not competition, that our NHS needs. I shall return to that theme. Aside from emotion, I have practical reasons to resist any US-style inroads into our NHS which might follow Brexit. The US system simply does not work. It costs more, as we have heard, and the health outcomes are worse. If we care about the health of our society, why on earth would we want to go down that route instead of the European one of investing more in prevention and support services?
Is it not of sufficient concern that life expectancy in the United Kingdom is falling—a statement I never expected to make in your Lordships House? In 1920, men expected to live to 55 and women to 59. Later interventions, particularly the setting up of the NHS, meant that by 2015 that expectation had reached 79.2 years for males and 82.9 years for females. Of course, an ageing population brings its own problems but let us rejoice in that amazing achievement. However, the graph, which had been rising for decades, has flattened out and started to decline. The elderly, the poor and the newborn are worst affected. Life expectancy for those aged over 65 has dropped by more than six months and we have to ask why. Professor Dorling, head of the social geography department at Oxford says:
“Our faltering life expectancy rates show we have now got the worst trend in health anywhere in western Europe since the second world war”.
He also says that this decline can be linked to funding cuts, especially to social care. Professor Dorling and his colleague Lucinda Haim from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine argue that life expectancy started to decline in Britain as a result of the austerity measures imposed by the coalition Government in 2010. These cuts, which removed more than £30 billion from welfare payments, housing subsidies and social services, were some of the most severe made by any nation after the financial crisis.
The cuts had a cumulative effect on health because they triggered dramatic reductions in social care, meals on wheels, transport, health visitors and district nursing services. Moreover, community and voluntary services, which have always been so important in the care of the elderly and isolated, suffered similar reductions. If no one is visiting a lonely, isolated older person, no one notices that they have stopped eating or are having trouble moving about. They fall over. They are finally discovered and admitted to hospital, where they are given more serious interventions than would have been necessary if the care services had been available earlier. Then there is difficulty in discharging them because social care services are not available—even Jeremy Hunt has admitted that cuts in social services imposed by his Government went too far—or are inadequate, leading to another admission to hospital and the whole sorry cycle starts all over again, inevitably leading to shorter lives.
In addition, many of the services that promote longer and healthier lives, many provided by the charitable sector, have been curtailed. Smoking cessation classes, exercise groups and help with addiction are all now harder to access in most areas. The latest news about obesity being a major risk for certain types of cancer means that the reduction in the number of organisations that help and advise on weight loss must also be a concern.
Infant mortality is another sorry story. This reached an all-time low in 2014, since when the ONS reports that the rate has increased every year. The reasons include fewer midwives and health visitors, overstretched ambulance services and cuts to schemes such as Sure Start, which had a dramatically beneficial effect on the physical and mental health of mothers and babies. I would like the Minister’s assurance that the Government take this decline in life expectancy and the rise in infant mortality seriously and have a strategy for addressing them.
What has this to do with the NHS being included in trade talks? Surely, my grave concern about the need for more resources for health and social care means that I should welcome any possibility of increasing investment in our cash-strapped services. However, no US firm will be interested in providing the sort of social and preventive services I have referred to. There is just not enough money in them and their benefits take too long to accrue. In the US, social care budgets are low, as are taxes; most services are provided privately and the result is a soaring mortality rate. This includes spiralling rates of drug overdose, death and suicide as well as poor services for the young and the old. Is this a pattern we really want to emulate?
If we need an example of how foreign investment works or does not work in our system, we have only to look at the private care home sector. Four Seasons Health Care recently going into administration is only the latest example of how the debt-driven business models of companies in the care sector result in thousands of vulnerable people being made even more vulnerable by these failures. Some 140 homes closed last year and thousands more are at risk of failure.
No, it is not those things that drive the US trade people to want a stake in the health service. It is drug pricing that drives the trade agenda, as others have said. “Socialised” medicine and healthcare systems, as Donald Trump calls them, mean what he calls “unreasonably low prices” for drugs and not enough profit.
What we need in our NHS, which I am proud to call socialised, is not competition but co-operation, as I said, across health and social care, including housing, education and, of course, pensions. Our planning must be to promote this co-operation, not to provide a marketplace for drugs, data or any other services which can be cherry picked by those US companies waiting in the wings to make a quick buck.
While I am on my feet, I suppose I must once again ask the Green Paper question. Where is it? How much priority are the Government giving it? I have lost track of how many times I have asked the Government to be bold and honest about social care. Have they, for example, taken note of the new report out today from the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth? It says:
“After decades of reviews and failed reforms, it is not clear how another Green Paper is going to make progress on addressing the challenges in social care funding ... Government action, rather than further consultation, is required”.
I ask again about the NHS and future trade deals. Will the Government be as bold and honest as necessary and commit to investing in social and health care policies that are better for health and longer life than any American policy or company could ever deliver?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for bringing this debate. I agree entirely with the final points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. As the son of an NHS ambulance driver who worked for the NHS for 30 years, I know intimately how it touches so many people across the country, not just its patients but its very large workforce. This has not entirely been touched on in the debate, but part of the negotiating mandate of the US is looking for greater access to the labour market of the NHS, so those who work for the NHS also have a consideration when it comes to negotiation of the trade agreements.
In some respects, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, was right to say that we need not repeat that we all consider the NHS a cherished aspect. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, which I share entirely, is that because it is cherished it is inevitably a greater part of the political process, and therefore threats or unrealistic promises to the NHS have been used repeatedly on constitutional aspects over recent years. Now that trade has become part of the constitutional process with Brexit, it is right that we debate it in Parliament, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving us the opportunity to do so.
I was very pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, in this debate. I very much enjoyed our processes during the Trade Bill. She is missed as a Minister with that portfolio. I mean no disrespect to the noble Earl, Lord Courtown—perhaps Hansard might record that he is nodding in agreement that she is missed in the department. I wonder if he might be able to indicate when we will have a Trade Promotion Minister for the UK. That is a very important role, and we surely cannot just wait until the Conservative leadership election is resolved for it to be filled.
On the point about the NHS being used politically, I saw that in the Scottish referendum when the SNP and the yes campaign said there were 48 hours before the vote to save the NHS in Scotland, and we have seen unrealistic promises on the side of a bus. The fact that it is being used politically means that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, said, we have to develop further our consideration when it comes to some of the trade negotiations.
In that regard, we live in a perilous world in terms of the rules-based system. I think we have sometimes taken for granted, when we enter into agreements and treaties, that we expect all parties to adhere to them. We have seen some blurring of the lines on the Brexit consideration, where commitments that we thought we had entered into in good faith, such as financial commitments to the EU, could well be seen to be put on a reduced status, while China and the USA are moving towards a much more transactional approach. If the UK fundamentally supports the rules-based system, then any trade commitment in a treaty that we enter into also has to be resolute, consistent and robust. That is why, during our consideration of the Trade Bill, this House made amendments to the Bill to strengthen the role of Parliament when it comes to these international obligations.
Why is that necessary? It is because our single biggest trading partner outside the EU, the US, is not resolute and consistent when it comes to seeking opportunities for greater access to the NHS. We saw on a regular basis how unreliable President Trump is. Even on his state visit, he said two diametrically opposed things on two consecutive days, which of course rendered both commitments useless. One was that the NHS would be on the table, and the other was that it would not be. That is his approach; he deliberately wishes there to be uncertainty. The real tragedy is that he directs this towards his allies as much as he does to his trade adversaries, such as making up excuses on threats to US defence to put tariffs on the UK and EU aluminium and steel industry. We cannot rely on the US being as consistent as we need to be to protect our health service.
The House did the country a service by amending the Trade Bill. Clause 7(1) now has new text saying that the text of any potential agreement of a mandate has to be ratified by a resolution of both Houses. That means that there is a parliamentary guarantee that the reassurances, which have been repeated in good faith by the noble Baroness, Lady Fairhead, and Ministers, will then be tested and approved by Parliament and will then be part of an irreversible mandate for trade negotiations. That is particularly important for America because, as I referred to during the passage of the Trade Bill, I looked at the questionnaire that the Department for International Trade had put together for a future trade agreement with the US. There were no accompanying documents nor any suggested restrictions as to its scope. The NHS was not mentioned; I went online and looked up the NHS, but there was no feedback or any necessary process. We have had some Ministerial Statements but no clear position from Parliament. So the parliamentary lock is necessary, and I would be grateful if the Minister could state the Government’s position with regard to the amendments to the Trade Bill. Will the Government seek to reverse them, if and when the Bill ever sees the light of day in the other place?
That is important also because we currently have these kinds of protections through the European Parliament. My noble friend Lady Brinton gave a crystal clear outline of the way that the UK is protected under the aegis of our membership of the EU. It is also important because Congress ultimately has the lock on the US Government. When I analysed the negotiating mandate, I counted seven areas—including the provision of health services, those who work for it, those who have data from it and those who sell to it—that the US wants to open up. In addition, it wants changes to dispute resolution, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, indicated in a very good and measured contribution to this debate, which raises concerns about limiting our ability to reduce existing private provision. The Americans also want the agreement to cover all the UK but to restrict themselves to federal provision rather than covering US states.
It is interesting to note that the mandate is identical to the one that has been published for any future trade agreement with the EU. So if we diminish our protections while the EU is strengthening those, we will be in the invidious position that there will be a triangulating negotiating position whereby the US will see us as the weak link to the EU. We cannot afford to put ourselves in that position, and I hope there is emerging cross-party consensus for this. We have heard references not to the mixed funding provision, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to, but to mixed public/private commissioning and funding in England for the NHS of, according to the House of Lords Library, £8.8 billion or 7.3% of its budget.
I stress in my last couple of minutes that we have had a debate almost entirely about the NHS in England, but there are major differences with the NHS in Scotland. Scotland has never had an NHS statutorily combined with that in England. It has separate founding legislation and separate processes altogether, but a trade agreement is a UK treaty. The issue of how a UK treaty will then cover health provisions reflecting a health service that has been founded and continues to be distinct from England’s means that the other element of the Trade Bill amendments—consultation of the devolved Administrations on the negotiating mandate—is of critical importance.
During the Liberal-Labour coalition in Scotland, Scotland did not develop the Labour reforms to expand the NHS internal market and remove trusts. The 2012 Act clearly does not apply to Scotland and, when it comes to data, as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, has said, we have a far more robust situation for the protection of NHS data in Scotland. Scottish data is a matter of pride, because it is unique in the world—consistent for 70 years and combining patient data and public health information. All these things are of critical importance: that the amendments to the Trade Bill are not reversed and that we continue to have these debates to ensure that we do not sleepwalk into a situation where we are undermining our NHS.
Ultimately, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has indicated, it comes back to the EU. There is a simple solution to all of this which is fairly straightforward: that we do not leave the European Union. We can now utilise the extremely large number of Liberal Democrat MEPs in the European Parliament to make sure that any future trade agreements with the EU also protect British interests.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I so enjoy these flashing lights on the clock. I crave the indulgence of the House for a moment before I respond to this debate, as I need to take the opportunity to correct something I said in a debate on 6 June when the House was discussing the treatment of those with learning disabilities at Whorlton Hall. At col. 219, I said that Mr Simon Stevens had in the past worked for Universal Health Services, the owners of Whorlton Hall. This was not correct. Mr Stevens in fact worked for a completely different company, UnitedHealth Group, as medicare CEO. I took my information from a newspaper article; that will teach me to not believe anything I read in a newspaper, as I thought I already knew. I apologise to Mr Stevens for my mistake.
I refer noble Lords to my entry in the register of interests. I thank my noble friend for initiating this very important debate and all noble Lords who have participated in it. I also thank the Library, the British Medical Association, the NHS Confederation, the Trade Justice Movement, UNISON and others for their briefing. I am sad that the noble Baroness the Minister is not with us today, but I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, will do his best to make a health-related trade speech and answer the questions which have been posed in this debate.
As noble Lords have said, this debate has been made even more important since the recent visit of Donald Trump, and I was reminded when preparing for this speech what a great job this House did—as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has said—in amending the then Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill to decrease its scope to the European Union and Switzerland only. I have been reflecting on that Bill and how dangerous it would have been to our National Health Service in the trade negotiations that are coming down the track. She is absolutely correct: that Bill was paving legislation which would have put our healthcare in great jeopardy during trade negotiations. It is important to remind ourselves that this was brought forward by this Government. We certainly feel that we need to be at least vigilant in what happens next.
Managing the flow of goods and services across borders in a way that promotes economic growth while protecting—and ideally enhancing—public goods, including health, is of vital importance in an increasingly interconnected world. If the final Brexit deal involves the UK leaving the European single market and customs union, we will need to negotiate a significant number of trade agreements to maintain favourable access to global markets and limit the economic cost of Brexit. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is quite right. Like him, I look forward to the amended Trade Bill reaching the statute book and the locks that it contains.
As the UK Government look to develop their independent international trade policy beyond Europe, it will be critical to balance the potential economic benefits of trade against the protection of public health and safety. It is quite clear that the US will drive a hard bargain in any future negotiation with the UK. That should come as no surprise to us. The truth is that only the European Union, and perhaps China, has the economic heft to negotiate on near-level terms with the Americans, and even it struggles. The US objectives for its negotiation with the UK were published in February—with the caveat that they were largely produced for a domestic American audience, shorn of any notion of compromise—and they were strikingly ambitious in their demands. For example, alongside normal talk of tariff and quota removal, the UK must jettison food hygiene rules that deal with pork, chicken and dairy; the rules stipulating products that qualify for tariff-free treatment under the agreements must specifically incentivise production on US territory; and the agreement should include mechanisms allowing the US to take appropriate action if the UK negotiates an agreement with a non-market economy. We should also look at pharmaceuticals and equipment, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned. He is quite right to warn us about the need for caution here, because the US objectives seek provision on intellectual property rights that reflect current US legal standards, which are generally more favourable to rights holders than the European standard.
What worries us is whether, if we crash out of the European Union, it is possible that that could cajole Conservative MPs and the Government into holding their noses and signing on Trump’s dotted line after no-deal Brexit, and that the subsequent upheaval and economic uncertainty of no deal would see the UK grasping for anything that looks like an economic lifeline. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, was quite right to give examples of the American President not being trusted. Look what happened with Mexico: even though it recently agreed to revamp its existing trade agreement with the United States and Canada, the President has now threatened to levy a 5% tariff on all Mexican exports into the US unless illegal immigration comes to a halt. If no-deal Brexit happens, and a lopsided US-UK free trade agreement is concluded, we can be pretty sure that the President will immediately come back asking for more.
I will address two issues that have been mentioned. First, as we know, many international trade agreements include investor protection on dispute resolution mechanisms. As noble Lords will be aware, these mechanisms allow foreign private companies to sue national Governments for compensation if they believe that their investments have been negatively impacted by public policy decisions. These legal challenges take place outside the normal court system and judgments generally cannot be appealed. We believe that there is a significant risk that these mechanisms could have a particularly negative impact on health and the development of new models of health and care.
There is a precedent for this: a Dutch private healthcare insurance firm sued the Slovakian Government under an investor protection agreement. The Slovakian Government lost the case and was ordered to pay €22 million in damages to the company. More recently, the tobacco company Philip Morris used a dispute resolution mechanism to sue the Governments of Australia and Uruguay. Those were not successful, but they were very expensive. That alone can have a chilling effect on policy development in countries which are not as well off and sophisticated as we are.
Despite the reassurances that the Government have already given on this, we need it on the record yet again that we will not enter into these agreements. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is quite right: let us put down the existing European rules that have protected us and make sure that they are on our statute books. I say to my noble friend Lord Desai that that is not the least bit romantic: it is the hard-headed thing we need to do.
My second point concerns the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on the use and potential value of NHS data. Noble Lords will be aware that comprehensive longitudinal datasets controlled by the NHS represent a significant opportunity. I absolutely accept that the Government are, as it were, on the case. They know that there needs to be action, and I am intensely interested and concerned that Her Majesty’s Government move to set up an appropriate regime to ensure that the exploitation of NHS data benefits the NHS.
However, the question in this debate is how to ensure these measures are in place to protect healthcare data assets in the context of a non-EEA data protection regime post Brexit. How do we prevent large corporates extracting value unfairly from the NHS? Those are the questions we need to address.
To protect our NHS, we are calling for a hard carve-out on the provision of healthcare services, particularly the NHS, in any future trade agreements. That is the assurance I seek from the Government today. The Minister has been asked many fundamental questions here on how to protect our NHS in the future, and I look forward to his answers.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, for bringing this topic to the House for debate and for the insightful contributions by Peers from all parts of the House.
We are extremely fortunate to have heard many well-articulated and expert contributions today from noble Lords who have considerable interest in and experience of not only trade issues but the UK’s public services, including the NHS. In particular, I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for his contribution, particularly over the last two years, during which he has had treatment from the NHS. We are all very pleased that he is here to make that speech. My noble friend also set out the history of the NHS over the past 15 years, which showed how all Governments over that period have contributed to the NHS as it is today.
A number of issues have been raised which once again showed the central role that the NHS plays at the heart of our communities and the strength of feeling we have for this great institution. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, elucidated the importance of the NHS and mentioned several different areas; I will answer some of the points she raised later. On the social care issue, she drew attention to the report of my noble friend Lord Forsyth, which of course the Government will respond to in due course.
I point out that the Government have been consistently clear about their commitment to the guiding principles of the NHS, and I confirm to all noble Lords that it is universal and free at the point of need. Our position is definitive: the NHS is not, and never will be, for sale to the private sector, whether overseas or domestic. The Government will ensure that no trade agreements will ever be able to alter these fundamental facts. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister noted in January, the NHS,
“is one of this country’s greatest institutions. An institution that is consistently what makes the people of this country most proud to be British”.
That is why protecting the UK’s right to regulate in the public interest and to protect public services, including the NHS, is of the utmost importance. The Government will continue to ensure that decisions on how to run public services are made by UK Governments, including the devolved Administrations, and not by our trade partners.
Free trade agreements were mentioned by a number of noble Lords—in fact, all of them. No trade agreement has ever affected our ability to keep public services public, and trade agreements do not force us to open up the NHS to private providers. I can therefore reassure noble Lords on this point. We have always protected our right to choose how we deliver public services in trade agreements, and we will continue to do so. That is not simply the UK’s position but a principle which goes to the heart of trade in services under World Trade Organization rules. For example, the General Agreement on the Trade in Services specifically exempts services which are,
“supplied in the exercise of governmental authority”.
On top of this, the delivery of public services is safeguarded in the trade in services aspects of all free trade agreements the UK is party to. In the EU’s free trade agreements, the UK’s public services are protected by specific exceptions and reservations. As we leave the EU, the UK will continue to ensure that public services—including the NHS—are protected in all trade agreements it is party to, whether transitioned from an EU context or as a result of new negotiations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, my noble friend Lord Lansley and other noble Lords drew attention to the EU public procurement directive. As noble Lords will be aware, the directive was transposed into UK law many years ago now. It applies to the NHS where it carries out relevant public procurement. Her Majesty’s Government are committed to ensuring that the NHS can operate within a fair and rational framework for procurement as well as commissioning services. This will remain the case under all EU exit scenarios. If I can add anything more on that issue for the noble Baroness, I will write to her.
Baroness Brinton
The Minister says that the law was enacted in the UK but only in the sense that we accepted it at the time. I understand from the Government’s insistence on the legislation that needs to go through should Brexit occur that there are various things we need to re-enact specifically in preparation for the date of departure. I had understood that the public procurement directive was one of those. Can the Minister confirm that absolutely? I did not quite infer from his comments that he meant that it was safe now; I thought he was referring to Parliament’s original acceptance of the directive.
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, perhaps I will be able to get a little further information on this while I continue with my speech, but if not, I will confirm one way or another in writing.
These protections are an integral part of the United Kingdom’s future independent trade policy, rather than being at odds with it. Free trade agreements can enable increased trade and investment, secure access for UK exporters to the key markets of today and the future, give consumers access to a greater range of products at lower prices, and make the UK more innovative, competitive and prosperous.
These benefits also matter for the public services we want to protect. Trade is vital for the NHS, which relies heavily on vital goods and services that come wholly, or in part, from suppliers based overseas. Trade enables the NHS to buy the best possible medicines and medical devices that industry—here and overseas—has to offer. That is in the best interests of NHS patients.
Trade agreements do not prevent Governments regulating public services effectively or require Governments to privatise any public services. The UK Government are committed to maintaining our high standards for consumers, workers and the environment, and to protecting our public services and access to affordable medicines, in any future trade agreements we conclude. Protecting public services, including the NHS, is of the utmost importance for the United Kingdom. The Government remain completely committed to ensuring that the NHS continues to provide excellent care that is, I repeat, free at the point of need for generations to come.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, addressed the importance of a US-UK trade deal. It is too soon to say exactly what would be covered in a future such deal. However, negotiating an ambitious free trade agreement with the US that maintains our high standards for businesses, workers and consumers is our priority.
My noble friend Lord Lansley also mentioned this area, and those standards and our principles will be crucial to any future deal. That includes protecting the NHS and our right to regulate public services. As my right honourable friend the Health Secretary recently commented on social media:
“The NHS isn’t on the table in trade talks—and never will be”.
Several noble Lords mentioned medical pricing and the United States. As I have made clear, the sustainability of the NHS is an absolute priority for the Government. As noble Lords mentioned, we celebrated its 70th birthday last year; I want it to celebrate many more birthdays for generations to come. We are very proud of the NHS and the internationally recognised way in which we assess the price of new medicines on the clinical benefit that they provide to patients.
Her Majesty’s Government recently agreed a deal with the pharmaceutical industry to ensure that medicines remain affordable for the NHS, while supporting a positive environment for the life sciences industry. That is why we are clear that, in any negotiations on future trade agreements, we could not agree to any proposals on medicine pricing or access that would put NHS finances at risk or reduce clinician and patient choice. This does not prevent a free trade agreement with the United States representing an opportunity to increase exports to the world’s largest market for the UK’s world-class life sciences sector. Helping to stimulate investment and innovation in and research into new medicines and technology is of prime importance.
As I have made clear, trade agreements do not force us to open the NHS up to private providers. Decisions about how to operate our public services are for the UK to make. Under existing competition rules, the NHS in England does not discriminate against foreign firms wishing to bid for clinical contracts, provided that they meet UK requirements and standards and are approved by UK regulators.
Lord Desai
My Lords, the noble Earl has twice said that there is no intention to open the NHS up to private providers. The NHS is open to private providers and has been since its inception because general practitioners are private providers. Can he clarify precisely what he is ruling out?
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, is quite right. I speak in relation to any future trade deal and how we protect the NHS. Of course, the NHS is open to private companies in various ways and they serve it in many useful matters. I was looking at where we are and the future protection that we need for the NHS in any trade deals we enter into.
As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Desai, under existing competition rules, the NHS in England does not discriminate against foreign firms wishing to bid for clinical contracts—I know that I am repeating myself but this is important—provided that they meet UK requirements and standards and are approved by UK regulators. In practice, this means that foreign companies are already eligible to bid for NHS clinical contracts in England, regardless of whether the UK has a trade deal in place with a given country. However, few do so as they cannot readily meet our requirements. Only a small amount of NHS work is carried out in the private sector. Trade deals will not force the NHS to provide preferential access to foreign companies.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, mentioned data, as did the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and my noble friend Lady Fairhead. The UK has committed to maintaining a high level of data protection standards, which are set out in the Data Protection Act 2018. The UK recognises the importance of data protection to ensure that data continues to flow uninterrupted and to enable trading partners to build trust through the transparent treatment of personal data. Patient information will never be sold for marketing or insurance purposes unless the patient has explicitly consented. The Government’s principles governing data-sharing agreements entered into by the NHS, published in draft in December 2018, require that data may be assessed by third parties only where there is an explicit aim to improve the health and care of patients in the UK and a fair share of benefits from any agreement flow back to the NHS.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, also mentioned data protection. The Government take seriously the use and sharing of NHS data. I reiterate what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care stated recently:
“NHS data must always be held securely, with the appropriate and proper strong privacy and cyber-security protections”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/6/19; col. 114.]
Both the Department for Health and Social Care and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport are aware of the sensitivity of patient data; I can confirm that both departments will work closely together to ensure that trade negotiations will not undermine the safeguards we have in place around healthcare data that enable the public to trust in what it is used for, while realising its value and ensuring the fair distribution of associated benefits.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and my noble friends Lady Fairhead and Lord Lansley mentioned ISDSs, which do not and cannot force the privatisation of public services. To be absolutely clear: ISDSs will not oblige the Government to open the NHS up to further competition and overseas companies will not be able to take legal action to force us to do so. The NHS will continue to be free at the point of delivery and of use for everyone who needs it. The protections here are in law.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, looked at the preparations for a UK-US trade deal and asked when we will publish our objectives. We are well prepared for those negotiations; there have already been four or five initial meetings. As for domestic preparation, we held a 14-week consultation on our approach to a US trade deal, to which we had nearly 160,000 responses, which we have carefully considered; we will publish a summary of them shortly. We will publish our negotiation objectives before negotiations begin and ensure that Parliament has a chance to consider them. We are laying the groundwork for an FTA through our UK-US Trade and Investment Working Group. As I said, it has met five times and will meet again before the Summer Recess.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
The Minister said that he would present the conclusions of the consultation plus the objectives to inform Parliament. This House amended the Trade Bill to state that that is not sufficient. If he could address that point in his last few minutes, I would be grateful.
The Earl of Courtown
The noble Lord mentions the Trade Bill, as he did in his speech. The Government are still considering the amendments that this House made to the Bill; we await whatever happens to the Bill in due course. He also mentioned the absence of a Trade Minister, which I of course regret. In due course, an announcement will be made by No. 10.
I thank all noble Lords for this informed debate. The range of voices that we have heard from across the House demonstrates the UK’s passion for protecting the NHS. Her Majesty’s Government share this passion. There will be some questions that I have not given full and detailed answers to; I will write to noble Lords on those issues. Our position is definitive: the NHS is not for sale and the Government will ensure that no trade agreement changes that.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who participated in the debate; it has been very helpful indeed. It needed airing and there is further work to be done. I will need to read in detail the noble Earl’s response in Hansard to see precisely what assurances he gave or what he was instructed to read.
There is a good deal of agreement across the Chamber, which is very comforting. None of us is in any disagreement about the NHS continuing to be free at the point of delivery. That is assured; any Minister will assure us on that and we will agree. That picks up on my noble friend Lord Desai’s point about what will be on the table going into a negotiation. We may say that we do not want the NHS on the table. Some of us have asked for that; I am not quite sure whether the Minister has said that it will be on the table. In any event, the Americans, as parties to the negotiations, could still put it on the table, and the issues that they raise would have to be addressed. I am not anti-American—I hope that we get a good deal with the Americans and seek good trade deals around the world—but we have some basic principles to protect. Speakers from all sides identified a number of areas in which protection is needed. There was unanimity across the House that we do not wish to countenance reaching a deal that would force up the price of drugs in the NHS, which in turn would affect the NHS’s performance overall.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for his expert opinion on our precise arrangements on, the interest of DCMS in and the need for protections for data. I gather that there are some differing views on our approach to how data should be handled. I am not sure whether my noble friend Lord Desai’s view is that we should give it away for what we get back or seek to protect it. The one important thing—I stressed this point earlier—is that it is a very valuable commodity and is, in many respects, quite unique. A lot of people, not just in America but around the world, will have an interest in it. I hope that it will not be on the table; if it is, all efforts must be made to protect it and the benefits that accrue from it. The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, mentioned the “associated benefits”; I hope that they will be maintained primarily in the UK and that others elsewhere will not make a great profit out of them.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, my noble friend and others stated, fundamental to this is that we should seek, if we can, to incorporate the EU directive protection in our approach to trade negotiations. That is fairly fundamental; many of us would rest assured if we saw that.
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I hope that we continue to have opportunities for full scrutiny of the Trade Bill that needs to come, particularly on this special aspect—it is so close to all our hearts—to ensure that, while change will always come, the best interests of the British public, not those of other countries, are at the heart of it. In particular, in answer to my noble friend Lord Desai, we must ensure that, during the course of the US trade deal negotiations, others do not gain benefits that we feel should not go to them unless we get an appropriate reward in return.
Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) (No. 3) Bill
Thursday 4th July 2019
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2019 View all Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text
Work Capability Assessment
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)
My Lords, I will now repeat a Statement made earlier in another place as an Answer to an Urgent Question. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, the department holds the original commission and final report for all peer reviews of disability benefit claimants’ deaths up to 2015. All these documents are kept for six years from the date of the final report. In October 2015, we moved from conducting peer reviews to internal process reviews. This change means we hold more information, including the original commission, all emails relating to the case, the final report and any recommendations resulting from the internal process review.
As the House may be aware, the Welfare Reform Act 2007 committed the Secretary of State to publish an independent report on the work capability assessment each year for the first five years of its operation. In 2013 and 2014, Dr Litchfield led the fourth and fifth independent reviews of the work capability assessment. The department fully co-operated with the reviews and shared all relevant information as requested. To assist the work capability assessment independent reviews and in response to a freedom of information request, we carried out a robust search to supply all necessary information to the reviewers. The record of the documents requested by or shared with the independent reviewers no longer exists, in line with the department’s document retention policy.
We take the death of any disability benefits claimant very seriously and always conduct an investigation into the circumstances where we are informed that the claimant committed suicide. As the reviews contain extremely personal information, it would not be appropriate to declare which individual cases were shared with the reviewers on this occasion”.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank the Minister for repeating that slightly opaque Answer. This is really serious. There have long been complaints about the WCA process from campaigners concerned about the impact on people—including, in some cases, their deaths—following assessments.
The DWP conducts peer reviews into serious outcomes and deaths associated with DWP activity. The independent statutory reviews the Minister mentioned were conducted by Paul Litchfield in 2013 and 2014. Disability News Service reported earlier this year that letters to Ministers from coroners, along with several peer reviews, were not given to Dr Litchfield’s team. The DWP will not confirm that, but DNS says that it then lodged a complaint with the Information Commissioner and that the summary of its discussions with the DWP shows that that information was not passed along to the review team.
In response to a letter from my honourable friend Debbie Abrahams, the DWP finally said that it has had a good look around the department and that despite,
“a robust and thorough search”,
it could not find any information about this, citing,
“the length of time since the reviews were carried out”,
and,
“factors such as document retention”.
It also implied, as the Minister did, that the review team did not ask for them. These were documents related to the circumstances of people’s deaths. The independent reviewers were investigating the WCA process, including its impacts on the clients. Either these documents were withheld from the reviewers or the DWP’s record keeping is so poor that the department does not know whether they were passed across. I regret that, given the level of anger and mistrust of the DWP out there as a result of repeated cuts and the profoundly dysfunctional nature of the benefit assessment system, this will inevitably fuel suspicions that there was something in those documents that the DWP did not want an independent reviewer to see.
Does the Minister accept that it is the department’s responsibility to ensure that an independent reviewer has any potentially relevant information? It is not their responsibility to work out what to ask for. If that is true, why did it not include all peer reviews and coroners’ letters?
Secondly, since trust is now so low, will the Government accede to the widespread calls for an independent inquiry into how assessments are carried out and the medical evidence of their impact on the health and well-being of claimants? Will she guarantee that all documents relating to deaths or serious and complex cases related to DWP activity will be shared with any future independent reviewer? This is a matter of justice and it is the only way to restore trust in a deeply discredited system.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I refute the allegation that this is a deeply discredited system. The Department for Work and Pensions takes the death of any claimant very seriously. Where it is made aware that a person has died and it is suggested that that is associated in any way with the department’s activity, a review will be undertaken to identify any lessons that can be learned. It is important to make it very clear that in a case of suicide, a mandatory internal assessment review is undertaken. All these reports will be kept for six years from the date of the final report.
In October 2015, we moved from peer reviews to an internal review process, which is what I meant to call it in the first place. That process means that we hold more information, including all emails relating to the case, the original commission, the final report and any recommendations resulting from the internal process review. That relates to the death of any individual who has been in receipt of any benefit—not necessarily just the work capability assessment but any benefit at all.
It is important to make the point that we retain that information for six years. Some of it is highly confidential. What we do not retain for more than one year is the day-to-day business on emails which is where requests come in and out about who is asking for what information. That is in line with normal practice. We retain that information for only one year. Complex issues are involved in the decision-making for this, however, and we examine those issues with great care, also taking into account letters from the coroners’ courts. Once again, the department takes the death of any claimant seriously and always conducts an investigation into the circumstances.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, despite what the Minister said, if all that information is available, why do families not get to see those reports? Take, for example, the Justice for Jodey Whiting campaign. She died in February 2017. She took her own life 15 days after her disability benefits were stopped for missing a work capability assessment, when she was already seriously ill. Her family have repeatedly asked for that review and have never had permission to see it. Three disabled members of staff at the DWP wrote a safeguarding report, which was magically lost in the system. I understand that that was also not passed to the investigators.
The DWP changes its story every time. In May 2018, it claimed that it had no record of the reports or whether it shared vital documents linking fitness to work with the death of benefit claimants. Most extraordinarily, it recently said that the independent reviewers did not ask for documents. How on earth can they ask for documents that they do not know exist? I echo the call for an inquiry, but I want to add another couple of questions.
The Minister’s department claims that it does not hold information on claimants who have lost their lives. On the issue of the length of time for which certain documents are kept, surely there must be a full review of all documents and for how long they are held. Either it is incompetence or, more alarmingly, it is a cover-up. Will the Minister ensure that there is a proper, independent investigation specifically into those missing documents? Why were those documents hidden from the independent reviewer? It is just not good enough to say that they were not asked for, when the independent reviewers did not know about them. Finally, what scrutiny has the department given the private sector contractors, Maximus, Capita and Atos, carrying out the WCA and their record-keeping and passing on of information to assist the DWP when it gets requests from campaigners such as John Pring at Disability News Service, who has campaigned tirelessly for two years on this matter?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I cannot respond to the specific case that the noble Baroness mentioned, but I will write to her. I can only repeat what I have already said. This is not a question of keeping information from individuals. As I said in the Statement, the reviews that we carry out—84 since 2015—contain extremely personal information. It would not be appropriate to declare which individual cases were shared with the reviewers on this occasion. We instituted a change in October 2015 when we moved from peer reviews to the internal review process to ensure that we can hold more information, including all emails relating to the case, the original commission, the final report and any recommendations resulting from the internal review process. In line with the department’s document retention policy, any records of whether peer reviews and coroners’ reports since 2010 were either requested by or shared with the independent reviewers of the work capability assessment do not exist. As I said, we keep the information for six years from the date of the final report in the case of the reports and active emails—the day-to-day business of the department—for only one year.
I stress, however, that we take this situation and this issue very seriously. I do not accept that the department has in any way sought to withhold information for any ulterior motive. The department works hard to do the right thing. If one looked across the private and public sectors, one would see that the period for which we hold information of this kind is absolutely in line with normal practice.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend clarify one issue? Are we making changes to the work capability assessment to support claimants?
Baroness Buscombe
I thank my noble friend for that question because this instance relates to the work capability assessment. As I said, we carry out an independent review of any case where there has been a death by suicide. Yes, we are working hard to reassess the work capability assessments to support claimants and we will integrate the services that deliver both PIP and the WCA from 2021. We are testing the feasibility of having one assessment for people who apply for PIP and universal credit at the same time and we will test how to build better relationships with universal credit customers awaiting an assessment or in the limited capability for work group by changing how conditionality is tailored. We also want to explore whether we can improve the mandatory reconsideration process to reduce the volume of cases going to appeal. All of this of course goes towards doing everything we can to support claimants and reassure them through the process of obtaining support.
Mental Illness: Job Security and Inequality
(5 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, it is good that we have a report from the UN rapporteur Mr Dainius Puras. I shall refer to it very briefly because it is part of the reason why I asked for this debate. Many of us are working on mental health, but Mr Puras alerts us to looking at it not simply as a thing in itself but as an expression of all sorts of other things. If you want to sort out somebody’s mental health, you need to do things other than look at it simply as a medical condition.
Apparently 16%, or one in six, of people in the UK—I do not know whether this goes for other countries—will suffer some form of mental well-being issue or have mental health problems, acute anxiety or an inability to function in life at some time in their life. That is an incredible figure. We know that with the austerity cuts that have been hitting us since 2010 there is more evidence of people suffering from mental well-being problems. We need to address that, so all of us who are involved in the fight against poverty—it is related to poverty—are asking the Government about it. If one in six people is going to hit the mental health or mental well-being barrier, as a society we will have to up our interest, support and need to dismantle all the things that bring about lack of mental well-being.
I shall briefly talk about myself. Wherever I read about mental well-being and all the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune thrown at the poor, I am astonished that I have managed to survive all the slings and arrows thrown at me and all the slings and arrows that I threw in response. I shall mention a lovely quote:
“You are who you are because of other people”.
That is from the work of Julie Hannah, I think quoting Mr Dainius Puras, but I am not so sure about that. You are who you are because of who you know. It is a brilliant quotation. I was very fortunate that every now and then I met somebody who behaved in an adult way towards me, such as my probation officer. I am so glad to hear that we are bringing probation back inside and not leaving it to the ne’er-do-wells who do not seem to be able to handle probation in the commercial sector. Probation was the service that stopped me behaving strangely in a way that would harm my mental well-being. I survived because of the people I met, such as my ex-wife. I would like to praise my ex-wife, who took me in, looked after me and helped my mental well-being. The problem is that most people are not lucky enough to be a ducker and a diver and a bobber and weaver and a cheeky chappie like John Bird. I am very fortunate, but there are a lot of people out there who do not have the succour, support and opportunities that came to me. It was lucky, but it was mainly the fact that there were people who looked at me in a particular way and helped me into work, education and sociability.
One of the good things that the rapporteur, Mr Dainius Puras, has said is that you cannot always look at mental health with a medical response. You cannot think that it is a National Health Service problem. It is not simply a National Health Service problem; it is a problem for all of us because it is a tangential series of things that need to come together. We need to ensure that people can get out of poverty because poverty is the big killer when it comes to holding people back in society. We know that there is a direct relationship between mental health and well-being and what you are doing in life. We know that the poorer the food and standard of living, the more enormous threats there are to your mental well-being. I do not think the Government need that proved once again. All we need to know is that the Government are going to up the tangential belief, not simply the medical belief—the pharmaceutical road that you take to sort out people’s mental well-being. If you have a good job, it increases the chance of you having a stable mental health existence. If you have a good job, you can pay your own way and take your family on holiday, to a museum or to the seaside and have a general sense of purpose in your life. If you are living on the edge, you are like somebody with permanent toothache. You are stuck there and it will affect your mental well-being, which will go out of the door.
Over the past six months, we have been working on a very interesting project in Northampton. We chose Northampton before the council went belly up; there was no relationship between the two; that was to do with somebody else. We chose Northampton because we wanted to do something very simple. We accepted the idea that if you want to address the questions of mental well-being, you need a supportive, stitched-together, functioning community, not a series of holes where people wander from hither to thither without any sense of purpose. We did something very simple. We got people in Northampton to start to trade together. We got the housing association working with the estate agent and the hospital working with the local bread company. We pulled them together. We were trying to lay down the first stages of re-engaging with a healthy community so that it could then move on and have the mental well-being, the jobs and all the other things that you need when you have a community.
Northampton is very interesting because we have managed to create what we call a social echo. A conference is coming up there. It is wonderful. It is an inspiration on our part, but it has been taken up by local people. A social echo is how you create businesses working in the community—for instance, providing work for long-term unemployed people who were suffering enormous mental health problems. How do you manage to get them back into work? The way you do it is by looking around the community and asking whether the housing association’s services can be sold to other players in the community so a job comes out of it.
I am an incredibly practical person. I have never done anything complex. I always describe my work as very dumb. When it came to working with homeless people, I did not address their mental well-being or the fact that they had been troubled and harmed in their early lives; I addressed the fact that they were getting themselves into trouble and into crime. I created a crime prevention programme so that people would stop committing crimes because I thought it was important to remove crime from their lives, and then you could address the mental well-being issues and all the other issues. You could start pulling them together in other ways.
I have now got to sit down.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for introducing this debate and for the opportunity to take part in it. This is, in many cases, a tricky subject because mental ill health is unfortunately still poorly understood by some. Nevertheless, I welcome the emerging change of attitude towards it and the Government’s commitment to provide extra funding of £2 billion in real terms.
Attitudes in society are slowly improving but have to be set against the huge impact that mental ill health has on the people who suffer from it. It frequently leads to a downward spiral of unemployment, poverty and family breakdown, as well as deteriorating health and well-being. It is silently endured. People feel marginalised and in some cases, I am afraid, excluded from society.
As we know, poor mental health is a leading cause of worklessness and sickness absence, but I want to pay particular attention to those in the criminal justice system, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bird, alluded earlier. People in prison typically have poorer health and suffer from mental impairment. The attempt to cope is particularly prevalent among men, who keep their emotions under wraps. They try to balance social issues such as poverty and indebtedness. Often, they are unemployed or have been made redundant, or they have never been employed. Many are poorly educated and homeless or their homes have been repossessed, and many come from deprived backgrounds. What challenges to cope with.
Prisoners with mental health issues who slip through the net and whose needs are not adequately addressed might be more likely to reoffend. We know that two-thirds of the country is now covered by criminal justice liaison and diversion services, whereas three years ago only one-quarter was covered. The probation service plays a crucial part in delivering those services, with much more emphasis on face-to-face interviews, getting to know a person well and not laying bare another statistic. We need to ensure that all other organisations are part of that delivery mechanism, particularly local authorities, which have renewed responsibilities for public health.
When looking for a new beginning with a new job or perhaps a return to work, some people unfortunately encounter workplaces that refuse to make any allowances. Instances of that happening will reduce with new initiatives to support the workplace. Research has shown that employers who embrace a duty of care and invest in health initiatives to support the health and well-being of their employees have the potential to see a significant return on their investment. Mental health support in the workplace can save UK businesses up to £8 billion per year. It has also been shown that getting people into work can help reduce a huge economic burden for them and their families.
Therefore, we must give a big push and mark the first opportunity that people have on leaving prison to hold an ambition, possibly for the first time. We must make it really pay for them, and make it happen not only for them but for their families. They simply cannot do it alone. They need all-out support for their mental well-being. Getting that precious job can and should be a real step change, and it is about providing support and helping them to keep that job.
In conclusion, we have to broaden the debate. I look forward to a development pathway to improve mental health provision across all criminal justice settings, with support programmes such as Access to Work, backed up by the full integration of all agencies, so that we have a transparent and effective monitoring procedure and a review of its effectiveness.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for bringing forward this debate, for his distinctive introduction of a kind that we always enjoy when he speaks in the House, and for his tireless work in trying to support people who, for all sorts of reasons, find themselves disadvantaged. I pay tribute to him.
Inequality, unemployment and mental ill health are three interconnected, intersecting areas which are important to address if we are to have a flourishing and thriving society in which all can participate. As we know, mental ill health is one of the two main disabilities affecting participation in work. I am glad that the Government have decided that the NHS long-term plan will assist people with mental health issues into work. That plan recognises that mental health problems disproportionately impact on people living in poverty and those who face various forms of discrimination. This is a huge step forward in the visibility and awareness of this issue, and I hope that it really will help us move ahead.
In my own area of work, I note that last year poor mental health was identified by clergy in this country as the number one social issue that they had to grapple and deal with. That is what we are picking up as happening on the ground. It is in all our interests that we look at this issue to make sure that all people have access to safe, stable and well-paid work, which is why I commend the TUC’s Dying to Work campaign. As many noble Lords will know, it addresses the particularly difficult situation of those who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness but who either want to work, because it is an important way of them coping with some pretty devastating news, or simply have to work for financial reasons, as they are still trying to support a family.
When people face the emotional stress, fear and uncertainty of being diagnosed with a terminal illness, they often face a lot of difficulties at work, especially if they have a long-term or progressive disease. This can be an horrific situation if unsympathetic or obstructive employers simply do not understand what is happening when people are at a particularly vulnerable point. That is why the TUC’s voluntary charter is to be applauded. Indeed, it is shocking to think of people being dismissed or forced out of jobs that they love at a time of such acute personal difficulty.
I am pleased to be part of a Church that has always taught the innate value of human life and its unique dignity for all people. That is why it is even more important that, when people face a terminal illness, they should be given the support and respect that they need. This initiative is part of the progress that we are making.
The intersection between inequality in employment and mental health manifests itself in other areas. As the Mental Health at Work 2018 report made clear, we know that those who are poorly paid or in insecure work, as well as black and minority-ethnic people, face worse than average mental health problems. The Church has worked with BAME people to put together a mental health toolkit that recognises the issues this community faces—for example, overdiagnosis of schizophrenia, overprescription of drugs and under-engagement by healthcare professionals, all of which have huge impacts that we need to address. The toolkit is designed to reduce stigma, disseminate crucial information and continue to confront racism wherever it is found.
At a time when we know that young people from BAME backgrounds are almost twice as likely to be unemployed as their white counterparts, it is vital that we explore the reasons behind that. There is a need to support those with mental health issues, which are sometimes wrongly used by bosses as a barrier to employing these people. This lack of access to mental health support cannot continue. Indeed, at a time of high unemployment, when we need more people for the sake of the economy, it is in everybody’s interests that it does not continue.
In the 2014 NHS Five Year Forward View, published by NHS England, a commitment was made to work towards a more equal response across mental and physical health, achieving parity of esteem by 2020. That was five years ago and time has moved on very rapidly. Although there are of course issues around some communities accessing physical healthcare, they appear to be less acute than in the mental health equivalents. Can the Minister clarify the progress towards this aim, set out back in 2014, and what steps are being taken to mitigate the impact of accessing this care?
Of course, this is much bigger than just the responsibility of government; we cannot take just a top-down, centrist approach to tackling the problem. One of the privileges of my job as I travel around Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire visiting charities is to see so many groups trying to work in innovative ways. I think particularly of some of the charities getting people into gardening and working on allotments. My right reverend colleague the Bishop of Carlisle, who is sitting next to me, appeared last month in various national newspapers launching an initiative at Lambeth Palace to help communities think about using gardening, gardens, allotments and suchlike to help people with mental health problems.
We need to get a much wider commitment to addressing this problem. Yet again, there is an economic disparity between those with and without access to green spaces. We in the Churches are trying to encourage people—and, indeed, our churches and churchyards—to work with mental health charities to create spaces where people can get experience and make a contribution to society.
There is so much more to be said, but we have limited time. I hope that we can learn that we need to address this multifaceted, complex issue and work together to help those with mental health problems.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bird for calling this debate. I remind the House of my interests as listed in the register.
In 2016, the Five Year Forward View for Mental Health, which has already been mentioned, stressed that mental health problems disproportionately affect people living in poverty, people who are unemployed and those who already face discrimination. In 2018, the report on mental health at work by the Prince’s Responsible Business Network highlighted the links between financial insecurity, poor mental health and poor work performance.
My concerns are for those who struggle the most with all these issues: people with learning disabilities, of whom less than 6% are in paid employment compared with nearly three-quarters of non-disabled people. These are some of society’s poorest and least empowered people, people who are often left without a voice and without hope.
I trust that the Minister’s response will recognise that the concerns highlighted by my noble friend are most severely experienced by persons with learning disabilities. I have spoken before about some of the barriers to employment that they face, such as the low aspirations of many employers, teachers and parents and a scarcity of role models—people like themselves in work—all of which lead to low aspirations among people with learning disabilities themselves. They also face other challenges, such as in managing time, money and travel.
I declare an interest as the editor and co-author of several wordless books about work, funded by the DWP as part of its drive to reduce the disability employment gap. The books were published by the charity Books Beyond Words, which I founded and chair. With simple tools such as these and the provision of training to Jobcentre Plus staff and employers in how to use them, an otherwise marginalised group can be empowered to overcome the barriers that I have described. We can help people to embark on a journey to inclusion and prosperity, and help employers to become more confident in employing people with different abilities and understanding the cultural value of their inclusion in the workplace.
Let us consider for a moment some of the unequal aspects of life faced by people with learning disabilities and the consequent effects on their mental wealth and mental health—for example, the dangers of loneliness that for any of us accompany exclusion from ordinary life chances, including work or other meaningful occupations.
Last year, I co-launched the BELONG manifesto, which includes six ways in which people can feel good about themselves: for example, having a reason to get out of bed in the morning. They are the same determinants of good mental health as were spelled out in the report of the special rapporteur in the 41st session of the Human Rights Council last month. The manifesto says —let us think about this in the context of people with learning disabilities—that we would all belong when,
“the institutionalisation of people … has ended … there is enough money to spend on food and essentials … there are opportunities to make some choices in life … there is an end to being bullied … and everyone can access healthcare, education and employment”.
The ability to earn money as opposed to being on benefits can give a sense of independence and self-esteem that can lead to a sense of purpose in one’s life; a secure job can provide routine and structure. However, the attributes that persons with learning disabilities can bring to a job are too often underrecognised. We know that job insecurity contributes to anxiety, depression, low self-esteem and social isolation. These are health issues that persons with learning disabilities and autism experience to a higher degree than the non-learning-disabled population.
The Government’s statistics already indicate that just under a million more disabled persons have entered the workforce in the last five years. In a recent adjournment debate in the other place on the topic of unemployment in people with autism, the Minister for Disabled People confirmed that the Government are working with the Office for National Statistics to factor people with autism into the Labour Force Survey. I hope that the Minister will take this up so that it might be applied to people with learning disabilities too. Simple considerations by employers such as recognising the difficulty people may have in completing online applications or performing at interviews designed for those without disabilities should be readily addressed.
There are examples of good progress in encouraging and supporting people into work, such as the Government’s Access to Work scheme. Such schemes are welcome because they can address the need to provide for individual, often complex, needs and provide coaching and work experience opportunities. The Autism Alliance has developed a disability toolkit providing information on autism and other impairments for jobcentres.
There are also exemplary employers who successfully tap into this ready and waiting pool of workers. Dimensions, a nationwide support service for people with learning disabilities, has employed people with learning disabilities in campaign adviser and quality auditor roles. My Life My Choice based in Oxfordshire employs people with learning disabilities as experts by experience to review care provision for suitability for persons with similar needs to their own.
One may say that these are specialist employers, but that need not be the case. In the United States, Walmart has pioneered the employment of disabled people, including those with learning disabilities, in its stores and distribution centres. There could be a greater drive to encourage similar, employer-led, larger-scale schemes here too.
Can the Minister describe what proportion of intended spending to realise the vision of Improving Lives is earmarked for people with learning disabilities and autism? Will Her Majesty’s Government commit to specifically include learning disability within their poverty and labour force data collection, so as to measure success in supporting this group of people to access work and escape poverty?
Relatively small, short-term costs in the form of adequate training, mentoring schemes and other bespoke support provision can reap great, long-term rewards for the people I have talked about, their communities and our economy. I suggest that the Government need to do more to address this pressing need.
People may have particular needs which must be met if they are to be present and play a part in the workforce. A very moving moment for me was when I heard about an employer working with a Mencap scheme who thought he was doing a favour by offering a work placement to a man with a learning disability but discovered that the presence of this man in the office led to a change of culture and people generally being nicer to each other because of his inclusion. This led to the organisation determining that it would always include someone with a learning disability in the office environment. Sometimes, the focus on productivity and efficiency can mean that we forget some of the softer skills that people can bring to the team environment in the workplace.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, this has been a varied debate with interesting contributions: the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, talked about the criminal justice system and how all this fits in; the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans talked about discrimination and how wearing that can be, as well as the importance of work at the end of life and the TUC voluntary charter; and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, spoke of how less than 6% of people with a learning disability are in employment.
I should declare my interests as set out in the register. The organisation I chair also works towards placing those it cares for in appropriate work settings.
At the end of last year, I attended a round table on health and ageing at the European Parliament. We looked at the human rights of the older person. It gave me an interesting insight into policy-making in the context of our human rights. I decided to pursue this line for this debate, so I hope noble Lords will excuse me if this sounds a little unusual.
Last week, mental health was discussed at the 41st session of the UN Human Rights Council. The noble Lord, Lord Bird, referred to this in his opening speech, and I thank him very much for instigating this debate. At the UN, the special rapporteur argued that good mental health and well-being cannot be defined by the absence of a metal health condition but must be defined instead by the social, psychosocial, political, economic and physical environment that enables individuals and populations to live a life of dignity, with full enjoyment of their rights in the pursuit of their potential.
One of our human rights is that of health, which of course includes good mental health, along with others such as participation in democracy, provision of adequate and suitable housing and education, a family life, access to justice, participation in society and workers’ rights. In many parts of the world, these are observed in the breach, but here in the UK—a wealthy nation and one of the founder signatories of the Universal Charter of Human Rights—there is no excuse if they are not observed.
There are protective factors such as social inclusion, community resilience, LGBT rights and rights for workers, as well as, interestingly, access to good housing and green spaces. On the other side of the coin are risk factors, including social exclusion, violence against the person, bullying, discrimination and poor working conditions. It is clear to see that these two kinds of factors are the determinants of good and bad mental health. They are easy to recognise and we can readily identify components of each, yet we struggle to amplify those protective factors and reduce the risk factors. All this fits neatly with the title and thrust of this debate.
This rights-based approach gives us a framework to work with. States have an obligation to respect, protect and fulfil all our rights, including our right to good mental health. National Governments may directly contravene the obligation by cutting benefit levels, failing to make suitable housing available and restricting education opportunities. In areas of low employment, we should not be surprised to find a greater than average incidence of poor mental health.
In England, health and well-being boards convened by local authorities are well placed to look at this issue in their local areas. Consisting of representatives from local government, health, police, the local LEP and the voluntary sector, they are well placed to identify risk factors for their areas and work together to mitigate them. Similarly, they are able to identify the local protective factors. Local authorities and the LEPs should identify local opportunities and local risks.
In 2017, Public Health England produced a toolkit to understand health and well-being at a local level, acknowledging that stable and rewarding employment is a protective factor for mental health, and unemployment and unstable employment are risk factors. This toolkit helps the health and well-being boards to produce their joint strategic needs assessment, which needs to be done on an annual basis. Of course, any local plan to improve mental health should be determined with the active involvement of service users and carers, and the local voluntary sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Coddenham, and Paul Farmer, the chief executive of Mind, wrote an excellent report called Thriving at Work, a review of mental health and employers, which was welcomed by both the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Work and Pensions. Its vision was to embed the following changes within 10 years:
“Employees in all types of employment will have ‘good work’, which contributes positively to their mental health, our society and our economy … Every one of us will have the knowledge, tools and confidence, to understand and look after our own mental health and the mental health of those around us … All organisations, whatever their size, will be … equipped with the awareness and tools to not only address but prevent mental ill-health caused or worsened by work; … equipped to support individuals with a mental health condition to thrive, from recruitment and throughout the organisation; … aware of how to get access to timely help to reduce sickness absence caused by mental ill health”.
And this would,
“dramatically reduce the proportion of people with a long term mental health condition who leave employment each year and ensure that all, who can, benefit from the positive impacts of good work”.
Can the Minister tell the House how far away we are at the moment from having a sustainable welfare and support system operating in tandem with the health system and partners across all authorities in England? Could she tell the House what stage we have reached with the vision of Paul Farmer and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson? And who is the Minister responsible?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for using the initiative he described to us at the start to seize the opportunity of securing this debate and giving us the chance to talk about these issues. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, for some very interesting speeches. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for some really thoughtful reflections on the interaction between mental health and employment, issues around stigma and discrimination, and the role of the Church and communities. There is so much more that one could go into.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for another piece of articulate advocacy on behalf of those with learning disabilities and autism. I loved that story about an employee and the impact that one person with learning disabilities can make. It reminded me so much of the lessons taught to us by the late and much-lamented Jean Vanier on how much we could all benefit by taking them on. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for a really interesting approach, talking about risks and interventionist factors and how we could use those on a rights-based agenda, as well as the existing health and LEP programmes we have to tackle these issues.
I am being quite literal. I want to look at the title of the debate and ask: do job security and inequality impact on mental health? What does the evidence say? There are two questions. First, does inequality have an impact? Yes, it does. There is clear evidence, summarised well by the Equality Trust, that a much higher percentage of the population suffers from mental illness in more unequal countries; for example, the evidence from the USA is that rates of depression in US states are associated with income inequality. The evidence and the academic side are clear. While I am here, it is worth noting that poverty is also a significant driver of stress and poor mental health, a point made by the right reverend Prelate. The 2016 report from the Mental Health Foundation and the JRF found that:
“Poverty increases the risk of mental health problems and can be both a causal factor and a consequence of mental ill health”.
Secondly, what about job insecurity? Various studies have looked at the impact of the nature of employment on mental health. I read one just this morning. Research by Menéndez-Espina et al, published in February, observed that,
“job insecurity … has direct effects on the different areas of mental health evaluated, in men as well as in women”.
Of course, the report of the UN rapporteur, which we have already heard about, draws attention to the fact that the way work is organised has profound and lasting social and psychological repercussions.
Does the UK have a problem with either inequality or job security? Yes, it does. The Equality Trust shows that, according to the most recent data from 19 OECD member states in the Luxembourg Income Study dataset, the UK is the fifth most unequal country and the fourth most unequal in Europe. Figures from 2016 show that the poorest fifth of society has only 8% of the total income, whereas the top fifth has 40%. The figures for wealth are even worse. We are not talking about poverty, but the figures on poverty show that it is rising and the problem is getting worse for those in and out of work.
What about job insecurity? A recent spate of company closures from retail to steel has put many people out of work and made other people very nervous about what is happening to their jobs. Also, we have 850,000 workers on zero-hours contracts, two-thirds of them stuck on them for more than a year. A TUC-commissioned poll of workers on zero-hours contracts found that more than half had had shifts cancelled with fewer than 24 hours’ notice. Nearly three-quarters had been offered work with fewer than 24 hours’ notice. More than a third have been threatened with not being given shifts in the future if they turn down work. It also found that only 12% get sick pay, only 7% would get redundancy pay and 43% do not get any holiday pay.
This is really stressful and insecure work. If you have no idea how many hours you will get each week, you do not know whether you can pay your rent or feed your kids. If you do not get sick pay or any other pay, you will be afraid to turn down work. You will go to work when you are sick or injured because you do not have any alternative. If you are threatened with not been given work if you turn down shifts, you will go even if you are not up to doing it. That is bad for people’s physical and mental health. Other TUC analysis found that those on zero-hours contracts were twice as likely to be working night shifts or seven-day weeks. They earn less per hour as well. This is not good work.
What is the Minister going to do about it? First off, does she accept this association between job insecurity and inequality on the one hand and mental ill-health on the other? If she does, I have some serious questions to ask. What might she do about it? Will the Government look again at the rights extended to workers on insecure jobs? Why should they not get the full range of rights that other workers do? If she is in the position to, will she look again at whether people should be presumed to be employed, with the burden of proof going on to the employer to show that they are not? Does she recognise that, in fact, most workers’ rights have been won by trade unions over the years? History shows that. The reduction in collective bargaining and unionisation in many sectors has been clearly associated with a reduction in rights. What will the Government do about that? Will she consider revisiting some of the anti-union legislation or making it easier for people to organise to get the rights they deserve?
Also, what will the Government do about addressing the fall in living standards, especially for those in low-paid work? What are they going to do about the inequality that has been revealed by the studies I have mentioned? Will the Government look again at the way they use the tax and benefits system to address inequality? What will they do about those who are in work, or those who want to get into work, but are struggling with mental health? All the evidence we have heard from people is that the nature of the assessment process they have to go through to get help—with PIP, for example, to get help with moving into work or trying to get help because they cannot work—actually makes people’s mental health worse.
I have personally sat down with someone who had an appalling time applying for PIP. She was turned down, but she got it on appeal. She said that the process was so bad for her mental health that she would never again apply for it, no matter how desperate she got. I know that that is a single case, but I have heard over and again that people find the process so stressful that something has to be done about it.
That is an amazing canter through what is there, but I suggest that if we take seriously the association between job insecurity and poor mental health, and between inequality and poor mental health, it is not enough simply to buy a much bigger box of sticking plasters. We need to tackle the root causes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for securing this debate. As usual, these Questions for Short Debate are too short as there is so much to say. I believe I have some good responses to all noble Lords, and I will do my best to answer their questions as I go through.
Both employers and the Government have a stake in the nation’s mental health. The Government provide the necessary health support, offer a safety net when they are out of work, and can ensure that employees have the right rights. Employers increasingly recognise that they have a crucial role to play in creating the healthy workplaces for employees to remain in work and thrive, in providing a supportive environment where employees can discuss health issues without stigma, and in helping people to return to work in the right way when they fall ill.
Mental health is a matter of national importance, and we are committed to improving mental health services by investing record levels in them, with annual spending reaching £11.98 billion last year. Targets in improving access to psychological therapies, or IAPT, are being exceeded. In March 2019, 99% of those completing treatment waited less than 18 weeks for their treatment to start in England against a target of 95%. In March 2019, 88.9% of people completing treatment waited less than six weeks against a target of 75%. In February 2019, this figure was 88.6%.
Under the NHS long-term plan there will be a comprehensive expansion of mental health services, with an additional £2.3 billion a year by 2023-24. This will give 380,000 more adults access to psychological therapies and 345,000 more children and young people greater support in the next five years. As the noble Lord, Lord Bird, said, early intervention is vital. We are going further by piloting a four-week waiting time standard for treatment, training a brand new dedicated mental health workforce for schools, and teaching pupils what good mental and physical health looks like. We encourage all NHS staff to undertake suicide prevention training with all NHS organisations to facilitate this.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care wrote to social media and internet providers on 26 January to express concern about suicide and self-harm content. He held a follow-up round table with them on 7 February 2019 to discuss the impact of the internet, particularly suicide and self-harm content, on mental health and well-being. Another round table was held on 29 April to discuss progress, and social media companies agreed to join and fund a strategic partnership with the Samaritans. That is close to my heart, as I used to chair the advisory board of the Samaritans. I do not think any noble Lords touched on social media, but it is a crucial part of the whole story behind mental health.
We know that too many people with a mental health condition do not participate as fully in the key activities of society, including work. The figures are stark: almost one in five working-age people in England has a common mental health condition, rising to almost one in two for people on out-of-work benefits. We know that people unemployed for more than 12 weeks are between four and 10 times more likely to suffer from depression and anxiety.
However, it is not good enough for people to be in work. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock: they need to be in good-quality work. The UK is leading the way internationally as we tackle challenges that have arisen as a result of new business models. The Government’s Good Work Plan represents the largest upgrade to employment rights in a generation. As laid out in the plan, we will legislate to improve the clarity of employment status checks to reflect the reality of modern working relationships; bring forward proposals on a single enforcement body for employment rights; introduce a right to request a more predictable and stable contract for all workers; and legislate to ensure workers get the full value of the tips they earn, except for those deductions required by tax law. Extending the right to a written statement to workers and making it a day one right will give people a better understanding of the employment relationship they are entering into and more information up-front about their rights and protections. Introducing a right to request a more predictable contract will help give workers more personal and financial security if they are seeking more predictable hours.
Good work supports our good health. It keeps us healthy, mentally and physically. It enables us to be economically independent and gives us more choices and opportunities to fulfil our other ambitions in life. Our Improving Lives: The Future of Work, Health and Disability Command Paper, published jointly in November 2017 by the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Work and Pensions, sets out a comprehensive strategy for achieving the Government’s challenging target of seeing 1 million more disabled people in work by 2027. Given the scale of this ambition, a key part of our programme is to achieve transformational change by focusing action in three key areas: welfare, workplace and health.
Employment rates are at historic highs. When I went to the UN in New York a couple of weeks ago, I was proud to be able to say that employment for people with disabilities has risen by around 950,000 in the past five years. I said that we in the United Kingdom focus on ability, not disability. I agree so much with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, said: those with disabilities have so much to contribute. If an employer is not employing someone with a disability, they had better watch out because they will find that the person they should be employing is employed by someone else. It is the right thing to do.
The Government recognise the crucial role of employers in creating mentally healthy workplaces. Too many people fall out of work because of their mental health, so we are asking employers to do more to prevent this. Last week the Government announced that a consultation on new measures to help employers better support disabled people and those with long-term health conditions in work will also be published next month. These measures will include reforming statutory sick pay, so that it is better enforced, more flexible—to encourage a phased return to work—and covers the lowest paid. As part of this consultation, the Government will consider how to achieve the appropriate balance of incentives and expectations on employers to create healthy, inclusive workplaces, and encourage employers to invest in occupational health support.
The Government remain committed to finding ways to help employers, especially SMEs, support their employees to return to work promptly from sickness absence. By working with our partners, including employers, this Government can continue to tackle poor mental health. This is part of building a country that works for everyone, and reflects what we have done as a result of the Stevenson-Farmer review, referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly. This was an independent review, set up in January 2017, into how employers can better support all employees, including those with mental health or well-being issues. It also set out a compelling business case for action, with a central recommendation that all employers should adopt a set of six core mental health standards to encourage an open and transparent organisational culture that supports employees’ mental health. These standards included developing mental health awareness among employees, encouraging open conversations—which are so important—about mental health and routinely monitoring employee mental health and well-being. It recommended that all public sector employers and private sector companies with more than 500 employees deliver mental health enhanced standards, including increasing transparency and accountability through internal and external reporting. Momentum is building around the challenge for all employers to adopt the core standards that lay the foundations for good workplace mental health, and for larger businesses to adopt the enhanced standards. Officials are working with a range of partners, including the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, large employers and charities, to monitor and review the effectiveness of the voluntary framework.
The Civil Service has embraced the framework. We are working with all government departments to support them in their ambition to publish against the framework in full this year. It will take time before we can truly call all our workplaces healthy and inclusive, but we have been encouraged by the level of engagement with and commitment to this agenda. In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, the Minister responsible for this review and its outcomes is my honourable friend Justin Tomlinson, the Disability Minister.
We also have to think about those who are out of work. The Government are committed, as far as possible, to supporting into work people with mental health conditions who are out of work. All our work coaches across the Jobcentre Plus network now receive training on supporting people with health conditions and disabilities. Additionally, the rollout of the Health and Work Conversation across the UK supports work coaches in continuing to build engagement with claimants who have disabilities and health issues. The Government continue to invest in mental health-related trials and studies; this includes doubling the number of employment advisers, improving access to psychological therapies and launching a £4.2 million challenge fund to build the evidence base of what works to support people with mental health and musculoskeletal conditions.
We are doing more. We have to think about people with debt. In response to a consultation, we are going ahead with a breathing space scheme. Debt causes enormous stress. This policy will make a real difference in supporting people with debt. In addition, the NHS provides services to people experiencing the symptoms of debt problems and financial difficulties.
Reducing inequality is so important as inequality can cause or exacerbate poor mental health. However, the policies of this Government are highly redistributive. This year, low-income households will receive, on average, over £4 in public spending for every pound they pay in tax, while the highest-income households will, on average, contribute over £5 in tax for every £1 they receive in public spending. Income inequality is lower now than it was in 2010.
Much has been done to increase awareness and reduce the stigma of mental health. The DWP is working increasingly closely with the Department of Health and Social Care but, as the noble Lord, Lord Bird, said, it must be joined up and be cross-government. Also, as the right reverend Prelate said, it is not just about government. We have to think beyond government to all those who can offer support, including our religious institutions. How can they support, and what can we use to help those with mental disabilities?
Finally, my noble friend Lady Redfern referred to those leaving prison. I have been in discussion with Secretary Acosta, the US equivalent of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, about what we are doing and what they are doing about employing people who have been in prison and what to do with people with disabilities. I heard a story of somebody in prison who was very well off; he had committed a financial crime. While he was in prison, none of the other prisoners ever asked him for money but almost every one asked him for a job. So much of this is about people having something meaningful to do, as well as being in a supportive society that recognises and understands mental health and is, not before time, removing a stigma, to support more people in a way that I hope will encourage the noble Lord, Lord Bird.
Apprenticeships
Lord Young of Norwood Green
That this House takes note of the Apprenticeship Levy and the case for the effective delivery of workplace opportunities for young people.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to move this Motion, focusing on an area in which I have a long and abiding interest, as most people know. I declare my interests, which are twofold: first, as an ex-apprentice, and secondly, as the only apprenticeship ambassador in the House of Lords, I think.
The objective of the apprenticeship levy is agreed by everyone: we want more good-quality apprenticeships. When the Government announced their intention to create 3 million apprenticeships in the parliamentary period up to 2020, a number of us expressed the view that the number of apprenticeships was not the most important thing for the Government to focus on; to paraphrase that old saying, never mind the width—we want to feel the quality of the apprenticeships. We have been proved right. It does not give me pleasure to say that. Most Governments have had a go at forming policies on skills and apprenticeships. We have had some success but some things have not gone so well. When Tony Blair announced that his three priorities were “education, education, education”, and decided that it would be a good idea, given the knowledge economy, for 50% of young people to go to university, that was good in itself; it certainly had an impact on social mobility. If it had a negative impact, it was by somehow implying that if you did not go to university, you were not quite up to the mark. That was not the intention but it shows how difficult it is to get policy right.
On quality, we had the Richards review—an important review that found, perhaps unsurprisingly, that some things that were badged as apprenticeships were only for six months and of poor quality. He rightly recommended a minimum level of 12 months—I would query whether even that is long enough—with 20% off-the-job training.
That is some of the background. When it started, employers viewed the apprenticeship levy with a bit of suspicion. Would it be just a payroll tax, or would it do what we wanted it to do: drive up the level of interest among employers and make them understand the importance of contributing towards training and apprenticeships? If nothing else, it focused their minds. If an employer’s yearly pay bill was £3 million, 0.5% of that was their apprenticeship levy. Soon, the finance department was nudging HR and saying, “What are you doing with it, where is it going?” In that respect, it was good.
However, when it started, it was disappointing inasmuch as the number of starts was much lower than we expected and lower than in previous years before the levy. That has improved and the Government argued, rightly, that would take time to bed in but it still has some worrying aspects, which I will cover later. The Sutton Trust made an interesting comment: never mind looking just at the number of starts—you also need to keep your eye on the number of completions. It is a bit worrying that 32% of apprenticeships were not completed; I think that that was in 2017. We will never drive that up to 100%; I remember that when we in the previous Labour Government started looking at this, the figure was pathetic. Completions were down to about 27% and we drove to that up to about 72% of a much smaller number. I welcome the Minister’s response on what he is doing to ensure quality control. That is question number one, which it will be important for the Minister to address.
I remember commenting on a number of occasions on the key role of training providers in the scheme. I expressed some concern when, at one point, it seemed that anybody could set themselves up as a training provider. I was told, “Don’t worry about that—Ofsted will be around”. I said, “Yes, but have you seen the periodicity of Ofsted inspections? They are every three years”. As a training provider, I could function for three years below the radar while providing poor quality—and some did. Some bigger ones went bankrupt as well. We have a better system now, with a register of training providers, but I cannot stress enough to the Minister the importance of ensuring that those providers are of a high quality. After all, they are the first port of call for employers; if their experience of training providers is that they are of poor quality—I am still getting some feedback—that tends to create a negative approach. Remember that with apprenticeships, when we talk about quality, it is a matter of not only what you deliver but the perception of what is out there. It is about the perception of employers, parents and potential apprentices, whether the younger or the adult ones. The quality of the brand is key if we are serious about improving the long-term role of apprenticeships.
I listened with interest to some of the debate on the Augar report, which I welcome because it stresses the importance of apprenticeships. The report points out that if 50% go to higher education, what about the other 50%? It is not as though there is no crying demand for skills in this country: whole swathes of industry are desperate for more skilled people. That may be in the construction industry or, as I learned recently—much to my surprise and real disappointment —in nursing, which is struggling to meet its target of 1,000 apprenticeships because, it was found, the funding arrangements made it really difficult. I do not necessarily expect the Minister to have the answer on that but, again, I welcome his commitment to look at the situation. We know about the demand for nursing so I cannot help feeling that the response, “That’s okay: we’ll rob other countries overseas, which are desperately in need of those qualified people, and use them”, is wrong. This should be a matter of our own respect: we ought to train and recruit these people ourselves.
The levy expenditure has, needless to say, been a matter of some interest to employers. For the past six months or so, people, myself included, have been going around saying, “If the average employer has claimed back only 15% of what they paid into the levy, there’s a large surplus, so what will happen to it? Will it just go back to the Treasury?” It took until a month or so ago for me to hear definitively from the National Apprenticeship Service that there was no surplus any longer because of the expenditure from the couple of years that preceded the levy on the existing frameworks and standards. If anything, it is likely that we have overspent. In a report to the Public Accounts Committee, the Education and Skills Funding Agency admitted that it would have to go back and renegotiate. From an employer point of view, that is a matter for worry when they were initially assured by the Government, “If you pay into the apprenticeship levy, you’ll be able to draw it out again”. It is quite a complicated formula when you go into it; I will not attempt to do so now.
I want to raise some further points, including on the question of higher and lower skills. In looking at the statistics, we found that the level 2s and level 3s have dropped quite significantly, while there has been a huge increase in the take-up at a higher level. I have nothing against that but when we find out the cost of those higher-level qualifications—some employers are using the levy to fund MBAs and so on—people are beginning to ask themselves, “Where do we want to focus apprenticeship funding?” I certainly think it vital not to neglect the level 2s and level 3s. They are a core area for young people, who will hopefully start their careers. We know that every young person who we can engage in an apprenticeship and remove from the terrible situation of being not in education, employment or training—who is horribly classified as a NEET—is a success story. It gives them a career opportunity that can set them off for life. I welcome the Minister’s views on this important issue.
I said in previous debates that the levy will not work unless we move the dial on SME take-up. If we do not manage to get a significant number of small and medium-sized employers to take up apprenticeships, they levy will have failed; large employers will give you only so many, so it is vital. The Government have tried to address that by saying that large employers can take 20% of their levy funds and help employers in their supply chain. Larger employers are telling me, “That’s all very well but I can’t just throw that money at them. It has to be managed, which takes time, and there is no allowance for that”. Another comment I have had is about functional skills. Employers say to me, “I’ve got young people who are potentially good at apprenticeships but I have to spend time in getting their English, maths and IT skills up to standard so that I know that they will complete an apprenticeship successfully”. Again, I welcome comments from the Minister on that issue.
There was also a bit of a hiccup, if that is the right word, in starting the levy in that it depended on the Institute for Apprenticeships and its trailblazer groups to determine the apprenticeship standards. It got off to a bit of a slow start, but it has improved significantly and the feedback is now better—except that employers say to me, “Over a two to three-year period, those standards will become a bit dated and I’ll need to amend them”. Trying to amend a standard is a difficult process; they are saying that there is not enough flexibility there. One retail employer with a lot of small stores also told me that it could recruit 500 more apprentices but has a problem in its small stores: if it releases an individual for one day a week, it needs to find some way to cover them but does not have that surplus capacity. That is another problem area.
A review of the apprenticeship levy is taking place, which is good. Like all large schemes, it needs reviewing. To say that the review is secret is probably an exaggeration but there is not enough transparency, let me put it that way. I keep hearing, “I am a large employer of apprentices. Why have I not been formally involved in this review?” I make a plea to the Minister, as I welcome his comments on the importance of involving employers in that process. That is important to retain their confidence.
We are asking a lot of employers: we are asking them to participate not only in the apprenticeship levy—do not get me wrong, they ought to do so because they should understand the importance of training the next generation; I am not letting them off the hook—but in T-levels, which are a fundamental change to qualifications where each participant requires 45 days of work experience a year. Some employers say to me, “What am I expected to do? Do you want me to concentrate on apprenticeships or deal with T-levels?” It is not all negative, and I do not want it to be perceived that way, but that is another problem.
I will end on what I said earlier about the importance of perception. I still see schools not giving their pupils the right careers guidance. They do not encourage employers to come in. We know that the Baker amendment made that a compulsion so, again, I welcome the Minister’s response on that. I am grateful for this opportunity to air what I regard as one of the most important subjects and challenges facing us. I beg to move.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, on securing this debate. It is especially timely, as it enables me to develop points I made in Tuesday’s debate on the Augar report, when I addressed apprenticeships, and enables my noble friend Lord Younger to say what he had intended to say in that debate, having run out of time just as he was about to comment on apprenticeships.
I declare my interest as an academic and as chair of the Higher Education Commission, which draws together people from business, academia and Parliament. Our most recent report, launched in January, was entitled Degree Apprenticeships: Up to Standard? We took evidence from sector leaders, as well as a wide range of higher-education organisations and employers, including IBM, Boots and BAE Systems. The importance of apprenticeships was reflected in the turnout for the launch of the report—there was standing room only—with our recommendations clearly resonating with those attending. The need for action is also clear from the briefings we have received for today’s debate from the Local Government Association and Sutton Trust.
As we found, there is widespread recognition of the value of apprenticeships. I quote Sir Chris Husbands, vice-chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University:
“An education system fit for the twenty-first century … must ensure the acquisition of both academic and technical skills… Students need that. The nation needs that”.
In short, the benefit is not confined to those taking apprenticeships. It benefits the economy and enriches society.
The problem, as the noble Lord has said, is with provision. There are difficulties especially, but by no means exclusively, for SMEs and disadvantaged students. The system of delivering apprenticeships is unduly crowded and lacking in flexibility and efficient co-ordination. We heard criticism of the Education and Skills Funding Agency’s procurement process, with many high-quality education institutions, across all levels of apprenticeship, not receiving funding to meet the needs of SMEs. The current funding regime is not fit for purpose. Under that regime we have a patchwork quilt of provision.
Our evidence showed that the artificial separation of levy and non-levy providers, coupled with a botched non-levy procurement process, has resulted in a lack of providers, particularly for SMEs. Among our principal findings was that, of 51 approved degree apprenticeship standards, almost half had no providers that are delivering to SMEs. There are problems also with the length of degree apprenticeships, the absence of stop-off points and the inflexibility of design, as the noble Lord touched on, which may result in a mismatch between provision and future skills needs.
The losers are not just SMEs, but students in areas of educational and economic disadvantage. We identified what we referred to as “apprenticeship cold spots”. We found that an aspiring apprentice from Norfolk, compared to someone from Hammersmith and Fulham, has to travel, on average, 12 times as far for the nearest apprenticeship opportunities. We concluded that what is particularly needed are stable funding arrangements, streamlined administrative procedures for the approval of degree apprenticeships and longer-term policy stability. There is also a need, as the Sutton Trust has noted, for pupils to receive advice on apprenticeships.
Among our recommendations are: creating equal access for SMEs by permitting HE institutions already delivering degree apprenticeships to big businesses to deliver for small businesses; creating a more agile bureaucracy and rationalising what are presently costly and repetitive processes for employers and providers; and speeding up the process for approving standards. We also favour offering additional financial support for prospective degree apprentices from cold spots and disadvantaged backgrounds. As I said in the debate on Tuesday, I very much welcome the Augar committee’s recommendation for a body of work that examines the challenges that are preventing SMEs taking up opportunities for degree apprenticeships. This very much mirrors our recommendation for such a review.
It is possible to make changes to render the system more flexible, integrated and quicker, and to do so without great cost. Indeed, in economic terms, the nation would be a clear beneficiary. Does my noble friend agree with the analysis I have offered, and could he say what the Government are doing to achieve these goals? I had a meeting not so long ago with the Minister for Apprenticeships, Anne Milton, so I know the Government are alert to the issues. It would be helpful to have a progress report on what is being done. The rewards, to students, to business—not least to small businesses—and to the economy are substantial.
The Motion refers to,
“the case for the effective delivery of workplace opportunities for young people”.
That includes apprenticeships but, in my view, can be taken more broadly. There is value in not seeing the delivery of workplace opportunities as confined to apprenticeships. It is important to recognise that such opportunities benefit students taking courses in HE and FE. In Tuesday’s debate, I referred to the value of experience-based learning. Having the opportunity to do a work experience placement as part of a degree course helps to build confidence as well as develop skills that employers want. Linking study with a placement facilitates understanding, as well as opening up opportunities of which the student may not previously have been aware. It prepares the student for life after graduation. That is all to the good and something we should be encouraging across HE and FE. There is a much greater recognition of its value than before, but we need to press further for recognition of its worth and status. If anything, it should be the norm and not the exception. I would welcome my noble friend’s endorsement of that view and invite him to comment on the work experience opportunities offered within government. How extensive are those opportunities and are there plans to extend them?
Like the noble Lord, Lord Young, I finish by returning to the point about advice. As the Augur review stresses, good information, advice and guidance are crucial for anyone seeking impartial advice about jobs, careers, routes of learning and qualifications. It argues that careers support is still underfunded and that schools should be held to account for their statutory responsibility to provide information, advice and guidance. For prospective students to take up apprenticeships, or degree courses with embedded work experience opportunities, they need to know about them. What plans are there to supplement the careers strategy and enable prospective students—from wherever they are drawn—to make informed choices? Does the Minister agree that failing to invest in providing such guidance is a false economy, the losers being not only the students but the nation, which needs the workforce necessary for a virile economy and a vibrant society?
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an officer in the APPG on Apprenticeships. I apologise for my voice today.
In a rhetorical flourish in 2015, David Cameron announced that the Conservative Government had set a target to support 3 million new apprenticeship starts by 2020. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, alluded to, that was building on a process that had already started, not least with the Richard review, which was commissioned by the coalition and set out a strong rationale for increasing the number of quality, well-managed apprenticeships. With that, and with my colleague Vince Cable in BIS, there was a flourishing of support for apprenticeships, with over 2 million new ones created between 2010 and 2015. Under the subsequent Government, the structure for delivering those changed and that is part of what the House is debating today. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Young, on securing this debate. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Norton. Much of what I am going to say—probably with less authority—rings true with the preceding speech.
Many noble Lords will talk about quality, but I will talk about numbers because that 3 million is the rod which the Government have set themselves to be beaten with. I am grateful to the Association of Employment and Learning Providers for its data. I apologise for going into some detail on the figures, but I want to put them on record. If there are any discrepancies, perhaps the Minister can write to noble Lords about them. In short, the overall start numbers are down significantly from the position we were in before the levy started. This is particularly true for non-levy payers and for apprentices aged under 25. This probably relates to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton. In March 2019, intermediate—level 2—apprenticeships were down 2% on March 2018, and down 67% from March 2017, which was before the levy. For advanced—level 3—apprenticeships there was an increase of 7% between 2018 and 2019 but that too was down, by nearly 49% on 2017. Higher-level apprenticeships are up 35% on 2018 but still down on 2017. It is clear that the target of 3 million that the Government set themselves is now unattainable. Will the Minister confirm that the target has been scrapped and that we can concentrate—as the noble Lord, Lord Young, wisely said—on the quality of what we are delivering rather than the quantity?
Interestingly, as has been alluded to, higher-level courses, including MBA degrees, accounted for 12.8% of workplace training starts in the first year. That is more than twice what was going on before the levy started. Management apprenticeships were the most popular, with 28,000 starts in 2017-18. This probably caught the Government by surprise. Was this what the Government were expecting, or has it been a surprise? This matters, because of money. These are expensive apprenticeships and there is a sense that non-levy payers are having the opportunity for apprenticeships drained by these highly expensive schemes which are coming through. It seems that funding for non-levy paying SME employers is running out and has been capped, with no funding to support any future growth between April 2019 and March 2020. Can the Minister fill in the dynamics of this?
As the noble Lord, Lord Young, alluded to, there is an overall lack of published data and transparency around this. Let us not forget that the levy is a contribution by business and industry to the Treasury. Industry deserves a transparent report on how the money is being spent and the plans for spending it in future. Perhaps the Minister can add some transparency to this issue. There have been authoritative reports that the Government have been mulling over an increase in the levy from 0.5% to 1%. Will the Minister use this opportunity to refute that? Given the current state of the scheme, to increase the levy would be adding petrol to a smouldering fire.
The spirit of this debate should be that there is universal good will towards making it work. The Government still have a lot of work to do to get industry to understand what is going on. The British Chambers of Commerce found that 23% of levy-paying firms still had no understanding of how the levy works and how to access funds. The Chartered Management Institute and British Chambers of Commerce called for the levy to be reformed. The House of Commons Education Committee has recommended the implementation of pilots. I will come back to that point. I spoke to people at today’s Make UK reception, where the main theme was that the scheme is too complicated and not flexible enough to be used. When the Government are considering their review, flexibility and simplicity have to be at its heart.
As a good example of flexibility, I was pleased to see today’s announcement of the ScreenSkills pilot. It has been almost impossible for firms that have short-term contracts to run apprenticeships. This pilot is very small, including only 25 people, but it is a good example because the creative and media industry is important to this country but is not currently using anywhere near the amount that it contributes to the scheme because of the nature of its contracts. I welcome that pilot, but we need others and other imaginative ways of adding flexibility and, perhaps, as other noble Lords have hinted, broadening the sorts of things that the levy can be used for. I will come back to that point.
Lifting the tight restrictions and adding flexibility is important for dealing with the issues of cold spots, which has been mentioned, and social inclusion, which is another important area. We need to make sure that we are not just putting the money into places where apprenticeships are already strong, and not just supporting companies in already strong industries. That tends to be the way this levy works.
We want to put vocational education, at whatever age, right at the heart of the political agenda. Every party understands that, with the challenges facing the country, we have to get that right. It should be a cross-party exercise. The economy is evolving and we need new skills. For that reason, the Liberal Democrats would seek to expand the scope of the apprenticeship levy to a wider skills and training levy to add flexibility that works. While keeping the contribution at 0.5%, we would use the cash raised, not just for apprenticeships, but for a wider training programme. However, we would allow companies to do that only if they had an acknowledged and accredited apprenticeship scheme as well, because we would not want all this money to fly out. The starting point would be that a company would have to have an apprenticeship scheme before it could use some other unclaimed money for that process. We would also ensure that 25% of the funds raised would go into a social mobility fund, which we would use to feed into the regions and the cold spots and to make sure that we have diverse apprenticeships.
It is a great shame that the apprenticeship levy has been implemented in a complicated and poor way. We need to make sure, together, that we can get it right. There is a review, but drastic changes need to take place and there is no time to lose.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
My Lords, I too am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young, for bringing this very important subject to our attention. Like him and both the noble Lords who have spoken, I do not suppose that anybody would argue against the value of apprenticeships, or the principles that undergird the apprenticeship levy. Indeed, the Church of England is a very strong supporter of both, as well as a significant contributor to the levy. If that is an interest, I am glad to declare it. We are keen to play our part in improving skills and increasing productivity throughout the UK workforce, as well as providing more opportunities for young people to find worthwhile employment.
In the earlier debate today we were reminded of the very significant connection between just such worthwhile employment and mental well-being. However, like the noble Lords who have already spoken, we do not believe that the process is yet as effective as it might be for achieving those laudable ends. I shall briefly mention four issues.
One of the main problems appears to be the speed at which the regulator is able to respond to the development of new standards. Our own church minister apprenticeship standard is one example. The standard itself, which has been in development since 2017, has been approved, but written confirmation of what is known as its endpoint assessment has still to arrive. There are also some outstanding questions about the allocation of its funding band. We understand that the Church of England is not the only so-called trailblazer to have experienced long delays while attempting to introduce new standards. To that end we all welcome a recent speech by the Apprenticeships and Skills Minister, Anne Milton, on exactly this issue.
Closely connected with the problem of speed is that of apprenticeship levy spending. The rules governing access to levy funds have been criticised, not least already this afternoon, as overcomplex and inflexible. Due largely to the sorts of delays I have mentioned, it is estimated that nationally, large employers, including the Church of England, are in effect losing as much as £12 million a month. We welcome the extension of the maximum levy fund payment from 10% to 25% for what are known as organisations and stakeholders in supply chains, which for us in the Church of England translates as parishes and dioceses, but at the same time we would appreciate a rather more realistic approach to the way such payments can be accessed.
A third matter of concern—it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Young, in his introductory remarks—relates to the need for provision at levels 2 and 3; in particular, for those young people who are just starting out in their careers and trying to find a place on the apprenticeship ladder. We have already heard various statistics, but since the apprenticeship levy was introduced there has been a 42% decline in the number of level 2 apprenticeships. This is not helped the formation of a clear apprenticeship pathway. As the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee has pointed out, it risks leaving behind people with lower skills and those from more disadvantaged communities. What is more, the recently published Augar review, which has been referenced already, called for,
“an efficient distribution of Level 3, 4 and 5 provision within reasonable travel-to-learn areas”.
That has particular resonance for those of us who live, as I do, in the more rural parts of England. I would be grateful to know from the Minister what plans Her Majesty’s Government may have for tackling the provision of lower-end apprenticeships, especially in the more remote and sparsely populated regions of this country.
Finally, as we have already been reminded, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I am aware that the original target of 3 million new starts by 2020 will not now be reached. I appreciate the new emphasis that has been placed on quality rather than quantity. Of course, quality is tremendously important, but that does not mean that numbers no longer matter. It would be good to know what sort of figure the Minister might regard as a suitable replacement target.
Lord Layard (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this debate because we are talking about the future of at least half of all our young people. For those who do not go to university, apprenticeship has always been the main route to a skill. It has also been the biggest source of social mobility in our country, but unfortunately in the 1970s and 1980s both our main political parties switched their focus to full-time education and apprenticeship nearly died in this country. Fortunately, things have changed, largely due to the Labour Government’s apprenticeships Act 2009, which followed a landmark report from the Economic Affairs Committee of this House. Apprenticeship is now eminently respectable, but still nothing like as available as it needs to be; nor is it sufficiently coherent.
I start with one of the most shameful facts that I have become aware of in recent years. Some 37% of our 18 year-olds are not in full-time education or workplace learning. It is an unbelievable figure and the background against which we are talking now. I want to talk in a long-term sense about what kind of system we need to build over the next five to 10 years to deal with the problem of the other half of our young people. We obviously have to offer them as clear a route through apprenticeship as we now offer the other half through university. Every young person knows how the university route works: if you qualify at one level you are, de facto, guaranteed a place at the next level up, and there is a unified and relatively simple system of making applications at each stage, including to university.
Consider the contrast with the apprenticeship route, which is as labyrinthine and unclear as could possibly be dreamed up—probably even more so. The opportunities come and go from year to year, with constant changes of funding and no unified application system. We have to create an apprenticeship route by which any young person who qualifies at one level can expect to find a place at the next level up, just as is the case if they go down the university route. There needs to be, as with the university route, a de facto guarantee of a place at the next level up as you go through the system.
I shall talk briefly about what the guarantee would be. First, it would concentrate on the level 3 apprenticeship. I propose a two-part guarantee: there should be a guarantee to any young person who satisfies some conditions of entry to a first level 3 apprenticeship. The conditions would be either five good GCSEs, including maths or English, or another level 2 qualification, or—this is important for universal access—a pre-apprenticeship certificate. The other bit of the guarantee has to be a free place on a pre-apprenticeship course.
In the 2009 apprenticeships Act, entitlements of this kind were given legal force, but these clauses were repealed by the coalition Government. I am not saying that we should reinstate legal entitlements, but we should have entitlements in our mind as a basis for all future planning of provision. As I argued in our debate on Tuesday, the way to guarantee an entitlement is to provide uncapped per capita funding for all the places needed. All apprentices in training with an approved provider should receive automatic per capita funding, on some tariff basis of course.
However, we cannot be sure that even that would generate enough places, because the employers have to be on board. We also need somebody making a major effort to find enough apprenticeship places. We know that there is currently massive excess demand for apprenticeship places, with many more people trying to find an apprenticeship than the number of apprenticeships that get started. That is why we have a National Apprenticeship Service. It is surely its job to deliver that kind of guarantee and find the places.
Let me say a little about who these are for—the question of age and level. The prime purpose of any apprenticeship system has always been to introduce young non-graduates into the world of work. We must keep our focus on that. It is absolutely incredible that 40% of apprentices now are over 25. This is a complete distortion of the fundamental concept of an apprenticeship system. The priority must be those aged under 25, and it must be, above all, for people not interested in going to university. They should be the priority groups. I suggest that at least 70% not of places but of funding should go to level 2 and 3 apprentices aged under 25: that is, no more than 30% should go to levels 4 and 5, and levels 6 and above should be funded by loans, just like all other degree courses. The Department for Education is in a position to impose these restrictions, and it should do so. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on restoring the apprenticeship system to its original purpose.
I will now move on to the application process. It is very difficult to get an apprenticeship, much more so than to get into a university, because there is no unified application system. We need one; it could be run by UCAS. A would-be apprentice would make a single application which would then get passed on from the centre to the local branch of the National Apprenticeship Service. It would then do a rough matching of a number of applicants to each vacancy and send those potential applicants to the businesses offering those vacancies, which then choose among them using their own further testing and interviews.
If we had a single application process, it would of course deal with the problem, as already discussed, of schools. Schools would have to operate that application system, just like they operate UCAS; they would have to tell people how to apply for an apprenticeship, if that is what they want, just as they have to tell them how to apply to a university. It would also help us in an operational way around the problem of information.
I end with a comment on the economics of the T-level, raised by an earlier speaker. We have been doing some research at the London School of Economics on the earnings gain that young people of a given type receive by going either into an apprenticeship or to a college to get the same level of qualification. The apprentices are earning 20% more than the people who take the full-time route. The apprenticeship route is the gold-standard way of getting a skill, because your learning is directly related to what you are doing at work.
Full-time education with a work placement is completely different. The employer is not so interested and does not have the same incentive to bring you on. That must be the explanation of the huge economic effectiveness of the apprenticeship system. Where there is any conflict, as there might be between supporting T-levels and apprenticeships, my vote is for apprenticeships.
We are discussing one of the weakest aspects of our whole national life. It is interesting to note that at 15 our students do as well in maths, science and literacy as those in France and Germany, but by the ages of 20 to 25 the bottom third or half have dropped right behind. This is the basic weakness in our social and economic system. Once young people have left school, we simply abandon a third or more of them. We have to do better and must do it soon.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, with his notable commitment to apprenticeships, on obtaining this debate and introducing it so comprehensively. It is a timely follow-on from Tuesday’s debate on the Augar review; on both occasions I have had the pleasure of following the noble Lord, Lord Layard.
Thinking about today’s debate, I have been asking myself: what is the apprenticeship levy for, what is it intended to achieve, and for whom? There seemed to be rather a lot of possible answers. It can be a means to promote personal development and social mobility by providing opportunities for individuals, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, to gain new employment-related skills. That might have been part of the rationale for setting the rather arbitrary target of 3 million apprenticeship starts. However, is it, or should it be, mainly aimed at younger people entering the jobs market for the first time, as the noble Lord, Lord Layard, suggested, or should it be about enabling people of all ages and experience to enhance their skills and move to a new level in their career?
The Government might say that the levy is focused on meeting the skills needs of employers, so they, or the market, should decide what apprenticeships should be available, and how they should be spread between attracting new job market entrants and upskilling existing employees. The Augar report suggests that the levy should help to address national objectives for tackling issues such as productivity and competitiveness, and therefore align with the Government’s industrial strategy. But many employers, including levy-payers in the devolved nations, and others who cannot use their payments to take on apprentices, such as the employers of temporary and contract workers, who are members of the Recruitment & Employment Confederation, may look at the levy just as a sort of hypothecated tax, designed to raise money to help pay for the Government’s skills-related policy initiatives but with no direct benefits for them. The levy does indeed begin to seem like a perfect policy for Boris Johnson, seeking to be all things to all people.
Therefore, my first point—with apologies to noble Lords, including the Minister, who heard me say something similar on Tuesday—is that it is hard to answer questions about how well the levy is working, and how it should be adapted and improved, in the absence of a clear strategic framework setting out what it does and does not seek to achieve, and how its effectiveness should be assessed.
Next, I will outline some issues with how the levy is working, to which I hope the Minister may give some answers, particularly as he has heard many of the same issues raised by many of the speakers in the debate already.
First, there is the question of flexibility, about which so many employers and indeed so many of your Lordships have expressed concern. The uses to which levy funds may be put are tightly defined, as is the amount that can be shared with other businesses in the employer’s supply chain—although the increase from 10% to 25% is welcome. The Augar review suggests that apprenticeships at level 6 and above, including degree apprenticeships, should be available only to apprentices who have not previously undertaken a publicly supported degree. This might help to address concerns that not enough levy funding is going to young people, especially 16 to 19 year-olds. There are suggestions, including from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that the levy should be redesignated as a skills and training levy, and made eligible to be spent on a wider range of skills development needs, not just apprenticeships. There are also issues about the processes involved in setting up apprenticeships: the lack of transparency in standard-setting; problems with end-point assessments, as the right reverend Prelate mentioned; and the amount of bureaucracy involved, which is off-putting to smaller firms interested in offering apprenticeships.
Other issues relate to funding. Not many levy-paying employers manage to use all their levy funds to provide apprenticeships. However, in trying to do so, they tend to focus on upskilling existing employees, and on higher-level, higher-value apprenticeships. Meanwhile it appears that the funding available for non-levy payers, which comes directly from government funds, supplemented by unspent levy funds, if there are any, shows signs of drying up. How much funding does the Minister anticipate will be available to support apprenticeships offered by non-levy paying employers, and what will happen when that money runs out?
In Tuesday’s debate, I raised the issue of making it easier for SMEs to take on apprentices. Specific mechanisms are needed for this purpose, such as apprenticeship training associations. I also hear that independent training providers, which provide much of the training for SME apprenticeships, are starting to worry about the financial risks involved in that route and are thinking about shifting their focus to larger employers, where their funding is more secure. I hope the Minister will be able to say something today—he ran out of time on Tuesday—about government plans for supporting SME apprenticeships. Perhaps he could tell us how the Government are working with the devolved Administrations and regional bodies to ensure that apprenticeship policies across all four nations are complementary rather than conflicting, and that they all contribute to the skills and workforce resilience needs of the UK as a whole.
Last but not least in my list of issues is the continuing need for awareness raising about apprenticeships, particularly among teachers and parents—a point strongly made in the briefing from the Sutton Trust, along with a recommendation to set up a UCAS-style portal for apprenticeship applications, which I would also support and which the noble Lord, Lord Layard, also spoke about.
I look forward to the Minister’s comments on these issues. I end by mentioning the second part of today’s Motion: the case for the effective delivery of workplace opportunities for young people. The Government’s statutory guidance for schools on careers strategy requires students to have at least seven meaningful employer encounters between years 7 and 13, and at least two workplace experiences by age 18. Students on the new T-level courses, starting next year, will have to spend a minimum of 45 days on an industry placement. This will require substantial commitments of time and resources by employers.
How does the Minister expect this demand to be met? Having had the experience of providing work experience placements in my own small business, and of persuading other employers to do so, I know how challenging this can be for smaller employers, but many will have to be engaged to meet the government’s targets. Is the Minister aware of organisations such as Speakers for Schools, and the similarly named but completely separate Founders4Schools, which are focused on arranging work experience placements at scale?
Founders4Schools runs a program called Workfinder, which has a particularly impressive and ambitious digitally driven approach, especially with fast-growing small businesses. Being digital makes for much better reporting, with greater transparency and accountability. Will the Minister explore how such initiatives can be incorporated into the Government’s plans for ensuring that the large number of workplace opportunities needed are provided and meet high quality standards? As a final thought, he might even consider whether work experience provision might itself be made eligible for levy funding. Many small businesses seem puzzled by why apprenticeships receive funding but work experience and internships do not. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Pidding (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, for securing this debate. Education is the engine behind social mobility. It provides opportunity and unlocks the potential that often resides unknown within people, particularly the young, across the country and can equip them with the tools to lift them out of poverty.
We are fortunate to live in a country that can boast some of the world’s largest pools of untapped raw potential and underutilised talent. Unfortunately, we have for too long not recognised how we can best draw out the full potential of our young people. I fear that we have moved to a one-size-fits-all approach, channelling generations of schoolchildren through the machinery of our university system, saddling them with debt and often failing to meet the needs that their talents genuinely deserve. I have no desire to disparage our university system, a system that is the envy of much of the world, but I want to illuminate the truth that it is not the best way to meet the needs of many of our young people. I have long advocated an alternative that can run parallel to the university system, offering opportunities to people whose skills and interests are not necessarily suited to university. It is a fact that people learn through different methods, and it is only sensible to reflect this in our education system.
The apprenticeship model is a genuine alternative to the university system, often proving far more suitable to the needs of both young people and business. That is why I welcomed the 2015 announcement by the then Prime Minister David Cameron that the Government would support 3 million new apprentice starts by 2020. This system offers the chance to many young people to learn practical skills and unlock their full potential, giving them the tools they need to improve their lives and the lives of their families. We must show young people that apprenticeships are an equally worthwhile option that will lead to long-term employment. That said, I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Young, that we need to ensure the quality of the brand.
Businesses have also benefited from the apprenticeship programme. The challenges facing many companies in the UK are complex, but lack of productivity and the skills gap of people leaving university are among them. They have recognised that education and recruitment need modernising to meet those challenges. For those reasons, many companies have embraced the apprenticeship programme. They have found that it has improved the diversity of talent and widened the pool of applicants. This is having a significant impact on both career and social mobility within companies.
Companies have also found that people who would otherwise not have applied for opportunities in their business are using the apprenticeship programme. I am sure that noble Lords will have read the briefing that the insurance company AXA sent. The take-up of apprenticeships there has resulted in a more diverse and creative workforce, which has positively impacted the productivity of its employees.
As a country, we need more highly skilled people. Given the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead after our vote to leave the EU, we need to ensure that young people, who will be the drivers of our economy, are given the best opportunity to succeed in the workplace. Simply put, their success is our country’s success.
I recognise that the Government’s apprenticeship programme is not perfect; relatively few policies translate in practice as the finished article. However, I hope noble Lords will agree—I believe I sense this mood in the Chamber today—that the aim behind the scheme is laudable and deserves to continue. That is why I am glad that steps have been taken to improve the system, with more money invested in the programme in 2017 through the apprenticeship levy. Nevertheless, I would like to see more emphasis on how this programme can be promoted as a real alternative to university and on its potential as a mechanism for social mobility.
Noble Lords may recall that last week I asked a Question to my noble friend the Minister about how we can improve and widen careers advice in schools. The noble Lord, Lord Young, followed up with a question sharing concerns and has touched on that again today, as have other noble Lords. We are not reaching all schools in talking about apprenticeships as a real possibility to be considered by our young people. We hear that employers still complain about some schools denying access to pupils to talk about apprenticeships and other career opportunities. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, said last week and again today, that is despite the Baker amendment and previous legislation. We must ensure that all schools meet their obligations to provide full career path options to their pupils. I have said in this Chamber before that if we want to create a ladder of opportunity, rather than a missed opportunity, we need to provide better career advice in schools on apprenticeships.
It is for these reasons that I welcome today’s debate and hope that both this House and the other place will continue to strive to improve this vital gateway for social mobility and for our young people to reach their full potential.
Lord Pendry (Lab)
My Lords, the House should be indebted to my noble friend Lord Young for giving us the opportunity to take another look at the apprenticeship levy scheme since its inception in 2017 and the pressing need for greater workplace opportunities for our young people.
I declare an interest in this debate: I began my working life as an apprentice in an electrical engineering firm, ironically here in Westminster. I have therefore known at first hand some of the benefits of apprenticeships as a means for young people to gain skills and experience in the workplace. My apprenticeship was coupled with two years’ national service in the Royal Air Force—another invaluable experience. The skills and discipline I acquired in those experiences stood me in good stead for another apprenticeship here in Parliament: being elected to the House of Commons and later ennobled in this place.
It is clear that we need carefully considered government support for apprenticeships to give opportunities to as many young people as possible, and the introduction of the apprenticeship levy by the Government in 2017 was, of course, a welcome start. To be fair to the Government, they have already recognised the need for some adaptions to that legislation. I particularly welcome the reduction in the amount that small firms have to contribute to the scheme, from 10% to 5%, so that smaller businesses are more supported.
But the scheme still needs to address many further issues. I am sure noble Lords, like me, have had expressed to them the concerns of the Recruitment & Employer Confederation that around 1 million temporary workers are locked out of the scheme. This leaves us in a position where large numbers of firms paying in to the levy and employing temporary workers are not able to use any of that money each year—a particular issue for sectors with acute labour shortages, such as our caring sector and others. The decline in the numbers of level 2 apprenticeship starts under the scheme in favour of higher-level managerial apprenticeships is also somewhat concerning, as is the drop in the quality of apprenticeships which we saw highlighted in the Augar review.
In the form that it was introduced, however, the levy has proved problematic in a number of areas, and as outlined by my noble friend Lord Young, after two years of the scheme this is a good time to look afresh at what changes need to be made. Over the past two years, the disappointing numbers of apprenticeship starts under the scheme has only continued, particularly among smaller and medium-sized firms, and the proportion of levy funds accessed by employers has been lower than expected. As even the Education Secretary himself admitted, the Government are subsequently not on track to meet their target of creating 3 million apprenticeships by 2020. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, also commented on that in agreement.
A whole range of employers and organisations, not least the British Chambers of Commerce, pointed to the rules of the levy being too complex and rigid as a key contributing factor to this sorry state of affairs, and it stressed to us both the need for greater flexibility in the use of funds and a greater effort by the Government to increase understanding of the levy itself. It is clear that the Government should take action to prevent the levy being used to simply up-skill existing employees, and to prevent rigid target chasing resulting in increased numbers of low-quality apprenticeships.
I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, expressed in the debate on Tuesday that, as a body principally primed to regulate our state education, Ofsted may not be best placed to regulate the quality of employer and industry-driven apprenticeships. Being the son of my predecessor at the Football Trust, whom I succeeded as chairman, it did not surprise me that the noble Lord speaks so knowledgably on this and other subjects. He and others, such as my noble friends Lord Blunkett and Lady Blackstone, spoke in Tuesday’s debate compellingly of the extent to which the Augar review highlights the great neglect of our further education that we have seen in recent times. I hope that, as such an important aspect of further education, apprenticeships and the further reforms to the levy that are needed will not be neglected by this or subsequent Governments.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico (Lab)
I too thank my noble friend Lord Young of Norwood Green for introducing this debate. I declare an interest as a board member of a multi-academy trust in Cambridge and vice-chairman of one of the university technical colleges set up under the auspices of the Baker Dearing Educational Trust. I also have past form: until recently I was chancellor of BPP University, which is a provider to most of the big law firms and accountancy firms of the teaching of degree-level apprenticeships.
I was unable to take part in the debate on Tuesday this week on the Independent Panel Report to the Review of Post 18 Education, but I take this opportunity to congratulate the panel, its chairman Philip Augur and his DfE team on their work. The opening paragraph ought to resonate with us all. For those of us who have forgotten since Tuesday, it states:
“Post-18 [or ‘tertiary’] education in England is a story of both care and neglect, depending on whether students are amongst the 50 per cent of young people who participate in higher education (HE) or the rest”.
The report goes on to say that,
“universities and university students are both cared for and cared about”,
adducing the fact they receive over £8 billion in funding and most of the media comment and attention—and, for that matter, most of the political attention too.
In the debate on the Higher Education Bill in 2017, 180 Members of your Lordships’ House, many of them chancellors of universities, spoke, whereas in the debate on the Technical and Further Education Bill, which set up the Institute for Apprenticeships, now IfATE, 18 Members—fully 10% of the number of Members who spoke on universities—spoke on a Bill which sought to increase opportunities for the other 50% of our children. It seems to me that the independent panel was right on the button in its opening comments.
As my noble friends have noticed, apprenticeships historically were how most people gained employment and qualifications and were a prime instrument of social mobility. The huge increase, now up to 50% of our young people, mandated by Governments particularly over the past 10 years, has rendered apprenticeships less important to many of our learners. However, they are key to improving productivity, which has stalled, at least in part because of skill shortages, and they retain their importance for increasing social mobility, which also seems to have stalled.
The big success story in increasing apprenticeships has been degree-level apprenticeships. I have a problem with them. Speaking as an ex-provider, degree-level apprentices are mostly not new employees; they are being used publicly as a substitute for employing graduates. Many big firms prefer to take on apprentices at 18 rather than graduates at 21 because they can train them properly and in a way that is useful to them. These apprenticeships are immensely popular with students and their parents because the apprentices emerge free of debt and with a guaranteed job or a recognised qualification.
One large accountancy firm, for example, writes that it is now tending to reduce the number of graduate trainees in favour of the 18 year-old apprentices so they are now about half and half. However, while these are new apprenticeships, they are not new employees. These are not, in some sense, new opportunities. Mostly, as Augar points out, these degree-level apprenticeships are operated by large firms in service industries—I do not know how much they are substituting for graduate trainees—but there are also employers in manufacturing industry who run successful schemes, Rolls-Royce being the prime example.
It would be easy to conclude that a degree-level apprenticeship conveys automatic advancement to a good skilled job, and that at that level very little care or state intervention is required to ensure that the learners succeed. However, having been chancellor of BPP University, which teaches accountancy and law, principally, for students on degree-level courses, I can say that it is not entirely problem free. The Government have sought to mandate that 20% of these apprentices’ time must be spent in formal learning, but we found that it could be very difficult to extract competent young people who are earning money for their employers—ironically, often on government contracts—to ensure that they get the time off for formal learning. It is difficult for any training provider to insist on a large and profitable client releasing its people for 20% of their time, but it is vital for the learner. I would like to be clear that that would be enforced. In 2017, I urged the Government to mandate it in statute, but they preferred to do it by mandating IfATE. I am sure that it remains necessary that training providers for these degree-level apprenticeships be regulated and considered, even though many university departments, as well as the private sector trainers, are training providers.
I think there is a risk here, as identified by Skills Minister Anne Milton. She was concerned that it would mostly be educated middle-class parents who got their children to take up apprenticeships. I agree with this perception. My experience of parents’ evenings at the university technical college of which I have the honour of being a governor, and which produces both BTEC and STEM A-level pupils, is that it is the middle-class parents who are looking forward to qualifications post A-level, with a view to getting their offspring on to these apprenticeships. I think that growth in this sector will, if not interfered with, take care of itself, but it needs to be looked at with a view to introducing regulation. I am concerned that these are expensive degree-level apprenticeships and they drain the available levy provision.
The problem lies with increasing apprenticeships that convey level 2 to 5 awards. As Augar identified, there is a gap everywhere in level 4 and 5 provision that stands in the way of progression beyond level 3 for many of our young, and that goes also for apprenticeships. There are very few apprenticeships at levels 4 and 5, and they are urgently needed to enable progression beyond level 3 for those who do not for one reason or another go on to university.
Perhaps even more critical is the shortage of level 2 and 3 apprenticeships, although in Cambridgeshire several sixth-form colleges are providing proper skills training in subjects such as healthcare and hairdressing. They take students to level 3 and, indeed, provide a de facto qualification that will get them into a skilled job. However, full apprenticeships have a role to play at this level, particularly for students from low-income homes, where the cash earned by the learner is critical. That is also true of level 2 apprenticeships. The cash is a great help, particularly to low-income families.
During the passage of the Bill, I and colleagues, including four former Secretaries of State for Education, found ourselves wondering whether employers could be expected to pay enough attention to the social need to involve all our young. Back then, we were not confident. We all understood that employers have their own agenda, and several of us, including my noble friend Lord Young, who introduced this debate, were particularly doubtful that levy funds would be used by employers to set up new apprenticeships at the lower level to enable more of our young to progress.
It is clear that we were right to be doubtful. It is clear, too, that many employers decided to recoup any levy funding that they provided by taking the easier route of using the funding to train people they already had up to and including the level 6 qualification—the degree-level apprenticeship. A briefing paper from the Royal Academy of Engineering—received, I imagine, by most of us—makes my point for me. The academy asked for the levy to be made more flexible so that it could be spent on different things. That, to me, is a clear sign that it is not really intending to spend it on exactly what we asked it to be spent on.
That is not to castigate employers, who need to look after their businesses, ensuring that they are profitable and improving productivity. However, they would prefer to do it naturally, rather than enter the difficult field of taking on new apprentices, perhaps in a part of the organisation that does not have them already. Nor do I think that you can make employers responsible for engaging in improving the social process. That, I believe, is a matter for government, requiring government weight and money behind it. We have heard that, disappointingly, much of the levy fund has been drained. The one question that I would like to ask the Minister is whether he is prepared to see an increase in direct funding to enable these apprenticeships to take place.
In short—it had better be short, as I can see that I am running out of time—I welcome the opportunity afforded but I think that it is going to the wrong place. By and large, it is going to existing employers, who are using it to upskill—in a way that is fine; it is not a waste—and to degree-level apprenticeships, which, I agree with Augar, ought to be financed under the normal loan rules.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for initiating this debate and doing it so comprehensively. I agree with most of the points made so far and agree with all the speakers that this is a very important debate, because it is really about social mobility.
Apprenticeships should not be seen just as filling skills shortages and meeting employer needs; they should also be about training and giving young people skills that will help plug the gaps currently within the system, and equipping individuals to reskill and retrain in a fast-changing economy and labour market. As I said, the issue is social mobility but, as we have already heard, social mobility has become almost stagnant.
The Government’s commitment to 3 million apprenticeships by 2020 is admirable. But if placements do not fulfil business needs, if quantity is preferred over quality, if standards vary and the placements are not achieving their objectives, then we must ask whether apprenticeships are working effectively. Are they are fit for purpose to meet changing needs?
The current levy system is undermining the purpose of the entire strategy. Some up-skilling, particularly at lower skill levels, is less expensive to run through the system and may be more attractive in terms of volume. Evidence shows that two-thirds of apprenticeships are estimated to be merely “converting” existing employees and certifying existing skills. If these apprenticeships are not delivering the skills required, the levy is not doing its job either for business or for young people; neither are being best served.
There is also great difficulty for employers in using the system, especially if staff do not fit the compulsory apprentice profile. The system is overly complex, and staff such as agency or temporary workers who do not fit the apprentice template are unable to avail themselves of apprenticeship opportunities. Often, agency workers are filling a gap in the workforce and are unlikely to be in a position long enough to undertake training alongside the job itself. Reports have shown that there is underclaiming among employers who pay into the fund, with only 9% having claimed in the year 2017-18. Perhaps this mismatch between employers who pay in and the lack of staff who fit the profile are part of the reason; it would be helpful to know.
Standards were brought in by the coalition Government in 2013, but as of 2018 only 360 of a potential 600 have been approved. This leaves a marked lack of variation in apprenticeships. If we are to improve this aspect of apprenticeships, we need to know what is going on with the approval system and when approvals are likely to be completed.
Then there is the question of low take-up by minorities, which is around 10%. We need to know why the numbers are so low and what can be done about it.
Access to good-quality, appropriate apprenticeships should be a priority. But too many are failing to provide sufficient training or access to skilled work to enable progression; the focus is on numbers rather than hard, sustained work to improve quality. Numbers, targets and the apprenticeship levy have too often encouraged the creation of apprenticeships that are simply a rebadging of lower-level training, with companies accrediting the existing skills of their current staff. Students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are less likely to go to university and more likely to drop out. To increase their career opportunities, there is a real need for quality apprenticeships.
As well as a lack of quality, there is a lack of awareness. According to the Sutton Trust, two-thirds of young people say that they would be interested in doing an apprenticeship, yet 40% say they have never had a discussion about apprenticeships with a teacher. There is a need for better awareness and careers advice and to dispel the perception that apprenticeships are a less attractive alternative to university. The Sutton Trust recommends that the Institute for Apprenticeships and the levy should have a widening access function to ensure access to advanced and higher apprenticeships for those from less advantaged backgrounds, and that there should be adequate funding for apprenticeships in non-levy-paying employers. It also recommends a UCAS-style portal for admissions, which could be a step change for the further and higher education sector. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government will give positive consideration to these recommendations, which are about widening access?
Finally, apprenticeships should be seen not just as something designed for skills for work but as a new type of qualification training, as part of the broader education and training landscape, equipping individuals for the changing nature of work and increasing the capacity of employers to adapt and improve skills and productivity at the pace the country needs. The time has come not just to improve the operation of apprenticeships but to make them less complex and more accessible and to see them as part of a broader further and higher education landscape, taking into account the changing landscape of employment. While any review should rightly look at the detailed operation of apprenticeships, looking at the approach, and making them more agile and dynamic, will be very important to meet the new needs of the country.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Young on this initiative and securing this important debate on apprenticeships. I also welcome the generally positive, constructive tone on apprenticeships and the role they play in our society, which I think all speakers have demonstrated in their contributions. There has been plenty of critical support, and plenty of criticism, but overall this has been given in the context of supporting more being done and improved systems being developed for delivering apprenticeships.
As my noble friend Lord Layard said, vocational training has not been a British success story for some time. Institutions have come and gone. In my working life, I have been associated with: the industrial training boards; the Manpower Services Commission, which was a bit of a favourite of mine until it got swamped by high unemployment, which it had to concentrate on; and, in England, the Learning and Skills Council, which flared briefly before it was put to sleep. They all started brightly and enthusiastically, with good people driving them, but all have ended up in the Whitehall graveyard, having been regarded as institutional failures, with a lot of bewilderment out there about what vocational training and education really is and what institutions are around to deliver it. As several noble Lords have said, the contrast with higher education is absolutely glaring.
As we consider the current review of the apprenticeship levy, it is important to remember that we have a record of failures. It is important to ensure that we learn from those and that the current initiative does not end up in some gloomy Whitehall graveyard. It does not deserve to do so, despite some clear problems which have been referred to. The levy was a bold idea and an ambitious intervention in the British labour market in an era when there were not many interventions, except against trade unions. It needs buttressing and some determined, enthusiastic support in this review to establish the objective of an apprenticeship culture and a clear system in our society and our country. I am not surprised that there have been problems, but I hope they do not weaken government or industry support for developing and pushing forward the apprenticeship route.
I know of some of these problems from the TUC, with which I am associated. One problem that has not been mentioned so far is the fact that some employers are frankly exploiting some apprentices. According to the Government’s own survey of apprentices’ pay, one in five are not receiving the legal minimum of £3.50 per hour. In some sectors the picture is far worse, with particular black spots being hairdressing, childcare, construction, health and social care and, perhaps surprisingly, sport.
In addition to these wage problems, there are other financial barriers. Many young people from lower-income families face pressure not to participate in an apprenticeship because eligibility for child benefit ends when they take one up, which is not the case if the young person continues in school or college. I certainly do not want to convey the impression that apprentices are being widely abused—they are not—but breaches of the rules are widespread enough to damage the attractiveness of apprenticeships in the eyes of some young people and their parents. Marketing people would say that the brand is being damaged if the backsliders are not brought into line.
Another area of concern, which others have touched on, is the quality of the training provided on some schemes. Astonishingly, the Government’s own survey found that 30% of apprentices were not even aware that they were apprentices and that they were on a course. I found that absolutely astounding. Many in this category are in the poorer-quality schemes, or sometimes are existing employees recruited into an apprenticeship to upgrade their skills. The Government’s move to regulate that apprenticeships must last at least 12 months has been a very welcome step and eliminated the very short apprenticeships that were developing rather quickly. It has undoubtedly reduced the quantity of apprentices, but I would choose quality over quantity in this respect every time. The average duration is now 17 months—still much less than the average in high-quality European neighbouring countries such as Germany, Austria and Switzerland.
It was a few years ago now, but I visited a motor mechanics’ training centre in Vienna, supported by all the major car manufacturers with their dealerships in that city and region of Austria. They had wonderful facilities. What really surprised me was that most of the teaching was done in English, to level 2 and level 3 young people. They were working in English because the drawings, handbooks and so on were in that language. We should be aiming at raising our standards to these levels. That is the central task.
In addition, I would like to see widening access so that women, black and ethnic minorities and the disabled get a chance to access high-quality schemes, not just the ones at the lower end. Currently, only 4% of engineering apprentice starts are women, and women and girls are disproportionately found in the lower-paid sectors, such as hairdressing and social care. This problem needs urgent attention.
I hope the Government will bear the many constructive points made in the debate in mind as they conduct this review. They must not throw the baby out with the bathwater, though, and instead concentrate their efforts on raising the status, and increasing the attractiveness, of apprenticeships. This means tackling abuses and low standards and developing a clear route so that teachers, parents and young people understand the way to go. It means working closely with unions and educational bodies and, of course, with better employers, who are crucial to raising the standards of the various offers. It also means being flexible and responsive to the points raised by employers about the administration of the scheme, for example by relaxing the time limits of when employers have to spend their levy payments, perhaps beyond the current 24-month limit.
Getting the balance right between flexibility and good administration is not easy and there is always a risk of abuse by the unscrupulous, but our basic message should be to rally round the great cause of promoting effective apprenticeships. Do not consign the concept to that Whitehall graveyard of failed institutions on vocational learning. It will take time to develop a culture in which an apprenticeship is the natural way for many people to go and equal to the best the academic world can provide, but let us apply ourselves with patience and skill to bringing about this much-needed change.
Baroness Nye (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Young for initiating the debate and displaying, once again, his long-standing commitment to the cause of apprenticeships. It is a little daunting to follow my noble friend Lord Monks, who has a wealth of experience in this field, but he and everyone else taking part in the debate share a commitment to apprenticeships, which help people of all ages to realise their full potential. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Young Women’s Trust, a charity that supports young women aged 18 to 30—especially those struggling on low or no pay—in getting into work that is right for them. I will concentrate mainly on how apprenticeships can provide workplace opportunities for young women, but also on some of the difficulties that they face.
Last year, the Young Women’s Trust commissioned research that found some optimism but discovered significant challenges and showed that apprenticeships are not working as well for young women as they are for young men. In the YWT ComRes poll, more than three-quarters said that they were struggling financially and had considered, or were, dropping out because they could not afford to continue and were in debt. That is because, as my noble friend Lord Monks said, the level of the apprenticeship minimum wage is a considerable hurdle for many young people taking up an apprenticeship. Among others, the Federation of Small Businesses has called for the apprenticeship minimum wage to be increased—albeit potentially in a phased way—to boost the attractiveness of apprenticeships as a career option for young people, including convincing their parents, who play an important role in young people’s decision-making.
I hope that the Minister will say something in his speech about how apprenticeships are assessed on completion because there seems to be a concentration on the number of starts, but not on the end result or why people have given up. Apprentices with children, the majority being women, face almost insurmountable problems due to childcare costs. There are also cases of maternity discrimination, where apprentices are forced to leave by their employer when they become pregnant. Part-time apprenticeships could ease that problem; there is an appetite for them among employers. In a survey of human resource decision-makers, carried out by YouGov, more than half the employers polled said that they would be willing to offer part-time apprenticeships. That figure rose to 65% in the public sector. What are the Government doing to promote the idea of part-time and flexible apprenticeships, which would go a long way to enabling parents to access apprenticeships?
It was disappointing to see from the poll that some employers continue to treat apprentices as second-class citizens, as my noble friend mentioned, with three in five apprentices saying that they were paid less than non-apprenticeship colleagues for doing the same work. If receipt of training is the justification for lower wages, that training needs to be of a high quality. For example, a 20 year-old level 2 customer service apprentice who talked to the YWT said that when there were staff shortages at Christmas, the extra hours were put on to the apprentices because they were cheaper. However, despite the extra hours worked, when the Christmas pot was shared out, the non-apprentice staff got the greater portion. She left that apprenticeship because she felt that she was being treated as cheap labour. She then got a national minimum wage job; it doubled her pay but she gets no training.
Many of the young women spoken to had no option but to live with their parents due to low pay, but that had a knock-on negative effect on the benefits that the family received. The Education Select Committee recommended that the Social Mobility Commission conducts a study into how the benefits system could address this issue. I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether the Government will act on that recommendation.
Another challenge was the cost of travel to work, especially in rural areas. The Education Select Committee’s report also highlighted this and called for travel support, as did the 2017 Conservative Party manifesto. What progress has been made in meeting that manifesto pledge to introduce significantly discounted bus and train travel for apprentices? Some employers offer loans to apprentices to help cover rental deposits or annual travel passes. Will the Government consider building on that good practice by setting up bursary funds? Where employers are unable to meet those costs, the bursary would go some way to improving access for poorer apprentices.
Progression is also uncertain, as my noble friend Lord Layard mentioned. Two in five of the young women who completed an apprenticeship in the past two years are now unemployed or working in a sector not connected to their apprenticeship. If they finish their apprenticeship, women continue to earn less than men for years afterwards. For example, a man on a level 3 apprenticeship will earn a median wage of £26,200 compared to £16,600 for a woman—a 50% difference in the man’s favour. This goes back to what does or does not happen in schools. Careers advice must deal with the current gender segregation, where young women are directed into sectors with low pay and young men into higher-paid sectors with better training. While the numbers of male and female apprenticeship starts are almost equal, only 9% of female apprentices are in engineering and manufacturing, compared with 80% in health, public services and care. It would surely make a difference if there were more taster courses and work experience for young people, so that young women could visit male-dominated workplaces to see that there was no reason not to consider those occupations. For instance, the UK tech sector is growing 2.5 times faster than the overall UK economy, and will continue to grow, but only 19% of the people working in that industry are women.
Careers advice does not always sing the praises of the benefits of apprenticeships as a route to work and educational progression. The Sutton Trust report says that 40% of young people have never had a discussion with a teacher about apprenticeships, while the IPPR found that two-thirds of schools still flout the Baker clause. The Sutton Trust also recommends a UCAS-style portal for apprenticeship admissions, which would change the situation if the information is currently scattered and inconsistent. It would allow young people to make informed choices about the opportunities available to them and allow progression between the different levels. That UCAS-style portal is not only supported by Members of this House who have spoken this afternoon; it was another Conservative Party manifesto commitment. When the Minister talks about the other commitment, perhaps he can update us on this one too.
However, as my noble friend Lord Monks said, we should be more positive and be reminded of what a difference an apprenticeship can make if it goes as it should. I want to share the story of the Young Women’s Trust apprentice of the year, 20 year-old Georgie Yates. After her A-levels, she started as an apprentice on the BBC’s legal scheme. Initially, she lived at home and commuted for two-and-a-half hours to Manchester every day. She joined the BBC’s next generation committee, which gave her an opportunity to give a presentation to the director-general about life as a BBC apprentice. She took that opportunity to tell him how hard it was to manage on an apprenticeship wage. He said that he would take up the issue and, from that meeting, all apprentices across the BBC received a 14% pay rise—you can see why she was the apprentice of the year.
Georgie is about to start her level 7 solicitor apprenticeship and will fully qualify as a solicitor in 2025. She says:
“It’s genuinely not an overstatement to say that this apprenticeship has altered the trajectory of my life. I have learnt so much and being at work has given me a sense of stability, safety and value”.
That sense of stability, safety and value is what we want for all young people starting apprenticeships at all levels. We must invest in the workforce of tomorrow if we are to close the productivity gap and boost our competitiveness. We need more stories like that of Georgie Yates.
Baroness Osamor (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure and privilege to participate in this important debate secured by my noble friend Lord Young of Norwood Green. Once upon a time in Haringey we had Tottenham Technical College, where our young people did apprenticeships as car mechanics, bricklayers, hairdressers, dressmakers, plumbers and carpenters. They were on day release and so on. The discipline and skills they acquired helped not only their own careers and families but everyone on and around the Broadwater Farm estate, especially when the council put forward a plan to pull down their homes amid tensions on the estate.
They organised professionally and persuaded the council to work with them to keep the estate open. They took leadership positions in the residents’ association and set up a youth association to tackle anti-social behaviour. They reopened closed shops and set up an enterprise workshop, a co-op store, a nursery and a mothers’ project. Help and recognition came from all over, including from our councillors, the late Bernie Grant, Jeremy Corbyn, who is now my leader, and a government Minister for Inner Cities, Sir George Young—now the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. They recognised that the youth and the work they were doing needed encouragement. I organise alongside these dynamic young people, so I know the importance of employer-led training, both to improve life chances and to meet our growing skills gaps. For these reasons, it is imperative that Labour continues to support the apprenticeship levy.
That said, we are all aware that the current government apprenticeship programme has attracted significant criticism, including from the National Audit Office, for its ongoing failure to attract applicants—numbers have declined by 120,000—and to provide social progression and diversity. This is despite the Department for Education meeting its targets to widen participation among underrepresented groups, such as black, Asian and minority ethnic apprentices, as well as those with learning difficulties, disabilities or health problems. The reason for the criticism is that the targets set by the DfE lack ambition and are not sufficiently stretching. For example, the target for starts by BAME apprentices, at 11.9%, is lower than the working-age BAME proportion of England’s population, at 14.9%, and much lower than the proportion of BAME pupils at the end of key stage 4, which is 20.7%.
The Public Accounts Committee has also called on the Government to prevent the apprenticeship levy system being misused by businesses to upskill existing employees. I would be grateful if the Minister could please explain: first, what steps are the Government taking to set and meet more challenging targets to increase the number of apprenticeships started by underrepresented groups; and secondly, what work is being undertaken to understand the barriers to entry for each different segment of these underrepresented groups?
A second reason why criticism has been levelled at apprenticeships is that there has been a marked shift from intermediate and advanced-level apprenticeships to higher-level, more academic apprenticeships, which take the place of HE undergraduate degrees or simply upskill young people already in work. The proportion of starts at advanced level or higher has steadily been increasing, from 37% in 2011-12 to 57% in 2017-18. Given that a range of voices—trade unions, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Sutton Trust and so on—are calling for the Government to make changes, please could the Minister explain: first, what are the Government doing to tackle the significant decline in level 2 and 3 apprenticeship starts; and secondly, how do they plan to address the recommendations made by the Federation of Small Businesses, which, in its recent Fit for the Future report, said that the Government need to reduce the administrative burden to address a sharp decline in apprenticeships being offered by small and local businesses?
The unions have always argued that the Government’s apprenticeship scheme is profoundly unfair because it excludes young people without five GCSEs at grades A to C. This immediately presents an advantage to people from privileged family backgrounds over those in poverty. In view of the findings of the Government’s recent race disparity audit, can the Minister outline what the Government are doing to break down systemic and structural barriers to entry into apprenticeships? In particular, will the Minister confirm whether he has explored a personalised budget approach to apprenticeships, in which every young person has access to a fixed amount of funding to obtain whatever level of apprenticeship experience they need?
The unions have also run a national campaign arguing for apprentices to be paid fairly, so that young people from low-income households are not priced out of the scheme. Given that businesses such as Ikea already pay their apprentices the real living wage—£9 per hour with a London-weighted uplift of £1.55—will the Minister confirm when the Government plan to adopt the real living wage across the apprenticeship scheme?
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for introducing this debate and all those who have sent us informative and helpful briefings. There are too many to acknowledge but all have been read. The noble Lord is, of course, a real-life apprentice—as is the noble Lord, Lord Pendry—and is an enthusiastic supporter of apprenticeships. I go to any number of apprentice events and he is always there; I suspect he goes to others where I am not. I share his enthusiasm and can only wish that schools had more incentive to encourage their students into apprenticeships instead of their remorseless academic imperatives of GCSE, A-level and university. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pidding: what are the Government doing to give schools reasons to promote apprenticeships and work-based skills and, indeed, the information and guidance about them which most teachers will not have? I share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, about the Higher Education Bill and the Technical and Further Education Bill. I was leading for the Lib Dems on both and there was a notable disparity of interest in them. I also share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Monks, about the graveyard of previous initiatives; we know that so well.
One of the features of winding up in a debate such as this is that all the brilliant things that I was going to say have been said far more brilliantly by other speakers. I shall try not to repeat, but to add my weight to some of the issues which other noble Lords have raised. The levy has not met with undiluted enthusiasm. We hear that it is too complex, too restrictive and, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said, “not fit for purpose”. The Recruitment & Employment Confederation tells us that its members pay over £110 million into the apprenticeship levy every year but, because of the restrictive funding rules, it is a struggle to use this funding to train workers on flexible and temporary contracts. It estimates that, two years on, over £104 million is left unspent. As both the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, set out, the vast majority of temporary and contract workers are automatically cut off from training opportunities through the apprenticeship levy. They cannot access training opportunities, while recruitment agencies are unable to use their funds beyond supporting the recruitment industry. Yet these people could benefit most from training opportunities. Why is the levy not designed to encourage agency workers to progress?
As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and other noble Lords have said, there are strong calls for the remit to extend to other skills and training, rather than just apprenticeships. What is the Government’s thinking on this? If workplace opportunities are to be increased for young people, there needs to be much more flexibility regarding the support available. As the right reverend Prelate set out, with reference to the previous debate on mental health, we need to encourage disadvantaged young people. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, in her remarks on social mobility and the noble Baroness, Lady Nye, on support for women and drawing attention to gender disparities. The noble Baroness, Lady Osamor, reminded the House of the right range of apprenticeships and spoke of the BAME disparities.
We are getting mixed messages. On the one hand, the levy fees are apparently underspent. In 2017-18, levy-paying employers accessed only 9% of the available funds, which expire after 24 months. These funds should surely be available for other forms of training and skills development. On the other hand, I was told that a senior Minister recently declared that the apprenticeship money would run out in a few months. Concerns were expressed by the National Audit Office and others earlier in the year that the levy would not be able to meet employer demand and the pot is now indeed running dry. What is the position on this? Is it partly because the higher level 6 and 7 apprenticeships are costlier than levels 2 and 3, which were the original focus of the scheme?
In the Middle Ages, apprentices were young people who spent five to seven years learning their trade or craft. They then became journeymen and in due course, hopefully, masters of their trade or craft. This was, of course, before technicians were invented, although I have to say that some of the crafts were extremely technical. One of the great strengths of this was that they had a job to go to. These days we seem to have abandoned the idea of youthful learning and use the term “apprenticeship” to apply to much more advanced studies. I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Layard, about the number of 18 year-old NEETs, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Young, about the drop between starts and completions. Apprentices of yore got qualifications as they studied. Now, there is not necessarily a mandatory qualification for an apprenticeship standard. We are told that an employer can use one voluntarily, including degrees, which may bear little relevance to apprenticeships.
We read:
“In apprenticeship standards, the apprenticeship itself serves as the qualification that accredits occupational competence, as measured by a robust, independent end-point-assessment”.
However, there will still be a need for formative assessment, measuring and reviewing progress towards achieving competence. One of the simplest ways of doing this is through qualifications, which have the great benefit of giving people a sense of achievement and the incentive to carry on. Endpoint assessment is not suitable for all skill areas. Continuous assessment, validated through a qualification, is often a much better way of measuring. What is the Government’s thinking on endpoint assessment? Is it still the preferred choice, despite evidence to the contrary in a number of occupations?
I support what my noble friend Lord Fox said about the creative industries. These are a real jewel in the crown of British industry, but they are unable to use a large part of the £75 million they contribute in the levy each year, in part because the 12-month employment does not fit the project and freelance work that is more common for them. Why cannot apprentices build credits towards their apprenticeship, as the OU allows for its degrees? Would that be worth exploring? Will the Minister also take account of the pilot project my noble friend mentioned in the creative industries?
The levy seems to have encouraged employers to brand adults embarking on MBAs and similar programmes as apprentices. Surely, that was never the intention. Others have referred to the fictional figure of 3 million apprentices, which we now know was based on back-of-a-fag-packet calculations. This focus on a meaningless number led to the chasing of quantity over quality and has not been helpful to the Government’s avowed aim of having only high-quality programmes admitted as apprenticeships.
Earlier this week we debated the Augar review, with its many recommendations for further education and work-based achievement—the Minister has been working overtime recently. We warmly welcome this focus on an essential part of education, which has, as we have heard all around the Chamber today, been neglected and undervalued for far too long. The apprenticeship levy may have been a neat idea, but it does not seem to be encouraging large employers to support small ones in recruiting apprentices. We hope that the review will lead to a drive to simplify, mindful that the country really does need young people to acquire the employment skills that will be ever more necessary for the economy if we do end up leaving the EU. Apprenticeships are not just good for the economy; they are good for individuals and the community too. We owe it to our future workforce to ensure that there are opportunities for rewarding, satisfying work.
To address funding constraints there is a recommendation for a standalone non-levy apprenticeship budget of a minimum of £1 billion, to ensure that the 98% of employers not paying the apprenticeship levy have access to high-quality apprenticeships to help them drive their productivity. People need to be given the tools and skills to help them build their career. Despite significant levels of investment, our skills system has failed to have a decisive impact on the varying socioeconomic challenges and opportunities in local areas, or to make a major impact on outcomes. Part of the problem has been the churn in Skills Ministers, of whom we have had far too many over the years. Each time, they come in with a new brilliant idea which they never have time to implement, so the ideas go into the graveyard referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Monks.
Currently, national policy does not allow levy contributions to be fully pooled locally. Funds unspent within 24 months must be returned to the Treasury, rather than being retained locally, and this hampers efforts to have a more joined-up and strategic approach to apprenticeship spending in local communities. The apprenticeship programme should be an exciting way to support people, young and old, into productive, skilled employment. I hope that the levy and the different programmes will be reviewed to ensure that this aim is delivered, to the benefit of all.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, as a newbie just completing my first year in your Lordships’ House, this feels a little like my apprenticeship, especially under the watchful eye of my noble friend Lord Stevenson and the departmental lead, my noble friend Lord Watson.
Apprenticeships can be a fantastic route into secure and meaningful work, and I am pleased that there seems to be a consensus on this across the House. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pidding, said, the aim of the scheme is laudable. However, there are simply not enough apprenticeships available, and many of those which are available are simply not of a high enough standard.
Too many apprenticeships are secured by older people rather than school leavers, as my noble friend Lord Layard mentioned earlier. The gender balance is not being achieved, and the shape of the curriculum, particularly at degree level, is obscured, as touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Norton. Also, concerns have been raised that particularly few apprenticeships have been taken up by those with disabilities, as well as by care leavers, LGBT people and those with a BME background, as noted earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and my noble friend Lady Osamor. Can the Minister say whether the Government have any plans to set targets to increase apprenticeships for people from often disadvantaged groups?
The wider issue of numbers is disappointing, particularly as many feel that the Government’s apprenticeship policy has focused too heavily on quantity without ensuring that those who engage in the apprenticeship scheme emerge with qualifications that not only benefit them but are recognised by employers. With the Government missing the mark on numbers of apprentices, it seems that they have little concern for apprenticeship completion or outcomes for learners, as was touched on by many noble Lords.
We must also remember that apprentices deserve a strong standard of on-the-job training, and that apprenticeships should not be used by employers simply as a way of paying workers less than the ordinary minimum wage. I am sure that many in the House will be aware of stories in the press about substandard schemes and the inquiry by the Commons Education Select Committee late last year, which found that many apprentices are not getting the high-quality training they deserve.
The Minister may be aware of the Labour shadow Education Secretary’s proposal that the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education report on an annual basis to the Secretary of State on the quality outcomes of completed apprenticeships to ensure that they deliver skilled workers for employers and real jobs for apprentices at the end of their training. Have the Government made any assessment of this proposal?
I turn to the apprenticeship levy. On this side of the House, as noble Lords have heard, we support the levy and understand the value it can bring to creating more apprenticeships. However, as many noble Lords have touched upon, we have a number of concerns about the implementation of the scheme. From a business perspective, it would be welcome if the Government allowed employers more flexibility in how the levy is deployed, including allowing it to be used for pre-apprenticeship programmes. For example, the creative industries play a crucial role in creating wealth for the country, but, as they have been saying for several years, the sector is predominantly freelance and cannot offer traditional apprenticeships. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will look into this? Recognising the role of small and medium-sized employers, which do not pay the levy, I would be grateful for confirmation that the £440 million funding for apprenticeships in this regard will be protected.
Remaining on the issue of education and training, it is disappointing that despite claiming to be committed to delivering high-quality training, the Government have cut funding for further education colleges, our main providers of adult and vocational education, while reducing entitlement for adult learners. The result, inevitably, has been diminishing numbers of courses and students. Ultimately, we need free, lifelong education in further education colleges, enabling everyone to upskill or retrain at any point in life, and also providing alternative routes into higher education—a system found in many other advanced economies but not the UK.
Our skills and training sectors have also been held back by repeated reorganisation, as my noble friend Lord Monks touched on earlier, which deprives providers, learners and employers of the consistency they need to assess quality and to deliver further and better outcomes. The Government need to stop trying to reinvent the wheel and focus on the funding issues around this. A number of noble Lords and noble friends mentioned the Augar report. Will the Minister confirm that the recommendations of the report are being considered?
Moving on to the broader issue of workplace opportunities and conditions, I suggest that noble friends across the House consider the recent Stuck at the Start report by the TUC, which identified five issues that young workers face in getting ahead at work. The report notes that they are disproportionately affected by wage stagnation, in low-paying jobs, lacking access to skills development, vulnerable to insecure work, and in need of a voice at work. Apprenticeships can be a solution to many of these problems, but there needs to be more of them, and they need to be of a high enough quality.
I will touch briefly on workers’ rights. According to the Living Wage Foundation, more than 1 million young adults lack adequate working hours and pay to make ends meet, with millions of workers facing cancelled shifts. Trade union membership can and should be promoted to offer a collective voice for young workers to overcome these issues. In unionised workplaces the worst excesses and exploitations just do not exist. This is to the benefit of everyone: management, the workforce, and trade unions. The UK could begin by guaranteeing trade union representation in the governance structures of the Institute for Apprenticeships, and look at working with the National Union of Students, which campaigns on issues relating to the education which apprentices receive.
I will conclude with the opening arguments of my noble friend Lord Young of Norwood Green. If Her Majesty’s Government can ensure that apprenticeships are well delivered, of a high enough educational standard, and run for the benefit of both the employer and apprentice, they will, as the 2012 Richard review stated, bring many benefits: to the economy, to employers and, most importantly, to individual apprentices, by providing a ladder into meaningful employment. On that I am sure the whole House can agree.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to be the Minister responding to this debate and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, on initiating it. He is not only well informed on the subject, he has devoted much time over many years to improving opportunities for young people. We are all grateful for his work as an apprenticeship ambassador. I notice that he is not wearing the T-shirt today, but he certainly wears the badge. I should have one on too. At the Communication Workers Union and in this Chamber, he has been tenacious in ensuring that the Government’s commitments on vocational education are not lost in the mail.
I applaud the endurance of the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Layard, the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, who, perhaps gluttons for punishment, are sitting for a second substantial debate in three days, having spoken on the order on Tuesday. Happily, this debate allows me to address today the issues on apprenticeships raised by them to which I was then unable to respond, although I have a lot of questions to cover. Talking of Augar and relevant to apprenticeships, it is important for the Government to reflect on the lessons of his review of post-18 education and funding. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, that they are very much being considered.
Apprenticeships have a long and illustrious history, dating back to the craft guilds of the Middle Ages and underpinning Britain’s status as the powerhouse of the Industrial Revolution. The guilds survive to this day, and their members do great work supporting charities up and down the country. Two apprentice stonemasons are currently working on the restoration of the Elizabeth Tower high above us, and others are no doubt working on our great cathedrals. How good to hear the positive feedback of Georgie Yates from the noble Baroness, Lady Nye. Apprentices are keeping our ancient skills alive with the help of our modernising apprenticeship programme.
For too long, however, young people and those changing careers have not had access to a choice of vocational education options; nor could they always be confident in the quality of training that they received. This Government’s reforms are changing all that, and it is good to have acknowledgement from noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Nye and Lady Osamor, that the Government are revitalising apprenticeships to raise productivity, to give employers the skills they need and to create fresh opportunities. We are creating a programme fit for the future, but all transformative change comes with challenges. We know that we need to maintain our focus on bringing new apprenticeship standards on stream, reflecting the needs of employers as the world of work evolves. As the noble Baroness, Lady Osamor, and the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, said, people from underrepresented groups need to be encouraged and supported to start apprenticeships to share in the benefits they offer. I will say more about that later.
As the noble Lord, Lord Layard, and others said, young people need good careers advice from a young age so that they are aware that apprenticeships are a genuine alternative to university. The noble Baronesses, Lady Nye and Lady Osamor, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Monks, made the point that apprentices should not be treated as second-class citizens. They must be paid properly. I should like to hear from noble Lords of any examples where they are not. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Monks, on whether we could confirm that there are plans to update the scheme so that it is in line with the real living wage, the current apprentice national minimum wage rate rose by 5.4% in April 2019 and is now at a record high in nominal and real terms. The apprentice national minimum wage is set at a rate that acknowledges the particular costs for employers and benefits for young people involved in the provision of apprenticeships. However, we know that most apprentices receive more than that—it is the legal minimum pay per hour—but no doubt it will be kept under review.
We must continue to spread the message among parents, teachers and employers of young people that our new high-quality apprenticeships can offer life-changing opportunities—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and my noble friend Lady Pidding. In addressing the challenges, we are learning from the best international systems and listening to feedback from employers large and small.
There are successes. More than 450 apprenticeship standards are now available from levels 2 to 7 and covering occupations in all sectors. The standards approved this month underline that diversity and include broadcast and media systems engineer at level 3, to mention the creative arts, and ecologist at level 7. Apprenticeship starts were up by 10% in the first half of 2018-19 compared to the same period a year before, and high-quality standards now account for almost 60% of those starts. Over the course of next year, we will be giving all employers, not just the larger companies, control over how they pay for their apprenticeship training and assess and recruit their apprentices.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, asked about training providers. Employers will also have access to a larger pool of training providers to deliver relevant training for them. Crucially, the apprenticeship levy supports businesses large and small to access the training they need. Alongside employers’ levy funds, we will spend over £2.5 billion this year—double what was spent in 2010.
The noble Lord, Lord Layard, asked if the Government will reassess their approach to funding, providing 70% to levels 2 and 3 and 30% to levels 4 and 5, with the level band above that self-funded. Co-investment is a central principle of our apprenticeship performance, and we continue to monitor the impact of our recent changes to funding policy to reduce the burden on smaller employers. We continue to make this co-investment available for apprenticeships at all levels to give employers a choice of apprenticeships to meet their particular skills needs.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, asked whether I will comment on the struggle to meet targets for nursing apprenticeships—an important subject that I know was raised on Tuesday. Nursing apprenticeships offer a high-quality work-based route into the profession, giving more choice for career changes or for those who want to earn while they learn. Importantly, we are working closely with Health Education England to support the NHS to recruit the apprentices it needs to deliver high-quality care.
Almost half of apprenticeship starts were directly supported by levy funds in employers’ apprenticeship service accounts last year. Smaller employers benefit from a generous co-investment from government of 95% of the costs of training. The rollout of the apprenticeship service will give these employers access to new online tools to manage their funds and make informed decisions for the long-term needs of their business.
In response to a question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Young, to support this, we have extended non-levy contracts with providers. This means providing £225 million to support new starts and £395 million to fund existing apprentices at non-levy employers. We have already made additional flexibilities available for levy-paying employers; flexibilities were quite a theme during this debate. This year, we increased the cap on transfers of their funds to other businesses, charities or apprenticeship training agencies to 25% of the value of funds entering their account each year—the noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned 20%, but it is actually 25%—enabling them to support apprenticeship starts in their supply chain or to meet local skills needs. This is investment on an unprecedented scale, and the levy is central to it. While we recognise that the move towards longer, higher-level apprenticeships presents financial challenges, we are determined to ensure the future sustainability of the programme.
The noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Pendry, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle and the noble Baronesses, Lady Cohen and Lady Osamor, asked important questions about the need to promote level 2 and 3 apprenticeships, but it is important to remember that apprenticeships are jobs first and foremost. We have empowered employers to choose the apprenticeships that best suit their needs. Starts at levels 2 and 3 still make up the vast majority of the programme—82% of starts in the first half of 2018-19, which is quite interesting—creating the opportunities for progression to higher-level training.
The completion rate was another theme. The noble Lord, Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nye, raised the Sutton Trust report showing that 32% of apprenticeships were not completed. It is important to recognise that the move to higher-quality apprenticeship standards is making apprenticeships longer. Current completion data reflects the fact that we are moving rapidly from frameworks to standards. It is a transitional phase, and we expect to see this picture improve as our reforms continue to bed in.
Several noble Lords raised important points about productivity. I turn to the reasons behind our reform programme: why are apprenticeships important and who are they for? This was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. The labour market will change beyond recognition in the coming decades, not least with more automation—a point I raised on Tuesday. We need to meet that challenge by delivering high-quality vocational education for today’s and tomorrow’s workforce—and, yes, to satisfy employer demand—but apprenticeships are not only for young people but for people at different stages of their career.
The Government agree with Sir Philip Augar’s finding that apprenticeships have a vital contribution to make to delivering our industrial strategy priorities helping young people to develop the skills that they need for progression to the high-skilled jobs of the future. We know from other leading apprenticeship systems worldwide that high-quality training drives productivity and increases earnings. We know that a young person completing a level 3 apprenticeship in England can expect a 16% earnings boost, and a joint AAT and CEBR study found that an apprenticeship at level 5 or above can be worth an additional £150,000 over a working life. So clearly it boosts the economy and the well-being of the individual as well.
While we are focused on driving forward our reforms and increasing starts to bring about these benefits, we will not sacrifice quality for quantity—a point made strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green. Apprenticeship standards are at the centre of our drive for high-quality training. Another theme raised in this debate was the question of quality versus quantity. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked if we agreed that we should scrap the 3 million start target and focus on quality. We are focusing on quality. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle focused on the importance of quality. We remain committed to reaching 3 million apprenticeship starts, but are not worried that it may take some time to get there. What is more important is that we maintain our focus on quality to ensure that we meet the skills needs of employers and create the opportunities for young people to progress in their careers.
Before we began our apprenticeship reforms, employers told us that the quality of training was often inconsistent. We listened to their concerns and acted by putting the independent Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education at the service of employers to help them develop the standards they need and to act as a guarantor for the quality of training. We recognise that there have been some teething problems. Such problems were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Young, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle, but I hope that I can reassure the House because we have overseen a significant acceleration in the process for the approval of standards, particularly using our so-called Faster and Better programme. As I have already mentioned, more than 450 standards are now available for employers to choose from, with more in the pipeline; they cover traditional skills, the professions and emerging industries.
We are proud of what these changes have achieved—two-thirds of apprentices were receiving good or outstanding training provision in 2017-18—but we know there is more to do. The noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Pendry, asked about Ofsted, saying that it is perhaps not best placed to regulate apprenticeships. We take Ofsted’s judgments on the quality of the training and teaching offered by apprenticeship providers seriously and we have raised the bar for entry to the register of apprenticeship training providers. We now require all providers, new and existing, to demonstrate that they have a satisfactory inspection record. We are acting in cases where training providers fall below the high standards that employers expect, and recently announced a new framework to monitor the quality of provision at higher levels, to be led by the Office for Students.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle said he had heard that some standards still did not have an endpoint assessment in place, which was another theme. ESFA recently confirmed that we will require an endpoint assessment organisation to be in place for all standards. That will give employers and apprentices the confidence that endpoint assessments are ready when they need them and of the quality that is required.
Off-the-job training is also vital for apprentices to develop the knowledge, skills and behaviours they need to succeed at work, which was a point raised by my noble friend Lord Norton and the noble Lord, Lord Young. We understand that some employers find meeting the 20% minimum off-the-job training requirement challenging. We have listened to their concerns. But as a perspective, the requirement in the UK has a smaller impact on employers compared with other OECD countries; for example, in Germany around a third of an apprentice’s time is spent in off-the-job training. We recently launched new guidance to make these flexibilities clear and transparent for employers, and many are already using block release, successfully balancing their apprentices’ training with business needs.
The noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord McNicol, asked whether we would introduce further flexibilities to meet employer needs. I reassure the House that we continue to keep all aspects of apprenticeship funding policy under review to make sure that we continue to deliver high-quality apprenticeship starts. Spending on apprenticeships is demand-led. We do not anticipate that all levy payers will use all the funds in their accounts. Income from the levy is also used to fund apprenticeship training in non levy-paying employers.
The enormous potential of apprenticeships to address this country’s productivity challenge cannot be realised if young people are not aware of all the options available to them. Our careers provision recognises that parity of esteem between academic and vocational routes also means giving those considering their options the best advice we can. We are working with schools and FE colleges through our apprenticeships support and knowledge programme, giving teachers the training to allow them to promote apprenticeships to their students.
My noble friends Lady Pidding and Lord Norton asked about numbers in terms of promoting apprenticeships. During National Apprenticeship Week in March there were more than 1,200 visits and events, including more than 300 events taking place to promote apprenticeships in schools. National Apprenticeship Week generated more than 25,000 visits, so it was an important push. That is an important point to make.
Our apprenticeships support and knowledge programme also provides access to a network of inspiring young apprenticeship ambassadors and apprenticeship live broadcasts to let young people speak directly to employers about the latest vacancies. The programme has reached more than three-quarters of a million young people since its launch in 2016. In addition, we have expanded the role of the Careers & Enterprise Company to give all young people access to inspiring encounters with the world of work.
I noted the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Monks, and my noble friend Lady Pidding. It is very important that the evidence for getting into schools has to be there. It is clear that sustained and varied contacts with mentors, coaches, employer networks, FE colleges and training providers can motivate pupils to consider a broader and more ambitious range of future education and career options.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, asked what we are planning to do to meet the demand resulting from the careers strategy and the planned introduction of T-levels. A key element of T-levels is a high-quality, structured industry placement of 45 days. There is an extensive programme of support in place for their delivery, including a capacity and delivery fund for providers and the investment of £5 million in the National Apprenticeship Service.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, also asked whether the Government should make funding available for work placements as they do for apprenticeships. Under the Government’s careers strategy we have targeted a £2.5 million investment fund to support employer encounters. This is in addition to the £5 million investment already mentioned.
Last year, we acted to introduce a legal requirement for schools and colleges to allow technical education and apprenticeship providers into their schools to talk to pupils about their offer, commonly known as the Baker clause. I notice that my noble friend is no longer in his place. This important matter was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Aberdare, the noble Baroness, Lady Nye, and my noble friends Lord Norton and Lady Pidding. This is important because we expect all schools to comply with its requirements and are intervening directly to enforce this where necessary. I have here a letter that I have written to reassure my noble friend Lord Baker that the department is doing a great deal to increase the level of compliance among schools with their duty under the Baker clause. Certain direct intervention measures have been taken; for example, Minister Milton wrote to the five largest multi-academy trusts which were found not to be complying with the duty. Local authorities, regional schools commissioners and MPs have also been written to, to remind them of the important role that they play in encouraging schools to comply with the Baker clause. The department has also delivered key messages on the aims of the Baker clause and its enforcement over the past year, including delivering a webinar for 500 schools during National Careers Week. I assure noble Lords that we will remain on the case.
As the noble Lord, Lord Monks, said, changing the perceptions of parents and employers is just as important if we are to embed a culture of apprenticeships in this country. We are taking on the outdated perception that university is the only desirable option for ambitious, motivated young people. This message is at the centre of our new marketing campaign, Fire It Up, demonstrating that apprenticeships are an aspirational choice for anyone with passion and energy. We have also launched Opportunities Through Apprenticeships, a pilot project working with four local authorities to raise the value of apprenticeships in the most disadvantaged areas.
We are committed to ensuring that no young person’s background stands in the way of starting an apprenticeship. To reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Osamor, in the first half of 2018-19, 11.1% of starts—that is, 23,700—were by people of black, Asian or minority-ethnic backgrounds. In the first half of 2018-19, 11.9% of starts were by those with a learning difficulty or disability. She raised an important point.
Various questions have arisen but I am running slightly out of time. If I am allowed, I shall spend—
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I hesitate to intervene because the Minister has given a very comprehensive response. However, one important question is whether the levy funds have run out. It was raised by one or two speakers and there is quite a bit of confusion out there. If he could clarify that now, it would be appreciated. If not, there is the other route.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Yes, that is absolutely right. I reassure the noble Lord and the House that the levy funds have not run out, although they are now being spent at a higher rate. I also reassure the House that this is certainly being looked at in the context of the spending review. I can give no guarantees whatever but an eye is being kept on it, given the importance of the apprenticeship programme.
The noble Lords, Lord Layard and Lord Aberdare, who deserve answers to all the questions they raised on Tuesday, asked whether the Government would consider broadening the levy so that it funded not only apprenticeships. The levy was introduced to support the apprenticeships that we expect employers to generate, and it is important that we maintain our focus on funding high-quality training.
The noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Fox, said that there seemed to be no transparency in the levy review and that it was perhaps rather secretive—a point also made by others. The levy review is not a formal published consultation, but the evidence that we garner from employers will help the Government to understand the issues facing employers and build our evidence base as we make decisions on the spending review.
I conclude by saying that the most recent OBR analysis suggests that the picture for productivity growth, which has been an important theme today, is increasingly positive, and apprenticeships will have a vital role to play as this trend continues. There will still be challenges along the way, but we are determined to continue our work with employers, respond to their concerns and build a programme ready for the challenges ahead.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, first, I congratulate the Minister on giving a comprehensive reply. He might not have completely covered the waterfront but I am sure that he will respond with written answers where he has not.
I take this opportunity to thank everybody who has participated in the debate. The contributions were fascinating. They were eclectic and constructively critical, and a lot of good ideas were put forward. I am conscious that I am the only thing stopping the House adjourning, so I will not attempt to cover every aspect of every contribution, but they certainly gave me food for thought in a number of ways that I had not considered concerning our approach to apprenticeships and how the levy should be used.
I do not want us to have an either/or debate on whether it is vocational training, an apprenticeship or the university route. When I talk to young people as part of the Lords outreach programme—to 16 and 17 year-olds and sometimes younger—I say, “Look, it’s not an either/or choice”. Some will start on apprenticeships and then go on to take a degree. I stress that they are making a pretty key choice and that they should choose wisely. If they are going down the university route, it is quite an expensive one. As other noble Lords have said, a benefit of apprenticeships is that apprentices can earn while they learn; for some young people, this is crucial.
I will pick out one issue that was raised a number of times, by the right reverend Prelate and others. I am not sure that the Minister covered it, and I come across it again and again: travel costs. As I looked in my pocket, I was just thinking, “I have this thing called a Freedom Pass. It is a nice little perk that I do not really need—I can afford to travel—but young people should have the benefit of one while travelling for an apprenticeship”. If you go into further education colleges and speak to students about the issues they face, travel costs come almost top of the agenda. I do not want to end on this point, but it was not quite addressed.
Once again, I thank everybody for their contributions and the way they made them. They have given the Minister a lot to think about.