House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)
Supporting low-carbon industries is central to my Department’s mission to deliver our net zero target. We are backing our ambition with action. Since 2012, coal use on the grid has fallen from 40% to less than 3% in 2019, and renewable electricity generation has quadrupled since 2010, with low-carbon electricity providing more than 50% of our total energy needs.
Seema Malhotra
In 2018, investment in acquisitions in the UK’s solar dropped to just £0.3 billion, from £1.6 billion in 2015. Should the Government not be doing more to support renewable power, in the light of the net zero target—which the Secretary of State mentioned—and the closure of the feed-in tariff, especially given that German, Italian and Spanish companies are now investing over six times more than UK companies in low-carbon technologies?
Alok Sharma
I am delighted that the hon. Lady has raised the issue of solar power, because, as she will know, solar photovoltaics is a UK success story. There has been rapid deployment over the past eight years, and more than 99% of the UK’s solar PV capacity has been deployed since May 2010. The latest figures indicate that we now have more than 1 million solar installations, or 13.4 GW, of capacity installed.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
In Cornwall we have some exciting new emerging industries such as geothermal energy and lithium extraction. How is my right hon. Friend encouraging those industries to produce green energy in the future?
Alok Sharma
We are putting significant funds behind the renewables sector, and, as my hon. Friend will know, we are committed to increasing our research and development spending to 2.4% of GDP by 2027. I want the UK to be a science and R&D superpower, and that is what we are engaged in.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Why are the Government so opposed to onshore wind energy generation?
Alok Sharma
The hon. Gentleman may have missed yesterday’s announcement about the fourth contracts for difference allocation round, but if he reads that announcement, he will see the points that we have made. The proposals that we have presented are there to help the UK achieve its 2015 net zero ambition.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support for the onshore wind sector. What support are the Government providing to advance the hydrogen economy, and to decarbonise the hard to abate sectors?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Hydrogen can, of course, play a key role in net zero efforts, alongside electricity. My Department is investing in innovation, with up to £121 million supporting a range of projects to explore and develop the potential of low-carbon hydrogen.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
One of the UK’s great industrial success stories in recent decades has been the automotive industry. What discussions does the Secretary of State plan to have with the industry to help ensure that the UK is best placed to make the transition from internal combustion engines to electric vehicles?
Alok Sharma
Within days of taking office I spoke to our major automotive manufacturers, and I have had meetings with a number of them. However, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We want to encourage electric vehicles, and we are also committed to securing investment for a UK gigafactory. Last year we announced up to £1 billion of new money to support R&D and supply chains for electric vehicles.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)
The Government are already increasing public spending on research and development by £7 billion over five years, the biggest increase in public funding for R&D on record. Every pound of public expenditure on R&D leverages a further £1.40 of additional private investment, generating even greater returns for the UK.
Julian Sturdy
Given that nearly 50% of the core science budget currently goes to just three cities in southern England, can the Secretary of State assure me that the increase in R&D funding will do more to favour the regions outside the south, so that in future both my city of York and other regional hubs across Yorkshire, such as Leeds and Hull, will receive their fair share for the purposes of research and innovation?
Alok Sharma
I know that my hon. Friend is hugely supportive of R&D, and that last month he opened the Institute of Technology at York College. I absolutely agree that that is part of our levelling-up agenda. We want to support centres of excellence across the country. In December last year UK Research and Innovation awarded £24 million to the University of York for a quantum communications hub, and we will set out our ambitious play strategy for R&D in the second half of this year.
Bim Afolami
Rothamsted Research in my constituency is a world-leading agricultural research centre, and we have made huge strides in commercialising that scientific knowledge, working with agritech start-ups. I am working with Rothamsted to build a new venture capital fund for agritech, working with those start-ups to incubate and develop them so that we can improve this facility, not just for Rothamsted and the region but for the whole country. Will the Secretary of State provide Government support for this work and come to see the work that we are doing at Rothamsted?
Alok Sharma
I am delighted that my hon. Friend is showing his characteristic commitment to innovation by supporting an agritech venture capital fund. As he notes, Rothamsted has a world-renowned reputation for agricultural research, and that is why UKRI has awarded £3.4 million to determine protein abundance in plants at that research institute. Either I or the Science Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Amanda Solloway)—would be happy to meet him to discuss how the Government can support his proposals.
Mrs Drummond
I also welcome the emphasis that the Government are placing on research and development. Will my right hon. Friend tell me what further action is being taken on the proposal for a UK advanced research projects agency, following the departmental meeting last year?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The UK is ranked fifth in the global innovation index, and our strengths in R&D mean that we are well placed to develop a new funding body to specialise in high-risk, high-reward projects. As I have said, I am absolutely determined that the UK should be a global science superpower, and my Department is making good progress on a UK advanced research projects agency. We are engaging with a wide range of researchers and innovators, and we will set out further plans in due course.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State and the Science Minister to their places. Science is critical to our national prosperity, and it is important that it should be led by them, rather than by the misfit master of Downing Street, so can the Secretary of State clarify the confusing statement from No. 10 on the European research programme? International collaboration is the heartbeat of research and development. For every £1 we put into the European Union programme, we got £1.30 back, and such funding is essential if we are to retain our place as a global science superpower, so will the Secretary of State boost UK science by confirming that we will be going for full associate membership?
Alok Sharma
Of course I want the UK to be a science superpower, and we have set out our views on expanding the R&D budget. On Europe, our EU negotiating objectives are very clear: the UK will consider participation in Horizon Europe and Euratom, but this will be part of the wider negotiations.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Royal College of Physicians has found that something like 64,000 people a year die prematurely as a result of unclean air at a cost of some £20 billion. In addition to continuing the research and development into electric cars, will the Secretary of State lobby the Chancellor and the Environment Secretary to continue the grant of £3,500 for clean cars, so that we can have an enforceable regime for air quality and a platform for research and development and for exports in the green industries, particularly in relation to sustainable transport?
Alok Sharma
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We currently have 460,000 green jobs in this country, and we want to push that to 2 million. I would be happy to meet him to discuss the specific point that he has raised.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, universities have played a critical role in research and development. What help will the Secretary of State give to Queen’s University and Ulster University in Belfast, as well as to the Greenmount Agricultural College, so that they can apply for funding to help research and development across the whole of the United Kingdom?
Alok Sharma
Of course, UKRI provides funding for a whole range of universities. Again, if the hon. Gentleman has specific ideas for projects, perhaps he would come forward with them.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
It is possible to build a house that costs nothing to heat, but that is not happening at scale at the moment. Does my right hon. Friend consider it part of his Department’s responsibilities to support research into making this more widespread, which would be hugely beneficial for the planet?
Alok Sharma
I know that my hon. Friend is an authority on the house building sector, and I had an opportunity to work with him on these issues when I was the Housing and Planning Minister. He raises an important point. We know that 15% of emissions are from housing, and we are looking to see how we can bring that down as part of the net zero target.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)
The hon. Gentleman, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on aerospace, will know that aerospace is a high-value growth sector driven by innovation, which is why the Government and the industry are co-investing £3.9 billion up to 2026 in aerospace research and development, and a further £300 million in the future flight challenge.
Christian Matheson
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. The UK leads the world in aerospace technology, but it faces the same pressures as other sectors with regard to environmental sustainability, so may I urge him to increase long-term funding for the industry so that we can retain our global lead while meeting the challenge of net zero?
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Gentleman raises an important question. The Prince of Wales and I co-chaired a deep dive at the Whittle laboratory, with the whole industry around the table, to consider how we can deliver on net zero for the industry. We were targeting a fully electric aircraft that, at 500 miles, could cover most of Europe and take 180 passengers, and of course we are looking at other technologies for longer haul flights. We are also creating the innovators of the future with 500 additional master’s level postgraduate places for aerospace.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The Government are committed to making the UK a world leader in clean growth, building on existing strengths in sectors such as nuclear and offshore wind. We are taking action to deliver that, including by investing £3 billion in low-carbon innovation to 2021 and £170 million from the industrial strategy challenge fund to support our industrial decarbonisation mission to create at least one low-carbon industrial cluster by 2030.
Simon Fell
Tidal energy could be a game changer for my constituency of Barrow and Furness, for Morecambe bay and for the wider United Kingdom, through clean energy production and the ability to lead the world in this technology. Does my hon. Friend agree that, when considering the viability of these schemes, we have to rewrite the Treasury’s Green Book to take into account not only the unit cost of energy produced, but the value to the UK of leading in this technology and the social impact of bringing the schemes to constituencies such as mine?
Amanda Solloway
I thank my hon. Friend for that question; I know how passionately he cares about the issue. I agree that the seas around the UK offer huge opportunities for cutting emissions and growing our economy. The offshore wind projects near his constituency offer an excellent example of UK leadership in renewable power. We are determined to drive growth in all parts of the UK and ensure that our assessment of projects takes full account not just of carbon savings, but of the growth and opportunities that they can provide for people across the country.
Matt Vickers
The Net Zero Teesside project aims to decarbonise the Teesside industrial cluster by as early as 2030, capturing up to 6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually. The project could support up to 5,500 direct jobs, and it could help to safeguard as many as 16,000 existing jobs in the Tees valley. The UK has a unique chance to lead global development of a new carbon capture, utilisation and storage industry. Will the Government prioritise this technology?
Amanda Solloway
My hon. Friend, who I know cares passionately about this issue, makes a really good point; CCUS will be vital to meeting our net zero target and revitalising the UK’s industrial areas. The Government have invested over £50 million in CCUS innovation, and recently we consulted on potential business models to help progress deployment. The CCUS action plan aims to enable the commissioning of the first facility in the UK in the mid-2020s. We committed in our manifesto to investing £800 million towards that, and £500 million to help energy-intensive industries move to low-carbon techniques.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
If the Government want to help clean growth, they can invest in the Mersey tidal power project. It is clean, entirely predictable, and could power 1 million homes. It offers high-quality jobs and has massive domestic and export potential. Steve Rotheram and the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority have just committed a further £3.5 million to the project, so will the Government back the people of the north-west by supporting investment in this exciting new project? It is a chance to demonstrate that they are interested in and serious about tackling the climate crisis.
Amanda Solloway
Yes, absolutely. We need to do that for research and development in all technologies, and I will welcome the opportunity to meet the hon. Gentleman in the future.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Minister says the UK is a world leader in offshore wind, but the reality is that too many manufacturing and supply chain jobs go abroad following the award of contracts for difference. Will she look seriously at including a quality assessment mechanism in the bid process to incentivise companies to use UK firms such as CSWind and BiFab?
Amanda Solloway
We are making sure that we get to 60% UK employment in manufacturing by investing in R&D. We are committed to doing that.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Nuclear fusion and cleantech are key drivers of the fourth industrial revolution that will help to create hundreds of thousands of jobs across the whole country this decade. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the COP26 summit is used to showcase our country’s green entrepreneurs?
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
As the Government rejected the opportunity to create new clean jobs when they scrapped the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, which had huge potential for communities along the Severn to kick-start further lagoons, may I, along with other hon. Members, urge them to look again at the huge potential of tidal power?
Amanda Solloway
I can confirm that we have a commitment to net zero, and we are doing everything we can to look at carbon neutral.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)
We have schemes worth nearly £2 billion operating, or in development, to support our vital energy-intensive industries to decarbonise. We will also invest in building the UK’s first fully deployed carbon capture, usage and storage cluster, and we are progressing carbon capture and hydrogen business models, both of which are crucial technologies in decarbonising our industry.
Jonathan Gullis
Achieving net zero is a considerable challenge for energy-intensive industries like ceramics, given the twin requirements of decarbonising without reducing international competitiveness. However, it is a challenge the sector can and will rise to, provided the UK puts supportive policies in place. Are the Government prepared to work actively with the ceramics industry, like Churchill China and Steelite, to help incentivise decarbonisation without, critically, undermining its international competitiveness?
Nadhim Zahawi
We must work together with industry to help our vital manufacturing regions benefit from clean growth opportunities. Stoke-on-Trent North is lucky to have such a Member championing its cause. We have a number of schemes in place, such as the transforming foundation industries challenge fund, the industrial heat recovery scheme and climate change agreements, to support industries like ceramics to cut bills and save carbon. In addition, we will be opening the industrial energy transformation fund to applications for phase 1 this spring.
Jack Brereton
Manufacturers in Stoke-on-Trent rely on energy-intensive processes to create their world-class products. What assistance can the Government give to help innovation in reducing the amount of carbon emissions generated in those processes?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) and, of course, the south is as lucky as the north to have such a fantastic champion in this House.
We have a number of schemes, as I have already mentioned, particularly the transforming foundation industries challenge fund, which will support energy-intensive industries to work with each other to innovate in reducing carbon emissions. This is a joint Government and industry fund. The first competition for projects closed at the beginning of February, and applicants are due to find out later this month whether they have been successful.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Teesside is a major centre for high-carbon, energy-intensive industries, which are nervous about high energy costs, the future of the REACH regulations and carbon costs. It is good to have my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers), also supporting the CCUS campaign, but how can the Minister reassure the industry that the Government will address the high cost issues and, in particular, the REACH regulations that he is about to ditch?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. We engaged with industry constantly throughout this process: when I took this job on last year, we engaged with industry over REACH, and we are looking at a UK REACH. Most importantly, we are looking at the energy-intensive industries and how we can innovate, for example, in steel and in the steel cluster. We have had good news today for British Steel, and we can use the investment that the Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth is making in carbon capture, usage and storage to turn the industry into the greenest steel industry in Europe.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Will the Government help to decarbonise the Rhondda? I ask because following the flooding we have seen significant landslides on former coal sites. I do not want to overstate this, but there is some anxiety about what that might mean for the future and stability of some of these tips. Will the Minister make sure that the Secretary of State meets me and other MPs in affected areas to make sure that the Coal Authority is doing everything in its power to make sure everybody is safe?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. The Secretary of State will certainly meet him and other concerned MPs, and make sure that the Coal Authority is doing everything it can. I would also like to visit to see for myself what is happening, so that we can work together on this. Getting to net zero by 2050 is a joint effort by the whole of this House, not just this Government.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
Last month we launched businesssupport.gov.uk, our new website bringing together all Government information available to help businesses start, grow and scale. In my first week, I was delighted to chair the Rose review board, which works with industry leaders to break down the barriers that female entrepreneurs face.
Robbie Moore
I thank the Minister for his response. Last week my constituents Martin and Deanne Brook proudly opened a brand new post office on Halifax Road in Cross Roads, which they operate in conjunction with their already successful small family business, SMS Workshop Supplies Ltd. What steps are the Government taking to help incentivise small business owners like them to explore the possibility of providing Post Office services as a means of safeguarding the post office network?
Paul Scully
This is about working with Members such as my hon. Friend and coming up with imaginative ways of opening up post offices, including Martin and Deanne’s in their hardware store. It is also important that we take the Post Office’s relationship with postmasters seriously and closely monitor the situation during the legal proceedings that many people are going through and have been through recently. The Post Office, under its new chief executive officer, has since accepted that it got things wrong. He has apologised and said that it aims to re-establish a positive relationship with postmasters. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is working actively with the Post Office on this matter and will hold it to account on its progress. We are also looking into what more needs to be done.[Official Report, 13 March 2020, Vol. 673, c. 4MC.]
Ben Everitt
In Milton Keynes, we can get our groceries delivered by robot, and I was fortunate last week to meet some of the humans from Starship Technologies who wrangle these robots. What support is my hon. Friend giving to small businesses and start-ups such as Starship Technologies, which are at the forefront of innovative new technology?
Paul Scully
Fortunately, questions are not answered by robot yet, so I am still here. [Interruption.] Well, there is a bit of character and it is less robotic. I believe that 50,000 deliveries have been done by Starship Technologies in Milton Keynes, so that is an excellent example. We need to make sure that small businesses can innovate, scale and grow, and we are supporting them to do so through such schemes as Innovate UK smart grants, tax credits and the annual investment allowances, and through programmes supported by the British Business Bank. Research and development tax credits are the single biggest Government support for business investment in R&D. So far, just over £4.3 billion has been claimed through those tax credits in 2017-18, £2.3 billion of which was claimed through the small and medium-sized enterprise scheme.
Rob Butler
Small businesses in my constituency, including in the village of Stokenchurch, frequently tell me that they find it particularly hard to make a profit on the traditional high street. What can the Minister do to help traditional town centres to thrive, and become commercial and community hubs?
Paul Scully
We want our town centres and high streets, including in Stokenchurch in Aylesbury, to be vibrant community hubs where people can live, shop and use services. To support that, we are delivering a £1 billion future high streets fund, as part of a £3.6 billion towns fund to level up our regions. We are committed to a fundamental review of business rates, which the Treasury will announce in due course.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister and the Secretary of State and his new team to their places. I look forward to our future exchanges.
Last week I visited a café in Calder Valley that, despite having just started trading, has been ruined by relentless flooding. The owners, like the owners of so many small businesses, have received no support from the Government and have been left to repair the damage on their own, at their own cost, with the help of local people. Will the Minister outline to the House what meaningful financial support has been made available to businesses affected by flooding? Will the Government protect such businesses in future by outlining in the Budget an increase in the UK’s capital spend on flood defences to approximately £1 billion a year, as advised by the Environment Agency and the National Infrastructure Commission?
Paul Scully
We have spent £2.6 billion on flooding so far and announced £4 billion in our manifesto. The business recovery grant provides local authorities with funding of £2,500 for severely affected businesses like the café the hon. Lady described. It is important that we support small and medium-sized businesses to recover and help to support local economies.
Rebecca Long Bailey
The Minister must acknowledge that that is a paltry amount of support. According to the Federation of Small Businesses, flooding will cost small businesses hundreds of millions of pounds, and thousands cannot find affordable flood insurance. Furthermore, on flood defence the Government have pledged less than half the capital advised—only £450 million a year for the next six years. The Prime Minister refused to hold a Cobra meeting following the floods and he could not even be bothered to visit the flood-affected areas. Is it not the case that the Government’s response to this disaster is yet another example of a part-time Prime Minister failing to provide the leadership that our country needs in a time of crisis?
Paul Scully
The Prime Minister is leading on this situation from the front. He is getting money out the door. As a former small-business owner, I would welcome any visit from the Prime Minister, but what I would welcome more is the money that we are getting out the door on day one to help these businesses.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I too welcome the Secretary of State and his new ministerial team to their places.
The UK’s proposals on EU trade negotiations could reduce Scottish GDP by 6.1%, or £1,600 per person. Small businesses, including many in the food sector, simply cannot afford to cope with the prospect of such Mad Max economics. They need help now, so will the Minister join me in calling for a cut to employers’ national insurance, to help them and to help to protect jobs?
Paul Scully
We will see what happens in the Budget. Employment allowance has benefited businesses—including my former business—up and down the country. Businesses want meaningful things in the Budget, rather than platitudes from the Opposition.
Drew Hendry
That response comes as absolutely no surprise, given the email from a key adviser to the Chancellor leaked at the weekend that said that the food sector “isn’t critically important”. We all remember the Prime Minister’s shocking attitude and use of the F-word in relation to business concerns when he said “F*** business”. It now seems that the Government are doubling down on that and it is “F*** farming” and “F*** fishing.” With the Minister refusing to support businesses in their hour of need, it is clear to all that this Government deserve an F for their economic incompetence.
Paul Scully
To date, the UK Government have committed up to £3.08 billion for city region and growth deals throughout Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Since 2012, the British Business Bank has issued more than 4,200 start-up loans in Scotland, worth more than £32 million in total. That is actual action for businesses.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his commitment to small business. Small businesses in Cornwall, and especially on the Isles of Scilly, face an unprecedented challenge on 1 January as a result of the proposed immigration Bill. Will the Minister work with the Home Office to make sure that small businesses that do not have a workforce in the local area sitting around looking to and able to fill posts are able to carry on doing business next year?
Paul Scully
I happily confirm to my hon. Friend that our new immigration system is flexible, so, yes, we will work with businesses all around the country to ensure that we have the skills that we need to allow businesses to thrive.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
For the past two weekends, properties and businesses in the Rhondda Cynon Taff area—I am one of the MPs for that authority area—have seen devastating flooding. Just this week, I was out helping businesses in my constituency find sandbags and pumps from my local authority. The Welsh Government, the Rhondda Cynon Taff council and council leader Andrew Morgan are offering support to small businesses, so if the Minister is to announce additional funding for those businesses that have been impacted, I plead with him not to forget about Welsh small businesses.
Paul Scully
I have already talked about the £2,500 that we have been getting out through that business recovery grant, but we will always look to continue to work with businesses in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as in England. It is important, as the hon. Gentleman said, that communities come together, which is why there is support for community economies, ensuring that they can continue to survive and thrive.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend will be a great supporter of small businesses, so will he get off to a fast start by urging the Treasury to scrap its misguided changes to IR35? Those changes are punishing small businesses, with large companies already implementing blanket bans that the Treasury had said in a statement would not yet be implemented, and with the HMRC’s own assessment tool creating confusion, not clarity, for entrepreneurs.
Paul Scully
I am sure the Chancellor will hear that question. As my hon. Friend well knows, that is a matter for the Budget, which is still under review.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)
I am delighted to have been appointed COP President. I have already held discussions with former COP Presidents, including Paris COP President Laurent Fabius. I met, among others, the UN Deputy Secretary General Amina Mohammed and Patricia Espinosa at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Last week, together with the Prime Minister’s COP26 climate finance adviser, Mark Carney, I launched the COP26 finance strategy. My officials and I are working at pace to deliver a successful summit.
Nadia Whittome
COP26 will be the most critical talks since Paris, yet preparations so far have been beset by chaos. What response can the Minister provide to the former COP President who says that this Government are presiding over “a huge lack of leadership” on the issue. The Prime Minister has admitted to her that he does not even understand climate change. Does the Minister acknowledge the embarrassing lack of credibility and competence that the Prime Minister has shown on COP26 preparations?
Alok Sharma
I thank the former COP President for her work. The hon. Lady talks about the Prime Minister’s leadership. I can assure Members that when we were at the UN General Assembly in September, there was a huge amount of positivity around his leadership in doubling our International Climate Finance commitment. She will also know that last month the Prime Minister launched the Year of Climate Action. He is absolutely leading on this issue from the front, and the rest of us are supporting him. Let me tell her that we are absolutely determined to make sure that COP26 is a success, not just for the UK but because it matters to the whole world.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Every country has to submit its contribution to climate action before COP26 meets. Why is the Secretary of State preparing the UK’s contribution statement on the basis of the fifth carbon budget, which works towards a target of only 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, when this House has determined that the target to be met should be net zero by 2050?
Alok Sharma
We met the first two carbon budgets, and we are on track to meet the third. Of course, I recognise the need for further action: 2020 will be a year of climate action, as I have said, and we have new plans to decarbonise key sectors in industry.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I congratulate the Department on its far-sighted announcement yesterday that sets the tone for COP26 by allowing onshore wind and solar projects, which have local support, to bid for funding. The announcement also floated a further pot for less developed technologies, such as tidal stream and wave, some of which the Energy Minister and I met last week. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should pursue this opportunity to develop diverse sources of green energy and look closely at the innovative tax credit proposal, innovation power purchase agreement, to help some of these technologies get off the ground?
Alok Sharma
I make the general point that innovation is vital in all sectors of industry, but particularly in the renewables sector. As my hon. Friend will know, the proposal that we set out will help the UK to achieve its 2050 net zero ambition. Ultimately, this is about achieving value for money by driving further cost reductions in renewable electricity.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State and his new ministerial team to their places. The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee looks forward to taking evidence from them, and I am sure that they look forward to that as well.
May I follow up on the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) about our fourth and fifth carbon budgets? Those carbon budgets are premised on achieving an 80% reduction in carbon emissions, yet this House has unanimously passed legislation to achieve net zero. It is neither coherent, nor showing leadership, for our fourth and fifth carbon budgets to be based on an outdated objective that this House has rejected. Can the Secretary of State confirm that we will be updating our fourth and fifth carbon budgets—and, crucially, that we will meet them?
Alok Sharma
I thank the hon. Lady for welcoming my ministerial team and me. Of course I look forward to coming before her Select Committee. Let me be absolutely clear: we are one of the first countries in the world to have legislated for a net zero target, and we have demonstrated our global leadership. We have met the first two carbon budgets and are on track to meet the third, but I take her point.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I agree that one of the best ways of preparing for COP26 is bringing forward the new contracts for difference auctions for onshore wind and solar, which will help us to achieve net zero. Could we also take this opportunity to demonstrate to the hard-working taxpayers of Rother Valley and across the country that we can reduce their bills by going green. Can we make it a key part of COP26 to show that going green is better value for those hard-working people?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Offshore wind prices have dropped by over two thirds between 2015 and 2019 because of the CfD auctions. Going green is positive for the economy: GDP has grown by 75% since 1990, yet we have also managed to reduce emissions by 43%.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)
The hon. Gentleman will know that we have many conversations across Government. I have spoken with the Secretary of State for Scotland, as well as the Energy Minister in the devolved Administration. In fact, I spoke to colleagues just yesterday.
Stuart C. McDonald
I for one would like to say how delighted I am that the Government have finally listened to the common-sense advice of Scottish National party Members on the issue of onshore renewable energy and contracts for difference, even if the delay has cost us five wasted years. Looking ahead, will the Minister ensure that the contracts for difference process is reformed to maximise growth and opportunities for the Scottish and UK supply chains, and how exactly will he go about doing that?
Kwasi Kwarteng
As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have been particularly successful in the offshore wind auctions, and we came to our conclusion not because of SNP lobbying, but because we felt that having a pot 1 auction was the best way to reach the net zero carbon target in a timely way by 2050.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
It is important to put it on the record that not everyone in Scotland will welcome yesterday’s announcement, not least my constituents, who have more wind turbines—in sight or planned—than any other constituency in the United Kingdom. Given the ineffective planning system operated by the Scottish Government and their willingness to override local decision making, what reassurance can the Minister give my constituents that they are not going to be overwhelmed by continuing wind farms?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question. We are very mindful of community consent and engagement with the planning process through consultation periods. We are also ensuring that the planning regime is robust. On balance, it was felt that we needed to make a move on this pot 1 auction in order to reach the target.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)
The right hon. Gentleman will know that we have announced, with the Department for International Trade, that we will no longer provide any new export finance or new export credit for thermal coalmining or coal-powered plants overseas.
Stephen Timms
I am grateful to the Minister for that confirmation. Following the Prime Minister’s announcement at the UK-Africa investment summit, will the Minister set out whether there is going to be a transition period prior to the welcome situation that he has described? Does he agree that UK Export Finance should be promoting the transition away from all fossil fuels in developing countries as soon as possible?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Any form of financing should absolutely take into account our net zero commitment, and it is in the process of doing so. On the question of coal, I take the opportunity to reiterate the fact that the Prime Minister, only last month, announced the intention to consult on bringing forward the coal closure to 1 October 2024. Even last month, only about 3% of our power generation was coming from coal. So this is a very achievable target, and we are very hopeful that we can take coal entirely off the grid by October 2024.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The move to generate electricity from sources other than coal is very welcome, but some manufacturing processes will still require a supply of coal. Does the Minister agree that it is better for that coal to be supplied from domestic sources rather than being shipped halfway around the world?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend is right. Obviously, from a coal and carbon emissions reduction point of view, it makes sense to have a locally based coal source rather than shipping it in a very costly way halfway around the world. That is a fair point. On the point about coal, the 2024 target is absolutely achievable. It is something we are absolutely committed to doing. In the long run, coal will be taken completely off the power generation grid, and that is something to be celebrated across the whole House.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)
My Department is leading the green revolution, working towards a target of net zero emissions by 2050. We are unleashing innovation and making the UK the best place in the world to start and grow a business. We are creating better corporate governance, improving employment protections and working practices, and contributing to the UK’s labour market strategy. Our preparations for COP26 are gathering pace, ramping up momentum towards a global zero carbon economy.
John Mc Nally
The recent BEIS Committee report was clear that the UK could not credibly adopt a net zero emissions target unless it invests in carbon capture and undersea storage. Does the Secretary of State plan to extend the Tory manifesto’s proposals on CCUS plants to Scotland so that we can create and deliver a clean growth structure?
Alok Sharma
I certainly agree that CCUS is going to be essential to successfully tackling climate change. The hon. Gentleman talks about innovation funding for Scotland. I can tell him that £4.8 million is supporting the development of Project Acorn, which is a CCUS project based in north-east Scotland.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
For over 40 years, Jim Hall Sports has been at the heart of Bramhall village. However, the future of the shop is in doubt after Nike’s decision to terminate its supply agreements with smaller independent shops. This follows years of annual rises in the amounts that independent retailers have needed to sell to hold on to their merchandise account. It is a move that is a harbinger of the end of many independent stores in an already pressurised high street market. What discussions has my hon. Friend had with sports giants such as Nike to ensure that Jim Hall’s and other independent sports shops continue to have a future on our high streets?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I thank my hon. Friend for sticking up for small businesses in her constituency. Large suppliers of consumer products, especially those who are leaders in their field, have a responsibility to treat retailers fairly and transparently, regardless of their size. If they think they are being unfairly treated, they could go to the Competition and Markets Authority. Contractual arrangements are between two private companies. However, we will support our high streets through the towns fund and the establishment of the high street taskforce.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Coronavirus is impacting on every aspect of work, from the cost to employers to the cost to workers. The Health Secretary has said that employers should view isolation as sick leave, but the law does not state that. Even if that was so, those on zero-hours contracts and in insecure work are unlikely to have sickness cover, and statutory sick pay does not pay for the first three days, meaning that those with little means have to choose between health and hardship—an issue I raised with the Health Minister a month ago. So what discussions has the Business Secretary had with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that workers are financially protected to stop the risk of spreading coronavirus?
Alok Sharma
The hon. Lady is right: this is a very serious issue, which affects individuals and challenges businesses. Those who do not qualify for statutory sick pay, including those who are self-employed, may be able to claim universal credit or new-style employment and support allowance.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)
I had the pleasure, with my hon. Friend, of meeting Cornish Lithium recently, and it was made clear that lithium extraction provides an excellent opportunity to contribute to our efforts to level up Cornwall, as well as securing our net zero objectives. I thank him for the invitation. I would be delighted to visit Cornwall.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Alok Sharma
We are committed to supporting the retail sector, and we are working closely with the industry through the Retail Sector Council. As the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), noted in reply to a question earlier, we are supporting high streets with the £1 billion future high streets fund.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
Alok Sharma
We are committed to securing investment for a UK gigafactory to support electrical vehicle manufacturing. Indeed, last week, I met Andy Street and Ralf Speth, who is the chief executive officer of Jaguar Land Rover, to discuss their thoughts on this matter. We recognise the strength of the west midlands, where £138 million has already been invested in the UK Battery Industrialisation Centre scheduled to open near Coventry this summer.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
Alok Sharma
The hon. Lady talks about support for business. We provide that through small start-up loans and the British Business Bank, but I or one of my colleagues would be happy to have a discussion with her on the specific issue she raises.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Alok Sharma
My right hon. Friend speaks from experience, having been a business Minister in the past. We are absolutely committed to making sure that we reduce burdensome regulation and red tape, but we need to make sure that we stick with the protections that are there for employees.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
Alok Sharma
I will make sure that my colleagues and I have the discussion. Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to share with my office the details of that case.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
Paul Scully
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Last week, I co-chaired the Rose review board, which is overseeing the progress made in delivering on the initiatives from that review. The Treasury has launched the investing in women code, which to date has 22 signatories from across the financial services industry. I look forward to working with my colleagues in government and business to drive forward this important agenda.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
Tidal’s Store in my constituency is paying a high amount of business rates—proportionately more than the local retail park down the road—which it says is putting it at a disadvantage. Will the Minister have a word with his Treasury colleagues about reforming business rates for small businesses such as Tidal’s?
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I know that that is something that exercises high streets up and down the country. The Treasury is looking at this and reviewing business rates as a whole.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
When I was in business years ago, it came to something when Ríkisútvarpið in Iceland and Nederlandse Omroep Stichting in Holland paid quicker than the BBC. What can my hon. Friend do to ensure that large businesses pay smaller businesses quickly and on time?
Paul Scully
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We will be strengthening the Small Business Commissioner’s powers. We already have a tough approach to large companies that do not comply with the payment practices and reporting duty. We are strengthening and reforming the prompt payment code and moving administration to the Small Business Commissioner. The business basics fund competition encourages SMEs to utilise payment technology and boost productivity, and the winners will be announced in April.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Local crofters in Melness support the proposal to establish a vertical space launch facility in Sutherland, and they have written to the Prime Minister to tell him that. Does the Secretary of State agree that that would be good for the local economy and that the UK has a huge opportunity in terms of launching satellites for other countries that do not have launch facilities?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
I thank the hon. Member for that question. We have united Departments across Government to develop a UK space strategy, which will help the UK lead the way in this fast-growing area and create thousands of jobs across the country. Our space strategy will support cutting-edge space science and technologies and foster world-leading British innovation.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)
Nearly half the core research and development budget is spent in just three cities—Oxford, Cambridge and London—and yet for every pound of private investment that such spending leverages in London, we get £3 in the east midlands and £5 in the west midlands. Does the Minister agree that, if we are going to level up, we need a fairer division of spending on R&D?
Alok Sharma
As I said in answer to an earlier question, I absolutely want to see levelling up, and I want to see money put into centres of excellence around the country.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his role. I enjoyed working with him in his previous job, and I am sure he will do a very good job in this Department. Is he aware of the dire situation of businesses in my constituency because the workshop of the world—China—has closed for business? There is no supply chain, and manufacturing companies up and down the country are in a dire situation. This is a crisis caused by coronavirus, and we have not stepped up to the plate yet to face the measure of this terrible disaster.
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank the hon. Member for his question, but he is wrong. We have stood up a very important group within the Department that is working with the automotive sector, the retail sector and others that are impacted by China’s supply chain problems. We continue to monitor the situation closely, as well as the critical infrastructure that keeps the UK’s lights on and the UK economy powering ahead.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that one of the best ways to level up the great British high street with the internet would be to allow our high street shops to choose when they open?
Paul Scully
I know that my hon. Friend has looked at extending the hours of the Malvern tourist information centre. The Government have reviewed this issue several times. There are strongly held views on both sides. We believe that the current rules represent a fair compromise between those seeking reduced opening hours and those seeking greater liberalisation.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
At the same time as the Government have re-announced subsidies for onshore wind, Scottish Forestry has revealed that 13.9 million trees have been cut down for wind farms on its land. Does the Minister share my concern at those acts of economic vandalism? Does he believe that it is in the economic and environmental interests of this country to tear down trees, cut up peatland and erect steel structures on pristine landscapes in the vain hope that we can change the climate?
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)
I am always very interested in the right hon. Gentleman’s contributions on this subject. We should look at the details of actual deforestation, but he must not allow himself to get distracted from the big picture. The deployment of offshore wind has been a huge success for the UK. As the Secretary of State said, the price per megawatt hour has come down by two thirds and renewable energy is absolutely at the centre of our strategy to reach net zero carbon.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
In 2016, the United States became a net exporter of liquefied natural gas. In 2019, the United States became a net exporter of all oil products: both crude and refined. In order to diversify the UK’s energy risk, is it not time that the Government started to interact with the United States, perhaps as part of a trade deal, to import both gas and oil from the United States?
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I met the newly appointed US Energy Secretary a couple of weeks ago and we work very closely with the United States. Of course, this week we published our terms for our negotiation for a free trade agreement with that great country.
Recent Violence in India
(4 years, 9 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
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent violence in India and the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will respond to this urgent question as the Foreign Secretary is in Turkey today.
The British high commission in New Delhi and our extensive diplomatic network of deputy high commissions across India are monitoring closely the recent violence in India and developments around the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019. The events in Delhi last week were very concerning, and the situation is still tense. The death of one protester is one too many. We urge restraint from all parties and trust that the Indian Government will address the concerns of people of all religions in India. We also condemn any incidents of violence, persecution or targeting of people based on religion or belief, wherever it happens in the world.
India has a proud history of inclusive government and religious tolerance. Its secular constitution, which guarantees equality before the law, has been an exemplar of inclusive democracy. After his re-election, I note that Prime Minister Modi promised to continue this under the guiding principles of
“together with all, development for all and trust for all”.
These shared strengths and values are central to the governance of both our countries. It is a central message of our foreign policy that societies are stronger and safer when we embrace our diversity rather than fear it.
Related to this, many people have made it clear that they have concerns about the Government of India recently signing into law the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, which expedites the path to citizenship for Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsis and Christians, but notably not Muslims or minority sects. The UK Government also have concerns about the potential impact of the legislation. It is because of our close relationship with the Government of India that we are able to discuss difficult issues with them and make clear our concerns where we have them, including on the rights of minorities.
Most recently, my ministerial colleague Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon raised these concerns about the impact of the CAA with a senior member of India’s Ministry of External Affairs on 25 February. Officials from the British high commission in New Delhi also raised our concerns about the potential impact of the CAA and the police response to the protests with the state government of Uttar Pradesh on 7 February. Our former high commissioner in New Delhi, Sir Dominic Asquith, also raised the issue with the Government of India in January, as did Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials with the Indian high commission in London.
More broadly, the UK engages with India at all levels, including union and state governments, and with non-governmental organisations to build capacity and share expertise to promote human rights for all. We will continue to follow events closely and to raise our concerns when we have them.
Mr Mahmood
I find the hon. Gentleman’s words rather facile. We have brought him to the Dispatch Box. I raised the issue with the Leader of the House on Thursday, and the Minister is here now. This urgent question concerns the sickening violence against Muslims that we have seen in India in recent weeks following the proposals in the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019. The CAA enables undocumented migrants from neighbouring countries to seek Indian citizenship, provided that they meet one condition: they are not Muslim. This is the first such law to have been passed in India since its independence. Next will come a national register of citizens, and undocumented Muslim migrants will automatically be excluded, held in concentration camps and identified for deportation.
Through such laws, Prime Minister Modi is turning a hateful nationalistic slogan into brutality. He recently said, “Hinduon ka Hindustan,” which is literally translated as, “India for the Hindus.” The CAA has generated nationwide protests by Muslims and secular Hindus, prompting politicians from the ultra-nationalist Bharatiya Janata party to demand that the sectarian hate mobs hit back. Recently in Delhi, more than 40 people were killed by mobs that attacked Muslim homes and families, but the authorities took no notice. As a result, in recent weeks, dozens of Muslims have been dragged out of their homes, burned, or beaten to death in the streets by mobs. Thousands of people have lost their livelihoods. All the while, the Indian police look on passively, and Modi cynically counts the benefits of electoral success.
For those who support India and want to see it take its rightful place as one of the global leaders of the 21st century, with a place on the United Nations Security Council, it is sickening to see such a descent into hatred and mob rule. What are the Government doing to take India off this path and to provide protection for its Muslim population? Has the Minister raised the issue with his Indian counterpart, and has he threatened to raise it at Commonwealth and UN level? If India behaves like a state with no regard for human rights, the rule of law or freedom of religion, it must urgently be made to face the consequences of its behaviour.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am expecting to run this urgent question for up to 40 minutes.
Nigel Adams
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we deplore what we have seen over the last few weeks, and we condemn the violence that has been recorded and broadcast. We have raised, and do raise, concerns with the Indian Government, especially over matters such as this. As I said, we have concerns about the impact of the CAA, and my colleague, Lord Ahmad, has raised them with the Ministry of External Affairs. We continue that dialogue. As recently as mid-February, officials from the British high commission raised our concerns about the impact of the CAA, and particularly about the police response to those protests with the state government of Uttar Pradesh. I assure the hon. Gentleman that our dialogue with the Indian Government is ongoing.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend for his responses so far, particularly his remark that one protester who is killed is one too many. He will be aware that it is not just Muslims who have been killed; Hindus have also been killed as part of the riots. Will he confirm that there have been 514 arrests following those riots, and that the police have organised 330 separate meetings with different communities to bring them together and calm the situation down? Will he commend that action to restore peace and tranquillity to Delhi?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend takes a keen interest in these affairs. I would commend and applaud any action that attempts to take the heat out of the severe tensions over the CAA that currently exist in parts of India.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
There is a lot of agreement across the House, and I commend the Minister on his statement, with which I agreed, as far as it went—we need to be clear that we can go a lot further. The situation has been, as we have heard, occasioned by a deliberate Indian Government policy of targeting Muslims with the Citizenship (Amendment) Act. In the short term, there is a real role for the UK Government—this was not mentioned in the statement—to build on the RESIST Government communication framework, as it is obvious that online disinformation is being used in India to inflame tensions. I commend the Government Communication Service and the Cabinet Office on this work. I think that the UK is in a position to undertake a real assessment of the online actors, including malign actors—this is aside from Indian Government policy, which is another issue, and I urge the Minister to step up efforts on dialogue regarding that—as there are online efforts that could be made against that sort of disinformation, as people are at risk of further violence.
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible and important point. I am pleased that he welcomes the report. Any measures, whether attempting to clamp down on online disinformation or those that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) raised, are welcome. We are in constant contact on these issues, and we know how important this is to Members of Parliament and their constituents, who may have family in the area. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend to his new position. Will he confirm that he will use his high office and every power that he has to make sure that Members’ concerns are relayed to the Indian authorities, particularly given that the brutality seems to have been meted out by those who should enforce the law, as was recently shown in BBC coverage.
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I alluded to our concerns about some of the police brutality that was meted out. We have long regarded protest as a key part of any democratic society. Democratic Governments must have the power to enforce law and order when a protest crosses the line into illegality, but we also encourage all states to ensure that their domestic laws are enforced in line with all international standards.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
In the past five years, Narendra Modi’s BJP Government have chosen a path of systematic discrimination, whether the abrogation of article 35A in Kashmir or the citizenship law. Calling the recent violence “community clashes” seeks to normalise far more sinister events. India is now controlled by a Hindutva supremacist Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh ideology, with strong historic links to the Nazi party. The current Prime Minister of India was a member of the RSS. What steps is our Prime Minister taking to call out that discriminatory practice at the heart of the Indian Government?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Lady makes a powerful point. We are in constant contact with the Indian Government. I mentioned in my statement that we have concerns about the impact of the CAA legislation, particularly on Muslims, and she is right to raise that. Rest assured that, through our close relationship with India, we are able to raise those concerns with that Government, especially in a live situation.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
The United Kingdom can be justifiably proud of being a world leader in matters relating to freedom of confession. Can the Minister confirm that Her Majesty’s Government will call for a thorough investigation of all and any abuses that have been perpetrated, and use their influence to call for restraint?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend makes a sensible point, and it is because we have influence with the Indian Government that we are in a good position to do that. We have close contacts, and we actively promote—I think we are a world leader in this—matters relating to freedom of religion and belief. Ministers and senior officials raise individual cases, and highlight practices and laws, that discriminate against people on that basis.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Incited mob violence in Delhi on the basis of someone’s faith brings back painful personal memories, as a religious minority, of the 1984 genocide of Sikhs while I was studying in India. We must learn from history, not be fooled by those whose insidious aim is to divide society and are hellbent on killing people and destroying religious places in the name of religion. What message has the Minister given to his Indian counterparts that the persecution of Indian Muslims, many of whom who have protested peacefully against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, is utterly intolerable; that the police cannot stand idly by or, worse still, be complicit, as is alleged by many victims and social activists; and that the perpetrators must feel the full force of the law?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman speaks very powerfully from personal experience. It is absolutely essential that we speak up when we believe that abuses have taken place. When protest crosses the line into illegality, as I mentioned, the Government need to act within all domestic and international laws to make sure that those laws are enforced. He is absolutely right to raise these issues, and we are constantly talking at ministerial and official levels with the Government of India about our concerns, particularly regarding the CAA.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
I am speaking on behalf of a great number of constituents who have presented me with very grave concerns about what is happening in India. Does my hon. Friend agree that clamping down on any human rights abuses will always be a central part of UK foreign policy?
Nigel Adams
That is absolutely right. We take the lead on this issue around the world and we are well regarded. This is a core part of our foreign policy, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that in the House on behalf of his constituents.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
We know that there is a pattern of behaviour and that this is just the latest example of religious intolerance in India. When Prime Minister Modi welcomed Donald Trump a couple of weeks ago, we saw the two of them embracing each other and scrambling to do a trade agreement. In the scramble for a post-Brexit trade deal, what reassurances can the Minister give that we will not be doing the same, and that we will raise these cases at the highest levels of Government and not ignore human rights when it comes to doing trade deals?
Nigel Adams
While trade is vital for our economy and future prosperity, this in no way compromises the United Kingdom’s commitment to holding human rights at the core of our foreign policy. I guarantee the hon. Gentleman that we will not pursue trade to the exclusion of human rights.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights recently introduced an intervention plea in the Supreme Court of India about the CAA; she has been given a brush-off by the Indian Government. What are we doing to bolster the position of the UN commissioner?
Nigel Adams
I am aware of the intervention to which my hon. Friend refers. I assure him that we raise our concerns privately and regularly with the Government of India. We will continue to engage with them on a full range of human rights matters and we raise our concerns when we have them, particularly at the current time.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
As the BBC recently reported, the latest outbreak of violence in Delhi is very worrying, as there is evidence that the police are complicit in and, indeed, encouraging violence against Muslims. What are the Government doing to make sure that they are talking to their counterparts in Delhi to ensure that Muslim’s lives there are safe?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Member raises a very good point. Any allegation of human rights abuses is deeply disturbing, and the violence that we saw was incredibly concerning. I assure the House that we have made it clear that those incidents must be investigated thoroughly, promptly and transparently.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
The fact that the Indian Government have felt able to pass this law and some of the responses that we have seen to it are deeply distressing. Will my hon. Friend not only confirm that he will continue to raise this at the highest level but make a commitment that Foreign Office staff will now start planning how we can act to raise the pressure on this issue before there is any further escalation, rather than reacting in response to it?
Nigel Adams
I know that my hon. Friend has great experience of foreign affairs, having worked in the Department, and she raises a very good and crucial point. Because we have that close relationship with India through our officials and at a ministerial level, we can have that dialogue. She makes a very sensible point about being pre-emptive rather than reactive.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the violence it has precipitated would be concerning enough if it was a single isolated act, but we all know that it is not; it comes on the heels of Modi’s Government’s actions in relation to Kashmir and the implementation in Assam of a national register of citizens. It is beginning to look like part of a course of conduct designed to marginalise the Muslim population in India. India is part of the Commonwealth. What are we doing through that forum, alongside the bilateral representations that I trust we are making?
Nigel Adams
The right hon. Gentleman rightly mentions the NRC in Assam. I know that there are concerns in that area as well. Through our network of high commissioners, we continually assess that situation. I can get back to the right hon. Gentleman in writing on action through the Commonwealth.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
On the intervention application to the Indian Supreme Court by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, does the Minister believe that this is an internal sovereign issue, or does he believe that it is an international issue, given that India is a signatory to a plethora of international law obligations?
Nigel Adams
We raise these issues directly and have done so privately. I am aware of what the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has filed, but the UK Government intend to pursue our policy of raising issues directly with the Government of India.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
In October 1984, Delhi witnessed the genocide of Sikhs in their thousands under Congress rule. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that all ethnic and religious minorities in India can feel safe, secure and free from persecution?
Nigel Adams
All minorities in India deserve that protection, and I can assure the hon. Lady that we constantly remind our counterparts at official and ministerial levels of their responsibilities in that regard.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)
In my constituency, families of Indian origin have wonderful relations with each other, whether they are Hindu, Sikh or Muslim, so it is heartbreaking to see the violence in India. Is the Minister thinking about how we can use all our policies, including our aid policies, to encourage equally good relationships between communities in India itself?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend will be aware that the UK Government have several projects in India, though we do not provide funding directly to the Government of India. I know that this can be helpful and that our intervention is appreciated in many areas.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I echo the Minister’s tribute to the constitution of India. Since it was drafted under the leadership of Dr B. R. Ambedkar after independence, it has been admired around the world for its commitment to equality irrespective of religion. Does he share my sadness that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act is such a decisive move away from that principle because, as he has explained, for some it makes citizenship dependent on their religion?
Nigel Adams
I do share the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns. The UK Government have broad concerns about the Act, which is why we are engaging directly with the Government. He is right to raise this matter because it is a huge concern.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Those of us with significant Indian Muslim communities will have seen videos showing shocking orchestrated sectarian violence. Can I encourage the Minister to invite the Indian high commissioner to his office to share with him the deep concern of many of our constituents about their families and friends in India? If there is one silver lining in this very dark cloud it is what one Gujarati Muslim said to me, which is that he and his family now value more than ever the pluralism and safety across faiths that this country provides.
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge and passion on all these matters and is right to raise this issue. I will speak to my ministerial colleague, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, who I know has a close relationship with the high commissioner. I am sure that this matter has been raised, but on behalf of my hon. Friend and his constituents, I will ensure that Lord Ahmad has a meeting with the high commissioner shortly.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Many of my constituents have raised concerns about the ongoing situation in India and Jammu and Kashmir. There is something the Minister could do to be of assistance. There will be many people within the UK Visas and Immigration system awaiting a decision, including people who have been through religious persecution already. What advice would he give to his colleagues in the Home Office on how those cases should be dealt with and will he ensure that the advice on India and Jammu and Kashmir is updated to reflect the ongoing situation?
Nigel Adams
We regularly update our advice on Kashmir via the FCO website and we encourage people to take close notice of that. I am sure that my colleagues in the Home Office will have noted the hon. Lady’s question and will make sure she gets a follow-up.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Our close relationship with India will ensure that our concerns on this matter are heard. What representations have the Government made to the Government of India to ensure that they, their states and their agents always act in compliance with international law?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend raises a good point. It is because we have a close relationship with India that we can raise our concerns at all levels with the Government of India. Most recently, just over a week ago, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon raised our concerns about the CAA directly with India’s Ministry of External Affairs.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
In August 2019, the Indian Government stripped Muslim-majority Jammu and Kashmir of its autonomous status. In December, it passed the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, which provides a path to citizenship for all migrant minorities except Muslims and creates a national register of citizens, forcing Indians to provide documents to prove their citizenship, which many poorer Indians do not have and many Muslims will not be able to get. Does the Minister accept that the recent violence in Delhi, which has been whipped up by BJP politicians and has led to dozens of deaths, is just the latest targeted assault on Muslims by the Modi Government?
Nigel Adams
The UK Government have deep concerns about the escalation that the hon. Lady refers to. She mentioned the NRC, which is currently enacted in the state of Assam. We have not received any confirmation from the Government of India that it will be expanded India-wide, but she is right to raise concerns, because millions of people could be affected and will be very concerned about this policy.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK leads the way on the global stage on freedom of religion and belief?
Nigel Adams
I do indeed. We actively promote the importance of freedom of religion and belief and we combat discrimination on the basis of religious identity through our diplomatic activity and through the UN and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Recently, delegates from Nottingham’s Indian diaspora came to see me and challenged me—quite legitimately—over our special connection and relationship with India, which they said gave us a responsibility to speak out against what we have seen in Kashmir and with the CAA. The Minister has talked about the contact between our Government and the Government of India, but he has not said what impact that has had. He has detailed his strategy. What evidence does he have that it is working?
Nigel Adams
As I have said numerous times, we are constantly making representations where we believe there are human rights abuses. On Kashmir, as is well known, our position is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution while taking into account the wishes of Kashmiri people. The Indian Government take notice of what the UK Government say, and that dialogue will continue.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
The situation in Jammu and Kashmir is of particular concern to my constituents, many of whom have family and friends in the region. This is obviously a complex issue, but will my hon. Friend agree to put more pressure on the Indian and Pakistani Governments to take action to find a resolution that results in peace in Jammu and Kashmir?
Nigel Adams
Indeed. My ministerial colleagues talk to their colleagues in not just the Indian but the Pakistani Government. I can assure my hon. Friend and his constituents that that dialogue continues, and that we consistently press for channels of dialogue to remain open. We believe that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution, and we want to encourage the pace and scope of their dialogue.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Will the Minister join me in rejecting the language of riots, clashes, protest and communal violence? This is, in fact, a continuation of sustained and systemic Hindutva violence waged on the Muslim and many minority ethnic communities in India that is sanctioned by Modi’s BJP Government.
Nigel Adams
The UK Government have long regarded protest as a legitimate means of raising issues and as part of democratic society, but any allegations of human rights abuse are very concerning, and we believe that they should be investigated thoroughly, promptly and transparently.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
Can the Minister share with us the reason why the Indian Government have excluded Muslims from the Citizenship (Amendment) Act? Does he agree that legislation should never discriminate on the basis of faith?
Nigel Adams
I can assure the hon. Lady that such legislation does give us cause for concern, especially for the Muslim community, and we make those points very clearly when we meet our counterparts.
Coronavirus
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement about the Government’s coronavirus action plan.
The situation facing the country is increasingly serious. Globally and at home, the number of cases continues to rise. As of 9 am today there were 51 confirmed cases in the UK, and it is becoming more likely that we will see widespread transmission in this country. Our approach is to plan for the worst and work for the best. Yesterday I attended a Cobra meeting chaired by the Prime Minister, during which we finalised our four-part action plan to contain, delay, research and mitigate the virus. The plan has been jointly agreed by the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. Copies have been sent to Members of both Houses, and made available in hard copy.
The plan is driven by the science and guided by the expert recommendations of the four UK chief medical officers and the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. It sets out what we know so far about the virus and the disease that it causes, what long-term planning we have undertaken to prepare for a pandemic, what actions we have taken so far in response to the current outbreak, and, crucially, the role that the public can play in supporting our response, both now and in the future.
The UK is well prepared for infectious disease outbreaks of this kind. The international data continue to indicate that for most people, this disease is mild and the vast majority recover fully. We have responded to a wide range of disease outbreaks in the recent past, and the NHS has been preparing for a pandemic virus for well over a decade. We have world-class expertise to make sense of the emerging data, we have a strong base on which to build, and, while covid-19 is a new virus, we have adapted our response to take account of that fact.
Our plan sets out a phased response to the outbreak. Phase 1 is to contain, and it is the phase that we are currently in. Contain is about detecting the early cases, following up close contacts, and preventing the disease from taking hold in this country for as long as is reasonably possible. That approach also buys time for the NHS to ramp up its preparations. The scientific advice is that if the number of global cases continues to rise, especially in Europe, we may not be able to contain the virus indefinitely.
At that point, we will activate the delay phase of our plan. Delay is about slowing the spread, lowering the peak impact of the disease, and pushing it away from the winter season. We are mindful of scientific advice that reacting too early or overreacting carries its own risks, so, subject to the primary goal of keeping people safe, we will seek to minimise social and economic disruption.
The third part of the plan is research. Research has been ongoing since we first identified covid-19, and I pay tribute to the scientists at Public Health England who were among the first in the world to sequence its genome. Research is not just about the development of a vaccine, which we are actively pursuing but which will be many months away at the earliest. It is also about understanding what actions will lessen the impact of the coronavirus, including what drugs and treatments—existing and new—will help those who are already sick.
The fourth phase is mitigate. We will move to this phase if the virus becomes established in the UK population. At that point it would be impossible to prevent widespread transmission, so the emphasis will be on caring for those who are most seriously ill, and keeping essential services running at a time when large parts of the workforce may be off sick. Our plans include not just the most likely case, but the reasonable worst case.
We will identify and support the most vulnerable. If necessary, we will take some of the actions set out in today’s plan to reduce the impact of absentees and to lessen the impact on our economy and supply chains. We prepare for the worst and work for the best. We commit to ensuring that the agencies responsible for tackling this outbreak are properly resourced and have the people, equipment and medicines that they need, and that any new laws that they need are brought forward as and when required.
This is a national effort. We need everyone to listen to and act on the official medical advice. We need employers to prioritise the welfare of their staff. And the single most important thing that everyone can do to help—I make no apologies for repeating this—is to use tissues when they cough or sneeze, and to wash their hands more often. That is in their interest, their families’ interest and the national interest.
We will get through this, and everyone has a part to play. I commend this statement to the House.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
May I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, and to the House for being a few minutes late? I had a problem with my printer when I was trying to print the Secretary of State’s statement. I thank him for advance sight of the statement, and, indeed, for advance sight of the action plan this morning. Let me also record my thanks for the briefing that the Leader of the Opposition and I received yesterday from departmental officials, the chief medical officer and the Government Chief Scientific Adviser. I believe that the chief medical officer will brief parliamentarians later today, and I think that that is a very welcome initiative.
The Government’s strategy to contain then delay, research and then mitigate has our endorsement, but may I ask the Secretary of State for some specific clarifications? The first relates to containment and self-isolation. The Prime Minister said today—as, indeed, the Secretary of State has said before—that workers who self-isolate are considered to be on sick leave. Can the Secretary of State confirm that those who need to self-isolate will not need to visit a GP to obtain a sick note, given that the Government’s advice is not to visit a GP? As he will know, 2 million workers on low pay or insecure contracts in the gig economy do not even qualify for statutory sick pay. He will also know that those who are receiving benefits are often asked to physically attend appointments. Can he guarantee that no financial sanction will be imposed if they are asked to self-isolate?
Does the Secretary of State accept that people should not be forced to make a choice between their health and avoiding financial hardship? We are told that he is considering emergency legislation. Will he introduce legislation to remove the barriers to self-isolation so that all workers can receive the sick pay that they deserve? That is in the interests of public health. If he introduces such legislation, we will help him to get it on to the statute book quickly. He could do it this week or he could do it next week, and we will support him. Let us give all workers the security that they deserve, so that they do not have to put their health ahead of their financial interests or vice versa.
More broadly on the NHS and social care, I want to look at the response of the NHS and the support that it will be given through the containment and mitigation phases. We know that around 80% of critical care beds were occupied last week. We know that the NHS is short of 100,000 staff, and we also know that staff working in the NHS, particularly those on the frontline such as GPs, need to be protected as well. Even if we take at face value the Government’s insistence that they have provided the NHS with the resources to deliver the commitments of the long-term plan—we obviously disagree on this, but that is a debate for another time—we can surely all accept that covid-19 is going to lead to increased demand on trusts and the wider NHS. Every trust that sends a sample for testing has to pay for it to be couriered. Trusts are likely to take on more agency staff. If retired staff are encouraged to return to practice, the wage bill will increase. By the way, on retired staff, can the Secretary of State reassure us that protections and oversight will be in place, particularly around returning staff who, as we understand it, will not need to go through a revalidation process for their licence?
The Government have recognised that, as we move into the mitigation phase, non-urgent care may be delayed. I assume that means that trusts will be looking at cancelling elective surgery, which will result in waiting lists growing. Again, this will impact on trusts’ finances. Will the Government provide an emergency funding increase for the NHS resource budget to support the NHS through this next challenging period? Directors of public health still do not know their public health allocations for the next financial year, which starts next month. This means that directors of public health could be cutting the nurse workloads they are responsible for commissioning at a time when those very nurses will be needed to deal with covid-19 cases. Will the right hon. Gentleman announce the public health allocations as a matter of urgency?
On social care, we know that many who are at risk from the virus are the elderly and those with chronic conditions. Social care is responsible for and has a duty of care to many of the people who are most vulnerable to the outbreak. What advice does the Secretary of State have for social care providers, and will extra resources be announced for social care services? On the emergency powers that he has briefed about, will he sit down with us and other Opposition parties to discuss the contents of that legislation?
On the global efforts to contain the virus, we know that disease knows no borders. We cannot build a wall or an iron curtain around these islands. Why, then, are the Government apparently walking away from the EU early warning and response system, which plays such a vital role in pandemic preparations? We have been led to believe that No. 10 has overruled the Secretary of State on this. Also, to contain the virus internationally, countries with weaker health systems need to be supported as well, otherwise, we will not contain the virus. Can the Secretary of State update us on what help he is offering to the World Health Organisation on that front?
This is a serious time. Our constituents will be concerned, and many will be frightened. We will raise our concerns responsibly, but we offer to work constructively with the Government, because the public health interest and the safety of our constituents must always come first.
Matt Hancock
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the constructive approach he has taken from the start, and I will seek to address all the questions that he has raised. His first point was about statutory sick pay. For those who need to self-isolate for medical reasons to protect others, that counts as being off sick. They do not need to go to a GP, because there is a seven-day allowance for self-declaration. I hope that that addresses that point directly—[Interruption.] We keep all matters on this under review because, broadly, I agree with him on the principle that he has set out. On the NHS, he asked about resources. We have already increased resources to the NHS and we stand ready to do so if that is necessary.
The hon. Gentleman asked about doctors and revalidation. In legislation, we are proposing to make revalidation simpler. We will bring forward those measures, and of course we will engage with the Opposition on the potential measures as and when that is necessary.
On public health allocations, we have already been clear that the public health grant is going up in aggregate. As my right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary set out last week, we have seen a 4.4% real-terms increase in local authority budgets this year, and the social care budget is going up by £1 billion. I think that that takes into account the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.
The hon. Gentleman also raised engagement with the World Health Organisation We have supported the WHO with extra funding. On engaging with the EU, I have regular engagement with colleagues from across Europe, and some of the reports I have seen in the newspapers are not accurate, because the questions of engagement with the EU on matters of health security are a matter for the negotiations, as set out on Thursday in the negotiations document.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
I would like to commend the Health Secretary for the calm way in which he has been dealing with this crisis and for his very clear public messaging. He called me last Friday to tell me that there had been a coronavirus outbreak in my constituency. I would like to thank the staff at the Haslemere health centre for their extraordinary commitment in working over the weekend so that the health centre could be open again on Monday morning. This shows, however, that some of the people at greatest risk are our frontline health workers. One study in China showed that 7% of the people who got the virus in Wuhan were health workers. Will the Health Secretary confirm whether hospitals, GP surgeries, care homes and nursing homes have enough face masks, gloves and hand gel, and will he outline any other measures he is taking to ensure that NHS staff are kept safe?
Matt Hancock
My right hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point, and the answer to the question is yes. We are putting out further advice and guidance to the health system, to the NHS, to GPs and to hospitals today. That will go out from Keith Willett in the NHS.
On the point about the kit needed to keep health workers safe: yes, we are putting in place the actions to ensure that it is available at the right moment when it is needed. There are some GP surgeries that do not have that equipment yet, but we are putting in place the actions needed to ensure that they have it as and when it is needed. As my right hon. Friend knows, the number of cases right now is relatively small. It is 51, as of 9 o’clock this morning. The protective equipment is there, so that for each of these cases we can get right on to them, but if the virus becomes more widespread, of course more and more NHS settings right across the country are going to need that sort of equipment.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I welcome the plan, although I have to say that I would have welcomed receiving the briefing yesterday that the shadow Secretary of State mentioned, which I did not receive. The plan lays out a reasonable worst case scenario, and it is clear about the three time phases. Research is of course ongoing, but this will help to prepare the public for decisions that may have to be made down the line. At the moment, containment is based on self-isolation of cases, contacts and those who have travelled to risk areas, but with the spread elsewhere in the world, it is becoming harder to define risk areas. With regard to north Italy, the chief medical officer talked about those with underlying conditions perhaps interpreting the advice more stringently and not travelling, so will the Government either discuss with insurance companies or even consider legislation to make underlying conditions an acceptable reason to cancel a holiday, so that people can get their money back rather than putting themselves at risk?
I agree with the Secretary of State regarding asymptomatic workers and sick pay, but there are staff who have no sick pay in their contract, and some protection has to be given to them. He referred to the seven-day period for self-certification, but isolation is for 14 days, and we do not want people turning up at their GP surgery halfway through that period. Can that be looked at? One issue that I have come across is an employer telling a member of staff returning from a holiday in Tenerife that they should not come to work for two weeks, but the employer does not wish to pay them for that period. We need to look at that, even if it is not health advice but an employer stipulation expecting people to have no income.
As we move into delay, we see that children are not particularly vulnerable to catching this. However, as with other coronaviruses, they may well spread it. Do we have evidence for how much they contribute to transmission, as that will affect decisions on school closures?
What preparations are being made for the long haul? Previous coronavirus outbreaks have lasted not just for a few months but for over a year, so we could be dealing with this next winter. If we move into mitigation, the situation will reverse and it will be about protecting the vulnerable and early discharge to home care. That might require the changing of staff from hospitals and care homes to work in the community, so are the Government in negotiations on such matters as legal responsibility and liability?
The Secretary of State quite rightly talked about what the public should be doing, but should we not already be thinking about stopping shaking hands and about working from home, if possible, without an economic impact? That would also help the climate emergency. Containment moves into delay without a border, so should we not be thinking about trying to get ahead of the curve?
Matt Hancock
We have been briefing colleagues as much as possible. Clearly, the CMOs’ time is incredibly valuable at the moment. We have worked with the Scottish Government on this plan; it was signed off by both the First Minister and the CMO for Scotland. In fact, it has been developed with the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Government of Northern Ireland, so ultimately it is a multi-party plan.
The hon. Lady made the point about seven-day certification. That is indeed the sort of reason why we are holding this area under review and there is work ongoing, including on the points she has raised. She also asked about shaking hands. The medical advice is that the impact of shaking hands is negligible; what really matters is washing hands. Our public health advice will remain clear and based on the science—what matters, more than anything else, is that people wash their hands for 20 seconds or more, using soap and preferably hot water. That is the core of the public health advice.
The hon. Lady mentioned working from home. There is an incredibly important point about timing written into the plan. There are actions that we may need to take in future that it would not be appropriate to take now. We are not advising people to work from home now, but we do not rule out doing so in future if that might be more effective clinically, given the disruption it could cause.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I will let this statement run for about an hour, so let us help each other.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
With regard to the impact that coronavirus can have, the Secretary of State is right to balance the difference of health and the economy and I welcome his caution in that regard. I want to raise a point about small businesses. If coronavirus does become a more significant problem, are the Government considering making emergency loans available to otherwise good businesses? If not, will he ask other Departments whether they might consider that?
Matt Hancock
We are considering that; it is being led by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in conjunction with the Treasury. The Chancellor will be making a statement today, ahead of the Budget on 11 March.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will know that there is a system whereby those who are immunosuppressed are not required to sit in crowded waiting rooms in hospital or A&E. That is in normal conditions, never mind the situation with covid-19. Yesterday evening, I attended Aintree Hospital with a patient who had just finished her first round of chemotherapy. Despite the chemo-aware system, she was told by the receptionist to sit in a very crowded waiting room, for a five-hour wait, because there was nowhere else to go. I stood in a corridor, between the front door and some sliding doors, to ensure that she was not subjected to that. How will the Secretary of State ensure that frontline staff who are not necessarily clinicians understand the increased danger to those individuals? Does each A&E and each hospital have a place where those people could wait safely? This is not good enough.
Matt Hancock
The answer is yes. Each A&E now has a pod in front of it, which we have funded since the outbreak of the virus, so that suspected cases do not need to go into the main A&E. That is to address exactly the sorts of problems that the hon. Lady raises.
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
Does contingency planning include steps to secure additional capacity in private hospitals, which often would lend themselves better to isolation of infectious patients?
Matt Hancock
The question of how we deliver and who delivers NHS services is a matter for the NHS, and making sure that we use all the health facilities available is of course something that the NHS is considering.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that, in order for self-isolation to work, no individual, whatever their circumstances, should be out of pocket for doing the right thing? As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) said, currently, millions of people who work in the gig economy and do not qualify for sick pay would be out of pocket for doing the right thing. Does the Secretary of State agree that solving this problem and giving people the confidence that they need to do the right thing by self-isolating is one of the most important things that he can do in the next few days, to ensure that we can continue with containment?
Matt Hancock
There is a huge number of things that we need to do in the next few days and, as I have said, this area is under review.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Across Government, in different Departments, there are many people with healthcare experience and professionalism. For example, the Department for Work and Pensions has 3,000 trained professionals working on assessments. What conversations is my right hon. Friend having with other Secretaries of State to understand whether there could be access to those individuals so that they too could be on the frontline?
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Last week I asked the Secretary of State about the preparedness of NHS 111. In answer to a written question, the Department said that it does not have the numbers for current staff. I understand that Dudley call centre alone is asking to recruit 150 new call handlers. How many call handlers are we looking for in addition to the current staffing levels for NHS 111, and when does he expect them to be fully trained and online?
Matt Hancock
We have increased the number by 500 already, and there are plans for more to come, as and when that becomes necessary.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
An increasing number of people are self-isolating, but they still require routine care. Are GPs providing that routine care, and what advice is being given to GPs on whether they should wear masks, and whether they should visit a patient at home or get them to come to the surgery and so on?
Matt Hancock
We do not want people who suspect they have coronavirus to go to their GP; we want them to do this via NHS 111. Further to my earlier point about being able to self-validate for sick pay for seven days, they can of course then do that by phone and get an email confirmation, should they need to, to extend that to the full 14 days. Of course, as well as tackling coronavirus, the NHS must do business as usual. We are increasing the amount that people can do over the phone, Skype and other forms of telemedicine. That could be increasingly important if there is widespread concern about communicable diseases.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure continuity of social care, both in care homes and for care given at home, given the problems and workforce implications arising from coronavirus?
Matt Hancock
We have a huge amount of work under way, including looking at what we can do to ensure that people can get support in care homes. It is not just about the staff, of course; elderly people in care homes are, according to the data, among those most vulnerable to the disease. The care home element of our plan is incredibly important and we will be providing more details in the coming days.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
It is very important that both the resolution and the management of the crisis are based on the best possible science, and I join the Secretary of State’s tribute to the UK scientists, who are among the most experienced and best qualified in the world. Have UK scientists been part of the World Health Organisation teams deployed to Iran and China? Does the Government’s chief scientific adviser attend the Cobra meetings? Can the Secretary of State update me on the question, about which I wrote to him on Thursday, of when we can expect a bedside test to be deployed in this country and made available around the world?
Matt Hancock
We are, of course, involved in the World Health Organisation missions and in some direct bilateral missions. I have repeatedly signed off on support for more UK experts to go out around the world. The chief scientific adviser is, of course, at all the Cobra meetings on this, whether they are chaired by me or by the Prime Minister.
My right hon. Friend’s point on the bedside test is incredibly important. We are currently engaged with just over a dozen companies to try to come up with a bedside test, instead of having to take a swab from the back of your throat, Mr Speaker—should you have the misfortune to fall ill—having it sent away and brought back. Working with UK companies to get a bedside test that can be done on the premises is an incredibly important part of the diagnostic mission surrounding this disease.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Will staff in community settings be issued with protective hazmat suits and masks?
Matt Hancock
We have extensive stockpiles of personal protective equipment. We are not distributing that at this moment because we have to distribute it at the right time. Each individual case can be dealt with at the moment, because they are relatively few, by those who are expert in using that kit. Of course community staff, as well as primary care staff and hospital staff, will be involved in the distribution of that equipment as and when appropriate.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
Last week there was a confirmed coronavirus case in Buxton, which led to the temporary closure of a medical centre and a school. Unfortunately, several national newspapers inaccurately reported that Buxton was a town on lockdown. Several local hotels have now reported booking cancellations as a result. Does the Secretary of State agree that the situation calls for responsible journalism and calm reporting of the facts? Will he join me in encouraging people to visit Buxton, Britain’s best spa town?
Matt Hancock
Yes. I do not have to check with the chief medical officer before telling you, Mr Speaker, that I love going to Buxton, which is a great place to visit. My hon. Friend makes a serious point. As I said in my statement, there is scientific advice against moving too soon or overreacting, as there is against moving too slowly or not reacting strongly enough. We need to take the measures that are necessary to protect the public.
On taking measures that do not protect the public, the advice is that all of us in a position of responsibility whose communications are heard widely, whether we are Members of this House or members of the media, have a duty of responsibility, because how this is communicated will have a direct impact on how well we as a country cope with this outbreak.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Hospital cleaners and porters keep us safe, so will the Government increase SSP to full pay for all staff forced to self-isolate? Low-paid workers in our NHS should not be financially penalised for doing the right thing.
Matt Hancock
As I said, we are keeping the rules on SSP under review. As we directly employ people in the NHS, I am having a conversation about it with the chief executive of the NHS.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
The Secretary of State will know there are two confirmed cases in Gloucestershire, and I put on record my thanks to the public health professionals who have dealt with those cases in a professional, calm and considered manner.
My specific question is about the action the Department for Work and Pensions will take for those members of the public who, whether because of business downturn or because of self-isolation, have to access the benefits system. Will frontline DWP staff and systems accommodate the fact that self-isolation, as the Secretary of State says, should be treated as an illness and that no inappropriate sanctions should be applied?
Matt Hancock
We are absolutely clear that that is the rule, and I frequently talk to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about this matter.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
Following the outbreak at Willow Bank Infant School, will the Secretary of State update the House on the work he is undertaking with the Department for Education, local authorities and schools to help contain the outbreak?
Matt Hancock
The broader point is that it is very important that schools do not close if they are not advised to close. Again, it is about following the medical advice. If there is no epidemiological reason to close, a school should not be closing.
As of 11 am today, I understand that 10 schools are closed. Seven of the 14 schools that were reported yesterday as having closed are now open, so this is a dynamic situation. The DFE is doing a fantastic job, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards, who has been working night and day to make sure that, where possible, children are at school.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will recall that I raised the issue of motorway service stations a couple of weeks ago. Coming down this week, I still did not see any signage about the health precautions that can be taken. May I urge him to investigate whether he can buy up advertising space in lavatory areas to make sure the message is clear so that people understand the hygiene steps to take?
Matt Hancock
That is an important point. We are launching an enhanced communications programme tomorrow, and I will check with my team whether it includes adverts in motorway service stations.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Rural Wales has a high percentage of self-employed people, and data from the Office for National Statistics suggests that 23% of households in Gwynedd are self-employed, compared with a Welsh average of 16%. What provisions have the four Governments made to assure self-employed people that they will be compensated for lost income arising from the covid-19 outbreak?
Matt Hancock
I am working with both the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Welsh Government, who have played their part with great care and responsibility in rising to this challenge.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and commend him for his handling of this outbreak. The public health advice has been absolutely clear during the contain phase. As we move into the delay and mitigate phases, will he make sure the advice on social distancing and longer isolation periods, particularly for vulnerable groups, is as fast and has the same clarity?
Matt Hancock
Yes. We are upgrading the communications activities tomorrow but, should we move into the mitigate phase, the communications will clearly need to be different and will need to be upgraded yet again.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
We have known for years that people on outsourced contracts do not have access to sick pay. The coronavirus is now throwing up that problem for the wider community, yet we heard the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy talk about people going on to universal credit—he does not live in the real world if he thinks that is possible within three days—and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care talk today about seven days’ isolation and, when pressed, about ringing the GP. Can he give very clear advice to those who have to choose between working and eating, so that we make sure they do not go to work when they are ill?
Matt Hancock
I have been absolutely clear about the legal position, and I have said that we are keeping the area under review.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
As cases escalate, and we have to assume they probably will, even a well-prepared NHS will become stretched, with health professionals likely to be affected. Self-help will become important, and we are already seeing a national shortage of hand-sanitising gel. Will my right hon. Friend work with the manufacturers to ensure basic products such as paracetamol, ibuprofen and cough medicines remain widely available on the high street?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is completely right and, in fact, our no-deal planning and our no-deal stockpiles are playing an important part in making sure we are fully prepared and ready.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
On when to move to the delay phase, the Secretary of State said that he was
“mindful of scientific advice that reacting too early…carries its own risks”.
Could he set out for the House what those risks are?
Matt Hancock
I would highlight two. The first is that there is an economic and social impact of disruption; if an action has no medical benefit, there is no need for that disruption. The second is a medical risk. Behavioural science and experience from previous similar outbreaks shows that, if we ask people too early to do things that are disruptive to their normal life, they may try to return to normal earlier than they otherwise would. At the moment, the number of cases is relatively small. If we go into the reasonable worst-case scenario, it will rise sharply and be high for a number of weeks. We need to keep people doing the right, responsible thing over a period of weeks and, if we ask them to move too soon, they may question whether that advice was the right advice.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
Experience here suggests that these outbreaks are about cool heads and timing, and I suggest that the Secretary of State, his chief medical officer and his Public Health Minister have been exemplary in both those things. Does he agree that the media have a responsibility in this regard? You do not release everything in the locker at once. That is not about the Government being slow to this; it is about the Government having a plan. What they have set out today is a clear, strategic and staged plan to do what is needed, when it is needed, in the national interest.
Matt Hancock
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says. We are trying to take exactly the approach that he sets out. It builds on my answer to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) on getting the timing right as well as the decisions on the correct actions to take. We need to get both right. We will be guided by the science in supporting the public through what will be a difficult time.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Health Secretary will know that many people are caring for elderly relatives, sometimes just popping in every day to make sure they are fed or to get them up in the morning. If those people end up having to self- isolate or getting ill, what support will there be for them —they may not be getting any sick pay—and for the elderly relatives who depend on some urgent support and may not have any other relatives nearby to provide it?
Matt Hancock
We are very concerned about this issue. We will address precisely the issue that the right hon. Member raises in the communication that I indicated we will publish soon to social care providers. This is an important and difficult consideration for what we do in a reasonable worst-case scenario. Of course, all the time, we are working to avoid that scenario. One area that has been highlighted in public is making it much easier to onboard volunteers, but they are not the only part of the answer to this problem.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
GAMA Healthcare in my constituency is playing a vital role in China as part of a bundled approach to infection control of covid-19. Adrian Fellows, a scientist from GAMA, says that washing hands is vital, but his concern is that every handwash is being promoted as an effective intervention, even those that are cosmetic-based, and supermarket sanitisers without a log 4 reduction are running the risk of giving a false sense of security. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that Government advice on hand washing is thorough, so that people do not run that risk of having a false sense of security?
Matt Hancock
I will look into our guidance on the nature of hand sanitisers and make sure that it takes into account the very best scientific advice. There is a broader point here, which is that although sanitising one’s hands with hand sanitiser is good, it is not nearly as good as washing one’s hands for 20 seconds with soap and, preferably, in hot water. That is the best thing to deal with the virus.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the chief medical officer for ringing me when we had cases earlier in the month in the city; it was very helpful advice. The advice that the Secretary of State has just given is that we need to wash our hands. So will the Government make moves to ensure that, when you enter any building in this country, there is a place for you to wash your hands? I am not just talking about advice; can we introduce health and safety guidelines to put a requirement on every employer, every restaurant and so on? If we are going to take this seriously, we need to up our game. Will the Government commit to that now?
Matt Hancock
I will look into the extent to which that can be done. Many public buildings do have sinks available. At the core of our response to the problem, which the hon. Gentleman reasonably raises, is getting the communications right, so that people can use existing sinks and soap to do what I know he wishes them to do.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State and his team for keeping me informed yesterday of the two local confirmed cases of covid-19, but a number of schools decided to close their doors as a precaution. What message does he have for those schools and others across the communities as to how to deal with this issue?
Matt Hancock
I commend my hon. Friend for the responsible and calm way in which he has responded to the news in his constituency. The message to schools is clear: if you do not have both a positive case and the advice from Public Health England to close, you should not close. The Minister for School Standards, who is sitting next to me, reiterates that message. We have a hotline that schools can call to get that advice from Public Health England, and schools that close without the advice from PHE are contacted by the regional schools commissioner, who explains to them the position.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
There are now four confirmed cases of covid-19 in Hertfordshire, yet Hertfordshire has an unfunded burden in next year’s financial budget of £2.8 million from the cost of the pay uplift for nurses and health visitors under the “Agenda for Change” programme. I am told that potentially up to 30 directors of public health across this country are poised to have to cancel contracts and make school nurses and health visitors redundant if this money is not confirmed. With less than a month until the next financial year, can the Government confirm today, or within the next 24 hours, that the money for the “Agenda for Change” pay uplifts will be made available?
Matt Hancock
We have increased the public health grant and we have increased local authority spending power by 4.4% in real terms next year, which of course comes in at the start of April.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
My constituency includes a number of semi-rural, coastal and isolated communities, where information on as local a basis as possible will be needed, not just the national picture. Can my right hon. Friend provide me with the relevant departmental and Public Health England contacts so that I can obtain this information in real time?
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Can the Secretary of State confirm that claimants will not face benefit sanctions if they miss appointments because they are choosing to self-isolate?
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend thank the Princess Alexandra Hospital in Harlow for dealing with a case and for all the work it does? May I bring him back to the issue of workers? In Harlow, at least 8,000 people are working in retail, food, customer service, front-of house, leisure, transport and accommodation services. Those people, who are often on lower pay, could lose their wages, especially if restaurants cut the number of staff, for one reason or another, in the event of a serious outbreak. Will the Government consider setting up an insurance scheme if things get much worse to ensure that individuals such as the workers I have mentioned do not lose their incomes?
Matt Hancock
As I have said several times, we are keeping this area under review. We are also looking into what we can do to support successful businesses that might have a short-term negative impact from some of the disruptions that have come with, and could come further with, coronavirus.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Sick pay and statutory sick pay can be complex, but there is one simple truth within that system: the poorer someone is, the poorer their protections are. Those very worst-off at work want clarity from us that doing the right thing and following the Secretary of State’s guidance will not put them at a detriment. Nothing in the public conversation and, frankly, nothing we have heard today gives me confidence to say that to people in my community, so will he take this opportunity to say, from the Dispatch Box, that not one single person in this country who is following his advice will suffer a detriment to their terms and conditions?
Matt Hancock
I have already made it clear that we have a robust statutory sick pay system in this country, that self-isolation counts as illness within that system and that we are keeping the system under review. So people can have confidence that, if they are asked to self-isolate, that is exactly what they should do.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Sadly, it is healthcare professionals who are likely to be most exposed to the virus. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to make sure that we have sufficient numbers of healthcare professionals at work to deal with this crisis?
Matt Hancock
That is an incredibly important issue, not least because of the impact of the virus directly on healthcare workers in other jurisdictions—we have seen the impact here, too. We have a broad programme, led by the NHS, to make sure that we protect healthcare workers—not only clinicians but the non-clinicians mentioned by the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper)—and have as much support in the NHS as possible, including from, for instance, recently retired people, and from volunteers, as mentioned earlier. If the virus becomes widespread, it will be all hands to the pump in the NHS, as with social care. We have extensive planning under way to make sure that the NHS can respond.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I have been contacted by a constituent who is a consultant in emergency medicine at the Countess of Chester Hospital, which the Secretary of State knows well. My constituent has expressed concern about the use of nebulisers for the delivery of medicines for respiratory illnesses, on the basis that there is evidence that they might enhance the spread of airborne viruses in a confined space. I have been in touch with Public Health England about the issue, and there is some debate as to whether it agrees with my constituent, but he has provided evidence from the 2003 SARS outbreak that demonstrates that his fears may be upheld. It is a technical point, but will the Secretary look into it and get his officials to check it out?
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course. I would not dare to pronounce on the science and medicine behind that, but I can ensure that the experts, including the deputy chief medical officer, who is an expert in these things and is in the Box, will respond.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I commend the Secretary of State for the constructive way in which he has worked with the other Health Ministers in the devolved Administrations to get this plan ready for today, but may I remind him of the importance of continuing this approach as the situation unfolds in the days and weeks ahead, to ensure that there is a genuine, joined-up, UK-wide strategy to combat coronavirus?
Matt Hancock
Yes—I would say that this is an example of the devolved Governments and the UK Government working well together. The best example of that is the four chief medical officers. As my right hon. Friend well knows from his time as a Secretary of State, each devolved nation has its own CMO, and the forum of the four of them provides an extremely useful place to debate and then to agree, so that we can have a UK-wide answer even though some areas, such as NHS delivery, are devolved.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
In times of crisis, fear can foster discrimination. There is serious concern about reports of racism being linked to the coronavirus outbreak, with people being singled out and abused simply because of east Asian appearance, and some children being bullied. Does the Secretary of State agree that inaccurate terms such as “Wuhan coronavirus” should be avoided because they sadly reinforce racist views? Will he take steps to ensure that Government communications always use medically accurate terms? Will he ensure that the Cabinet acts to ensure that everything possible is done to stop the denigration and blaming of people in relation to this outbreak?
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Following on from the question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) about working with the devolved Administrations, will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirm that although the delivery is devolved, this is a whole-UK plan? There should be no confusion in any of the devolved areas of the United Kingdom: this is a UK-wide plan and the information published today is applicable to and the same for every part of the United Kingdom.
Matt Hancock
That is right; in fact, the document is badged with the emblems of the four nations. There are of course elements of it that are technically different in terms of delivery, but they are set out in the plan.
If I may take a step back, the deputy chief medical officer has already got a note to me to answer the question from the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson). The expert committee NERVTAG —the new and emerging respiratory virus threats advisory group—has looked at the issue of nebulisers and does not consider their use an infection-prone procedure.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Unless something has changed overnight, the 111 service is not available in most of Wales. Most people in Wales would be far better advised to ring 0845 46 47, which is the NHS Direct Wales telephone number. My bigger anxiety is that so far, despite all the good things he has done, the Secretary of State has still not been able to answer the central question of people on zero-hours contracts. They include a large number of my constituents, who would want to do the right thing but, according to what he has said so far, would be financially out of pocket because there is no means of recompensing them. Surely we must put that right; otherwise, we have a massive hole in the plan.
Matt Hancock
As I have said many times, we have a robust SSP system and we keep it under review. On the hon. Gentleman’s point about 111, we have changed the system so that if someone dials 111 from Wales, they are automatically redirected to the NHS Direct number in Wales.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s clarification that schools should not close unless they absolutely have to—not least because if parents are having to look after their children, there may be fewer nurses and doctors who can get to hospitals. My right hon. Friend knows that the average age of hospital volunteers—including my fellow workers at the Gloucestershire Royal Hospital—is in the range that could be at risk of this virus, and they are often receptionists, so will he consider asking the NHS to give guidance to hospitals on whether such people should be on the frontline, with people still coming to hospitals thinking that the best thing to do is to be checked?
Matt Hancock
In the first instance, the best thing to do if you think you have coronavirus is not to go to a hospital or GP surgery but to ring 111, wherever you are in the UK. My hon. Friend is quite right on the other point he made.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I am strongly in favour of getting the habitually clarty to wash their hands, so I am glad that the Secretary of State is reinforcing that message. May I ask him specifically about the advice to Department for Work and Pensions decision makers? What advice has been circulated within the DWP, and can all elected Members get a copy of it, just in case any of our constituents find that that advice is not being followed through?
Matt Hancock
I will take that issue up with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I am sure he would agree that as the virus possibly spreads, members of the public will be worried about what they should and should not be doing, so will he confirm how he will specifically communicate with members of the public to prevent panic, particularly if we have to restrict public meetings and the use of public transport?
Matt Hancock
That is a very good question and it is important that we get that right. One reason why we have set out this plan, which includes measures that we hope not to take and may not take but are prepared to take if necessary, is that, should those measures be taken, it will not be a surprise to people—they are clearly part of a plan. I do understand—of course I do—that people are worried about this, and I also understand that some of the things we are proposing, and some that other countries are doing, are not the sort of things that a Government in a free country normally does. That is why we have taken this approach. It is quite unusual in Government to set out a plan of things that we might do; we normally set out what we are going to do. The reason we have done so is precisely in response to the concern that my hon. Friend wisely raises. We want to do everything we can to reassure people, while not over-reassuring and instead being totally transparent about our frank assessment, based on the science, of the situation that the country is in and what we can best do to get ourselves best through this and fight this disease.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
For the trusts that host regional infectious diseases units, will the Secretary of State say what additional emergency money is going into them now and whether there are plans to extend those units to increase bed capacity?
Matt Hancock
We do have plans to be able to ramp up the bed capacity that can be used to deal with coronavirus patients, and, as I said earlier, we have already extended funding to trusts and are willing to consider that further if necessary.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
People are understandably concerned, and I have been contacted by some of my constituents about potential treatments, including vitamin therapy, that are appearing on the internet. Will my right hon. Friend send a clear message from the Chamber that it is the NHS and the Government who will provide the authoritative advice on medical treatments? Will he work with social media companies to remove any misleading content?
Matt Hancock
Yes, and that is a very important point. Fake news in response to a virus like this can be dangerous and damaging to health and it should be taken down. I am working with the social media companies—I spoke to the main social media companies yesterday—and the biggest of them are playing a very responsible role. If someone searches on Google, the top two sites that come up for coronavirus are from the World Health Organisation, and the NHS is third. Google is promoting good, high-quality, medically informed advice, and the other social media platforms—the major ones with which we are working—are also taking this very seriously.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the key drivers of aggregate transmission are, first, the level of movement and, secondly, the level of assembly? Will he therefore take this opportunity to advise elderly people in particular, who are more at risk, that they would be well advised to restrict their movements—perhaps go to the shops once a week instead of twice—and to work as and when they can in a sustainable way from home rather than at work? Does he also agree that we should, if at all possible, avoid big assemblies of people as transmission rates are higher there? If not, we will end up having to enforce roadblocks and confinement much more quickly than otherwise.
Matt Hancock
No, we will be advised by the science. The point that has been raised many times is that timing is really important. There are downsides in terms of the destruction and medical downsides in terms of controlling the spread of this virus if things are done too soon. I am very happy to arrange a briefing for the hon. Gentleman —a briefing is available with the chief medical officer at 4.15 pm today for anybody who wants a private briefing—and to take him through some of that science.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his diligence. There are some 11.8 million elderly people, which is 18% of the population, and some 4 million diabetics, which is 6% of the population. I declare an interest as one of those. Those who have had the flu jab to protect them from the flu may feel that they are okay. Will the Minister give guidance to this section of people—those with chronic diseases and the elderly who have had the flu jab?
Matt Hancock
Yes, we are paying particular attention to vulnerable people—the elderly and those with other health conditions that may make them either more susceptible or more at risk should they get this virus—and there will be additional advice in due course, guided by science, as all of us should be in tackling this disease.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has been asked about this several times, and I am slightly worried that he just does not get it. Some working people do not get sick pay. We really need to know what his plans are for them.
Matt Hancock
As I have said, I have provided answers to that question a number of times, including that we are keeping this under review, and that the sick pay system is robust. I look forward to answering more questions in the same way. I cannot give a different answer to the one I have given to the same question when it has been repeatedly asked.
Points of Order
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is further to what we have just been talking about. Would it not be a good idea if the parliamentary estate were providing leadership to the country on this issue? We have lots of toilets in this building that do not work properly, in which there is no soap, and in which it is difficult to wash our hands properly. Would it not it be a good idea if we led by example? Thousands of members of the public come in here every week and tourists come from all over the world to see this place. Could you use your good offices, Madam Deputy Speaker, not to wander around all the toilets yourself personally, but to make sure that staff understand that this is a very serious and important issue that we need to get right?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. Silver Command meetings are held every day to discuss the situation in Parliament. The House of Commons Commission will be discussing the matter at its next meeting, and Mr Speaker has held meetings with the chief medical officer. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the House authorities take this very seriously, as do the Speaker and the Commission. Any further information will be passed on as soon as it is forthcoming.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would you like to extend that point to include introducing hand sanitisers in various places across the estate, as well as cleaning the toilets, so that people are in a position to cleanse their hands wherever they are in any part of the estate?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. There are hand sanitisers in various places around the estate but, again, that is something that is kept under review on a daily basis.
Bills Presented
Domestic Abuse Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Priti Patel, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Robert Buckland, Secretary Elizabeth Truss, Secretary Robert Jenrick, the Attorney General, Victoria Atkins and Alex Chalk, presented a Bill to make provision in relation to domestic abuse; to make provision for and in connection with the establishment of a Domestic Abuse Commissioner; to prohibit cross-examination in person in family proceedings in certain circumstances; to make provision about certain violent or sexual offences, and offences involving other abusive behaviour, committed outside the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 96), with explanatory notes (Bill 96-EN).
Sentencing (Women) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Daisy Cooper, supported by Sarah Olney, Christine Jardine, Layla Moran, Munira Wilson, Wendy Chamberlain, Wera Hobhouse, Rosie Duffield and Liz Saville Roberts, presented a Bill to require courts to impose community sentences on women offenders unless they have committed a serious or violent offence and pose a threat to the public; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 July, and to be printed (Bill 97).
School Toilets (Access During Lessons) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Layla Moran, supported by Sarah Olney, Munira Wilson, Wendy Chamberlain, Jamie Stone, Daisy Cooper, Christine Jardine, Wera Hobhouse, Caroline Lucas, and Alison Thewliss, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish guidance for state-funded schools on allowing pupil access to toilets during lessons; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 March, and to be printed (Bill 98).
High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill
Presentation and all stages (Standing Order No. 57 and Order, 2 March)
Andrew Stephenson, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary George Eustice, Secretary Grant Shapps, presented a Bill to make provision for a railway between a junction with Phase One of High Speed 2, near Fradley Wood in Staffordshire, and a junction with the west coast main line near Crewe in Cheshire; and for connected purposes.
Deemed to have been read the First, Second and Third time, and passed (Order, 2 March).
Rule of Law (Enforcement by Public Authorities)
Tuesday 3rd March 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Rule of Law (Enforcement by Public Authorities) Bill 2019-21 View all Rule of Law (Enforcement by Public Authorities) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require public authorities to exercise their statutory powers to investigate and take enforcement action for breaches of the law; to make provision for sanctions for failing to take such action; and for connected purposes.
Adherence to the rule of law is one of the fundamental elements of the British constitution. The World Justice Project produces an annual report on the performance of countries across the world in complying with the rule of law. In the most recent report, the United Kingdom scores 80% and is 12th in the international league table. The top country scored 90%. In its working definition of the rule of law, the WJP requires that regulations are fairly and effectively implemented and enforced. This is an aspect on which the United Kingdom can do a lot better.
Recent events in Cambridge, where the police did nothing to prevent or to take action against blatant examples of criminal damage, serve as a salutary reminder of why the Bill is needed. Cambridge is but one of an increasing number of instances in which the Government, their agencies, the police and local authorities have failed or refused to take action to enforce the law. Now that we have left the European Union and are soon to be freed from the yoke of the European Court of Justice, it is a good time to take stock.
Continental justice, while paying lip-service to the rule of law, has often incorporated a significant discretionary element, which renders it vulnerable to political pressure for interference and ultimately to corruption by making some more equal than others under the law. The Bill reasserts the importance in our legal system of equality of protection under the law and of equal access to the enforcement authorities charged with investigating breaches of the law and enforcing sanctions against wrongdoers.
I can best illustrate the problem by example. Earlier this year, Mr Justice Julian Knowles, in the case of Henry Miller and the Humberside Police, ruled that despite a “hate incident” not being a crime, it was reasonable that such an incident could be logged pursuant to operational guidance adopted by the College of Policing in 2014. The Daily Telegraph has established that some 120,000 non-crime incidents have been logged in this way in the past five years, yet neither this Parliament nor the Government have given any authority to the police to deploy scarce and valuable resources on giving priority to non-crime incidents over criminal activity. In answer to a parliamentary question, the Policing Minister told me:
“The College of Policing is independent from Government and its role is clear: setting high professional standards…acting as the national voice of policing; and ensuring police training and ethics is of the highest possible quality.”
But giving perverse priority to non-crime incidents is not among its roles.
While the Home Office collects and publishes information on hate crime offences, information is not collected on non-crime hate incidents or the investigative resource allocated to them. This makes it impossible for Members to hold the police to account for their misuse of resources.
It is outrageous that the police are giving priority to matters that are not criminal while criminal activity, which is rife in our country, goes uninvestigated and unpunished. A prime example of this is criminal fraud. Fewer than 1% of police officers directly investigate fraud, while scarce police resources are being expended in recording non-crimes. In the year ending March 2019, 741,123 crimes of fraud were reported, giving rise to £2.2 billion in losses to victims, but only 42,127 crimes were disseminated for investigation and enforcement by local authorities. Judicial action is being taken in only about 1% of cases. This data is from Action Fraud; if ever there was a misnomer, it is the name “Action Fraud”. I have a constituent who was defrauded of £20,000 last year, from a Santander account, and we are still waiting for Action Fraud to take any “action”. Despite the Crown Prosecution Service reporting that fraud is the most commonly experienced crime in England and Wales, with an estimated 3.4 million incidents in the year ending March 2017, fewer than 1% of police officers are actually investigating it.
The purported justification for recording non-crime hate incidents is that they can be the precursor to criminal activity, but an equally strong—or stronger—argument applies to cases of civil or non-criminal fraud. Why do Home Office rules only allow the recording of fraud offences that meet the definition of crime, and why does a similar rule not apply in the case of hate crime? The Bill would reconfirm that the main responsibility of law enforcement authorities under the rule of law should be to investigate and bring sanctions against those in breach of the existing law. Deployment of resources in respect of non-criminal incidents, whether involving hate or fraud, should be treated as non-core activities.
Another area of criminal impunity is in relation to illegal immigrants. Best estimates are that there are more than 1 million illegal immigrants in the United Kingdom, many of whom are engaged in illegal working and other clandestine criminal activities. They use our public services while undermining fair competition in the workplace. Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 sets out a series of criminal offences, including knowingly entering the United Kingdom without leave and remaining beyond the time limited by leave. Despite the vast number of continuing offences against section 24, few prosecutions, if any, are commenced. This scandal is completely at odds with the priorities of the general public and our constituents. The number of deportations is also pitifully few.
The scope of this Bill, however, goes far beyond fraud and illegal immigration. Other activities that are the subject of regulations that are inconsistently enforced include the licensing of houses in multiple occupation. The Government have set down minimum standards enforceable under the licensing system, yet it is estimated that more than half the properties that should be licensed are unlicensed. While the owners of these 76,000 properties operate with impunity, some local authorities are seeking to penalise those who are registered by imposing size standards far higher than the Government minimum. Local authorities are ignoring all properties that should be incorporated into the licensing system while trying to penalise those that have already applied for licensing.
A related scandal is that of rogue landlords. Although there are more than 2 million landlords in England, only 18 individuals and five companies have been put on the register of rogue landlords for offences committed since 6 April 2018. This ineffectual regulation is driving good private landlords out of the market without deterring or penalising the rogues.
Many colleagues will be aware of constituents’ anger due to double standards relating to illegal activities by Gypsies and Travellers compared with the actions of law-abiding residents, as well as due to local authorities’ failure to enforce trading standards laws against the rogue operators of park home sites. In the last month alone, I have received complaints from constituents about the police’s failure to pursue a blatant case of threatened unlawful eviction, their refusal to act against the dealers of illegal drugs, and their failure to enforce the Highways Act 1980 against a pavement obstruction. In the latter example, that was despite the offence having taken place just around the corner from the police station in Christchurch.
Respect for our legal system depends upon public trust that effective enforcement action will be taken consistently. The Bill would help to restore public respect for the law and for the rule of law.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Sir Christopher Chope, Sir Edward Leigh, Sir Desmond Swayne, Mr Philip Hollobone, Nigel Mills, Mr Peter Bone, Bob Blackman and Paul Howell present the Bill.
Sir Christopher Chope accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 99).
Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill
Tuesday 3rd March 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2020 View all Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text
Deputy Speaker’s Statement
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I have a short announcement to make about the certification of Bills under the so-called English votes for English laws Standing Orders. Since those Standing Orders were passed, it has been the practice of the Speaker or a Deputy Speaker to suspend the sitting for certification prior to Third Reading in any case when a Bill had been amended since Second Reading. Now that the House has greater experience of this process, Mr Speaker proposes that such a suspension should take place only when a non-Government amendment has been made on the day on which consent is required. In all other cases, the Speaker or Deputy Speaker will sign a certificate in the Chamber in the form of the provisional certificate issued alongside the selection list, and thus already available to the House.
Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill
Tuesday 3rd March 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Act 2020 View all Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 3 March 2020 - large print version - (3 Mar 2020)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)
I beg to move amendment 1, page 2, line 26, at end insert—
“28B Indecent images: prisoner’s non-disclosure of information
(1) The Parole Board must comply with this section when making a public protection decision about a life prisoner if—
(a) the prisoner’s life sentence was passed for—
(i) an offence of taking an indecent photograph of a child, or
(ii) a relevant offence of making an indecent pseudo-photograph of a child;
(b) the Parole Board does not know the identity of the child who is the subject of the relevant indecent image; and
(c) the Parole Board believes that the prisoner has information about the identity of the child who is the subject of the relevant indecent image which the prisoner has not disclosed to the Parole Board (“the prisoner’s non-disclosure”).
(2) When making the public protection decision about the prisoner, the Parole Board must take into account—
(a) the prisoner’s non-disclosure; and
(b) the reasons, in the Parole Board’s view, for the prisoner’s non-disclosure.
(3) This section does not limit the matters which the Parole Board must or may take into account when making a public protection decision.
(4) In subsection (1)(a), the reference to a life sentence includes a life sentence passed before the coming into force of section 1 of the Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Act 2020.
(5) For the purposes of this section, an offence is an “offence of taking an indecent photograph of a child” if it is—
(a) an offence of taking an indecent photograph of a child under section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (the “England and Wales offence”), or
(b) an offence of taking an indecent photograph of a child under the law of Scotland, Northern Ireland, any of the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or any other country or territory that corresponds to the England and Wales offence.
(6) For the purposes of this section, an offence is a “relevant offence of making an indecent pseudo-photograph of a child” if—
(a) it is—
(i) an offence under section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978 of making an indecent pseudo-photograph of a child (the “England and Wales offence”), or
(ii) an offence of making an indecent pseudo-photograph of a child under the law of Scotland, Northern Ireland, any of the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or any other country or territory that corresponds to the England and Wales offence, and
(b) the Parole Board believes that an image of a real child was or may have been used in the making of the pseudo-photograph;
and in the application of this section to a relevant offence of making an indecent pseudo-photograph of a child, the references in subsection (1)(b) and (c) to the child who is the subject of the relevant indecent image are references to the real child.
(7) In this section,—
“public protection decision”, in relation to a prisoner, means the decision, made under section 28(6)(b) for the purposes of section 28(5), as to whether the Parole Board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined;
“relevant indecent image” means—
(a) the photograph to which an offence of taking an indecent photograph of a child relates, or
(b) the pseudo-photograph to which a relevant offence of making an indecent pseudo-photograph of a child relates.”.
This amends the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 to require the Parole Board to take account of non-disclosures by life prisoners serving sentences for offences relating to indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 2.
Clauses 1 to 3 stand part.
Chris Philp
This Bill, which passed its Second Reading a short time ago, seeks to respond to two incredibly tragic cases—the tragic murder of Helen McCourt, which happened 32 years ago, and the terrible abuse committed by nursery teacher Vanessa George, who abused the trust placed in her by the parents of tiny children.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Unfortunately I have to attend a Delegated Legislation Committee so I will not be able to take part in these proceedings. However, I thank the Minister and his team for introducing this Bill and I remind the House that it goes beyond the two names that he mentioned. My constituent Linda Jones lost her daughter, Danielle Jones, and the whereabouts of the body have never been revealed. While this Bill will help only a small cohort of people, it does go beyond the two names that the Minister mentioned. I welcome the action that the Government are taking and thank them for what they have done.
Chris Philp
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am very aware that the murderer of his constituent’s daughter, Stuart Campbell, is still in prison. It is to precisely that kind of person that the provisions of the Bill apply, because we want to make sure that when—
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Can I add another name to the list? My constituent Michael O’Leary has been missing since January, suspected to have been murdered, and the individual charged with his murder is refusing to let the police know where the body has been hidden. For the families who are now living through this trauma, the fact that they cannot retrieve the body is hugely traumatic. They wanted me to put on the record today their support for what the Government intend to do.
Chris Philp
I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He powerfully expresses the importance for the families of victims of knowing where the body of their loved one is. When prisoners, including Stuart Campbell, refuse to disclose the whereabouts of a body, it simply adds to the anguish that the families suffer. In the case that the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) mentioned, the individual has been charged but not yet convicted. If that individual is convicted and imprisoned, and the Parole Board comes to consider his release in the future, it will be bound by the provisions of this Bill to take into account the non-disclosure when deciding whether or not to release them.
Having met Marie McCourt, who is Helen McCourt’s mother, the Lord Chancellor and I have heard at first hand just how distressing it is when a prisoner refuses to disclose the whereabouts of the victim’s body. I would like once again to pay particular tribute to Marie McCourt for the campaigning that she has bravely undertaken over these past 32 years since the murder of her daughter Helen.
Related to this is the question of the non-disclosure of the identity of child victims of indecent imagery. I notice that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) is in his place. He has been speaking out for his constituents whose children were victims of Vanessa George, the nursery school teacher who so cruelly abused the very young, very tiny children in her care, and then refused to disclose the identity of her young victims, thereby adding to the distress of the parents, the families and the victims themselves. I again pay tribute to him for the campaigning that he has undertaken on this topic.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
How often are the circumstances set out in amendment 1 under new subsection (1)(a)(i) and (ii) actually likely to occur? A life sentence for photographic offences—is that actually likely to happen often?
Chris Philp
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) has turned to the particulars of the Bill, because I would now like to address those.
There are two substantive clauses in this Bill. Clause 1 relates to life sentences handed down for murder, manslaughter or indecent images. It is worth mentioning, in response to my right hon. Friend’s intervention, that amendment 1 adds into the provisions of this Bill sentences of imprisonment for public protection, which can also be handed down for making indecent images. Clause 2 covers the slightly broader type of sentence—namely, extended determinate sentences, whether they are handed down for manslaughter or the failure to disclose the subject of an indecent image. He is quite right to point out that in cases where there has been a failure to disclose the victim of an indecent image, it is more likely that there will be an extended determinate sentence than a life sentence. Indeed, in the case of Vanessa George, the sentence handed down was an extended determinate sentence, so that would have been caught by clause 2 rather than by clause 1.[Official Report, 4 May 2020, Vol. 675, c. 6MC.]
The two clauses taken together cover the range of sentences that might be handed down—life sentences and imprisonment for public protection under amendment 1, and extended determinate sentences under clause 2. The substance of these two clauses ensures that when the Parole Board considers release and comes to make its decision about dangerousness and public protection, the requirement to take into account non-disclosure, and the reasons, in its view, for that non-disclosure is put on a statutory—a legal—footing. That is enshrined in new section 28A(1)(a) and (b) in clause 1(1) . This means that at no point in the future can the Parole Board ever decide to vary its guidelines to disregard these matters. It will also very much focus the mind of the Parole Board, and send a message to it, that this House—this Parliament—takes non-disclosure very, very seriously and expects that to be fully reflected in release decisions.
I notice that the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) is now in his place. I would like to repeat the tribute I paid earlier to his and his constituent Marie McCourt’s campaigning on this topic over very many years. It is a testament to his perseverance through what has been a turbulent period in British politics that this Bill is now here in Committee. Without his work, this would certainly not have happened.
Amendment 2 to clause 1 is a technical, consequential amendment—a subsequent provision just to make sure that amendment 1 works technically.
I hope that I have explained the operative provisions of this Bill, which will place on a statutory footing the obligation on the Parole Board to consider non-disclosure of victims’ whereabouts or non-disclosure of the identity of a child victim of indecent images. I think the whole House, and indeed all our constituents, will very strongly welcome that. I commend the amendments and the clauses to the Committee.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise in support of the amendments that the Minister has just set out to this very important Bill.
The crimes that Vanessa George committed against the babies and toddlers in the constituency I represent at Little Ted’s nursery were simply disgusting. They will be abhorred by any right-minded person. It does not need a partisan label—a party political badge—to know that this is a good piece of natural justice: a law that should be supported by everyone of all parties.
I set out the particular case around Vanessa George on Second Reading, but on behalf of the families—those who were able to come forward—I want to thank the Minister and his ministerial colleagues for the way they have brought forward this campaign. It would be very easy for a Government to ignore a campaign by an Opposition MP, and I am grateful to Ministers for not doing that but instead looking at the victims and the severity of the crimes involved, and acting accordingly by doing what is right.
Vanessa George still shows no remorse for the crimes that she committed and no remorse for the fact that she still refuses to name the children she abused. We do not know how many children at Little Ted’s nursery she did abuse, because she has not told anyone. We know how many children were there, and we have a good idea about which children might have been exposed to her cruel and evil crimes. Those children are now fast-emerging young people who are coming to terms with their place in the world and the way that they feel. The crimes that were committed against them by Vanessa George as children will have long-lasting psychological, and in some cases physical, consequences for them in future. A child not knowing whether they were a victim themselves not only deprives the families of the peace of mind of knowing but deprives that child of the help and support they might otherwise have been able to access. Uncertainty is a prison that those children and their families will be in for quite some time.
The right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) raised an issue in relation to life sentences. The families do not mind what the sentence is. Anyone who declines to name the children they abuse should not be eligible for early release. In particular, on the question whether a life sentence is passed down for an offence of taking an indecent image of a child or a relevant offence of making an indecent pseudo image of a child, I would be grateful if the Minister could set out whether that also applies to contemporaneous charges. In many cases, it is very unlikely that a life sentence would be passed down just for taking those images, but it might be passed down for the indecent images and the acts of abuse themselves, so would that collection of charges fall under the description in amendment 1 under new subsection 28B (1)(a)(i) and (ii)?
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
Progress should always be welcomed, and the Bill is progress. It sends a clear message to Parole Board members about the Government’s priorities. Our priority should be to have a laser-like focus on the victims of crime and their families.
Of all the things that can happen to us, having a close friend or family member murdered or fall victim to a paedophile is one of the greatest possible injustices. Through the police, the courts and the wider justice system, ordinary people should be able to secure redress for injustice. That is why we have these systems and why they have been introduced and built on over time. Otherwise, ordinary people would have no alternative but to take matters into their own hands.
Today, we are trying to deliver improved redress in at least one regard. We are aiming to prevent the truly horrendous injustice of a victim’s family having to watch as the person who killed their loved one walks away from prison having not revealed the location of their relative’s body. We are also aiming to prevent paedophiles from leaving their victims unidentified, with all the uncertainty and distress that that might cause families whose children were within the reach of these people.
To ensure that we truly honour the memory of Helen and others, it is vital that we ensure that the changes and the progress we are making in the House today make a difference in the real world for victims of crime and their families. That is how we ensure that campaigners such as Marie are truly able to think about their lost relatives and to take at least some comfort from the fact that their deaths have led to something positive.
Will any guidance be issued to the Parole Board as to how the new statutory duty is expected to be given consideration and what weight it is likely to carry? Will the Minister outline the expected impact this change in law will have? How confident can we be that people who, prior to this law, would have been released will now not be?
I would ask that we keep an open mind on this issue. Today’s legislation is welcome and positive, but we need to make sure that, in reality, it secures the redress that victims and their families rightly seek.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
As I stated on Second Reading, the Opposition will support the Bill. It rightly addresses the situation of prisoners who have been convicted of murder or manslaughter who then refuse to reveal the identity or the whereabouts of the body, and also the situation of those who have been convicted of taking or making indecent images of children and refuse to identify their victims. Under the Bill, the non-disclosure in both cases is to be formally considered by the Parole Board when someone is being considered for release on licence.
The Bill is the result, first, of Helen’s law, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn). My hon. Friend’s constituent Helen McCourt was murdered, and her mother has led the campaign for Helen’s law. To this day, Helen’s murderer refuses to disclose the whereabouts of her body. That compounds the family’s grief and denies them the right to lay their loved one to rest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) has also campaigned for the provisions in the Bill. The shocking case of the nursery assistant Vanessa George shook the community in his constituency. Vanessa George took indecent images of children at the nursery where she worked and was subsequently convicted, but she still refuses to identify the children.
I cannot praise enough the determination and tenacity of Marie McCourt, the mother of Helen McCourt, who fought and lobbied so hard to get this Bill to become law, as it surely now will do, or the community in Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, which also campaigned hard to get the Bill on the statute book in relation to the images of the children.
The Government have done a good job in drafting the Bill and placing the requirement in it on the Parole Board. The Parole Board rightly owes a duty to victims. Reliving the trauma and horror of a crime when giving a statement can sometimes be distressing and overwhelming for victims, and they should not have to go through that trauma. If the Parole Board was minded to release a prisoner because they were no longer regarded as a threat to the public, the only option open to victims to challenge that view would be to seek a reconsideration of the Parole Board decision. The Bill puts in an additional safeguard in these exceptional cases; we are not talking about a huge number of cases, and the changes will very likely impact only a handful of cases each year, but the suffering caused is immeasurable for the families and loved ones affected.
There cannot be many people who do not agree with the measures in the Bill. It is clear from the speeches on Second Reading and the comments made in this Committee stage that the Bill has cross-party support. To condemn the relatives of victims to further unnecessary anguish is truly appalling and should not go unpunished. This Bill is short—only three clauses—but by amending the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003, it allows for non-disclosure to be formally considered when deciding whether to release a prisoner on licence. That helps to avoid the additional pain and suffering of having to draft a victim statement. The Minister eloquently gave the details of the two amendments the Government have tabled, so I will not repeat or explain them, but both have the support of the Opposition.
As the prevalence of image sharing increases, it will be much easier for the identities of child victims of indecent images to be hidden via various software, and there is a real possibility that there could be more cases of indecent images of unknown child victims. Sentencing guidelines must keep pace with new developments in technology and the regulation of associated offences that we are yet to identify. I therefore await with interest the Government’s White Paper on sentencing, which is due later this year.
I hope the Government will tighten up the victims code and think about introducing a victims law. For now, however, the Opposition are content to support the Bill and the two Government amendments and to help Helen’s law become an Act of Parliament.
Chris Philp
I thank the shadow Minister for the constructive tone in which he has engaged with the Bill in general and for his remarks a few moments ago. To pick up on his comments on the sentencing White Paper, we do indeed intend to bring it forward later this calendar year. Hopefully, we can look at a much wider range of issues connected with sentencing to make sure that the punishment always fits the crime. In relation to a victims Bill, it is our intention to legislate in that area later in the current Session.
I want to reassure the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on both the points he raised. Where there is a collection of offences, some of which come within the scope of the Bill but others of which do not, this Bill will be engaged when release comes to be considered, even if only one of the offences falls within its scope. His constituents can be reassured that the Bill will apply in those circumstances.
All sentence types are covered. Clause 1, which amends section 28 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, will cover life sentences and, as amended, sentences for imprisonment for public protection. Clause 2, which amends the Criminal Justice Act 2003, covers extended determinate sentences, so all sentence types are covered by this Bill, as amended. I can therefore give the hon. Gentleman the categorical assurance he requested.
In relation to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), I expect the Parole Board to give significant weight to non-disclosure. The fact that Parliament has gone as far as legislating in this area will send an extremely clear message to the people taking these decisions, and I expect this to weigh heavily on the mind of Parole Board members when they take these decisions. A wider review into the operation of the Parole Board will commence in due course—the so-called root-and-branch review announced in the manifesto last December—and there will be an opportunity for my hon. Friend and all Members to contribute to that discussion.
Putting on the face of the Bill the requirement to take non-disclosure into account means that it can never be changed, other than by a subsequent Act of Parliament. It will also send a message to Parole Board members about how important these issues are for Members of this House, for the reasons described today. I commend the amendments and clauses to the House.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendment made: 2, in clause 1, page 2, line 30, leave out “Section 28A contains” and insert “Sections 28A and 28B contain”.—(Chris Philp.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill, as amended, reported.
Bill, as amended in the Committee, considered.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
There are no amendments on consideration.
As no non-Government amendments have been made to the Bill, I am signing a certificate on the basis of the provisional certificate issued with the selection list. As indicated in that provisional certificate, I certify that the Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill relates exclusively to England and Wales on matters within devolved legislative competence, under Standing Order No. 83J.
Does the Minister intend to move a consent motion in the Legislative Grand Committee?
Chris Philp
indicated assent.
The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England and Wales) (Standing Order No. 83M).
[Dame Rosie Winterton in the Chair]
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I remind hon. Members that, if there is a Division, only Members representing constituencies in England and Wales may vote.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Legislative Grand Committee (England and Wales) consents to the Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill, as amended in Committee and not amended on Report.—(Chris Philp.)
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I want to start by recognising the gravity of the issues that the Bill deals with and being extremely clear that it is not the intention of the Scottish National party in any way to make light of the legislation or diminish the seriousness with which consideration of it has been conducted so far. I want to offer our condolences to all the victims who have been described and congratulate the campaigners who have got us this far.
But we cannot allow a sitting of the Legislative Grand Committee (England and Wales)—what we refer to as the English Parliament—to go past completely unnoticed. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) said that he wants to see this legislation move as quickly as possible, as do I, yet here we are going through procedures that have been objected to several times and have proven themselves completely unnecessary, even with the amendments moved by the Government today.
I welcome the announcement you made earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the practice of suspending the House for a period while certifications are made has been deemed by Mr Speaker today to no longer be necessary in these kinds of circumstances, where the consensus is clear. I hope that that represents an evolution of the English votes for English laws process and that such an evolution will continue.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is right to recognise the gravity of the Bill, but he is also right that we cannot let this pass without recognising the absurdity of the EVEL process. It is good to have these reforms, but the only reform required when it comes to English votes for English laws is its abolition, to get rid of this nonsense that we have to subject ourselves to on an ongoing basis. Does he agree that we have to look seriously at what progress we can make on abandoning the idea of having two classes of Members of Parliament in this House?
Patrick Grady
Yes; my hon. Friend is right. The point that we have always made is that it should certainly not be for the Government, and it should not have to fall to the Chair either, to decide what matters are or are not important to our constituents. It should be for those of us in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Minister has moved a consent motion, and it will be for the Committee to decide whether to consent, but I hope that we do not have to find ourselves in this situation too often in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decision of the Committee (Standing Order No. 83M(6)).
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decision reported.
Third Reading
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
As Members know, the Bill ensures that the non-disclosure of information about a victim’s remains or their identity, and the reasons for that non-disclosure, are fully considered by the Parole Board when making a release decision. It is then for the Parole Board, which is an independent body, to decide what bearing such information has on the risk that a prisoner may present and whether that risk can be managed safely in their community. The Bill reflects the established practice of the Parole Board, as included in its guidance to panel members in 2017, but it goes an important step further in placing a legal duty to take the non-disclosure into account. This is part of the Government’s intention to provide a greater degree of reassurance to victims’ families by formally setting out that guidance in law.
This important Bill responds directly to real-life issues that we know have caused and continue to cause immense distress to families of victims of serious crimes. I see in the Chamber my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn)—I will call him my hon. Friend on this occasion—who has assiduously campaigned with the McCourt family to ensure that today has become a reality. I pay tribute to him for that, as I did on Second Reading. I also see the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who brought to bear his grave concerns relating to a case in his constituency, which resulted in the expansion of the Bill to encompass the horrendous circumstances in which many of his constituents tragically found themselves as a result of material non-co-operation. I pay tribute to them, and indeed to all hon. Members who over the past few years have campaigned hard to make sure that this Bill was introduced.
It is imperative that we protect the public from potentially dangerous offenders. Those offenders who do not disclose the whereabouts of a victim’s remains or the identity of the victims in indecent images must be thoroughly assessed, and the non-disclosure must always be taken into account. We can all agree about the importance of stipulating in statute that appalling circumstances such as those addressed in this Bill must be fully taken into account by the Parole Board when making any decisions on the release of such an offender. It is clearly in the public interest that all elements of a prisoner’s release are given consideration, and in turn, it is in the interests of the Parole Board to be able to rely on statutory provision about always considering the relevant non-disclosure of information in its release assessments.
I extend my thanks to everybody who has helped to prepare this Bill, particularly the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), for his hard and detailed work, and the Bill team for their strenuous efforts. Most importantly, to all those families affected by despicable crimes such as these, I pay warm and heartfelt tribute. I hope they will be able to take some comfort from knowing that their dedication provides some hope for other families affected by the cruel and heartless actions of those who refuse to disclose vital information. On behalf of all those families and victims, I thank you. I appreciate the positive engagement with and cross-party support for the principles in this Bill, and the Department’s help with the progress that we have made. I commend this Bill to the House.
Bambos Charalambous
I would like to join the Secretary of State in thanking all hon. Members for their contributions and for the tone they have set throughout the Second Reading and Committee stages of this debate.
I again give my thanks to Marie McCourt for her tireless work in making sure that this Bill—Helen’s law—has come before Parliament. Its first form was a private Member’s Bill brought in by my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), and a version of that Bill has now been picked up by the Government, taking us to where we are now. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for leading the community campaign to incorporate the offences regarding indecent images in this Bill. This campaign followed the conviction of Vanessa George, who refused to disclose the identities of the children she abused.
There can be few things worse than learning of the murder of a close relative and having to endure the living hell of how it happened. There is also the trauma of the trial and the painstaking detail that is raked over to ensure a conviction. I doubt that anyone grieving will be consoled by a guilty verdict and justice being done, although it may help in the coping process, but the never-ending turmoil of not having a body to lay to rest is one of the cruellest forms of emotional torture.
The body of Helen McCourt, murdered in 1988, has never been found. Her killer, who was released from prison four weeks ago, has never disclosed the whereabouts of her body. The pain and suffering of Helen’s family sadly goes on, and if it is any comfort to Marie McCourt, this Bill passing into law will be a fitting tribute to her campaign in her daughter’s memory. It is equally distressing not knowing if your child has been the victim of the sharing of indecent images. The appalling abuse perpetrated by Vanessa George has been compounded by her refusal to disclose which of the children in her care were the subjects of indecent images.
Both Ian Simms, who was given a life sentence for the murder of Helen McCourt, and Vanessa George, who was convicted for sharing images of children at the nursery where she worked, have now been released on licence by the Parole Board. The unbearable suffering that Ian Simms and Vanessa George have caused, and continue to cause by the nondisclosure of information about their victims, endures.
At present, the only way a victim could have made their views known about a potential release on licence by the Parole Board would have been by making a witness statement to the Parole Board or seeking a reconsideration of the decision within 21 days. Both these avenues would require the victims to be proactive, invariably having to relive the distressing experience of the crime and to justify their reasons for objecting to the release. This Bill makes it a requirement for the Parole Board, for the offences stated in this Bill, to take into account the prisoner’s conduct in not disclosing information about victims and in prolonging the pain and suffering.
While a duty is owed to victims by the Parole Board, it does not go far enough in my view, and the victims code certainly needs revamping. The Parole Board’s decisions can have a profound effect on victims and prisoners alike, and no decision should be taken lightly. The fact that the Parole Board can place conditions on the release of a prisoner does not in my view go far enough, and it cannot address wilful refusal in relation to the non-disclosure of information. Let us be clear: the Bill does not extend a prisoner’s sentence, but it makes it clear that non-disclosure must be a factor in assessing the fitness of a prisoner to be released and their potential risk to the public.
In Committee and on Second Reading, hon. Members told us of their own experiences and of cases involving their constituents where the pain and suffering had been exacerbated by the conduct of the prisoner or their experience of dealing with the Parole Board. There are still issues to be resolved regarding the Parole Board, such as the transparency of its decision making, the lack of information given to victims, the lack of emotional and practical support available to victims throughout the whole process, and even keeping people up to date with decisions about a prisoner’s release. There are many areas of improvement that need to be looked at in relation to how victims are treated. Although they are outside the scope of this Bill, they are matters that need to be viewed in tandem with the Bill.
The debate and discussion we have had on this Bill shows Parliament at its best—when we are working together with a united purpose for a common good. While this Bill will not assist us in finding the whereabouts of Helen McCourt’s body or identifying the images of the children abused by Vanessa George, the measures in this Bill will, I hope, provide added pressure on prisoners to think again when refusing to disclose information about their victims. The Opposition will be supporting this Bill.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
People in places like St Helens—good, decent, honest, hard-working people—expect us in this place to do what is right by them, to work in the national interest and to do together what is patently obviously right. I think, therefore, that this is a good day for the House, and a day that so many victims across the country will recognise as one on which the Government have played their role, working with the Opposition, in doing something that will alleviate a great deal of the pain and suffering felt by victims in the cases that have been referenced throughout the progress of this Bill through the House.
In the case of my constituent Marie McCourt, that is of course the murder of her daughter Helen, and today is bitter-sweet. She has been a quiet, dignified, but very tenacious champion, and I am sure the Secretary of State, the Minister and their predecessors can attest to the strength of her determination on this, but it is bitter-sweet because the murderer of her daughter has already been released. However, as I said on Second Reading, it is a testament to the character of Marie McCourt that her campaign continued, despite the knowledge that that was likely to happen, so that other families would not have to suffer.
Stephen Metcalfe
I say “hon. Friend” because on this issue we have worked closely together. Will he accept my thanks for his leadership on this issue, for working so hard to make sure that this did not fall off the agenda and for making sure that today did actually happen? On behalf of my constituent Linda Jones, Marie McCourt and the others, we are grateful to the House for bringing this forward.
Conor McGinn
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much not just for his words in the Chamber today, but for the co-operation we have had over the last three or four years in continuing to ensure that this agenda was to the fore. I also recognise that officials from the Department have not just delivered on this Bill and spent painstaking hours going through all the legalese required, but have met me and the family over the course of many years.
I pay particular tribute to the Secretary of State and the Minister. They made a promise to the McCourt family, and they kept it. They consistently and continually worked with the family, and they showed a great deal of empathy and support. They did much behind the scenes to ensure that Marie, John, Michael, and all the McCourt family felt sure that this Bill would be passed, as it has been. In Northern Ireland, Charlotte Murray’s family are hoping to change the law there, and in Scotland the family of Suzanne Pilley hope to do the same. This is unfinished business in a legislative sense for the rest of the UK, and we hope that those legislatures will act accordingly.
For 31 years, the community in Billinge has prayed at St Mary’s Catholic church for Helen McCourt and the return of her remains, and those prayers continue. I know that Members across the House send their sympathy and solidarity to Marie McCourt, on a day on which she can rightly take pride, although that, of course, does not return the remains of her beloved Helen.
Question put and agreed to,
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Terms and Conditions of Employment
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I beg to move,
That the draft Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay (General) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 23 January, be approved.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Parental Bereavement Leave Regulations 2020.
Paul Scully
The statutory instruments implement a new entitlement to paid leave for employees who lose a child under the age of 18, or whose baby is stillborn. There is currently no specific statutory right to take time off work to grieve following the loss of a child, and although there are many excellent and supportive employers, some sadly do not extend the same compassion to their employees when these tragic circumstances occur. The SIs will ensure a statutory minimum provision on which all working parents can rely in the event of a child death or stillbirth. They will also establish a clear baseline of support for employers when managing bereavement in the workplace. Fortunately, the number of child deaths is relatively small—every year, there are around 7,500 child deaths in Great Britain, including stillbirths—but behind each individual death of a baby or child, there are parents, and a wider family, for whom the sadness and pain of that loss are unquantifiable.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
It is right that the provisions address the death of a child who has been placed for adoption, meaning that the adult who intended to adopt that child will be covered by them. Why have adults in such a situation been excluded if an objection to the adoption has been raised? Surely the grief will be no less whether or not the adoption is unopposed, yet the regulations specifically exclude an adult from receiving the provision if there had been an objection to the proposed adoption.
Paul Scully
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question. A lot of consideration went into how to define bereaved parents, and we have extended the provisions, after a discussion following the introduction of the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). Hopefully I will be able to develop that point as we continue our debate, and perhaps answer my right hon. Friend’s question.
I am conscious that many Members have personal experience of the issue, or stories of constituents who have been through this. I admire the bravery and honesty that they have displayed when speaking about the issue in the Chamber, and I hope that they will be proud of their contribution to effecting this change in the law. I extend special thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton for promoting the original Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill, and to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince) for his work to raise the profile of the issue in Parliament.
The draft Parental Bereavement Leave Regulations 2020 will give all employees a right to a minimum of two weeks off work in the event of their child’s death or stillbirth, regardless of how long they have worked for their employer. The draft Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay (General) Regulations 2020 implement a new statutory payment for parents who are taking time away from work following their bereavement, subject to the same eligibility criteria as all other statutory family leave payments.
The impact assessment that was published alongside the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018 set out that the impact on business is small, at approximately £1.2 million per year. That is unchanged by the content of the draft SIs. The policy has undergone thorough consultation with the public, and stakeholders representing bereaved parents and employers. The views expressed by Members during the passage of the 2018 Act have also been taken into account. I will now set out how the Government have decided to exercise the powers given to them through that Act.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Before the Minister continues, may I withdraw the awkward question that I put to him earlier, as I find that it is adequately answered in part 3 of the relevant regulations?
Paul Scully
I thank my right hon. Friend for his diligent examination of the papers before him. I am glad he is informed.
The regulations define a “bereaved parent” in broad terms by reference to the employee’s relationship to the child. That reflects the diversity of existing family structures, taking account of biological and adoptive parents, as well as certain foster carers and kinship carers. As far as possible, we have sought to base the definition on facts that are easily identifiable to the employee and their employer.
Bereaved parents will be able to take two weeks’ leave from their job, and they will have the choice of whether to take those weeks consecutively or non-consecutively. The regulations provide a window of 56 weeks, beginning with the date of death, in which the entitlement can be exercised. Bereaved parents will therefore be able to take time off in the immediate aftermath of the death, at a later point—for example around the first anniversary of the death—or on both occasions, as they see fit.
Consistent with other rights to family-related leave, the employee will be required to give notice to their employer before taking parental bereavement leave, and such notice can be given orally. The notice required for leave will vary depending on when leave is taken in relation to the date of death or stillbirth. A very short notice period is required for leave taken soon after the death, whereas one week’s notice is required for leave taken later in the 56-week window. In both cases, the notice required for leave is designed to be minimal and to place as little burden on the employee as possible.
To claim statutory parental bereavement pay, the employee must provide notice to their employer in writing. Notice for pay can be given after the leave has been taken, meaning that that requirement will not create a barrier to a bereaved parent taking time off. In no circumstances will an employee be required to produce their child’s death or stillbirth certificate in order to access that entitlement. The regulations mean that no evidence is required for a parent to exercise their right to take leave, but to be eligible for pay, an employee will be required to provide minimal evidence. Such evidence will be a written self-declaration that they meet eligibility conditions regarding their relationship with the child, together with confirmation of their name, and the date of the child’s death or stillbirth.
Throughout my remarks I have referred to employees, and that is because parental bereavement leave and pay are employment rights, meaning that individuals who have a different employment status will not qualify. That is consistent with all other statutory parental leave and pay entitlements.
The provisions in the statutory instruments will provide bereaved parents with an important space to grieve following the death or stillbirth of their child. The change in the law will also send a signal to employers about the importance and value of recognising bereavement, and of providing adequate support for parents in such circumstances. I commend the regulations to the House.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
We are here today to debate the establishment of statutory parental bereavement leave and pay arrangements following Royal Assent to the Bill known as Jack’s law, in memory of Jack Herd. I pay tribute to his mother, Lucy, who will today see her work reach its concluding stages.
I am sure that Members on both sides of the House welcome the introduction of these measures, and I thank those from all parties who have advanced the need to establish bereavement leave and pay. Over the past few years, Members have recalled their own personal grief at the loss of a child or a stillbirth. The pain, the heartache and the impact are personal, but those who have had to face such sadness need a state that provides universal support to parents. In particular, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who has powerfully shared her own circumstances following the loss of her son and has forced Parliament to take a fresh look at bereavement, and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), my North Yorkshire colleague, who took the private Member’s Bill through the House.
I know that trade unions and businesses also welcome these measures. The Opposition believe that this is a first step, and one that we hope to build on as better understanding of grief and bereavement is acknowledged. While the provisions make adjustments for a period of two weeks, for those who have experienced loss, bereavement can last a lifetime. We need employers to look at what more can be done to support workers at difficult times.
I want to raise a number of issues regarding the regulations. The statutory instrument on pay applies only to employees. Clearly the measure is welcome, but it means that not all workers, as the Minister said, can access the provisions. Regulation 11 of the draft Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay (General) Regulations 2020 defines who would be entitled and who would be excluded, but will the Minister set out how he plans to address this inequality? Labour is clear: we would want to create a single status of “worker” to which all provisions would apply.
How will the Government ensure that bereaved parents in precarious work, including those on zero-hours contracts, can access two weeks’ statutory bereavement leave? While the provision for a statutory period of leave applies to all employees, the regulations that come into effect on 6 April 2020 make provision for statutory pay to apply only to those who have completed six months of service. However, bereavement and loss do not respect timelines. If someone loses their baby or child in their first six months of employment, the provisions should be extended to them. The loss is as great, and the need for leave and support as necessary.
The fact that the ability to take leave will, for some, be without pay means that those with the fewest means might not be able to afford to take it. Will the Minister set out why there is a limitation for those who have worked for less than six months and will he review it? While the regulations make provision for leave and pay for parents who lose a baby through stillbirth or who lose a child up to the age of 18, what provision has been made for parents who experience baby loss earlier in pregnancy? Further work should be done in this area.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for her kind comments earlier. She will acknowledge that, as the Minister said, this is a signal to employers. It is not simply a case of, “This is what you have to give.” She will agree that most employers are considerate in such circumstances and will go much further than the regulations require. This is the floor that we will work from, rather than the ceiling.
Rachael Maskell
I thank the hon. Member for his comments. He is absolutely right that this should be the beginning of a much broader conversation with all employers, whatever the circumstances in which they employ their staff.
It is believed that 10,200 parents each year will be eligible for statutory parental bereavement leave, with 9,300 eligible for statutory parental bereavement pay, meaning that about 1,000 parents a year will not be entitled to the pay provision. Will the Minister look again to see if day one provision could be extended specifically in that area?
I further seek to clarify that under the provisions of regulation 8 of the draft Parental Bereavement Leave Regulations 2020, two weeks’ statutory parental bereavement leave could commence following a completed period of maternity or paternity leave, provided that the two weeks’ allowance is used within 56 weeks of the loss of a baby or child. Labour believes that ensuring that all workers have day one rights would recognise that loss is loss and bereavement is bereavement. Arbitrary timescales should not come into this. While we would extend day one rights to all areas of employment law, it is important that the position is revisited for bereavement pay.
I also trust that employers will recognise the strength of these arguments and seek to go further when implementing these provisions. Good employment focuses on taking care of the holistic needs of the workforce, most acutely at the time of greatest need. We need to provide more time, time spread over a longer period, full pay, and support at key times, for instance on anniversary days. I trust that employers will be compassionate in making the fullest offer to staff, should they experience the loss of a baby or child.
Of course, bereavement brings its own patterns of grief, and time is necessary to come to terms with such loss. I hope that the Government will revisit this shortly, perhaps in the forthcoming employment Bill. The loss of a parent can often involve people having to take many additional practical measures to manage the parent’s estate or belongings, such as clearing a property. Bereavement leave could therefore be extended.
Research shows that not all parents are aware of their rights. For instance, 58% of those in low-paid work are not aware of what they are entitled to, and 63% are not aware of the right to unpaid parental leave, according to the TUC. Some have been found to use sick leave to address a family caring responsibility. That highlights the fact that from 6 April, not all parents will be aware of the changed provisions. Will the Government put in place a systematic approach so that parents can learn about these new measures? While we would hope that employers will inform their staff, may I suggest that NHS and hospice staff, as well as registrars for deaths, are briefed on the new provisions?
From 6 April this year, bereaved parents will have some time and support to manage the difficult days and weeks following the loss of their baby or child. This is a first step, and the Opposition will support the regulations today.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. While I very much appreciate what Government and Opposition Members have said, the credit and inspiration for the legislation certainly does not belong to me. They belong to many other people, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), who tried to introduce such a measure in a previous Parliament. I was simply lucky enough to come top of the ballot for private Members’ Bills, after which he was one of the first people to ring me. I was aware of his campaign as a result of many debates in Parliament and I had heard many Members speak about their own personal tragedies, so it was an absolute pleasure to be able to take on the baton and do what I could to introduce the legislation. At the election, both political parties committed to implement it, and the Government and Opposition have both been hugely supportive in doing so quickly.
Some of my constituents drew my attention to their own tragedies. Annika and James Dowson very sadly lost their little daughter, Gypsy, who was stillborn. It is touching that many people who have experienced these tragedies have turned their energies to fighting for something that is positive and good. Annika and James raised money for a bereavement ward at Scarborough Hospital. Anyone who has been on a ward and thinks of the experience of someone who has lost a child yet sees children in their first days, with all the happiness around that, while they are facing tragedy, can understand the need for bereavement suites. Luke and Ruthie Heron lost their little child, Eli, who was born at 23 weeks and six days. Had he not lived for another two and a half days, his birth would have been categorised as a miscarriage, rather than a stillbirth. We all come across these terrible tragedies.
I pay tribute to Lucy Herd and her little son, Jack, who was nearly two when he passed away—a tragic occurrence—and it is right that we can refer to this legislation as Jack’s law. Initially, because of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, we were going to refer to “Will’s Bill”, but Jack’s law is a far more fitting tribute to the campaign that has been run. Many other people have supported this, and I am so appreciative of Opposition and Government Members’ support in getting the Bill through. It went through in record time—we had to squeeze it in before the end of a parliamentary Session.
When people are told about such legislation, they are hugely shocked that it was not on the statute book already. However, nine out of 10 employers would be hugely considerate in such circumstances and a great number of them would give people whatever time off they needed to grieve, quite rightly. In many cases, employers would offer full pay during that time so that people could hopefully get over some of the grief and move on. This is not just about the individual; it is also about the signal that employers can send to the rest of their workforce, because showing compassion at such times is simply good employment practice.
I thank Members on both sides of the House, Opposition and Government Front Benchers, and successive Business Secretaries, who have been so supportive in taking the legislation forward. I also mention the former Member for Stourbridge, Margot James, who was hugely supportive in making sure that we got the Bill on to the statute book quickly. I am grateful for the opportunity to be associated with this legislation and I wish it a speedy passage through the House.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
It is no surprise that these parental bereavement pay and leave measures are warmly welcomed across the House and across the United Kingdom. Several of us in the House have had the tragic and life-changing experience of having to bury our own child. We talked much about this during the Committee stage of the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018 in the previous Session of Parliament. We all understood not only the importance of the measures but that they were not for us—they were for all those men and women who in the future will have to undergo this agony. We in public life who have gone through this terrible experience have a duty—I believe it is a sacred and moral duty—to improve the situation for those who, in time to come, will suffer the same terrible fate of losing a child. I also pay tribute to the former Member for Eddisbury, Antoinette Sandbach; although she is no longer a Member of this House, she did much work on parental bereavement and baby loss, and it is important to remember that.
The legislation is non-partisan and that is exactly as it should be. It is no secret that, while I wholeheartedly support these measures, as far as they go—I hear what the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) said about this being an opening salvo in perhaps more comprehensive protection for bereaved parents—I do not think that they go far enough. But they are a start. The measures started life as that most fragile thing—a private Member’s Bill—and it is down in no small part to the hard work led by the hon. Member who sponsored the original Bill that they have come this far.
These measures right a wrong; they correct the injustice that bereaved parents who bury their son or daughter are, under the law, not entitled to any paid or unpaid time off work. That means that any leave taken in such circumstances was entirely at the discretion of employers. We know that most employers would be hugely sympathetic to a member of staff facing such a loss, not just as an employer but as a fellow human being. We also know that others may not be and we heard anecdotal evidence of such cases, particularly in the Bill Committee.
I was delighted that the amendment I tabled in the Bill Committee to cover parents who suffered a stillbirth was accepted—a clear sign of the careful and considered cross-party working that took the Bill as far as it got. To face the death of a son or daughter with no entitlement to paid leave under the law has been for too long a terrible, terrible injustice that generations of people before us have suffered. I am proud that that has now been addressed.
These measures set out a minimum leave period of two weeks. That is not very long, but given that up to this point there was no entitlement at all, it is a start. Importantly, it provides legal recognition that the response to a life-changing event can and should no longer be a matter of discretion for employers. This is one of those days when we can feel that we are making a real, practical difference to the lives of our constituents as they face perhaps the worst experience that they can ever face.
People cope with the devastation of losing their child in a variety of ways, as we know—there is no right or wrong way to grieve or cope with loss. That is why I had hoped, through the passage of the legislation, for more flexibility on when the paid leave could be taken, but I take on board and very much welcome the Minister’s comments a wee while back about flexibility, because it is very important. Parents need to grieve in their own way and in their own time as far as possible. The circumstances of the loss of a child will matter, and bereaved parents must have the full protection of the law. I hope that at some point the Government will revisit this to develop it into a more sensitive package than it currently is.
I also wanted these measures to cover offspring beyond the age limit of 18 years, as set out in the provisions. The measures are, after all, about bereaved parents and not the child who has been lost. This really ought not to be about the circumstances or the age at which the child is lost; it is about protecting the parents following the loss of a son or daughter—something that goes against the natural order of events.
These provisions are extremely welcome, but I look forward to the day—I hope the Minister is listening—when their scope is expanded in the ways I have set out. I will continue to work towards that end with anybody who is willing to work with me, for the sake of my own son who was stillborn at full term, baby Kenneth.
Paul Scully
I thank all hon. Members for their consideration of these SIs and for their valuable contributions to the debate. I hope that Members on both sides of the House can agree that they are essential to ensure that no employed parent faces the prospect of returning to work too soon after the tragic loss of a child, should they need time away to grieve.
We are giving parents an important choice through the SIs, allowing them to decide what is best for their needs. They might otherwise have been reliant on the good will of their employer—as we have heard, it has not always been the case that employers have shown that goodwill. The provisions in the SIs strike the right balance between the needs of bereaved parents and those of their employers, who will administer the new entitlement.
My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), who is no longer in his seat, withdrew his question, but it is important that people listening understand what we are doing for adoptive parents. He asked why someone who had applied for an adoption order but had their application rejected would not qualify. The grief experienced by an individual in such circumstances would affect them greatly, and an adoptive parent would qualify from the point at which the child was placed with them for adoption, irrespective of whether the application was rejected, if the child had been living with them for four weeks or more and had been cared for by them during that time. The four weeks is important because it covers other definitions as well so as to be as inclusive as possible.
The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) asked about inequalities between different types of worker. The Government understand the challenges that the self-employed and other non-employees face following bereavement. These challenges are different from those faced by employed parents but clearly no less demanding. The parental leave and pay policy focuses on support for employed parents, as they have less autonomy and flexibility over the time they can take off work, but we continue to keep the differences in treatment between self-employed and employed people under review with respect to parental leave and pay. As she also mentioned, with the employment Bill coming up, we will soon be talking about wider issues relating to the different statuses of employment and working.
The hon. Lady asked about day one provisions for pay. The regulations seek to mirror the existing regime of parental statutory pay entitlements to ensure that the new entitlement is familiar to both employees and employers from day one. The provision is a statutory minimum, as we have heard; we would expect employers to go further whenever they can.
Rachael Maskell
Does the Minister agree that the bereavement measures relate to circumstances very different from those relating to other measures and that the regulations do not reflect the true nature of grief and the support people need, particularly if they have been employed for less than six months? Will he go back and review this please?
Paul Scully
We will keep all these matters under review and see how they are working. The hon. Member is right to say that bereavement is an incredibly difficult issue. We want to ensure a safety net, a bare minimum—employers should not see this as the benchmark; it is the bare minimum they should offer. Any reasonable employer should seek always to do what is best and to value their employees as human beings at every level in terms of pay and benefits.
The hon. Lady asked about extending these provisions in the upcoming employment Bill to cover the loss of a parent. As I say, the Government have been clear that this is a statutory minimum, but we hope it will trigger improvements in workplace support for all kinds of bereavement. I would encourage all employers to engage with the ACAS guidance that supports employers in these circumstances.
The hon. Lady asked about a systematic approach to ensuring parents are informed of their new rights, including by briefing NHS staff. I agree that it is important that any benefits are clearly signposted. The last thing parents will be thinking about at such a time will be their rights and responsibilities, so the easier it is to do the right thing the better. We have worked closely with stakeholders to make them aware of the new entitlement, including Sands, the charity, which already works closely with hospitals to provide support to parents following a stillbirth or neonatal death, and we will publish guidance on the new entitlement once the legislation is passed.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for bringing her personal experience to bear and for seeking changes. I congratulate her on getting her amendment through to extend the provisions to include stillbirth. I hope she can take comfort from knowing that her experience has brought about real change to the lives of grieving parents and to our ability to address these matters further in years to come. She asked about extending the provisions to children over the age of 18. Clearly, bereavement is the same no matter the age—losing a child at any age is devastating—and the question of where to draw the line for the purposes of the parental bereavement leave and pay policy has been a difficult consideration. We have consulted with stakeholders representing bereaved parents and employers, and they recognised that the measure needed to be deliverable and affordable. It was accepted that 18 was the most natural threshold for the new entitlement. Moreover, grief affects all family members, not just parents, and so with ACAS and Cruse we will continue to explore the best way to encourage employers to act sympathetically to requests for leave in relation to any bereavement.
The Government are committed to supporting working parents, and to making this country the best place in the world in which to work and grow a business. These statutory instruments will ensure that bereaved parents have a minimum statutory provision on which to rely if they ever have to go through the unimaginable tragedy of losing a child or baby, and I hope that the House will approve them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay (General) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 23 January, be approved.
Resolved,
That the draft Parental Bereavement Leave Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 23 January, be approved.—(Paul Scully.)
Business without Debate
Petitions
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
We have faced almost unprecedented floods in Calderdale, only second to those that we faced in 2015. The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that Calderdale was devastated by flooding for the second time in less than 5 years by Storm Ciara, affecting more than 600 homes, 587 businesses and 8 schools; and further that funding which was made available from Central government towards Calderdale’s recovery in 2015 has not been forthcoming.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to commit to a reallocation of funding to ensure a resilience grant and business rate waiver scheme for homes and businesses to match that made available in 2015; further that Calderdale is granted ‘Tier 1’ status based on our ongoing management of flood risk which is reflected in a budget uplift; further that the Government should reallocate funds to ensure that Calderdale receives an infrastructure recovery fund to respond to the huge range of infrastructure repairs required; and further that the Government makes it policy to ensure that funding raised by the Community Foundation for Calderdale’s 2020 flood appeal is matched by central Government, as it was in 2015, to repair the damage caused by storm Ciara.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002561]
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents, who are very concerned about the proposed closure of the animal welfare centre in Wood Green, which has been extant for nearly 100 years. In fact, thousands of people have contacted me about it.
I am sure you will appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker, the concern that is felt in a community where so many have volunteered—or, perhaps, have not been able to afford to maintain the care of their beloved pets, and have brought them to the Wood Green animal shelter over the years—and the desperation and sense of loss resulting from the charity’s proposal to close the shelter. It has such an important function, particularly in Wood Green, where the loss of young people’s opportunities to volunteer and to connect with animals by looking after, caring for or petting them would be a matter of extreme concern.
I am proud to present this petition to the House, and I know that it will have cross-party support, because so many Members are committed to the welfare of animals. I present it on behalf of all my constituents, but the lead petitioner, Buffy Collett-Bell, a young person studying at the College of Haringey, Enfield and North East London, has been particularly active in promoting the rights of animals, the right to animal welfare, and the right for Wood Green to continue to have this desperately needed animal shelter, which will soon reach its 100th anniversary. I hope that the petition will be viewed positively.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Hornsey and Wood Green,
Declares that the future of the Wood Green Animals Shelter should be safeguarded; notes the significant and long lasting history of the shelter and the charity in the community; further notes the current Charity are seeking to close the shelter in the near future; further notes that a public petition by residents across the UK, organised by Catherine West MP and local residents, has attracted over 2,000 signatures in support of safeguarding the future of the shelter.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to press upon Wood Green, the Animals Charity, to stay in the Wood Green Area and maintain the operation of the shelter, and to safeguard its long-term position.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002563]
Climate Protests in Cambridge: Police Response
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I would not have asked for this Adjournment debate if I thought the issues arising from policing in Cambridge during the recent climate protests were of merely local interest, or related only to events in the past, but they are issues of national importance. Police forces across the country will have to grapple with them as the protests spread to other towns and cities, as they inevitably will. We have had London and Cambridge—where next? Far from being confined to the past, it seems to me that we are at the start of protests that are likely to escalate in frequency, duration and severity. There is widespread public anger about the events in Cambridge and deep concern among many of my fellow MPs. We have reached a situation in the UK where the police sometimes no longer believe that they have a right to stop blatant criminality during political protests. The issues raised by events in Cambridge need to be resolved. The powers of the police must be clarified, and the police must have the confidence to use them. Otherwise, we risk undermining the rule of law and even public support for the police.
On 16 February, Extinction Rebellion activists started a week of protests in Cambridge that initially involved a blockade of two major roads into Cambridge, preventing vehicles from getting in and out of the city and forcing ambulances carrying patients and other emergency vehicles to be re-routed. The blockade remained in place for a week. Blockading a road is an offence under section 137 of the Highways Act 1980, but the police did not uphold the law and open the roads. Instead, they used emergency powers to close the roads legally, thereby giving protection to the blockades. The police were usually present during the blockades, but to protect the activists from angry members of the public.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that a key issue here is the role of the College of Policing, which actually stated that blocking the public highway was not unlawful? It instructed the police in that way. Does not this also link in with a recent case in which advice from the College of Policing led to a situation where Harry Miller was visited by police on his doorstep to question his thinking on societal issues? Is it not time for the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office to look at the role of the College of Policing and the way in which it is unfortunately leading to skewed police priorities?
Anthony Browne
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I shall come later to the issue of the advice from the College of Policing.
On 18 February, the protesters, armed with spades, dug up the lawn at Trinity College. They then proceeded to load soil into wheelbarrows and dump it in the foyer of Barclays bank—my branch of Barclays. Throughout this episode, Cambridgeshire police stood by and watched. They did not intervene to stop the criminal acts and no arrests were made at the time. The police said that they did not stop the criminal acts because they were concerned that to do so would be an infringement of the activists’ human rights. During the week, there were various acts of vandalism by activists, including at the iconic Schlumberger building and at a Shell petrol station. Subsequently, following public outrage and complaints from Trinity College, myself and Ministers, the police have arrested a total of nine activists.
The lack of police action against law-breaking protesters caused public fury across social media, the airwaves, the letters pages and my inbox. Virtually no one has argued that the police were right not to act. That public anger is very understandable. We rely on the police to uphold the rule of law, and not to let mob rule unfold. When those tasked with law enforcement appear to be unwilling or unable to intervene in flagrant criminal conduct, the public start to feel threatened. The public are also annoyed by the perceived double standard. Many said to me, “If I had blockaded the road or committed criminal damage, I’d be arrested on the spot. Why aren’t the protesters?” I want to put on record that I strongly support the ultimate objective of Extinction Rebellion in combating climate change, but I do not support its means.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Taking into consideration the fact that a number of my constituents attend Cambridge and study there at this time, I am sure that the hon. Member will share my concern that, at what should have been a peaceful expression of opinion, tensions were heightened deliberately by a few. Does he agree that now is the time for calm heads and cool words, and that that must be the first line of defence when dealing with passionate young people?
Anthony Browne
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I have said, my aim is not to inflame things, but to ensure that the police have clarity on their powers to act. I also strongly support the police, who I recognise are caught between a rock and a hard place. I know that fundamentally they want to uphold the law, but the guidance and interpretation can be confusing.
There are two questions that need answering: first, why did the police stand by as crimes were committed; and secondly, what can be done to ensure that they will uphold the law in future? I have met the police and crime commissioner and the chief constable of Cambridgeshire, who are now conducting a review of the lessons learned. It is not clear that the police would do anything differently if it happened again. They are sharing the learnings with other police forces across the country that are developing their own plans in case of similar protests. Cambridgeshire police have welcomed this Adjournment debate, as they hope it will help generate agreement on how they should respond in future. I know that, following the Extinction Rebellion protests in London, the Metropolitan police is also considering these issues with Home Office officials.
Having considered the arguments carefully and examined the relevant legislation and court judgments, I believe that none of the reasons for police inaction stands up to scrutiny. I contend that the police did have legal grounds to act even under existing legislation.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech. He and I were briefed at the end of last week, along with other Cambridgeshire MPs. I, too, was outraged by the digging up of the lawn, but does he agree that there was a danger of a much bigger reaction being stimulated in the city? The city is proud of its protests, but was that not a real dilemma that the police faced?
Anthony Browne
The hon. Gentleman is right; it was a dilemma. In fact, I was just coming to the pragmatic arguments before moving on to the legal arguments.
The police point out that after a week of protests, no one was physically harmed, the protests did not escalate and there was no irreparable damage. That is all true, but if that is the police criterion for action to stop a crime, they would rarely enforce the law. Thousands of people’s lives were disrupted and criminal damage was done.
The police have also said that Trinity College did not complain about the vandalism while it was taking place; it did so only later that evening. It was only after Trinity College lodged a complaint that the police made arrests. But the police would not stand by and watch a burglar rob a jewellery shop just because the owner was not there formally complaining about it.
Others have said—this relates to what the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) said—that the police should not arrest people because that would make them martyrs. Well, they have arrested some people, so will they become martyrs? Who knows, and actually what difference does it make? The martyr argument could be used to justify just about anything.
A far bigger and more realistic concern is that if activists know they can get away with breaking the law, the law breaking will escalate. They will do it again, and others will be tempted to join them. Many will be quite attracted to the idea of breaking the law in front of the police, making a mockery of them. Some will push the limits, committing ever greater crimes, until ultimately the police do stop them. In this situation, appeasement will just encourage more law breaking. The pragmatic arguments do not stand up.
We then come to the legal arguments. During the week of action, the police put out a video explaining why they were not acting to stop these crimes. It was based on their interpretation of the Human Rights Act 1998, as set out in guidance from the College of Policing, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) referred earlier. Under article 11 of the European convention on human rights, enshrined in UK law through the Human Rights Act, people have the right to peaceful assembly. I am sure that all Members of this House support that right—indeed, if it was threatened, I would be out there protesting for the right to protest.
As the College of Policing guidance points out, those rights are qualified rights, and the police can impose restrictions on demonstrations under certain circumstances. Those restrictions must be prescribed by law, necessary and proportionate. The law that allows the police to impose restrictions on processions and assemblies is set out in sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. It gives the police powers if they believe that a procession or assembly may result in
“serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community”,
or if they believe that
“the purpose of the persons organising it is the intimidation of others”.
The police believe that the Cambridge protests did not amount to “serious” disruption. I have been told that there is no case law on that, and that point was made by the police earlier. The Metropolitan police lost a judicial review following its imposition of restrictions on the Extinction Rebellion protests in London, but that was on an entirely different issue and is not relevant to this case. What I can say with certainty is that many members of the public feel the Cambridge protests caused them serious disruption and serious damage.
This also misses the point. On close scrutiny, the College of Policing guidance is poor, and the Cambridgeshire police interpretation of it is flawed. Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act are clearly not meant to deter the police from arresting people for committing other crimes. They give the police powers to impose a legal restriction on the location or size of an assembly or procession if they think serious disorder is likely to result from it. Sections 12 and 14 absolutely do not say the police cannot arrest people for committing a crime in front of their eyes, as happened at Trinity College—that is clearly not the intent of the legislation. Even when the police cannot legally ban or restrict a whole demonstration, they can still arrest demonstrators who commit criminal damage. Even if we accept that the criminal damage was not serious, it just means the police could not use section 14 of the Public Order Act to ban the assembly overall. It does not mean the police could not have arrested those digging up the Trinity College lawn.
When it comes to the blockade of the road, I believe the police could have used section 14 powers relating to assemblies, rather than processions. Section 14(1)(b) says the police can impose restrictions on an assembly if
“the purpose of the persons organising it is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act they have a right not to do”.
The intimidation does not have to be serious; it just needs to be the purpose of those organising the assembly. The very purpose of those blockading the Fen Causeway and Trumpington Street was to stop people travelling on them, which they had a right to do—at least, they had a legal right to do it until the police used their emergency powers to close the roads.
That clearly fits the description of intimidation under the Public Order Act. The purpose of the assembly was to intimidate the public in and around Cambridge to stop them using the roads, so the police had a right to impose a restriction on that assembly and to require that it be moved to a place that was not blocking the road. As the hon. Member for Cambridge knows, there are plenty of places in Cambridge where the protestors could have held their assembly without depriving people of their right to travel on the roads.
The police misinterpreted not only the Public Order Act but the European convention on human rights, which is explicit that the right to assembly does not give people the right to break the law or to deprive others of their rights or freedoms. Paragraph 2 of article 11 says:
“No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights”—
of assembly—
“other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.”
There it is, in black and white.
The Human Rights Act itself says that that Act cannot be used to stop the police imposing legal restrictions on assemblies.
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Member is making a powerful legalistic argument, but I put it to him that this is actually a political argument. There are many people in my constituency who think we face a climate emergency so serious that it justifies what would in normal times be considered extreme action. Does he understand how strongly people feel about this? The police have used these powers on the A14 diversions, and there has been less disruption for my constituents over the past few years than was suffered the other week.
Anthony Browne
I understand the passion, the urgency and the importance that people feel about climate change, but that does not justify breaking the law.
This is also clearly counterproductive. I have had lots of correspondence from my constituents, as perhaps the hon. Gentleman has had from his, saying that people cannot be won over to a cause by alienating them. If we want to make a political argument, I would say that Extinction Rebellion portrays itself as a fringe group with a fringe cause and actually undermines support for action on climate change. It must obey the law, which is the way to win people over.
I am close to finishing my legal arguments. The Human Rights Act also says that restrictions can be legally imposed on assemblies to prevent crime, as with the Trinity College lawn, or to protect the rights of others, as with the blockades.
In summary, there is nothing in law—in the Human Rights Act or in the Public Order Act—to stop the police upholding other laws.
The public are rightly angry that we have got ourselves into a position where the police believe that they cannot uphold criminal law. Why has this come about and what can be done about it? I believe the police fundamentally want to uphold the law, but are beset by uncertainty, with one problem being that they get weak legal advice—that is the point my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) was making. Can something be done to improve the legal advice that police forces get, and the advice from the College of Policing? The police are up against strong activist groups, which are often chasing them through the courts, always pushing to constrain the powers of the police, but no one is chasing the police through the courts to force them to uphold the law. Can the Government do something so that there is less one- sided pressure on the police?
I would like to ask the Minister whether the Home Office can undertake a public review to see what can be done to stop a repeat of the unfortunate events in Cambridge in other locations in the coming months and years. That might mean a change in the law, but, as I have said, I do not believe that is necessary. It would be good to have practical, deliverable proposals to help the police do their job. Never again should police feel they have to stand by and watch powerlessly as criminal acts take place. In future, the police must be able to do what they are employed to do: uphold the law.
Mr Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
I rise to support the sentiments expressed so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne). In doing so, I acknowledge that we face a conundrum. I believe that all Members in this House support the right to peaceful protest, and I do not think that anything said here today should diminish that right, but a balance needs to be struck, because certain pressure groups have extended that right to the point where they are abusing it. There is a danger that some of them are becoming a law unto themselves.
Speaking as a Member who represents a constituency within the boundaries of Greater London, I can say that London has had more than its fair share of this. Last year, in the first Extinction Rebellion protest, we saw a wholesale attempt to shut down the city of London, including major transport hubs. That had several impacts, which were all deliberately intended. The first was impact on the police themselves. I have spoken to my local borough commander, and he tells me that they had to extract an entire shift, one of the three they have, in order to send it to central London to provide cover and bolster the support provided simply to contain the level of protest. That has a knock-on effect back in the boroughs: they are unable to respond as speedily as they would otherwise; the watches they have on duty are massively overstretched; and local residents get a much worse service. The implication of that is a danger of crime spikes and people’s safety goes down significantly.
There is also an impact on the emergency services. In the areas where the protests were taking place ambulances were unable to get through, despite being on blue-light calls—that is scandalous. There was a huge economic impact in London. The cost of the protest just in terms of policing was in excess of £40 million. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire has said, there are dangers of this escalating. Just yesterday, people from Greenpeace took it upon themselves to superglue shut the doors of 85 Barclays bank branches and hammer nails into those doors to prevent them from being opened. That was on the first day of the month, so it had a big impact, not only on private customers but on business. Greenpeace is not known for that kind of direct action, so it is clearly an escalation based on what it saw Extinction Rebellion getting away with at the end of last year.
On a more sinister level is the escalation in reaction against these protests. When the police are standing by and being seen not to enforce the law, there is a great danger that local citizens will take it upon themselves to do so. We saw a clear example—it can still be seen on social media now—of what happened when Extinction Rebellion decided to stop people commuting in Canning Town. A protestor marching along the roof of a train was dragged off quite violently and received a kicking on the platform, apparently to the cheering applause of the people standing around. That is sinister. If that starts to happen and to get public approval, the danger is that this will become very significant. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) expressed the danger of what happens when hotheads take control; I have set out an example of what can happen, and it can only get worse.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Just before the hon. Member intervenes, I remind everybody that the topic of the debate is the police response to climate protests in Cambridge. May we please ensure that we home in on that?
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman has been careful in what he is saying, because it is about balance and respecting other people. Those who protest have to respect those they inconvenience.
Mr Bacon
I entirely agree; that sentiment should be shared completely. I come back to my opening remark about the right to peaceful protest: that needs to be respected on all sides, including by the protesters themselves. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire elucidated very eloquently, they have to respect the rights of other people. When they seek to trample on those rights, they increase the danger of escalation.
There is a problem for the police that is partly down to the state of the law. They are able to prohibit public processions such as marches—we have seen the cancellation by the police of proposed far-right marches because they felt that public safety could not be guaranteed—but that aspect of the Public Order Act 1986 does not extend to people who stay put somewhere, which is to say to the right to assembly. Such people do not have to give six days’ notice and do not have to declare where they are going to be. That is a weakness. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner—the most senior police officer in the country—has asked for the 1986 Act to be amended to take that into account, and that suggestion has been supported by Nick Ferrari on his LBC show, with his Enough Is Enough campaign. There is some merit in that position and I call on the Government to pay attention to it.
Another thing is required: over many years now, the police have tried to do a very difficult job without feeling that they have the political top cover to do it. There are myriad things—I could go off into all sorts of different examples of the failings of the Independent Office for Police Conduct and the risks that police officers have to run on a daily basis, but that would take us well off topic, so I shall not. In conjunction with the Government’s looking at the 1986 Act, there needs to be a quid pro quo: the police need to be provided with political top cover, but in exchange we need the police to stand up and do their job, which is to enforce the law without fear or favour.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) to his place. I am delighted to see him in the House, as a much improved representative for South Cambridgeshire. I congratulate him on securing the debate and on the campaigning that he has already done, on this issue and others, in the few weeks since he was elected.
I entirely understand and appreciate that many Members are deeply concerned about the activities of Extinction Rebellion. Indeed, I seem to recall that in the previous Session, Extinction Rebellion protestors glued themselves to the glass screen in the Public Gallery while not wearing any clothes, which was an extremely disconcerting sight. I am glad that the House’s business proceeded uninterrupted and unimpeded during that episode.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire said in his excellent speech, many of us—all of us, I am sure—understand and sympathise with the environmental issues being raised. No Government are doing more than this one to make sure that environmental concerns are being met. The United Kingdom has significantly reduced its CO2 emissions, and I am proud that under this Government coal-fired power generation is now almost at zero, unlike in many other countries around the world, including Germany.
Daniel Zeichner
Strong points have been made about the law needing to be enforced, but the Government are continually dragged through the courts for failing to meet their air quality responsibilities, so when are we going to see Ministers pursued by the police to tackle the climate emergency? There cannot be one law for one set of people; surely it has to be the same law for everybody.
Chris Philp
The Government have an extremely proud record on climate change. As I have just said, we have been reducing our CO2 emissions and have virtually eliminated coal-fired power stations. There is scope to do more, though, and the Environment Bill will again be before the House shortly, and it contains further measures, including on clean air, which I am extremely interested in as a London MP.
The country can be proud of its record on climate change and the Government will continue to do more. Moreover, the Government fully recognise, respect and embrace the right to peaceful protest. A free society is built on the foundations of free speech and free protest, and the Government will never do anything to impede the public’s right to express their views. Indeed, we have seen that outside, in Parliament Square, on quite a frequent basis over the past year—sometimes quite noisily.
The Government are also clear that although we fully respect the right to peaceful protest, that does not extend, under any circumstances, to criminal behaviour. Some of the remarks that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) made during his intervention a little earlier this afternoon seemed to come dangerously close to excusing criminal behaviour just because an issue is important. Let me reiterate: there is no excuse for criminal behaviour. It does not persuade the public of anything. In fact, it has the reverse effect, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire said in his speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr Bacon) said that, in fact, it risks vigilante behaviour by the public, which simply inflames the situation further. There is no excuse, under any circumstances, for this kind of criminal behaviour. The Government have an expectation that the police will always take action where criminal activity is under way. There would need to be an extremely good reason for them not to do so.
Daniel Zeichner
I am flabbergasted. Frankly, the Minister should know that crime has been taking place across the country, with criminals walking into shops and stealing goods, and it has been reported to the police on a daily basis and nothing has been done under this Government. Why is it not the same law for everybody?
Chris Philp
Clearly, a crime happening in front of the police is different from a crime being reported to the police. Obviously, every crime is investigated. Speaking from memory, some tens of thousands of people are prosecuted for theft and burglary every year. Of course, one reason why we are recruiting 20,000 extra police officers is to make sure that crimes can be even more thoroughly investigated than they are already. None the less, there is an expectation that the police will take action in relation to all crimes that they are aware of, particularly when the police have direct evidence in front of them that a crime is taking place.
In relation to the Trinity College incident, although arrests were not made immediately, subsequently, as one Member said, three protesters were arrested and charged with criminal damage. They have been released on bail and will appear at Cambridge magistrates court on 30 March. In relation to the incident at the Schlumberger oil service facility, a total of five people were arrested and charged with offences, including criminal damage, and again they will appear at Cambridge magistrates court on 30 March. In relation to the episode at the Shell petrol station, five arrests were made and four people were subsequently charged. The fact that people were arrested and charged is something that we can be pleased about.
Chris Philp
That is something that is always kept under careful review. My colleague, the Minister for Crime, Police and the Fire Service, is, unfortunately, at a conference this afternoon so cannot attend this debate, but I will ask him to write to my hon. Friend on that question. Perhaps the best thing is for him to write to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire on this College of Policing question, just to explore it a little further.
In relation to police powers, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, we have listened to police concerns regarding the challenges that they face managing protests. They have indicated that existing protest legislation can, in some places, be cumbersome, so Home Office officials have been working closely with senior Met officers, and also national policing leads to understand how we can make the existing public order legislation more effective if needed. That is ongoing at the moment.
In conclusion, we fully respect the right to peaceful protest. It is the foundation of our democracy, but that right does not include committing criminal acts, and we do expect the police to uphold the law. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire for bringing this matter to the House’s attention.
Question put and agreed to.
Immigration (Citizens' Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 61).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. The regulations were laid before the House on 30 January and were introduced under section 11 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. They provide the important right of appeal against immigration decisions on citizens’ rights under the European settlement scheme.
The regulations are required to meet our obligations under the withdrawal agreement, the European economic area European Free Trade Association separation agreement, and the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement. The Government have been clear about our commitment to protecting the rights of EU citizens, European economic area citizens and Swiss citizens who have made this country their home. They are our friends, family and neighbours, and we want them to stay. The appeal rights provide further reassurance that those citizens remain welcome and can continue to live and work in the United Kingdom.
The regulations do two things. First, they establish appeal rights against a wide range of decisions that affect a person’s right to enter and live in the UK under the European settlement scheme. That includes those who are refused leave under the scheme, or who are granted pre-settled status rather than settled status, as well as those who are refused entry clearance in the form of an EU settlement scheme family permit or travel permit. The regulations also provide an appeal route for those whose rights are restricted under the scheme, for example if their status is revoked or curtailed.
Secondly, the regulations ensure that existing rules and procedures are applied to the operation of appeal rights. They go further than the withdrawal agreement requires, by providing appeal rights in line with the UK’s more generous domestic implementation. That means that anyone who can make an application under the scheme, including non-EU family members, will have a right of appeal if they are refused status or granted pre-settled status.
Under the regulations, appeals will follow the same process as current immigration appeals. They will be heard by the asylum and immigration chamber of the first-tier tribunal and, with permission, there will then be a further onward right of appeal to the upper tribunal on points of law. The exception is where the decision is certified on national security grounds or where sensitive information cannot be made public. As with current immigration appeals, those cases will be referred to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. As I am sure the Committee is aware, that is similar to provisions in other areas of immigration law.
The regulations are undeniably complex because of the number of situations requiring a right of appeal under the agreements and the need to apply existing and complex rules on appeal rights. We are committed to making the appeals process as simple as possible for applicants, however. The decision letter will tell them whether they can appeal and will direct them to the relevant information on gov.uk. Support is also available by phone, in person or in writing for those without access to online facilities or who need additional assistance.
The regulations ensure that we comply with the requirements of the agreements and are an essential part of our commitment to protecting the rights of EU citizens. I commend them to the Committee.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. The Labour party welcomes the regulations, as we have been calling for some time for the right of appeal to be put in primary legislation. It was good to hear the Minister laying out the Government’s case, on which we are pleased to support them.
The instrument provides for a right of appeal when settled or pre-settled status has been denied, but we have some specific questions about the regulations. The explanatory note is clear that the appeals process will apply only to those who applied for settled status “on or after” 31 January 2020. Frankly, that is absurd. It raises concerns for those who began the application process prior to 31 January. The Government have made it clear that they have received more than 3 million applications under the EU settlement scheme as of January 2020. Is the Minister really saying that the majority of people who have applied to the scheme will not have a right of appeal, and is that consistent with the withdrawal agreement? This issue will affect those who applied before the qualifying date and whose applications have not yet been decided on, and who want to make sure that they have a right of appeal if they are refused. Those people will wait months for a decision and will be understandably concerned about the fact that if they are refused close to the deadline, they will have little time left in which to apply again and ensure that they receive a right of appeal.
That will obviously create some practical difficulties. The individual may try to withdraw their first application to make a fresh one, or they may simply make a duplicate application to the scheme without withdrawing their first, which could seriously overburden the system. I would welcome clarification from the Minister about what people should do in that situation.
It is vital that applicants have a right to legal representation and are not put off by a time limit. Will the Minister confirm what rights to legal representation applicants will have, and can he guarantee that there will be no refusals where applicants’ entitlements have not been exercised?
A challenge of the settled status programme is the requirement on people who did not need documentation prior to January 2020 to demonstrate a long paper trail. People who began their time in the UK in houses of multiple occupation, or to whom employers did not provide payslips, face additional barriers through no fault of their own. The requirements and demands of the settled status scheme need to be reviewed. At the time of the referendum, everyone was clear that should the UK vote to leave, EU citizens who were already here should be welcome to stay. That promise needs to be honoured and must not be undone by bureaucratic burdens that have an impact on the most vulnerable.
The Government’s own watchdog raised significant concerns about the Home Office’s ability to reach the most vulnerable individuals who are seeking settled status. Appeals obviously cannot be seen in isolation from the difficulties engulfing the EU settled status scheme. An estimated 200,000 EU citizens are yet to apply for settled status. Obstacles to applying include age and a lack of access to digital technology, while some may not even know they are not already British citizens. The over-65s, of whom just over 50,000 have applied for settled status, will clearly have the most difficulty in applying.
If the Government are serious about reaching those groups, why have they still not committed to funding beyond March the network of 57 charities that were granted Home Office funding to do just that? Charities have said that they are being forced to cut back on that service because the Department has refused to guarantee any funding beyond this month. Previously, they were granted £9 million by the Department to provide practical support to the group of 200,000 vulnerable or at-risk people applying to the scheme. A failure by Ministers to provide further funding will undoubtedly leave a gap in provision.
Praxis, a charity that was granted funding to help homeless people apply to the scheme, has three caseworkers dedicated to providing such support, but is being forced to consider ending their contracts because there is no guarantee that the work can continue beyond March. That is not right. We know the dangers of erecting administrative hurdles and failing to explain the UK’s complex immigration status to those who have a right to be here. The Government must avoid enhancing those obstacles.
The regulations do not provide for appeals when the Home Office rejects an application as invalid, rather than refusing it because it does not meet the requirements of the rules. That mirrors the Home Office’s fairly long-standing approach to invalid applications under free-movement law. An invalid application could be, for example, one from an applicant whose identity or nationality is disputed by the Home Office. The Home Office has already rejected 3,000 applications as invalid, but has yet to provide a breakdown of why those applications were invalid. I would be grateful if the Minster responded to that.
Will the Minister confirm that people who are eligible for the settlement scheme but who are not covered by the withdrawal agreement—particularly those who came under the Zambrano or Surinder Singh routes—will have a right to appeal under the regulations? During the passage of the 2020 Act, a Home Office Minister gave an assurance on the Floor of the House that they would.
Will there be a time limit on the right of appeal? The deadline for settled status will be 31 June 2021, but the Government have been clear that they will continue to accept applications beyond that date if someone has a good reason for not having applied. Will the Minister confirm that people who apply to the scheme after 31 June 2021 will have the right of appeal?
Finally, will the Minister confirm that EU citizens’ rights will be protected while their appeals are pending, to ensure that those with outstanding appeals after 31 June 2021 will not be subjected to the hostile environment? EU passports will no longer be proof of right to rent or work in the UK, for example, so someone with an outstanding appeal will not be allowed to do those things. If those questions are answered, we will be happy to support the regulations.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. You will take a particular interest in this legislation, given your previous role. You will know better than anybody that I have been banging on about appeal rights for a considerable period, so I welcome the Minister’s introduction of regulations to enact them.
That said, I echo a fair number of the questions and concerns that the shadow Minister raised, particularly on funding for advice, and I will return to a couple of the technical issues that she raised. On whether someone should have the right to appeal against the decision that their application is invalid, although I understand that it is long-standing Home Office practice for there to be no right of appeal in those circumstances, the reason behind that escapes me.
Disputes about nationality may depend on quite technical nationality laws, so it is slightly disturbing that someone may not be able to challenge a decision that they are not French or Polish, for example. Issues of identity may depend on problems with the way that someone’s name is spelled, which can vary in official Government documents, so it is slightly worrying that 3,280 applications have been found invalid and that those individuals will not have a right of appeal. Will the Minister provide more information on the different types of “invalid” refusals? Are those 3,280 refusals to do with applicants’ identities or nationalities?
I also share the shadow Minister’s concerns about the 31 January 2020 deadline and the reasons why it has been picked as a cut-off point. Even from a selfish Home Office point of view, it seems strange to say to folk, “We are refusing your application, but rather than give you a right of appeal, we ask you to apply again,” only for the applicant to appeal if the same decision is made again. Why not just give those with outstanding applications the right to go straight to appeal?
I will finish my remarks on a broader point. Ideally, I would like the provisions to be in primary rather than secondary legislation. I understand that an immigration Bill is due in the not-too-distant future; perhaps the Minister can indicate when that will be. The appeal rights are a fundamental safeguard for lots of people; the shadow Minister mentioned Zambrano carers, but there are all sorts of others, too.
The Government very generously made a unilateral commitment to Zambrano carers and others, so the scope of the EU settlement scheme is broader than required under the withdrawal agreement, which is absolutely welcome, but those rights are enshrined only in immigration rules, and the appeal rights are enshrined only in secondary legislation. Rather than enshrining people’s right to be in this country in bits of legislation that can be changed virtually at the stroke of an Immigration Minister’s pen, I want them to be enshrined in statute, so that people have that protection.
As the Minister knows, I have all sorts of other fundamental concerns about the nature of the settlement scheme—whether it should be a declaratory system, digital only and so on—but I will leave those matters for when the immigration Bill is introduced. I absolutely welcome the establishment of the right of appeal.
The Minister has one or two questions to answer on the technical issues that the shadow Minister flagged up, and I look forward to further debate on the progress of the EU settlement scheme.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Nokes. I compliment the Front-Bench speakers, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley, and I agree with the important points and share the important questions that have been raised, which I do not intend to reiterate.
Paragraph 12 of the explanatory memorandum, which covers the impact of the regulations, states that there is “no, or no significant” impact on business, charities, voluntary bodies or the public sector, and that
“An Impact Assessment has not been prepared…because no significant impact on business is foreseen.”
How many appeals does the Minister expect to be heard under the regulations? I ask because if he has decided that there will be no significant impact, he must have a view on how few people are likely to appeal. Could he share that with the Committee?
It seems to me that, as a consequence of the rights, a number of people will appeal. Before the Committee votes on the regulations, it will need some word from the Minister on the likely impact of the regulations, in view of how many people might actually appeal. Saying “We haven’t done an impact assessment because we don’t think there is going to be an impact” is giving the Committee too little information to satisfy it. Perhaps the Minister can satisfy me on that point.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I am sure the Minister will tell us that all is rosy, but I asked the Library about the number of British citizens applying for passports from the EU 27, and I got some quite alarming figures. In 2017, which is when the Library’s latest figures are from, there were more than 15,000 applications, whereas a decade ago there were about 1,000. If everything is okay with the British passport, how does he explain that? The number of applications for a Swedish passport used to be only in the double digits, but last year there were nearly 5,000 applications. The Irish figure is well known; it is 112,138. What conclusion does he draw from that?
We are always told that people voted out and want to lose freedom of movement, but those figures suggest that people want to live, work and play—I think that is from the Mars adverts—love, study and all those things in the EU 27. Those of us with Commonwealth origins have no recourse to another European passport. That calls to mind the hostile environment, which was mentioned so powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley. I echo the praise for her, and ask the Minister what we can attribute those figures to. I also ask, because you are chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, Ms Nokes, where the equality impact assessment is.
Kevin Foster
It has been an interesting debate, and I appreciate the support of Opposition Members. My remit does not quite extend to the Swedish passport system, so I will have to keep my remarks rather limited on that.
I start by responding to the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood. There have been more than 3 million applications and now just over 3 million determinations, and so far we have had 900 requests for an administrative review. While there is no appeal right, people who disagree with a decision can still request that review. With 900 reviews after 3 million determinations and well over 3.2 million applications—I accept that people would not apply for a review until they had got their decision—we felt the number of appeals was likely to be low. Where people have additional evidence, the logical process for them is to make another free-of-charge application to the settlement scheme. As the deadline is June next year, they have plenty of time to do that and get the status they believe they are entitled to. To be clear, if someone reapplies because they think they should have settled status rather than pre-settled status, that does not prejudice the pre-settled status they have been given. I am conscious that Members might ask whether if someone reapplied, it might prejudice the status they had been granted. The answer is no.
For those who applied before 31 January, the way to gain an appeal right is to make a reapplication to the settlement scheme. That is free of charge for anyone; there is no supplementary charge for making another application. We felt that struck the appropriate balance, because an appeal would have a charge to it, and in most cases, if there is a need to present additional evidence, it is easiest to do that through another application. To be clear, anyone who has a right to apply to the EU settlement scheme, including as a Zambrano carer and in the other examples given, may avail themselves of those appeal rights. On legal representation, the position is similar to that for use of appeal mechanisms in other immigration law.
On the system being engulfed, any member of the Committee or of this House who is interested in how the process is going is welcome to pay a visit to Liverpool. We are happy to arrange for people to visit and see what the teams are doing. Hon. Members would see that, far from being engulfed, the teams are working quickly through the largest documentation of immigration status in UK history, providing many people with certainty and assurance.
Kevin Foster
I would say it is probably slightly more cumbersome and somewhat more costly to apply for another nationality than to apply for free to the EU settlement scheme—to provide basic proof of identity and of having lived in the United Kingdom, which a person could literally do with a letter they have received. When I visited the team in Liverpool, someone was using as evidence a letter they had received about their tax payment from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. That was combined with an identity card and checks on criminality. I should be clear that a very, very small number of people so far have been refused on criminality grounds. EEA citizens have been a valuable part of our community, and we should not define them by a small number of offenders. That letter was being used for pre-settled status, as that person had only just moved to the United Kingdom, but it is a lot easier to apply for settled status than to get citizenship of another country.
Fair points were made about Home Office funding for the 57 organisations not going beyond March. We expect to make an announcement on that very soon, which will provide some certainty for those operations.
Louise Haigh
I would be grateful if the Minister could be a little more definite on the timing. Those organisations are laying off people as we speak, which is hindering their ability to reach the most vulnerable groups.
Kevin Foster
Certainly within a week or two, we expect we will be able to confirm the position. The furthest I can go this morning is that it is our intention to continue providing support beyond the end of this month.
A valid question was asked about whether people can exercise their freedom of movement while there is an appeal outstanding. Rights continue when someone has an appeal outstanding. There is no detriment, for example, if a person leaves the United Kingdom to travel; that would not be held against them on appeal.
I have been through the points raised. I am very grateful for the support offered by Opposition Members. I hope the Committee will approve the regulations to ensure that we have an effective system of appeal, based on the principles that we use across our immigration system. We want all EU, EEA and Swiss citizens who live in our country to know that they are valued members of our community, and we want them to stay.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Judicial Pensions and Fee-Paid Judges' Pension Schemes (Contributions) (amendment) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Judicial Pensions and Fee-Paid Judges’ Pension Schemes (Contributions) (Amendment) Regulations 2020.
What a pleasure it is to see you in the Chair, Mr Robertson, and it is an honour to serve under your chairmanship.
The draft regulations before the Committee relate to judicial pension schemes member contribution rates. The purpose of the draft regulations is to amend the current member contribution rates and earnings thresholds in two different traditional pension schemes for subsequent financial years. The first is the judicial pension scheme, which was established by the Judicial Pensions Regulations 2015 following wider public service pension reforms. The second is the fee-paid judicial pension scheme, which, following the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in the case of O’Brien v. Ministry of Justice, was established by the Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) Regulations 2017 in order to provide fee-paid judges with a pension.
Both the 2015 and 2017 regulations make provision for contributions payable by members and set a different rate of contribution dependent on the salaries or fees earned by a judge in a year. The regulations being debated today maintain the current member contribution rates in both schemes for the financial year 2020-21 and each year thereafter, until such time that alternative provisions are made. They also uprate the earnings thresholds under £150,001 per annum in the member contribution rate structure for both schemes on 1 April 2020, in line with the consumer price index. Additionally, the regulations provide that the related earnings thresholds will be automatically uprated each year in April in line with the consumer prices index rate of the previous September.
The reason for making these amendment regulations is that the current provisions for member contribution rates will expire on 31 March 2020. The draft regulations are needed to specify the member contribution rates which will apply from 1 April onwards. The regulations will enable us to ensure the continuing operation of the schemes by deducting the appropriate member contributions from judicial salaries and fees. Given the ongoing uncertainty about the value of public service pensions after April 2015 due to both recent litigation and the consequential decision to pause one element of the actuarial valuation of the schemes, the Government propose to maintain existing contribution rates from 1 April 2020 onwards.
Following the reform of public service pension schemes in 2015, and under the current legislative framework, Departments are required to undertake valuations of public service pension schemes, including the judicial pension scheme, every four years. The valuation does two things. First, it informs the employer contribution rates. Secondly, it tests whether the value of the schemes to current members has moved from target levels and needs to be adjusted to bring it back to that point, which is known as the cost control mechanism.
Work was undertaken in March 2016 on the first such valuation of public service pension schemes to analyse the provisional results of the valuation for each affected scheme. The work was affected by the age discrimination cases brought to court by members of the judicial and firefighters’ pension scheme—the McCloud litigation. That litigation concerned the transitional protection policy that was applied by the Government in implementing the 2015 public sector pension scheme reforms. The courts found that the transitional protection policy amounted to unlawful age discrimination, and in June 2019 the Government’s application for permission to appeal was refused by the Supreme Court.
In January 2019, the Government took the decision to pause the cost control element of the valuation. They were prudent to do so, because the effect of the McCloud litigation on public sector pension schemes was unclear. Although the outcome of the litigation is now known, addressing the discrimination, including settling the details of tax treatment, is a complicated process and involves decisions across Departments; it will take some time to deliver. The pausing of the cost control mechanism will therefore continue until the McCloud remedy is finalised.
In order to avoid the need to make further interim regulations, it is proposed in the regulations that the current rates will continue to apply, with no specific expiry date. Once the McCloud resolution work is complete and the outcome of the cost control element of the valuation is known, the Government will reconsider whether further changes to member contribution rates for these schemes are required.
Turning to the issue of earning thresholds, no changes were made to thresholds for member contribution rates as part of the measures put in place for the year 2019-20. However, the Government are mindful that it would not be desirable for the earning thresholds to fall significantly out of step with salary or fee rates. That is why the regulations provide that all earning thresholds below the top £150,001 threshold are uprated each year in line with CPI. This approach is consistent with various other aspects of public service pensions, and in recent years increases to public service pensions in payment have been in line with the September to September increase in CPI.
CPI is already used to annually uprate the earning thresholds in other public service pension schemes such as the local government pension scheme and the teachers’ pension scheme. The £150,001 band will not be increased, because in the 2015 scheme the rates were designed to align with the top rate of income tax in such a way that the net of tax contribution rates were broadly the same above and below the £150,001 threshold. The total contribution rates are broadly the same in the case of the fee-paid 2017 scheme, when the member and dependent contribution rates are taken together. Additionally, the Government consider it desirable to maintain broad parity between the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 and the two sets of judicial pension regulations being amended, as the £150,001 threshold is common across all judicial schemes.
As the regulations provide that the lower earning thresholds below will be uprated automatically each year, similar provisions will not be needed next year. However, the Government will revisit the issue of appropriate levels of contribution rates and thresholds once wider pension issues have been resolved.
The relevant legislation, section 22 of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013, requires the Government to fulfil a number of procedural requirements prior to making changes to features of the scheme under the 2015 regulations, which are classed as “protected elements”.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
How long will it take this Government to come up with the McCloud remedy?
Alex Chalk
I am grateful to the hon. Lady; that is a fair challenge. It requires careful consideration. The McCloud judgment is not a case of simply saying that everyone was better off under the old scheme, and therefore a matter of making a simple adjustment in that regard. It is more complex than that. Those on the new scheme might be better off, and it has to be treated in a more granular, detailed way than one might consider. It has been considered with great concern and all due diligence and expedition. We will be hearing an outcome in due course.
Alex Chalk
I thought it was an extremely good answer, but thank you.
Turning to the consultation, member contributions are one such “protected” element and as such cannot be altered without the Government first consulting the persons or representatives of those persons affected, with a view to reaching an agreement. I can confirm that the Ministry of Justice issued a four-week consultation from 25 October 2019 to 22 November 2019. The Ministry of Justice consulted representative judicial organisations with a view to reaching agreement. An additional statutory requirement for changes to “protected” elements is that an accompanying report must be laid before Parliament setting out the rationale for the amendment. I can confirm that such a report has been laid, and I refer Members to the report for details of the consultation responses.
Separately, we also satisfied the requirement to consult the Secretary of State for Scotland in relation to judicial offices with Scottish jurisdiction, and he was content with the proposal. Furthermore, as the judicial pension schemes to which these regulations relate are UK-wide, we have kept the devolved Administrations informed of progress, and they support our proposed approach. We will continue to engage closely with them on further developments.
Drawing the threads together, under this further interim measure the cost of accruing pension scheme benefits will remain the same for most members but will be reduced for some members, as they will pay contributions at a lower rate than they would have done had no changes been made to the earning thresholds.
I conclude by reinforcing the point that the existing arrangements for member contribution rates expire on 31 March 2020 in relation to both the 2015 and the 2017 judicial pension schemes. That is why these draft regulations are a necessary further interim measure to continue the effective operation of these pension schemes until a long-term solution is put in place.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I can confirm that the Opposition are not seeking a Division on this particular statutory instrument. We accept the reason for it to be passed and, in fact, I attended a similar Committee last year for the relevant 2019 judicial pensions statutory instrument.
Taking on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), I want to ask the Government about when the McCloud judgment will be implemented. I heard the Minister say that it is a complicated matter and that he needs to work through this but, to be frank, this has been going on for some time now and it is important to remember what the McCloud judgment was all about.
The Fire Brigades Union and the judiciary were able to hold this particular legislation as unlawful because the tribunal found that the provisions were discriminatory, in that younger judges were more often women and members of the black and minority ethnic community, while it also had ageist effects. It is important that this matter is addressed sooner rather than later, because we have a big shortage of judges and especially High Court judges. In the latter case, a number of senior lawyers and members of the judiciary are not applying for these jobs because of the changes in the pension regulations, while other judges’ positions are also not being filled. One of the reasons holding people back from applying is that, ultimately, they do not know what their pensions will be.
I know things are complicated, but it is not that complicated to work things out so as to come to a resolution. The Court passed a judgment years ago and the Ministry needs to get its skates on and deal with this particular long-standing issue, and I urge the Ministry to direct its mind to this matter seriously in order to resolve it. In the meantime, we are not calling for a Division on the statutory instrument itself because it is clearly necessary.
Ms Eagle
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Robertson. I have a few questions for the Minister, since he has come to us with a status quo position following a judgment made in 2018—two years ago—that the Government then tried to appeal to the Supreme Court, only to be told last year that they had no grounds for doing so. One assumes his civil servants were able to advise him that that was a likely scenario, so they would have had time to start working on the solutions to this issue—what he called the McCloud remedy—and the fact that it has torn a hole through the Government’s plans for public sector pensions and their reform, albeit in only two of the schemes. Will the Minister confirm that the judgment has very strong implications for all public sector pension schemes where new arrangements for those who joined after the changes are different from and less generous than the arrangements for for those who were already in the scheme—something that, in this instance, has been ruled unlawful by the courts?
Does the non-appearance of the long-awaited McCloud remedy have more to do with the implications for other public sector pension schemes than with complication? Will the Minister give his view on that? I have been a Minister in some quite complicated Government Departments, and in my experience complication was never a reason to be so tardy in producing the response to a legal judgment that the Government had acted unlawfully. I can see in the Minister’s expression and response to my questions some recognition that I might be on the right track about that.
Obviously, no one can deny that keeping the status quo is appropriate while the Government decide what on earth to do about the conundrum that the courts have presented them with. Rather than saying it is all very complicated and there will be a response along some time in the far future, though he has no idea when, will the Minister give a bit more information on when this matter is likely to be resolved? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East said, this is causing uncertainty and problems with recruitment.
There are many other public sector pension schemes, not least those with members who joined on much less generous pension provision than public servants had in the past. They are very interested in the Government’s response to this important legal judgment. Before we approve the statutory instrument, I would appreciate some indication from the Minister of the direction the Government will go in and when they will do so.
Alex Chalk
I thank those who have spoken for their helpful contributions to the debate. To address the points made a few moments ago, of course the implications are significant; that is precisely why they have to be considered with care. As a courtesy to the hon. Member for Wallasey, I would like to say a little more about the McCloud litigation. The first thing to emphasise is that the Government have been working at pace to develop the McCloud remedy, bearing in mind that the decision in McCloud does, as the hon. Lady rightly pointed out, read across to other public service pension schemes.
If there were ever a example of something that needs to be thought through with care, this is it. In addition, a final remedy hearing in relation to the judicial scheme was held on 10 January 2020, when declarations were made for salaried and fee-paid judges, with the effect of giving litigants entitlement to membership of the relevant legacy scheme from 1 April 2015. The MOJ has already gone some way to addressing the discrimination for claimants. It has not been sitting on its hands. Most significantly, the claimants have been moved to the JUPRA scheme, which is the pre-2015 scheme, effective from 1 December 2019. Furthermore, the Ministry of Justice has stopped judges from tapering from the JUPRA scheme into the NJPS scheme from October 2019.
The next hearings in the employment tribunal are on injury to feelings in June 2020 and then financial losses in October 2020. Those hearings should settle the detail of how past discrimination will be rectified. Officials in the Department are continuing towork hard, engaging with the employment tribunal on that process.
The MOJ is also committed to addressing discrimination for judges in the same legal and factual position as McCloud claimants, and officials are working at pace to develop proposals for how that discrimination will be addressed. Those proposals will be consulted on in spring this year. Before the formal consultation, the Ministry of Justice will undertake non-technical discussion with the scheme advisory board and pensions board, and engage with the wider judiciary.
In summary, there are a lot of moving parts. This has to be handled in stages and with care. Those are the principles that underpin the approach that is being taken.
Ms Eagle
The Minister is giving us some useful detail about the work that the Government are undertaking. What lessons has he learned as a Minister from this debacle, with particular reference to the Government’s aim, which the Opposition support, to have a more diverse set of people putting themselves forward to be judges? What has he learned about what happened, which is that the Government discriminated illegally against people who have not traditionally been seen as judges—younger people, black and minority ethnic people, women? What message does he think it sends out to younger lawyers who might aspire to get to the bench and to be judges in future that the Government have somehow managed, at the same time as saying that they want a more diverse bench, to introduce policy found to be unlawfully discriminatory against those very people?
Alex Chalk
I am disappointed that the hon. Lady felt it necessary to take that tone. This Government are proud of the fact that, in terms of recruits to the judiciary, we have the most diverse judiciary ever. We are on the right path to making it more diverse and more representative of the people whom that judiciary serve.
A judgment has gone against the Government, but judgments go against all Governments of all stripes. I am sure that even when the hon. Member for Wallasey was a Minister, judgments went against the Government. What matters is how the Government respond to that; that is the hallmark of a good Government. We are responding with care, thought and consideration to ensure a scheme is in place that can stand the test of time. That is what we are focused on, and it is precisely the right approach.
The draft regulations are an interim measure until such time as the long-term solution is in place. They will specify member contribution rates from 1 April 2020. Under the measure, the cost of accruing pension scheme benefits remains the same, but will be reduced for some members, as they will pay contributions at a lower rate than they would have done had no changes been made. That is why passing this interim measure is the right thing to do. I hope that the Committee agrees that the regulations are necessary to continue the arrangements for member contribution rates and for the effective operation of the judicial pension scheme.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Treasury
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Barclay
We have also increased the penalties and consequences for those who devise, enable or use tax avoidance schemes. I draw the House’s attention, for example, to the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes regime, the general anti-abuse rule and the system of follower notices and accelerated payments, the last of which alone has brought in over £8.7 billion.
[Official Report, 25 February 2020, Vol. 672, c. 194.]
Letter of correction from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury:
An error has been identified in my contribution to the debate.
The correct information should have been:
Steve Barclay
We have also increased the penalties and consequences for those who devise, enable or use tax avoidance schemes. I draw the House’s attention, for example, to the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes regime, the general anti-abuse rule and the system of follower notices and accelerated payments, the last of which alone has brought in over £4.7 billion.
Agriculture Bill (Ninth sitting)
Tuesday 3rd March 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 View all Agriculture Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 March 2020 - (3 Mar 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we continue with line-by-line consideration of the Bill, I remind Members to switch off electronic devices or put them on silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Power to modify legislation governing the basic payment scheme
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Stringer. Clause 9 provides the Secretary of State with the power to modify, for England, the legislation governing the basic payments scheme, which includes the greening and young farmer payments. We will remove the unnecessary bureaucracy. From the responses to the extensive consultation that the Department undertook in 2018, and further consultation with stakeholders, we think that that will be welcomed by farmers up and down the country.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to continue our discussion with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I want some clarification from the Minister. The clause is obviously quite apposite, as it will give the Government powers to simplify the system, and it is topical, given that the three-crop rule is controversial and unpopular, and something on which many farmers would like urgent action.
Farmers Weekly reported that Minette Batters, the president of the National Farmers Union, said at its conference last week that farmers were hugely frustrated:
“We have left the EU, half the country is under water and…we are still going to abide by the three-crop rule and process thousands of force majeure applications. It just seems absolutely extraordinary.”
The Secretary of State explained the complex situation we find ourselves in, but I ask the Minister to explain why we cannot move more quickly, given that we have now left the European Union.
Victoria Prentis
The situation is under consideration, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to wait for the Department to consider the matter further. Farmers are undoubtedly suffering because of flooding in their fields and concerned about whether they will be able to plant their crops. There are, for them, many other mechanisms for asking—whether by force majeure or otherwise—for the three-crop rule not to apply.
The position is under active consideration and I am happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman outside the confines of the Agriculture Bill, which refers to future payments—so probably this is not the place to be having the conversation. I want him to be clear that the Department is looking carefully at the next steps for this year.
As to future years, it might help if I say that we intend to make some minor simplifications in 2020 on greening payments, if I can use that terminology, using our existing powers. We intend to simplify the penalties for small overclaims of land, for example. We are also removing some of the paperwork connected to the young farmers scheme, which I think will be widely welcomed. We plan to introduce further simplifications for the 2021 scheme, such as removing some of, or possibly all, the greening rules, so watch this space.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Power to provide for phasing out direct payments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to apply reductions to farmers’ payments under the basic payment scheme in England so that we can phase them out. We plan to start reducing payments in 2021. Clause 11 concerns reductions to be applied to direct payments under the basic payment scheme; de-linked payments are dealt with in clause 12.
We will apply the reductions fairly, with higher reductions initially applied to amounts in higher payment bands. All farmers will face some reductions from the start of the transition. That reflects strong calls from industry stakeholders and many farmers for the reduction to be shared across the sector.
We have set out the maximum reductions that we intend to apply in 2021. We will set the reduction percentages for subsequent years taking account of our detailed plans for future schemes—which, as we have rehearsed many times, we do not yet have—and the wider perspective of Government spending. I reassure the Committee that regulations setting out the reductions will be made using the affirmative procedure, so there will be an opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise and debate them carefully.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful for that explanation. We had quite a discussion of some of these issues last week. Unfortunately, it appears that there is a second policy paper, which I am not sure every Committee member was entirely aware of last week. The Minister will be delighted to know that it is my new favourite document.
Daniel Zeichner
But before people start applying cold compresses to their heads, I assure the Committee that I will not subject that document to detailed scrutiny. Some of it would have been helpful in our discussions last week, but it is as it is.
The document, which is entitled “Farming for the future: Policy and progress update”, sets out at page 36 the approach that is going to be taken to phasing out direct payments. As the Minister said, the reduction will be 5% for payments up to £30,000, and so on up to 25% for payments of £150,000 or more, so there will be significant reductions.
I have a genuine question, which I would like to explore. It is not clear to me what constitutes a payment in this sense. Can one simply look at recipients? The database shows that some recipients get a £1 million payment. Do these figures apply to that amount or to all the smaller payments that go to make it up? There would be a significant difference between the two.
I sought advice from one or two people, who were also puzzled, so I do not necessarily expect the Minister to know the answer this minute. However, it seems to me that it makes a huge difference, both to the people who receive payments and to the amount of money available in the system. If we cannot get an immediate answer, perhaps we can come back to that point later in the day, because it is key to the discussion.
Victoria Prentis
I hesitate to behave like a lawyer, but it seems to me that what is specified under subsection (2) is the power to reduce basic payment scheme payments and, of course, any regulations made in the past under the basic payment scheme. I hope that is a sufficient answer for the hon. Gentleman. If not, perhaps we can take the conversation offline and I can talk him through what is planned. I accept that this is difficult. One of the problems with the common agricultural policy is that it has been accused of being not very transparent and difficult to manage, and it has different pillars, but I assure him that we are talking about BPS payments.
Daniel Zeichner
I understand the difficulty, but I think this is a pretty important point. This is a framework Bill, but people are looking for certainty over the next couple of years and will want to know how much they stand to lose. There could be a huge difference, depending on how the figure is calculated. Someone in the Department must know the answer to that question. I am not necessarily expecting it this minute, but it is important that we find it out.
Victoria Prentis
I am reassured by the departmental staff present that the reductions will be applied to the total basic payment, including the greening and young farmer allowance. That is my understanding of the scheme and I hope that is sufficient for the hon. Gentleman. I am not sure that I fully understand his question, so this is possibly not the most productive place to have this conversation. We could discuss the matter on our own or exchange letters, if he is still confused.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Power to make delinked payments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
The clause provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations to enable de-linked payments to be introduced in England for the remainder of the transition period. De-linked payments will remove the requirement to farm land. Once introduced, de-linked payments will replace the basic payment scheme for all farmers in England.
De-linked payments benefit from further simplification during the agricultural transition period. Farmers can access payments for the remainder of the transition without the bureaucracy of the basic payment scheme. Instead, farmers will have maximum flexibility to plan for the future, choosing to spend the money as best suits their circumstances. That should help those who wish to retire to do so, freeing up land for new entrants.
The clause allows us to introduce de-linked payments from 2022 at the earliest. Alternative enforcement mechanisms will be introduced before direct payments are de-linked, so that we can maintain agricultural and environmental best practice.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Power to provide for lump sum payments in lieu of relevant payments
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 74, in clause 13, page 11, line 8, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) Regulations under this section shall make provision for circumstances in which an eligible person may receive a lump sum under this section.
(4A) The circumstances under subsection (4) shall include a commitment by the eligible person to use the lump sum to—
(a) make a change or changes to practice in managing land in such a way as to deliver one or more of the purposes under section 1(1) or 1(2); or
(b) make land available to other persons or bodies who undertake to manage the land in such a way as to deliver one or more of the purposes under section 1(1) or 1(2).”
Before making my comments on the amendment, I would like to point out that I am not confused about the previous issue; the Government are the ones who have the confusion. We will seek that out, I am sure.
Daniel Zeichner
We will do that.
Turning to clause 13, de-linking is significant for our farmers and there is a worry around it. The House of Commons Library briefing talks about the effect and the responses to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs summary last year. A lot of respondents felt this was a less popular option than retaining and simplifying the existing scheme. More significantly, the DEFRA evidence and analysis paper, “Agriculture Bill: Analysis and Economic Rationales for Government Intervention”, says:
“Most farm businesses will be able to make modest cost reductions in order to improve efficiency, which will be required when Direct Payments come to an end.”
That is strong statement. A lot of people will feel that it is not going to be easy to make those changes.
The analysis that DEFRA published alongside the paper notes that the impact of the removal of direct payments on overall profit margins is likely to be “non-negligible”. That is a wonderful civil service word that can be synonymous with “considerable”. I urge the Government to be cautious. De-linking has some positives, but the reductions are challenging for many.
The Bill outlines the seven-year agricultural transition period during which direct payments will be phased out, which is a significant change. It means there will no longer be a requirement to farm the land in order to receive the payments. In some ways, that is the gist of the Bill. Some will remember that, on Second Reading, a Government Member said, “Surely not!” because the common agricultural policy used to reward people for not farming. This is CAP on steroids in that case, because it completely breaks that link and is a significant change, and it is something that needs to be thought about.
In clause 14, we also look at how someone who potentially wants to come out of farming can request to have their remaining de-linked direct payments put into a lump sum. We understand the attraction of that for some, giving some flexibility and, as the Government have said, a route out of farming and the possibility of setting up a new business or diversifying, if they do not want to transition into the new world of environmental land management schemes. As the Minister said, the Government’s policy statements have made it clear that the intention of that is to increase opportunities for new entrants. In a wonderful, idealised world, this is all one would hope to happen—but the world does not always work in the way one expects.
Without a condition requiring farmers to make their land accessible to new entrants or to encourage transition on their land to a more sustainable way of farming, we believe the Bill poses a risk whereby retiring farmers could simply take lump sum payments and possibly sell the land to a larger holding or move out of farming altogether. That may be part of the Government’s underlying intention, but there are significant consequences to it. It is not entirely obvious that that will lead directly to new entrants.
I have mentioned the additional policy paper we have discovered. I point to page 39, which Members will probably not have to hand but which I will quote:
“Receiving a delinked payment will not disqualify the recipient from applying for payment under our new schemes, including our Environmental Land Management system.”
I ask the Minister whether the intention of that is as it seems to me to be read. Many of my constituents on benefits would love to continue getting their benefits when they got a new job, but no one would think that remotely reasonable. There is potential for double payment here and I ask for some explanation on that.
Going back to where the de-linked system has been initiated, we could conceivably be left in a situation whereby the provision of de-linked lump sum payments had incentivised a reduction in the amount of land being farmed in accordance with the aim of securing environmental public goods. It takes the land, which we are hoping will be managed in a more environmentally friendly way, out of the framework. I am sure the Minister gets the drift of where I am going with this.
That concern was raised by a number of witnesses in Committee, particularly the Landworkers Alliance in their written evidence. We think that that would be not only a detrimental and unintended consequence, environmentally speaking, but an unjust and politically unacceptable use of public funds, as it would hand public money to farmers who might already have a large capital asset in the farm and the house.
I have already said that the double payment point is an issue. How are we making sure that land will be put to continued use and deliver the environmental public goods at the heart of the Bill? There is a danger that the land will be left to the market with no guarantees that new entrants will take over and farm in an environmentally conscious way.
That is why amendment 74 would help the Government to tackle this conundrum by making the receipt of a lump sum de-linked payment conditional on either transitioning the farm to being run according to purposes outlined in clause 1(1), delivering public goods, or in clause 1(2), improving productivity, or on making land available to new entrants or for community ownership to ensure it continues as farmland. We think that would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that stipulated that retiring farmers wishing to sell their land must offer it for sale to new entrants or the local community for a fixed period before offering it on the open market.
Victoria Prentis
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and the spirit in which he made them. We will certainly all have to work together on perfecting the new schemes for the benefit of us all. The amendment seeks to apply conditions on those opting for a lump sum. Given the tenor of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, it would be helpful, with your leave, Mr Stringer, if I made a few comments about de-linked payments and the definition of de-linked payments and lump sum payments. It is important to be clear about that.
De-linked payments, once introduced, will replace the basic payment scheme for all farmers. They will not be paid as a lump sum. A lump sum payment will be completely optional for farmers; it is something they can apply for. Such payments will replace any future basic payment scheme or other delivered payments that they would have been entitled to receive under a previous payment regime. De-linking payments from the land will allow farmers to access their payments easily and, we hope, bring much simplification.
Along with the phasing out of direct payments, de-linking sends a clear signal that we are leaving behind the common agricultural policy. It will give farmers greater flexibility to plan for the future, because they will be able to choose how to use the money they receive to best suit their circumstances. Some farmers may choose to use it to contribute to their retirement from farming, which would help new entrants get into the industry, while others may use it to adapt or expand their business.
When clause 12 becomes effective and we introduce de-linked payments, those payments will replace the current basic payment scheme for all farmers in England and be paid each year during the remainder of the agricultural transition, rather than as a one-off lump sum. Separately, clause 13 provides the power to make regulations to offer farmers the option of taking a one-off lump sum payment in place of future payments, whether BPS or de-linked payments, during the agricultural transition.
On the hon. Gentleman’s points about regulation and the current cross-compliance regime, we have a strong domestic legal framework for enforcing environmental and animal health and welfare protections, but we will, of course, keep those powers under review to check that they are adequate. We will maintain strong regulatory standards and introduce a new approach to monitoring compliance and enforcement.
Currently, as the Committee has rehearsed, checking takes place in only a small number of cases. We hope to move to our new system as we go through the transition period. We hope for improved co-ordination between authorities, better data sharing and greater use of earned recognition. Enforcement will be proportionate and fair, and those who do not comply with regulations can expect to be sanctioned in future.
The Government want to see more public goods and farming to become more productive. The amendment is counter to the purpose that underpins lump sums: it would tie lump sums to financial assistance under clause 1, but the whole point of lump sums is that they are separate from that.
As the Secretary of State outlined in his speech to the National Farmers Union last week, we are looking to provide a means for older farmers to leave the profession with dignity. We are committed to phasing out direct payments and doing so in a way that helps those in the profession to adjust. Lump sums could bring many benefits. They could increase the ease for new entrants and those existing farmers who wish to expand and acquire land. They could also help those remaining in the industry to invest in their businesses.
The Bill gives the opportunity to move away from the highly bureaucratic and complex rules in the CAP. The amendment would go against the thrust of the desire to move to lump sum payments, by adding conditions to the receipt of funding without any consultation.
The clause would allow the Secretary of State to attach conditions on those opting for a lump sum, but we want to get it right. Therefore, it is important for the Government to consult the industry, so that a lump sum scheme is effective in achieving our aims, without introducing needless bureaucracy. I heard what the hon. Gentleman had to say about specific ideas. I would like him to rest assured that we will take those into account and that we are also very keen to discuss with him any further ideas he may have about the lump sum scheme.
Our commitment to the farming industry and to the provision of greater public goods is clear, but lump sum payments are different, as is this chapter. It is about phasing out direct payments. Lump sum payments are one way that we are going to help farmers during the transition, alongside our other plans to deliver real simplification of the scheme. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I have listened closely to the Minister’s response. Although I recognise some of the points she makes, she has not addressed our fundamental concerns. All Governments talk of spending public money wisely. There is a real risk that it will be hard to keep track of how the system is working, and that public money might not be used for the hoped for outcomes. That is why we are cautious and will press the amendment to a vote. It is important to get more clarity.
We keep coming back to the same point. The Minister wants to set out options for the future, go to an iterative process and learn from it. The truth is that, once it starts, unless there are protections in place, there are the risks we have outlined. There are also risks around taking away some of the cross-compliance rules. The irony is that it could inadvertently allow for lower environmental standards rather than the higher ones that we are all keen to achieve.
I do not underestimate the complexity and difficulty, and I understand why the Government would not want to be constrained by extra suggestions put at this point. However, it is not clear that we will be able to exercise much leverage further down the line. The Government are asking for a huge amount of trust to go and design these systems and schemes, taking away many of the protections, both regarding money and the environment.
I do not think I heard the Minister address the double payment issue, which I would like to know about. Many people outside will not necessarily be following this closely. I say to the Minister that Governments are rarely rewarded for the successful bits of policy but are tripped up on the bits that the media can alight on and ask why they are happening.
The Government might want to look at the issue and be ready to explain to the public why that might happen. We are facing huge pressures on public expenditure in general and this could look very generous to those outside. I have nothing against being generous; I would like the Government to be more generous in general. I just think there are potential problems in this area. On that basis, I would like to press the amendment to a vote.
Victoria Prentis
I will say a few words, not least because I hope they will answer the hon. Gentleman’s point. Clause 13 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations to give farmers greater choice, by offering them the opportunity to apply for a one-off lump sum payment. That lump sum payment would be instead of receiving basic payment scheme or de-linked payments during the remainder of the agricultural transition. I hope that answers his question. We feel that lump sums would provide extra flexibility and choice for farmers.
Daniel Zeichner
I am afraid that does not answer the question. I will repeat what the policy document says on page 39:
“receiving a delinked payment will not disqualify the recipient from applying for payment under our new schemes, including our Environmental Land Management system”.
It seems to me that there is a risk there. That is not to do with the lump sum, but with de-linking in general. I suspect we will go around in circles on this, and I do not intend to go any further now, but that is why I have raised a concern.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
General provision connected with payments to farmers and other beneficiaries
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 14, page 11, line 45, leave out “any”.
This drafting amendment removes an unnecessary word from clause 14(3) for consistency with other similar provisions of the Bill.
As the explanatory statement says, this drafting amendment removes an unnecessary word from clause 14(3) for consistency with other similar provisions in the Bill.
Amendment 43 agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 15 and 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Duty to report to Parliament on UK food security
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 17, page 14, line 20, leave out “five years” and insert “year”.
I am very happy to move this amendment; as keen-eyed Members might notice, it was originally tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), so this is probably a circumstance that neither of us would ever have predicted. We entirely agree with the proposal to make this extremely important change to the clause 17 food security provisions and amend the timing of the reports from once every five years to every year.
We are all glad that the Government paid heed to the warnings of stakeholders and our predecessors on the previous Bill Committee and included a duty in the revised Bill to report to Parliament on UK food security. It was widely commented at the time that it seemed curious that an Agriculture Bill’s purposes would not include producing food. I think that the clause is the Government’s response to that. It is unthinkable that food security provisions—particularly the Government’s intentions with respect to the proportion of food to be produced domestically or imported—should not be included in discussions of the post-Brexit future of our agriculture sector. Clause 17 is welcome, but the stipulation that the Secretary of State must prepare a report on an issue as important as the state of the nation’s food security only once every five years seems weak.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the five-yearly reports. There should be annual reporting. The guidelines in the Bill are not clear, so does he agree that there should be clear targets and actions, and that the Bill should say what needs to be carried out to look at food security?
Daniel Zeichner
I agree with my hon. Friend. We need much more clarity. The clause is clearly not strong enough, at a time when food security has the potential to become a major cause of uncertainty and concern as we leave the EU and negotiate our own trade deals. It is of course an extremely topical matter, given many of the discussions going on at the moment.
Our food security in terms of self-sufficiency is already in long-term decline. We now produce only 61% of our own food, which is down from 74% around 30 years ago. It is a matter of strategic national interest to ensure that our country can, as far as possible, feed itself. A reasonable level of domestic production in a volatile world is a critical aspect of food security. It is a hugely complicated and contested issue. The modern world that we live in is highly interconnected—something that, as we speak, is looking increasingly difficult, for reasons we are all aware of. Those things raise questions, and different approaches are taken in different countries, but this is a good time to be discussing them.
There is still a huge amount that we do not know about the impact that the Government’s new trade and immigration policies will have on domestic food production year to year. Last week I quoted the concerns from some sectors—particularly the poultry sector—about our ability to continue without the people to do the work. We do not know whether the Government will make good on their as yet empty promises and protect our domestically produced food from being swamped by imports of a lower standard. That is the—I was going to say “the elephant in the room”, although I am not sure that we are farming elephants. This is a huge issue, which we shall obviously be coming to in the next few days, and, I suspect, returning to on Report and Third reading. It is one of the top issues at the moment. We do not know what the impact will be of any outcomes with respect to trade deals, but I suggest that they should be informed by a view on what we are trying to achieve overall. This Committee is a place where we can have at least part of that discussion.
I guess that some of those advising the Government have rather let the cat out of the bag over the weekend. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby is not here, as he has had problems with cats in the past, although I was not going to tease him about it too much. The Sunday newspapers, of course, were full of the press scoop that one of the new Chancellor’s top economic advisers thinks that our entire food sector is not critically important to the UK.
I recognise that the comments of one adviser do not Government policy make, but for many of us it feeds into a concern about where these policies are going. It is also part of the argument I made last week—that there is a real risk that we are looking at a much smaller, albeit high-quality and environmentally friendly, food sector in this country than we have now. That is something on which we really need clarity from the Government.
It was not just agriculture; the adviser also talked about fisheries, and suggested that maybe we should follow the example of agriculture in Singapore. We are a very different nation from Singapore. We are hugely different geographically, because they do not have much arable land in the way that we do, so they rely almost entirely on imports of food. I would go further than that and say that this is part of the debate about what it means to be English or British. Our rural heritage is a key part of our country, and the suggestion that we do not need some of it is, frankly, deeply shocking.
I am sure the Minister will disassociate herself from that kind of comment, but, given the extraordinary turmoil going on within No. 10 at the moment, this seems a classic example of taking advice from weirdos and misfits. I am afraid that the frivolous musings of people in such positions have very real consequences on the good work that the Minister is trying to do on a Bill such as this, and I am sure she did not welcome some of the publicity over the weekend. I would gently impress on her the importance of paying heed to something that we on the Opposition side have been trying to warn her about throughout this Bill Committee: that this Bill needs to be strengthened to guard against exactly this kind of approach, which undermines many of the worthy intentions behind it.
Going back to the food security report itself, the danger in that, under this clause, we will not even see the first one until after the next election, when we will have been out of the EU for half a decade. To us, it seems extraordinary that we would wait so long. We believe it needs to be done much more frequently. Given the kind of dramatic changes we are seeing around the world with the climate crisis, flooding and so on, we think that having reports on our food security annually would be a vital tool in the Government’s toolkit, enabling them to react to trends as they develop year on year and to address them. A further weakness of the food security report approach is that we can have a report, but we then need some tools to respond to what the report is telling us.
There is considerable consensus, not just among the hon. Members who have signed the amendment previously and on this occasion, but across the sector. We have heard from the NFU and the Tenant Farmers Association, and from the environmental organisations Greener UK and the Nature Friendly Farming Network. It is unusual; we have seen remarkable consensus on a number of these points, but on this point there is real consensus. I hope that the Minister has been paying attention to the fact that the original proposal came from her Government’s own Back Benchers. There is now a cross-party effort to shift the Government on this.
This is the first time in more than 40 years that a Secretary of State has been directly responsible for the nation’s food security. It is vital that we get this right, so we welcome the cross-party support for the amendment—not necessarily from the Government, but from their Back Benchers. Five years is simply too long to wait for these important reports. I hope the Minister has noted the strength of feeling. It is not going to go away, and that is why we will push this amendment to a vote.
Victoria Prentis
Although the issue of standards is not entirely on-topic, I will deal with it briefly. I refer the hon. Gentleman not to leaks from Downing Street advisers but to a speech in the Chamber last night by the Secretary of State for International Trade, who said very clearly that
“we will not lower our standards. We will maintain our food safety and animal welfare standards and will not lower them as part of this free trade agreement. We decide which standards we abide by here in the UK. We have exceptionally high standards of animal welfare”.—[Official Report, 2 March 2020; Vol. 672, c. 649.]
I am sure we will come back to that later in our consideration of the Bill.
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the amendment and its cross-party origins, and I understand why it may appear to be an attractive proposition. However, I will explain the clause’s proposed frequency of reporting “at least” every five years and why we think that will provide for both a more meaningful report on food security in the medium and longer term and a sounder basis for any relevant and appropriate policy response.
Food security is a complex issue that cannot be measured or defined by a single metric. The Government work closely with the food industry to ensure that we have a secure food supply. As the hon. Gentleman says, this is very important at this important point of change in our farming practices, and it may well be that it is appropriate to have a report before the five years is up. However, I would like to maintain the provisions in that allow the Government to decide that this is appropriate “at least” every five years.
I also ask the hon. Gentleman to view this in context. There has not been a food security report since 2010. I think we all agree that a report is a positive step. We are making an important new commitment to analyse and publish a regular report on this important subject. The report will use a set of core measurements for each key topic area, so that we can consider the trends over time. These will be drawn from a blend of national and international data sources. Sources that we expect to draw on include trade and domestic production data and statistics on energy, household expenditure, food and food safety. Many of those sources are in the public domain already and can be considered by anybody who wishes to consider them in between reports, but we propose that we do a really substantial report not on an annual basis but within a longer period, and at least once every five years.
The frequency of reporting every five years was included to balance the commitment to regularly report with the need to allow sufficient time to observe key trends from this vast variety of sources. I hope that explains why the clause is in the Bill. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
The Minister makes a fine attempt, but I am afraid that this is a basic issue of trust. Governments are rarely trusted, however hard they try. She asks us to take this on trust, and frankly we do not. As we will come back to time and again, we hear Ministers repeatedly say this, in which case they should put it in the Bill. That would solve the problems. Of course, we know that they will not, because this is all part of the new macho-posturing negotiating world that we now live in post Brexit. We used to have a civilised approach to the world, but no longer. This is the new world, but these questions are not answered.
Food security reporting is particularly interesting, and our further amendments will tease more of this out. The Government could reassure people by saying roughly what they expect the future to look like for food security. By not so doing, they absolutely stoke the scepticism of people who look at that adviser’s comments and think that that is actually where some of these people want to go. I invite Government Members to think hard about whether they are actually in the loop on this. I think some people out there have a very clear idea about where we should want to go. That is why the Government are reluctant to issue a food security statement. That would give some idea of what they hope for in future. If they do not have an idea, that is also pretty scary. There are plenty of reasons why Oppositions and the country do not always trust Governments. Sadly, experience often suggests they were right to be sceptical.
It is absolutely right to ask these hard questions, particularly because the Minister said that it would be at least once every five years. We are being asked to trust the Government. If the Government have stuff to hide, which I suspect they have, they are not going to do that very often. Five years is far too long. I agree with the Back-Bench Government Members on the side who tabled the amendment and clearly share my concerns. I want to see a much clearer outcome, which is why I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 75, in clause 17, page 14, line 25, at end insert—
“(aa) the impact of food production upon global resource sustainability (including global carbon emissions, impacts on biodiversity and water usage);”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 76, in clause 17, page 14, line 27, at end insert—
(ba) food poverty and progress towards achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goal on hunger, malnutrition and food poverty (SDG 2);”
Daniel Zeichner
We believe there are a number of missed opportunities to strengthen clause 17 to provide adequate reports on food insecurity. Very little has been revealed in the Government’s “Farming for the future” policy document about what those reports might involve. It merely repeats the provisions in clause 17 that the reports may include global food availability; supply sources for food, including the availability to the public of food from domestic and other sources; the resilience of the supply chain; household expenditure on food; and food safety.
All of those are important, but we believe there could be much clearer requirements relating to the degree of the nation’s food security derived from domestic production. That is a point I have already alluded to. There should also be a clear commitment to prevent any further decline in self-sufficiency. That prompts the question of whether one considers the current position to be the right one. I am happy to engage in a debate on that.
As a starting point, we believe that a further decline would be unwelcome. All I am trying to find from the Government is whether they agree, which they ought to be able to tell us. The clause could also have included a requirement to specify food security targets and to identify the actions to be prioritised if those targets are not being met. That goes back to my point that it is all very well to produce a report but, if it is to be used as a tool for change and action, levers will also be needed. We believe amendment 75 would help with that.
Entirely absent from this clause is the contribution of our agricultural workforce to food security, and how immigration changes will affect that. It is fairly clear to those of us who are close to the sector and know what it is talking about that, as it stands, there could be quite substantial changes. They could be unintended, but changes there would be, and we need to know how they will be dealt with.
I turn to amendment 76. It is disappointing that the remit of the proposed report does not include that aspect of food security: not just supply, but whether people can access that supply. It is worth noting that the Environmental Audit Committee’s January 2019 report “Sustainable Development Goals in the UK follow up” found that
“Food insecurity is a significant and growing issue in the UK, with…levels…among the worst…in Europe, especially for children.”
Avid watchers of “Countryfile” will have noticed that this weekend one of the lead reports was on food banks in rural areas.
The report—the Environmental Audit Committee’s report, not the “Countryfile” report, although “Countryfile” is more fun in some ways; I really should not ad lib when I have notes—explicitly highlighted how the
“Government has failed to recognise and respond”
domestically, allowing these issues fall between the cracks. The Committee recommended that the Government appoint a Minister for hunger, but they have not responded to that sensible suggestion. The fact is that, sadly, food poverty is now all too rife in this country. The stat frequently quoted is that there are now more food banks than McDonald’s outlets, and we know how many of those there are.
In “Countryfile” I was struck by the Frome community fridge. There is also an excellent one at the Edge Café in Cambridge. We did not previously have to concern ourselves with such things, because there was a presumption that policy in general would ensure that we had a plentiful supply of affordable food; that is, of course, part of the aim of the common agricultural policy. That goes to the heart of our discussion of the Bill, because for too many of our people that is not the case. Although it is wonderful that people make the effort to try to deal with this problem, in a rich country we should not be in such a situation. Food is an essential and basic human right, and it is shocking that the country is not performing better on that. It is therefore right that that aspect of reporting on food security should be included in the Bill.
The recording of household expenditure on food, as suggested in the Government’s new policy document, will not properly record the free, charitable provision of food that has become a core staple for so many people. I urge the Government to consider expanding their proposed report to include the prevalence of hunger and malnutrition among the population, and the extent and distribution of food bank demand and provision. I suspect that, not many years ago, many of us would have thought it highly unlikely that in 2020 we would have to be discussing the need to report on hunger and malnutrition. It does not reflect well on the Government’s record that we have to ask for that, but we must do so if we are to eliminate this problem.
The amendment seeks to address that by stipulating that UK food security reports include analysis of food poverty and our progress towards achieving UN sustainable development goal no. 2, which is to end hunger, achieve food security and improve nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture. The Government signed up to that goal, and they probably thought we would never seek to apply it here, because we had assumed that it would not be necessary. Sadly, it is, and we are signed up to it, so the Government should not have any problem including those provisions in their flagship post-Brexit Bill on their commitment to food and food production.
The themes that the food security reports will cover are remarkably similar to those of the UK food security assessment carried out by the previous Labour Government in 2009. In fact, it looks like much of that has been carried forward. In stipulating that the reports may include data about
“global food availability…supply sources for food…the resilience of the supply chain…household expenditure on food”
and “food safety”, the Bill and the recent policy document adopt every area covered by the previous Labour Government’s report on food security, except one: global resource sustainability.
Victoria Prentis
Self-sufficiency has only ever been one part of food security in this country. We supplement our produce with a range of other products from around the world that are difficult to grow and rear here. Our high degree of food security is built on access to a range of sources, including robust supply chains across a wide range of countries in addition to domestic production. It is important to view the debate on food security in that light.
I begin with amendment 75. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are planning to include in the food security report a theme relating to global food security and how it affects food security in the UK. I have a summary of some of the reports that we might consider in the section on global food availability, which may reassure him. However, I do not want him to think that what I will say is conclusive or relates to other issues that will be considered in the report; this is just about global food availability, which relates to amendment 75. We would expect to look at global output per capita, cereal yield per region, commodity price analysis, country consumption data and country commodity trade proportions. In addition, I suspect many other reports and factors will be considered, many of which will be publicly available between reports.
We will include consideration of the sustainability of global resources, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will understand that we do not intend to list in the Bill all the indicators and data sources that we intend to use in the preparation of the report, because doing so would make the Bill unwieldy—one can imagine a situation in which one of those data sources becomes unavailable between reports. That is why the clause is structured as it is. It is not that we will not look at those sources; it is just that we do not want to list them. In producing the report, we will set out our analysis of the wide range of statistics relating to food security in the UK, from global UN data to UK national statistics. I therefore ask him to withdraw amendment 75.
On amendment 76, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we already intend to address food insecurity in the report. The Government are committed to achieving the principles set out in the UN sustainable development goals. We plan, under subsection (2)(d) of clause 17, to report on how the UK is performing against those goals. As part of that theme, we intend to consider all the key indicators that will help us to understand the impact of household food insecurity, including data from the Office for National Statistics.
As I said last week, food insecurity is an issue that we should all take very seriously, and the Government are committed to having a strong safety net for those who suffer from food insecurity. I will politely say again that the £95 billion welfare budget is the first port of call for people who suffer from food insecurity. It is proper that we consider food insecurity as part of this report—we have said that we will do so—but the welfare system is the place for people with food insecurity, and that is where they should go. I do not denigrate in any way the efforts and the great achievements of food banks and food fridges around the country.
I hope that I have suitably clarified our intentions and explained why it is not necessary to include specific text in the Bill. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
We will not withdraw these amendments. I hear what the Minister says about the welfare system, but the welfare system is failing. That is why people are hungry. It did not use to be the case and it does not have to be the case, but that is the case. That is why it is right that the Government set out their position and the Opposition say, “Frankly, you are wrong, and we will not accept this.”
This is a Bill about agriculture, which many of us still think is as much about food as environmental protections, although we want to ensure we do that they are of the highest standard. Those things should not be contradictory. If we are talking about food, we must talk about access to it. It was striking to see people on “Countryfile” who are on such low wages that they can barely afford to buy the food that they are producing. There is something seriously wrong here. We do not think this is a big ask, given that the Government have signed up to the sustainable and millennium development goals.
I am afraid it is, again, a question of trust. The Government want a vague framework. I am grateful to the Minister for making some points about global food production, because they are now on the record, so when we come to rehash this argument, when we do get some of these food reports, we will hold her to that. In the meantime, it is essential to press this amendment to a vote, because too many people across this country—thousands every week—use food banks. It would be a dereliction of duty on our side not to press this to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 62, in clause 17, page 14, line 32, at end insert—
“(f) food insecurity.
(3) For the purposes of this section ‘food insecurity’ means a person’s state in which consistent access to adequate food is limited by a lack of money and other resources at times during the year.
(4) Before laying a report under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must—
(a) consult the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, the relevant Northern Ireland department, and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, and
(b) have due regard to international best practice on food insecurity, including but not limited to the United States Household Food Security Survey.
(5) A report under subsection (1) must include—
(a) an assessment of trends in food insecurity, broken down by different parts of the United Kingdom and different regions of England, and
(b) a summary of actions to be taken in areas of high food insecurity by the UK Government, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government or the Northern Ireland Executive.
(6) The Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the relevant Northern Ireland department before preparing a report under subsection (1).
(7) In this section—
‘parts of the United Kingdom’ means—
(a) England,
(b) Scotland,
(c) Wales, and
(d) Northern Ireland;
‘regions of England’ has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.”
Amendment 62 was initially tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck), but it has support from at least three parties. I pay tribute to her and the work she did on the all-party parliamentary group on hunger with the former Member for Birkenhead, which led to the establishment of Feeding Britain and its offshoots, such as Feeding Bristol. I am pleased to have been involved in that.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields introduced a private Member’s Bill a while ago, and as a result of that pressure the Government agreed to measure household food insecurity as part of the family resources survey. The first data will be available in 2021. In a recent press release, she referred to the amendment saying that
“there is no commitment…that the measure will continue for future years, nor that the results of the survey they are conducting will be laid before Parliament for scrutiny.”
The point of amendment 62 is to try to give some certainty. As she says, we have seen
“devastating levels of hunger right across the UK”
and the UK has been
“dragged kicking and screaming into agreeing to measure food insecurity”
but we do need a degree of certainty about it.
As to the Minister’s comments on the welfare system, a Department for Work and Pensions Minister in the House of Lords said yesterday that there is “no doubt” at all that universal credit has driven people towards using food banks. Many people who use food banks are experiencing in-work poverty. We have had examples of people who work for Tesco selling cheap food but who are still not being paid enough, particularly if they are casual workers or on zero-hours contracts, and the welfare system is not flexible enough to adapt to that. Clearly we have a crisis. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields says:
“It is clear urgent action is needed. To keep ignoring this issue is a shameful dereliction of duty.”
We need firm data. Amendment 62 would give the Government the tools they need to identify the key drivers of food bank use in detail, as well as which groups in our society are most likely to request emergency food parcels. It will shine a light on the number of people who, year-on-year, go several days without food, as well as on others who skip meals due to lack of money or parents who sacrifice their own meals to feed their children—not all of them will be food bank users. In the past, the Government have been sceptical of data produced on food bank use by, for example, the Trussell Trust. That is all we have been able to rely on. It has become a proxy measure for hunger and food insecurity, but there will be many families who rely on broader programmes of support. Feeding Bristol had a holiday hunger programme to compensate for the fact that children do not get access to free school meals during the long summer holidays. That would not necessarily be picked up by the food bank data, because food distributed with play schemes and so on.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
I would like to speak in favour of amendment 62, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields . I commend her tireless work on food poverty and insecurity, and her considerable knowledge and expertise in the area.
In February last year, the Government agreed to measure household food insecurity and to report on it by March 2021. I welcome the fact that the Department for Work and Pensions has included food insecurity measurement questions in the family resources survey, but this breakthrough, and the duty to report on the survey results, must be enshrined in law. We have an opportunity to do just that, so that the measurement happens routinely.
As it stands, the Government’s commitment fails to ensure that the measurement will continue for future years, or that the results of the survey will be laid before Parliament for scrutiny. Amendment 62 would also serve to make the Government’s pledge more comprehensive, by expanding the definition of food insecurity to consider whether everyone in the UK can get access to or afford the food available.
The definition of food security in the Bill currently covers only global food availability, where food comes from, the resilience of the supply chain and data on household food expenditure, food safety and consumer confidence. It does not include any measure of food poverty or household food insecurity, contrary to an internationally agreed definition of food security. Year after year, charitable food banks have provided evidence of the gigantic increase in the number of our constituents running out of money for food. Teachers tell us of children in their classes struggling because they are going hungry. Local authorities are cancelling meals on wheels services due to unprecedented cuts in their budgets.
For too long, the problem of food insecurity, which affects children and adults in all corners of the UK, has been overlooked. It leaves lifelong scars on health and wellbeing. Food banks and other food aid providers cannot be left to continue to pick up the pieces and distribute increasing numbers of emergency food supplies. We need the Government to commit to regular food insecurity measurements and to the resulting data being scrutinised.
Victoria Prentis
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady, and I welcome her to her place. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol East for the amendment, and I recognise the commitment of the hon. Member for South Shields in her important work around food insecurity and in ensuring engagement with the devolved Administrations on the amendment.
We are planning to include a theme on household food security, which is clearly set out in subsection (2)(d). As part of that theme, we will be considering the key indicators that help us take a view on food insecurity and why it happens. I hope that the hon. Member for Bristol East will understand that we do not intend to list in the Bill all the data sources we will use in the report, as it would make the Bill unhelpfully unwieldy.
As I said on a previous amendment, our purpose in producing the report is to set out our analysis of the widest relevant sets of statistics relating to food security in the UK, ranging from global UN data to UK national statistics. Many of those data sets are only published at UK level, so breakdown to the devolved Administration area or regional level will not be available in all instances. We will not commit at this stage to the precise data we will use, but all available relevant data will be considered, including breakdown by devolved Administration area if appropriate.
It is our intention that the report will inform discussion and debate about UK food security, both across Government and with wider stakeholders—that is why we are doing it. I assure the hon. Lady that we will of course consider the themes covered in the report, and the analysis, evidence and trends within it, with all sorts of stakeholders, including the devolved Administrations. We have well-established forums for discussion of that nature. Introducing a more formal requirement for a consultation for Ministers with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland before the report is even laid is therefore unnecessary.
I hope that clarifies the intention of the clause and provides the hon. Lady with sufficient assurance. I ask her to withdraw the amendment.
Kerry McCarthy
The problem with subsection (2)(d) is that it just talks about
“household expenditure on food (including in comparison to expenditure on other items)”.
As we have outlined today, that does not go anywhere near looking at the scale of the problem and the many factors that contribute to food insecurity. I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Victoria Prentis
In the health and harmony consultation, the majority of respondents suggested that Government intervention is essential in extreme circumstances, identifying market interventions in times of extreme price volatility as an area of particular concern. However, a high proportion of responses argued that farmers should self-manage risk. While the Government understand that there are events that even the most resilient of farmers cannot provide for, the agricultural industry must be sufficiently dynamic and self-reliant to survive in a free market. The clause tries to balance those two factors by creating new powers for the Secretary of State to provide financial assistance to farmers in England and to run public intervention and private storage schemes during exceptional market conditions.
Daniel Zeichner
Before speaking on the clause, I give the Minister advance notice that I will also say a word on clause 22, on data. I draw attention to paragraph 170 of the explanatory notes to the Bill. This is potentially a big issue and goes back to our philosophical discussions last week on what the common agricultural policy had been for, to some extent. Of course, it was there to deal with extreme volatility and difficulty and so on. The Government make the fair point of questioning whether that is appropriate in a modern, more complicated world. However, I urge a slight note of caution to those who imagine that this is pretty much a carry-over of the current system.
There is a pretty clear cautionary note in paragraph 172 of the explanatory notes, where the Government say:
“Analysis suggests that public intervention and private storage aid are not required to enable farmers to manage their risks.”
That is quite a strong sentence. The notes continue:
“They can have negative effects, encouraging more risky farming practices and crowding out the development of futures markets, innovative contracts and private sector insurance products. Such market intervention schemes, if available routinely rather than in genuinely exceptional circumstances, run counter to the image of a dynamic and self-reliant agriculture industry.”
That could lead to many an academic paper, because it is a huge subject for discussion and debate. Many of us will think that it is probably fair enough that risk should be transferred on to the agriculture sector itself. During the foot and mouth crisis almost 20 years ago, many commentators made exactly that point. In particular, those from the manufacturing sector, who had seen their sector decimated by market forces, wondered why it was different for others. The reason is that food is a basic human need. This goes almost back to the discussion we were just having about food security. We may be able to live without some widgets, but we cannot live without food.
This is a really big, substantial issue, but is tucked away in a subsection. I suspect that some farmers will look at it and think not only that the future will hold no support and a much more complicated—in the view of some us—move to environmental land management systems, but that they will also have to deal with
“futures markets, innovative contracts—
I think a lot of us know what “innovative” often means—
“and private sector insurance products.”
I raise that just to sound a warning note. I am not sure that the matter has been discussed sufficiently.
Abena Oppong-Asare
I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s points. The Tenant Farmers Association highlighted the same matter in its written evidence, saying that the clause mentions only “‘acute’ hardship or difficulty” and would not be invoked for “‘chronic’ or long-lasting difficulties”, which, as has been mentioned, would include foot and mouth disease or epidemic diseases. In the current climate, we should look at that and make sure that agricultural producers are extremely resilient, and that they have that level of support, particularly when such crises happen, because they are expensive. There could be a big impact, particularly on the agricultural community and on consumers, especially in the face of the economic challenges of Brexit.
Daniel Zeichner
That is an important intervention, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the evidence of the Tenant Farmers Association. There is a bigger debate to be had—the Minister is nodding—although I am sure that we can leave that for another day. The issue is important and I hope that it will be looked at more closely.
Victoria Prentis
By creating a new power we are moving away from the crisis measures that were designed with the EU market in mind and allowing schemes to be created that are tailored to our domestic conditions. It is important that farmers feel the Government are able to help where necessary. However, it is equally important that those financial assistance and intervention powers will not be seen as a panacea for any issue in agricultural markets. They are intended for use in exceptional situations.
The discretionary nature of the power will, I hope, reassure the sector that the Government will be able to help should extreme circumstances come to pass, by taking action and tailoring it to those exceptional circumstances. It will also ensure that intervention in the market and financial assistance will be limited to occasions when they are really necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 20 and 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Meaning of “agri-food supply chain”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Daniel Zeichner
I apologise, Mr Stringer, for not listing the clause earlier as one on which I wanted to make an observation. I should declare—I am a bit of a data person—that I run the all-party parliamentary group on data analytics. The Minister sighs, but the data is important and has huge potential. We are in an era of precision agriculture where we seek to be able to provide, now and in the future, the correct nutrients for the individual Brussels sprout plant. That is an exciting possibility and many people in Cambridge are working on it. Agri-tech East is a powerful force for innovation and, I hope, good—but alongside all the politics with data there are one or two caveats.
The House of Commons Library briefing says—I imagine this has been deduced from the Bill:
“Data would normally be published in anonymised form”.
Evidence from elsewhere suggests that data anonymity is really hard to achieve. What we have seen with artificial intelligence and all the rest of it suggests that the power is there to trace anything back, so I urge a word of caution on that.
The reason I am cautious is that my reading of clause 22(4), dealing with people who are “closely connected”, raises a few anxieties in my mind about whether data is going to be collected on people working in agriculture. That is not always a force for good, I am afraid, and I want to make sure there are proper protections for people.
The Bill mentions vets, and there may well be good reasons for that related to animal health. However, we already have a workforce who are, in my view, often poorly paid and who face some serious and relentless challenges. I worry that further scrutinising them through a monitoring and data system would create a series of further problems, so I would welcome the Minister’s observations on that, and ask whether she shares my concerns. I am not sure there is much we can do about this issue in the Bill at the moment, but monitoring is clearly being set out as a way forward, and I hope we can make sure that we protect the people involved.
Victoria Prentis
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said, and I do not wish in any way to make light of his concerns about data. How we obtain and hold data is extremely important, and I am very happy to answer any concerns that he has on this subject.
The clause seeks to provide clarity about who might be required to provide information. A fairly broad scope has been outlined within the clause, and I think the drafters were trying to take a common-sense and down-to-earth approach to what sort of people we might need to get data from. For example, farmers, abattoirs, vets, wholesalers and retailers might well be in scope, but would not by any means always need to be in the frontline of data collection; it depends on the circumstances. It is important to note that those connected to the agri-food supply chain include people undertaking activities capable of affecting the health of creatures and plants in that food chain, or the safety of products.
Daniel Zeichner
I appreciate how difficult it is to frame these things, but that would include pretty much everybody who is involved, as far as I can tell. I cannot think of anybody who is not going to be caught by that definition, which is really my concern. Obviously, we all hope these powers will be used for the right purposes, but it is easy to see how they could become a new tyranny if every tractor had a camera in its cab and people were being monitored.
Victoria Prentis
That is not at all the intention. The intention is that where it is necessary to collect data from those in the food chain, the clause gives us the ability to do so. That is not at all to say that we will routinely connect data from all these actors, only that the power is there to enable us to do so when required. For example, with the coronavirus outbreak, it is possible—although I very much hope this is not the case—that further down the food chain, we will need to know who is touching the food that we eat or is responsible for various areas of it. I can foresee a situation in which it might be possible to ask people who seem far away from the farm gate to provide their data, although I very much hope that does not happen.
Before any data requirements are imposed, a draft proposal must first be sent to all relevant parties. If a supply chain member believes that such a request is not appropriate, they will be provided with at least four weeks to notify the Secretary of State of their reasoning.
Daniel Zeichner
Will the Minister confirm whether those interested parties include the relevant trade union?
Victoria Prentis
I am not sure that under the drafting of the clause trade unions would be included; in fact, I think they would not. However, it is open to members of a trade union to consult that union as necessary, and I would not seek to stop them doing so.
The idea is that an actor will receive the draft proposal. One example is that if a small-scale blackberry grower does not think it appropriate for them to provide data on productivity, which it may well not be, they will be able to submit that in response to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will then review whether it is necessary to carry out the initial requirement for data collection.
It has been difficult to draft this clause. The hon. Member for Cambridge understands that the need for public safety and food security along the supply chain has to be balanced with the need to protect people’s privacy and not to overburden them with regulation. I hope he feels we have broadly got the balance right.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 23 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(James Morris.)
Agriculture Bill (Tenth sitting)
Tuesday 3rd March 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 View all Agriculture Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 March 2020 - (3 Mar 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 15 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 15 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 15 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 15 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 77, in clause 27, page 22, line 4, leave out lines 4 to 7 and insert—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, make regulations—
(a) imposing obligations on all business purchasers of agricultural products in relation to contracts they make for the purchase of agricultural products from all qualifying sellers;”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 78, in clause 27, page 22, line 11, after “fair” insert “dealing and fair”.
Amendment 79, in clause 27, page 22, line 12, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State may also make regulations for the purpose set out in subsection (2) in relation to the purchase of agricultural products in one or more of the sectors listed in Schedule 1 by business purchasers from qualifying sellers.”
This amendment would ensure that there is an overarching requirement for fair dealing across the whole agricultural industry, with the ability to develop sector specific regulations to address any particular areas of unfair practice.
Ruth Jones
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir David. I am pleased to speak to these important amendments.
Over recent weeks, as we have worked our way through the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge and I have moved and spoken to a number of amendments, and I have noted not only the importance of this legislation, but the potential that accompanies it. As we approach this stage in our consideration of the Bill, it is time that we reminded ourselves of the motives and headlines around it.
Before she was sent to the Back Benches, the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), said that the Agriculture Bill
“will transform British farming, enabling a balance between food production and the environment which will safeguard our countryside and farming communities for the future.”
I am sure Members will agree that those are aspirational and noble aims—a vision that nobody could disagree with. I just wish that the content of the Bill matched the media lines published by officials at the Department. However, I say to the Minister that we can deliver that vision together on a cross-party basis if the Government accept our ideas, our advice and our suggestions. There is no better time to start doing so than now, by accepting amendments 77, 78 and 79.
The amendments reflect a great deal of interest from many of the relevant external bodies, and we have received many thoughtful and reflective commentaries from organisations including the National Farmers Union, the Tenant Farmers Association and Greener UK. I am grateful to them all for the hard work they are doing on behalf of their members and sectors, which includes a collective welcoming of the fact that fairness is required in the supply chain; we need to ensure that there is transparency and openness, too. The Bill is particularly weak in those areas.
The Government need to rethink and revisit the supply chain provisions designed to secure a fairer price to farmers for the food they produce. Those provisions have been broadened in this iteration of the Bill, but there is still no duty to use them, and the Government have not published anything about how they intend to use the powers and who would be enforcing, using and safeguarding them. Our amendments would provide some clarification on those questions.
We note that the NFU believes there should be an obligation on a Secretary of State to introduce regulations to ensure a baseline of fair dealings between business purchasers and producers across all sectors, and that those regulations should be brought forward within 12 months of the Bill’s coming into force. They are right to call for speedy implementation of the measures that would give effect to the fairness we all want, so I support those calls from the NFU.
We have heard from a number of stakeholders about the need for a strong and meaningful overarching body, and they are right. We need the Minister to provide some clarity about who that regulator will be, how it will work, and what it will look like. It is clear to us on the Labour Benches that the Government have a vital role to play, and our amendments will help ensure that this role is carried out. We should nail down today the fact that the regulator should be the Groceries Code Adjudicator. The Bill as it stands leaves hanging the question of who the regulator should be, and the last things anyone in the real world needs at this time are uncertainty, indecision and confusion.
The elephant in the room—we spoke earlier about one elephant in the room, but this is another elephant—is our departure from the European Union. There will soon be tough and competing demands on the Government for resources, focus, scrutiny and implementation, but I hope that in the weeks ahead, this Bill will receive the strong and guaranteed focus of Ministers on the Treasury Benches.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady accept that there are some areas in the agricultural trade, such as the grain market, where there is no market failure? There are lots of buyers and lots of sellers in that area, and it operates very well.
Ruth Jones
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Of course, he is an expert in this area and I bow to his superior knowledge, but what we are saying is that we need to clear the matter up for the whole industry, not just for certain sectors that already work well. However, I appreciate his intervention.
I hope that the amendments have shown the Government that there is widespread support for this action. They are about not partisan advantage, but clarity for the sector and an improved set of circumstances and conditions. I am proud to have tabled them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
What a pleasure it is to have you back with us, Sir David! I thank the hon. Lady for the amendments, which reflect an obvious desire to ensure that all farmers and producers are spared from unfair trading practices. We absolutely share that goal; our only disagreement is the means proposed to achieve it.
Essentially, we believe in the principle of a targeted solution for a specific problem, and we are keen to take the time to get the solution right. No two agricultural sectors are the same, and neither are the contractual issues that they face. Certain sectors, such as the poultry and grain sectors, may, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby reminded us, be so well integrated that contractual problems do not often arise.
We should have targeted solutions where they are needed, but we need to avoid burdensome new requirements where they are not. To ensure that, the specific detail of each code will be developed in consultation with industry and set out in secondary legislation. Enforcing a time limit on the creation of fair-dealing obligations would prevent regulations accounting for the complex nature of our agricultural market.
Turning to amendment 78, I assure the hon. Member for Newport West that all types of agreement to purchase agricultural products can already be protected by the clause, and the position of farmers in the supply chain will be protected under the current drafting. The clause allows us to regulate for the purposes of fair contractual dealing. That goes beyond a formal, written contract. As the hon. Lady no doubt knows, a contract constitutes any agreement of sale, whether it is formally written down or not. In the dairy sector, it is commonplace to write things down; in other sectors, there are more informal, word-of-mouth arrangements, particularly in the red meat world and parts of the arable world. However, the clause covers all agreements, written or otherwise.
On amendment 79, we deliberately designed the clause to be as flexible as possible. That is a change since the previous iteration of the Bill. Having listened to comments made at the time, we severed the link to the list of sectors in schedule 1 so that future regulations are no longer bound by it. It remains very much our belief that each sector is different and requires a tailored approach. We intend to be forensic in establishing what the needs of each sector are. That will include detailed engagement with industry.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I am thinking back to our earlier discussion on data throughout the entire system. Why do some sectors need to be treated differently here, but did not when it came to the collection of data?
Victoria Prentis
During our earlier conversation, it was clear that we will have to be forensic and tailored in our approach to data collection. This is very much part of the same theme. We do not want to treat all sectors the same when they raise different issues and come to us with very different current practices.
If issues that are consistent across multiple sectors are revealed, and if they could be addressed under new, comprehensive regulation, we absolutely have the power to deliver that. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Newport West to withdraw the amendment.
Ruth Jones
I listened very carefully to the Minister. I agree that we do not disagree on the broad principles, but I am seeking to get the regulations tied down so that they are clear and comprehensive for everybody in the agricultural sector. It seems reasonable that the Groceries Code Adjudicator should be the regulator. I do not see any dissent from that, but it would be helpful if we could tie things down in writing rather than, as the Minister says, in verbal agreements.
I must apologise to the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby—I misheard his earlier intervention; I thought he was talking about the “grey” area, not the “grain”. I misunderstood completely. I apologise, and will wash out my ears.
I welcome the Minister’s assurances—she is listening and wants to make things run as smoothly as possible. However, given this time of general unclarity, as we leave the EU, with all the uncertainty that is throwing up, we need things set in writing now for the months and years ahead, to prevent any misunderstandings or anything going wrong in that respect. I accept that the Minister has described the Bill as a new iteration, and we accept that it is improved, but at the same time we still need clarity, transparency and openness. We will therefore press the amendment to a vote.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 27, page 22, line 9, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations under this section containing provision that extends to Scotland may be made only with the consent of the Scottish Ministers.”
This amendment would require that regulations containing provisions that extend to Scotland may be made only with the consent of the Scottish Ministers.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 20, in clause 27, page 23, line 27, at end insert—
“(10A) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult persons—
(a) who are representative of—
(i) qualifying sellers of, or
(ii) business purchasers of,
the agricultural products to which the regulations will apply, or
(b) who may otherwise be affected by the regulations.”
Deidre Brock
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.
It might help the Committee if I lay out briefly a little of the SNP’s reasoning behind our approach to the Bill and to the amendments. Scottish agriculture has always followed a different line from UK agricultural policy. Different circumstances—very different, in many cases—demanded that. Agricultural policy had administrative devolution long before the modern era of democratic devolution.
In the days before the Scottish Parliament was reconvened, the old Scottish Office, which I am sure you remember, Sir David, had responsibility for agricultural policy in Scotland, just as it did for many other areas of policy. It was administratively devolved, and the re-establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 simply democratised that devolution. In fact, stories tell of Scottish Ministers of old doing battle with their UK counterparts on such issues, arguing the case for that devolution settlement to be respected, way back as far as Mrs Thatcher’s Government and George Younger’s ding-dongs with colleagues.
The SNP is simply seeking to protect the decision-making powers of the Scottish institutions in the Bill, to ensure that the policies applied can be the best fit for the farmers and crofters concerned. That is why we have argued and continue to make the case for the Scottish Parliament and its Ministers to hold the powers for Scottish agriculture and food production. That is why I am in Committee now: I will make a case that some present might not give two hoots about. Despite all that, I will continue to argue it.
Amendment 19 specifically mandates that Scottish Ministers retain their devolved powers and that when, and only when, regulations made under the clause extend to Scotland, the Scottish Government will have to consent to them. I have been following the Tory leadership election in Scotland; I understand that the current Scottish Tory leader intends to be the next First Minister, so enshrining that principle in legislation would clearly be a big help to him. Perhaps the Minister will bear that in mind. It would also have the benefit of being the right thing to do, and it respects the devolution settlement. I certainly hope the Government will support the amendment.
Amendment 20 would sensibly ensure that the businesses most closely affected by the regulations are consulted before the regulations are created. That is an extremely sensible way to conduct Government, and it helps to ensure that unintended consequences are kept to the bare minimum and that the industry buys into the regulations. It seems to be a sensible and measured amendment, and I hope the Minister will support it.
Victoria Prentis
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s clear desire to ensure that any statutory codes are fit for purpose, and we are equally committed to ensuring just that. We want to see consistent protection against unfair trading practices for farmers wherever they are in the United Kingdom. We continue to consult widely and meaningfully with everyone who will be affected by our new codes of conduct, including the devolved Administrations and producers in those territories. Their views will be listened to and respected.
Amendment 19 is designed to require the consent of Scottish Ministers in respect of the regulations, thereby potentially preventing the UK Parliament from developing codes of conduct that would apply across the UK. We do not think it appropriate, nor is it in line with the devolution settlement. The objective of clause 27 is to promote fair contractual dealing and to prevent the abuse of a dominant market position. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs sought a view from the Competition and Markets Authority on whether that is a devolved matter. The CMA’s view is that the purpose of promoting fair contractual dealing is definitely related to the regulation of competition. Competition is a matter reserved to the UK Parliament. As such, clause 27 is reserved and we should not be seeking legislative consent to exercise powers that are reserved to the UK Parliament. Amendment 20 deals with the obligation for broader consultation, and we are committed to using those powers in the most effective and least burdensome way possible.
We fully acknowledge that it is crucial for any new codes to be the product of a deep partnership between Government and industry. Thorough consultations will be conducted prior to the design and introduction of the new statutory codes. However, placing a requirement to consult in primary legislation would be burdensome, especially for regulations that make only minor and technical changes. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to consider withdrawing the amendment.
Deidre Brock
I thank the Minister for her response, but I am afraid that we will have to agree to disagree. It is very much the SNP’s view that these competencies rest with Scottish Ministers. Where common frameworks are to be decided on, they should be agreed, not imposed. That lies at the heart of what we are talking about. I appreciate the Minister’s honesty on this issue, but I will ask for the amendments to be pushed to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 82, in clause 27, page 23, line 15, leave out “a specified person” and insert “the Groceries Code Adjudicator”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 83, in clause 27, page 23, line 23, at end insert—
‘(8A) The Groceries Code Adjudicator Act 2013 is amended, by inserting after section 2 (Arbitration)—
“2A Fair dealing: determination of complaints alleging non-compliance
(1) If a complaint relating to alleged non-compliance is referred to the Adjudicator under section 27(8)(a) of the Agriculture Act 2020, the Adjudicator must determine the complaint.
(2) In determining any allegation of non-compliance under subsection (1), the Adjudicator must act in accordance with any regulations made under subsection (1) of section 27 of the Agriculture Act 2020 which make provision for investigation of complaints, imposition of penalties or a requirement to pay compensation, as specified by subsection (8) of section 27 of that Act.”’
Amendment 80, in clause 27, page 23, line 25, after “any” insert “competent and appropriate”.
This amendment would ensure that the role of regulating agricultural contracts is given to a body which is competent to undertake qualitative assessments; for example, the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s office.
Amendment 81, in clause 27, page 23, line 26, after “provide for a” insert “competent and appropriate”.
This amendment would ensure that the role of regulating agricultural contracts is given to a body which is competent to undertake qualitative assessments; for example, the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s office.
Ruth Jones
I will speak to all the amendments together. Being mindful of time, I will not read out the wording of the amendments. I know that hon. Members are grateful for that.
The amendments would ensure that the role of regulating agricultural contracts is given to a body that is competent to undertake qualitative assessments, such as the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s office. That sensible suggestion would ensure that effective and authoritative oversight and assessment takes place.
External organisations such as the Tenant Farmers Association believe that the Government have a vital role in the face of significant market failure in agriculture and food supply chains, but it is concerning that the Government do not see that as forming part of an expanded role for the Groceries Code Adjudicator. It has been proposed instead that the Rural Payments Agency would be an appropriate regulator. The Government need to explain why they think that the RPA has sufficient expertise in that area; I look forward to the Minister’s explanation on that specific point. There seems to be no reason why the responsibility should be placed anywhere other than with the Groceries Code Adjudicator.
The Government have previously decided not to broaden the scope of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. Those decisions suggest that, without a clear duty, they will come under pressure from retailers to row back on the provisions. We need to be focused and tenacious in how we monitor the assessment process, including the criteria used. Importantly, the amendments would provide the clarity and certainty that are desperately needed by our farmers and the agricultural sector more generally.
We need to drill down to the detail and explicitly identify which regulatory body will be in charge and what expertise and experience the Government expect it to have. When will the Government see fit to provide a clear answer on that? I look forward to the Minister’s response to these probing amendments.
Victoria Prentis
We are committed to tackling supply chain injustices, and an effective enforcement regime is a crucial part of that process. It is important to state that no decisions have yet been made about the nature of enforcement or the body responsible for it. We intend to listen to the ideas and concerns of the industry before any decisions are made, and we will of course exercise due diligence in designing the enforcement regime when we appoint the regulator.
I understand the attraction of replicating the success of the GCA elsewhere in the food supply chain, but it is important to recognise that the GCA works so well because it has a very targeted focus on the behaviours of extremely large retailers that deal with their direct suppliers and have a good understanding of how that particular supply chain works.
A 2018 Government review found insufficient evidence of widespread problems further down the groceries supply chain to justify extending the remit of the GCA to indirect suppliers. The issues that the review identified were sector-specific and are best addressed with the proportionate and targeted interventions contained in the Bill.
No decisions have yet been made about enforcement. Although the RPA has undoubtedly had difficulties with direct payments in the past, it has a wealth of experience in the agricultural markets. We will take a measured approach to arrive at the best possible decision. I ask the hon. Lady not to press the amendment to a vote.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her explanation. Obviously, external bodies and stakeholders will be actively encouraged to lobby the Government on the matter, and I hope that they will take the opportunity to do so. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 20, in clause 27, page 23, line 27, at end insert—
“(10A) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult persons—
(a) who are representative of—
(i) qualifying sellers of, or
(ii) business purchasers of,
the agricultural products to which the regulations will apply, or
(b) who may otherwise be affected by the regulations.”—(Deidre Brock.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Deidre Brock
I beg to move amendment 21, in clause 28, page 23, line 42, leave out
“to the Secretary of State”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 22, in clause 28, page 24, line 12, leave out
“to the Secretary of State”.
Amendment 23, in clause 28, page 24, line 20, leave out
“to the Secretary of State”.
Amendment 24, in clause 28, page 24, line 38, at end insert
“(6A) An application under subsection (1), (3) or (5) is to be made to and determined by—
(a) the appropriate authority for the part of the United Kingdom in which the applicant has its registered office or principal place of business, or
(b) where the applicant is made up of producers, producer organisations or, as the case may be, businesses operating in more than one part of the United Kingdom, the appropriate authority for any of those parts.”
Amendment 25, in clause 28, page 25, line 5, leave out “The Secretary of State” and insert
“The appropriate authority to which an application is made under this section”.
Amendment 26, in clause 28, page 25, line 24, at end insert
““appropriate authority” means—
(a) in relation to England, Wales or Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State,
(b) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Ministers;”
This amendment, together with Amendment 25 would require organisations of agricultural producers, associations of recognised producer organisations, and organisations of agricultural businesses to apply for recognition to the appropriate authority in the country of the UK where the applicant is principally based.
Amendment 27, in clause 29, page 26, line 9, leave out “the Secretary of State” and insert
“an appropriate authority (within the meaning given in section 28(13))”.
This amendment would require the delegation of functions to require permission from the appropriate authority.
Amendment 28, in clause 30, page 26, line 16, leave out “the Secretary of State” and insert
“an appropriate authority (within the meaning given in section 28(13))”.
This amendment would allow regulations to give the power to delegate functions to be made by an appropriate authority.
Deidre Brock
I will speak to all of these amendments very briefly; they are completely self-explanatory. Again, they are about respecting the devolution settlement and the current powers of the Scottish Parliament and Government. Ensuring that Scottish organisations apply in Scotland rather than in Whitehall would help to keep the task off Whitehall’s desk, saving unnecessary effort on the part of UK Ministers and officials, which the Minister might want to keep in mind.
Victoria Prentis
I thank the hon. Lady for her thoughtful desire to progress with these amendments, to ensure that Scottish farmers are effectively and appropriately supported. We are committed to ensuring that the provisions are applied effectively in all the nations of the United Kingdom.
Recognition as a producer organisation, association of producer organisations or inter-branch organisation automatically activates exemptions from competition law. That has been the case under the EU regime since the omnibus regulation, which amended several CAP instruments at the beginning of 2018.
That approach will continue under the new domestic PO regime. The act of granting recognition therefore relates directly to competition law, which, as I said earlier, is reserved to the UK Parliament. However, I will take this opportunity to assure both the hon. Lady and Scottish Ministers that this merely reflects the status of competition law as an area reserved to the UK Parliament. The PO regime will continue to operate as it always has. We have no intention of introducing jarring changes that will undermine its functioning. It will continue to be administered by the RPA, as is currently the case. We will consult thoroughly, both with the devolved Administrations and with farmers, in every part of the UK, during the development of our bespoke UK regime. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
A number of these amendments relate to wider devolution issues; my comments are applicable to a number of them, in particular those that we are discussing at the moment.
We are going to need clarity on how we will work together in the future, because the structures being set up are quite complicated. For some, it would be entirely reasonable for the powers to be passed to the devolved organisations, but there needs to be a detailed discussion about the merits in each case. At the moment, I am not convinced in this instance. I was actually persuaded by the Minister’s arguments about whether, as we stand, passing these matters down to the devolved nations would be the right way to go. Although I certainly would not rule out considering doing that further in future, because we want to ensure that we devolve as much power as possible, there are issues around competition law—we will come to further amendments where is some interaction with World Trade Organisation rules, general agreement on tariffs and trade rules and so on, which make it difficult to do that. While supporting the Government on this occasion, I want to put down a marker to say that in future we would want to devolve where possible.
Deidre Brock
I am very interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s comments. Clearly, there are discussions to be had—before Report, perhaps—on this and many other issues. However, I am afraid this still comes back to the point that, in our view, these decisions are more properly reserved to Scottish Ministers, and so we will be pushing the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Deidre Brock
I beg to move amendment 29, in clause 30, page 26, line 29, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under section 28 or 29 containing provision that extends to Scotland may be made only with the consent of the Scottish Ministers.”
This amendment would ensure that regulations under section 28 or 29 containing provision that extend to Scotland may be made only with the consent of Scottish Ministers.
This amendment would ensure that the Scottish Administration is involved in decisions on devolved areas, which seems sensible—I would be interested to hear support from Labour in certain regards. The Minister would surely approve of the amendment, given how much Ministers have worked with Scottish Ministers on the Bill so far, so I look forward to seeing her support for the amendment.
Victoria Prentis
The amendment seeks to give Scottish Ministers discretion in respect of the regulations, potentially preventing the UK Parliament from creating a UK-wide producer organisation scheme. As I noted previously, the act of granting producer organisation recognition relates directly to competition law, which is reserved to the UK Parliament. We absolutely look forward to working collaboratively with our colleagues from the devolved Administrations when designing the new UK-wide domestic scheme, but given the circumstances outlined, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Deidre Brock
The amendment gets to the heart of the issue. This is designed to be a common framework. As many will recall from when we heard evidence, and from the previous Agriculture Bill Committee as well, where common frameworks were to be agreed across the UK, all the NFUs were in favour of decisions being agreed, not imposed. I see this as part of that outlook, which is not one that we are willing to support, so we will push this amendment to a vote.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 31, page 28, line 48, leave out
“the National Assembly for Wales”
and insert “Senedd Cymru”.
Section 2 of the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020 (2020 anaw 1) changes the name of the Welsh legislature to “Senedd Cymru or the Welsh Parliament”. This amendment and Amendments 52 to 61 are consequential amendments and they follow the new practice in the English language version of devolved Welsh legislation of using the Welsh name only when referring to the Welsh legislature.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 57 to 60, 52, 53, 61, and 54 to 56.
Victoria Prentis
Section 2 of the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020 changes the name of the Welsh legislature to “Senedd Cymru”—I hope the hon. Member for Newport West will correct me if got that wrong, although my Welsh relatives would not forgive me—or “the Welsh Parliament”. Amendments 51 to 61 are technical consequential amendments. They follow the new practice, in the English language version of devolved Welsh legislation, of using only the Welsh name when referring to the Welsh legislature.
Ruth Jones
These are simple amendments that reflect the strengthened importance of Wales as an equal partner in the four-way relationship that makes up the United Kingdom. Labour will support them, as they are clearly a tidying-up exercise. However, we should not be clearing up on matters of respect, so I caution all Ministers to be mindful and respectful.
Amendment 51 agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Identification and traceability of animals
Amendments made: 89, in clause 32, page 30, line 5, after “England” insert “or Wales”.
This amendment treats Wales in the same way as England in terms of the future application of section 8(1)(a) of the Animal Health Act 1981, once the provisions of European law mentioned in clause 32(3) and (4) cease to apply in England and Wales.
Amendment 90, in clause 32, page 30, line 7, leave out “Wales or”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 89
Amendment 91, in clause 32, page 30, line 10, leave out from “under” to end of line and insert
“subsection (1)(a) made by the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers”.
This amendment limits the proposition inserted in section 8 of the Animal Health Act 1981 by clause 32(2)(b) to provision made under section 8(1)(a) about the means of identifying animals. It also secures that the Welsh Ministers, as well as the Secretary of State, can make provision under section 8(1)(a) that binds the Crown.
Amendment 92, in clause 32, page 30, line 16, after “England” insert “or Wales”.
This amendment alters the words inserted in Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 by clause 32(3) in order to treat Wales in the same way as England in disapplying Title 1 of that Regulation.
Amendment 93, in clause 32, page 30, line 16, at end insert
“, and
(b) in Article 22 (compliance)—
(i) in paragraph 1 at the end insert—
‘The fourth, fifth and sixth subparagraphs do not apply in relation to England or Wales.’, and
(ii) in paragraph 2 at the end insert—
‘This paragraph does not apply in relation to England or Wales.’”
This amendment makes changes to Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 which are consequential on the disapplication by clause 32(3) of Title 1 of that Regulation in relation to England and Wales.
Amendment 94, in clause 32, page 30, line 21, at end insert “or Wales”.—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment alters the words inserted in Council Regulation (EC) No 21/2004 in order to treat Wales in the same way as England in disapplying that Regulation.
Clause 32, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33
Red Meat levy: payments between levy bodies in Great Britain
Deidre Brock
I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 33, page 31, line 32, at end insert—
“(10) The first scheme under this section must come into force no later than 1 April 2021.”
The amendment is basically all about ensuring that equitable distribution of the red meat levy moneys is made timeously. I want that to be done as early and smoothly as possible. It has been waited on throughout the UK for a considerable time, but I certainly imagine that Ministers in the various Administrations have discussed it. If the Minister could assure me that that is happening, and that we are looking at an implementation date in April next year, I would not see any need to press the amendment to a Division.
Victoria Prentis
I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising the issue of the red meat levy with her amendment. I recognise that there is an inequality arising from the current system of producing the red meat levy. Indeed, our Parliamentary Private Secretary has been assiduous in bringing that to our attention.
The clause is designed to provide a permanent solution to this long-standing issue. In the meantime, the three levy bodies—the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, Quality Meat Scotland and the HCC, which I will not even begin to pronounce—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newport West must bear it in mind that I have a vast number of Welsh relations who would not appreciate it if I did not get my pronunciation perfect. The three levy bodies are working collaboratively, using the interim fund, to benefit the red meat industry across the whole of Great Britain. Adequate time must be allowed for the full and careful development of a redistribution scheme, allowing for due consideration and consultation in order to provide a workable solution.
The amendment moved by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith would provide a short timeframe in which to create a new scheme. Imposing such a deadline is not appropriate, because it is important that we consult properly on how the redistribution of the red meat levy is delivered, and the Administrations must have time to agree the scheme. The interim fund continues to be available in the meantime. I therefore apologise that I cannot give her every assurance she seeks at this point, but she knows that we have worked hard to put right this wrong, and will continue to do so. In that spirit, I ask that she withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I will be brief, but the clause is something that we can all welcome. There has been a long-running difficulty and it reflects changes in the availability of local abattoirs in particular. Many of us would like to see measures elsewhere to try to redress that. In the absence of that, the world has changed and it is welcome that the Government are responding positively. If it is pressed to a vote, we will be happy to support the SNP’s position.
Deidre Brock
I confess that I am disappointed by the Minister’s response, because this situation has been ongoing for years. Many people have been waiting patiently, for the most part, to get a decision taken on this. It is extremely disappointing to hear that we cannot even get an assurance that this will be available and implemented in April 2021. In the light of that, I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Victoria Prentis
The clause will address the current inequality in the distribution of the red meat levy within Great Britain caused by the complex movement of pigs, cattle and sheep when animals cross from one country to another for further rearing and finishing and for slaughter. The levy is collected at the point of slaughter and can only be spent to benefit that country’s industry. The clause will allow for a scheme to redistribute some producer red meat levy between the levy boards of England, Scotland and Wales. It will sit beside the current legal framework and allow the transfer of levy.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 33 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
Agricultural tenancies
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 87, in schedule 3, page 50, line 15, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 88, in schedule 3, page 50, leave out lines 27 to 29 and insert—
“the landlord’s consent to a matter on which the landlord’s consent is required,”.
Ruth Jones
Amendment 87 is designed to make it a requirement for the Government to bring forward regulations to provide a framework for tenants to object to their landlord’s refusal to allow them to enter a relevant financial assistance scheme. As drafted, the Bill provides the power for the Government to introduce regulations, but it is not a requirement. There is a trend in the Bill for the Government to use the weakest language possible or to take the most timid of approaches. In our view, it is essential that tenant farmers are given full certainty in this situation.
Tenant farmers have welcomed the recognition that they require and deserve additional measures to protect them, and this is one of the areas that we highlighted during discussions on a previous version of the Agriculture Bill. We are pleased that our probing has produced a framework of protection for tenants, but it is essential that the provisions are used. If they are not used, what is the point of having them in the Bill? If it is the Government’s intention to use the provisions, it will not be a problem to change them from a “may” to a “must”. That is one of our big points on the Bill—we would strengthen the weak wording. We want to strengthen up, not level down.
The Minister’s predecessor, now the Secretary of State, has shown a willingness to listen, engage and reflect on Opposition amendments. I hope that the Government will go further, listen harder and deliver for tenant farmers.
Amendment 88 is about action. It would close a potential loophole in the Bill about the consent of the landlord. Currently, it sets out the circumstances where any regulations will apply in respect of a landlord’s consent. They are defined as circumstances where either the agricultural tenancy legislation or the contract of the tenancy requires the tenant to have the landlord’s consent. What that appears to have missed out—I am sure it is inadvertent, but it has done so—is where the provisions of the financial assistance scheme itself require the tenant to obtain the landlord’s consent.
As an example, the current countryside stewardship scheme requires all tenants occupying land under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 to have their landlord’s consent, even though those tenants will have security of tenure. The amendment would ensure that tenants have recourse to the regulations in every case where the landlord’s consent is required. I am sure the Minister would not want any of the provisions or effects of the Bill to create difficulties for tenants in accessing public money for public good, which is obviously the Government’s favoured system for replacing the basic payment scheme.
I place on record my thanks to all those organisations that have made representations on the issue. I think of the Tenant Farmers Association and their chief executive George Dunn as an example of strong and effective campaigning.
These are simple, arguably technical, but important and empowering amendments. The Government have demonstrated a willingness to listen and engage to a degree, but I call on them to go further—to take the plunge and deliver on what is a cross-party and all-UK commitment to empowering and supporting our farmers. The Bill needs to be joined up, it needs to be smart and it needs to be fit for purpose. The amendments help in that purpose. I hope the Government, and indeed the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, will support them.
Victoria Prentis
Agricultural tenancies are a vital part of our farming industry, accounting for nearly a third of all farmland in England and Wales. I want to see a thriving tenant farming sector in the future. That is why we have included provisions in the Bill to modernise agricultural tenancy legislation.
Turning first to amendment 87, the Committee has already considered at length the use of the words “may” and “must” in legislation. I do not intend to go over those arguments again. As I said last week, the use of the word “may” is entirely consistent with other legislation in this sphere. I assure the hon. Member for Newport West that there is absolutely no doubt that the Government intend to use the powers to make these important regulations and that we will move quickly to do so. Plans are already under way to meet industry representatives for discussions on their scope and content.
I understand the drive behind amendment 88, which seeks to broaden the scope of the dispute provisions to cover any situation where the tenant may need the landlord’s consent to undertake an activity. However, the intention of these provisions is to provide tenants of the older Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 agreements with a mechanism to challenge outdated restrictions in those agreements. In some cases, they were written 30 or 40 years ago, when there was a very different policy and commercial environment. That is why it is important that the procedure for referring requests to dispute remains clearly linked to the terms of the tenancy agreement. To broaden the scope further to include any issue or activity where landlord consent is required risks unintended consequences and opens up the potential for misuse of the provisions, which could damage landlord-tenant relations.
The provisions in schedule 3 had broad support in our public consultation. They have been shaped to ensure that the interests of both tenants and landlords are considered. We will continue to consult the industry generally, including members of the tenancy reform industry group, as we develop the supporting regulations. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Newport West to withdraw the amendment.
Ruth Jones
Again, the Minister and I share the same broad aims and principles, which is great. However, we have not changed our minds about “may” and “must”, and the need to strengthen this legislation and beef it up to give people the protection they require. I am glad that the Minister has agreed that stakeholders will have the opportunity to lobby and that she will be consulting widely as the Bill is developed. I accept the history of the tenancy agreement Acts, but we will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 85, in schedule 3, page 55, line 20, at end insert—
‘(1A) In subsection (1) leave out “section” and insert “sections 28A and”.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 86, in schedule 3, page 55, line 31, at end insert—
26A After section 28 insert—
“28A Disputes relating to requests for landlord’s consent or variation of terms
(1) Subsection (2) applies where a tenant under a farm business tenancy has made a request to a landlord for the purposes of—
(a) enabling the tenant to request or apply for relevant financial assistance or relevant financial assistance of a description specified in regulations under subsection (2), or
(b) complying with a statutory duty, or a statutory duty of a description specified in regulations under subsection (2), applicable to the tenant,
and the request meets such other conditions (if any) as may be specified in regulations under subsection (2).
(2) The appropriate authority may by regulations make provision for a tenant under a farm business tenancy to refer for arbitration under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 a request under subsection (1) if no agreement has been reached with the landlord on the request.
(3) Subsections (2) and (4) to (6) of section 19A of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (as inserted by paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 to the Agriculture Act 2020) shall apply to any regulations made under subsection (2) of this section.
(4) In this section—
“appropriate authority” means—
(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State, and
(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers;
“relevant financial assistance” means financial assistance under—
(a) section 1 of the Agriculture Act 2020 (powers of Secretary of State to give financial assistance),
(b) section 19 of, or paragraph 7 of Schedule 5 to, that Act (powers of Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to give financial assistance in exceptional market conditions), or
(c) a scheme of the sort mentioned in section 2(4) of that Act (third party schemes);
“statutory duty” means a duty imposed by or under—
(a) an Act of Parliament;
(b) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru;
(c) retained direct EU legislation.””
Ruth Jones
I will speak briefly to both amendments. Like all the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and me, they are important, and I hope they will receive a fair hearing. They cover the elements of the Bill that look at powers available to tenants, succession rules and guidance around rent reviews. Anybody who has been to a farm or has a farm in their constituency will know that, although those areas are niche, they are incredibly important.
Amendments 85 and 86 would ensure that tenants renting land under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 can object to a landlord’s refusal to allow access to financial assistance. The Bill currently omits cover for those tenants and we need to address that. That lack of protection is odd, given that, as the Minister has said, nearly half the land in the tenanted sector in England is now let under 1995 provisions. In Wales, the figure is more than a quarter of the land.
Over time, that area of land will grow and it will be important to ensure that those tenants are protected as much as those under the 1986 Act. Given that these are more modern agreements, which will have had the full attention of the legal profession in their drafting, they are more likely to include more restrictive clauses than those under the older legislation. That will cause problems for tenants if they do not have adequate recourse to object to the use of those restrictive clauses within the new policy framework.
It will be a significant failure if we cannot provide the same level of protection to tenants under the 1995 Act as we are seeking to provide to tenants under the 1986 Act. That is a simple but important point. I hope that the Minister will receive it warmly, in the spirit that it is intended.
Victoria Prentis
I receive all the hon. Lady’s amendments warmly. She has again raised an important issue. Farm business tenancies are a vital part of our farming industry. They provide a flexible way for established farmers to expand their business, by renting additional parcels of land. Crucially, they also open the way for new entrants, with no family connection to the land, to get a foothold in the sector.
As I have already stated, I want a thriving tenant farming sector. That is why we have included provisions in the Bill to modernise agricultural tenancy legislation. Although I recognise concerns that the new dispute conditions do not include farm business tenancy agreements, there are very important reasons for that.
Victoria Prentis
Shall I set out some of my reasons first? Then, if necessary, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. First, evidence from the public consultation on this issue in England does not support extending the provision to include farm business tenancies. That is because, as the hon. Member for Newport West said, they are more modern, commercial agreements, negotiated more recently than agreements under the 1986 Act. They are shorter term and reviewed more regularly, so that tenants have the opportunity to renegotiate and vary the terms to fit changing commercial conditions, and ensure that they can access future financial assistance schemes.
Secondly, the legal framework governing farm business tenancies already provides for enabling the parties to agree terms, so that the tenant can continue to deliver diversified activities, such as environmental schemes, alongside farming. Thirdly, extending the provisions to include farm business tenancies risks undermining landlord confidence in tenancy agreements that had been freely and relatively recently entered into by both parties. That could lead to landlords withdrawing from the let sector in favour of contracting or farming in hand, which would reduce opportunity for tenant farmers.
The aim of the provisions is to provide a dispute mechanism specifically for tenants of 1986 Act agreements, because those are lifetime agreements that were negotiated 30 to 40 years ago in a very different world. They often contain outdated restrictions that could act as a barrier to tenants meeting modern statutory requirements and, in England, accessing future farming schemes that we are setting out.
Daniel Zeichner
This is a complicated set of issues, and I seek clarification. Some lack of clarity about post-1995 holdings has been raised with me. The question is, going back to the financial assistance schemes, who would make the decision to de-link? Who would get the lump sum? Is it the tenant in post-1995 cases?
Victoria Prentis
The hon. Gentleman and I have undertaken to have a specific conversation later about de-linking and lump sum payments. I tried to set out the position this morning. Once a decision has been made to de-link payments, they may continue to be paid to the tenant. Indeed, the person farming the land—so the tenant—would apply for any lump sum. However, the two are separate, as I set out this morning. I hope that answers his question.
The provisions in schedule 3 had broad support in the public consultations in England and Wales. They have been shaped to ensure that the interests of tenants and landlords are considered. We will continue to consult industry widely, including members of the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, as we develop future regulations. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Newport West to withdraw her amendment.
Ruth Jones
I welcome the Minister’s commitment to a thriving tenancy sector—that is great news. I thank her for the explanation and for her commitment to have an ongoing dialogue with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge. I look forward to the outcome of those discussions. We still have reservations about this important area, but we will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35
Marketing standards
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 35, page 31, line 38, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would make it a duty for the Secretary of State to make regulations as to labelling as to method of production.
We welcome the fact that subsection (2)(g) enables the Secretary of State to make regulations on marketing standards regarding farming methods. We believe that it opens the door to looking properly at the labelling of farmed products. Under the clause, however, the Secretary of State once again has a power rather than a duty and so has no actual obligation to take the matter forward. That bothers us.
We therefore believe that the Bill should be strengthened to require the Secretary of State to make labelling regulations requiring meat, milk and dairy products, including those produced intensively, to be labelled as to farming method. That would be an important development and helpful to consumers. A great step forward for consumers would be to know what they are purchasing across the board in terms of animal products. Consumers could then make decisions based on those higher animal welfare and environmental considerations.
I am reaching back to find my favourite document, or this week’s favourite document—never to hand when I want it, of course—[Interruption.] I am delighted—the Minister obviously loves the document too.
Daniel Zeichner
Of course. Last week, we had an interesting discussion about labelling. I take Members back to that because on page 16 of the document is a theoretical discussion of the effect of labelling. The Government tell us:
“Tapping into the consumer willingness to pay begins with understanding the value-action gap”—
which I am sure is being discussed on every omnibus around the country—and that
“it is possible for someone to derive positive value from the fact that animals are being well cared for as a result of another’s purchasing decision. Those not buying animal products should be included in any assessment of public value, one person’s holding of this value does not detract from another’s.”
I find that a puzzling suggestion. I tried it out on my partner—I will not say what she said, but she was not convinced that, basically, other people buying poorly produced food somehow does not detract from the wider public good. That is a theoretical discussion the Government may want to go back to. The following page states:
“Addressing consumer understanding, and understanding how purchasing decisions are made in practice in the retail environment and online, are also key elements…It is important to note that improved transparency alone can only address information asymmetry, and does not capture the public value held by non-consumers.”
I am not sure what any of that means, and I am sure that the public have little idea of what it means. I think it shows that labelling is not simple; there is a big discussion to be had. Is it enough to use labelling? The right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby and I had an exchange on that last week; there are sincerely held differences of opinion about it.
Back in the simpler, empirical world, we have seen the positive impact that labelling can have on eggs. Since 2004, when EU law began to require eggs and egg packs to be labelled to highlight production method, there has been a considerable move in the market towards free-range eggs and away from caged egg sales. I am told that around 52% of all UK eggs come from cage-free systems, which is welcome.
It is not the same in other sectors. Consumers are still very much in the dark about the production of meat and milk. It is hard to find meat or dairy products that have a labelled method of production. For meat, there is some labelling of free range and organic, but not much else. There is even less information about the farming methods of milk. Most milk is pooled together, making it difficult to distinguish between pasture-based and intensively produced milk. From personal experience perusing the supermarket shelves, it seems the world is becoming more complicated these days; there is a greater range, but we need to go further. I find it confusing. It is confusing for consumers and it does a disservice to farmers who are already producing to higher standards but do not have any means of distinguishing their products because of labelling ambiguities.
A lot of marketing and packaging borders on the misleading. Intensively produced meat and dairy products, where animals may have seen very little of the outside world, are packaged in pretty green packets featuring rolling hills and what looks like a welfare-friendly world. That does not help consumers make informed choices, and it does not help producers extract the higher value that they deserve from their products. Proper labelling would work in everyone’s interests.
The production methods highlighted would differ for different products, but mandatory labelling could be used to indicate on the packet whether the product has been produced intensively indoors or extensively outdoors, with the full range of production methods in between, so that consumers can make a decision in the shop about what they want. That is something that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee recommended twice to the Government in 2018, and it makes a lot of sense.
At the moment, any consumer demand for less intensively produced meat and dairy is impeded by the lack of clear information at the point of sale about how the products have been produced. Informing consumers about methods of production allows them to make that choice. We could see important shifts in the market towards the production of food that is less intensive, more environmentally sustainable and based on higher animal welfare.
A good labelling system could also play an important role in further incentivising farmers to take up environmental land management schemes and deliver the public goods that we discussed last week under clause 1, particularly those who seek to promote higher animal welfare measures, by giving them the recognition they deserve for using less intensive production methods. If the consumer has no idea what farmers are doing, it stands to reason that farmers will see the benefits of making positive changes only in the direct payments they receive, rather than in any changes in consumer demand. There needs to be a way for farmers to demonstrate that they are delivering food in a way that consumers may choose to pay for.
International debate is moving quickly in this area. We heard evidence of the number of schemes that are being looked into across Europe. The Government have talked big talk about using the new opportunity post Brexit to improve our animal welfare standards and modernise our farming processes. It is important that we do not miss key opportunities to adopt mechanisms that can help support that. A relatively simple change of wording would give this clause the strength it needs to deliver the Government’s aim of achieving an impact we all support.
Mr Goodwill
I note that the amendment would substitute “must” for “may” in subsection (1), but all the other subsections contain the word “may” too. Has not the hon. Gentleman made an omission by not seeking to insert “must” in all the others? Surely having “must” in subsection (1) would be completely counteracted by all the “may”s in the rest of the clause.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who unfortunately was out of the room this morning during one of my earlier attempts to bait him. He never fails to please. His deft and diligent examination of the wording may well have identified a minor drafting error from our point of view, but I am sure he gets the thrust of the argument. On that basis, I very much hope he supports us on this occasion.
Victoria Prentis
Again, we broadly share the same values and principles, but—I am sorry to be tedious about the law and the drafting, not that I would ever accuse my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby of being tedious—it is important that we look at what the amendment would actually do.
I welcome this opportunity to further clarify the purpose of the clause. The proposed amendment seeks to change the wording of the clause to include “must” instead of “may”. We have been through this many times in the past week and I do not propose to do so again. There is no need to add a duty here, as regulations concerning the marketing standards already exist in EU law. Using powers in the withdrawal Act, we will retain the current EU marketing standards and roll them over into UK law, ensuring continuity for farmers and the farming industry.
The power in subsection (1) will provide an opportunity for the current standards to be amended when it is appropriate to do so, to ensure that they deliver domestic standards. It will also allow us to introduce new standards should that be deemed necessary. We anticipate that the power will be used to respond to developments in production. The amendment could create a situation in which new marketing standards regulations must be made, regardless of whether they were needed.
I should add that marketing standards do not apply to all food products and so would not be the appropriate vehicle for any general changes to food labelling rules, such as those about stating allergens on labels. That is already covered by existing food information and food safety laws.
I hope I have given some explanation of why the clause is drafted in the way it is. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
That is so disappointing. The Government should have more ambition to do these things. That is why we are pressing and encouraging them. This is such an opportunity; to us, it seems like a win-win.
I fully accept that there may be some points of drafting or direction—I do not blame the people who drafted the amendment—on which we could improve, but it would be wonderful if the Government accepted the thrust of the argument. This is a bit like hustings events during a general election campaign: by the time we come to the end, we all know one another’s lines. What the Minister said was not a surprise to me, and it will be no surprise to her to hear me say the same thing again.
This is partly a question of trust, I am afraid. It is also a question of wanting to move quickly to take up these opportunities. I think there is real desire out there among consumers to make informed choices, despite the slight difference of opinion expressed by the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby last week about the role of labelling in making the changes we want. If we are going to go down the labelling route as the driver for change, for goodness’ sake push on with it. Do it soon. The Government should tie themselves to it. If they accepted our amendment, they would be bound to do it and there would be no backsliding. My guess is that we will be discussing this in many months’ time and we will find it has not moved as quickly as many of us would have hoped. On that basis, I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment; we will press it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Victoria Prentis
The clause will allow the Government to modernise organic regulations. I appreciate the opportunity to say a few brief words to clear up previous misunderstandings.
The Committee should note that the EU will bring in new organics regulation 848/2018 on 1 January 2021. Since that is after the end of the transition period, the current organics regulation, 834/2007, will form part of retained EU law. The clause allows us to amend organics regulations so that they work for our producers, exporters and consumers. The organics sector is at the forefront of sustainable agriculture. The powers in the clause will ensure that the sector can continue to thrive, while enhancing our precious environment.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 36 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
Organic products: supplementary
Amendments made: 52, in clause 37, page 35, line 15, leave out
“the National Assembly for Wales”
and insert “Senedd Cymru”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 51.
Amendment 53, in clause 37, page 35, line 16, leave out “that Assembly” and insert “the Senedd”.—(Victoria Prentis.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 51.
Clause 37, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 38 and 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(James Morris.)
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
Nursing Workforce Shortage: England
(4 years, 9 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
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the nursing workforce shortage in England.
It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I start by recognising the skills and expertise that nurses bring. Nursing shortages impact on patient care and staff wellbeing. Wherever there are people, there are nursing staff. They work in public services, across the NHS, social care, public health and the independent sector. They are with us at every stage in life, from birth to death. I am grateful for all that health and care staff do in my constituency and across the country.
This debate was secured in response to petitions handed in by nurses from the Royal College of Nursing, calling on the Government to fix the workforce crisis. I am pleased to be their voice—and that of everyone who works in the health profession—in Westminster today, and call on the Government to do all they can to tackle nursing shortages, which have huge knock-on effects on our NHS and wider health and care system, as well as on patient safety and staff wellbeing.
There are about 40,000 nursing vacancies in health and care services in England. In my region, the east of England, the nurse vacancy rate is 10.7%, which amounts to more than 3,600 nurses. Worryingly, the vacancy rate for mental health nurses in my region is even higher, at 15.3%. Nurses are crucial in health promotion and improving population health, yet the numbers of health visitors, school nurses, community nurses and district nurses have dropped at a rapid rate and are in long-term decline. We need to see significant growth in the NHS cancer workforce as well.
I expect that the Minister will tell me that almost 8,000 more nurses work in the NHS since this time last year. Although that figure is correct, it must, as with all stats, be viewed in the relevant context. That is a growth rate of just 0.4%, which is nowhere near the scale needed to provide enough nurses now or in the future. The pace of growth is not sufficient to reassure patients that we have a workforce ready to meet their needs, and it is nowhere near the rate needed to cope with the increasing demands that are predicted to be placed on the NHS by our ageing population.
For every NHS nurse employed in hospitals last year, there was an equivalent of 214 admissions. Patient need is rising faster than the growth in our nursing workforce. Social care and public health are also without thousands more nurses. It is difficult to calculate the number of vacancies in those settings because the data is incomplete. We have no understanding of plans to support and fund social care, which I hope the new Minister will confirm are a priority.
Nursing shortages directly impact on patient safety. Even with the small increase in staff numbers, hospitals and other services are struggling more than ever. Last week, the RCN published findings from a survey of emergency care nurses, who are increasingly forced to provide care in corridors. Some 95% of survey respondents said that patient dignity is compromised, and 92% worry that patients may be receiving unsafe care. December saw the worst performances on record for A&E departments in England, with every single department failing to meet the four-hour waiting time target. Those stats should alarm us all. Chronic underfunding has led us to this point.
Trust papers from Bedford Hospital, a district general in my area, show just how intense the pressures are on our frontline workers. Staff are doing as much as they can to keep patients safe and to provide high-quality care, but the situation is outside their control. Staffing shortages are systemic, and addressing them requires political will and action.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman mentions staffing shortages. My vast and remote constituency, which has a large and ageing population and is the most remote mainland constituency in the UK, has problems not only with recruitment but particularly with retention. Health is devolved to the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government, but as and when the UK Government develop an approach to keeping people in the most remote and rural areas, where they are needed most, I hope that that intelligence will be shared with the Scottish Government.
Mohammad Yasin
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There are nursing shortages in every part of the country, and nurses are struggling to provide good care. I will come to that point in a moment.
Nursing shortages also impact on staff wellbeing. One testimony from an emergency nurse describes the realities of working in the profession:
“When I witnessed elderly patients being assisted onto bed pans while on ambulance trolleys, surrounded by paramedics, other patients on trolleys, and relatives all squashed in a freezing corridor…I realised that I can no longer preserve or protect my patient’s dignity, and that I am failing them as a nurse. Dignity is the first thing that the patients are stripped of when in a queue in a dark, cold corridor, closely followed by safety.”
Sharon, a community nurse who recently responded to a House of Commons digital debate on this Westminster Hall debate, said:
“I have worked in my locality for four and a half years. In that time, we have never been fully staffed. This puts enormous pressure on the whole team and many people have left because of it. Often, we are rushed, we forget things, and we cannot give the quality of care that we would like as we are just too thinly spread. Many of us end catching up on our notes or management at home, working way over our contracted hours. We are exhausted, frustrated and disappointed.”
This is an appalling situation for all concerned, and I know from these responses that this happens daily in hospitals up and down the country. Talk of a winter crisis is meaningless when staff and patients experience crisis every day, all year round. We must all focus on fixing this.
There is a long-term plan for the NHS, but its ambitions are dependent on having enough nurses. We have no funded workforce plan, even though it was promised by the Government when they announced the funding allocations back in the summer of 2018. Will the Minister tell us when the long-promised NHS people plan will be published, and whether it will include bold and funded policies to recruit, train and retain vital nursing staff to meet the needs of our population?
Nursing students in England can receive grants of up to £5,000 a year, and for some they can go up to £8,000. However, these do not reflect the true cost of living. Just as importantly, tuition fees are also a huge burden on nursing students, and it is important that this is addressed in the forthcoming Budget. As a father of four, I believe that financial barriers to education must be removed.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes some important points about the pressures facing nursing in England and the cost of living. Does he agree that one way that this could be resolved is by supporting bursaries and offering more financial support to student nurses? The Welsh Labour Government have kept those throughout this entire period, ensuring that the bursary was not scrapped in Wales.
Mohammad Yasin
My hon. Friend is right. Cuts to bursaries have impacted hugely on the recruitment of new staff. The Welsh Government did the right thing in a difficult situation. If we do not look after our staff, it will be hard for them to stay in the profession. That is why we have a shortage of nurses.
As a father of four children, I believe that financial barriers to education must be removed so that everyone who wants to go to university can do so, particularly those who want to become nurses. We should encourage young people to train in these critical professions. Why are the Government putting up barriers to young people who will go on to contribute such vital services to society and saddling them with huge debts before they have begun working?
This problem has been years in the making. Such stark shortages do not occur out of the blue. In England these shortages are due to the complexities of political decisions and structural issues.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
As has been mentioned, these issues are compounded in rural areas, where we have problems with recruitment and retention. A cottage hospital called Stratton in my constituency has just had its minor injuries unit closed overnight due to nurse shortages. What more can we do to promote staff retention across the whole of the UK?
Mohammad Yasin
The Government must listen to nurses and the Royal College of Nursing. They are pleading for the Government to act now. Getting nursing bursaries back in action might help, but the problem is now so deep that we must take urgent action to tackle it.
This problem has been around for a long time. It is not a short-term problem. It will affect us in the long term unless we act now. Who is responsible for the health and care workforce? It is shocking that no one is. There is no clarity in law on the role of and responsibility and accountability for growing and developing our health and care workforce, or the various layers that drive our health and care services.
A nurse walking on to a short-staffed shift has no option but to carry on. The buck stops with them. They carry the professional, physical and emotional impact. Nurses have no power to recruit more staff. That is true of all professionals in our taxpayer-funded health and care services, including nurses, medics, physiotherapists, psychologists, social workers, support workers and many others. The Government should be accountable for the provision of the labour market that staffs our health and care services. The taxpayer must be assured that the services they have paid for are safe and effective.
The former MP for Wolverhampton South West, Eleanor Smith, who is also a nurse, was here last summer setting out the same concerns. This is the 37th debate on workforce issues in health and care services since 2017, and it will not be the last. In recent responses to parliamentary questions, the Government have considered the merits of safe staffing legislation and ways to close the workforce accountability gap. The Royal College of Nursing has been campaigning, along with several other health organisations, for accountability to be secured in legislation, so the Government’s consideration is welcome.
The long-term plan Bill is the way to make progress on that agenda, but it must include an explicit framework for the role of and responsibility and accountability for workforce supply and planning at all levels at which decisions are made across the system, including the Government. Achieving accountability in law provides an opportunity to safely staff our health and care services in the future. I hope the Minister will commit to safe staffing legislation for England and update us on what her Department is doing to ensure that the NHS long-term plan Bill is forthcoming. Will that Bill explicitly provide for accountability for workforce provision?
I suspect the Minister will want to discuss the Government’s promise of 50,000 more nurses over five years. We have heard a lot about that commitment but not in detail. How will 50,000 more nurses be recruited, especially when the Government appear to be ramping up the hostile environment rhetoric and making the UK as unattractive a place as possible to come and work? The loss of many NHS workers from the EU is a tragedy.
Bedford Hospital had to recruit 237 nurses from Australia, India and elsewhere to fill vacancies left largely by EU nurses who left because of their fears for the future and the ill treatment they received in the UK. It is a testament to the hard work of the hospital’s chief executive, Stephen Conroy, that, despite those staffing difficulties, the hospital is projected to reach full recruitment of band 5 nurses for the first time in many years, but that will be achieved only by recruiting nurses from overseas.
We also need to increase capacity in clinical placements, to support nursing students at universities. How will the Government achieve that? How many nurses do the Government expect to retain? When will the Government publish their plan in full? Will the Secretary of State report on progress made in this Parliament?
This year, the World Health Organisation is celebrating the first ever year of the nurse and the midwife, at a time when the spotlight is on the nursing profession across the globe. As their elected representatives, we must stand with them and celebrate this diverse and dynamic profession. I will do everything possible to ensure that our health services are staffed safely. It must be a priority for us all. The problems are well known. The evidence continues to mount. We need decisive action, but we are not getting it from a Government drowning in Brexit uncertainty. Nursing staff need action now, as do their patients. We cannot wait any longer.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) on securing this debate. Although this debate is about nursing shortages in England and health is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, I believe we are experiencing the same problems in Northern Ireland that exist in Wales, Scotland—as mentioned by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone)—and the whole of the United Kingdom. The solution must be UK-wide.
The Minister has responsibility for England, but I want to refer to things that are happening in Northern Ireland, which I believe the UK Government can change to the benefit of the devolved Administrations. We are currently facing a crisis in nursing care. Although nurses in Northern Ireland have received a pay increase, which they deserve, that does not ease the conditions in which we are asking them to work. Those conditions are the same as in England, Scotland and Wales.
During the election, nursing was perhaps the largest issue I was confronted with on the doorstep, along with the dysfunction of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which, although we are not directly responsible for it, people still wanted to talk to us about. When we got past the misinformation that had been fed to people in a deliberate attempt to skew the vote, it was clear from speaking to nurses that, although the pay issue had been an insult to them, they had genuine concerns about staffing levels—the subject of this debate. The concerns I heard on the doorstep were clear to me, as I am sure they were to all hon. Members from across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There was a genuine concern that the everyday nurse felt guilty about taking annual leave; they felt that they were letting people down by having their hard-earned time off. That should not be so.
The health service in Northern Ireland has a registered nurse vacancy rate of 11.6%, equating to precisely 2,103 empty posts, as well as a shortage of 421 nursing assistants. The cost of employing nurses via agencies has increased from £10 million in 2012-13 to £32 million in 2017-18. I know that the last few years, with a non-functioning Assembly, were an issue regarding the employment of agency staff.
I had a meeting with the Royal College of Nursing some six weeks ago in my office, and I welcome the fact that the Northern Ireland Assembly is up and running. I also welcome the fact that the Minister who has responsibility for the Health Department in Northern Ireland, Robin Swann, has committed to recruiting more nurses. I understand that 700 nurses will be recruited, which will go a long way to addressing some of the empty posts. However, that will still be only a third of the way to filling all the vacancies that exist; the other two thirds of vacancies also have to be filled.
Jamie Stone
The hon. Member makes an extremely interesting point. At the last election, constituents and voters said to me on the doors that they would prefer that nurses were employed by the public purse—by the Government—rather than via an agency, which, by definition, makes a profit on the salaries for those nurses. I suggest that the general public does not like that and, if I am reading him correctly, he does not like it either.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and that is exactly what I am saying. I know that the Health Department in Westminster does not have responsibility for recruiting nurses in Northern Ireland. The Minister in Northern Ireland now has, and he has made the first step towards addressing that issue. It is hoped that over the next couple of years the number of vacancies—over 2,100 nursing posts, as well as 400-odd nursing assistant posts, making about 2,500 vacancies in total—will be addressed. We hope that the cost of agency staff and the extra financial burden created by the fact that agencies are profit-making organisations—this is how they make their money—will be addressed in a way that helps to reduce the shortcomings.
This situation means that nurses cannot simply work their 37.5-hour working week. They are called in on days off and asked, “Can you do the twilight shift? Can you give me a couple of hours?” That is not the fault of the ward sisters; they need the floors covered and are under pressure. It is simply that we do not have enough full-time working nurses in the NHS. That means that conscientious nurses, who do not want to leave the ward or the district short, are working additional hours themselves, and not in the short term to save money for a holiday or a renovation of their house. Instead, they are consistently working overtime to help on the wards, and so they are not getting their family time, their social time and—more importantly—their rest time
I have had glimpses of this situation. Some 6,500 nurses live in my constituency, so I have regular contact with them. I got a brief glimpse of the work of a nurse during my surgery and was in awe of how they stayed on their feet, and remained both sharp and compassionate —as they do. Doing all that with no rest is simply unsustainable. So, for a better system and a better caring system with better nurses, who are more able to work within that system, we need to address the shortage of nurses.
It used to be the case that bank nurses were only used in an emergency, but now they are used ever more frequently and their use is becoming the norm. They are no longer just used in the emergency. Using them is now just the fall-back position: “Let’s just do it”. That is not good either for morale or for finances—the current finances clearly indicate that it is not. It is more costly to have agency staff in than it is to have nurses on full-time pay.
I will give another example, of a nurse who approached me in my office and asked me to clear up rumours about nurses, their employment and so on. She is a young nurse in her early 20s who has been working at the Ulster Hospital in Dundonald—the main hospital in my constituency—but she has been left as a staff nurse in charge at night on numerous occasions. What she said to me was simple; she just said to me, “Jim, keep the pay rise and please give me an extra nurse per shift.” That was her initial reaction, because she can feel the pressures of delivering this system, and was saying, “I physically can’t do it all for much longer”.
This is a lovely young girl who is dedicated and good at her job, but who knows that when she has kids she will not be able to work 60 hours a week. She is asking me to do something about that, and today I am on the path towards doing something; I am highlighting this issue. I am very happy to do so.
Scott Mann
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point about that young lady. There is one way that the NHS might be able to support her. NHS Property Services owns huge amounts of land around the country on the public estate, and I know that the Government are putting together a key worker policy, for there to be a 30% discount for local people in the housing policy, like a local homes discount. Does he think that if we included nurses within that category that we might be able to address some of the challenges that we face, by giving people discounts and getting them into the profession?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I was not aware of that proposal until now, but it certainly seems like a way of incentivising people—for some people. Let us be honest; it will not suit everybody’s circumstances, but it will suit some people’s. Whatever we can do to incentivise nurses to stay in the profession is good. I will give a third example, if I may, of the reasons why nurses are not staying in the profession, but some of the things that the hon. Gentleman referred to would be helpful.
I met one woman in her 30s in my office who wanted to go into nursing, but she could not do so because her tax credits would not allow to stop work while she got her national vocational qualifications and other qualifications. So, reluctantly, she gave up and we lost her. She is not the only one we have lost; we have lost many more than that.
I know that in Northern Ireland this issue is not the responsibility of the Minister who is here today, the Minister for Care, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately); I understand that. However, will she ask the Minister who has the portfolio for tax credits to review the circumstances around tax credits and the circumstances of those nurses who are trying to get their NVQs, and have to stop work to do so? If we are losing nurses because of an anomaly in the system, let us try to address that anomaly, to allow us to retain the nurses who want to be retained.
My mother was a nurse. That was a long time ago; my mother is coming up to 89 now. I know that for her nursing was a vocation, as it is for many other people. In today’s busy life, it is important that we try to help those who want to be in nursing for the rest of their lives to retain their position. However, that was a young girl in her thirties in my office who wanted to go into nursing and unfortunately we lost her.
We lost someone who wanted to train as an intensive care unit nurse, because the current system could not work with her and her four children. Can we do better in helping mature people to come out of retail and enter education, while still having their children cared for? There are many such people across the nation and across my constituency. There are also a great many people who are former nurses, and we should try to recruit them back into the system as well. There comes a time in their life, perhaps when their children are a bit older and they find themselves with a bit more time on their hands, so what are we doing to attract the more mature nurse into the profession that they once wished they were in?
There must be a way of doing that. I believe that it is up to us in this House to address these two issues, which are so closely linked: getting more nurses; and making a clear way forward to allow mature people to choose nursing, not simply as their job but as their vocation and their calling.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) on securing this excellent and timely debate.
I speak today as the newly elected chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer. Currently, there are 3 million people in the UK living with cancer, and that number is set to rise to 4 million by 2030. In a survey conducted by Macmillan Cancer Support, more than two thirds of cancer patients said that they are not getting the support they need from the NHS in England, and that is because the NHS is buckling under increased workforce pressure.
The healthcare system is facing a staffing crisis that is crippling frontline services and affecting the care that patients receive. There are more than 40,000 nursing vacancies in the NHS workforce, and Government figures show that waiting times for cancer treatment and diagnosis are at record high levels.
Every day across England, NHS professionals work tirelessly to give people living with cancer as full a life as they can. They are stretching themselves and working harder every day to meet rising demand, but the harsh truth is that there simply are not enough professionals with the right skills to meet the needs of the growing cancer population. That is why I support Macmillan’s “Save our support” campaign. I was delighted to attend its parliamentary reception in January, along with nearly 140 parliamentarians who came to speak to frontline healthcare professionals and people with lived experience of cancer.
The NHS played a key role in the general election debate. Although the pledges on nursing numbers in the Tory party manifesto were welcome, it is imperative that we see the full NHS people plan for England published so that we can see how the Government intend to deliver on their commitment to grow and support the NHS workforce. Overall, we need a Government that get their numbers right and deliver on their promises.
I have concerns that the interim NHS people plan published last year contained no specific actions for cancer services. Without a clear plan for cancer, the NHS will not be able to cope with the demand caused by the rising numbers of people living with it. There are concerns that the NHS people plan will not be as ambitious and will not have the committed funding made available to ensure that it delivers for the 4 million people likely to be living with cancer by 2030.
According to a recent Health Service Journal, 20 of the UK’s largest cancer charities recently wrote to the Secretary of State to raise their strong concerns that the NHS people plan falls far short of what is needed to support the welcome ambitions within the NHS long-term plan on cancer survival and care across England. Will the Minister please confirm when the NHS people plan will be published, and will she provide assurances that the Government will provide the necessary funding and resources to ensure that it can meet its ambitious targets on cancer?
The Government’s target to have an additional 50,000 nurses in the NHS relies heavily on increasing staff retention. Macmillan Cancer Support published a report last year, “Voices from the frontline”, which underlines the important role that continuing professional development can play in supporting and retaining staff. The report reflects the views of lead cancer nurses from across England, focusing on the challenges that they and specialist cancer nurses face in accessing CPD opportunities and the impact of that on cancer care. Some 44% of lead nurses felt that their workload negatively affects the quality of care that they can give to cancer patients; 39% said that their current workload is unmanageable; and 44% say that the strain negatively affects their morale.
Macmillan professionals said that they had faced three main barriers to accessing CPD: a lack of protected time, funding, and locally available courses. Only a third of the specialist cancer nurses surveyed had protected study time to access and attend CPD training. A quarter of survey respondents reported that the availability of CPD training has worsened over the past two years.
Cancer clinical nurse specialists report that CPD is essential to the delivery of high-quality personalised care for people living with cancer. More than three quarters of respondents to the Macmillan survey were clear that having more time for CPD would help them improve care for people living with cancer. To address that, the Government should immediately return the CPD budget to at least £205 million, the level it peaked at in 2015-16 before budgets were cut, and not by 2024, which is the Government’s current plan. To ensure that the NHS has the well-trained and motivated cancer workforce it needs, will the Minister therefore please provide reassurances that the Government will return the CPD budget to at least £205 million to support the NHS people plan?
It would be remiss of me to stand here as a Welsh MP and not mention that the budget challenges we have spoken about are, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has highlighted, pan-UK issues. I understand how health services are devolved and that the challenges are ones we deal with every day, but we are losing experienced nurses quicker than we recruit them. We are on the edge of a full-blown crisis. I am very happy to stand here and say that the Welsh Government have an ambitious NHS workforce plan to train and recruit, and they have kept the nursing bursary. We need a positive action plan that will move quickly. In Wales we are moving quicker than the UK Government, so what are the UK Government doing?
As a former teacher I know what it is like to inspire young people to go into the teaching or nursing profession. What are the Government’s commitments? We need to work with our young people. Once they start on their journey into a profession, we need to highlight the benefits of working in the healthcare system. It could be a 12-year journey to become a senior nurse. By that time it is a little too late, because we have not trained them up in time to deal with the current crisis. What are the UK Government’s plans to recruit from overseas? We need to deal with that.
Lastly, it is important to dispel the myth around the funding that has been made available to the NHS in England. The NHS Funding Bill, which recently passed through both Houses, does not represent new money. It was first announced by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) in June 2018 and does not cover the budgets for Health Education England, which include education and training for the extra nurses that the NHS in England desperately needs.
As part of the Budget next week and the comprehensive spending review later this year, it is crucial that the Chancellor supports people living with cancer across the country and ensures that the NHS people plan and Health Education England get the funding that they need to deliver the ambitious cancer care targets in the NHS people plan.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) for securing this debate today, and also grateful for his summary of the issue. He is correct to say that the growth in nursing numbers is nowhere near enough. I agree with him on the importance of investing in the NHS and the nursing workforce.
I am also grateful for the work of the Royal College of Nursing in highlighting the issue, including the recent petition with more than 200,000 signatures that was presented to the Prime Minister in February and called for action to remedy the staffing shortages as a priority. We know that there are some 40,000 nursing vacancies in England, and one in three nurses are due to retire within the next 10 years. In Scotland, of course, this issue is devolved, and in normal circumstances I would not interfere in a debate focused on the issue in England. However, devolved Administrations do not operate in a policy vacuum. UK policies, such as those on Brexit and immigration, affect all parts of the UK, so I will contribute to the debate today. Nor do I feel alone in this matter as several of my Celtic cousins have already spoken in the debate, and the issue benefits from hearing about what happens in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.
NHS Improvement reported in September last year that the latest nursing vacancy rate in England stood at 12.1%. Information Services Division statistics show that NHS Scotland’s nursing and midwifery staff vacancy rate was 6% in the same month. Qualified NHS nursing levels per head are already 46% higher in Scotland than in England. For nursing levels in England to match Scotland’s, they would need to increase nursing numbers by more than 130,000. That puts the 50,000 nurses that were promised for England into a certain context. Consequently, there may be lessons we can learn from how each of the four national health services operate, and I hope my observations on the differences between the two countries’ nursing numbers are seen as constructive and helpful.
NHS staffing per head is 26 staff per 1,000 people in Scotland, whereas England’s is 19.7. Those figures are from September and August last year—I could not get the months to match, but it sets the pattern. There are more qualified nurses and midwives per 1,000 of the population, with 8.1 whole time equivalents in Scotland versus 5.5 in England. Why is that? The number of people in Scotland choosing a career in nursing is increasing, and bursaries are undoubtedly one reason for that. Bursaries for student nurses in England were scrapped as part of the Tories’ austerity measures, a policy that led to a drop of more than 30% in nursing applications. In stark contrast, those bursaries were protected and increased in Scotland by the SNP Scottish Government, and nursing student numbers in Scotland have increased for seven years in a row. One of the big differences is that in Scotland, nurses will receive a bursary of £10,000 a year from next September, and already benefit from free tuition. The UK Government pledged a £5,000 annual grant for student nurses from this year—only half of what we are offering in Scotland—and still expect nursing students who train on the job to pay thousands in tuition fees. I believe that figure in England is around £27,750, a stark contrast to the figure in Scotland, which is zero.
Nurses in Scotland across all bands are better paid than elsewhere in the UK, which also helps to make nursing a career choice and benefits retention. Training more nurses is key to addressing this issue. The latest UCAS figures show a 2% increase in people from Scotland choosing nursing as a career, but a decrease of 4% in the English figures. Meanwhile, a report last year by the Nuffield Trust, the Health Foundation and The King’s Fund concluded that the NHS in England has no chance of training enough GPs and nurses to solve the shortages it faces. This suggests that in order to address the current and future shortages, we need to look elsewhere.
That leads me on to the topic of immigration. EU nationals make up 10% of the medical workforce, and we should be concerned about the insight into their mindset provided by the 2018 British Medical Association survey of 1,527 EEA-trained doctors across the UK, which found that 35% were considering moving abroad. Of course, only time will tell what actually comes to pass. However, immigration to the UK has fallen to its lowest level in six years according to the Office for National Statistics, and Cambridge Econometrics’ analysis states that leaving the single market will see the working-age population fall by nearly 2% by 2030, which is equivalent to 790,000 people.
The challenges with recruitment are not going to get any easier. On 15 November, the King’s Fund, the Health Foundation and the Nuffield Trust predicted that NHS England staff shortages will rise to over one in six health service posts by 2030. Clearly, we must attract skilled workers from abroad, but the UK Government’s regressive immigration plans look set to make the situation worse. At this time, details of a UK NHS fast-track visa scheme remain unclear, and I look forward to hearing those details; perhaps the Minister will enlighten us. With regard to the proposed points-based immigration system, I assume that nursing will be classed as a shortage occupation, which would require a £20,480 minimum salary. I believe it must be on the shortage occupation list, but also that it should be exempt from any salary threshold. The Library briefing for today’s debate gives us the RCN’s opinion of the points-based system:
“We are concerned that these proposals from the Government will not meet the health and care needs of the population. They close the door to lower-paid healthcare support workers and care assistants from overseas, who currently fill significant numbers of posts in the health and care workforce.”
I also echo their calls for the introduction of an immigration system that supports nursing, and to exempt nursing staff from the immigration health surcharge, which seems an unnecessary burden to put on people coming here to relieve our own health crisis.
I will finish with a quote from the RCN’s general secretary, Dame Donna Kinnair, who has said that there are
“43,000 vacancies in the NHS in England alone. Yet failure to increase nurse numbers isn’t inevitable, but a political choice. We need proper financial help for nursing students in every nation of the UK in order to ensure the supply of nurses in the future, and clear legal duties for governments and NHS leaders across the UK to ensure there are enough nurses to provide safe care to patients.”
It is indeed a choice, and I hope that my Scottish comparisons and views on immigration help to inform the choices facing NHS England.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) on having secured this important debate, and on the thoughtful and knowledgeable speech he has given about the challenges currently facing the nursing workforce. He made some very interesting points: the reference to nurses being there at our birth, at our death and throughout our lives was an important and moving reference to how much we all rely on nurses. He mentioned the 10.7% nursing vacancy rate in his region, which is a staggering statistic; there are actually some variations within that, because the vacancy rate for mental health is even higher, at 15.3%. Those huge variations across disciplines need to be addressed by the Government.
My hon. Friend also referred to the RCN’s survey of its members, in which a staggering 95% of nurses said that patient dignity is compromised and 92% felt worried that patients may be receiving unsafe care. That should be a red-light warning for us all about what is going on in our NHS. What he said about the professional attitude and sense of duty that nurses feel was particularly important: when a nurse is at the end of their shift but sees something that needs to be done, they carry on. They are professional, but they carry the impact of that with them, and we have been relying on their good will to keep the NHS going for far too long. Finally, my hon. Friend referred to this being the year of the nurse and the midwife, and was absolutely right to say that we should celebrate this diverse and dynamic profession.
We heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as we often do in these debates, who gave his own perspective from Northern Ireland. He referred to the recent dispute there, and it was clear from what he said that the concern was as much about working practices as it was about pay. He was right to say that workforce challenges there are often mirrored here. The hon. Gentleman also referred to a worrying increase in the agency bill in Northern Ireland, which may well be partly related to the greater flexibility that agency work can sometimes provide to nurses. That is something we need to reflect on when we consider working practices.
As always, it was a pleasure to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who I congratulate on her appointment as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer. She was right to highlight patients’ concerns that they are not getting the care they need, the reason for which is inextricably linked with the staffing shortfall. She was also right that it is vital that the full people plan be published as soon as possible, and to raise the concern that the plan will not include the funding it needs to meet our ambitions. Only last month, the Government introduced the NHS Funding Bill 2019-21, so we already have the parameters for funding the healthcare system over the next three to four years. Really, it should have been the other way around; we should have established what the staffing need was before we put a financial envelope around it.
My hon. Friend also referred to the excellent Macmillan report, “Voices from the frontline”, and the concerns it expresses about the lack of ability to access continuing professional development. She highlighted the impact on retention caused by cuts to the CPD budget, and the report’s references to many nurses feeling that their current workloads are unmanageable. My hon. Friend has said that we are on the edge of a full-blown crisis; I could not agree more.
I pay tribute to the 1.9 million or so dedicated and hard-working people who work across both the health and the social care sectors; it is always an honour to speak up on their behalf. Our NHS is built on its staff, and in particular our nurses and midwives who, as we have heard, go the extra mile day in and day out, despite too often finding themselves under intolerable levels of pressure. It is a damning indictment of this Government’s record that despite this being the 37th debate in this place over the past three years on workforce shortages in health and care settings, there is still no plan to address this crisis. It is not over-dramatising matters to describe it as an existential crisis, because following nearly a decade of mismanagement and underfunding, we are facing a very real recruitment and retention crisis in the NHS. Years of pay restraint, cuts to training budgets and growing pressures have left us with a chronic shortage of over 100,000 staff.
Those shortages affect patient care every single day. They manifest themselves in the NHS performance data, which month after month show hospitals with the worst performance data on record. That will not change unless the workforce shortages are acknowledged and addressed. The proportion of people being seen within four hours in A&Es is the lowest on record, and the number of people waiting four hours or more on hospital trolleys is the highest on record, as is the number of people waiting 12 hours to be admitted and the total number of people on the waiting list in England. Targets for patients to receive treatment within 18 weeks have not been met for four years now, and there is no sign that that situation will improve any time soon.
The Government need to take seriously the growing gap between the number of nursing staff and the number of people who need healthcare. As we know, the Royal College of Nursing estimates that there are about 43,000 nursing vacancies in the NHS in England alone and warns that the nursing shortfall will rise to almost 48,000 by 2023 and a mind-boggling 108,000 by the end of the decade. That is a staggering figure. To put that in context, it is more than every man, woman and child living in the Minister’s constituency—picture that. That is how much of a shortfall we could face by the end of the decade, if action is not taken.
The effect of staffing shortfalls on patients must never be underestimated, but they also have an effect on staff. NHS staff are consistently asked to take on additional responsibilities, to work harder, to do more intense shifts and to take on excessive numbers of patients. All the surveys show the effect that that has on them. It is worrying, but not surprising, that only a quarter of respondents to the NHS staff survey published last month agreed that there were enough staff for them to do their job, and that more than two thirds per week worked additional unpaid overtime. As we heard, higher numbers of emergency care nurses—more than nine in 10—are worried that patient dignity is being compromised and that patients may be receiving unsafe care.
I am sure that all hon. Members were moved by the testimony that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford quoted. No one, patient or staff, should be in that situation. The testimony used the word “dignity” repeatedly, which should cause us to reflect on the situation that we are putting people in. I am sure that we would not want that for our family.
Staff are working in a high-pressure environment without adequate resources or support, which not only puts patients at risk but damages the mental health of staff and leads to low morale, poor wellbeing and a poor work-life balance. It is no surprise that conditions are becoming intolerable for some staff. More than 40% of NHS staff were unwell as a result of work-related stress in the last year—that is an unsustainable figure.
An analysis of NHS Digital data finds that more than 200,000 nurses have left the NHS since 2010-11; there has been a 55% increase in voluntary resignations from the NHS with staff citing a poor work-life balance as the primary reason; and the number of voluntary resignations for health reasons has increased threefold in the past 10 years. It is no wonder that the recent “Interim NHS People Plan” states that hard-pressed staff are “overstretched” and admits that people no longer want to work in the NHS. It is our pride and joy. People should positively want to go to work every day full of joy about what they are delivering for the people of this country, but the pressure is becoming too great.
It is damning that we still have no funded workforce plan, despite the Government’s promise of one when the funding settlement was first announced in summer 2018. We also still have no framework that sets out the roles, responsibilities and accountabilities for workforce supply and planning.
As has been mentioned, last month’s NHS Funding Bill was an opportunity for the Government to show their commitment and set out plans for a proper costed strategy for the workforce but, frankly, it was a publicity stunt. Despite every trust chief executive reporting that understaffing is their biggest challenge and a hindrance to delivering safe care, there was nothing in the Bill on protecting and enhancing training budgets. I acknowledge that staffing shortages are the responsibility of multiple decision-makers across all levels of the health and social care system, but ultimately, they are outside the control of frontline staff and trusts. The Government need to act to ensure that there are enough skilled staff to ensure safe and effective care.
The standards of protection and safety that are rightly expected by staff and enshrined in the NHS constitution appear to have been abandoned by the Government. Things have become so bad that NHS England has recommended that the Government review
“whether national responsibilities and duties in relation to workforce functions are sufficiently clear.”
The public are concerned and want action too. In a recent YouGov poll, 80% of respondents in England agreed that
“the Government should have a legal responsibility to ensure there are enough nursing staff to meet the country’s needs”.
The Royal College of Nursing, other royal colleges and health organisations are all calling on the Government to take action to ensure clear workforce accountability in law. Unfortunately, there has been a continued failure of leadership to bring forward the required legislation to guarantee and enshrine safe staffing levels in the NHS in England. That has left us lagging behind Scotland and Wales, which have already established explicit accountability for workforce provision.
It is vital that, as the royal colleges are calling for, an NHS long-term plan Bill for England sets out a framework of explicit roles, responsibilities and accountabilities for workforce supply and planning, through all levels of decision-making. Like other hon. Members, I am keen to see the detail of the Bill and whether it will contain the long-awaited commitment to safe staffing, in addition to a bold and fully funded workforce strategy. I welcome the Minister to her place; perhaps she will indicate when that Bill might be introduced when she responds.
The election promise of 50,000 more nurses in five years is all well and good, but without a plan for how that will be delivered and maintained in the long term it is pie in the sky. As it is British Pie Week, I cannot think of a more apposite metaphor. We all know that that figure does not stand up to even the most cursory inspection. It is not 50,000 extra nurses, but the retention of 19,000 existing nurses and the recruitment of an additional 31,000. As has already been clearly set out, retention is a huge challenge that the Government are failing on.
The Minister will no doubt tell us there has been an increase in the number of nursing staff in the last year. Of course, in such desperate times, any increase is welcome, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford said, it is a miniscule 0.4%. Let us be honest: the scale and pace of the increase is not happening fast enough. There are also concerns that the figures do not reflect what is really happening on the ground, because they were taken at the optimum time to capture the new registrations before the impact of annual departures is felt.
The Government’s failure to train enough nurses will not be reversed by the recent announcement of maintenance grants for nursing students, as the grants will cover only living costs, not tuition fees. Many student nurses are slightly older and may have family responsibilities, yet the sum on offer from the Government to support them through their training is slightly less than £100 a week.
Evidence shows that, since the Government scrapped the bursary scheme in 2016, applications to study nursing have dropped by 25% in England. As we and many others repeatedly warned at the time, that was bound to happen. Adequate funding for nursing students is crucial to attract more people to study nursing. I hope, again, that the Government listen to us when we say that the U-turn is only partial and not enough to undo the damage done. It is still the case that the prospect of accruing large debts is a huge disincentive for those who want to train in nursing, especially prospective mature students who may already shoulder debt from a previous degree in another subject.
With Labour’s analysis showing that the first cohort of students who started their nursing degrees in 2017 will graduate with £1 billion in tuition fee debt, everything possible must be done to remove the financial burden for prospective students. If the Government are serious about recruiting more nurses, they need to match our commitment to bring back the nursing bursary in full, including the abolition of tuition fees.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford that the new maintenance grants must be increased to cover actual living costs. Given that the Government have admitted the error of their ways in removing the bursary in 2016, I hope that the Minister will set out whether any maintenance loan debt incurred by students between 2017 and 2019 will be written off.
I cannot end without mentioning immigration. The NHS plans to increase the international recruitment of nurses to reduce workforce pressures, but, at the same time, the Government are planning to raise the health surcharge that those staff have to pay. Unison and the RCN are calling for nursing staff to be exempt from the immigration health surcharge. Those staff already make their contribution to the NHS by working in it. Alongside their colleagues, they often go beyond their contractual hours to keep the service from crumbling under the pressure. It is indefensible to continue to apply the surcharge to them.
The RCN also calls for nursing to remain on the shortage occupation list and for nurses to be exempt from the salary threshold when the points-based immigration system comes into force. Given the challenges outlined today, could the Minister set out when responding what representations she has made to the Home Office about bolstering the workforce and ending the uncertainty and red tape in international recruitment? Nursing is a global recruitment market, and a challenging one at that. If the Government’s workforce strategy is over-reliant on international recruitment, it will fail, particularly when barriers are put in the way of recruitment. The myriad of reasons that have been set out about failing to improve retention rates will not lead us to a better place.
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) on securing this debate. I thank him for his tone and his constructive approach to the challenges. I also thank him for giving me this opportunity to speak about a subject that I am truly delighted to have as my responsibility as a new Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care, and about which I feel very strongly—namely, the NHS workforce.
Our NHS is truly fantastic and we as a nation are proud of it. However, as we know, the NHS is really its people. The people of the NHS are the NHS—from the most senior doctor, to the newest healthcare assistant and everything in between. That is particularly true of nurses, who make up nearly one quarter of the NHS workforce, and good healthcare depends absolutely on good nurses.
The NHS should be looking after its nurses, but over many years visiting hospitals and community services—this goes back a long time—I have had too many conversations with nurses who feel that the NHS, or their employer, has not been looking after them. The biggest problem that comes up, going back over many years, is that of staff shortages.
I completely agree with the hon. Member for Bedford that the vacancy rates among NHS nursing teams are too high. They are particularly high for some specialties, such as mental health. There are variations across regions. For instance, in the north-east, Yorkshire and the north-west, the highest vacancies are in ambulance trusts. We also know that there are particular challenges in rural areas, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann), and across the nations of the UK. As we heard from the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), there are challenges in rural parts of Scotland. We heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about the challenges in Northern Ireland, and there are also parts of Wales that are struggling. This is not just a problem in England, but nevertheless I recognise the problem in England. We need plans to address that, and we have plans, which I will come to.
The hon. Member for Bedford also flagged up the importance of safe staffing in the NHS. I absolutely agree that our first priority must be that the NHS is a safe place for patients, and that care is safe. As he will know, trusts call on bank and agency staff, to make sure that they have enough staff to make wards safe. We must appreciate the work of those staff, who do a really important job of stepping in, but, as I have heard from many a ward sister, although they welcome having agency staff to fill the gaps, that is not the same as having a fully staffed team. That is what we really want in the health service. It will make the NHS a great place to work and enable it to provide the best possible care for patients. That is why the Government have committed to 50,000 more nurses, so that staff shortages and those high vacancy rates will be a thing of the past.
Before I talk about how we will find thousands of new nurses, I want to discuss the most fundamental thing we have to do to succeed, which is to keep the nurses that we already have in the NHS. Some hospitals and teams do not have a problem with staff retention, and some have very low attrition rates. In others, we know that staff turnover is a real problem. There is no point in the NHS training up lots of new nurses if we cannot hang on to those who have already been trained.
In order to retain nurses, we need to make sure that each day is a good day. We need to look out for each and every nurse, which is the day-to-day job of the trusts that employ nurses. I want those trusts that are struggling with high attrition rates to adopt more of the good practices of successful trusts. The Government are also going to help.
First, as we have discussed today and as we have heard directly from nurses, more investment in ongoing training and continuous professional development would make a big difference. That is why the Government have committed to giving every NHS nurse a £1,000 training budget on top of the training that employers usually provide. That extra funding should help nurses to advance their careers, to move more easily between different roles and, of course, to provide better care to patients.
Secondly, there will be a new offer for all NHS staff. It will be released alongside the NHS people plan, which will set out the support each and every NHS staff member can expect from their employer, including for professional development and for more choice and control over shifts and working patterns. As several hon. Members have said, NHS staff want more control and flexibility. The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned the importance of flexibility. Nurses may have other caring responsibilities. Some trusts are doing well in this area, others not so well. We want all employers to do what they can to give staff more flexibility and control over their working hours.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response. I know that tax credits, NVQs and time out are not her responsibility, but would she be willing to speak to the Minister with that portfolio to see whether there is any flexibility in the system to enable nurses, especially those with young children, to continue?
Helen Whately
My understanding is that the system in Northern Ireland is different from that in England, so I do not have the answer at my fingertips. I am, however, happy to take up the hon. Gentleman’s question and get back him.
Thirdly, on improving the retention of staff in the NHS, we need to tackle the level of bullying and harassment. The recent NHS staff survey had some really positive results on how NHS staff feel about their work. The Secretary of State and I, however, are greatly concerned about ongoing reports of bullying and harassment that staff experience at the hands of other staff, patients and, sometimes, their families. That is simply not acceptable. We must send out a message, loud and clear, that we will not tolerate the bullying and harassment of staff, whether from other staff or from patients and their families. As a society, we should all be grateful to our NHS staff. Hand in hand with that, we absolutely will not tolerate racism, which is an ongoing problem in some parts of the NHS.
Fourthly, pay has never been the top thing brought up by nurses when I have spoken to them about their concerns, but clearly it is part of the picture. By April this year, we will have increased by 12% the starting salary for new nurses compared with three years ago. More than 200,000 nurses are benefiting from pay rises under the “Agenda for Change” pay deal. Nurses below the top of their pay band have been receiving increases of at least 9%, and those already at the top of their pay band are receiving a pay rise of 6.5% over the course of the “Agenda for Change” pay deal.
I just want to pick up on the point about returning to nursing. The issue of retention also applies to nurses who have, for many reasons, taken time out of nursing. We are very keen that more of those nurses return to work. We are supporting nurses who want to bring back their valuable experience to the NHS. I also want trusts to develop posts that will make the most of those nurses’ experience and to ensure that there is enough flexibility in their shift patterns and ways of working to fit any caring responsibilities they may have.
Jim Shannon
For that to happen and for them to return, there would need to be a database of all former nurses. I am mindful that there will be a statement later about the coronavirus, and a Health Minister has mentioned having a list of people who could come in and help in the event of a pandemic outbreak. If there is such a list, then there must also be a list of former nurses who have left the sector but wish to come back. Is there such a database?
Helen Whately
I have not seen a database. The hon. Member refers to the coronavirus plans, which are very much on my mind as we talk about the immediate and longer-term plans to increase the number of nurses in the NHS. Clearly, we also have the short-term challenge of ensuring that the staff are there, and that work is absolutely in hand. Returners are an important part of it and we need to ensure that we make use of nurses who have already been trained, to boost the NHS workforce. All in all, we want to ensure that the NHS is a great place to work for nurses who return to it and for those working in it right now. The absolute foundation for ensuring that we no longer have nursing shortages is to look after the nurses that we currently have. On that foundation, we can seek to recruit and train new nurses.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I welcome the Minister to her place. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer, I would like to take this opportunity to ask her to come to speak to us about the NHS people plan, if possible.
Helen Whately
I thank the hon. Member for her invitation. As I am new to the job, I am trying to ensure that I speak to as many stakeholders as possible. I would be delighted to talk to APPGs such as the one she chairs, as and when I can.
I turn now to the ambition to increase the number of nurses that we train. The latest UCAS stats show that there have been nearly 36,000 applications to study nursing and midwifery courses at English universities this year, which is about 2,000 more than last year. The new students will benefit from the new £5,000-a-year maintenance grant, an extra £1,000 if they study specialist subjects such as learning disability and mental health nursing—where we have shortages—and a further £1,000 if they study in areas struggling to recruit. There is also further funding available to support childcare costs, and that financial support is in addition to the learning support fund, which provides help with travel costs for placements, childcare and exceptional cases of hardship. That is all in addition to being able to apply for a student loan. Unlike other courses, students applying to nursing, midwifery and many allied healthcare professional courses as a second degree will also qualify for the maintenance grant and for student loans.
I set out the financial support we are offering because I recognise that, as the hon. Member for Bedford has said, it can be hard to afford to study nursing, particularly for mature students. We really want more nursing students. Last year, 23,630 people accepted a place to study nursing or midwifery in England. This year, I want to see more. As I have said, there has already been an increase in applicants, but it is not too late for anyone who has yet to apply. UCAS is accepting late applications up to 30 June, and from 6 July people can apply for a course through clearing.
My message goes out to anyone watching this debate who thinks that nursing is for them: please, get applying. If someone wants to become a nurse, we want to help them—no matter who they are or what their background is. However, we know that university is not the route for everyone, so there are other ways to become a nurse. For instance, the Government have developed the apprenticeship pathway, so people can go from being a healthcare support worker to being a nursing associate, and then to being a nurse. If they want, they can then move on to postgraduate advanced clinical practice and nursing. At present there are nearly 2,000 nurse degree apprentices. Although nursing associates are doing a really important job in their own right, they can become registered nurses via a shortened nursing degree.
The things I have just set out are all about increasing our home-grown nurse force, which is absolutely vital step in ensuring that this country has a sustainable nursing workforce. I am fully aware, however, that we will also need to recruit internationally in order to achieve the ambition of 50,000 new nurses. We cannot do that from the home-grown workforce alone. Many of us, including patients and their families, have good reasons to be grateful to nurses who have come from all over the world to work in our NHS. I am grateful to them.
As we look ahead to including international recruitment as a way to boost our nursing workforce, we do so mindful of the ethics of recruiting from elsewhere. We want to ensure that it works not just for us but for the countries that our nurses come from. We are determined to build bridges with health systems across the world, to share NHS expertise and provide staff who come to work in the NHS with a chance to learn from our health system, just as we benefit from their skills.
The hon. Member for Bedford asked how we plan to increase the nursing numbers by 50,000. In essence, the plan is to improve retention, to support returners to the workforce, to boost our home-grown numbers, and to complement that with international recruitment. In response to questions about when we will publish the NHS people plan, that will be done within the next few months. I have also been asked who is responsible for the workforce. I take the responsibility for workforce in my brief very seriously. I feel very strongly that, from day to day, the biggest determinant of the experience of any nurse or member of the NHS workforce is their employer. NHS employers are responsible for their workforce, and I am keen to see every single trust and NHS organisation investing in and supporting and valuing their staff. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the NHS is only as good as its people. They are great, and we must look after them.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. This has been an important discussion and some good points have been raised. The mere fact that we are having this conversation demonstrates the importance of nurses to us all and to our health system. Some hon. Members talked about a crisis in our NHS and in nursing, but we have to be careful in getting the right balance in the language we use. Yes, we know that it is tough on the frontline, but we also know that nurses and NHS staff more broadly talk about how very rewarding they find their day-to-day work, and about what a wonderful job it is. I have spoken to nurses who tell me that they would never want to do any other job, so it might be helpful to get the right balance.
The hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) says that her experience as a teacher means that she knows how to inspire. I call on her and everyone else to follow that guidance, as we need to ensure that everybody knows that working in the NHS is a great career. The NHS is a great place to work. Let us not talk it down. Let us make sure that we spend time talking it up.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I appreciate the Minister’s comments. I would never talk down a profession that we need and depend on so much. The nurses I have come across, whether from throughout the UK or from overseas, have been absolutely wonderful. We are being positive and want to retain people, and this issue is important to us. Does the Minister agree that this is not just about our healthcare, but about our teachers and public services? We also have a commitment to our consultants, who have a lot of issues and are always overworking to ensure that frontline services continue. Their dedication is absolutely brilliant and we appreciate it.
Helen Whately
I thank the hon. Member for her comments. We can absolutely agree how much we value everyone who works in our public services and with the NHS, including consultants, junior doctors, nurses, nursing associates, healthcare assistants and allied healthcare professionals, as well as every single porter, administrator and member of the management team. I am sure that I have left out some individual roles—healthcare scientists, for example—for which I apologise. The whole NHS workforce has my appreciation.
Jim Shannon
The Minister has mentioned the Government’s commitment to increasing national health service funding. It is important to state for the record that we acknowledge the good things they have done.
Helen Whately
I thank the hon. Gentleman. As he says, I have spoken not only about how much we value the NHS workforce, but about our commitment to increasing NHS funding. The two go hand in hand.
A few Members have mentioned that the number of vacancies stands at well over 40,000. Although I absolutely recognise that those numbers are still far too high, the latest data shows a steady downward trend over the past year. I state for the record that as of the third quarter of 2019-20, the number of vacancies was under 39,000.
I will finish with one more piece of good news: the increasing number of nurses in the NHS. As of November 2019, the latest workforce data shows that we had 290,474 nurses in the NHS in England, which is an increase of 8,570, or 3%, since November 2018, and an increase of nearly 17,000, or 6%, since 2010. The numbers are going in the right direction. We have a long way to go but I am determined that we should get all the way to the extra 50,000 nurses in the NHS, so that nursing staff shortages will soon be a thing of the past.
Mohammad Yasin
I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in this important debate, and thank the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), and the Minister, for their responses.
To be honest, I am disappointed with the Minister’s response. We have heard it many times before. It is time to take solid action. I ask her to read the responses to the digital engagement team’s survey, because she will be shocked by people’s comments, which should be an eye-opener for the Government. We are in crisis when it comes to nursing vacancies and getting nurses into jobs. The Government need to take action now, before it is too late. We cannot afford any more delays.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the nursing workforce shortage in England.
Hammersmith Bridge
(4 years, 9 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
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered a proposal for Government funding for the repair of Hammersmith Bridge.
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. As a fellow London MP, you are no doubt aware of the intricacies of crossing the River Thames.
It is also a great pleasure to see the Minister in her place with her new brief, given how helpful she was at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on the many issues I pestered her with there. I look forward to a favourable response today—I am definitely in buttering-up mode, because I am asking for money.
In the short time we have for this debate, I will do a tour d’horizon of the history, the life, the engineering and the strategic importance of Hammersmith bridge. At the end, however, to spoil the denouement, we come down to one fact. We know where we are going with the methodology, the necessary works—complex as they are—and what to do about temporary river crossings, and although with most of those issues, we do not have a final timescale or costing, we know the ballpark figures. What we do not have, to put it crudely, is the money.
We have had £25 million, which has taken us thus far with the works that are necessary to the bridge, but we need a substantial amount more—at least £100 million beyond that. This debate is my pitch, and that of others, so I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) are present. I think they would agree that if this major strategic river crossing and landmark, an important bridge for London, is to be restored, the co-operation will be required of not only the local authorities, Transport for London and the Greater London Authority, but the Department for Transport.
Baroness Vere is the Minister with direct line of responsibility for the matter, but I am pleased that the Minister present is covering it in the Commons. Since the debate was granted, however, I am grateful that Baroness Vere has agreed to meet me, the hon. Member for Richmond Park and the two borough council leaders most affected on 9 March. I would have loved it if the Minister present had a cheque with her to hand over to me—I would promise to pass it on—but I understand that the discussion is ongoing and may continue at that meeting. Nevertheless, it is useful to set up some of the arguments today, and some of the background, which I will do as briefly as I can.
In four years’ time, we will celebrate the 200th anniversary of the Act of Parliament that granted consent for the first suspension bridge over the River Thames. That bridge was constructed at the cost of £80,000 and opened in 1827. I had a look at the debate on Second Reading, and it was a hotly contented matter. Mr Serjeant Onslow opposed the motion in favour of the bridge. He called the Bill “perfectly uncalled for” and said that:
“There were already two bridges, Kew-bridge and Putney-bridge, within a mile and a half of the site of the intended bridge, which would lead to a part where there were at present hardly any inhabitants.”
That is slightly insulting to the people of Barnes who, no doubt, were busily constructing their community even then.
Sir F. Ommaney spoke in favour of the Bill. He
“complained strongly of the insecure state of Putney-bridge. Not long since, a friend of his happened to be riding over that bridge, when the fore-feet of his horse sank into a hole, and both horse and rider were placed in a most perilous situation.” —[Official Report, 13 April 1824; Vol. 11, c. 397-98.]
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose, for anyone who has driven or walked over Hammersmith bridge in the past few years.
The bridge we know now, the famous landmark, is the finest of the Thames bridges, although I am obviously prejudiced. It is the work of Joseph Bazalgette, who is perhaps more famous for constructing the London sewer system on which we all still rely today. This bridge was proposed in the 1870s as a consequence of 12,000 people crowding on to the old bridge to watch the boat race, the belief being that it was in danger of collapse. Again, we may have to restrict numbers later this month for the boat race—little seems to change over time. In 1884, a temporary bridge was put up—we are discussing such issues again—until finally the bridge that we all know and love today was erected, on the piers of the original bridge.
The current bridge opened in 1887, but its piers are still those of the original 1827 bridge. That is relevant today because, had there been a renovation scheme to restore or replace the piers, that might have brought the bridge up to a much heavier standard of weight, allowing many more heavy vehicles to go across it. Again, that would have been a huge additional investment, even beyond the large sums being proposed today—so we will still be using the 1827 piers.
Most of the rest of the superstructure of the bridge needs substantial replacement. One of the reasons is that over the years Hammersmith bridge has three times been the target of IRA bombing, the first time in April 1939. Again looking at Hansard, I see that a Mr Childs—Maurice Childs, a hairdresser from Chiswick —found the bomb while walking across the bridge and had the foresight to throw it off. It exploded, causing some damage to the bridge but saving the main structure, for which he was awarded an MBE following the debate in Parliament.
The two more recent examples of bombing were more serious. The 1996 bomb did not detonate—the Semtex did not go off—fortunately, because at the time it was the largest Semtex bomb ever found in Britain and it would have destroyed the bridge had it done so. Four years later, post the Good Friday agreement, the bridge was damaged by a Real IRA bomb planted underneath the Barnes span. That, in part, led to one of the substantial closures of the bridge. Sadly, the post-war history of the bridge has been a succession of closures over time.
Another debate was held on the 1952 closure, when 13,000 vehicles a day were passing over the bridge—that is slightly more than half the current number—and 2,700 pedal cycles, which I add for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth, who chairs the all-party group for cycling and walking. In response to the proposed closure, Mr Williams suggested
“half closing the bridge or giving the Royal Engineers some practice in building a Bailey bridge across the river”.—[Official Report, 23 June 1952; Vol. 502, c. 1821.]
Again, we are talking in exactly those same terms now—what the degree of closure needs to be and what temporary bridges need to be put in place. So the 1952 closure was significant. Major refurbishments took place in 1973 and again in 1987. In 1997, an 18-month closure of the bridge was for major works. Following that came the substantial restrictions—down to 7.5 tonnes and a limited number of buses—that have gone on until the present day.
The point of rehearsing all that ancient history is that this is not new to those of us familiar with the bridge. Hammersmith bridge is in a different category from many other bridges over the Thames. It is a largely cast-iron and wooden structure. There is no other example—I think it is unique in the world in how it is constructed. That makes it rather like Hammersmith flyover which we had a similar problem with some years ago—a unique structure that required major closures, and £70 million of expenditure—and the bridge, too, will need a radical solution. One good thing coming out of the current closure is that everybody is agreed on a way forward: we have to do sufficient work to give the bridge a long life into the future. A further patch-up job, or even further substantive repair jobs of the type done previously, clearly will not work.
Where are we in the scheme? Thanks to the £25 million that TfL put up when the closure initially happened last April, there has been no impediment to works going forward: the scoping, the planning and feasibility studies defining what is necessary in terms of both the stabilising works and the major works to the bridge. Within a month or two, we will be in a position to let those contracts and to ensure that the work progresses. Although it is taking a substantial amount of time, there is general understanding that it has to be done properly in that way.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on a matter of utmost importance in my constituency, and I am pleased to have an opportunity to contribute. While we are considering Government funding to repair Hammersmith bridge, I urge the Minister to consider the difficulties that the bridge closure is causing my constituents in Barnes and further afield. Residents are unable to get to their hospital appointments and face much longer journeys to work. Should the Minister come to Barnes, East Sheen and Mortlake, she would see the appalling congestion being caused. Local businesses tell me that they are suffering reduced takings as a result of the bridge closure.
TfL is reporting that something in the region of 9,000 daily journeys have now dispersed as a result of the bridge closure. While we welcome fewer cars on the road, we should consider the economic and social opportunity cost of the journeys that are not being made.
Andy Slaughter
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. One of the ironies is that, while many people are affected by the closure, it is those who need to travel into London from the south, including residents of Barnes and Richmond and those from wider afield—the residents of Brentford and Isleworth, Hammersmith, Fulham and Battersea—who are caused additional congestion because of the build-up of traffic going over Putney, Wandsworth and Chiswick bridges.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
May I wish you a belated happy birthday, Ms McDonagh? My hon. Friend mentioned the impact on a much wider area than merely Hammersmith borough and Richmond borough. Parts of Hounslow, particularly Chiswick and Brentford, have suffered major congestion since the closure of Hammersmith bridge to vehicle traffic. The economic impact that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) described affects a big area. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to consider the bridge as major infrastructure? I hope they will work with all the local authorities affected, and the MPs, to come to a positive solution.
Andy Slaughter
It is no laughing matter for those severely inconvenienced by longer journey times and the changes to their life that have to be made. We take infrastructure such as this for granted; when it breaks down, it causes major problems way beyond the local area or even region.
There are two matters on which there is clear consensus now. The first is whether the bridge should reopen at least to its previous capacity. I totally understand that cycling and other groups suggest that this could be an opportunity to permanently close the bridge to motor traffic. Analysis by TfL shows that cost-benefit ratio of reopening is 5.8:1, which is very high. Essentially, to relieve the congestion on other river crossings and to make that part of London function again —as much as it ever does in terms of traffic movement—it is a bit of a no-brainer. It is regrettable since we want to promote cycling and walking, and I hope we can hang on to the huge increase in those forms of travel over the bridge. We particularly need bus traffic to be restored, because the bridge is a major bus route, with 24,000 people a day crossing it by bus, as well as more than 20,000 private vehicles.
The second point is the issue of how to go about the works. There is consensus on the need for a temporary bridge for cycling and walking—the previous Minister made that clear in a letter to the hon. Member for Richmond Park. There were moves to have a temporary motor bridge, but for many reasons that I will not go into—cost, feasibility, disruption and destruction of private property—that would not be possible. We need a temporary foot and cycling bridge; although it will cost a substantial amount of money, it will come out of the TFL money already allocated and will allow the major works to go on unimpeded and more safely on the main bridge. I think that is decided. I believe a brief was sent by TfL to the Ministry in preparation for this debate and for the meeting with Baroness Vere, which sets out clearly what the methodology will be.
The separate closure of the bridge last year was a matter of safety, when hairline microfractures were discovered in the cast-iron casing around the pedestals that hold the suspension chains. Sadly, that having happened, a major structural survey at the time showed that the corrosion to the suspension mechanisms, the bearings, the decking and so forth means that substantial parts of the bridge will have to be replaced. It will end up like the broom that has had its head replaced three times and its handle four times, but I am sure it will look magnificent when it is finished and reopened.
I will finish speaking soon to allow the Minister to reply. We have allocated, if not spent, the £25 million that has come from TfL. It is not in a position to add to that. I will not go through the argument about the subsidy that has been withdrawn or the restrictions on using its capital on assets it does not own. TfL has stepped up to the plate; its expertise and, frankly, its money, has been very useful to get us this far and to ensure that time is not wasted and works delayed.
Equally, Hammersmith and Fulham council has reacted responsibly, as has the London Borough of Richmond. I pay tribute to Stephen Cowan and Gareth Roberts, the leaders of those two boroughs, who have worked co-operatively together in the interests of their populations and residents. As a borough, Hammersmith, notwithstanding other restrictions on its budget over the last few years, is not in a position to come up with money. Those are not controversial statements to make.
We have to look to Government when major strategic assets fail. That is the case in most of the rest of the country. The large local majors scheme, which is available and which TfL’s bid addresses, is in funds and is available for this type of work in other parts of the country. The proposition is that, if the Department for Transport accepts that the bridge is part of the strategic road network, it has to reopen to at least its previous capacity to cover single-decker electric buses, as well as similar weights of general vehicle traffic as previously. That will cost a substantial amount of money—at least £120 million on current estimates, and the final estimates will come in a few weeks’ time. Crucially, very soon within the next couple of months, work will stop. Even if there is still some money in the kitty, one cannot go on engaging contractors if the money is not there to pay them to do the stabilisation and major works over the next couple of years. That is what we are looking to the Department to fund.
I hope I get some encouraging noises from the Minister, even if she has not brought the cheque with her. Locally, there is a lot of co-operation between politicians of all stripes, because we see the absolute necessity of this work; as I said, it is a bit of a no-brainer. We must get the bridge reopened as quickly as possible and restore it at least to its former weight-bearing ability. I look to the Minister at least to give us some encouragement, and I hope that we can progress discussions quickly over the next few weeks so we can get on with the project.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Kelly Tolhurst)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I, too, wish you a belated happy birthday.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) on securing this debate on an important issue for London and its residents. Hammersmith bridge is a key Thames crossing. The Government recognise its vital importance to the residents of London and the concern about the additional congestion caused by its closure. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his constructive tone and the way he tends to engage on all these issues.
I totally understand the strength of feeling about this issue. Picking up on the interventions by the hon. Members for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), I understand completely the challenges when a bridge closure affects a Member’s constituency. I represent a constituency that straddles a river, so I understand the challenges for residents and for people’s ability to get on with their lives when a bridge is taken out of play.
Although I represent Rochester and Strood, I have had the pleasure of passing under Hammersmith bridge, so I am not completely ignorant of its beauty. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith outlined, the bridge was constructed in 1887 and was originally built for horses, carts and penny-farthings. It has done remarkably well considering the volume of traffic it has taken over the years, not to mention the number of terrorist attacks it has suffered. It is not just a beautiful bridge with important heritage considerations, but a marvellous piece of Victorian engineering and the first suspension bridge built over the Thames.
The Government support the efforts to repair Hammersmith bridge and bring it back into operation in a cost-effective and speedy manner. However, we must recognise that it is for the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, as the owner of the bridge, to assess the merits of different funding options for its repair. Local highways authorities such as Hammersmith and Fulham Council have a duty under section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 to maintain the highways network in their area. The 1980 Act does not set out specific standards of maintenance, as it is for each local highways authority to assess which parts of its network are in need of repair, based on its local knowledge and circumstances.
The use of the bridge by people further afield does not change that responsibility. There will of course be instances around the country of highways assets being used by those who are not resident in the area. The Government provide funding for local authorities in England, including London boroughs, to direct towards their local priorities. That is in addition to the funding provided to London boroughs through the local implementation plan process by Transport for London to help implement the Mayor’s transport strategy.
Although the bridge is owned by Hammersmith and Fulham, I am pleased that TfL, which has considerable expertise in this area, is working closely with the borough on options for repair. It is further encouraging that TfL has already committed £25 million towards repair works, as the hon. Gentleman outlined. I also welcome the two proposals that TfL, with Hammersmith and Fulham, recently submitted to the Department for a funding contribution towards the repairs needed to the bridge. The Department is considering those proposals in the context of other funding requests and in view of the devolution settlement for London. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the meeting next week with my colleague Baroness Vere, who is the roads Minister, and the deputy mayor for transport. I know Baroness Vere is looking forward very much to working with colleagues on this issue.
London is, of course, one of the most vibrant and dynamic cities in the world. The Government recognise London’s important contribution to the UK’s economy and culture, and will continue to support its growth and success while delivering on our levelling up agenda. Although London no longer receives a revenue grant from the Government, the Mayor now receives a greater proportion of business rates income, allowing him to direct that funding towards his priorities. That funding is a significant proportion of TfL’s overall income.
The capital’s transport system is critical to its ongoing success. That is why we have continued to invest in transformative projects in London, including Crossrail and the Thameslink upgrade. We have also invested through the housing infrastructure fund; London will benefit from around £500 million to fund a number of transport interventions across the capital, to unlock and facilitate the delivery of some of the housing that it desperately needs.
I understand that closures of this kind can be very disruptive to constituents and their representatives, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. I am glad to see Hammersmith and Fulham and TfL working so closely on this issue for the benefit of their residents, and I encourage them to continue that close working relationship. I hope that sustainable transport modes will be considered fully and given the importance they deserve as plans for the repair of the bridge are developed and refined, and that the bridge can be made safe and resilient for the future.
Andy Slaughter
I got a press release today from the RAC Foundation, which states that there are 3,000 sub-standard—that is, not fully weight-bearing—bridges in the UK, so this case is not unique. However, it gives a figure of just over £1 billion for bringing all those bridges up to standard, so clearly Hammersmith is a major project. It is a bigger project than a local authority can sustain. I wonder whether the Minister can give us any comfort about the large local majors scheme and indicate whether it will be available at least to consider a bid by TfL and the boroughs.
Kelly Tolhurst
The hon. Gentleman is right. Of course, much of the significant infrastructure across the country, including bridges, is very old and may have a chequered maintenance history. It will always be a challenge to ensure that our infrastructure is invested in and maintained in the right way, in order to deliver for all our residents across the country.
As I said, we have received the proposal from TfL for the repair works, and that is being considered. Baroness Vere welcomes the opportunity to work with hon. Members and the council at the meeting I mentioned to try to find a way of bringing Hammersmith bridge—a significant landmark and a piece of engineering that is loved by many—back into use for the benefit of everybody.
Question put and agreed to.
Housing and Planning
(4 years, 9 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
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Colleagues, before I call Mr O’Brien to move the motion, I note that there are a lot of speakers. If you intend to speak, I advise you to be parsimonious with interventions, because it is possible that some speakers will be crowded out.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered housing and planning.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. It is good to see so many colleagues here and I particularly welcome our brilliant new Housing Minister. I will talk about the wider reforms needed in planning and housing, but I want to start with not the where or what of what we build, but some of the problems caused by the way in which the development industry behaves.
The first problem is what has come to be known as fleeceholding. It has become the norm for bits of new estates, such as car parks and public areas, to be handed over to property management companies for their upkeep, with residents paying for it. Instead of being maintained by the council, the property management company steps in and offers to adopt those responsibilities more cheaply than the council would. Often, however, it makes a cheaper offer only because it is working on the assumption that it will be able to dramatically increase bills.
Several neighbourhoods in my constituency are up in arms about opaque and rapidly rising bills from these property management companies. For example, around Windlass Drive in my constituency, 120 households are charged £60 each to mow around a tiny balancing pond that is much smaller than this Chamber. Absurdly, while the council mows a much bigger area all around it, someone comes down all the way from Derby to mow that last tiny area. That fragmentation increases the costs to householders, and that cost is passed on to people in the form of higher bills. Likewise, residents of Coleridge Way were at one point asked to pay £300 a week for someone to drive over from Solihull to inspect a playground. Four households in Farndon Fields were asked to pay £2,400 for the maintenance of a tiny piece of car park, consisting of no more than 30 minutes’ work over five years. That is £2,400 for 30 minutes’ work—nice work if you can get it, Sir Charles.
These maintenance companies are opaque, and people who move out often have to pay them substantial fees to get the documentation they need. The Homeowners Rights Network and the National Leasehold Campaign have compiled many such horror stories. We could easily have a debate on fleeceholding alone. Having found that some companies have in fact broken the law, the Competition and Markets Authority is now taking action. I hope that the Minister will also take action against bad practice that falls below the threshold of criminal behaviour—the industry is full of cowboys—because my constituents are sick of wasting their time battling unfair bills.
The second problem with development is that of inappropriate access to sites. Residents who moved into new homes on Farndon Fields were told that there would be no development next to them for decades. That was not true. When a different developer got planning permission to build a new estate right next to them, it got an access route agreed that goes through their estate. It goes through tiny, narrow streets, past a playground and down a tiny cul-de-sac. There is mud all over the roads and huge lorries revving their engines outside people’s houses in the early hours of the morning. People on that estate face years of misery. We tried to get the developer to use a different, better access route through a field, but when pressed it said that the farmer was asking for too much money so it was not possible. In the end, the council did not want to be taken to tribunal, so it gave the developer that access route.
I have no idea how much the farmer was asking for, but if the Minister could find a way of creating a better way for councils and developers to secure temporary access routes that avoid disruption to huge numbers of households—it could be a temporary compulsory purchase order or some other solution that provides better access that is not obnoxious to residents—that would be very welcome.
Another big problem in my constituency this winter has, of course, been the flooding caused by inadequate drainage from building sites. Developers typically start work by scraping off the topsoil and only put in the drainage late in the construction process. This year, over winter, many have been caught short, as inadequate, temporary drainage has been overwhelmed by the amount of water. For example, on Kingston Way, developers caused huge flooding on the roads and flooding of people’s gardens. They have built a pathetic little muddy sandcastle to try to direct water down the drain. It is a pathetic reflection on an industry that constantly claims to have compassionate constructors. Again, some of that is for local councils to sort out, but if the Minister has an opportunity to change national guidance about the phasing of drainage works on new sites, that would be very welcome.
Another problem with construction practices is about how planning conditions are often violated, with it being difficult for councils to enforce them. Builders work beyond the hours they are permitted to work, lorries park in residential streets and firms fail to honour commitments on wheel washing, so residents end up tramping huge amounts of mud into their new carpets. At the moment, the onus is totally on the council to take developers to court, which is very cumbersome. I encourage the Minister to look at making it much easier for councils to enforce breaches of the rules through some kind of bond system or fixed penalty notice, because developers need to know that if they consistently breach the rules, they will face sure and swift sanctions, and it will cost them money if they break the rules.
The final set of issues with the industry’s behaviour relates to adoption. On Devana Way in my constituency, developers sold houses on new, tree-lined streets. It was beautiful, lovely, and people really liked the trees. However, the developer, after selling the houses to people, had a dispute with the council over adoption, which it solved simply by turning up one morning and ripping out all the trees. Wonderful! I do not see why any developer should be allowed to go ahead with constructing a new estate if it has not already secured agreement on who will maintain it. Developments should not go ahead without clear agreements on adoption and who will maintain what.
Those are some of the things we need to do to change developer behaviour in the industry. I now turn to the bigger picture. We need four or five big changes to the way in which we approach planning and housing policy. First, we need a clearer vision of where we want to build. I believe we must do more of it in our cities, because there are strong environmental and social arguments for that. It means more walking, better public health, less congestion, less pollution and lower energy use. As the Create Streets think-tank has pointed out, having denser cities does not have to mean ugly tower blocks. The densest neighbourhoods in all of Europe are in Barcelona and the densest in Britain are in Kensington, which are nice places to live. Britain currently has the least dense cities in Europe. We also have many cities that have shrunk, with Dundee, Glasgow, Liverpool, Sunderland, Birkenhead, Hull and Newcastle all having smaller populations in 2017 than in 1981.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his speech on this important subject. I very much admire and agree with what he has previously said on urban regeneration. Does he agree that, at its best, urban regeneration provides not only more new supply, but better supply for existing tenants and leaseholders, and that it also helps us avoid disproportionate development in precious green spaces?
Neil O'Brien
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. That is why we must change the objectively assessed need process and choose to build more in our cities. We must support such developments and do all the other things required to support their levelling up.
Secondly, we need a clear vision of what kind of development we want, because while there will always be some developments in the shires and suburban areas, at the moment we mainly have piecemeal infill-type development tacked on to the edge of villages. Developers prefer that, because it is much more profitable as they do not have to pay for the new GP surgery, the new school, the new road and so on. Instead, those developments piggyback on existing facilities. Infill is the type of development that attracts the most opposition. That is not surprising, because it takes place next to existing residents who have chosen to live on the edge of a village or town to get a nice view.
There are physical limits to how much can be added to a place without it losing its character, because roads through the centre of a village become congested and cannot be widened, and the village school cannot be expanded even if the money is available, because it is completely surrounded by houses. In larger strategic developments, which lots of councils now want to move towards, developers do not build next to so many existing residents, the infrastructure can be planned properly and people do not have to live on arterial roads. Let us give councils the tools, the fiscal firepower and the legal ability to have genuinely planned development, not a free-for-all.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member on the debate. Does he agree that it would be good for the Government to look again at permission in principle, which means that councils have even less grip on strategic planning control and residents have absolutely no means of complaining, raising objections or having their concerns taken into account?
Neil O'Brien
I certainly agree that it would be desirable to get rid of outline planning permission, which many developers use to get a foot in the door and then have councils over a barrel. However, if we are going to give councils the power to have a proper plan-led system, we need to ensure that we have a better system for development to pay its own way.
Part of the opposition to new housing comes from the fact that too often it comes without the necessary infrastructure. Without new schools or roads, the GP’s surgery and everything around the new housing becomes more congested and, of course, people object to that. People see developers making humungous profits while the infrastructure is either not provided at all or the cost is dumped on the taxpayer.
Section 106, the way in which councils currently get developer contributions, is totally dysfunctional. Councils cannot use it to fund recurrent expenditure or anything that meets an existing need in the community. It can only fund a new need that is tied to the new development. Contributions are tied to specific purposes, so if what the community wants changes in five years’ time, that is tough luck.
Given that collection is fragmented among lots of authorities—fire, police, health, county and district councils—developers sometimes get away without paying. They can hold off making payments by staying below certain trigger thresholds, and if they are able to hold off for long enough, the opportunity to build a new village hall, for example, is often lost. If a community has only rolled up enough contributions within a specific time period to pay for half a new school, for example, then it gets nothing and the money goes back to the developers. In 2014, the BBC found that councils had returned to developers £1.5 billion that had been intended for the community. When my constituents read that, they are outraged.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on making an excellent speech about these important issues. A number of housing developments that have been built in my constituency over the past few years do not have adequate broadband connections. Does he agree that investment in infrastructure should be extended to include connectivity? Developers and councils should work together to ensure that no new developments can be constructed until adequate broadband connections have been demonstrated.
Neil O'Brien
My hon. Friend is right. Broadband is one of the benefits that people seek from new development. Mandates are one potential way to secure such benefits. The broader change that I would like to be made is the removal of all restrictions that depend on section 106 and for the system to be replaced with something that is more fit for purpose.
Beyond the need to create a better system for contributions, we need to give councils other tools to create better quality and more planned development. In my constituency, there is an old rubber factory that is two minutes’ walk from a mainline station, which is only an hour from London. It is the perfect site to build on, but despite the fact that the council gave planning permission in 2004, nothing has happened because there is nothing to disincentivise the owners from simply sitting on their hands. We need to learn from the USA and from other countries in Europe, and give councils the power to buy land, to grant themselves planning permission and to take more of a leading role in development. The current situation is a legal minefield, so I believe we should reform the Land Compensation Act 1961.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate and for making a fantastic speech. The planning system is so frustrating. Isle of Wight Council does not have a housing revenue account, so it does not have access to the billions of pounds of funding. On the Island we are desperate to build one and two-bedroom properties, rather than being deluged with endless planning applications for low density, greenfield houses for folks to retire to the Island. Does he agree that we need a more flexible system that caters for the needs of specific communities, especially isolated island communities?
Neil O'Brien
My hon. Friend is completely correct. People want a proper plan-led system. Other countries achieve that by allowing local government to play a stronger role in determining where things go.
We must reform the 1961 Act to make it clear that buyers can pay current market use values for land rather inflated hope values. We should stop land prices being bid up in the first place, by stopping sites going through the plan-making process on the assumption that developers are going to get away without paying for infrastructure. We should turn Homes England into a flying squad to help councils plan and deliver brownfield regeneration. We must make sure that council planning departments are well enough resourced to retain good staff. It is a difficult industry where the poachers, as it were, can pay people a lot of money, and local councils often struggle to hang on to good staff.
My final proposed reform to the planning system is to reboot neighbourhood planning so that it can fulfil its potential. Many places in my constituency have drawn up neighbourhood plans, and people have given a lot of time to them. In some cases they have been a force for good and shaped the way in which, and where, things get built. In other cases, however, they have taken so long to draw up that developers have front-run them. Too many are lengthy and lack the one thing that would give them real bite, which is a map of where development does and does not go.
We should radically simplify and speed up the process of making neighbourhood plans. They should all have a clear map of where development does and does not go. Where councils are planning sensibly, we must give them more legal weight. As I argued in a report for the think-tank Onward, we should reward outstanding councils by making them exempt from any appeal to the planning inspector.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a thoughtful speech. Does he agree that democratic accountability is fundamental to this process? Is he, like me, concerned about the rumours, which I hope are not true—I am looking at the Minister—that the Government are considering changing planning law so that developers will get automatic planning permission, regardless of the quality of their design, if they make an application in an area zoned for housing? Does he agree that democratically that would be completely unacceptable?
Neil O'Brien
My right hon. Friend makes a thoughtful contribution. It depends what we mean by a plan-led system. It is right that councils should be clear about where development is going, but I worry about anything that would ride roughshod over the wishes of local people, so I agree with my right hon. Friend on that point.
There is much to fix in our planning and housing system. The current rules seem almost perfectly set up to cause a huge amount of grief and political friction, and to deliver a relatively small amount of housing, because they push development in the wrong places, without the necessary infrastructure. If we change the system, we can keep green and pleasant those places we value most, but also ensure that the average family can get a house they can afford. We are fortunate that we have exactly the right Minister to deliver that huge reform.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Order. I will impose a four-minute limit to start with, but it will probably drop to three minutes.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) for securing the debate and for raising a series of important issues about the planning system. I agree with him that the Land Compensation Act 1961 is in urgent need of reform. In fact, I introduced a Private Member’s Bill in the last Parliament to exactly that end.
We need to remove hope value from the planning system. Lest any Member is in doubt about why that is important, I give the example of a site in the middle part of Southwark—not in my constituency—that became vacant with an existing use value of £5 million, but was put on the market by the developer with an auction starting value of £25 million. That tells us about some of the gross injustices in our housing and planning system. The system recognises the right of a landowner to a windfall value of £20 million, over and above the right of residents in Southwark to genuinely affordable council homes on the same piece of land.
Reform is important, but cannot be limited to looking at hope value. That is important, but unless we also reform the definition of an affordable home, homes that are not affordable to the vast majority will continue to be built in this country. In my constituency, a definition of affordability recognises homes of up to 80% of market rental value as affordable. They are simply not affordable to the vast majority of my constituents.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
As a fellow MP from London and the south-east, does my hon. Friend agree that the current policy has a disproportionate impact on local communities? There are severe shortages of professionals in key parts of the public sector and for some private sector employers. We have a huge shortage of NHS staff in Berkshire, as she probably knows. There is also a shortage of people for key commercial businesses.
Helen Hayes
My hon. Friend raises an important point. That is certainly true of some key public services, such as King’s College Hospital in my constituency, where staff are moving further and further away from the hospital because they cannot afford to live close to it. It is a widespread issue.
Recently the Government have come forward with mooted proposals to increase the cap on the Help to Buy scheme to £600,000 within its affordable housing programme. It beggars belief that the Government think that that will do anything to address genuine housing need in this country.
I want to highlight one further aspect of the planning system that needs urgent attention: permitted development rights. In the last Parliament, the Government expanded permitted development rights. They did so against all advice from the sector, resulting in examples of the most appalling accommodation being delivered across the country, with office accommodation being converted into homes without full planning permission.
There are a number of things wrong with this system. The first is that in bypassing the planning system, a number of the checks on quality of design and space standards are being bypassed altogether. Section 106 opportunities are also being lost, so those homes are not contributing anything to public or open space or to facilities in in the surrounding area.
Those homes being delivered under permitted development rights that are good enough and of a standard would not have had a problem getting through the planning system, so I fail to understand why the Government are continuing to cut the planning system out of this important aspect of housing delivery. We cannot be delivering the slums of tomorrow in order to satisfy spreadsheets today. It simply will not do. It has to stop. I hope the Minister, in responding to the debate, will say some positive things about the need to scrap permitted development rights, rather than expanding them further.
Finally, our planning system has a vital role to play in combating climate change. The relationship between the built environment and climate change is substantial, and unless we fully resource our planning system and enable local authorities to play the fullest possible role in place-making and in driving up standards of insulation and carbon reduction in new development and in new housing, we will not achieve the level of carbon reduction that we need to in order to resolve the climate emergency, and we will still be building homes today that will need to be retrofitted tomorrow. I end with that point, calling on the Government to resource our planning system properly and to recognise the role that it has in facilitating and delivering the high-quality homes we need to build, at scale, in order to resolve both our housing crisis and the climate emergency.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) for securing this debate and for its importance, since no one in this Chamber or elsewhere would deny the need to ensure that we get the right kind of housing for the people who need it most.
While we look at how we get access to affordable housing, I will talk a little bit about how I believe local authorities are as much part of the problem as they are of the solution. I wonder whether the Minister could have a look at the charges that local authorities, including Cornwall Council, are applying to small businesses—small builders and small developers who are trying to solve the problem of ensuring that people have the housing they need.
There are high and, in my view, largely unnecessary charges demanded of small builders as a result of Cornwall Council’s policies. I am sure the same is true elsewhere. For example, just to get and complete the form on the Government website regarding section 106, Cornwall Council charges a legal fee of in excess of £1,200. It also demands that over £300 is spent on getting a market valuation to genuinely confirm that a property is affordable.
The community infrastructure levy, introduced by Labour in 2010 but not taken up by Cornwall Council until last year, can add hundreds of pounds per square metre to every house built, just adding to the cost of the affordable home to the person who is trying to get hold of it. The Minister has powers to scrap the community infrastructure levy, and the irony is that Cornwall Council has not yet fully determined how it will spend that money.
That is all in addition to the normal fees that a developer has to secure. Let us bear in mind that in places such as Cornwall, these are often very small builders, who are trying to train good people in the trade and make housing happen. These are additional fees to the fees demanded for planning approval.
Another thing that Cornwall Council has done recently, which on the face of it looks fantastic, is to increase the amount of money that can be charged for a property’s remaining empty—again, because the Government have allowed it. It is absolutely the right thing to do, but when someone comes along to purchase a property to bring it back into use, there is no exception made whatsoever, and they continue to pay that fee, additional to council tax, right until the house is lived in.
I have met the council and asked for that to be reviewed. The council says there are no exceptions, but the Minister may want to look at how councils are using the additional charge, which slows down the ability to bring homes back into use and improve their efficiency. It is right that the council apply the charge, but there must be some flexibility when people are trying to do something right by it.
Finally, the Minister may be aware that his Department has recently received guidance from No. 10 about how to ensure that affordable homes can be made available so that people can gain access to them. I have been working with an organisation called Rentplus; the rent-to-buy model is simple and provides homes, often on stalled sites, which my hon. Friend described earlier. The properties are built using pension funds, which we all know are not earning huge amounts of money for those investing in them.
The properties thus come at no cost to the taxpayer or to Homes England, but they provide houses for working families. Those working families get an affordable rent for as long as they need the home, and then they have the opportunity to buy it at a later point. It is called rent to buy and it is a really good model, but Cornwall Council refuses to allow it to be delivered in Cornwall. The group I am working with, Rentplus, has probably £200 million that it would like to spend in Cornwall. It identifies 800 homes that would have been built if it had been able to do so. Will the Minister look at the guidance that No. 10 has provided, to give Cornwall Council and others encouragement to use models such as rent to buy?
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harborough, who made an excellent speech, and I congratulate him on securing this important debate.
Like everybody else, I feel there is a whole range of issues that we could address when it comes to housing and planning, so I will be specific and talk about planning and regulation relating to those homes that are not typically lived in. In my constituency, roughly a minimum of 7,000 properties are not lived in. They are second homes, boltholes owned by people who can afford more than one home. It is not their principal home. That is not even beginning to count the number of holiday lets, which are an important part of the tourism economy in the lakes and the western dales.
We also have a more recent development with the rise of Airbnb. I want to be very clear that Airbnb, like all technology, is neutral; it is what we do with it that gives it moral value for or against. I can think of many advantages of affordable holidays for people, and I can think of advantages for people who have holiday lets on the platform. It is also a way of making good use of space.
There is a lot that is good about Airbnb, but there are some problems as well. Research conducted for The Guardian just a few weeks ago showed that one in five houses in the Langdales, in Ambleside and in part of Windermere were on Airbnb. Many of those will be in estates that would not typically house second homes or even holiday lets, so it is clear that there is a movement out of the full-time, affordable family market into homes that are being used simply for rental. That is deeply troubling, and I would like the Government to look at it.
I would also like the Government to understand that although in a free society people should be allowed to use their money however they wish, the excess of second homes in communities such as mine can become deeply problematic. When we think that probably 80% to 90% of homes in certain Lake District villages are not lived in all year round, it is no surprise that beautiful places such as Dent and Langdale—wonderful communities at opposite ends of my constituency, one in the lakes, one in the Yorkshire dales—have school rolls of less than 30. Why? Because the majority of the homes that could send children to those schools are owned by people who do not occupy them or add much in the way of economic value to the community.
So what would I like the Government to do? I would like them to tackle this matter, as they have been promising for many months now. I ask the Minister in particular to address this. The Government have had a consultation, which closed in January 2019. They have still to act upon it and say whether or not they are going to close the loophole, as the Welsh Assembly have done, that allows some second home owners to game the system and avoid not only paying business rates, but paying council tax altogether. A conservative estimate in my constituency is that second home owners using that loophole are costing local council tax payers in the south lakes at least £3 million a year.
Will the Minister close that loophole, as the Welsh Assembly have? Will he also look at changing planning law, so that having a second home is actually a separate category of planning use from having a first home, so we can regulate the amount of second home ownership in places such as the lakes and the dales? Will he allow councils to look at raising council tax in certain areas, to create a disincentive and allow a redistribution of income in national parks in particular?
Finally, will the Minister look at the Airbnb market, recognising its value and the contribution it makes, but also recognising that a lack of regulation, health and safety applications, insurance and other things may make it an unfair competitor, added to the fact that Airbnb seems to be taking away houses from the affordable market for local families in the lakes? Those issues are a challenge that a Government ought to be addressing.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. In the time I have, I will address some broader aspects of housing policy.
The manifesto on which my party fought and won the 1951 general election stated:
“Housing is the first of the social services. It is also one of the keys to increased productivity. Work, family life, health and education are all undermined by overcrowded homes. Therefore a Conservative and Unionist Government will give housing a priority second only to national defence.”
Those are sentiments I completely agree with. I wonder why politicians realised that then, whereas many seem to have forgotten it today. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on his promotion, but the fact that he is the 10th Housing Minister in the past 10 years perhaps offers an interesting perspective on the order of national priorities.
Centre for Policy Studies’ analysis shows that the 2010s saw the fewest new houses built in England since the second world war, but the same could have been said for the 2000s, the 1990s and probably every decade before that for the past half century. The inability of Governments of both political persuasions in the past few decades to address the housing challenge—indeed, crisis—means that the simple laws of supply and demand push house prices even higher. The House of Commons Library suggests that the national average house price hovers around the £250,000 mark.
In a new development in my constituency, the new town of Charlton Hayes, a new three-bedroom end-terrace house now fetches more than £330,000, while a four-bedroom family home costs more than £400,000. This is simply unsustainable. My constituency is by many measures prosperous; unemployment is under 1.5% and weekly earnings substantially outstrip both the regional and national average. However, in terms of affordability, that house in Charlton Hayes costing a third of a million pounds is 10 times the average annual wage for the area.
What I call the housing crisis relates not only to the private sector but to the overall lack of housing generally, including council housing and social housing; there is a chronic shortage of homes for our people. We must consider the crucial value of social housing, which provides homes for families and for key workers, many on low incomes, who are needed if our communities are to flourish.
It is time that many of us in this House started taking responsibility for the situation that has evolved. Too many hon. Members have allowed themselves to be turned into nimbys. Even in the Minister’s Department, the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), my constituency neighbour, does not seem to believe in building homes and has made a virtue of opposing all local development in his constituency. How many hon. Members have churned out election leaflet after election leaflet advocating the need for local homes that local people can afford and then opposed just about every single planning application that has come forward in order to court the support of those fortunate enough to already be on the property ladder?
In the post-war era, Britain faced a similar housing crisis, and a Conservative Government solved it. Macmillan oversaw a housebuilding programme that built 2.8 million homes in the 1950s and 3.6 million in the 1960s. That is the scale on which we have to act today. As the working-class son of immigrants, one of the many reasons I became a Conservative was because of the aspiration that our party promoted and believed in. Our party also understood the pride people took in home ownership and the benefits thereof. John Major, in his first speech to our party conference as Prime Minister in 1991, called it
“the power to choose the right to own.”
What are we offering some of our young people today? Some £50,000 of student debt and a room in a shared house if they are lucky.
I have witnessed colleagues rejoice as local housing supply plans for my local council area were consigned to the bin. We were told that the council would now have to come up with a new plan. Do they realise the time that will take and the cost of making those huge applications, and that, within the often several-year timespans involved, political control of the council may have changed, and the whole process may have to start all over again?
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I will talk about Mostyn House in Parkgate, which was originally a boarding school and is now a listed building. Once the school closed, the site was certainly attractive to developers.
Revised plans to build apartments into the fabric of the old school were submitted halfway through its redevelopment. Despite the many efforts of under-resourced local authority enforcement officers, the developer, PJ Livesey, continually drags its feet, with the result that there is a list of outstanding works as long as your arm. Planning permission was only finally achieved some five years after residents first moved in. Developers have similarly patchy records elsewhere in the country, but because the system lacks the capacity to challenge these people, they continue to get away with it.
I have long spoken about the industrial scale mis-selling that arose as part of the leasehold scandal, and we finally saw official recognition of that last week from the Competition and Markets Authority. The situation at Mostyn House is slightly different but has many similarities. Little specific legal information was provided at the initial stage, particularly regarding planning and the leasehold position, and little documentation was produced in respect of service charges. What was provided was misleading and inaccurate on ongoing costs. There were also financial incentives to use panel solicitors and pressure to exchange contracts within a tight timescale.
Many people buying these apartments were experienced professionals whose concerns about those issues were assuaged at the time by the developer’s sales staff, who confidently stated that the purchase was covered by a Premier Guarantee warranty, which gave the buyers a 10-year guarantee similar to the National House Building Council’s. That sounds good, does it not—a Premier Guarantee warranty? It sounds pretty solid, and something to give certainty. Being compared to the NHBC’s guarantee gives it an air of respectability.
However, buyers might find that they have more rights if something goes wrong with their kettle. It is at best a dispute resolution service, not a guarantee, and is seriously compromised by virtue of being funded by the developers against whom it is meant to enforce the guarantee. Premier not only provides the warranty on the build of Mostyn House but also acts as the approved inspector in respect of building regulations. Premier is effectively employed as the building control and building regulation compliance body to inspect, approve and guarantee works undertaken by the developer that it is supposed to be insuring against.
After four years of back and forth, Premier’s surveyor recently viewed the development and agreed with the defects raised by residents. However, Premier is not prepared to progress the claims, even though water is pouring into apartments right now from the defective roofs, gutters and walls. Premier said:
“The remit of our service is to attempt to bring the two parties together, investigate the dispute and make recommendations…That being said, the conciliation service will not be suitable for all disputes.”
That is not a guarantee or warranty; it is a cop-out.
It is clear that some works by the developer were non-compliant, as additional fire separation works and modifications have had to be undertaken since occupation took place. How did Premier sign off those works in the first place? It is plainly evident that there has been a general lack of supervision of the development during its construction and a lack of inspections by the approved inspector. If it finds too many faults, it will have to pay out under its own insurance policy, funded by the developer. It is therefore easy to see how the temptation to be less than thorough could arise.
My constituents have been let down. The ombudsman has proven toothless and the Solicitors Regulation Authority ineffective. Indeed, anyone who cares to look at Trustpilot ratings for the ombudsman, the SRA and Premier will see that there is very little customer satisfaction anywhere in the country. There is a wholesale failure of regulation across the board on many issues, including in this case and others we have heard about. It is time that the Minister and the Government listened and sorted out this shambles once and for all.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
We will have to drop the time limit on speeches to three minutes.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I have been involved in planning for most of my working life. I wrote “Open Source Planning”, which helped to guide the reforms of 2010 and 2011; I helped to draft the national planning policy framework; I sat on the local expert planning group, which sought to simplify planning; and most recently I have been the Government champion for neighbourhood planning.
My conclusion from all of that is that the plan-led system we now have is so complex, with so many layers and so many tweaks, that it is no longer fit for purpose, particularly in relation to the delivery of housing. The plan-led system is
“less effective than at any time in the post-war era”.
Those are not my words but the words of Nick Raynsford, whose report on this I found very interesting.
Affordable housing is falling by the wayside. Its quality is highly dubious, and there is a loss of public trust in planning as the most fundamental aspect of this approach. A fundamental reform is required, and I am happy to remove the party political influence of councillors from individual applications, because I am keen to ensure that neighbourhood plans play a much greater role in keeping the involvement of local people in the planning system.
However, there is one more important reform that we should bring in: the use of mediation in the planning system, instead of a costly appeals mechanism. In 2008, the Killian Pretty review said that an alternative dispute resolution—meaning mediation—should be used as a speedy alternative to appeals. The essence of mediation, of course, is that the mediator decides nothing. The process is facilitative and allows the parties to the case to formulate their own solutions under guidance. It can be used for highways, compulsory purchase, sorting out claims however they arrive, and sorting out the thorny issues of section 106 agreements. There is a role for mediation at the beginning of the process in generating the scope of a project and ensuring that local views or needs are included.
Why should mediation even be considered? First, it has been an outstanding success in other areas, including the construction industry, where it is used effectively, but also in other areas of life. The essence of that should be used in the planning system to speed up reform.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) on securing this debate. I have two specific and brief questions for the Minister. The first concerns the first homes scheme. The Government’s consultation document on the scheme, released last month, includes an extraordinary sentence. It states:
“We are mindful of the trade-off between the level of ambition for First Homes, funded through developer contributions, and the supply of other affordable housing tenures.”
Yet, astonishingly, the consultation mandates that section 106 must be used to deliver first homes, rather than asking whether that is appropriate in the first place. We should not use section 106 contributions for this, especially at the late stage when many local plans have just been concluded or are in contention, and without any ameliorative action to preserve local councils’ abilities to facilitate council and other social housing.
I note that my own local authority has already been prevented by the Government’s planning inspectorate from requiring developer contributions to social homes from smaller sites. There are already problems, which will be massively exacerbated if the first homes scheme is ruled out in such a way. Will the Minister commit to conduct a proper impact assessment on the impact of the first homes proposal on the provision of new social homes? Secondly, on the Oxford-Cambridge arc, some contest the need to have any additional housing along the arc. I am not one of them, and I very much concurred with some of the words spoken by the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) when it comes to the need for additional housing and looking at the issue in a manner that is not hypocritical.
As for the arc, I am astonished that the Government have not provided even a signal or an expectation on two critical issues: first, the proportion of new homes, which should be available for social rent and genuinely affordable; and secondly, the energy efficiency and broader environmental performance of those new homes. It is not good enough to suggest that local authorities will deal with all the issues. The Oxford-Cambridge arc is a central Government programme, staffed with dozens of central Government civil servants, and central Government have the power, should they wish to use it, to ensure that the new homes are genuinely affordable, that they include many social homes, and that they are sustainable.
Finally, will the Minister please commit to determining two targets or standards, or even just expectations, for the arc for the percentage of new homes that should be affordable, including social homes, and for the expected environmental performance of the homes?
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
We all know the drawbacks of the planning system. In areas such as mine, which comes under the jurisdiction of Calderdale Council, we have a local authority that is not only risk-averse when it comes to enforcement, but is driven by the multitude of Government targets around house building to the detriment of everything else. Today I want to highlight the issues around local plans. Calderdale still has not had that signed off and is in the midst of yet another consultation via the planning inspectorate. I want to make it clear that I do not have an issue with the numbers of houses. Whether it is one or 50,000 extra homes, the reality is that we need to build homes. The problem is our infrastructure, and without a robust infrastructure plan to sit alongside a local plan, the local plan is undeliverable.
We all know the issues across our constituencies with failing and stretched infrastructure. On roads, as well as the many pinch points across Calder Valley, we see a single road in and out of the Upper Calder Valley. Whether it is the single lane that we have had to endure for three years while flood defences are built, or whether it is roadworks, not to mention accidents, we have to sit in our cars often for more than an hour just to travel a few miles. On the numerous days throughout the year when the M62 is closed, it does not matter where one lives in the Calder Valley, the roads are like car parks, and that is just the roads.
Our clinical commissioning group has recently announced that five GP surgeries will close because of an inability to recruit GPs to the area. School places are also an issue, particularly in the Lower Calder Valley, where our excellent schools are all over-subscribed. The local authority will say that it has infrastructure improvements within the plan, but its plans do not even touch the sides of the already stretched infrastructure, let alone if a further 15,000 homes are added over the next 15 years.
The final issue that I want to touch on around infrastructure is flooding. The Calder Valley and other parts of Calderdale have just experienced their third 100-year flood in just over seven and a half years. We had 1,187 properties flooded this time. Many of the 650 homes experienced their third flood. Small micro-businesses were flooded, too. There is not one piece of feasibility on flooding on the many dozens of sites in our local plan, and many—in my estimate about 40% of the land parcels—are already flood plains for when it rains. One particular site in Brighouse, earmarked for 200 houses, was six feet under water. Another in Greetland, with 600 homes, was like a waterfall. Finally, I have no confidence in our local authority to amend things at the planning stage.
I have two asks of our fabulous Housing Minister. First, why is there such a bypass of infrastructure requirements within local plans, and why are we allowing that to happen? Secondly, I have much evidence of our local authority ignoring infrastructure requirements for housing plans on flood plains. Now is surely the time to say, “No more building on flood plains or in areas where there is a high flood risk.”
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
It used to be said that an Englishman’s home is his castle, but our suburbs are now changing. We have mixed communities. The targets that local authorities are under and the deregulation of planning means that castles in the air are springing up round our way, literally changing the physical form. It might have been called high-rise hell in a different age. London’s highest building is not in the square mile. It has just been approved by the Ealing planning committee and will be 55 storeys in North Acton. Because our capital is girdled by green belt, literally the only way is up. The sky is the limit. Tall buildings raise a range of questions on space standards and air quality. Post-Grenfell we have all heard horror stories of cladding and fire safety. Of the 551 buildings approved last year in London, 450 were residential, with 24 in Ealing, but that is dwarfed by 64 in Greenwich. Groups such as Stop the Towers argue that the new buildings are changing the low-rise, low-density nature of suburban Ealing, and the new developments all seem to come with youth-oriented marketing. One wonders how many more vibrant quarters Ealing can take, particularly as we have an ageing population everywhere. Demographically we know that very soon a majority of the population will be over 60, and people in social housing who come to my surgery want rehousing to the ground floor because of mobility issues. People in their suburban semis, their huge piles, want to sit on those because the new developments are too small to have the grandchildren round.
At the other end of the age scale, in North Acton there is a thing called the Collective, which involves co-living. The Telegraph describes it as the future of renting. There are huge communal spaces, brunches, daily speakers and live music, but tiny accommodation designed for celibacy. [Laughter.] It is not cheap. One has to be in work and able to afford £1,000 a month. So what is my solution? I urge the Minister to take seriously my proposal to have a suburban taskforce. We have crumbling infrastructure and older housing stock alongside hideous towers. He could take a multi-dimensional approach. His predecessor was very warm towards this, but, alas, he has been shuffled off the ministerial coil. May I have a meeting with the Minister? A whole bunch of us, including Conservative Members, want to take this forward to save our suburbs.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) on securing this important debate. He gave a powerful speech on one of the most pressing issues that the Government face. I also welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister to his new role.
I want to concentrate on one important issue that has become all too poignant for many of my constituents, as well as for other people around the country, in recent weeks. That issue is flooding, whose impact in my area has been overwhelming. Although it has not been as great as in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), we have still had our problems. When there is flooding in my constituency it is not necessarily because not enough money is being spent on sea or river defences, or dredging, important as they are. It is a question of new homes being built directly on flood plains when the existing homes in that area are already prone to flooding. I am talking about flooding that happens as a direct result of already overburdened local drainage systems and waterways getting worse, and as a consequence of a lack of the infrastructure that should be put in place prior to housing development. Conditions become worse for residents of existing and new properties.
It is not so much, today, that existing communities disagree with local authorities about whether infrastructure should come before, during or after the building of new homes; it is more that they feel dismayed at the rejection of the need to build it at all. Local authorities act as if they are oblivious to the obvious need for infrastructure, and we need to address that. It is as though we have become fixated on house building targets, regardless of the consequences, and that is having a damaging effect on many communities. The quality of life that a house gives is as important as the numbers that are built, for that is what turns a house into a home.
To take my constituency as an example, Bankfield Lane is prone to flooding. It is not close to the sea or a river, or at the bottom of a hill. It is prone to flooding because the drainage system is used by more than 500 homes and is already stretched. It cannot cope any more. After a storm, rainwater simply cannot flow away fast enough, so when it rains it floods. Storm Ciara left, at the end of the weekend, anguish and devastation and thousands of pounds of damage. Improvements have to be carried out. The utility company United Utilities says that the matter needs to be addressed, but it is in disagreement with the council about who should pay. While that stand-off continues, my constituents’ lives are being affected.
We must provide incentives and flexibility for councils, which are rightly concerned about the necessity of meeting housing targets, to reject applications if there is insufficient infrastructure. We must protect individuals whose homes are already subject to flooding. We do not want to make things worse for those who are about to get new homes to live in. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to tackle the challenge head on.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Problems need solutions—and here is one. Within London’s green belt alone there are enough non-green sites surrounding train stations for more than 1 million new homes. Of course, truly green sites should be protected. My frustration is not with parks, hills or areas of environmental protection, but with the scrappy plots of land in towns and cities, surrounding railway stations, that no one in their right mind would see as attractive. I am talking about the car wash in Tottenham Hale, the scrubland in Ealing, the waste plant in Hillingdon and the concrete airfield in Wisley—sites that no one in their right mind would recognise as green belt if it were not for their designation.
Despite the strength of the green-belt brand, 80% of London’s green belt is inaccessible to the public as green space and does not even have an environmental status. Together, those scrappy plots of what I refer to as the grey belt remain wrongly designated, just because of the potential furore that de-designation might cause. It is time to burst the myth that all green belt is green, and use those non-green sites to provide the homes that we so desperately need. I read with interest this weekend the comments of the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), about his plan for the upcoming Budget, and his belief that the green belt around major train stations should be reviewed. I wait with cautious optimism to see whether that will happen under the new Chancellor.
Of course, de-designation is one thing, but what the land is used for is another. If any green-belt land is released, it should be fundamental that it be used to help to resolve the housing crisis, providing the social and genuinely affordable homes for which our country is so desperate. To offer it instead as a land bank bonus for the biggest house builders would seem inexcusable to the thousands of my constituents waiting for a place to call home. I ask the Minister please to grasp the nettle of the sensible policy I have outlined—but to use the land for the people who need it most. Otherwise we will be back in this Chamber debating even worse statistics in the months and years ahead.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
I am a Greater Manchester MP, so the proposed strategic housing plan for my area for the next 20 years is the Greater Manchester spatial framework. The planning system has created a scenario predicated on the building of three, four and five-bedroom houses on the green belt. That cannot be right. There is no requirement within the Greater Manchester spatial framework to provide affordable housing—certainly not truly affordable housing. The present definition of affordable housing means that most of the people in my constituency cannot afford an affordable house. We need to amend that and prioritise development. We need to incentivise development on brownfield sites within boroughs, and within plans.
We must look at how the population projections in particular are calculated. The GMSF is built on population projections from 2014 figures from the Office for National Statistics. If the housing numbers were based on the most recent figures, which are the 2018 figures, that would mean that in a seat such as mine, and in the Metropolitan Borough of Bury, no green belt would have to be built on. The planning system must be fair. It must produce plans based on the most accurate and recent information. I urge the Minister to consider insisting that local authorities use the most recent figures rather than 2014 figures, and prioritise truly affordable housing. We cannot have a situation where developers get to take the easy way out, building houses at £400,000 and £500,000, which cater to only a small number of people in my constituency.
My last point echoes what some of my hon. Friends have said. Within the Greater Manchester spatial framework, new schools, roads and doctors’ surgeries are required. At the moment they are merely words on a piece of paper. There is no requirement within the document. Planning officers tell me that they will be built. There is no guarantee that they will be built, but I believe there is an absolute guarantee that the green belt will be built over by three, four and five-bedroom houses. We must find a way to get cast-iron guarantees, before planning permission is granted, that infrastructure will be put in place to support the thousands of extra houses that are proposed—certainly in my area.
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) on securing this timely and important debate. The standard of the contributions shows how important it is.
It is a truism to say that planning is a challenge and difficult. We have heard in the past hour or so of different experiences from around the country. My constituency is no different. We have a unique set of circumstances. The previous council administration was kicked out last May, having created problems that built up over a nearly 15-year period—without a plan, with too much speculative development, and with a failure to put infrastructure in place—and a new administration is trying to clear up the mess. The challenge is the relatively blunt instruments inherent to the planning system. In the two minutes I have left, I want to point out to the new Minister—whom I welcome to his position—three such blunt instruments. I hope that he will consider their implications on a larger scale.
The first is the overall framework. The challenge with some of the numbers going through the system, which are having an impact on districts such as mine, is that we are trying to use a national planning policy framework that is supposed to solve problems as disparate as those of Westmorland and Lonsdale, Ealing Central and Acton and North East Derbyshire. That means it does not work well. I should like some form of regional assessment within the NPPF so that we do not need, in the east midlands, to put 6,500 houses in a part of the world where real-terms house prices—the best proxy for demand—have not risen since 2008.
Secondly, I share some of my colleagues’ concerns about neighbourhood plans. When my area’s previous district council administration failed to discharge its responsibilities adequately, parish councils stepped up and tried to fill the gap by passing neighbourhood plans. That gave the unique opportunity of having them signed off by referendums in local communities. Yet, as a result, limited protections are offered. I hope that that can be considered in the future.
Finally, as to the adoption process, which is under way with the new administration in my district, there is a unique issue on which I hope we can somehow get a little more flexibility and pragmatism into the system as a whole. In our part of the world, too much speculative development over the past decade and a half means that we will significantly exceed our own, in my view overinflated, target, which was set by the previous council administration. Yet the inspector is showing only limited pragmatism, at the end of our local plan process, in terms of removing green belt, which still needs to be done to give confidence in the overall local plan process. I hope my remarks have been helpful for the Minister.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) for initiating this important debate. We have heard from hon. Members of all political colours, representing areas rich in diversity, about the multiple problems with our housing market and planning. We have also heard many proposed solutions. That in itself is a real warning sign.
We should accept that the housing market is like an ecosystem or biosphere of interconnected dependencies and feedback mechanisms. When we put an intervention in one side, it goes into a black box that policy makers must deal with, and something unexpected pops out the other side. This is fiendishly complicated, but we must get it right. The price of failure is obvious: more unaffordable houses and continuing not to meet our supply targets. The prizes for getting it right are multiple and go across many policy areas—from solving homelessness, to local economic productivity and our sense of place. Building houses in the right place can contribute to food sustainability for our country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) made the point well that we are building the wrong kinds of houses in the wrong places. It is as simple as that. If we focused on building more two-bedroom houses and bungalows, we would free up capacity for people who are, frankly, over-occupying larger houses, and that would help the whole system. That, however, relies on liquidity in the market, where stamp duty is a real issue, because it acts as a break on social mobility as well as on liquidity.
I was struck by the comments by the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq). We are blessed with a modern problem: people are living longer, happier, wealthier and more independent lives. That is wonderful. In so doing, however, they are staying in their homes for longer. We must sort out supply and liquidity, and we need homes that are more sustainable, affordable, appropriate to their area and proportionate to the areas they surround.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Charles, if not that of the Procedure Committee. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) on securing this debate. I agreed with you beforehand, Sir Charles, that I would keep my remarks short to allow other hon. Members to speak, given that this issue is largely devolved. It has certainly been an interesting debate.
I want to reflect on the planning and housing situation in Scotland. There has been a lot of discussion today about affordable housing, but it is us in Scotland who are trying as hard as possible to deliver 50,000 affordable homes, 35,000 of which will be for social rent, by 2021. We are certainly on track to do that. In my own constituency, Cranhill has an over-55s development, which is important given that people are living longer. Likewise, properties on Cunningham House on Shettletson Road are being built to Passivhaus standard, which is good for energy efficiency measures.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the hon. Member agree that we have a duty to do our best to push for more affordable green homes, and that grants and incentives to cover the costs of renewable and low-carbon innovations must go in hand with greener obligations? In other words, we must meet our obligations for climate change.
David Linden
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, who chairs the all-party parliamentary group for healthy homes and buildings. Investing in greener homes is costly. Investing in the Passivhaus standard homes in Shettleston has cost Shettleston Housing Association quite a lot of money, but my constituents tell me that their energy bills are a lot lower.
I have concerns about the planning process. I often think of the Broomhouse estate in my constituency, which was supposed to start off as countryside living in the city, but it is now one of my largest polling districts. There is no school, GP practice or shop, and the local train station, in Baillieston, is now overrun by cars.
We often find that planning authorities—this is not confined to England—are more than happy to sign off on building lots of homes, not least because they provide lots of council tax revenue. It seems that little thought has been given to where the children living in those four or five-bedroom homes will go to school. We have seen the pressures put on, for example, Caledonia Primary School in Baillieston.
We have had a fantastic and wide-ranging debate. I have learned more about section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 than I knew this morning. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harborough, who began by talking about the idea of fleeceholding. Some streets in my constituency have still not been adopted after 60 years. I used to think that was bad, but perhaps, given the situation he highlighted, it is a case of better the devil you know.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) on securing this debate. His speech was comprehensive and full of good ideas, some he may have read in our policies. I have no doubt the Minister, however excellent or fabulous he is, will have benefitted greatly from listening. I would go as far as to suggest that the hon. Member seeks membership of the upcoming Bill Committee where there will be lots of scope to legislate on the matters that he has raised today. The same could be said for other hon. Members who have contributed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) spoke of land reform—that £5 million piece of land eventually being auctioned from £25 million; I don’t know what the final figure was. What an illustration of our failing system and our struggle to get the affordable homes we need. She linked housing and climate change, as well.
The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) also recognised the crisis in housing and spoke of MPs being nimbys, opposing housing development in their constituencies—something for us all to think about. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) spoke of the shortage of professionals to manage planning. I know there is a crisis in that across the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) spoke of the leasehold scandal, with homebuyers misled and landed with huge ongoing bills. He said people have more rights if their kettle goes wrong.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) spoke about her concerns about the first homes scheme. I have heard her speak several times about how new developers are being let off the hook on providing new affordable and social homes. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) talked about high-rises—they are 55 storeys high in her constituency, and there are more tower blocks across the piece. We need houses for our ageing population on the ground floor. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) spoke about greenfield sites that are not very green, the million homes that could be built around railway stations and the wrong status for so-called green-belt land in her area.
Labour’s plans for housing at the general election were bold and ambitious, but they were necessary. We said on day one that we would start the changes within Government to set up a department for housing, which I hope will happen soon. That would bring together the powers to plan and build new homes and regenerate existing housing across the country.
Despite the election result, Labour was right on housing and we will continue to make our case. We said that within the first year, we would take action to take profiteering out of the land market, which has a severe impact on planning and housing. We said we would revise planning rules and guidance to support the delivery of more genuinely affordable homes through the planning system and we said we would publish plans to make the country’s homes greener and warmer with a new zero-carbon homes standard and retrofit programme.
Our ambition was bold, and we encourage the Government to look at our manifesto closely and recognise the good ideas—some of which we share with Conservative Members, judging from some of the speeches we have heard this afternoon—for what they are. More importantly, we know that we must act. It is easy to talk about house building without recognising the obstacles in the way of doing so. Housing and planning go hand in hand. In order to plan, we must have the resources to do it, such as land. The broken land market is at the heart of our housing crisis. Land ownership, as we have heard, is often opaque, with little transparency on who owns what.
Public land has been sold off for a short-term profit as funding from central Government has dried up. As we have also heard, current planning rules and legislation give windfall gains to landowners and traders at the expense of local communities. We must do better, and work together to look at how we can ensure that our housing and planning system is genuinely fit for purpose.
I was interested to read the article written by the hon. Member for Harborough on what needs to happen to resolve the housing crisis. It was refreshing that he accepted in his article that after 10 years of his Government, we still have a housing crisis. I was pleased to see him outline that there are genuine problems and barriers with regard to housing, and he made a clear case for how these matters can be addressed.
I have spoken before about my 27-year-old researcher, who earns a good salary and has a second income from being a local councillor, but still cannot afford to buy a house in the area where she lives, far out in London’s zone 6. She has been saving for many years and will save for many more to get a deposit, but then she will be ruled out due to her income not being high enough to get a mortgage. Her generation and the generations to come are doomed to fail unless we remove those barriers and make home ownership a reality rather than a dream. But for that to happen, we need to build more homes—not just homes but genuinely affordable homes that people with a range of incomes can afford. However, if local councils and housing associations cannot afford the land on which to build those affordable homes, they will be halted before they can even get going.
Large spaces of land are too expensive for councils and housing associations, so instead—as the hon. Gentleman outlined it in quite some detail—smaller developments are often the only option. That means we are not hitting the capacity that we need to. It is all well and good for private developers to buy land and build housing, yet more often than not such property is tiny flats in prime central London locations that ordinary people cannot afford to live in. The flats around Battersea power station area are an example—they probably call them “apartments” around there, mind. That area is a prime location, but the properties are bought up by people who can afford to buy them yet do not live in them. If anyone goes past those properties in the evening, they will see that most of the lights inside are off. Such developments add to the total number of dwellings that are built, but they are not being occupied by the people who most need a home: those who cannot afford to buy a home in any part of London, let alone a central part where, they may be living already in sub-par accommodation with several other people; and those who grew up in these areas, and are now priced out of staying there.
It is not good enough just to view building homes as the answer. There need to be those genuinely affordable homes, which is what the planning system must account for. Labour’s plan would have meant that at least 150,000 new council and housing association homes a year would have been built within five years—decent homes that people can actually afford to live in. I do not expect this Government or any Conservative Government to match our pledge on the issue or even to come close to it, but the system has to change.
David Linden
I am listening to what the hon. Gentleman is saying about making sure that we invest in council housing and housing association properties. However, one of the things that I am very struck by when looking at the system here is this obsession with the right to buy, which so often means that housing associations and councils are building these properties only to flog them off. Is it Labour’s proposal to abolish the right to buy, which is what we have seen in Scotland?
Alex Cunningham
There is no doubt about it; there is this bias towards owning a home, and time and again we hear MPs, particularly on the Government side, talking about that ambition. These days, however, many people, even well-paid researchers in Parliament with a second income, cannot afford to do that, so we have to address homes for rent as well.
Currently, it feels that we have piecemeal development, with half a dozen flats built here and a few houses built there. That will never address what we need, and so we have longer and longer housing waiting lists, and people are being priced out of the private sector, as the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) has just mentioned.
One way in which we can show we are taking housing and planning seriously is by empowering local authorities to strengthen their planning departments. They really need more planning officers. I think that most planning officers now work in the private sector, popping up at all these appeals that are held across the country, and of course it is the developers who win out at the end of the day. However, councils do not just need resources; they also need the confidence and the guidance from Government in order to crack on with things.
Alex Cunningham
It is not just happening in the planning sector; it is happening across local authorities. My own local authority in Stockton has lost more than half its budget since 2010, so there is a shortage of expertise across the piece in local government to hold developers and other organisations to account.
I back what the Royal Town Planning Institute has argued for, which is championing civic planning, and building strong and responsive local planning authorities. The RTPI has also recommended that central Government do more by providing grants for social housing, by providing stronger direction on suitable land for housing, and by sharing more of any land value uplift with the public and using that uplift in value to fund affordable housing. The ideas are there and the hon. Member for Harborough has helped the Minister immensely.
That said, I also value the hon. Gentleman’s contribution to the ongoing debate in Parliament about how we can move forward on housing in the best way possible, and I look forward to hearing more of what he has to say in the future. However, the bottom line, which is where I have just got to in my speech, is that it is up to the Government to be prepared to take the steps to make change happen.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Minister, will you leave just two minutes at the end for Mr O’Brien to wrap up, please?
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
I certainly will do that, Sir Charles, and it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
It is also a great pleasure to follow my old friend the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), and to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) on securing this important debate, and I also thank him for the entirely unsolicited testimonial that he gave me at the start of his remarks. I also thank and congratulate all right hon. and hon. Members for their presence today. The number of colleagues from across the House who have attended the debate is testament to Member’s interest in and concern about this important topic. I thank them all for being here.
I will now address some of the important points raised by hon. Members. I am conscious that I do not have a huge amount of time, so if I am not able to address them all, I certainly contract to meet with or write directly to those I miss, to ensure that we cover all the points that have been raised today effectively.
One of the key issues, raised by a number of colleagues, is unfair practices in the leasehold market. Let me say that those practices have no place in a modern housing market, and neither do excessive ground rents, which exploit consumers, who get nothing in return. That is why we are reforming the system so that it is fairer to leaseholders.
In December 2019, we announced that we would move forward with legislation on leasehold reform, reaffirming our commitment to making the system fairer and more transparent. The Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), will have more to say about that as the Minister responsible for that legislation; I shall certainly relay to him the concerns that Members from all parties have raised in the debate today.
I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough that we want to minimise the effect of inappropriate access routes for construction vehicles by encouraging temporary access routes that should ideally be delivered through voluntary arrangements. We have all faced the issue in our constituencies; I have faced it specifically with respect to wagons building the High Speed 2 railway line. I hope that I can give my hon. Friend some reassurance that we have legislated for local authorities and other acquiring bodies to compulsorily purchase land temporarily under the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017, and we are engaging with the sector on how best to implement those powers.
It is important that breaches of planning conditions are tackled by local planning enforcement teams, given that conditions are often imposed by councils to make a development acceptable to local people. That is why we have provided nearly £2 million of funding this year to help to strengthen enforcement teams in 37 local authorities, and we have also updated the National Association of Planning Enforcement’s practical handbook to help.
We will also outline further measures to help to improve local authority enforcement in the forthcoming planning White Paper, so I hope that Members will forbear and bear with me as that White Paper is released. I hope that that satisfies colleagues about some of the concerns that my hon. Friend raised.
Jack Lopresti
Does the Minister agree that our party needs to end the obsession with the green belt? Does he also accept that if we leave house building to local councils, houses will not get built in anywhere near the numbers that we need?
Christopher Pincher
The green belt is very important. We need to ensure that green spaces are protected, and that we have beautiful spaces in which we can all live. We also need to ensure that local plans are up to date and fit for purpose, in order to ensure that the houses that people want and need can be built.
That brings me rather nicely to my fundamental point. We all know that this country does not have enough homes. That is why we need a more agile and flexible planning system. KPMG and Shelter have both reported that simply to meet rising future demand, a minimum of a quarter of a million new homes will be needed every year. The median house price in England is eight times higher than median gross annual earnings; in London, it is 12.3 times higher.
We have to be bold and ambitious in our vision for the future of planning and house building in England. That is why, in January 2018, we set up Homes England as our housing accelerator, to intervene in the market and drive a step change in housing delivery. We have an unwavering commitment to enable the housing market to deliver at least 300,000 new homes a year by the mid-2020s, and a million homes by the end of this Parliament. I am pleased that the latest figures show that last year housing supply, which has been growing year on year, increased by more than 241,000, to the highest level in the last 31 years.
Christopher Pincher
I will, of course, give way to the hon. Member, as she intervenes at such volume.
Siobhain McDonagh
In the London borough of Merton, 10,000 families are on the waiting list. Since April 2019, they have had access to 18 three-bedroom properties. What does the Minister say to those 10,000 families?
Christopher Pincher
I would say that we need to build more homes in London. That is a conversation that we are having with the Mayor and with local authorities, because if we are to get those people into homes that they desire, we need to ensure that we are building them.
We have also cut the red tape—a perennial bête noire—making it quicker to plan and build homes that people want to live in. However, there is far more that we need to do to address the housing challenge. We are implementing planning reforms to ensure that our planning system creates and supports thriving communities, and to improve the quality, quantity and speed of home building. As I said, we will introduce the planning White Paper shortly, setting out our proposals to make the planning process clearer, more accessible and more certain for all users, including homeowners and small businesses, and I look forward to responses from colleagues across the House. The White Paper will also address resourcing and performance in planning departments, which various colleagues mentioned, and ensure that timely decisions are made.
The Government set national planning policy, but it is important that decisions and policies are made locally. We are clear that councils and their communities are best placed to take decisions on planning issues affecting their local area within the context of national planning policy. Local plans play an important role in outlining the homes that an area needs, and I believe that such plans can deliver local decisions that will remain at the heart of the planning system. Local plans provide clarity to communities and developers about where new homes should be built and how they should look, and such plans identify what developments are needed in an area, supported by the right infrastructure.
Christopher Pincher
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman briefly; I am conscious that time is pressing.
Alex Cunningham
The developer Persimmon applied for planning permission for a large site on Junction Road in my constituency. It was told, “No, you can’t have planning permission.” The Government inspectorate overturned that decision. How are we going to strengthen the powers of local authorities, so that when they make a decision, having consulted the local community, that decision stands? Now Persimmon wants to build even more homes on the same site.
Christopher Pincher
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I do not know the specific case, but we need to ensure that the codes that we use, and those that the Planning Inspectorate uses, are fit for purpose, to ensure that when a good plan is introduced, for a site that has appropriate permissions, those developments are built.
Plans that are needed in an area, supported by the right infrastructure, help to ensure that what is planned for is sustainable rather than the result of speculative applications. That also ensures that we build in greater community support. So far, 90% of councils have an adopted local plan compared with just 17% in 2010. Some are a little long in the tooth, but I am pleased that the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough adopted local plans for both his authorities in 2019, so those plans are nearly brand new.
I assure the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) that the Government are committed to reviewing permitted development rights for the conversion of buildings to residential use, particularly respecting the quality and standards of those buildings. The review will report, and I will ensure that the report is available to her in due course.
It is also crucial that local authorities plan for the right number of homes. That is why, in July 2018, we introduced a new standard method to assess the minimum number of homes that an area needs. It does not set a target; it is simply a starting point from which authorities consider any constraints, and see whether need is more appropriately met in neighbouring areas. Following the latest household projections, the standard method was changed to ensure that it was consistent with delivering the homes that the country needs. We are reviewing the method and will consult on longer-term options in due course, because we recognise that we need to diversify the products on the market in order to drive up supply.
I will say a few words on small and medium-sized enterprises before I let my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough wind up. We are supporting SME housebuilders with a package of measures to help the sector to grow and develop, including the home building fund, the housing growth and housing delivery fund, the ENABLE Build guarantee scheme, and our ongoing reforms to the planning system, more of which he will hear about in due course. We believe that SMEs have a key part to play by increasing their output, as the biggest home builders in our country will not meet the Government’s housing building target alone. SMEs are well placed to help to deliver new homes, welcomed in their communities rather than resisted, and those homes will be built to last. Not only do we need to supply more homes, we need to make the dream of home ownership, as the hon. Member for Stockton North called it, a reality.
I hope that Members can see that the Government are truly committed to addressing the problems raised in the debate. We know that we need to build more of the right homes, of the right quality and in the right places, so that the housing market works for all parts of our community. We are determined to do that, and I invite all hon. and right hon. Members to step up to the plate and help us to tackle that challenge.
Neil O'Brien
I thank all Members who have taken part in this afternoon’s brilliant debate. I was encouraged by the Minister’s words, particularly on temporary access. I strongly agree with the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) in his coruscating critique of the fleeceholding industry. They are the timeshare salesmen and the dodgy wheel-clampers of our generation, and I hope that the Minister will clamp down on them very strongly. Perhaps the new homes ombudsman can be the vehicle for that.
I agree with the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) about what affordable housing is. I think that the type of tenure most missing is cheap rented housing for working people. Although affordable housing is hugely needed, and my local council in Harborough has built a record amount of it, we need something for those people who are earning a bit and do not get social housing.
I was struck by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) about developer contributions. We must not go over the top, but on the other hand there is a reason why all economists agree that taxes on land and development are different to other types of taxes. If we lose developer contributions, we typically do not get more houses—just higher land prices and a bigger windfall for the lucky landowner.
Finally, there was a good challenge from my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti). We do need to build more houses. France has built twice as many houses as us since 1970, and French house prices have gone up half as much. Places such as the Netherlands have built more too. We need to learn from them. It is not about shoving more houses through the system; it is about having a proper, plan-led system to do it.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Innovation in the NHS
(4 years, 9 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
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered innovation in the NHS.
It is a delight and a pleasure to have secured this important debate. We are going through an incredible time, with advances in technology across so many different fields, and there is a big question about how the national health service can adopt this important technology that makes such a difference to people’s lives. There is so much potential in the healthtech sector that has led to a transformation in patient outcomes, and that capacity must be expanded within the national health service. Some good work has already taken place to deliver innovation within the NHS, through the structures and approaches established by NHS Digital, Health Data Research UK and NHSX, which is creating the right framework to deliver innovation. However, if the true potential of the NHS is to be harnessed and if innovation is to feed through to trusts right across the country, there needs to be a dramatic acceleration of health technology.
Despite the presence of innovation accelerators such as HS. and bodies such as the Accelerated Access Collaborative, designed to find ways to help innovation products reach patients more quickly, there remain barriers that restrict the ability of healthtech businesses to scale effectively and get their products to market. The first challenge is the speed of the pathway to adoption. NHS Improvement estimates that it takes an average of 17 years for a new product or device to go from successful clinical trial to mainstream adoption, a figure that was highlighted by the Secretary of State earlier this year. Considering the rapid pace of technological change, that is a very concerning statistic for the healthtech business.
Historically, a good deal of that time was taken up by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence appraisals. In 2012, statistics released about the timelines for appraisals showed that the average time for multi-technology appraisals was 5.5 years, and about 2.5 years for single-technology appraisals. The Minister might be interested to know that I will host an event in a couple of weeks, in conjunction with AbbVie, to launch a report entitled “Bridging the Gap between Clinical Trials and Real-World Practice”. That research found that breakthrough medicines that might address high unmet medical needs and have been earmarked for fast-track approval are approved on average one month later than non-prioritised medicines, meaning that patients have slower access to those medicines.
Overall, that report found that approval processes take significantly more time in England than in other European countries, including Germany and France. It also found that NICE is more likely to place restrictions on new medicines than are other countries. On a more positive note, although NICE takes longer to assess medicines, it has one of the highest approval rates among health technology assessment bodies, meaning that a greater number of medicines are available. Although there have been significant positive improvements to the process since 2012, which have greatly accelerated it—for example, the medical technologies guidance, as well as the digital health technologies pilot scheme within that guidance—a lot more needs to be done so that those benefits can reach across the entire health sector.
A bigger concern is the funding opportunities available to healthtech businesses when they have an appraisal. Funding is obviously one of the most important building blocks for growth, but even if a healthtech business has had a NICE appraisal, there is no guarantee that its product will be adopted within the national health service. The medtech funding mandate and schemes such as the AI innovation award within the AAC are welcomed, but there should be greater emphasis on ensuring that centres are allocated the required funding from the NHS, so that they can pay for the devices and services and utilise them to improve patient outcomes.
Furthermore, the current criteria for the inclusion of new medical devices are based on how savings are generated within one year, which can be challenging given the higher up-front costs. For example, complicated surgical implants can be expensive, but can save money for the system through reduced spending on drugs and social care. There are also incoming regulatory barriers that will harm the healthtech sector’s ability to sell its products and the UK’s ability to be a competitive market for innovation. At present, medical devices are operating within the three-year transition period that ends in May 2020, after which devices on the market must fully comply with the medical devices regulation. There is a concern that the lack of notified bodies designated under the MDR may prevent the industry from getting life-changing products to market.
Currently, at a time when the industry will be rushing to ensure its devices are compliant with new regulations, only six notified bodies across the EU are authorised to accept work related to the forthcoming MDR. It is of concern that there is only one notified body in the UK, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. There are growing concerns across the industry that a bottleneck will emerge, potentially causing innovative and cost-effective technologies to be taken off the market as they wait to be certified again under the MDR. In a recent Med-Tech Innovation survey, only 4.8% of businesses said they were sufficiently prepared for the new MDR, despite 55% of businesses having begun preparations for those changes over 12 months ago. That shows the extent to which the lack of notified bodies is affecting the sector.
The UK’s departure from the EU presents an opportunity for the UK to establish itself as an international hub for certifications. Furthermore, with both the NHS long-term plan and the Government’s prevention Green Paper highlighting the importance of technologies in easing pressures on health services, it is vital to ensure that new regulation does not instead stifle innovation or discourage global medical device manufacturers from entering the UK market. I am also pleased by the Government’s ambitious strategy to maintain the UK as a global leader in the life sciences, reflected in the life sciences sector deal and their commitment to spend 2.4% of GDP on research and development by 2027. We must make sure that the medical devices sector and the life sciences sector more broadly get their fair share of that investment in R&D.
There are therefore positives that we can point to, but there are still challenges that are holding back innovation. Although the work of the academic health science networks in spreading and driving innovation across the regions of England is welcome, large variations remain, especially in individual centres’ attitudes towards health technology. AHSNs continue to play an important role in spreading best practice and therefore reducing variation across regions; however, the challenges facing healthtech companies in this area should not be underestimated. One challenge faced by technologies as they attempt to become adopted across the NHS relates to the differing nature and characteristics of individual centres. Due to the differing priorities and attitudes of centres across the country, medical device companies must employ different approaches as they roll out across the country. That inevitably delays the adoption of new technologies across the NHS, since individual companies must develop complicated strategies for each local business case. Some areas have more streamlined processes for adopting innovation, but it is by no means uniform, and will further the inequalities in healthcare between different regions. If a more joined-up approach towards innovation adoption were implemented across the NHS, medical technologies could be rolled out more quickly so that centres with the most need could access them.
In health and other sectors, it is always important and necessary to have leadership. I often hear about different trusts and centres that have strong leadership and that can, therefore, drive change. Other centres without such strong leadership are holding themselves back. I will discuss the chief innovation officer position later.
The UK’s great potential for data research is well known. The UK has some excellent datasets, globally leading data scientists and the ambition to make the UK the home of data-driven life sciences research and innovation. In terms of data collection, however, the national health service does not behave as a single organisation. The potential of health data cannot be fully realised until structures and processes enable the interoperability and straightforward accessibility of datasets across the country.
Moreover, health data is globally competitive, with significant investment being made in improving the health data environment in other countries, including the USA, Germany, Israel, France and China. It is not an exact science, but NHS England estimates suggest that harnessing data and delivering on digital plans for the NHS could unlock productivity benefits of about £10 billion a year, allowing for greater investment in other priority areas.
An example of the industry working closely with health service bodies to tackle those challenges is the academic health science networks’ production of an atrial fibrillation toolkit that concisely outlines the relevant data for innovators working to prevent AF-related strokes. The toolkit provides innovators with data on the proportion of patients in a local area diagnosed with AF who have not been anticoagulated and encourages innovators to gather local knowledge on waiting times, pathways and referral criteria.
Unlocking the potential of patient data is key to driving forward research and innovation. The NHS is a rich and unique source of patient data, but public trust and confidence in the use of data is vital. The public need to feel that they can trust and have confidence in the health and social care system to share their information with care and confidence. People want to share their data, but they want to be confident that when their data is being shared, it will be used in the right way by the right organisations.
People are not necessarily hugely concerned by the private sector having access to their data, but they need more reassurance and more confidence in the anonymity that is provided in the data and in the control of the extent to which the data is given to companies, so they cannot just pass it on to other organisations. If the public do not trust the system, they will be unwilling to share their data for research. Ultimately, everyone is a loser from that—charities, the NHS and patients; there will be significant disadvantages across the sector in the UK.
It is essential that we continue to enhance the UK clinical research environment to ensure that global companies look to the NHS first when setting up trials for breakthrough therapies. An essential element for attracting R&D investment into the UK and reaching the Government’s target of 2.4% of GDP is to enhance the UK’s commercial clinical research offer.
Despite the significant size and growth of the global market for clinical research, the UK’s share of clinical trial applications and patient recruits has fallen since 2016, with the UK falling behind the USA, Canada, Germany and Spain for commercial clinical trials. We must build on our strong scientific base and on existing NHS infrastructure and expertise to grow the UK’s share of the global market and improve its commercial clinical trials offer.
The industry already supports the Government’s commitments to clinical research in the life sciences industrial strategy, sector deals and the NHS long-term plan. To be at the forefront of clinical research, however, there needs to be a simplification of the processes for setting up and running clinical trials, harnessing the UK’s data infrastructure for medicines and R&D, embedding patient involvement in clinical research and ensuring continuing high standards for transparency.
In my view, the challenges of adopting innovation in the NHS result, to some extent, from a lack of leadership in the NHS. The Secretary of State leads the way on getting health technology into the system. We need that culture to be better established in the national health service. No one within NHS trusts is specifically addressing the issue as part of their job. If more people were appointed to the chief innovation officer position in NHS trusts, the adoption of innovation might be accelerated. At the moment, about 20 chief innovation officers are in place. More such appointments would do two things: first, accelerate the adoption of innovation in the national health service and secondly, drive innovation and improvement to challenge and bring up to date legacy systems in the NHS.
In conclusion, I reiterate that there are many positives and much good practice to draw on, and there is no lack of ambition to place the NHS at the forefront of innovation. I look forward to the Minister’s remarks.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ms Nadine Dorries)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) for bringing the issue to Westminster Hall. I have heard him speak on the matter several times. In fact, hon. Members in the main Chamber yesterday will have heard him make those points and others with the passion that he showed today. As well as passion, he has something that makes us nervous—absolute knowledge and understanding of the subject. That is welcome, and his depth of knowledge on tech and innovation in the NHS makes him a welcome addition to the House.
My hon. Friend mentioned the AI award that has just been announced, the adoption of new products, data and clinical trials. I will make a few points about each of those topics at the end of my speech. As he said, not just the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, but everybody in the Department is passionate about high-tech innovation. Only yesterday, I heard about a new app called Skin Analytics. It has a phone attachment that takes an image of someone’s mole or skin that can be sent through and almost instantly diagnosed as to whether it is skin cancer and requires further treatment. The rate at which AI and technology are accelerating daily is phenomenal.
We can transform the health of millions of patients, improve health outcomes, reduce cost and reinforce the UK’s position as a global hub for life sciences and health tech within the Department, because we are so passionate about it. We can take advantage of those opportunities by seeing what can be achieved by using the technology that is becoming available daily. The UK has a world-leading single player health system, covering 65 million people and—I know that my hon. Friend knows this; I am almost embarrassed saying it—we are the biggest single buyer of medicines in the world. We have some of the world’s best clinical researchers leading universities, charities and life science companies. Indeed, 25 of the world’s 100 most used medicines were developed here, using a public and philanthropic research infrastructure that is, pound for pound, more effective than anywhere else in the world. We should be really proud of that, but we know we must go further.
The NHS long-term plan and the life sciences industrial strategy have set out an ambitious set of actions to create the most collaborative health innovation system in the world—one that gets the best new treatments and technologies from the bench to the bedside faster than ever before. It is beginning to make a difference, first through the Accelerated Access Collaborative, where leaders from across the NHS, patients, charities, industry and the Government are now coming together to tackle the major systemic barriers to the adoption and spread of innovation within the NHS. My hon. Friend is quite right to raise the fact that there have been barriers, but we are tackling the barriers now.
The AAC is supporting greater use of a range of proven innovations, which have the potential to benefit up to 500,000 patients and save the NHS up to £30 million; developing co-ordinated plans to ensure that the NHS is ready for transformative new technologies, such as the advanced therapy medicinal products—ATMPs—and the use of AI technologies in diagnostics and screening; and launching a new medtech funding mandate to drive the best value and most innovative medtech projects across the NHS. With long-term funding for the NHS in place, that collaboration is also now being backed by increased commercial flexibility—flexibility to ensure we can make the best new treatments and technologies available to patients, while ensuring long-term affordability for the NHS.
The impact has already been felt, with Europe’s first access deal for Kymriah and the breakthrough of the CAR-T—chimeric antigen receptor T-cell—therapy, just 10 days after the treatment’s European marketing authorisation, and a pioneering Government collaboration with pharmaceutical company Novartis for the drug Inclisiran to tackle heart disease, which could save up to 30,000 lives over the next decade.
The 15 regional academic health science networks continue to support the local adoption of cutting-edge technologies. More than 3,500 innovations from more than 2,500 companies have benefited from support from the AHSNs in recent years, ranging from new blood tests for pre-eclampsia, which can significantly reduce life-threatening complications in pregnancy, to devices that improve bowel cancer screening.
Finally, we are working to digitally transform the NHS to unlock the technologies for the future. The plans are already being delivered by NHSX. For example, we recently announced a £250 million artificial intelligence lab, which will build and rapidly test cutting-edge prototypes, but the real focus will be on finding and boosting existing technologies and ensuring they can be adopted across the NHS. Over the next three years, the lab will support the £140 million AI Award, led by the AAC, which will be designed to speed up the testing and adoption of the most promising new AI-enabled technologies. It will cover stages of the product cycle from proof of concept, to real-world testing, to initial adoption in the NHS.
By working together across the health system, Government and industry to deliver improvements, we can ensure NHS patients are some of the first in the world to benefit from the best new treatments and technologies. We will ensure that the UK continues to have world-leading life science hubs, where the best innovations get from bench to bedside faster than ever before.
My hon. Friend made a number of specific points. He mentioned AbbVie and its “Bridging the Gap” report. I thank AbbVie for its valuable contribution to the work in this area and I thank my hon. Friend for his support of its report. I know my officials and the Office for Life Sciences have been engaging with the report’s authors, as it has been developed, and they will be closely considering its recommendations. We have made a number of improvements to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency processes since the data on which the report is based and published, including reforming the cancer drugs fund. I hope we are already beginning to see the benefits of those changes through quicker assessment rates.
I am going to speed up, so that I can get everything in. My hon. Friend mentioned the AI award. We believe the funding mandate and the AI award are a fantastic step forward in driving higher adoption of some of the most exciting new medtech in the NHS, but we know we may need to do more. We will learn from the first year of introduction, and we will continue to review how the schemes can be developed to support a wide range of projects in the future.
In terms of the adoption of new products, we recognise that in some cases new products will require a trust to adapt its care pathways or to train staff, and that is why we provided an additional £2 million a year to the AAC through our pathway transformation fund, to support adoption of the products it has selected for support.
I fully agree with my hon. Friend’s comments on the importance of the UK’s clinical trial system to patients and to our economy. The Government are committed to creating the best environment for clinical trials, both in achieving the ambitions set out in the life sciences industrial strategy and as we agree new future trade agreements. The system is coming together to deliver that. We have streamlined the Health Research Authority approval process to make clinical trial set-up faster. NHS England’s long-term plan sets out an ambition to see a million people registering to participate in health research by 2023-24 and to treble commercial research in the health system over the next 10 years.
The National Institute for Health Research clinical research network has also recently completed a competition to establish five purpose-designed centres, dedicated to last phase commercial research within the NHS’s capacity to deliver research. They will enable significant growth and provide more opportunities for patients to benefit from early access to innovation.
Finally, on making the best use of data for the NHS, which is of particular interest to me at the moment, with regard to the women’s agenda and using datasets within the NHS, we fully agree that the better use of NHS data promises significant benefit for patients, including better ways of predicting and diagnosing illnesses and the development of more effective treatments. We have set up NHSX to drive forward the digital transformation of the NHS and to ensure it can make better use of its data and new technologies. The Government have also invested £37.5 million in the digital innovation hubs programme, which will improve the access to and the quality of NHS data through seven health data research hubs, but it is absolutely essential that we build and maintain public trust in this area. That is why the Office for Life Sciences sponsored a robust piece of public engagement, led by Understanding Patient Data, on the commercial uses of healthcare data.
We are also developing a policy framework, which makes it clear that all commercial uses of healthcare data must have an explicit aim to improve the healthcare and welfare of patients in the UK and address the key concerns of the public, such as robust governance processes and transparency requirements.
I shall end where I began, which is to thank my hon. Friend for bringing his depth of knowledge and expertise in this subject to the debate. As I said, from the Secretary of State to the Ministers involved in the Department of Health and Social Care and officials working there, we all see innovation and technology as a way of improving access for patients, improving patient outcomes, reducing costs and enabling access to better and quicker treatments. Because of that, we are totally supportive of both the innovation and the high-tech agenda. It is debates such as this one, and the subject being raised regularly in the House in the way that my hon. Friend does, that keep pushing that agenda forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Children and Domestic Abuse
(4 years, 9 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
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered children and domestic abuse.
It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone, for a very timely debate. The Leader of the House and relevant Ministers—including the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who I am pleased will be responding to this important debate—committed to introducing the Domestic Abuse Bill at the earliest opportunity. I was pleased to see the Bill return to the House earlier today, and I congratulate the Minister on staying true to that commitment. I look forward to hearing her detail the Government’s plans to support children affected by domestic abuse.
I want to continue on that positive note, because the Domestic Abuse Bill is a once-in-a-generation chance to deliver real change in how we respond to domestic abuse. When the Bill was introduced in the last parliamentary session, there was much to be welcomed—not least the introduction of a definition of domestic abuse, which will help guide our response. It is commendable that the definition specifically identified the coercive control elements of abuse, which we know are all too common. There were also improvements to the Bill on the advice of the Joint Select Committee that undertook prelegislative scrutiny, including clarifications on the independence of the new domestic abuse commissioner to ensure that they can carry out their role as effectively as possible. It is also positive that the commissioner will be expected to encourage good practice in identifying children affected by domestic abuse, and I was pleased to see Nicole Jacobs appointed as the commissioner designate; she brings a breadth of experience in this area.
The Domestic Abuse Bill is a prime example of legislation that, if done well, stands a real chance of securing widespread support from hon. Members of all parties, and from outside the House. I am sure that every hon. Member present wants to ensure that we get it right, but the Bill is not perfect. The crux of my concerns is that the Bill fails to grasp the opportunity to truly take account of the needs of children affected by domestic abuse, which is why we are having this debate. It is an issue that was brought close to home by my constituent Christine, who is a survivor of domestic abuse. Christine came to see me about her experiences and about her concern that the needs of children are not properly taken into account when considering the impact of domestic abuse.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and I congratulate her on securing this important debate. Does she agree that children who see, overhear or experience domestic abuse are sometimes at risk of copying that abuse and the behaviour of the person who survives it? Does she agree that there is greater need for specialist support for children who experience such abuse, and that the Government should take it seriously and try to fund that support?
Liz Twist
It is absolutely right—it is the crux of my argument—that we need to ensure that specialist and appropriate services are available for all children going through that experience.
My constituent Christine believes strongly that the effect of domestic abuse on children needs much more attention, so that they, too, can be helped to survive and thrive with the right emotional support. She told me that years after her leaving that abusive relationship, her daughter, who is now over 18, is still dealing with the damage caused by experiencing the abuse that her mother suffered. Christine is an amazing, strong woman and I am glad to be able to raise this issue for her.
I sincerely hope the Minister takes on board the points that come from the debate. I also hope she will work with organisations from across the children’s sector and the violence against women and girls sector, which have informed today’s proceedings, to ensure that the Bill addresses the needs of children and young people affected by domestic abuse.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
There is also the issue of abusive relationships between under-16s. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need the Government to look at that as well, and to consider recommendations so that we can help and better support children, particularly girls, who find themselves in those circumstances?
Liz Twist
I certainly do. I know it has been raised by some of the groups working on this issue, and it is important that we take that into account.
Worryingly, the evidence tells us that up to one in five children and young people are exposed to domestic abuse during their childhood. On average, 37 children’s social care assessments that identify domestic violence as a feature of a child’s life are undertaken each day in the north-east alone. However, they will not be seen as victims. Analysis indicates that over 800,000 children in England live in households that report domestic abuse, yet there are still shortcomings in the family courts that deal with domestic abuse cases, with a perpetrator of domestic abuse seen as a violent criminal in the criminal courts but as a “good enough” parent in the family courts.
Although we know that the consequences of such childhood experiences can be devastating and result in emotional, social, psychological and behavioural difficulties, there is significant variability around the country in the level of support available to children. In two thirds of local authorities taking part in a recent study by Action for Children, children face barriers to accessing support. In over 10% of such areas, no support services were available to children at all. Those are just some of the issues that the Bill must deal with if it is to live up to expectations and become the landmark piece of legislation that we all want it to be. I would welcome hearing how the Minister envisages the Bill supporting children affected by domestic abuse.
I want to highlight two key areas in the time I have left. I know that hon. Members will pick up a multitude of other concerns directly, from migrant children and their families through to the operation of the family courts, but time will not allow me to address them all. My first concern is about the definition of domestic abuse. Although it is welcome, the statutory definition will not, as it stands, include children, relegating them instead to the statutory guidance. That is problematic on a number of fronts, not least because the guidance is yet to be published.
First and foremost, it worries me greatly that overlooking children in the definition of domestic abuse fails to recognise the serious impact that seeing, hearing or being otherwise exposed to domestic abuse perpetrated by one adult against another can have on children. In short, they will be considered witnesses to domestic abuse, rather than being recognised as victims themselves. Given that we know about the seriousness of the impact that this can have on children, such an approach is untenable.
Secondly, the Government have made it clear that frontline practitioners and public authorities, including the police and social services, are to adopt the Bill’s definition in their day-to-day duties. However, I share the concerns of organisations across the children’s sector that, if children are not included, it could affect how they are treated by the professionals coming into contact with their families. I therefore urge the Minister to consider broadening the Bill’s definition of domestic abuse to include children.
My second key concern is about the provision of support services for children. I have already mentioned that domestic abuse can result in long-lasting impacts on a child’s health, development, ability to learn and wellbeing. That is on top of increased risks of criminal behaviour and interpersonal difficulties in future intimate relationships and friendships. Analysis of the millennium cohort study shows that children whose parents reported experiencing domestic violence when children were aged three reported 30% higher than average antisocial behaviours at age 14, a finding that should be seen in the context of the trauma suffered by children who are affected by domestic abuse. With the right support, however, children can thrive in even the most difficult circumstances.
It is very concerning that the percentage of domestic abuse services providing dedicated support to children and young people fell from 62% in 2010 to just 52% in 2017. More alarming still, research from Action for Children suggests that that support is patchy at best, with significant variability in what is available for young people depending on where they are in the country. A fundamental part of the problem is the lack of clear requirements for delivering support services specifically for children who are impacted by domestic abuse. As a result, insufficient funding is allocated to providing a sustainable future for those vital projects.
Although the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s recent consultation on a statutory duty for accommodation-based services is welcome, clarity is needed on the all-important community-based services that support so many children and families, especially as they deal with many of the issues that accommodation-based services face. I recognise that that matter is not part of the Minister’s brief, but I hope that she will both offer reassurances that the Government are looking at it and outline how non-accommodation-based support services will be provided and funded under the new statutory duty.
I am glad to lead this debate on the day that the Domestic Abuse Bill is introduced and very much hope that the Government will work to strengthen the Bill for children. I thank my constituent Christine, who so powerfully brought the issue to my attention.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The debate can last until 5.30 pm. I am obliged to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at no later than 5.12 pm. The guideline limits are five minutes for Her Majesty’s Opposition, 10 minutes for the Minister, and two or three minutes for Liz Twist to sum up, but until 5.12 pm, we are in Back-Bench time. Three Members wish to speak, and I am determined that they should all get their fair share. We will start with Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone. That is quite easy to work out, with seven minutes each or thereabouts. I will do my best to keep to that and hopefully I will finish a wee bit sooner.
I thank the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for setting the scene. In the short time that she has been in the House, she and I—and many others who are present—have spoken about things of interest to us. I look forward to the contributions from other hon. Members, who will refer to the same issues as the hon. Lady, and, I hope, that I will as well.
I know from the work that my constituency office does that domestic abuse is, very unfortunately, a common occurrence. That is sad in a society in which we hope that people will have understanding and respect for each other. Every one of those occasions in my constituency has involved a lady and, more often than not, her children, who have borne the brunt of the domestic abuse.
Women’s Aid NI states:
“Children and young people have often been referred to as the hidden or forgotten victims of domestic violence. In recent years however, recognition that children and young people are impacted upon by domestic violence has spread, and policy and practice has begun to develop accordingly. It is important to remember that whole families suffer from domestic violence. For every woman experiencing violence in the home there will usually be children who are also suffering. The experiences of these children and young people are often overlooked.”
That is key to this issue. The hon. Lady referred to that very honestly in her contribution.
It is not just the lady who suffers abuse, but the children, and I will offer some examples from my constituency casework. I have witnessed at first hand the effect of domestic abuse on children when, through my constituency office, I have attempted to help women find their way out of abusive situations and into safe places. I put on the record my sincere thanks to those at North Down and Ards Women’s Aid, who have often been the difference between life and death for women and a source of new starts for children in my constituency. Despite cuts in funding and an increase in paperwork, all that they do, as well as the compassion and dedication with which they do it, makes a difference.
I know that the Minister does not have responsibility for Northern Ireland, but when she has spoken in any debate that I have been involved in, she has always spoken with compassion and understanding, and has really grasped the issue. I think that every one of us is impressed by her ability to do that. I look forward to her response.
Between July 2018 and June 2019, there were 16,575 domestic abuse crimes recorded in Northern Ireland, which represents an increase of 10% on the previous 12 months, and is the highest since records began in 2004-05. We are seeing more domestic abuse, and I am not sure why that is. Is the cause social media, the society we live in, or do people have more addiction issues? I am not sure, but there is definitely more of it.
A study of 108 mothers who had been victims of domestic violence in Northern Ireland uncovered some horrendous statistics: 90% of children in these homes were aware that violence was occurring; 75% had witnessed violence at home; and 27% of the children had themselves been physically abused by the violent partner. Those numbers may be increasing because more people are reporting domestic abuse. Although the rise in reports is a success, whatever way we look at it, homes are being torn apart and children are being scarred for life by it.
I overheard my parliamentary aide speaking with a friend of hers whose partner was threatening violence and, even though the friend tried to qualify that by saying that it was the first time he had done it, my aide said something that stuck in my mind, because it might be the first time, but that might lead to a number of times. My aide said to her friend, “Okay. So will it be okay the first time your daughter hears that from a man? Because if it is okay for her to watch and hear you going through it, then she will believe it is okay for her to go through and accept it.” If it is okay for the mother, is it okay for the child? I do not think so. We were able to help that young girl and her three children to find a safe place and get help. We need to be able to help children who watch and live through the abuse, even if they are not touched—that is so important.
I hope that the Minister will acknowledge in her response, which I know will be positive, that the issue is not just about how we help mothers, but their children. That is the thrust of the debate. I also look forward to the response from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), with whom I have worked on many issues. We need support systems in place for children to prevent them from repeating the cycle by becoming the abuser they have witnessed or accepting abuse as the norm. We need better systems in place to provide help, counselling and support for children who have witnessed domestic abuse—that must be a priority. Well-balanced children are not taught to bury pain but to express it in a helpful way. They need help to do so, and that is what we are asking for. I look to the Minister for an understanding of the strategy to improve support provided to children who witness domestic abuse and who, too often, are a part of its cycle. That has to stop, and it has to stop now.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
The most common thing that women in refuges or community services have said to me is that they wish that there was something for their children—somewhere that their children could go to speak to somebody about what was happening at home. Although many of those women appreciated the support that was available to them, there was a hole for at-risk children, whether in classrooms or even in social services, with zero therapeutic support or play care support, or even just somebody at school who they could speak to and who would understand.
If the women of this country who have suffered domestic violence had written the Domestic Abuse Bill and had picked a single thing to ask for, they would have asked for their children to be supported. Across the country, support for children who are victims of domestic violence is patchy at best. Sometimes it is done well. The organisation where I used to work has a huge team of children’s support workers, funded as a pilot project through the Home Office. Unfortunately, however, such things are often pilot projects that do not extend to everywhere in the country and often go to those places that are best at writing bids. As the bid writer, I am delighted that we had that project, but the reality in most parts of the country is that if a teenager who was suffering abuse stepped forward at school, or if a child in a primary school stepped forward to say something about what was happening at home with his mum and dad, there would be nowhere to send that child.
I am fairly well versed in the local domestic abuse projects where I live, and I have most of their mobile phone numbers, but I would not know where to send a child who needed therapeutic support in Birmingham, the second biggest city in the country. If provision is patchy where I live, I cannot imagine what it is like in Blaydon.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend, whose background is in this area, is making a really good speech. As a former children’s services manager in Birmingham, she is absolutely spot on when she says that there is nowhere to refer children, especially when even children on child protection plans are not given support. Does she agree that it is wholly inadequate not to recognise children in the definition?
Jess Phillips
I absolutely agree. The Domestic Abuse Bill gives us a real opportunity. We will not get the moon on a stick—the Bill will not give us everything—but the annual case load at Women’s Aid, where I used to work, involved on average 8,000 women and 16,000 children. Children’s names are written down on a form and their social work paperwork is in the file, but no one from my organisation would necessarily have laid eyes on them. A tiny fraction of them would have lived in refuge accommodation—less than 10% of the total number would have gone through that in a year—so we are talking about thousands of children in the west midlands who, every day, are without someone to confide in, to talk to, or to deal with the trauma they are feeling in their lives.
Anyone who sits for five minutes with people who have been a child victim of domestic abuse, who have grown up in a home, will tell us that that trauma stays with them in adulthood. They are likely to suffer from PTSD and from problems within their own intimate relationships. All the findings from studies of crime data on knife crime or even terrorism show links to people who grow up in traumatised households. It is imperative for the future of those children and our country that we get this right. Children must be included in the Bill, and at the same time we must take a huge, wholesale look at funding for children’s services in the country. I ask the Minister directly: how many young people’s violence advisers and specialist children’s workers are there across England and Wales? The SafeLives data shows that it would cost only £2.5 million to provide those services across England and Wales. In the greater scheme of things, what it would save would be huge.
We are moving into an era when this will be talked about in schools. All of us in the Chamber have fought—some of us literally had to fight directly on the streets—to ensure that compulsory sex and relationship education will be available in our schools. As we roll that out and talk about such subjects in schools, we must ensure that we do not open a door into an empty room. We must ensure that specialist training and specialist single points of contact are available to handle this in every school, and to handle it well.
The murder rate of women and girls were released the week before last. I have forgotten the name of the organisation, but the data was released: 144 women and girls were murdered last year. That is an increase of about 27 on the previous year. Those figures include the murder of girls younger than three. The reality is that we need to provide support for victims of domestic violence who are children, and it is also imperative that they are safeguarded. We need to start looking at where we are failing in the system of children’s social care. To look at my own city again, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) could tell horror stories about how the under-resourcing of children’s services is leading to dangerous situations for the city’s children.
I cannot stress one thing enough when it comes to the review being undertaken of the family court. All of us have been in meetings with the likes of Claire Throssell, whose children were burned in their home by a violent perpetrator who the family courts had allowed to have access to them, even though she had begged and pleaded against that. The presumption of access for domestic violence perpetrators has to end.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
To build on the hon. Lady’s point, the presumption in favour of access for a parent who in a criminal court would be considered a violent offender has a hidden dimension. Sometimes the perpetrator of domestic abuse will use the child as a pawn. Enhanced right of access will, typically, be used as a tool to torture the mother. The hon. Lady gave powerful figures not only for women who have been killed by domestic abuse but for children as young as three. She also gave an example of arson. That grim conclusion might not be reached, but children are still treated as pawns. They are placed with the perpetrator parent, in a highly dangerous situation, and they are denied access to their mother. That is a tool to torture the mother, and goodness knows what is happening. Another problem is the reporting restrictions in the family court, which make it difficult to know how the decisions are reached and the slipstream in which those children are moving.
Jess Phillips
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I have seen hundreds of cases in which access to a child is used simply to extend the abuse. Children become pawns, and that has a psychological effect on them. They are pulled about and told that they have to go somewhere, such that they do not feel safe. Their mothers have to watch on and say goodbye to their children, putting them into the custody of someone they do not believe to be safe. That is psychological torture in our family court system—although, thanks to its secrecy, we will never truly know. However, I am sent emails with reams of accounts about that exact thing happening, day in, day out. We have to stop wringing our hands.
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service is also an issue with regard to the family court. CAFCASS provides support and services for perpetrators to try to stop the perpetration of domestic abuse. I am not here to criticise that, but I note that CAFCASS does not provide the same support for women and children. I often found a disparity when people decided to fund local commissioned services for perpetrators. Again, I have no problem with that, but there was always a discrepancy between the amount of money that would go to the perpetrator project and the amount that would go to the project that ran alongside it for women and children. Double the number of people was always a fraction of the price, I noted.
Jess Phillips
I will but for the last time, because I want to leave time for my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) to speak.
Jim Shannon
I am conscious of the psychological, financial and emotional ways in which a partner can put pressure on a wife and mother of the children. My office has dealt on many occasions with the issue of finance, where the male controls the money and the female and the children depend on him for finances. It is another nasty form of control. I have spoken about it many times, as has the hon. Lady.
Jess Phillips
The hon. Gentleman is right. We will welcome the Domestic Abuse Bill giving recognition to the issue of financial abuse. Things will only ever change if there are proper support services in every part of the country, to ensure that people can recognise financial abuse and that there is a route out.
People often say, “Why doesn’t she leave?” When a woman leaves a domestic violence perpetrator, with her children, the risk that she will be murdered elevates. There is a pattern in all domestic homicide reviews and children’s safeguarding serious case reviews: when people try to escape, the likelihood of their being murdered increases. That is one reason, but the other reason a woman might have nothing is that she will have no money. It is easy for us to say that we would leave, but it is very different in practice.
It would not be a day with me and the Minister if I did not mention the plight of migrant women, but my hon. Friend for Edmonton will talk much more about that, so I shall give her the time to do so. Until the Domestic Abuse Bill accounts for all victims, whether they be children or adult victims, and can guarantee at least an opportunity of safety—we cannot guarantee safety; no Government Department can, no matter how great—for every woman in this country who comes forward, homicide rates will not decline. The people whose names I will have to read out every year will increasingly be those of migrant women and children. I shall leave the Minister with that.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to serve under your chairship, Mr Hollobone, and I look forward to doing so again in future. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing today’s important debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) for her usual passion in speaking about this important subject that needs a lot more forensic inspection, especially in the light of the Bill.
I speak not only as a Member of Parliament but as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on no recourse to public funds. I am particularly keen to contribute to this debate to speak up for those mothers who, as result of their immigration status, have had the condition of no recourse to public funds imposed on them, and who are also more likely to be subject to domestic abuse and less able to escape it. Children in those families are in an especially vulnerable position. The reality for thousands of families and children in this country is that if they find themselves in an abusive situation, they have no safety net to fall back on. Many of those families are presented with a choice: continued abuse or possible destitution. Nobody should have to make that choice.
The Children’s Society’s research found that between 2013 and 2015, more than 50,000 individuals with children had no access to mainstream welfare support. According to the University of Wolverhampton and the Greater London Authority, there are 250,000 undocumented migrant children living in the UK. I want to speak up for those families and children. They must not be forgotten in this debate and in the Bill.
No child should be more vulnerable to domestic abuse as a result of barriers placed in their way by the Government’s hostile environment policy. The bottom line is that protection from domestic abuse must be provided regardless of immigration status. Yet, as it stands, those with no recourse to public funds are incredibly vulnerable to suffering from abuse and being trapped in an abusive cycle from which they cannot escape.
One common pathway for children to escape abuse is assistance from social services but, for many, that pathway is blocked because of their immigration status. Under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, local authorities have a duty to safeguard and promote the wellbeing of children in need. However, many families with no recourse to public funds find that route to safety totally blocked. Charities such as the Children’s Society and Project 17 have even found that social workers have assessed that it is safer for children to be placed with an abusive parent than it is for them to face living with a parent who has no recourse to public funds. That is shocking.
Project 17’s report “Not Seen, Not Heard: Children’s Experiences of the Hostile Environment” contains multiple accounts of local authorities who refuse support to destitute families because their parents—generally, mothers —have a pending immigration application. Decisions such as those prevent survivors of abuse from seeking help from local councils, in effect removing their access to that vital support. As a result of Government cuts over the last 10 years, our councils’ social services are under huge strain, but social services must never use a family’s immigration status as a way of gatekeeping and preventing them from getting the help they need to escape. What will the Government do to prevent this appalling situation, and ensure that local authorities properly recognise their duty towards all children, regardless of immigration status?
We are debating the abuse of children. All children must be protected from abuse, under all circumstances. No ifs, no buts. The uncomfortable truth is that they cannot be protected properly while that support is dependent on the immigration status of a child’s parents. I hope the Minister will agree that we cannot have a two-tier system when it comes to child abuse; there can be no hierarchy of protection. For children and parents living in an abusive relationship, all barriers to receiving support and escaping their abusers must be removed. It is therefore vital that the Domestic Abuse Bill ensures that every migrant survivor of domestic abuse has access to public funds.
I hope the Government will look again at families with no recourse to public funds, and ensure that every child has full access to the support needed to escape abuse. It is time to recognise all survivors of domestic abuse, regardless of age, immigration status or entitlement to support. I hope that today’s debate can be a step towards that.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing this important debate and on her wonderful advocacy of her constituent Christine.
It is welcome news that the Domestic Abuse Bill has returned to the House. As the Bill has only been published in the last couple of hours, I have not had a chance to familiarise myself with all of the changes, but it is up to us all to ensure that the Bill is robust, makes rapid progress through Parliament and that the new legislation is in place to protect victims as soon as possible. That includes the sometimes hidden victims of domestic abuse —the children. Some children may be living in homes where they are victims of physical, emotional or even sexual violence. For others, the psychological effects of seeing a parent suffering abuse can be just as damaging. All children who experience domestic abuse, be it as a victim or as a witness, must have protected places on all NHS waiting lists, including for mental health services. Likewise, they should be given priority access to school places if required, to give them parity with looked-after children. We must ensure that child victims of domestic abuse, who already face huge upheaval in their lives, do not experience unnecessary additional disruption or trauma.
We must also look at the role of the family courts in domestic abuse cases. I am pleased that the new enhanced Bill includes a wider ban on cross-examination of victims, but I have heard too many first-hand accounts of incidents in which the courts have let down the children they should be there to protect—incidents in which the safety and wellbeing of young people is overshadowed by the rights of perpetrators. No one who is awaiting trial, on bail or facing ongoing criminal proceedings for domestic abuse-related offences should be permitted unsupervised contact with their children. Family courts need to be accountable for prioritising the physical safety and emotional wellbeing of all the vulnerable young people they are there to protect.
We must also consider children in families with no recourse to public funds. There has been much discussion about migrant women with insecure immigration status, who struggle to find protection from domestic abuse. I understand that the Government have begun a review of what support can be provided, but those women and their children need urgent action. In addition, teenagers in abusive relationships all too often are not considered to be victims of domestic abuse, but they are.
We must never lose sight of how big an impact domestic abuse can have on children, both at the time of the experience and in the future. Although physical injuries may heal, the emotional and psychological effects of being a victim or a witness last a lifetime. I welcome the introduction of the Bill and eagerly await details of its Second Reading and Committee stage. The Bill is long overdue; we must not delay any longer. Protection for those affected by domestic abuse desperately needs to be brought into legislation. Survivors want to see it happen, victims need to see it happen, and the innocent, vulnerable children who are caught up in it all deserve to see it happen.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The Minister has oodles of time to respond, but if she brings her remarks to a conclusion by 5.27 pm, that will give Liz Twist time to sum up the debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing this important debate about a subject that we all clearly care so much about. May I congratulate her on her timing as well? As she said, the Bill is back today.
I am delighted that my very first act as the Minister leading the Bill through the House is to respond to this incredibly important debate about the impact of domestic abuse on the lives of children, not just in the immediate term but in the much longer term. The hon. Lady articulated that extremely well with the example of her constituent Christine, who set out not just the impact on her own life but the long-term impact on the life of her daughter, who is now over the age of 18. I hope that everyone watching the debate realises that we all genuinely understand the impact that domestic abuse can have.
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who, as always, brought the perspective of a vital part of our United Kingdom to the Chamber. He made the point that domestic abuse affects many families in Northern Ireland. I hope he is pleased that we were able to remove from the latest iteration of the Bill the sections we were going to include to ensure that legislation is passed in Northern Ireland. Of course, we were able to do that because the Northern Ireland Executive is back. We have confirmation that the Executive intend to legislate on this important subject locally, which is as it should be. I am delighted by that development.
As was set out, we know that as many as one in five children in the UK are witness to or exposed to this awful crime type in their households. We know too that domestic abuse has a devastating impact on young people. Growing up in a household of fear and intimidation can have serious, long-lasting effects on the health, wellbeing and development of a young person. We know that children exposed to domestic abuse are more likely to experience mental health difficulties, to be excluded from school and to become victims of domestic abuse later in life. I do not for a moment say that is the life outcome of every child—of course it is not—but we must pay attention to the statistics and to the trends that we see in them.
The hon. Member for Blaydon rightly challenged the Government on why the definition has been set at the age of 16 and above. As I hope I have been clear when speaking about previous iterations of the Bill, that is something we have grappled with. In 2012, following a consultation, the cross-Government definition of domestic abuse was amended to include 16 and 17-year-olds, with the aim of increasing awareness of young people’s experience of domestic abuse. Indeed, there was strong support for maintaining that age limit in responses to the domestic abuse consultation we held in 2018, which was part of the foundations of the Bill.
The concern is that lowering the age limit below 16 risks blurring the line between child abuse and domestic abuse between adults. Abuse perpetrated by an adult towards someone under 16 is classified as child abuse. We argue that the distinction needs to be maintained because, as colleagues will know, many interactions with social services and so on may flow from that definition.
We note that the Joint Committee on the Draft Domestic Abuse Bill, which scrutinised the draft Bill in huge detail and heard evidence from many witnesses, concluded that an age limit of 16 is the right one, but we are absolutely clear that the impact of domestic abuse on young people needs to be recognised properly, and that we must ensure that the agencies are aware of it and know how to identify and respond to it.
Jess Phillips
Are we therefore to assume that any child under 16 who suffered as a victim of domestic abuse, either directly or indirectly, would meet the threshold for child abuse and therefore should be reported to children’s social care immediately by all the authorities that we would expect to report that? For example, should every schoolteacher who hears about something like that report it as child abuse? If so, what will the Government put in place to ensure that children’s social care can deal with that?
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Lady will appreciate that I cannot give a broad-brush answer for each and every case; clearly, every case must be treated on its facts. However, the definition of harm in the Children Act 1989—again, the Joint Committee looked at that very carefully—includes
“forms of ill-treatment which are not physical”
as well as
“impairment suffered from seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another”.
We are therefore clear that the definition of harm in the 1989 Act includes witnessing and experiencing coercive control. From that, we concluded that the most effective way of trying to act on the Committee’s recommendation with regard to that definition is to amend the Department for Education’s statutory guidance, “Working together to safeguard children”. I hope that helps to clarify the point.
We are also clear that the impact of domestic abuse includes the impact on children living in households where abuse is conducted, teenage relationship abuse—the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) mentioned that—and abuse directed towards siblings and parents, which is perhaps one of the most hidden forms of abuse in a crime already typified by concealment and hiding.
We are seeking to address the very real points and concerns raised by Members and, indeed, others outside this House in a number of ways. First and foremost, the statutory guidance, which will sit alongside the definition in the Act—when it is passed, I hope—will specifically address the adverse impact of abuse on children. We are working closely with key charities such as Barnardo’s, Action for Children and the Children’s Society as well as the domestic abuse commissioner—the commissioner designate, I should say—the Children’s Commissioner and many others to ensure that the guidance makes the impact on children clear.
To answer the question from the hon. Member for Blaydon, we will publish a draft version of the statutory guidance ahead of the Commons Committee stage to assist in scrutiny of the Bill. I genuinely encourage hon. Members and their networks of experts and survivors to consider that draft guidance and feed back to us on it, because we want to get it right.
Importantly, the Bill as introduced today includes a new statutory duty that will require tier 1 local authorities in England to provide support to domestic abuse victims and their children in refuges and other safe accommodation. That will result in the right level of tailored support for victims and their children across the country at the time of need, with improved recovery rates and the release of bed spaces as people rebuild their lives more quickly. We will ensure that local authorities receive appropriate financial support to meet the proposed duty.
Kate Osamor
Will the Minister expand slightly on the authority that the Government will be giving to local authorities? Will that include mothers who have no recourse to public funds but are experiencing domestic violence?
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Lady knows that there is already provision under the domestic violence concession in some circumstances. I am pleased that she raised migrant women, because, as I hope she knows, alongside our introduction of the Bill the Government published today our further response to the Joint Committee’s recommendations, and in that we set out our response to this particularly difficult situation. She will understand the complexity involved. At the moment, I am afraid, we are still reviewing the consultation responses, but we have said that we will set out our conclusions before Report stage in this House.
One of the key functions of the domestic abuse commissioner will be to encourage good practice in the identification of children affected by domestic abuse as well as the provision of protection and support to people, including children, affected by domestic abuse. Under the terms of the commissioner’s appointment, they are required to have a thematic lead in the heart of their office to represent the interests of children. We are working with the commissioner to address some of the important points raised on community-based services and how those can be provided better across the country.
In terms of helping children above and beyond the law, the statutory guidance and so on, legislation can achieve so much, but much more needs to be done to address the impact on children. That is why in 2018 we launched the £8 million fund for children affected by domestic abuse, which funds projects that support children experiencing domestic abuse at home, focused on early intervention and reducing the impact of domestic abuse on children’s physical and mental wellbeing. Those projects are making a difference. We see those services really helping children and young people across England and Wales, supporting them through innovative practices and therapy.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) rightly raised the issue of schools. She will know of Operation Encompass, and we are funding the national roll-out of this fantastic project, which gives the police a set of simple procedures to enable them to communicate quickly and effectively with schools in relation to any pupils who may have been exposed to domestic abuse the night preceding the start of the school day. We all know examples of where the project has had a real impact. It will help schools provide timely and effective help to the pupils involved. Whereas children’s social care intervenes only in the most serious cases, Operation Encompass enables every child to receive support, regardless of whether an incident is recorded as a crime. We have also provided £220,000 to develop and pilot a training programme for children and family social workers to improve awareness of coercive control, indicators of domestic abuse, and how best to support families.
Many Members have raised the impact and role of the family courts, not just in today’s debate but in more general discussions. That is a critical part of our addressing this hidden crime. The welfare of the child is the family court’s paramount concern when making any decision about their upbringing, including with whom the child is to live or spend time. The law is clear that the presumption in favour of contact with each parent will apply unless there is evidence to the contrary, such as in cases that may involve domestic abuse. We have revised a practice direction to set out procedure for the courts to follow when dealing with applications for child arrangement orders where domestic abuse is alleged, which makes it clear that the presumption of contact can be explicitly displaced—
Victoria Atkins
I am so sorry; I have about 30 seconds left.
We have an expert panel to gather evidence to better understand how the family courts are responding, because we understand the concerns that hon. Members and survivors have expressed. The panel is working through a body of evidence and we expect its findings and recommendations for next steps to be published this spring.
I thank the hon. Member for Blaydon again for raising the issues in this debate as well as all people not just in this place but outside who are working so hard to support the victims and survivors of domestic abuse, including children. We are committed to getting this Bill right. With their help, we can.
Liz Twist
I thank all hon. Members who took part by speaking or intervening in the debate. There is much shared concern from everyone who raised an issue. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred to children as the forgotten victims of domestic abuse. The purpose of the debate is to ensure that they are not forgotten but properly cared for.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) talked about the support that is available. If there is patchy support in Birmingham, she said, how is it in Blaydon? We see very mixed provision across the country and it is important that we get that right. She also talked about access by perpetrators of domestic abuse to children and about the Home Office pilots. We all think these services need secure funding, not funding based on a bidding process and who writes the best paper. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) explained clearly the issues faced by migrant women and those with no recourse to public funds.
In the minute and a half left to me, I want to recapitulate some of the asks. We talked about revising the definition to include children, and I heard the Minister’s statement and explanation about how she had grappled with the definition. I say to her: please grapple some more, because this is a really important issue. Many organisations representing the interests of children are supportive of that move. The other big ask was to ensure that support services, whether accommodation-based or community-based, are available to all children so that they get what they need. This is not just a failure of financing; it is a failure to look after the most vulnerable children who face difficult situations. I ask her to look at that.
The Minister asked us to look at the guidelines and to provide feedback, and I have no doubt that many people and organisations will do that. I thank her for her comments and ask her to look again at those key asks to look after children.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered children and domestic abuse.
Written Statements
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
NHS Prescription Charges
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
The National Health Service (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (“the Amendment Regulations”) will be laid before Parliament to increase certain national health service charges in England from 1 April 2020. Prescription Charges (£) Single Charge 9.15 3 Month PPC 29.65 12 Month PPC 105.90 Surgical Brassiere 30.05 Abdominal or Spinal Support 45.35 Wigs and Fabric Supports Stock Modacrylic Wig 74.15 Partial Human Hair Wig 196.40 Full Bespoke Human Hair Wig 287.20
This year we have increased the prescription charge by 15p from £9 to £9.15 for each medicine or appliance dispensed. The cost of prescription pre-payment certificates (PPC) will also be increased: three-month PPC increases by 55p to £29.65 and 12-month PPC increases by £1.90 to £105.90. The increase is in line with inflation. Charges for wigs and fabric supports will also be increased in line with inflation. Details of the revised charges for 2020-21 can be found in the table below:
[HCWS141]
Coronavirus
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
The four UK Governments have today published an action plan that sets out how we have responded so far and how we intend to respond going forward to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak, which I am pleased to present to Parliament today. Copies of the plan are on https://www.gov.uk/government/ publications/coronavirus-action-plan and will be e-mailed to Members of both Houses and deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS142]
Domestic Abuse Bill
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
I am pleased to announce that today the Government will be re-introducing the Domestic Abuse Bill in the House of Commons.
This landmark Bill will help better protect and support the victims of domestic abuse and their children and bring perpetrators to justice.
The measures in the Bill seek to:
Promote awareness—to put domestic abuse at the top of everyone’s agenda, including by legislating for a statutory definition of domestic abuse, emphasising that domestic abuse is not just physical and sexual violence, but can also be emotional, coercive or controlling, and economic abuse. Statutory guidance will accompany the definition to assist in understanding and dissemination of this important feature of the Bill, including taking account of the fact that the majority of victims of domestic abuse are women.
Protect and support victims, including by introducing a new domestic abuse protection notice and domestic abuse protection order, and placing a new duty on tier one local authorities in England to provide support to victims of domestic abuse and their children in refuges and other safe accommodation.
Transform the justice response, including by helping victims to give their best evidence in the criminal courts through the use of video evidence, screens and other special measures, and ensuring that victims of abuse do not suffer further trauma in family court proceedings by being cross-examined by their abuser.
Improve performance—the new Domestic Abuse Commissioner will help drive consistency and better performance in the response to domestic abuse across all local areas and agencies.
The Bill was originally introduced in July 2019 having had the benefit of pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses, chaired by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller). In the Government’s original response to the Joint Committee’s report (CP 137), we undertook to publish a further response addressing the outstanding recommendations; the Government have today published this further response alongside the re-introduction of the Bill (CP 214). Copies of the further response will be available from the Vote Office and it will also be published on the www.gov.uk website.
Part 2 of the Bill establishes in law the independent office of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. Clause 10 makes provision for a framework document which, in effect, sets out how the Home Secretary and the Commissioner will work together. The document deals with, among other things, matters relating to governance, and the funding and staffing of the Commissioner’s office. To assist the scrutiny of the Bill, I have today published a draft of the framework document which has been agreed with the designate Commissioner, Nicole Jacobs.
The draft framework document, together with other Bill documents including a revised impact assessment and policy equality statement are available at: https://www. gov.uk/government/collections/domestic-abuse-bill.
[HCWS144]
Electronic Execution of Deeds: Government Response
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
The Government welcome the Law Commission’s report on electronic execution of documents, and I am very grateful to the commission for the detailed consideration it has given to this important topic.
I agree with the report’s conclusion that formal primary legislation is not necessary to reinforce the legal validity of electronic signatures. The existing framework makes clear that businesses and individuals can feel confident in using e-signatures in commercial transactions.
I endorse the commission’s draft legislative provision as set out in the report, as reflecting the Government’s view of the legal position on electronic signatures. They are permissible and can be used in confidence in commercial and consumer documents.
I accept the Law Commission’s recommendation that an industry working group should be established, which the Government should convene. As the report demonstrates, notwithstanding the position in law, there are issues on the security and technology of electronic signatures that require further consideration from suitably experienced experts.
I will ask the industry working group to consider the question of video witnessing of electronic signatures.
The report highlights that technological advances have meant that the status of electronic signatures is also applicable in other fields of law, and I note that while this presents opportunities it also entails challenges. These include ensuring that reform does not have any adverse impact, particularly on vulnerable people.
That is linked to the Law Commission’s recommendation that there should be a wider review of the law of deeds, which I accept. The Government will ask the Law Commission to undertake this review, although the timing for the review will be subject to overall Government and Law Commission priorities given the volume of law reform work which exists.
[HCWS143]
Merchant Shipping Regulations
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Kelly Tolhurst)
By way of a consent order dated 18 February 2020, the Administrative Court has provided that the Merchant Shipping (Bridge Visibility) (Small Passenger Ships) Regulations 2019 (SI 2019/1025) are quashed and are of no effect. Consequently, the Merchant Shipping (Bridge Visibility) (Small Passenger Ships) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/2286) have been reinstated and will continue to have effect. This order is the result of a judicial review claim.
I have, through the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, assessed the safety implications of this decision and believe that there are no regulatory safety concerns arising from it.
[HCWS140]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
My Lords, if a Division is called in the House, the Grand Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Rules for Direct Payments to Farmers (Amendment) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the Rules for Direct Payments to Farmers (Amendment) Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 5th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. I hope that it will be helpful to your Lordships if I speak to both the Rules for Direct Payments to Farmers (Amendment) Regulations 2020 and the Financing, Management and Monitoring of Direct Payments to Farmers (Amendment) Regulations 2020, given the close connection between the two instruments. These instruments amend retained EU law governing the direct payment schemes for farmers for the 2020 scheme year. This EU law was brought into domestic law on exit day by the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020, which, as noble Lords will remember, we have debated.
These statutory instruments address operability issues in retained EU law so that it can continue to function effectively in the United Kingdom for the 2020 scheme. The instruments make purely technical amendments to fix inoperabilities, and I should emphasise that they do not make policy changes. They use the affirmative procedure and I would like to explain why this was necessary. They could not have been made any sooner as they could be made only after the parent Act received Royal Assent, which was just before exit day. The instruments needed to be in force on exit day, at the same time as the relevant direct payments legislation was brought into UK law. This has ensured a seamless transition from EU law to UK law. It has meant that the Government and the devolved Administrations can continue to operate effectively the 2020 scheme, which began on 1 January, therefore avoiding any disruption to farmers. Significantly, these instruments ensure that the UK Government can meet their commitments to funding in the agriculture sector. The Government have announced nearly £3 billion in funding for direct payments to UK farmers for the 2020 scheme year.
The Rules for Direct Payments to Farmers (Amendment) Regulations 2020 make operability amendments to the retained EU Regulation 1307/2013, which is the main direct payments regulation establishing the high-level framework required to make direct payments to farmers. It also amends two delegated and implementing Acts under this regulation which together set the detailed scheme rules for direct payments. Finally, it makes minor operability amendments to an existing statutory instrument related to direct payments in England. It is worth making it clear that the direct payments legislation being amended by this regulation was brought into UK law only for the 2020 scheme year, not for prior years, so this instrument makes amendments only in relation to 2020 direct payments.
The Financing, Management and Monitoring of Direct Payments to Farmers (Amendment) Regulations 2020 make amendments to the retained EU Regulation 1306/2013. This is the main “horizontal” regulation that sets the overarching framework for how the CAP is administered, including direct payments. It also amends four delegated and implementing Acts under the main regulation, which together set the detailed rules necessary to finance, manage and monitor the delivery of the CAP schemes. Finally, it makes minor operability amendments to an existing statutory instrument in relation to direct payments in England.
It is important to recognise that the EU legislation being amended by this regulation was brought into UK law only in so far as it relates to 2020 direct payments and not to other parts of the CAP. Therefore, this statutory instrument amends only the parts of the legislation which relate to the 2020 direct payments. The list of regulations amended by these instruments can be found in paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 and Annexe 1 to the accompanying Explanatory Memorandum.
The amendments include replacing EU terms with domestic equivalents. For example, references to “Member States” have in most cases been replaced with the term “relevant authority”. The SIs define a relevant authority as meaning the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland. The instruments in most cases confer powers to make legislation which once sat with the European Commission on either the Secretary of State or the relevant authority.
The amendments also include removing provisions which are not applicable in the UK, such as references to the payment for cotton and administrative processes which lose their purpose outside the EU context; for example, the requirement to send information to the Commission.
More specifically, the Rules for Direct Payments to Farmers (Amendment) Regulations 2020 remove the power to fix spending ceilings for individual direct payment schemes. In a domestic context, it is unnecessary to set such individual ceilings in legislation, particularly given that the schemes are administered at the devolved level.
The Financing, Management and Monitoring of Direct Payments to Farmers (Amendment) Regulations 2020 remove from retained EU law the EU’s processes for managing its budget and remove or amend the EU’s auditing and accounting rules.
Except for the amendments made to the domestic statutory instruments, which apply only in England, these SIs cover all four parts of the United Kingdom. We have worked closely with the devolved Administrations to produce the instruments and they have given their consent to them.
In summary, the instruments allow the retained EU law to function effectively so that the Government and devolved Administrations can continue to operate the 2020 direct payment schemes for farmers. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations. I thank him, too, for the Government’s commitment to give £2.852 billion to ensure that the programme continues. I should declare a family interest in farming in Suffolk, where we are recipients of basic farm payments and stewardship funding.
The instruments speak for themselves. I have no queries with them; the legislation as it stands is fine. However, is the Minister confident that the payments will be made at the right time and in the full amount? I refer not just to the basic payments but to payments on the stewardship side, which has not had a good record in recent times. I understand from farming colleagues around the country that they are still waiting for some of those payments to be made. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how many are outstanding and when they will be paid. My worry is that the Government will find that fewer people enter those schemes because they fear that they will not be paid at the right time. That would be a great shame because we are trying to encourage a greater number of environmental projects within food production.
Given the flexibility within the instruments, might the Government rethink their stance on the three-year crop rule in the light of recent circumstances? I have in mind particularly the flooding that we have had. At the moment, we are supposed to rotate crops within a three-year period, but given the flooding—which remains a key issue in Lincolnshire, Yorkshire and other areas where crops are still standing in the fields, with little chance of farmers getting them out or being able to plant spring crops—is there flexibility within the system to make any allowances for that?
I have a direct question for the Minister on flooding. I know that emergency payments are allowed, and that some may have already been paid of which I am not aware. Within these rules, may some flooding assistance be given to the farmers who are in such dire straits at the moment?
I noticed in particular Regulation 7(10). I think the exchange rates are undecided at this time. Can the Minister tell us whether the exchange rates will be honoured in the same way between the four devolved Administrations? Clearly, it would surely be wrong to have one system in England and another in Wales and in Scotland. Will he comment on that?
On Regulation 7(6), I see that the Government of Wales have paid an amount to small farmers, and in Scotland beef and sheep farmers have been given assistance. Where will that balance take us? Are there plans to assist farmers in England, who are not represented in that way?
Lastly, I turn to payments. The Minister has a farming background and I am sure he realises that we need to ensure that payments given to farmers this year, let alone next year, are equal across the four devolved Administrations; otherwise, we will have unfair trading circumstances, which I know the Minister would not want to encourage.
Having made those few comments, I return to where I started: I welcome these regulations, and it is important that they are passed by the House. I have no difficulty with what is in them, but they raise other questions, which I have been able to ask this afternoon. I thank the Minister for introducing them.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward these regulations; it would be a very brave man who stood between the farmer and his payments this year. I am also very grateful to my noble friend Lady Byford for setting out her concerns.
Anybody who has travelled from Scotland or the north of England down to London by train or car will have seen the amount of damage caused by the floods. Like my noble friend Lady Byford, I make a special plea for a sense of urgency on the three-crop rule. I hate to say this in mixed company, but I pay tribute to a previous Secretary of State, under a different Administration, Hilary Benn. He visited the Great Yorkshire Show and, on the same day, went back to London and lifted a similar provision that prevented farmers going on the land. The circumstances were similar, although it was a different time of year—July—and I forget which year it was.
My understanding is that the Government are actually discouraging anybody from applying for a specific force majeure provision. There is a very real concern that, eventually, the RPA will be inundated with potentially thousands of applications, given the scale of the problem this year.
I also understand that those who are seeking farming recovery fund financing are experiencing delays. I appreciate how hard my noble friend and his department are working at the moment—he was in the Chamber until very late yesterday, as indeed we all were—but anything that his department can do would be appreciated.
My noble friend will be aware that Flood Re had limited financial capacity, and that no businesses, particularly small businesses, were included. This means that no farm can make an application for financing or insurance cover under Flood Re. Can that be looked at in some shape or form?
I know that this issue might be raised by others, but another statutory instrument is coming down the tracks to implement the Chancellor’s funding statement of 30 December. I do not know whether my noble friend can put a date on that.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, it is good to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Byford. I thank the Minister for his considered introduction to these detailed and complex SIs.
It is clear that the department has gone to some trouble to be helpful in its Explanatory Memorandum. Thanks should be given for that, but to the uninitiated lay man these SIs remain complex. For example, the explanation of Article 21, such as it is, goes from page 6 right through to page 7 of the instrument. Page 15 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to the challenging horizontal regulation, which the Minister tangentially referred to. He might wish to give further explanation to those who might not know about the horizontal regulation. Page 26 of the instrument refers to the 67 permitted varieties of hemp. My challenge to the Minister is: which one does he recommend? Is it Fedora or Silvana? He does not have to answer that, but he has so much insight into the industry that he or his officials might have a recommendation.
These SIs affect the day-to-day lives of thousands of our farmers. They might farm few or many acres. Bearing in mind the humanity of the situation and the personal anxieties that have occurred or might well occur, do he or his officials have an estimate of the total overall direct payments annually? Does he know how much money is made over to farmers in a given, and the most recent, year? How many farmers receive payments—one presumes thousands? Does he have a figure regarding these questions for Wales?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords I am grateful to the Minister for setting out so clearly the details of these two statutory instruments and for his time, and that of his officials, in providing a briefing last week. I have listened to the knowledgeable contributions of other noble Lords; this is a complex issue and one of the few where I wish I were a farmer. During our debate at Second Reading, we strayed into areas covered by the Agriculture Bill which had relevance to direct payments. I do understand that, due to the Brexit date of 31 January, the made affirmative process is needed to ensure that farmers get the payments they deserve, and are relying on, in a timely manner. Many of your Lordships would not have started from here, but here we are. We must make the best of it and ensure that our farmers do not suffer financially this year.
The EU makes CAP payments in arrears, to the UK Government and not to farmers themselves. As the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has said, the euro to pound exchange rate is important during this process: I understand that this has previously been set in September each year. However, we were told at the briefing that this exchange rate will be calculated “soon”. Can the Minister be more specific on when soon will be? There are a number of aspects to these payments, including the young farmers’ scheme to encourage new entrants into farming. Farming is a vital industry on which we all rely, not only for the management of the land but to provide some of the food we eat. Despite what government advisers may think, farming, and indeed fishing, is a vital component in both social and economic prosperity. The basic payment awarded to young farmers, classified as newcomers under 40 years of age and established in the previous five years, is increased by 25% for the first five years and 2% of the national budget allocation is used to finance this supplement. This payment comes on top of other measures young farmers can benefit from under previous rural development programmes. Under the EU, this payment was mandatory for member states. Can the Minister give reassurance that this payment will continue, despite the leaked information over the weekend? I welcome the changes to guidance for young farmers, and the removal of the need for new entrants to produce a yearly certificate of proof of their youth. This change in the bureaucracy is welcome and I look forward to more of this in the Agriculture Bill.
At Second Reading, we debated the environmental land management schemes which are currently being piloted and are due to begin rollout in 2024. Under the previous EU regime, the greening scheme gave the farmers involved, in addition to the basic payment or the single area payment, an additional payment per hectare for using climate-friendly and environment-friendly farming practices. This was previously 30% of the national funding allocations for this greening payment. As the Committee has already heard, this included crop diversification, maintaining existing permanent grassland and maintaining an “ecological focus area” of at least 5% of the arable land. I am sure all noble Lords are aware that stiff penalties existed for failing to meet these greening requirements. Are these previous greening schemes the ones now being replaced by the environmental land management schemes? Is the money received under ELMS by farmers who previously participated voluntarily in the greening schemes likely to be equivalent to, more than or less than what they could have expected to receive previously?
Lastly, I understand that the payments due to be made under the Bew review do not form part of these two statutory instruments. Scottish and Welsh farmers are keen to know when these payments are likely to be made. When will the Bew review money pass through the statutory process and arrive with farmers? I look forward to the Minister’s response to this debate and am happy to approve these two statutory instruments.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear introduction to the order before the Committee today. I also thank him for making himself available for the meeting he convened with the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and myself in connection with these instruments. The regulations on the working of the CAP can have certain peculiarities. I am aware of many of these and declare my interest as a farmer in receipt of EU funds.
As the Minister explained, through the parent Act, the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020, and the withdrawal agreement, these regulations put the existing EU payment schemes into UK law to maintain continuity in the agricultural sector for the year 2020, pending the introduction of the Government’s new regime in the Agriculture Bill, presently in the other place. As he emphasised, this will not entail any changes in policy but will merely put the regulations on a UK basis, correcting inoperabilities and providing necessary continuity and certainty to the agricultural sector. Any disruption could have a severe impact on farmers’ financial viability, especially in Wales and other more disadvantaged areas, as my noble friend Lord Jones highlighted. One or two explanations necessarily need further clarity, which it would be helpful if the Minister provided. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and others drew attention to many of these at our meeting.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady McIntosh, brought up the dreaded three-crop rule and the necessary financial disciplines being maintained by the RPA. To avoid the UK being drawn into the multiannual EU budget cycle, the withdrawal agreement disapplies the 2020 claim year from the implementation period. The payments will become the responsibility of the Treasury, yet the payment exchange rate, normally set each year in September, has yet to be set. Given that the EU will no longer be reimbursing the UK Government, could not the same payment in pounds be maintained as was implemented in 2019? Would that not provide further simplicity and clarity?
One of the challenges that Defra endured every year was having to make payments and then see them being examined by the EU, which led to disallowance from retrospective reimbursements when the EU determined that a member state had not made payments in conformity with the regulations. The Minister will confirm that this often came to many millions of pounds each year. I am sure that the Minister’s department will rejoice at disallowance disappearing; nevertheless, these are public funds and must be administered effectively. The memorandum accompanying the regulations does not entirely clarify whether there will be a distinct, similar process conducted over the year 2020 payments, other than stating that existing domestic public accountability frameworks will apply. I understand that the Rural Payments Agency will still maintain the scheme’s disciplines and infringement penalties, but will there be anything comparable to the specific auditing conducted by the EU, and will that operate this year? How will any potential operability shortcomings be satisfied? Any pursuit of scheme applicants would be a clear departure from previous policy.
A key feature of BPS is the distinguishing of Pillar 1 payments from Pillar 2 payments for rural development, whereby the EU scheme allows member states to convert up to 15% of Pillar 1 payments to Pillar 2—known as modulation. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will continue to apply a modulation rate of 12% for the 2020 year? Can he indicate whether the devolved Administrations will or will not depart from the rate they set in 2019? It would be helpful to have explicit reference today. Pillar 2 payments contribute to various multiannual schemes such as the Countryside Stewardship Scheme, which was the focus of questions from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. Can the Minister clarify that such schemes, and any new applications that may come forward this year, will continue to operate and be funded for the remainder of their respective terms, up to proposals yet to be implemented following the passage of the Agriculture Bill? Would any termination clause be in this year’s applications, should new measures become features of the new policy of reward for public goods? Can the Minister provide details of any pilot scheme under consideration?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for this contributing to this debate, because it reflects what we are all most concerned about: the importance of food production, the people who enable the consumption of food at home and abroad, and their simply excellent produce.
I remind your Lordships that we are the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, so I intend, in declaring my farming interests, to champion food production and farmers. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, was absolutely right to refer to young farmers. Those of us who farm do not want to be the last generation of farmers. We need to ensure that the next generation produces food for us and enhances our environment, with 70% of our land farmed in the farmers’ custodianship.
I will seek at a brisk gallop to answer a number of questions. My noble friends Lady Byford and Lady McIntosh asked about payments on time. The Rural Payments Agency has worked hard to improve payment performance, as I think has been acknowledged. For farmers, by 20 January the RPA had issued in England £1.69 billion of BPS payments, about £101 million for environmental stewardship and just under £8 million for countryside stewardship. As is recognised in the department, the RPA is now focusing on paying remaining claims as soon as possible. I am well aware of the importance of prompt payments, an issue which the ministerial team places great importance on for future confidence.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, referred to the intricacy of the instruments. I always go to the Explanatory Memorandum—I find looking at the statutory instrument alone very confusing. Indeed, sometimes, the Explanatory Memorandum needs some explaining too.
However, it is important to record that the Government’s funding for direct payments, announced on 30 December, matches the total funding for direct payments available for 2019. The Government have committed a total of £2.852 billion to UK farmers—£1.843 billion for England, £523 million for Scotland, £243 million for Wales and £294 million for Northern Ireland. This is in addition to the £216.6 million of funding awarded since the spending round to support the farming sector in Scotland and Wales, following the Bew review on farm funding allocations.
The noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, mentioned the Bew review. This money will be ring-fenced, to be spent on farmers in Scotland and Wales. We intend to lay a further statutory instrument that will amend the 2020 UK direct payments financial ceiling to take account of this funding announcement as far as it relates to the 2020 scheme. We will lay this further SI well ahead of payments being made.
Your Lordships may wonder why this will be dealt with in a separate SI. This is because the SI will be made using a power to amend ceilings which has been transferred from the Commission to the Secretary of State by one of the SIs we are debating today. The SI to amend the UK ceilings will be made with the consent of the devolved Administrations. It will be subject to the affirmative procedure so we will have a further opportunity to reflect on that.
On the issue of exchange rates—again raised by my noble friend Lady Byford, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, among others—the level of funding available for the 2020 direct payments will be the same as for 2019 for each part of the UK. The funding is based on the same financial ceilings and exchange rate used for the 2019 direct payments.
The exchange rates to be used to calculate the 2020 BPS payments will be confirmed and set in the statutory instrument we intend to lay in the coming months. The exchange rates were not set in the SIs we have been debating today as at the time, the Government and devolved Administrations had yet to confirm the rates they wished to use for the 2020 scheme. The further SI will be made with the consent of the devolved Administrations and will reflect the decisions made in each part of the UK. This will be the same SI as that used to amend the 2020 financial ceilings.
On devolved Administration funding agreements, raised by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, the Government have committed to engage with the devolved Administrations to develop a fair approach to future funding allocations. This will sit alongside the work to develop an agricultural support framework.
In referring to wet weather and the three-crop rule, I perhaps should declare my own circumstances. I would not like to compare notes with some of your Lordships on the percentage of winter wheat that was drilled, but it has been extremely depressing, so I understand the predicament of farmers across all the nations.
The farming recovery fund provides money to help farmers whose agricultural land has been significantly affected by flooding. The money will go towards the costs of restoring their land as quickly as possible. On 6 January this fund was extended to areas in south Yorkshire and the east Midlands affected by flooding. We are also exploring how best to provide flexibility and support to those farmers affected by the prolonged period of wet weather, so that we can continue to comply with the CAP rules.
The retained EU law governing the 2020 direct payment schemes, as made operable by these two SIs, allows some flexibility from the normal scheme rules. This includes allowing us to waive payment reductions and penalties where a farmer has been unable to meet scheme rules due to exceptional wet weather. In January we published updated guidance for farmers in England to help them safeguard their greening payments. We will continue to keep the weather conditions under review, to assess whether a derogation from the three-crop rule is needed. I will go back to the department with your Lordships’ helpful views on this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, referred to horizontal regulation—my goodness, I needed a tutorial in that too. These EU regulations set the overarching framework for the administration of the common agricultural policy. That includes the direct payment scheme, which is why I pointed out that it is part of this overarching framework. The law incorporated into the UK now only relates to the direct payment elements.
Questions were also asked about the ELMS. As the direct payments are going to be tapered over this seven-year transition period, it is important that we work collaboratively with the farming community, so these schemes are a codesign. I come from a farming background and I know that they will not work as we intend unless they have the ownership and active, positive collaboration of the farming community. The scheme will be developed through a series of tests, trials and pilots. We plan to launch the national pilot in late 2021. This will provide an opportunity to test and refine the scheme design prior to its full rollout in late 2024. These tests and trials will be taking place across a range of topographies and farmers, so we can see how this works for various types of farm. On 25 February, we published a policy discussion document which provides further information on our current thinking on the ELM scheme.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about young farmers’ payments. We intend to continue operating the young farmers’ scheme in England while we continue to operate the basic payment scheme. As I said in my introduction, the future of land custodianship rests with the next generation. We need to do all we can to ensure that the enhancement of the environment and food production are a complementary and rewarding part of the farming calendar.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked about penalties to be applied in respect of being in the EU in January. Farmers must comply with the scheme rules for the whole calendar year. If a farmer breached them in January, the RPA or devolved Administration would be able to take any necessary enforcement action, in the same way it normally would. This action would include applying reductions or penalties when the payments are calculated later in the year. As the 2020 schemes will be funded by the Exchequer, they will not be subject to disallowance. Disallowance is a fine imposed on member states where the Commission considers they have paid out EU moneys without fully complying with EU rules. Another important part of what the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, referred to is that the 2020 schemes will be subject to the usual rigorous domestic financing and audit systems. For example, in England, payments made under these schemes will continue to be reported and audited in accordance with the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. Equivalent provisions apply in the devolved Administrations.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, referred to the agricultural transition plan, and I have spoken of it before. We will continue to offer land management schemes throughout the transition. On 11 February, a new round of Countryside Stewardship opened for applications, with the agreements starting in 2021. We believe that Countryside Stewardship provides a stepping-stone to the new environmental land management scheme. During the transition, we will also offer schemes to boost industry productivity and improve animal and plant health and animal welfare. I am looking forward to discussing that during consideration of the Agriculture Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, also asked about inter-pillar transfer. The Government will confirm the overall level of direct payments for England shortly. A further statutory instrument will be made to amend the 2020 direct payment financial ceilings to reflect the decisions of each Administration, as this is a devolved matter. This will be done with the consent of the devolved Administrations. This further statutory instrument will, as I said, adjust the financial ceilings to take account of the Bew review’s findings. I seek to ensure that our statutory instruments are not unnecessarily numerous. I will do what I can to try to combine these arrangements.
Baroness Byford
My Lords, I am very grateful for my noble friend’s responses to the various questions raised. I am not surprised, but I am really pleased to hear him champion the need to produce food above all else. He kindly referred to the recovery funds following flooding and such things. My understanding is that, in the past, some of those payments have not been made until after the recovery happened. I do not know whether there has been a change of thought on that, because they need those payments most when flooding happens, not when they have recovered, if the Minister follows my line of thought. If he cannot answer today, I am quite happy for him to write to me, because this is crucial. As he knows so well, there is immense pressure on the health and well-being of many of our farmers. For some of them this is nearly the tipping point. It would be very helpful if he could clarify that.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I obviously cannot make any commitments today, given the changing situation and floods in parts of the country that were not part of the further announcements. However, the unprecedented flooding in many agricultural parts of the country has obviously affected many towns and villages, as well as farmland. I will write to my noble friend, put a copy in the Library and send it to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. Providing an up-to-date version of what we plan to do on farm recovery would be the most helpful way to deal with that.
Financing, Management and Monitoring of Direct Payments to Farmers (Amendment) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the Financing, Management and Monitoring of Direct Payments to Farmers (Amendment) Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 5th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott
That the Grand Committee do consider the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2020.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, I will start with the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order. I will cover this briefly as it is an entirely technical matter that we attend to in this place each year. The order concerns contracted-out defined benefit or final salary occupational pension schemes. It will increase scheme members’ guaranteed minimum pensions that accrued between 6 April 1988 and 5 April 1997 by 1.7%, in line with inflation as measured by the consumer prices index.
I should now like to turn to the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order. The Government are committed to supporting working families and providing financial security for pensioners, and the provisions in the order reflect this. It will increase the basic state pension and the new state pension in line with the triple lock; increase the pension credit standard minimum guarantee in line with earnings; increase working-age benefits in line with prices; and increase carers’ benefits and benefits intended to meet additional disability needs in line with prices.
The Government’s commitment to the triple lock means that the basic state pension will continue to be uprated by the highest of earnings, prices or 2.5%. The triple lock has been an invaluable tool in combating pensioner poverty, so keeping it in place gives pensioners the financial security and certainty they deserve. This year, the increase in earnings was the highest of the triple lock figures. As a result, the basic state pension will increase by 3.9%, rising to £134.25 a week for a single person. This increase is at the highest rate for the past eight years. From April this year, the basic state pension will be over £1,900 a year higher in cash terms than in April 2010.
Four years ago, the Government introduced the new state pension, which provides a transparent and sustainable foundation for private saving and retirement planning for people reaching state pension age from 6 April 2016 onwards. We have also committed to increase the new state pension by the triple lock, so from April 2020 the full rate of the new state pension will increase to £175.20 a week. This year, state earnings-related pension schemes, other state second pensions and protected payments in the new state pension will rise by 1.7%, in line with prices.
We are continuing to take steps to protect the poorest pensioners. This includes through the pension credit standard minimum guarantee, the means-tested threshold below which pensioner income should not fall. The pension credit standard minimum guarantee will rise by 3.9%, in line with average earnings. From April 2020, the single person threshold of this safety-net benefit will rise to £173.75, over £2,100 a year higher than it was in 2010.
I would like to turn now to working-age benefits, which will increase by 1.7%, in line with prices. This includes people receiving jobseeker’s allowance, employment and support allowance, income support, housing benefit and universal credit. Benefits linked to child tax credits and working tax credits will also be uprated in line with those benefits. This reflects the Government’s ongoing commitment to help working-age people get on. Work remains the best route out of poverty. Those in receipt of working-age benefits will see their payments rise at the rate of inflation, with the Government spending an additional £1 billion supporting working-age claimants. Universal credit work allowances will also rise in line with prices. This measure raises the amount that someone can earn before their universal credit payment is reduced and directs additional support to some of the most vulnerable low-paid working families.
Finally, let me turn to disability benefits. This year, the Government will continue to make sure that carers and people who face additional costs as a result of their disability will get the additional support they need. Disability living allowance, attendance allowance, carer’s allowance, incapacity benefit and personal independence payment will all rise by 1.7%, in line with prices, from April 2020. In addition, the carer and disability-related premiums paid with pension credit and working-age benefits, the employment and support allowance support group component and the limited capability for work and work-related activity element of universal credit, will also increase by 1.7%. This Government are committed to supporting the most vulnerable in society.
The Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order provides for scheme members to receive their annual guaranteed minimum pension increases for pensions in payment, or increases guaranteed minimum pensions that have been postponed as a result of continued employment.
The Government propose to spend an extra £5 billion in 2020-21 on increasing benefit and pension rates. With this spending, we are upholding our commitment to the country’s pensioners by maintaining the triple lock, helping the poorest pensioners who count on pension credit and spending an additional £1 billion on working-age benefits, ensuring that we continue to support working people and providing essential support to disabled people and carers. I commend both orders to the House.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My lords, at last, after four years we finally have an uprating order that actually uprates working-age benefits. But it is very disappointing that it does nothing to start making good the serious losses sustained by an estimated 27 million people, in and out of work, who rely on those benefits, amounting to an average loss of nearly £400 a year for families with children. That will be the focus of my contribution this afternoon.
According to the House of Commons Library briefing, the real value of affected benefits has been cut by about 6%. Taking account of all uprating restrictions across the decade, they are about 9% lower than if CPI indexation had applied since 2010. A cut of nearly 10% in the real value of benefits that were already far from generous represents a shameful attack on the living standards of many of the poorest in our society.
Although the department has done nothing to assess the actual impact on those affected, civil society organisations have provided some evidence, and I thank them. For instance, Citizens Advice reports that from April to August last year,
“four in 10 of the people we helped with debt to claim income-related benefits didn’t have enough money to cover their living costs. This is up from 32% in 2016-17—a 25% increase since the benefits freeze came into effect”.
In contrast, the proportion of households with what it calls a “negative budget” who are not in receipt of those benefits has remained largely unchanged. StepChange, too, identifies the benefits freeze, alongside other social security cuts and changes, as key factors in high levels of problem debt and as
“undermining financial inclusion policy goals”.
The Heriot-Watt University/Trussell Trust State of Hunger report and last week’s Marmot report likewise identify the low level of benefits as a key factor in growing food insecurity and reliance on food banks. The latter argued that benefit and taxation policies since 2010 have largely been responsible for the worsening socioeconomic situation underlying widening health inequalities. The Government’s own statistics show an increase in levels of severe income deprivation. It is worth noting that the impact of the benefit freeze will probably be seen as much, if not more, in the intensity of poverty as in the numbers in poverty, given that many of those affected will already have been in poverty. According to the CPAG, an average family in poverty is now £73 below the poverty line, compared with £56 below in 2012-13, adjusted for inflation. As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation put it, the largest single driver that has “tightened poverty’s grip” in the past few years has been the freeze.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on her speech and I very much support what she said. I shall just raise a few issues that I hope the Minister will agree to consider.
After four years of the freeze in working benefits and £36 billion in cuts over that period, we of course welcome the end of the benefits freeze. However, as the noble Baroness said, the current increase does absolutely nothing to address the shortfall that has built up over the four years, especially since prices are rising for essentials such as food and children’s clothes. The benefit freeze has hit families very hard, particularly children. There are 4.1 million children in poverty—and they are in deeper poverty, further below the poverty line. The average family in poverty is now £73 per week below the poverty line, compared with £56 per week in 2012-13. Unless the Government act to restore the real value of financial support for families, things will continue to get worse. Without policy change, child poverty is projected to rise to 4.8 million, or 37% of all children, by 2023.
I hope the Government will consider what they can do to restore the situation. I know the Minister has a great interest in the welfare of children and I feel sure she will do everything she can. I hope the Government will consider ending the two-child limit on tax credits and universal credit. Continuing with these will push a further 300,000 into poverty. Will they consider lifting the benefit cap to move 100,000 children out of “deep poverty”—those living on 50% of median income before housing costs? Another suggestion is that adding £5 to child benefit would start to restore key benefits to all children.
We welcome the pensions uprating, which is particularly important to women as they live longer than men and often live alone. The pensions situation in the UK shows very significant differences between men and women, and I hope that the Minister will consider what can be done. I know we will be coming back to this issue when we discuss the Pensions Bill tomorrow, but the position as far as women are concerned needs to be looked at.
I very much welcome the fact that state pensions have become more inclusive and redistributive for those who take family caring breaks. However, for those who retired before April 2016, because the full amount of the basic pension remains nearly £40 a week below the threshold for means-tested single-rate pension credit, this improvement has had a limited effect on gender equality. As far as private pensions are concerned, among 65 to 74 year-olds the median private pension wealth is £164,700 for men and £17,300 for women. Among women aged 55 to 59, total personal income is two-thirds the income of men in the same age bracket.
Self-employment, zero-hours contracts and other precarious forms of employment have been increasing and these inequalities restrict the ability to pay either national insurance or private pension contributions. Even when incomes are similar, women’s pension saving is less than men’s, with too many women relying on their partner’s pensions. Many women are excluded from auto-enrolment because they are in low-paid jobs. Extending the coverage of auto-enrolment by reducing the earnings threshold to the national insurance primary threshold would bring 480,000 people, mostly women, into pension saving and would help to improve the gender pensions gap.
I hope that the Minister will consider what has been said. We take the opportunity to raise this issue while we can, despite the fact that nothing can be done about it today. Perhaps reforms to pensions such as revisiting care credits, a reduction in the number of qualifying national insurance years for the state pension and reducing or, indeed, removing the earnings limit so that low-paid workers, particularly women, would be eligible for private pension schemes are issues she might consider in due course.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these orders and thank all noble Lords who have spoken. First, I will speak briefly about the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order before moving on to the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order.
As we heard, the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2020 provides for defined benefit occupational schemes that were contracted out to increase by 1.7% members’ guaranteed minimum pensions that accrued between 1988 and 1997, in line with CPI. This is a basically a routine uprating, but I want to take the opportunity to raise a specific issue. When the GMP order 2019 was debated on 14 February of that year, my noble friend Lady Drake invited the then Minister to give an update on the Government’s proposed guidance to occupational pension schemes in the light of the Lloyds Banking Group case. As the Minister will know, that case had the effect of requiring trustees to amend their pension schemes to equalise GMP benefits. In that debate, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said:
“My department has put forward a method that schemes can use to equalise pensions which, because of its ‘once and done’ nature, should limit costs resulting from additional administration requirements. The department will provide guidance in the near future for schemes wishing to use the method upon which the department consulted in November 2016.”—[Official Report, 14/2/19; col. 1961.]
Baroness Stedman-Scott
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken for the honesty, clarity and passion with which they champion those people whom we all come here to serve. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I still cannot argue with her, so I am not going to try—I shall not take 202 words to do it either—but the door and our ears are open, and I am not alone in the department in raising these things. At the risk of driving everyone mad, I ask Members to keep coming to us and telling us things. Be assured that we are passing them on, and that real debate is going on about them. I assure noble Lords that I will take all their points back to the department and the Treasury, particularly the profound one about levelling up: it is about not just geography, but people. If we make it work for people, we make it work.
We have had an open discussion in the department about the benefit freeze. I take all the points raised by noble Lords. We are continuing to try to support families and those who we exist to serve. There is a raising of the national living wage and a reduction in the UC earnings taper. The income tax personal allowance has been raised and tax-free childcare introduced. On balance, while there are many things we are unhappy about, these reforms are working and making sure that there are more people in work than ever.
I take the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, about the Citizens Advice report and the request for an extra 2% rise. This is well understood in the department and everybody is aware of it. I wish I could tick it off, but it is just above my pay grade. I remind noble Lords that the Secretary of State has a statutory obligation to conduct a review each autumn of pension and benefit rates for the following year. Decisions about the uprating for next year, to take effect from April 2021-22, will take place from October.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Janke and Lady Lister, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham raised the two-child limit. Their points were well made. I can make no promises, but we are keeping on; who knows what will happen. I am not trying to lie low on this, but we were trying to get a benefits structure that did not automatically adjust to family size; that was unsustainable. We recognise that some claimants are not able to make the same choices about the number of children in their family and we have exceptions to protect certain groups. Child benefit continues to be paid for all children, as well as an additional amount for disabled children.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Could the Minister explain why it was unsustainable? People are not having larger families. What was unsustainable about benefits reflecting family size and meeting people’s needs?
Baroness Stedman-Scott
My understanding is that this is a purely fiscal situation. People who are working make choices about the size of their families and others should too. I can tell by the look on the noble Baroness’s face that she profoundly disagrees with that. I understand, and if there is anything she wants me to take back to the department I will do so, but that is the reason for the Government’s decision.
The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, raised points about women’s pension outcomes and poverty. While women’s pension outcomes have, historically, been worse than men’s, mainly due to a difference in labour market participation, women’s pension outcomes are increasing and the gap with men is narrowing. On average, women live longer than men and the average weekly amount that women on the new state pension receive is 95% of what men receive on it. At least 80% of women reaching state pension age before 2030 stand to receive more under the new state pension than they would have done under the previous one.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, raised some points about the GMP equalisation situation. It remains our view that the existing GMP conversion legislation allows schemes that wish to use the DWP’s methodology for equalising to do so now. It is not absolutely necessary to wait for further changes to the GMP conversion legislation to take place first. Schemes that have any concerns over how the DWP’s methodology is supposed to be used can access the department’s guidance published in April 2019. This is a question-and-answer section to address many of the issues that schemes may face when they equalise.
I note what my predecessor said in the answer given last year. My answer to noble Lords is not quite the same: we intend to make further changes to the GMP conversion legislation to facilitate the methodology consulted on. We will look to make those changes in due course.
Baroness Sherlock
The Minister has read out two different things. For clarification, is she saying that we do not need to legislate, because the existing legislation allows people to follow the guidance that the Government have issued, or is she saying that they do intend to legislate and will do so in due course, rather than at the first feasible opportunity, which is now? The Minister may want to come back to me on that.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
The best thing is that I write to the noble Baroness, rather than put my neck in the noose again.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, also asked whether the £1 billion was in real terms or an increase. It is a cash increase; there is no increase in real terms. She mentioned equalisation. HMRC has recently published guidance for schemes which compare benefits on an annual basis. We are working closely with HMRC to update this guidance for schemes which choose to use DWP’s method of equalisation.
On the choice of the RPI or the CPI, the RPI is no longer an official national statistic due to concerns over its methodology. The Government and the UKSA will consult on whether the proposed change should be made prior to 2030. The department has no plans at this time to deviate from the CPI and its measure of inflation when uprating benefits.
These provisions reflect the Government’s commitment to supporting working people, while protecting the most vulnerable in society. The Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order provides for scheme members to receive their annual guaranteed minimum pensions increases for pensions in payment.
To reiterate, through the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order this Government are: increasing the basic state pension and the new state pension in line with the triple lock; increasing the pension credit standard minimum guarantee by earnings to support the poorest pensioners; increasing working-age benefits in line with prices; increasing the universal credit work allowances, so that claimants can earn more before their payments are reduced; and increasing benefits to meet additional disability needs and carer benefits in line with prices.
I know that I have disappointed many noble Lords with my answers, but I hope that I, and my colleagues in the Government, do not disappoint in our efforts to try to make things better. I commend both orders to the House.
Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott
That the Grand Committee do consider the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2020.
Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott
That the Grand Committee do consider the Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2020.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 27 January 2020. This statutory instrument, together with the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, will increase the value of lump-sum awards payable under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 and the diffuse mesothelioma scheme, which was set up by the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008. As many noble Lords will know, these schemes stand apart from the main social security benefits uprating procedure. While there is no statutory requirement to increase rates, I am happy to maintain the position taken by my predecessors and increase the amounts payable from 1 April 2020 in line with the September consumer price index figure of 1.7%. This is the same rate of increase that will be applied to many other social security benefits, including those payable under the industrial injuries scheme.
This Government recognise the great suffering of individuals and their families caused by the serious and often fatal diseases resulting from exposure to asbestos or other listed agents. The individuals affected and their families may be unable to bring a successful claim for civil damages, often due to the long latency period of their condition. Some may not show signs of disease until many years after exposure, by which time their employer may have ceased trading. For those people, the lump sum schemes exist to provide compensation. As well as compensating people who cannot make civil claims, the schemes aim to ensure that people with those diseases receive compensation in their lifetime, while they can still benefit from it, without having to await the outcome of civil litigation.
I will briefly summarise the specific purpose of the two compensation schemes. The Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 scheme—to which, for simplicity, I shall refer as the 1979 Act scheme—provides a lump sum compensation payment to individuals who have one of five dust-related respiratory diseases covered by the scheme, are unable to claim damages from employers because they have gone out of business and who have not brought any action against others for damages. The five diseases covered by the 1979 Act scheme are: diffuse mesothelioma, bilateral diffuse pleural thickening, pneumoconiosis, byssinosis, and primary carcinoma of the lung, if accompanied by asbestosis or bilateral diffuse pleural thickening.
The 2008 mesothelioma lump sum payments scheme widens the criteria for compensation to those who contracted diffuse mesothelioma but are unable to claim compensation under the 1979 Act scheme—for example, those who were self-employed or those whose exposure to asbestos was not due to their work. The payments made under the 1979 Act scheme are based on the age of the person with the disease and the level of their disablement at the time of their diagnosis, measured on a percentage scale.
All payments for diffuse mesothelioma are made at the 100% rate. All payments under the 2008 scheme are also made at the 100% disablement rate and based on the age of the sufferer, with the highest payments going to the youngest people with the disease. In the full year from April 2018 to March 2019, 3,920 people received payments under both schemes, totalling £52.8 million.
I am aware that in past debates, Members have raised the subject of equalising the level of payments made to dependants with those made to people who have the disease and claim in their lifetime. It is, of course, clear that whole families can be devastated by the diseases covered by the lump sum scheme, which is why dependents are able to claim some compensation, albeit not at the same level.
When we have to make decisions about how we use our limited resources, it is only right that we target that money by giving it to the people to whom it can make the biggest difference. So, while we have listened carefully to concerns raised, the Government remain of the view that available funding should be prioritised to those people who are currently living with the disease.
I will now address some of the broader aspects of mesothelioma in more detail. The prevalence of diffuse mesothelioma in Great Britain remains at historically high levels. I know that this is a particular concern of Members. The disease has a strong association with exposure to asbestos, and current evidence suggests that about 85% of all mesotheliomas diagnosed in men are attributable to asbestos exposure that occurred through work. The life expectancy of those diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma is very poor, and many people die within 12 months of diagnosis. Data published by the Health and Safety Executive shows that the number of mesothelioma deaths is projected to be around 2,500 in 2020 before being in decline in the following years, reflecting a reduction in asbestos exposure after 1980.
I will now briefly discuss lung health improvement more broadly. Although we expect the number of people diagnosed with diffused mesothelioma to start to fall in the coming years, we also know that many people will continue to develop it, and other respiratory diseases to which the regulations relate, for many years to come. That is why the Government are committed to working in partnership with our arm’s-length bodies and agencies to improve the lives of those with respiratory diseases. The Government have made improving outcomes for people with respiratory disease a priority; this is reflected in the NHS long-term plan.
During last year’s debate on the uprating of these schemes, my predecessor referred to the pioneering lung health checks trialled in Manchester and Liverpool. So far, this trial has shown an almost fivefold reduction in stage 4 disease in Greater Manchester, with 80% of cancers diagnosed at an earlier stage. We anticipate this scheme being rolled out across the country and I am pleased to report that a mobile site in Hull was launched only last month.
Returning to these important regulations, I am sure we all agree that while no amount of money can ever adequately compensate individuals or their families for the suffering and loss caused by diffuse mesothelioma and the other dust-related diseases covered by these two schemes, those who have these diseases rightly deserve some form of monetary compensation. I am happy to confirm to the Committee that these provisions are compatible with the European Convention of Human Rights and I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining these regulations, which uprate payments to sufferers of mesothelioma and other dust-related diseases and their dependants. As she explained the scheme and the reason for it thoroughly, I will not add to that. It is right that by debating these orders, we draw them to the attention of those who follow parliamentary proceedings, to show that we take this matter extremely seriously.
It cannot be emphasised enough that mesothelioma has a very long latency period and often manifests in an affected person decades after exposure to asbestos. It can also affect a person who has had no known exposure to asbestos and therefore no idea where the disease came from. I have anecdotal evidence from the family of a recent, now sadly deceased, sufferer of this terrible, pernicious disease. They stress the urgent need for more research into where the disease could have come from. In this case, it was not from any of the well-documented workplaces, so it is particularly worrying that there must be another source that has not so far been identified, or perhaps asbestos posing a danger in unexpected places. Another possibility is a combination of environmental conditions. More research in this area is vital: people with impaired lung function and their GPs must not be put off looking for mesothelioma because there was no known exposure to asbestos in the past. The earlier it is detected, the better. Will the Minister look into this particular problem to see what, if any, research is going on into unexplained cases of mesothelioma?
Although asbestos is now well-known to cause lung disease, it is perhaps not so well-known that it still lies undisturbed in thousands of buildings—such as schools, hospitals and, of course, Parliament—where there are now fears that it may be beginning to degrade. I wonder how much is known about this. This will be squarely in the remit of the Health and Safety Executive, which does a fine job but has recently had its budget cut. Surely, it must be given enough resources to carry out such vital work.
As the Minister said, the number of deaths from mesothelioma is about 2,500 a year, and I do not think it is likely to drop for several years. Last year, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, told us that the UK has the highest incidence of this disease in the world, which I find truly shocking. More research must surely be undertaken as a matter of urgency.
As the Minister said, every year when these regulations are debated, the most contentious issue is whether the Government will equalise payments to sufferers and their dependants. This surely is only fair, and I believe it was originally the plan. Although the Government say that they will keep the matter under review, they obviously have no intention of doing anything about it. I ask the Minister again whether they will look at this. Finally, I join with what other noble Lords will probably say, in making the annual plea for the uprating to be automatic each year.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, and I will echo some of her remarks about resources, research and automatic uprating. Along with many other noble Lords in Grand Committee today, I have been involved in the fight against mesothelioma for many years. I am pleased to see this important issue before us again because it is important that we keep it in the public eye and keep talking about the questions that the noble Baroness has just raised.
This is not an abstract, theoretical issue for many Members of your Lordships’ House. I have been surprised over the years by the numbers of colleagues from both Houses of Parliament who have told me about the loss of loved ones—people within their own families—who were affected by this killer disease. I fully support the uprating of the lump sum payments in line with inflation. We must do everything possible to support people who have been exposed to asbestos and other hazardous substances at work and who now face these terrible consequences.
In previous years, when these regulations have been discussed, as they have been annually since the introduction of the compensation scheme, noble Lords have asked whether future increases could be made automatically rather than being at the discretion of Parliament—a point that the noble Baroness touched on a few moments ago. It is important that the Government give careful consideration to this argument, and I look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, when she comes to reply, about how the Government intend to take forward the question of automaticity. Doing so would send a powerful message that we are committed to supporting people and their families affected by these awful diseases.
Why do we need to keep raising our voices about mesothelioma and pneumoconiosis? There is a misconception that occupational lung disease is a historical problem that has been solved. However, there are still many occupations and high-risk work activities that present risks to lung health, from construction and cleaning to artisan baking and much more. The Health and Safety Executive estimates that occupational lung disease results in around 12,000 deaths a year.
Mesothelioma is an invasive type of cancer caused by prior exposure to asbestos. It grows in the pleural membrane that lines the outside of the lung and the inside of the chest. Less commonly, it can also affect a similar lining around the abdomen or the heart. There is currently no cure. Mesothelioma patients often have a short life expectancy and experience complex, debilitating symptoms. Around only 5% to 10% of people diagnosed with mesothelioma survive for five years or more.
As the noble Baroness reminded us, I made the point last year that, tragically, we have the highest rate of the disease anywhere in the world. Mortality rates have more than quadrupled over the past 30 years. It is estimated that around 2,500 people die of the disease every year, and that over the next 30 years around 60,000 people will die of mesothelioma in this country unless new treatments are found.
Mesothelioma is more common in certain parts of the country, such as Liverpool, where people are 18% more likely to die of this disease. Indeed, it was as the Liverpool Member of Parliament in another place that I first encountered the tragic and always fatal consequences of this disease. In Liverpool, mesothelioma has its roots in the historic industrial shipbuilding legacy, as asbestos was used extensively in shipbuilding. Later we will hear more about pneumoconiosis from my noble friend—and friend in every respect—Lord Wigley, but I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Jones, wants to intervene. I would not dream of holding back from allowing an intervention from him.
Lord Jones (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I rise simply to say that I recollect the strong campaigns in another place made over the years by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, with sincerity and indeed to some effect.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
I am grateful to the noble Lord. For me, it has been a great pleasure to co-operate with him in both Houses of Parliament on issues of this kind. As he knows from his experiences in north Wales, many lung diseases are caused by inhaling dust. The common types include coal workers’ pneumoconiosis, which is caused by breathing in coal mine dust, and silicosis, which is caused by breathing in crystalline silica dust and typically affects workers in industries such as quarrying, foundries and potteries. Like mesothelioma, there is a long delay between exposure and onset of the disease. In 2012, 374 people in the UK died because of pneumoconiosis.
What about diagnosis, prevention and support for people with mesothelioma or pneumoconiosis? Here I pay tribute to the British Lung Foundation. This wonderful charity raises awareness of occupational lung disease and funds research into treatments and cures. It also provides the secretariat to the Taskforce for Lung Health. The task force is a coalition of more than 30 organisations from across the lung health sector, including royal colleges, patients, and the Health and Safety Executive, who came together to publish a five-year national plan to improve lung health in England. Included in the plan are recommendations to improve prevention and awareness of occupational lung diseases such as mesothelioma and pneumoconiosis. I should like the Minister to listen to two of the recommendations, which I will highlight, in order to ask her what more the Government could do to support their elevation in order to make sure that they are given real substance.
Under these recommendations, employers are responsible for ensuring that effective measures are in place to control exposure to hazardous substances in compliance with the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002. They should also highlight risks at work to employees and encourage people to think about their own and others’ safety, including wearing the right protective clothing and masks. What are we doing to make sure that employers are honouring those recommendations?
Secondly, healthcare professionals should be trained to recognise and understand lung diseases which are caused at work. Asking questions about occupation when a patient presents with respiratory symptoms could improve early detection, allowing people to start treatment as soon as possible, as well as to access any compensation that they are owed. The number of occupations that present risks to lung health is surprisingly broad. Staff training should be included in undergraduate and postgraduate curricula and continuing professional development. Is that something that the noble Baroness would be prepared to take up with the relevant Ministers in other departments to ensure that it is acted upon? What will the Government do to take forward these recommendations?
What are the Government doing to increase funding for mesothelioma research? Research into lung disease is underfunded in comparison with the disease burden. Only 1.8% of the total UK health research spend went towards respiratory disease in 2018, despite it being one of the top three killers in the United Kingdom. As I have said, there is no cure for mesothelioma and it is poorly understood as a disease. That point was made earlier by the noble Baroness: the reasons people contract the disease are not sufficiently well understood.
In 2014, I tabled an amendment to the Mesothelioma Bill, and in 2015, I introduced a Private Member’s Bill in your Lordships’ House which would have put a small levy on participating insurance firms to help secure long-term research funding into mesothelioma. Unfortunately, the amendment and the Bill were defeated. At the time, it had the potential to raise about £1.5 million a year for research. That represents a small amount of money to each of the insurance companies but would have created a great number of research opportunities and given hope to people living with mesothelioma and, indeed, their families.
Since then, the Government have allocated £5 million for a national mesothelioma centre at Imperial College. I thank those Ministers who put in considerable effort to secure that and to look at voluntary funding from the insurance industry—I am thinking in particular of the noble Lord, Lord Freud, and the work that he did on that. I am pleased that the British Lung Foundation was also able to secure match funding for this £5 million and that two insurance companies, Aviva and Zurich, donated a combined £1 million to the British Lung Foundation’s mesothelioma research programme. Unfortunately, negotiations for a broader long-term funding commitment from the insurance industry came to a standstill. What are Ministers now doing to take that forward, building on the excellent work of the noble Lord, Lord Freud?
Overall, the British Lung Foundation has spent over £8.7 million on research into the disease. With this money, the BLF has been able to support further research and clinical trials, and has set up a mesothelioma research network. The network brings together researchers to share ideas and collaborate to help translate research more quickly into new diagnostics and treatments for people with mesothelioma. It now has 180 members worldwide and has led to 12 new or potential research collaborations. I pay special tribute to the efforts of the noble Lords, Lord Giddens and Lord Willis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who have worked, with me and others, to bring some of that about. Some of the research projects funded or co-funded by the British Lung Foundation have included exploring using the immune system to fight the disease and the development of a tissue and blood sample bank, MesobanK, which gives researchers quick access to samples and data to help accelerate research.
I would like to see more research into how we deal with asbestos in schools. This is a very real issue, about which far too little has been done. Again, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff, who has taken a lead on this. It is also important to look at the effect of mesothelioma in the Armed Forces. We should recall the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, describing to us how young men played snowballs with asbestos at Dartmouth. The consequences of our past ignorance are still being lived out today.
While I fully support compensation for the victims of these diseases, it is surely in everyone’s interest—the victims, the Government and the insurers—to put investment into finding a cure. That would, long term, remove the need for lump sum payments or any insurance industry levies. Because this field is so underfunded, every pound of investment is likely to be worth while and to attract further funding. I am pleased that the British Lung Foundation continues its work to secure funding for vital mesothelioma research. It has recently secured £5 million over five years from Catalina Holdings, aimed at achieving early diagnosis and trials of high-potential drugs. But the Government must do more as well.
I come to my last point. The Merseyside Asbestos Victims Support Group—I pay tribute to John Flanagan and to Joanne Gordon, who chairs the Asbestos Victims Support Forum—has raised with me the particular case of equalising and upgrading posthumous payments. I hope that the Minister will reply to this point tonight—I know that it has been raised with the Government by the metro mayor of Merseyside and others. The payments are meant to provide some compensation for asbestos victims who cannot take legal cases. That is surely right. However, there is an inconsistency in the schemes. If applications are made after the patient has died, the payments, which can be claimed only by surviving partners or dependent children, are substantially lower. That cannot be right.
A victim aged 77 making a claim based on a 100% IIDB award will receive £14,334. The surviving partner of someone who passed away at the age of 77 will receive £7,949. In such a situation, many family members feel that the life of their loved one lost to this devastating disease is regarded as being of less value. This is surely morally wrong, especially as in a legal claim a surviving partner will suffer no such disadvantage. Furthermore, victims’ families could suffer a financial hardship, as people budget on the basis of two incomes and, through no fault of their own, are reduced to one income and are further disadvantaged by receiving a lower government compensation payment.
The victims who receive payments are not interested in the money for themselves. However, they are concerned about the financial security of their families. In this situation there is clearly a moral and financial case for raising the level of posthumous payments. I know that the noble Baroness will have been listening with care, and I hope she will be able to respond in a positive way.
There are also practical considerations. Of the 3,830 payments made in 2018, only 260 were posthumous claims. In 2010, the Government acknowledged that there was no justification for differential payments, further adding that such inequality in payments could put pressure on victims at a time when they are most vulnerable. The Government made a firm commitment to bridge the gap between in-life payments and posthumous payments. I hope the noble Baroness is able to say today that that commitment will be honoured.
Some 60,000 people will die over the next 30 years. We owe it to them not to merely go through an uprating ritual every year but to provide tangible support and world-class leadership in research.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in this debate. We have campaigned together on many occasions, and I was glad to support his Bill in the past. I came to the mesothelioma question through the death of a very close friend, my school chum Peter Wolfe, who died four or five years ago, within a matter of four months of having been diagnosed as suffering from mesothelioma.
The figure quoted, of 60,000 possible deaths, may be more than the number of deaths in the UK arising from the present flu scare. That puts it into context and underlines the need for us to address it. I have spoken in several debates on this in the past and will not repeat the points I have made. I very much support what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about the need for funding for research in order to minimise the extent of suffering due to mesothelioma and asbestosis. I reinforce the point made about schools. So many schools were built using asbestos, and in Wales, the National Assembly are facing this issue in a number of locations. This has to be tackled, otherwise there will be problems.
I will focus mainly on the pneumoconiosis order, although the two do of course blend into each other. From debates in earlier years on the uprating orders, noble Lords may recall the interest I have in these matters, arising from having represented for 27 years a slate quarrying area in the Caernarfon constituency. They may well also recall the significant involvement that my colleagues and I had in pressing for the Act to be completed in the dying days of the 1974-79 Labour Government—something that my noble friend Lord Jones will well recall.
Lord Jones
The noble Lord will recollect that I was a member of that Administration, which fell on a vote of no confidence.
Lord Wigley
Indeed. Our three votes were not enough to save that Government, but they were enough to help the pneumoconiosis Act find its way through, in two days flat, to the statute book. That that happened is a tribute to Michael Foot, among others. There had been delays all along in getting the Act on to the statute book, but Michael Foot made sure that it went through both Houses within 48 hours—quite a remarkable achievement.
It might interest noble Lords to know that considerable interest is now being taken in this legislation in the context of the bid for UNESCO to accord world heritage status to the slate industry in north-west Wales, in a similar manner to that given to the coal industry’s big pit at Blaenafon. One aspect of interest in the presentation of that case is the way in which the slate quarrying communities led the fight and campaign to secure compensation, not just for slate quarrymen, whose health was undermined by breathing in industrial dust, but for workers in so many other industries. That includes those working in cotton mills, pottery production, foundries and other metal industries, and even some working in the coal mining communities who were not covered by the coal mining scheme.
In recent years we have seen asbestosis and mesothelioma, both covered by the Act, become the predominant part of the payments made under the Act, which I will come on to now.
At the time of passing the 1979 Act, the Government estimated that it would cost £5 million in the first year and, thereafter, £75,000 per year—yes, £75,000 per year. In fact, more than £20 million was spent in the first five years and £30 million over the subsequent 10 years. In the five years from 1994 to 1999, the figure was £25 million. Since then, expenditure under the Act has mushroomed. From 1999 to 2009, £236 million was spent, and from 2010 to 2019, £415 million was spent. A large part of that was clearly associated with asbestos-related diseases, but I have tried by way of Written Questions to identify which payments were related to which industries that come under the purview of the Act—which is a reasonable question to ask—so that we might see how the issue relates to other industries.
I wanted also to establish that the total cost of asbestosis is not only the payments under the 2008 scheme but a large part of the payments being discussed here, which adds to the significance of the need to find a solution for those suffering from mesothelioma. We have a right to know. Certainly, it is not the slate quarrymen who have been the beneficiaries of the huge sums that I have referred to, but they will of course be glad that provision is there is to help others in need. The trigger is asbestosis. Can the Minister confirm that, if those figures are not available now, the Government will undertake to identify exactly what costs are attributable to what industries?
I do not deny for a moment the absolute right of those in any industry who have suffered loss of health and even life as a result of their work to be properly compensated, but questions need to be answered about whether the schemes still help those not affected by asbestosis and to what extent. Perhaps a focus can be put on that. It is also relevant to ask what the total for mesothelioma is between all the schemes and what research budget is needed. It is a large sum, but it needs to be even larger to help those most in need. I would be grateful for the Government’s response.
Lord Jones
I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for her caring introduction. The increase of 1.7% in respect of asbestosis must be welcome, but, whatever the lump sum paid and whatever the increase, none of us can quite comprehend the miserable impact on the sufferer or the dependant, but it is good that some recompense has now been made.
Is there a regional breakdown of where sufferers worked historically? Does the department have that information? Is there any indication of the number of survivors and the number of dependants in receipt of payments? Does the department have such a figure? What sum of money has been paid so far since enactment? Does the department have that information? If so, could it be given to the Minister?
There have been some recollections. The late Lord Harold Walker of this noble House described to me how in the late 1960s workers in a factory in Hebden Bridge played snowballs with the piles of asbestos. The real tragedy in this case is that the asbestos was blue, which is, in effect, a certain prescription for illness and death.
I recollect debating the subject of the second SI with the Minister on a previous occasion. I remember it well; it might have been her first appearance in this Committee—a very fine appearance, if I might say so. She was responsive, as she always is. Again, I thank her. I intervene on this SI on the matter of the slate quarrymen, particularly those in north Wales, on whom the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, gave us his own insights. How many claimants are there now? How many dependants are claiming? Is there a breakdown for that part of Wales? Is there a breakdown by county—or country—of claimants throughout England and Wales? Is such statistical information available to the department?
Should there be the time and inclination, I will briefly describe a quarry in Blaenau Ffestiniog called Llechwedd. It is underground, of course, cavernous, dark and damp. There were dangers and pitfalls. Of course, the quarrymen worked underground at the quarry face. There were no health and safety regulations whatever when that quarry was at work. In what we call the olden days the quarrymen had to pay for the candles that lit their place of work. That is the memory and heritage. That makes some humanity of the regulations that the Minister must necessarily bring to the Committee. I stress that the emphasis of regulations should be on their humanity—the consequence for the citizen.
Another quarry, Penrhyn, was arguably the biggest in the world. Ten miles away from that great quarry, which is not active now, is a great castle, Penrhyn Castle. It is now a National Trust property. Should Members ever visit it, there is a Rembrandt in the breakfast room. My point is that the castle is mighty; it was built in the 19th century on the profits from the slate quarries. The contrast between the humble quarryman, and the mighty potentate and the wealth and treasure he and his descendants had, is enormous. It puts our debate into further context.
In 1976 I sat alongside the late Michael Foot, when he was deputy leader of the British Labour Party, as a junior colleague throughout the passage of the legislation. He enacted the first Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. It is relevant to emphasise that historic legislation to place this important SI in context. The department would then be the keeper of that memory, and the memories which noble Lords have recalled and put forward for consideration today.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, much has been done to raise awareness of this disease and to improve the lives of people affected by it. This is thanks to a great deal of political support and work by colleagues in this House and the other place. I refer here to my noble friend Lord Alton, who gave his customary forensic analysis of the issue, the noble Lords, Lord Giddens and Lord Wills, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone; and in the other place, Mike Kane, Tracey Crouch and the late Paul Goggins. My noble friend Lord Alton highlighted the invaluable work led by the British Lung Foundation and others.
Although we may expect the decline in heavy industry and mining over the last century to have eradicated occupational lung disease, people are still affected by exposure to harmful substances at work. As my noble friend Lord Alton mentioned, the Health and Safety Executive estimates that occupational lung disease results in around 12,000 deaths a year. For mesothelioma, there is currently no cure. Patients often have a short life expectancy and experience complex, debilitating symptoms.
A recent case regarding a former doctor in Coventry, Dr Kate Richmond, who is 44 with two young children and has only months to live, highlights that we must continue to strive so that employers are responsible for ensuring that effective measures are in place to control exposure to hazardous substances and must comply with the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002. Last November, during the High Court hearing of Dr Richmond’s case against University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust, Judge Master Davison found that she had been negligently exposed to asbestos. Dr Richmond’s exposure as a trainee during the demolition of Walsgrave Hospital was due to
“frequently using underground tunnels in which there were pipes covered with asbestos lagging in poor condition.”
It resulted in a number of people who work for the NHS raising concerns about their working environment. This underscores the calls to fix capital funding to upgrade NHS facilities—and similarly in our schools. If we cannot get it right in-house and have the NHS lead by example, how can we expect others to take steps to remove harmful materials from the workplace?
The regulations under debate today are the annual revision to the rates for the lump-sum compensation payments to people with mesothelioma or pneumoconiosis or to their surviving dependants. The payments are dependent on the age of the person at the time of diagnosis or, if unknown, at the date of the claim. Typically, the payments are uprated each year in line with inflation. The total amount of the levy to be charged for 2019-20 is £33.3 million. I notice that the proposal is to increase the lump-sum payment in line with the consumer prices index, currently 2.4%. I do not know whether that is standard Treasury practice for compensation schemes, but the RPI inflation rate currently stands at 4%. My first question to the Minister is, as in the previous debate, whether this is too small an increase and whether this is the right measure to uprate these schemes.
In last year’s debate the Minister stated,
“I know that in previous debates on increasing the value of these lump sums, noble Lords have raised the subject of equalising the payments made to dependants who claim after the death of someone who had the disease with those made to people who have the disease and claim in their lifetime. However, I must tell noble Lords that we do not intend to equalise payments. The Government’s view remains that it is most important that the available funding is given to the people with the condition who would most benefit from it.”—[Official Report, 14/2/19; col. 1968.]
I am raising this matter again, as have the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in light of the case highlighted earlier, given the relative youth of the doctor and her dependent children. Does the Minister still regard not equalising compensation payments as fair? Does the state not have a duty of care to frontline professionals working in the public sector? It seems particularly churlish not to invest in capital assets such as hospitals and schools and then to potentially disadvantage dependants on the grounds that this is taxpayers’ money. In this case, the doctor will have to spend her last months fighting the Government for compensation to ensure that her children are properly taken care of when the household they live in loses its mother and her salary sooner than would otherwise have been the case.
Turning to research, prevention and diagnosis, I welcome the NHS lung health check programme mentioned today by the Minister. It has been offered in some parts of England from autumn 2019 and aims to help diagnose lung cancer at an earlier stage when treatment may be more successful. I also welcome last week’s announcement by the University of Glasgow and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde which are set to benefit from a £5 million European research award to refocus research efforts on mesothelioma. The project, led by Professor Kevin Blyth, will help scientists across the UK to develop new research tools, resources and infrastructure to improve their understanding of cancer, including rare and hard-to-treat cancers, helping to find better ways to treat them. Professor Blyth said in the launch press release:
“It’s been difficult to build a network of scientists with enough cases of the disease to build a thorough understanding of how to best treat mesothelioma. And this has left people with the disease very few treatment options.”
Now that the UK has left the European Union, how do we retain collaborative cancer research with the EU and other research-focused countries? What steps are the Government taking to safeguard vitally important research initiatives such as this one, which rely upon data sharing across borders? The Government have said that they will diverge and have their own data protection scheme in the future. Could that prove to be detrimental to research efforts, innovation and of course patients in the UK? I also flag the publication of the EU’s artificial intelligence white paper, published on 19 February 2020.
What steps are the Government taking to ensure that communities such as Glasgow which are disproportionately affected by mesothelioma are not going to be left behind if they fail to agree a sensible way forward which enables research and innovation to flourish in the post-transition period? Glasgow has some of the highest rates of mesothelioma in the world due to the previous widespread use of asbestos in the shipbuilding industry.
Finally, the main focus today is on the people affected by these devastating diseases who currently have little hope due to the lack of treatment options available. It is for them that we must approve these regulations and continue to do all we can to support them.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. I love this debate each year here in this Room. It is incredibly powerful, compassionate and knowledgeable, and we should take it to the Chamber so that the wider world can listen to it. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, about long latency and issues where there is no known cause, which are therefore incredibly difficult to diagnose and treat. I think that that is the situation in a number of cases. We have also heard from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who is a stalwart of these occasions with his knowledgeable contributions. He spoke in praise of the British Lung Foundation and explained what it has been doing. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and my noble friend Lord Jones about slate quarrymen, reflecting the very real issues that for the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, are deeply personal, which enhances our debate. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, had questions for the Minister about collaborative research and what might be lost by our departure from Europe.
As we have heard, the mesothelioma lump sum payments regulations have uprated the lump sum payments for sufferers and their dependants in line with the September 2019 consumer prices index, which was 1.7%. We recognise the fact that the Government have reviewed the rates to maintain their value in line with inflation, although they are actually under no statutory obligation to do so, a point which I think has been made.
The Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008 made provisions to fast-track up-front lump sum payments for people diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma and their dependants. The scheme was introduced in recognition of the challenges that people can frequently face in obtaining compensation from one source or another and the fact that sufferers usually die within months of being diagnosed. It operates alongside the scheme established under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979, with the one difference being that the 2008 provisions assume 100% disability. That is not the case for pneumoconiosis.
These dust-related diseases are very much a reflection of our industrial past and the carelessness with which employers approached health and safety. The 2008 scheme provides for payments to be made to dependants where a person has died from mesothelioma before a claim can be completed. We are told that the 2008 Act payments are made from a compensation recovery mechanism which are then recovered from any subsequent successful civil compensation claim. This being the case, can the Minister tell us what levels of compensation have in fact been recovered in recent years and how do they relate to the 2008 Act payments? The 2008 scheme provides a one-off payment to sufferers who have no occupational link to the disease or who are self-employed. They include, for example, sufferers who live in close proximity to a workplace containing asbestos, those exposed to asbestos in the environment and to family members exposed via workers’ clothing. Payments can be made to dependents but not at the same rate as sufferers, which is a bone of contention that I will come on to.
Mesothelioma is a type of cancer that develops in the lining covering the outer surface of some of the body’s organs and is usually linked to asbestos exposure. Mesothelioma mainly affects the lining of the lungs, although it can affect the lining of other organs as well. It takes some years to develop, but it is usually rapidly fatal following the onset of symptoms. Unfortunately, it is rarely possible to cure mesothelioma, although treatments can help to control the symptoms. That is why it has been important to hear about some of the developments in research. It may take some while, but we need to keep the pressure up, so the engagement that noble Lords have with those involved is incredibly important.
According to the NHS website, more than 2,600 people are diagnosed with mesothelioma each year in the UK. Most cases are diagnosed in people aged 60 to 80, and men are affected more commonly than women. Last year, the Minister said that deaths from mesothelioma are at a historically high level, as we have heard again today, and the widespread use of asbestos in the decades after World War II means that this issue may be with us for some time to come, sadly.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
My Lords, my first time speaking at the Box was to reply to the mesothelioma debate. I remember having a wad of papers then, and today it is the same size. I will do my best to answer all the points which have been made, but if I do not cover them all, I will undertake to read Hansard with my officials to ensure that points which are not responded to verbally are answered in writing. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Jones, Lord Freyberg and Lord Wigley, for their reminders that this is about people who have suffered and are suffering.
I start by referring to what the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said about the indiscriminate nature of mesothelioma. As she and all noble Lords will be aware, it is not always the people who work in dangerous environments who get this disease. For example, there have been tragic cases where a worker’s spouse has been exposed while cleaning work overalls. This is why the 2008 Act scheme was set up: to order compensatory payment to anyone with diffuse mesothelioma without a medical examination, regardless of whether they have worked in hazardous environments.
On the crucial matter of research, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Alton, Lord Freyberg and Lord Wigley, and others, the Department of Health and Social Care has been working to stimulate mesothelioma research activities, including making specific calls for research proposals. I believe that the Medical Research Council spent £2 million on research directly related to mesothelioma in 2018-19. Noble Lords will no doubt be aware of the £5 million grant awarded in 2016 from Libor fines to establish a National Centre for Mesothelioma Research. More recently, the Department of Health and Social Care has been working with the British Lung Foundation—another organisation referred to by noble Lords—to support the first UK mesothelioma research network.
All noble Lords have drawn attention to the issue of undisturbed asbestos in public buildings, notably schools. The Government take the matter of asbestos in public buildings seriously. Since 2015, £7.4 billion has been allocated by the Department for Education to building refurbishment, which includes asbestos removal. The Department for Education also launched a new asbestos management process in 2018 to understand how the issue is being handled by state-funded schools. More broadly, I refer all noble Lords to the advice of the Health and Safety Executive: as long as the asbestos is in good condition and protected from damage, it is usually safer to leave it in place and manage it than remove it.
Noble Lords referred to equalising payment rates between those with the disease and their dependants. The intention of the scheme is to provide support to people living with these diseases. My view is that funding should be targeted where it is needed most. In addition, equalising payments would require an overhaul of the payment structure. In 2018-19, 350 awards were made to dependants, compared with 3,570 awards made to those with diseases. Awards to dependants under the 1979 Act scheme are made in two parts: the first payment is for the effects of the illness before death; a second payment is made in cases where death was caused by the relevant disease. Equalising payments would, of course, entail primary legislation and be subject to other government priorities.
Noble Lords referred to calls for uprating to be automatic each year. The point has been made that if we did that, we would not be having this debate. I am not into trade-offs, certainly when they involve people’s lives, but maybe the deal can be that I will try to get this debate in the Chamber next year. Payments have been uprated each year in line with inflation since 2004. Making any change to uprating legislation would make no monetary difference to those in receipt of payments. As I said, we could lose the opportunity to debate this important subject.
On the tragic case of the NHS doctor, Kate Richmond, assuming that Dr Richmond suffers from mesothelioma, our schemes can pay out without liability being established. Anyone in this situation is paid the highest rate for their age without needing a face-to-face assessment. Rates are highest for those who contract the disease at younger ages. I acknowledge the important point that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, made about payments to children. I will take that back to the Minister for Disabled People.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, raised the issue of uprating the sums to average earnings rather than RPI or CPI. The Government believe that CPI is an appropriate measure of price inflation, but if the noble Lord has other thoughts on this, I would be very happy to take them back to the department. On the critical point he raised about collaborative research in the EU, it is vital that research into these diseases continues as smoothly as possible. I know that this Government view innovation and research as a priority. I will write to the noble Lord on the specific matter of this health research and I am happy to share that with all noble Lords. I am sure he will appreciate that collaboration with the EU is a cross-departmental matter which we must continue to push.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am trying to understand whether the compensation recovery mechanism produces more than, less than or the same as the money needed for the 2008 arrangements and whether there is a surplus which might be applied to equalisation. I am not sure that the Minister has dealt with that point; perhaps she will come on to it.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
I have had a number of detailed questions about data, which I will come to.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned the insurance industry’s funding for mesothelioma research. Again, I will cover that in the letter.
I have had numerous requests for information: industry led, geographically led and fiscally led, whether there are surpluses or anything else, and about the number of claimants in the slate quarry. I hope noble Lords will understand that I am not able to give them that information at the moment, but I will work with officials to get a complete set of data, where it is available, and I will cover the points raised. Information on the slate quarrymen awards is held by the department. It might be difficult to get, but we will have a go.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked what proportion of the amounts paid under the 1979 Act and 2008 Act schemes is recoverable from claims for civil damages. In 2018-19, a total of £24.5 million was recovered. In the current financial year to December 2019, £21.9 million has been recovered. The net cost of the 1979 and 2008 Act schemes to the Government in 2018-19 was £28.2 million.
The noble Lord asked about the number of cases of mesothelioma and requested a breakdown by profession. I will include that in the data that I send out.
Dependants receiving compensation are mostly women. I was asked whether we had considered equality issues. The intention of the scheme was to compensate those who had contracted the disease as a result of their working environment. Historically, those who worked in hazardous environments tended to be men, and this is reflected in the current gender balance of claims.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about the levy on the insurance industry and the cap rate of 3% of gross written premium. The levy is reviewed annually using estimates based on management information from the scheme administrator. The levy for 2019-20 is £33.3 million, which is below the cap of 3% of the employer liability gross written premium.
Trade deals were raised and the need to make sure that no opportunity is given for asbestos-related issues to arise. Our standards in the UK are very high and we have no intention of lowering them.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked also about progress on employer liability tracing. I will need to write to him about that once I have found out.
As last year, this has been a wide-ranging debate which has shown this Committee’s interest in and commitment to the people who have suffered this dreadful disease. I thank Members for their many and helpful contributions. I think that I have dealt with a lot of the questions raised, but, as I have promised, I will go through Hansard with my officials and make sure that every noble Lord gets an answer to their questions. The Government recognise the important role played by these schemes in providing financial support to people diagnosed with mesothelioma and the other dust-related diseases covered by them. The regulations will ensure that the value of the schemes is maintained. I commend the uprating of the payment scales and ask for approval to implement it.
Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott
That the Grand Committee do consider the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2020.
Parental Bereavement Leave Regulations 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Parental Bereavement Leave Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 4th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the draft regulations laid before the House on 23 January 2020 be approved. These SIs implement a new entitlement to paid leave for employees who lose a child under the age of 18, or whose baby is stillborn.
Every year, there are around 7,500 child deaths, including stillbirths, in Great Britain. While this number is relatively small, each parent of those babies and children will, of course, experience unimaginable grief and sadness following such a tragic event. At the moment, there is no specific right to take time off work to grieve following the loss of a child. The majority of employers respond to these circumstances with great sensitivity and compassion, but sadly there are still a few who do not. These SIs will ensure that there is a statutory minimum provision in place which all working parents can rely on in the event of a child death or stillbirth. They will also establish a clear baseline of support for employers when managing bereavement in the workplace.
Before I go on to explain exactly what each of the two SIs actually does, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, for his excellent stewardship of the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018 through this House. It is this Act that gives the Government the powers needed to make these SIs.
The draft Parental Bereavement Leave Regulations 2020 give all employees a right to a minimum of two weeks off work in the event of their child’s death or stillbirth, regardless of how long they have worked for their employer. The Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay (General) Regulations 2020 implement a new statutory payment for parents taking time away from work following their bereavement, subject to the same eligibility criteria as all other statutory family leave payments.
The SIs for which I seek approval today set some of the key policy detail in relation to leave and pay, including how a “bereaved parent” will be defined, how and when the leave and pay can be taken, and the notice and evidence requirements. A “bereaved parent” for the purposes of entitlement to this leave and pay has been defined in broad terms, by reference to the employee’s relationship to the child. The definition reflects the diversity of family structures, taking account of biological and adoptive parents, as well as certain foster carers and kinship carers.
The SIs provide for two weeks of parental bereavement leave per bereaved parent, per child or stillbirth. Individuals will have the choice to take the two weeks consecutively or non-consecutively if they want one week initially and one week further on. The regulations provide a window of 56 weeks, beginning with the date of death, in which the entitlement can be exercised. Bereaved parents will therefore be able to take time off in the immediate aftermath of the death, or at a later point, for example around the first anniversary, or on both occasions.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction to these regulations, which I support. I am grateful to the department, and the Government, for bringing them forward. Their importance was brought home to me yet again last year when a work colleague at TES—my interests are in the register—lost a child through stillbirth at the moment of delivery. Having been a part of these discussions for nigh on 10 years, I felt better equipped to provide what support I could. I am happy to say that TES acted as a responsible employer, as the vast majority are, in giving Tara the support that she needed.
These regulations bring into effect the law that we brought through and mark the end of a campaign. It may be unfashionable to say so these days, but it is affirming to note that an individual, Lucy Herd, whose son Jack died 10 years ago, was able to campaign and then use the democratic and parliamentary process to effect a change in the law. She did so by securing all-party support of Members in both Houses. As noble Lords know, I first met her, and discussed her campaign, in a TV studio relatively soon after Jack died. She used the system for No. 10 petitions, as well as change.org, a slightly more sophisticated petitioning website to capture more data and more stories, which were really helpful. I introduced her to the then MP for Glasgow Cathcart, Tom Harris, who introduced a 10-minute rule Bill. That was the first time the issue was introduced in Parliament as part of a campaign.
Lucy was then able to contact those who had signed the petition to let them know that that was happening. I was then able to bring it to this House for the first time, with the Children and Families Act 2014. I am delighted to see the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, in his place. He was good enough to meet Lucy and me to discuss the issue then and, in the end, we agreed that we would accept his kind offer that ACAS would issue guidance to employers on this and we would see how it went.
After the 2015 general election, when Will Quince was elected as a Member of Parliament, he raised the issue through an unsuccessful Private Member’s Bill. Mr Quince was able to help get it into the Conservative manifesto for the 2017 election, and then Kevin Hollinrake was able to secure a Private Member’s Bill slot and get it through. The goal was then wide open and I was able to put the ball in the back of the net, thanks to support from Front-Benchers, who are all here today.
I am delighted that when the previous Secretary of State announced that these regulations were forthcoming, the department used Lucy as part of the PR; she had another moment with the media to remember Jack and mark the success of her campaign. It was a nice bookend to the whole experience.
It is worth saying that Parliament and democracy can work. When a case is made intelligently, when all the systems are used well and when politicians on all sides in both Houses are willing to listen—that is not necessarily always the case—we can get great things done. This is a significant thing that we are doing.
I want to say one other thing, almost in parentheses. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has a point to make on benefits and the Department for Work and Pensions. I will not steal her thunder, but I am fully supportive of what I think she is about to say. I want to make sure that Ministers who are listening on this issue hear that. With that, I reiterate my support for the regulations and look forward to them being implemented next month.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. I pay tribute to Lucy Herd, who as we have heard has been campaigning for nearly a decade. When I first learned of the campaign, I knew that it would take a while because the issue is not one that affects many families. Not many families or their wider circle of friends will know somebody who has lost a child or are aware of a stillbirth. I give credit not just to Lucy but to the noble Lord, Lord Knight, Will Quince and Kevin Hollinrake for all the work they have done to ensure that this never lost the eye of Ministers. We may all collectively have been a thorn in their flesh, including myself over the past four or five years, but I am delighted that we have now got to the point where these regulations are coming into play.
I note particularly that account has been taken of the definition of “parent”. I was an informal foster parent. I was not a kinship carer but I had parental responsibility for two children after their mother died, so I am very grateful for that. It is because of such funny modern-day family situations that we need a regulation broad enough to recognise that when people are personally involved and have a responsibility, no employer or state system should say that they do not have the right to receive parental bereavement leave.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who kindly gave me an in to the issue that I want to raise, which I appreciate is not within the remit of BEIS. However, I raised this repeatedly during the passage of the Bill and I want to do so again.
I understand why the decision was made that self-employed parents will not be in receipt of this benefit because they are not in receipt of many other benefits. However, there is a serious inequity for parents, especially those who have stopped working, often for many years, because of the serious medical difficulty that their child has had. They have done so knowing that their child will die. The fact is that under our current system, the day after the child dies, they lose their disability benefit and carer benefit and, shockingly, they have to apply immediately for benefits. I remind the Grand Committee, because I raised this on the Bill, of the words of one parent who wrote:
“The day after, I applied for jobseeker’s allowance, wanting to buy myself a little extra time to grieve before returning to some sort of work, only to be told that because I hadn’t worked in 10 years, I was ineligible, despite the fact that in those 10 years I had worked harder and for many more hours than the average person. The fact that I had saved the Government and the NHS hundreds of thousands of pounds by providing my son with hourly complex medical care counted for nothing. You are told to man up, move on, get a job, pay the bills. Provide for your remaining family.”
That inequity still remains. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, referred to unemployed parents not being covered but said that the DWP will keep this under review. It will do more than that because the campaign for these parents starts today.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations, the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and all those he mentioned for introducing the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018 which gives the power to make the regulations we are considering today. I shall raise three short points. The first is one that the Minister referred to in his speech, which is that these benefits are available only to employees. This raises a critical issue in labour law and indeed it is one that has beset labour law for centuries: different legal statuses are attached to different kinds of worker. The consequence of having a different status is that one is entitled to different employment rights. This issue will perhaps be dealt with in the forthcoming Employment Bill which I understand will deal with the Matthew Taylor report and contain some measures in relation to that.
The issue is that employees are entitled to more rights than other categories of worker. At one end of the spectrum one has the employee while at the other end one has the genuinely self-employed in business on his or her own account. In between, we have what lawyers call the limb (b) worker; that is to say, a worker under Section 230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which is a worker under a contract that is not a contract of employment and not working for a client or a customer of a business of that worker. In effect, it is a kind of employee but not quite an employee. The consequence of being a limb (b) worker is that one does not have the same array of employment rights as an employee. There is a fourth category which is what lawyers call the false self-employed, which is somebody who appears to be self-employed because that is how the employer has designated him or her, but in reality and on examination in the courts or tribunals turns out to be an employee or indeed a limb (b) worker.
The point I make to the Minister is that there is really no justification for confining the right to bereavement leave or pay to those who are employees and not extending it to limb (b) workers. I appreciate that these regulations could not confer the benefit on limb (b) workers because the Act itself confines those benefits to employees, but when the Employment Bill comes to be drafted, this is something that could be addressed. There can be no doubt that limb (b) workers will suffer just as much grief and tragedy over the loss of a child as an employee. In his speech, the Minister suggested that the justification for this might be that all parental leave under the Employment Rights Act is confined to employees, but that is not really a justification for excluding limb (b) workers from the benefit of parental bereavement leave or pay.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a useful and helpful debate on an uncontentious set of regulations stemming from a Bill which had to be a Private Member’s Bill but did, it should be said, feature in the 2017 Conservative manifesto—which is why it may have got through with the speed it did. This is in no sense to denigrate it, but from listening to the debate, one might have imagined that it would have been a flagship measure in certain circumstances. It was not to be that way, but that does not take anything away from the fact that this is an important social measure which we welcome.
In a sense the narrative, as rehearsed by my noble friend Lord Knight, reflects the fact that the campaign raised by Lucy Herd has been successful in getting movement in this area. The order before us is about the consequences of that Bill, the consultation that took place and the decisions taken as a result. Despite the points already been made today, we can be pleased that the consultation went well. It seemed to cover exactly the points we were nervous about when saw the Bill through both Houses. The results, although they may not satisfy everybody, give enough of a base for introducing the arrangements that we can welcome them.
Having said that, the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, are valid. Indeed, I was going to make them myself. We need to settle the question of whether we are going to treat fairly and equitably those who work across the various boundaries described by the noble Lord. I hope that the employment law, when it comes forward, will cover the gig economy and benefits for those who are workers but not employees. There will be no question of the Government being able to rely on the EU regulations in force not permitting them to do this because we will be able to do that ourselves, will we not?
Having been welcoming and supportive of what has been said and noting the points made by noble Lords about issues that perhaps still need to be picked up, I want to mention three myself. First, I welcome the fact that that these regulations have a common commencement date. The Minister will have been advised that I have a thing about this. His predecessor managed a score of one set of SIs starting on a common commencement date and 13 SIs that did not. There was never an adequate answer for that. It just seemed to be the way it happened. I am delighted that the Minister is starting his regime with an appropriate commencement date of 6 April.
Secondly, I read both draft instruments looking for the point picked up in previous discussions in the Grand Committee today about uprating arrangements. I assume that it is automatic, but given the experience of those in the previous debate of there being no statutory requirement to uprate, can the Minister confirm that these payments, if successfully claimed, will be uprated annually? If he cannot confirm that today, perhaps he can write to me.
Thirdly, when the Minister introduced the debate, he estimated that there are 7,000 child deaths a year. However, the Explanatory Memorandum has a figure of 10,200 parents a year eligible for parental bereavement leave, with 9,300 of those eligible for the payment. Can he confirm what the figures actually are? We have just discussed whether we should include in the figures gig economy workers who are not employees, so I think the overall figure is probably bigger. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, it is still a small number and therefore not one that carries political weight, but we should know what we are talking about. Again, if the figures are not available, I would be happy for the Minister to write to me.
We support these regulations. They have been interpreted with sensitive regard to what is required, with the evidence that came forward supporting what we said at Second Reading. They are therefore welcome.
Lord Callanan
I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to the debate. I start by reflecting the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth. The legislation would not have made it this far were it not for the commitment and support of Lucy Herd, and of Kevin Hollinrake and Will Quince and others in the other place—on both sides of the House, it is fair to say—as well as the work of the noble Lord.
I totally associate myself with the remarks the noble Lord made about the political process. It is often a source of great frustration, even to those of us within government. I am profoundly grateful to have the honour of presenting the regulations, which in no sense were my work, in this place. It shows that occasionally the political process works to the benefit of the people that we are all here to help and it was great to see the support for this measure on both sides of this place. As well as thanking the politicians, I thank all the officials in my department who worked hard to bring these measures before us today.
I hope noble Lords will agree that the Government have carefully considered the needs of bereaved parents, as well as those of employers, in drafting these regulations. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that the broad definition of a bereaved parent—relying on a parental relationship, rather than biological parentage, to determine eligibility—will ensure that this provision reaches those who need it most. She will get the answer she was expecting to her second point: the policy in this area is not held by my department; it is a matter for the DWP. However, I will ensure that her point is conveyed to that department and that she gets a written reply to her valid concerns.
As I have already set out, the entitlement can be taken flexibly, giving bereaved parents choices about how best to use their time off to support their own, individual grieving process. This is important, as grief rarely follows a predictable path and significant events, even some time after the death, can cause bereaved parents to need time away from work. Wherever possible, these regulations have sought to mirror the existing framework of family-related leave and pay entitlements, which is familiar to most employers. The regulations ensure that an employer has certainty about when their employee will be off, which will enable them to plan ahead. I hope that this will ultimately lead to a more supportive and compassionate response from employers.
These regulations represent a statutory baseline, which should be considered the bare minimum for an employee who has suffered such a tragic loss. Many of us who are parents cannot comprehend the pain that someone in such circumstances will go through. As always, the Government encourage all employers to go further than the statutory minima where they are able to, and to act compassionately and considerately towards their staff. I am happy to say that many employers already provide exemplary bereavement support to their staff. However, there are still a small minority who do not, so I hope that this new legislation will not only ensure a minimum protection for all employees, but lead to better workplace support for bereavement across the board.
ACAS has produced guidance with Cruse, the bereavement specialists, for employers on managing bereavement in the workplace that includes specific advice relating to a parent losing a child of any age. We encourage employers to take notice of the ACAS guidance and to go beyond this statutory minimum in their own workplace policy where possible. I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, about the lack of provision for bereaved parents who are self-employed, or who are “workers” as opposed to employees. The Government understand the challenges that the self-employed and other non-employee parents face. We will continue to keep differences in treatment between self-employed and employed people under review with respect to parental leave and pay.
I am happy to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that this payment will be uprated annually, in line with other family payments. Regarding the numbers—we had 7,500 and he quoted 10,500—every child’s death will have a number of parents associated with it. The number in the impact assessment is not exactly twice the number of deaths; the 10,500 takes account of many things, including the number of parents who are not employees. If it would be helpful to him, I can write to him to explain that in more detail.
I hope I have answered all the questions. I commend these draft regulations to the House.
Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay (General) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the Statutory Parental Bereavement Pay (General) Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 4th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2020.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of the regulations is to increase the national living wage and all of the national minimum wage rates from 1 April 2020. The regulations also include an increase in the accommodation offset rate, which is the only benefit in kind that counts towards minimum wage pay.
The national living wage has had a positive, real-terms impact on the earnings of the lowest paid. Between April 2015 and April 2019, those at the fifth percentile of the earnings distribution saw their wages grow by almost 11% above inflation. This is faster than at any other equivalent point in the earnings distribution. The labour market has continued to perform well: the employment rate is at a record high of 76.5%, while the unemployment rate is at 3.8%, the lowest rate since the 1970s.
From April, the national living wage for those aged 25 and over will increase by 51p to £8.72, which is a 6.2% increase. The 51p increase in April will mean that full-time workers on the national living wage will see their pay increase by £930 over the year. This national living wage increase is projected to meet the Government’s target of 60% of median earnings in 2020. The national minimum wage rate for 21 to 24 year-olds will increase by 50p, meaning that those in this age group will be entitled to a minimum of £8.20, an annual increase of 6.5%. Those aged between 18 and 20 years old will be entitled to a minimum of £6.45, which is an annual increase of 4.9%, while those aged under 18 will be entitled to a minimum of £4.55, an annual increase of 4.6%. Finally, apprentices aged under 19, or those aged 19 and over in the first year of their apprenticeship, will be entitled to £4.15, which is a 6.4% increase. All of these above-inflation increases represent real pay rises for the lowest-paid workers in the United Kingdom.
All the rates in these regulations have been recommended by the independent and expert Low Pay Commission. As noble Lords will be aware, the commission brings together employer and worker representatives to reach a consensus when making their recommendations. The Government asked the commission to recommend the rate of the national living wage such that it reaches 60% of median earnings in 2020, subject to sustained economic growth. For the national minimum wage, the commission has recommended rates that increase the earnings of the lowest-paid younger workers as high as possible without damaging their employment prospects. I thank the Low Pay Commission for its extensive research and consultation, which has informed these rate recommendations, all of which is set out in its 2019 report, published in January.
The Government have further pledged to raise the national living wage to two-thirds of median earnings and apply it to those aged 21 and over by 2024. The Low Pay Commission will continue to have a central role, ensuring that the lowest-paid workers benefit from national living wage increases.
On the subject of enforcement, the Government are clear that anyone entitled to be paid the minimum wage should receive it. That is why we have more than doubled the enforcement and compliance budget, with funding reaching £27.4 million for 2019-20, up from £13.2 million in 2015-16. HMRC follows up on every complaint it receives, even those which are anonymous. This includes complaints made to the ACAS helpline, via the online complaint form, or from other sources. Increasing the budget allows HMRC to focus on tackling the most serious cases of non-compliance, while educating employers into compliance. In 2018-19, HMRC identified a record £24.4 million in pay arrears for over 220,000 workers, and issued more than £17 million in penalties for non-compliant employers. The Government have taken further measures to help employers get the rules right first time by providing improved guidance and support.
While increases in the national living wage and national minimum wage represent a cost to some businesses, the Government have introduced a number of measures to support them. For example, we have cut the corporation tax rate from 28% in 2010 to 19% today, benefiting more than 1 million companies and delivering the lowest rate in the G20.
Record increases to the national living wage and national minimum wage rates are just part of this Government’s agenda to make the UK the best place in the world to work. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, it would be churlish not to congratulate the Government on achieving their target of 60% of median earnings this year. I also welcome the increased funding for enforcement.
The increase in the national living wage will provide a considerable uplift for the working poor in our country. A top rate of £8.72 is getting closer to the Living Wage Foundation’s recommended £9.30—I presume that it will be further uprated in due course—but it is still a way off the London living wage of £10.75. I should probably know this, but can the Minister explain why there is no Low Pay Commission London minimum wage, when clearly it is more expensive to live in London than anywhere else?
The difference between the minimum wage and the living wage is that the living wage is based on a basket of goods and services which should give a basic but acceptable standard of living. It therefore follows that the national minimum wage is not sufficient for someone to live on. Instead, it has to be subsidised by the Government through universal credit and various other benefits.
I can see that different individual and family circumstances will need a different underpinning level of help. The idea of always making work pay was quite a genius move on the part of the Government when it came in, but implementation was, and still is, another story. Fortunately, that does not come within our remit today. We are where we are and there is something to celebrate.
The adult rate for 21 to 24 year-olds received the greatest percentage uplift, at 6.5%, but the youth rate for under-18s has fared proportionately worse, at 4.6%, or the princely sum of 20p an hour. I know that it is argued that these youngsters enter the world of work with very little knowledge, but it cannot help their self-esteem to give them a 20p rise, especially if they and their families need that money.
I wish I had a crystal ball to see whether, in a time of full employment and even greater skills shortages, not helped by this Government’s immigration policies, wage rates will rise above and beyond the minimum. Unfortunately, I do not have a crystal ball, except to predict that we are all likely to meet here next March. Who knows what state the country and wage rates will be in then?
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the SI before us. As has been said, it is interesting to see every year the amount of work that goes into providing the analysis and evidence for it. It is of a very high standard and one enjoys reading the recent literature on these areas. I know that it has been updated this time, although I am afraid that I have not gone to the original texts.
I should have declared my interests. I am the father of a child who is receiving the apprentice wage, being over 19 and still in the first year of his apprenticeship—although I think that comes to an end next week.
Having said that, I want to come back to two questions I have asked previously. The first concerns the disregard for accommodation, which there is not very much detail about. I do not particularly need an answer now, but will the Minister write to me at some point in the not-too-distant future explaining why the percentage used for the disregard for accommodation is still at variance with the figures used for any of the others? My simplistic approach to this is that if there is a broad range of indicators which suggest that pay needs to increase on a particular range, and there are reasons why that might vary across the individual numbers, why do we come to a different figure for the accommodation disregard, even though it affects all those in the sector? It is too complex an issue for the Minister to respond to today, but I would be grateful to receive a letter on that point.
The noble Baroness asked about the work on making sure that employers are paying the national minimum wage, subject to a big increase in funding announced in last year’s Budget. We do not get much detail in these figures about what exactly is happening. A reference on page 37, in paragraph 146, suggests that there will be a change this year, because a greater number of employees are in the lower bands of the national living wage and there will therefore be instances where non-compliance could occur. In fact, there could be an increase in that. There is no explanation given, but if there is anything of significance, perhaps the Minister could write to me about it. I just note it at this stage.
The basic concern is that although the budget has increased and the numbers are down, an alarmingly large number of people are still thought to be affected. In April 2019, it was estimated that 424,000 jobs with pay less than the national minimum wage and national living wage were held by employees aged 16 and over. That is 1.5% of all those aged 16 plus in UK employed jobs. It is true that that is less than last year, when it was 1.6%, but it is still an awful lot of people. Will the Minister say what activity is going to be involved in the expenditure of the greater funds made available for enforcement? Does he judge that it will be successful?
Lord Callanan
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for their contributions to this important debate. I do not know whether it is a commentary on the time that the debate is being held or the fact that there is such widespread support for the Government’s policy that they are the only two valiant Peers who have turned up to comment on something that will make such a difference to hundreds of thousands of workers in this country.
The introduction of the national minimum wage and the national living wage is one of the great successes of the UK labour market. Since the year that the national living wage was announced, the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage worker will have increased by more than £3,700. That is equivalent to a 21% increase in the national living wage since 2015. The record high employment rate shows that a higher minimum wage can go hand in hand with strong employment growth. The Government’s green-rated impact assessment estimates that the minimum wage increases we have debated today will directly benefit around 2.4 million low-paid workers, and of course nearly 8 million workers are estimated to benefit both directly and indirectly because some workers who are paid slightly above the minimum wage will also benefit from increases in the average wage of employees in their companies.
Sustainable increases in minimum wage rates also depend on strong economic fundamentals and I am delighted to say that those of the UK are strong. Since 2010 our economy has grown by 19.5%, which is faster than in France, Italy and Japan. In 2016 the Government committed to raise the national living wage to 60% per cent of median earnings and we have stayed loyal and true to that commitment. Looking ahead, our pledge to raise the national living wage to two-thirds of median earnings by 2024 makes the UK the first major economy in the world to set such an ambition.
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
Clinical Negligence
Lord Storey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the costs of clinical negligence.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, when people are harmed under NHS care, the impact on their lives and families can be devastating. We have a clear duty to shoulder that responsibility. However, the costs of clinical negligence continue to rise every year at an unsustainable rate, eating into resources that should be available for front-line care. This is despite our substantial safety programmes. We are working across government on solutions to address this and will bring forward a publication in due course.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s very helpful reply. He will be aware that criminal negligence claims are running at about £1.8 billion and forecast in the next few years to go to £3 billion. Is the Minister concerned that, by paying NHS defence legal costs regardless of the outcome of the claim, the Government are creating perverse incentives that reward “deny, defend, delay” behaviours by lawyers?
Lord Bethell
My Lords, the arrangements for clinical negligence payments are currently under review. The National Audit Office made it clear that this should be the focus of a substantial government review programme. We view the current arrangements as completely unsatisfactory, and that review will be published shortly along the terms that the noble Lord described.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister consider whether Section 2(4) of the 1948 Act should continue, as it tends to swell these claims for damages? Is there any procedure followed when a particular claim is accepted to see whether the same accident is repeated again, and, if so, what should be done to stop it?
Lord Bethell
I can confirm that, at this stage, there is a wide review going on. The department is looking at a wide range of options, but a repeal of Section 2(4) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948 is not planned for the moment. He makes a profound and important point about the importance of better understanding when repeated errors are made. Patient safety has been put at the centre of the NHS’s priorities for 10 years. Big improvements have been made, but more can be made in the future. We will be bringing the HSSIB Bill to this House later in the Session.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, many of the negligence cases that are brought forward are down to the shortage of staff within hospitals. If there is a shortage of staff, is that the fault of the hospital or of the Government?
Lord Bethell
The noble Lord has teed up a difficult question for me. The truth is that too often, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay said, the biggest payments are made in the area of obstetrics, where lessons should and could be learned, regarding not the shortage of staff but the techniques and responsibilities of those who are concerned. The Government are very determined to put right any gaps in practice in that area.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, further to what the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, in fact the amount that NHS Resolution has reserved for claims is £83 billion. May I suggest to the Minister that, as well as looking at Section 2(4), which I am sorry to say the Government do not seem to be looking at, they review the question of the discount rate, among other things, which has resulted in such huge claims? They should also bear in mind the effect that these claims have on clinical practice. I declare an interest as having practised in this area for the last 30 years.
Lord Bethell
The noble Lord is absolutely right; the total sum of money for claims on the liabilities book is second only to the potential costs of cleaning up our nuclear industry. He is also right that the discount rate is a critically important part of this extremely complex area. It is true that, in 2017, a change to the personal injury discount rate added significantly to damages awards over and above existing drivers. However, that increase was subsequently unwound in August 2019, following the introduction of the Civil Liability Act 2018, and the Government project that it will partially reduce the impact of PIDR in future claims.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, would my noble friend agree that often, and for short-term economic reasons, health authorities have a tendency to settle low-value claims even though the justification for them is sometimes very slight? Does not this practice encourage further claims, very often backed by no-win no-fee agreements?
Lord Bethell
My noble friend is absolutely correct to emphasise the dangers of no-win no-fee arrangements, and in fact trusts have arranged for lawyers representing personal injury practices to leave the premises of trusts for that reason. However, the Government believe that the fixed recoverable costs consultation that ran in 2017 has powerful recommendations for tackling the issue which he describes, and we look forward to acting on the CJC report, published in October 2019.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, so far, all the questions have related to costs and lawyers and the NHS side. The trauma to patients and to families of extended delays is significant, and some families, particularly in obstetrics cases, take five to 10 years to get a resolution. What will the Government do to speed up the process, keeping patients and their families in mind?
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, makes exactly the right point. The human cost here is far greater than the financial one. How can it be right that a family that has been through the trauma of some major health disaster then has to stand in court and fight its case against lawyers? This Government are determined to seek to resolve that human cost. This area is extremely complex. Several models have been tried, but we do not have the answers yet. We are working hard to publish a strategy, but I assure the noble Baroness that the human dimension is absolutely uppermost in our considerations.
Arts and Cultural Services
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve the provision of arts and cultural services at (1) local, and (2) regional, level.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have committed to supporting our vital cultural and creative sectors across the country. In October 2019, we announced a new £250 million cultural investment fund—the largest ever single investment in regional cultural infrastructure, local museums and neighbourhood libraries. DCMS’s arm’s-length body, Arts Council England, invests more than £600 million in arts and culture each year. It is spending more outside London than ever before, particularly targeting places where cultural engagement is low.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, arts and cultural services have been among the first to go as a result of the Government’s policy of austerity, with £400 million cut from local authority spending for England alone since 2011, according to the County Councils Network. Museums have been squeezed, libraries have closed and there has been a significant decrease in serious theatre production originating outside London. Does the Minister not agree that local authority funding remains the most effective means of day-to-day maintenance of the arts? The future will be bleak if the Government do not reverse the cuts. Will they do so? The regions deserve better.
Baroness Barran
The noble Earl is obviously right to reflect on the challenging funding environments faced by local authorities over the past few years, but he will be aware that local authorities across England will see a 4.4% increase—£2.9 billion in real terms—in their core spending power in 2020. Local authorities are extremely well placed to decide how to prioritise their spending. We are clear that expenditure on arts and culture is one of the best decisions that local authorities can make.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
My Lords, we were told a year ago that there was a plan for business rate relief for music venues, particularly in the regions. When will we get it?
Baroness Barran
I will have to write to the noble Lord on that. I do not have that information.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the £250 million cultural investment fund and the allocation of £90 million to the cultural development fund, but the Minister will know that the former focuses on infrastructure and the latter on urban, not rural, areas. Can she clarify plans to improve cultural services in urban areas where there is little in the way of cultural infrastructure and where revenue, not capital funding, matters? Can she say more about how the Government will address the discrepancy in provision between urban and rural areas, which have suffered the most by far as a result of the local authority cuts mentioned?
Baroness Barran
The noble Baroness is right to raise the issue of need in rural areas. The Government are approaching this principally through the lens of ensuring equality of access to cultural provision; we have focused on programmes such as Creative People and Places, reaching more than 3 million people in the areas in the bottom quartile for access. All the funds being looked at at the moment will look through the lens of rural access but our principal aim, in the words of the noble Baroness’s speech the other evening, is to unleash the creative potential of the nation.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester
My Lords, while the provision of arts and cultural services by local authorities is clearly crucial to our society’s well-being, does the Minister share the frustration felt by many of us at the increasingly utilitarian approach taken by schools and further and higher education, which often devalues arts and culture at a time when we know less about what skills will be required in the workplace of the future but we know that the sort of broad vision provided by arts and culture—and, perhaps, religion—will be invaluable?
Baroness Barran
The right reverend Prelate makes an important point. He will be aware that the Government committed in their manifesto to offering an arts premium to secondary schools to fund enriching activities for pupils; we have committed £107 million of funding to that for 2021-22. On careers progression, good work is going on between Arts Council England and the creative industries body to develop apprenticeships, particularly in this area.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware of the importance of the creative arts and creative industries to the economy in general. Is she aware of a recent survey showing that 42% of employees in the creative industries generally lack the necessary skills, that 22% of employees in those industries come from overseas, and that 10% came as freelance workers from the EU last year? How does all this fit with the Government’s immigration policy?
Baroness Barran
As the noble Lord knows, the Government have set out a points-based immigration system that will recognise skills and talent rather than the origin and nationality of the individual. The UK’s existing rules permit artists, entertainers and musicians to perform at events. I know this has been a concern of a number of your Lordships.
Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, the country’s private historic houses welcome—
Lord Cormack (Con)
We have not had a question yet. I thank the noble Earl very much. Does my noble friend accept that, where a wonderful purpose-built gallery and grade 2 listed building—such as the Usher Gallery in Lincoln—is at risk, the local authority has a duty to consider every possible means of maintaining it, and perhaps to explore the creation of a trust to which the gallery can be transferred? Does she accept that to deprive people of a gallery that is the most important benefaction the city has ever received would be a very serious step indeed?
Baroness Barran
I hear the concern about the situation in Lincoln in my noble friend’s voice. I feel, however, that it is up to the local authority to look at every possible option, as he says.
Prisons: Radicalisation
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hussein-Ece
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to tackle radicalisation in prisons in England and Wales.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, all terrorist offenders, and offenders of concern, are subject to specialist multiagency case management to support their disengagement and manage their risk. We have a network of counterterrorism prison and probation specialists, and we utilise tailored interventions—psychological, ideological and theological —to facilitate disengagement. The most high-risk radicalisers can be managed in specialist separation centres.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
I am grateful for the Minister’s reply, but there is increasing evidence that our overcrowded and understaffed prison system is failing to rehabilitate and deradicalise prisoners convicted of terrorist offences. There is also evidence that these prisoners are being further radicalised while serving their sentences. The Minister will know that the main deradicalisation programme is Healthy Identity Intervention, which has had some success, as we have heard. Can the Minister confirm that prisoners who are willing to go on this programme find they cannot get on to it before their release date? Can the Minister tell the House what impact cuts to the Prison Service are having on these rehabilitation and deradicalisation programmes, which keep the public safe on the prisoners’ release?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, there are essentially three interventions: the theological and ideological interventions programme, the healthy identities programme, and the desistance and disengagement programme. To assist with the delivery of these, we have recruited 22 specially trained imams to engage with such prisoners during their period of custody. In addition, we have recently announced a major investment in counterterrorism resources, including doubling the number of counterterrorism specialist probation staff, to address these issues after release from custody.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister put some flesh on the bones of this? How many prisoners who are subject to these special programmes have in fact been able to attend them? On how many days in the last year have those programmes not taken place because the prisoner has not had an escort in the prison to take them to those services? If he does not have those statistics, can he tell us how on earth any Minister can come to this House or the other place and give us assurances about that without knowing how often those programmes are disrupted because of staff shortages in the prisons?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, it will not surprise the noble Lord that I do not have the precise statistics he has asked for, in particular the number of days when escorts were not available, but I will take steps to secure the relevant statistics—in so far as they are available—and will write to the noble Lord and place a copy of the letter in the Library.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, my noble and learned friend will be aware of the well-documented concerns around those who are radicalised in prison. Does he have the statistics for offenders serving time for non-terrorist-related offences who subsequently, on release, have been convicted of terrorist-related offences? If he does not have those figures today, will he agree to write to me and to place a copy of the answer in the Library?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I confess that I am not sure such figures will be available. I will take steps to identify whether they are but, as I say, I express doubts as to whether they are. In the event that such statistics are available, I undertake to write to the noble Baroness and to place a copy in the Library.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as director of the Sikh Prison Chaplaincy Service. Does the Minister agree that chaplains must be at the forefront of any move to tackle radicalisation in prisons? To do this, they have to place dated social and political norms embedded in religious texts in the context of today’s times. Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss Sikh chaplaincy initiatives to do this and reduce reoffending rates, and how this experience might possibly be used to the benefit of other faiths?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I mentioned earlier that 22 imams were engaged in the chaplaincy intervention programme; there is also one Sikh chaplain engaged in that programme. Each of those chaplaincy employees has undergone specialist training with regard to intervention and counterterrorism work. They are subject to vetting and due diligence checks. I am content to meet the noble Lord in due course to discuss this further.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned the enlightened separation units recommended by Ian Acheson for serious terrorist offenders, to assist their deradicalisation and prevent the radicalisation of other prisoners. The Government accepted the recommendation, the Prisons Minister describing it as
“a crucial part of our wider strategy”.
Now, more than three years on, only one is open—at HMP Frankland—causing Mr Acheson to express his dismay on BBC radio in January. When will there be more, and why the delay?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, there has been no delay in this matter. There are currently three separation centres available—at HMP Frankland, HMP Woodhill and HMP Full Sutton, which are all high-security prisons. They have capacity for 28 individuals. However, given the number of individuals selected for that separation, only one of those facilities is actually in use.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister understands the seriousness of the issue, but I am concerned about two questions asked today—by the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey—specifically about what I think are very important statistics that are necessary to understand the scale of the problem if we are to properly tackle it. On both questions, the Minister was unable to give figures and, indeed, was unsure whether such figures were available. I ask that he meet noble Lords concerned about these issues to look at the kind of information we need in order to fully understand and tackle the problem. If his responses are going to be, “I haven’t got that information” and “I don’t know if it’s available”, there will be some concern about the seriousness with which the Government take this.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I do not accept that characterisation of my responses. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked for very specific statistics which I do not have to hand. That would hardly surprise anyone in this House. I undertook to determine what those statistics were and to write to him. A question of further statistics was raised. I am not certain that they even exist, but I will take steps to discover that. Regarding a meeting with concerned noble Lords, my door is always open. If they wish to contact my private office, they should, as they have in the past in some instances.
Housing: Unfair Leasehold Agreements
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the report by the Competition and Markets Authority Leasehold housing: update report, published on 28 February, what plans they have to help homeowners who find themselves in unfair leasehold agreements.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, we welcome the CMA’s report on its investigation into unfair terms and mis-selling in the leasehold market, and I commend on his work my noble friend Lord Tyrie, who led this report. The report underlines the problems caused by onerous ground rents. We have been clear that leaseholders should not pay a charge for which they have received no tangible benefit in return. That is why we have committed to legislating to reduce ground rents to zero for future leases and to banning the sale of new leasehold houses. We are pleased that the CMA is seeking to take forward enforcement cases, following the findings of its investigation.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
Does the Minister agree that the actions of some freeholders, property developers and service companies are scandalous? Leaseholders are ripped off with ever-escalating ground rents, service charges, commission fees and, frankly, dodgy sales practices, which effectively make home owners tenants in their own homes. Can she go further and commit that the Government will take immediate, firm action on these practices and stand up for leaseholders? Urgent action is needed now.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
The noble Lord is correct. These unfair practices in the leasehold market have absolutely no place in a modern housing market, and neither do excessive ground rents that exploit consumers who get nothing in return. That is why we are reforming the system so that it is fairer for leaseholders. In December 2019, we announced that we would move forward with legislation on leaseholder reform, reaffirming our commitment to making the system fairer for leaseholders. This will include measures to ban the sale of new leasehold houses, restrict ground rents to peppercorn for future leases, give freehold home owners equivalent rights to challenge unfair charges, and close loopholes to prevent unfair evictions. Regarding his question on what action we can take, the CMA has already announced enforcement action and said that this report is an interim report and that its research is ongoing.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister regret that the MHCLG ignored warnings about this crisis from the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership back in 2015? Does she accept that those victims of what the CMA now describes as “significant harm” cannot wait any longer for change? Can she explain to them what happened to Sajid Javid’s promise to change the law before summer 2018? Does she accept that leaseholders’ rights continue to be sold to speculators, with little government protection from everything from doubling of ground rents to extortionate fees for correcting issues such as dangerous cladding?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I agree that the legislation has taken a long time in its gestation, but we have done a number of things since Javid’s report in the other place. For example, we have asked the Law Commission to undertake a series of reports, which it will start producing this spring, about standardising the enfranchisement process, so that buying and extending a lease is easier, cheaper and quicker. It is also going to make it easier for leaseholders jointly to obtain the right to manage and review how commonhold works, so that it may become a viable alternative for existing and new homes. Together with the leaseholders’ pledge that we put in place over a year ago in consultation with housebuilders, that has gone some way—but not nearly far enough—towards mitigating the effects of the actions of those housebuilders.
Baroness Couttie (Con)
My Lords, what are the Government doing to prevent house owners falling into the assured tenancy trap?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I acknowledge my noble friend’s significant interest in and knowledge of this area from her position in Westminster Council. The assured tenancy trap relates to property sold as a lease but where the ground rents, due to escalation, exceed the £250 threshold outside London and £1,000 in London; in effect, it becomes an assured shorthold tenancy, meaning that the owner does not have the same rights as a normal owner and it can be repossessed if they fall into arrears. The Government are committed to addressing this issue via legislation, which will take long leases completely out of the assured shorthold tenancy regime and prevent leaseholders being affected by this issue completely.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
The Minister rightly condemned and regretted when home owners were ripped off; would she care to comment on Persimmon Homes? The average cost of a house it builds is £250,000, on which it makes a profit of £65,000, and a large number of its homes have already been declared unsafe in relation to fire and other matters, yet last year the chief executive received a bonus on top of his salary of £73 million. Is that not absolutely outrageous? What are the Government going to do about that?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
As I said in a previous answer, the Competition and Markets Authority report updating its investigation into the extent of mis-selling and onerous lease terms will address this issue—maybe not the profit motive but the consequences of past actions. I note that in an action of Cardiff Council v Persimmon, Persimmon was forced to give 55 properties sold as leasehold on the St Edeyrns estate back to freeholders in an out-of-court settlement, so they were given their leaseholds as freeholds for nothing. We would like to see more of this happening. Regrettably, it was settled out of court before it became a court case so we cannot use that settlement as a legal precedent.
Lord Naseby (Con)
We recognise that the Government are taking action on a number of aspects, but there remains the problem of couples who have bought—particularly in the north and Midlands—and want to move home but find that their property is totally unsaleable. The noble Lord who raised this Question is absolutely right to do so. Will my noble friend have a closer look at this? We cannot have a situation where young couples buy what they think is a home and are stuck there unable to move.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I agree with my noble friend. That is why we are working closely with the Law Commission and the CMA to inform future legislation. This has become a particular problem in the north of England. In answer to that question and that of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, I say that what is most disappointing is the governance of the housebuilders that have been escalating these charges. The non-executive directors of these companies should have taken a longer, harder look at their policies.
Sentencing (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 3rd March 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Sentencing (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Act 2020 View all Sentencing (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie)
My Lords, I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the Law Commission and parliamentary counsel for their work on this Bill, not least for their continuous efforts to ensure that it accurately reflects recent changes in the law. I wish to record the Government’s thanks to the noble Lords who served on the Bill’s Special Public Bill Committee in the last Parliament under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I am sure that I speak for all members of the committee in thanking those who provided evidence on the Bill, but in particular Professor David Ormerod, who has done so much work in this field. We hope that the Bill marks the first step in cutting through the complexity of the law in this area, and I look forward to the imminent introduction of the sentencing code Bill.
Lord Judge (CB)
Perhaps I may say a brief word in acknowledging the debts of gratitude to which the Minister has referred. The Bill, when it is enacted, will vastly improve the administration of criminal justice. It is long overdue and thank goodness it is now nearly there.
Coronavirus (COVID-19)
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, before my noble friend repeats the Statement, I have been asked, in view of the importance of this subject, that Back-Benchers should have more time. I am pleased to say that I have agreed that they should have an extra 10 minutes, so there will therefore be 30 minutes available for Back-Benchers. However, I shall make the point—the Companion is quite clear on this—that this is an opportunity for questions, not speeches. My noble friend is very keen to answer as many questions as possible, so we would like short, focused and challenging questions— but, above all, short.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made today by my right honourable friend Matt Hancock, the Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Care. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, with permission I would like to make a Statement on the Government’s coronavirus action plan. The situation facing the country is increasingly serious. Globally and at home, the number of cases continues to rise. As of 9 am today there were 51 confirmed cases in the UK and it is becoming more likely that we will see widespread transmission here in this country.
Our approach is to plan for the worst and work for the best. Yesterday I attended a COBRA meeting chaired by the Prime Minister, in which we finalised our four-part action plan to contain, delay, research and mitigate the virus. This plan has been jointly agreed between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. Copies of the plan have been sent to Members of both Houses and made available in hard copy. The plan is driven by the science and guided by the expert recommendations of the four UK Chief Medical Officers and the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies.
Our plan sets out what we know so far about the virus and the disease it causes, what long-term planning we have undertaken to prepare for a pandemic, what actions we have taken so far in response to the coronavirus outbreak and, crucially, the role the public can play in supporting our response, both now and in the future.
The UK is well prepared for infectious disease outbreaks of this kind. The international data continue to indicate that for most people, this disease is mild and the vast majority recover in full. We have responded to a wide range of disease outbreaks in the recent past. The NHS has been preparing for a pandemic virus for over a decade. We have world-class expertise to make sense of the emerging data. We have a strong base on which to build.
While Covid-19 is a new virus, we have adapted our response to take account of that fact. Our plan sets out a phased response to the outbreak. Phase one is to contain—this is the phase we are currently in. Contain is about detecting the early cases, following up with close contacts and preventing the disease taking hold in this country for as long as is reasonably possible. This approach also buys time for the NHS to ramp up its preparations. If the number of global cases continues to rise, especially in Europe, the scientific advice is that we may not be able to contain the virus indefinitely.
At that point we will activate the delay phase of our plan. Delay is about slowing the spread, lowering the peak impact of the disease and pushing it away from the winter season. We are mindful of scientific advice that reacting too early or overreacting carries its own risks. So, subject to our primary goal of keeping people safe, we will seek to minimise social and economic disruption.
The third part of the plan is research. Research has been ongoing since we first identified Covid-19. I pay tribute to scientists at Public Health England, who were among the first in the world to sequence its genome. Research is not just about developing a vaccine—which we are actively pursuing but is many months away, at the earliest—but also about understanding what actions will lessen the impact of coronavirus, including what drugs and treatments, existing and new, will help those who are already sick.
The fourth phase is to mitigate. We will move on to this phase if coronavirus becomes established in the UK population. At that point, it would be impossible to prevent widespread transmission, so the emphasis will be on caring for those who are most seriously ill and keeping essential services running at a time when large parts of the workforce may be off sick. Our plans include not just the most likely case, but the reasonable worst case. We will identify and support the most vulnerable and, if necessary, take some of the actions set out in today’s plan to reduce the impact of absentees and to lessen the impact on our economy and supply chains. We prepare for the worst and work for the best. We commit to ensuring that the agencies responsible for tackling this outbreak are properly resourced, have the people, equipment and medicine that they need, and that any new laws they need are brought forward as and when required.
This is a national effort. We need everyone to listen to and act on the official medical advice. We need employers to prioritise the welfare of their staff. The single most important thing everyone can do to help—and I make no apologies for repeating this—is to use tissues when coughing or sneezing and wash your hands more often. It is in your interests, in your family’s interests and in the national interest. We will get through this. Everyone has a part to play.
I commend this Statement to the House.”
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord—the government spokesperson—for repeating this Statement. Our thoughts are always with those who have contracted the virus and we pay tribute, again, to the extraordinary efforts of the NHS and our public health staff. We, on these Benches, are clear: the public health interest must, at all times, be the priority. All the Government’s decisions must support this strategic aim and, where they follow the medical and scientific advice, they will have our support.
I start by raising the issue of the EU early warning and response system, of which, of course, until Brexit, the UK was a member. This early warning and response system has played a vital role in pandemic preparations in the past. It is rumoured that No. 10 overruled the Department of Health, which wished, quite rightly, to be part of the European Union’s safeguarding system at this time. The Prime Minister has said that keeping the public safe was the Government’s number one priority but has refused to seek to retain or apply for membership of the EWRS because of the negotiations taking place at the moment. I understand that the Secretary of State agrees with those of us who believe that tackling fast-moving, global outbreaks—including this virus—could become harder if the UK loses access to the EU’s early warning system for cross-border threats, so I urge the Government to urgently review this stance.
The PM says that there is significant risk of the virus becoming widespread, meaning further measures might be necessary, and that emergency legislation may be necessary to give the Government the powers they need to implement the action plan. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out some kind of timetable for emergency legislation. Will it be primary and secondary legislation, and which department will take the lead?
The plan sets out what the Government could do to contain the virus on the basis of scientific evidence. Drastic steps, such as closing schools, would have major social and economic consequences, so can the Minister advise the House on how they plan to seek a balance?
We agree with the Government’s strategy to contain, delay, research and mitigate, and indeed it has our endorsement. However, can the Minister explain why we have not followed other nations by imposing a travel ban to the UK from higher-risk countries such as Italy, Iran, China and South Korea?
Are the Government undertaking workforce planning as a consequence of self-isolation? This has huge implications both for this stage and the peak stage, in which the Government recognise that up to a fifth of workers could be absent from work. The Prime Minister said today that workers who self-isolate will be considered to be on sick leave. Can he confirm that those who need to self-isolate will not need to visit a GP to receive a sick note?
Two million workers on low pay or insecure contracts in the gig economy do not even qualify for statutory sick pay. The GMB trade union points out that NHS trusts have a huge number of outsourced staff and that a large number of companies providing NHS services do not pay sick pay for the first three days. Therefore, we are looking at cleaners, porters and catering staff who might put their own health at risk when we need them to contain the coronavirus, because they will not be paid if they go off sick. Therefore, I ask that NHS trusts, for example, guarantee that all staff are given full sick pay if they have to self-isolate.
Equally, what action will be taken to reduce the requirements placed on those in receipt of benefits who will not physically be able to attend appointments if they need to self-isolate? Can the Minister guarantee that no financial sanctions will be imposed? No one should be faced with having to make a choice between their health and hardship. Therefore, when the Government consider emergency legislation, will they bring forward legislation to remove those barriers to self-isolation so that all workers can get the sick pay that they deserve?
We know that the elderly and those with chronic underlying long-term conditions such as diabetes or cardiovascular conditions are vulnerable. What is the Government’s latest advice to providers of social care for those in residential settings or staff visiting elderly and vulnerable people in their homes?
On the NHS more broadly through the mitigation phase, we know that last week 80% of critical care beds were occupied. Can the Minister clarify how many beds are available should we need them, and how quickly can ICU beds be opened up? Can we be assured about the extra resource that will be made available to health trusts? Every sample for testing will carry a cost, and that will soon build up. As people self-isolate, that will affect the NHS workforce, and trusts will be forced to take on more agency staff. If retired staff are encouraged to return to practice, the wage bill will increase. Can the Minister explain how retired staff returning will be engaged and protected, and what oversight will be put in place to ensure that they deliver safe care if the revalidation process is to be suspended for retired returnees?
Will the Government provide emergency funding to cover the NHS resource budget and support the NHS through this next challenging period? For example, it is possible that thousands of elective surgeries will have to be cancelled.
Directors of public health are preparing a local response to Covid-19, yet they still do not know what their public health allocation for the next financial year, starting next month, will be. It means that they will be cutting the nurse workloads that they are commissioning at a time when we need those nurses to cover these cases.
Finally, on global efforts to contain the virus, I have already mentioned the European Union EWRS. We will not contain the virus internationally, nor will we be able fully to protect ourselves if the outbreak becomes uncontrolled in countries with weaker health systems. What assistance are we offering the World Health Organization with the international response to Covid-19?
We will continue to raise our concerns responsibly when we have them but, on these Benches, we also pledge to work constructively with the Government, because the public health interest must always come first.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. We repeat our thanks to the staff of the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care, as well as to all those working cross-department on preparing for the various possible outcomes in the event that this escalates.
We also echo the points made from the Labour Benches about No. 10’s announcement that we will not take part in the EU early warning system. It was clear from the media yesterday that the NHS and medical experts all say that we must be part of it. To have No. 10 say, “No, we won’t”—presumably because it has the dirty letters “EU” in it—is extremely unhelpful. Will the Government please review this position as a matter of urgency and, as they said in their Statement, take scientific and medical advice on whether we should be involved?
We welcome the two amounts of £20 million that the Government have put forward for research into Covid-19—the first for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, but particularly the £20 million for Covid research here in the UK, including on epidemiology and treatment in hospital. Far too often we focus only on blue-sky research. This needs to be very practical and it is—these Benches welcome that.
I apologise for being a broken record on this. However, I am sorry to say that the advice for those who are either vulnerable or have underlying medical conditions is still not clear. The Minister and I have had an email exchange on this matter. The WHO and the American CDC still offer clearer advice to members of their public about what to do if you are either elderly or have underlying conditions than we do in this country, whether you are travelling abroad or in a community that may have some cases. Can this be beefed up? There is a statement in the action plan report that this will be strengthened in due course, but that will be once we get to mitigation.
There are already concerns in the medical and disabled communities about whether people should be shaking hands. I was somewhat concerned to hear the Secretary of State affirming confidently on television this morning that shaking hands was still fine. I am sorry: if you have an underlying condition, you do not want to be shaking hands with people. You should be washing, not doing that. Wearing hand splints, I have learned over the years to wave at people. It is much easier. Perhaps we could get a trend going with that.
We know that emergency legislation is coming up. That is heralded in the action plan. There are some concerns from our Benches on the extent of the mobilisation of retired and former staff. There has rightly been an emphasis on clinical staff. There will be questions that our Benches will look to have responses to. If people, particularly doctors, have been deregistered, perhaps because of retirement, will there be an expedited system, a reduced appraisal system, or a system to take people on who perhaps have not been reregistered but could work under supervision? It is important that these things are both clear and done at speed. But we are extremely concerned that there is no mention of people in other core parts of the NHS and social care system who are not clinical staff. The cleaning, catering and admin staff also keep the NHS and our social care system going. What arrangements are being put in place to provide extra support for them?
Once we move into mitigation and discussion about the possible closure of schools, surely it more important to keep schools open, even if there is only a reduced number of pupils in those schools, if the pupils’ parents are key workers—essential workers in the NHS, the police and other key areas. There is no sign that that has been thought about at this stage. It seems to us that this is an important point to cover.
Finally, after a nearly a decade in your Lordships’ House, I should not be too surprised when Ministers, particularly the Prime Minister, use very positive frames for things. The idea that the NHS will move out of a winter crisis into a landscape of delight once we get to the summer is extraordinary. We know that our social care system is at breaking point. The social care system was grateful for the £240 million provided by the last Chancellor in the autumn. However, the Local Government Association and almost every health think tank say that our current social care system is short of £2.5 billion now, without any impact from coronavirus. Of course, our social care system will have the patients most at risk of serious illness should coronavirus move into our communities. So, without heralding anything in the Budget, which I understand the Minister cannot speak about, can the Minister reassure the House that there will be serious support: for ensuring that there are no delayed discharges because there will be adequate support for social care in the system?
Lord Bethell
My Lords, I thank all the other parties for their spirit of collaboration and support during this awesome challenge. That was reflected in the debate last Wednesday and is reflected again today.
I start by reaffirming the commitment of this country and this Government to international co-operation. That co-operation is being led by British scientists, who were the first to crack the genome of this virus and who immediately published their material freely on the internet, which instigated a huge advance in the research being done around the world on Covid-19. Britain remains committed to the WHO initiative and is a very active leader and supporter. Our scientists are flying to some of the hardest-hit countries of the world. Without diminishing our own capability, we are very active contributors of intellectual, practical and personnel support to those in need around the world. I pay tribute to all involved.
On the EWRS, mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Thornton, I reassure noble Lords that, in line with the withdrawal agreement, the UK has continued access to the EWRS during the transition period. We continue to share key updates with our European counterparts via this system. As set out in the UK’s negotiating mandate, we are open to exploring further co-operation between the UK and the EU on all matters of health security, including the exchange of information and expertise on infectious diseases such as coronavirus. We are open to exploring mechanisms for the UK and EU member states to continue to share and act on real-time alerts and information on new and emerging health threats, as currently carried out by the EWRS.
Regarding the Bill, as part of the Government’s plans, we are considering what additional powers may be needed to contain and mitigate the spread of the virus and to manage any impact. That Bill will be brought when it is needed; the timing and schedule have not been finalised.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Brinton, both brought up school policies. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, put her finger on a key and important point of the Government’s policy in this area. It is absolutely essential that services such as schools continue to be open for as long as they reasonably can be, so long as the medical advice supports that decision. Those who provide essential services, including social care and running the infrastructure of this country, depend on schools to be able to go to work. That is why the direction to school heads is, where possible, to keep the schools open. It is possible that, at some point in the future, as part of the delay strategy, the recommendation may change—but it would be done under the guidance of our medical advisers, and with strong epidemiological evidence that such a decision would make a profound difference to the spread of the virus. We are not in that situation yet, so the policy on schools remains, now and for the foreseeable future, that they should remain open where the medical advice confirms that.
On the question of a travel ban, it is true that this Government have not banned travel as some countries have done. That is based on the advice of our medical advisers, who suggest that trying to put in place travel bans to countries such as Italy would be like creating a medical Maginot Line; travellers will seek ways around the ban, tracing contacts will become impossible, and finding evidence of the origins of the virus will be lost in deception. Italy is one country that put in place serious travel bans around the world, and it is facing many of those challenges now with, sadly, a high rate of infection and challenges in tracing the origins of those infections.
Both noble Baronesses asked about sick leave. It is absolutely right that concern should be had for those who make the correct and responsible decision to self-isolate. Government lawyers have looked at sickness pay arrangements and it is very clear that those who self-isolate qualify immediately for statutory sickness pay. They may self-validate for seven days. After the seven days, they may seek an email confirmation of the diagnosis by dialling 111, thereby avoiding an unnecessary and potentially dangerous trip to either their GP or to hospital.
The practicalities of the gig economy, which were quite rightly raised in the debate so far, are challenging. There are provisions in the welfare system, and provisions among employers to behave generously, but this is an area that the Government clearly need to continue to review.
Tributes should be made to health staff, who provide absolutely essential support to keep our hospitals and surgeries open. It is, in fact, at times like this that one realises the profound and important contribution made by non-clinical staff. We owe it to them to provide generous and open-hearted arrangements, so that they can continue their work and, if necessary, self-isolate in financial security and confidence, and the Government are committed to reviewing those arrangements.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Brinton, both asked about social care. It is undoubtedly a concern that we all have for those who are older and more fragile—this virus is clearly targeting them. Provisions for social care are absolutely uppermost in the Government’s mind. A huge initiative will be made to recruit both professional and volunteer staff to support the social care industry during this period, when many workers will be self-isolating and support for people—whether they are in homes or living on their own—will be stretched. That recruitment is absolutely key to the Government’s plans.
Arrangements to ensure that that recruitment can include retired professional staff, who may have allowed their qualifications to lapse, may form part of forthcoming legislation, but I reassure the Chamber that the adequate management, supervision and scrutiny of those people will be maintained. This will very much include non-clinical staff as well as clinical staff—which, as I have explained, will be all-the-more important during an epidemic like this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked about funding. I reassure the House that, while the Treasury is carefully controlling the money spent, no clinical decision supported by medical evidence is being held back by financial considerations. The budget has been put in place and the moneys are available to do whatever it takes to manage this epidemic in a responsible and effective fashion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is absolutely right to raise the issue of advice to those who are most vulnerable to this virus: those with medical conditions. It was one of the most moving moments of the debate, last Wednesday, when the noble Lord, Lord Davies, also raised it. I have taken these concerns to the CMO, whose office is looking at the modelling and the communications. It is absolutely a number one priority.
New communications are being put together. There is an issue with sequencing: it is the view of the experts that there is little point in seeking to mobilise behaviour change in people before it is required, in case they make those changes to their behaviour, feel that they are unnecessary, lose trust in the system and go back to their old behaviours. So the communication of some messages, the distribution of some advice and the recommendations from the Government need, at times, to obey the logical sequencing of this virus.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, there are so many questions but maybe I can be brief. I declare an interest as a member of Imperial College, which, as the Minister knows, is doing much of the research and co-ordination in this country. Does he feel that the advice to people is sufficient? Not shaking hands seems to be only part of the problem; we should not be doing social kissing, but it is very easy to do that. Somebody has tried to kiss me twice today—
Lord Winston
I do not mean that in a way that might concern my wife, who might be listening to this debate. We also have to realise that we should not be touching our nose, mouth or eyes, all of which are likely to be contaminated. That is very important in not spreading the infection if you happen to be infected.
Perhaps I may raise one issue, because there are so many. It is the question of screening and diagnosis. News is coming through that people in New York are already finding it difficult to get screened for the virus when they have symptoms. That seems a bit of a problem with a virus that presents in a variable way, not a standard pattern. Sometimes you might be almost sub-clinical but then develop a much more serious, raging infection. One concern that we in this House must have—we have drawn attention repeatedly to this—is the massive difficulty of having properly managed pathology labs. We have excellent pathologists in this country but our pathology is always really stretched, without this virus. Is the Minister clear that we may need more staff to ensure that we can diagnose as accurately and rapidly as possible, as making a diagnosis is clearly one way of controlling the infection?
Lord Bethell
My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right about kissing. Kissing is wonderful but potentially dangerous. I share with the Chamber that we have had detailed conversations about kissing, shaking hands, fist-bumping and all manner of social intercourse. The analysis and guidance from the CMO is clear: it is the touching of your own nose that is the real problem. The average person touches their own nose between 70 and 100 times a day. That is why we focus on the message about washing hands. If your hands are clean, it does not matter how many times you touch your nose; but if they are dirty, whether that is through shaking hands, touching a door handle or whatever, the germs are there and can be conveyed. That is why we focus on that.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, the coronavirus action plan emphasises that risk increases in elderly people and those with underlying health conditions, particularly men. The Secretary of State emphasised handwashing but he also mentioned social distancing. Given the demography here in a self-regulating House, might it be advisable for us to model a kind of social distancing and make behavioural choices? I understand the Minister saying that maybe one should not adopt behavioural change too early because it might discourage people. But I wonder whether it is necessary for people who have no intention to speak to come here at a time when perhaps a little more space might keep Members of the House safer, and the work of the House safer so that it continues. Have the House authorities considered the possibility of engagement through web-based debate or digital voting, in the event that attendance at the House really needs to be minimised?
Lord Bethell
My Lords, it is not the role of the Department of Health and Social Care to lead on this matter, but I am aware that the House authorities are very sensitive to the points made by the noble Baroness. Ultimately, it will be up to the Leader’s Office, working with the House authorities, to make decisions on the matters she describes.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, this is a grave issue, but my noble friend’s response has been incredibly balanced. A huge number of people, including me, are concerned that we will overreact—although the Minister has said that we will not—and cause panic in the country, where panic should not be seen.
Lord Bethell
The noble Lord makes an important point. Polling to date has demonstrated that the British public have left the moment of complacency and are now seriously focused on this issue. Their trust in the Government remains high, and their engagement on solutions is profound. That feels like the right place to be.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I noted what the Minister said about schools and I support his position. However, I also note that the Chief Medical Officer for Wales is today reported as saying that the peak in infection may be in May and June, coinciding with the time when up to a million young people will be taking public examinations in large sports halls. Can he reassure me that Ofqual is having conversations with examination boards about a contingency measure for delaying those examinations if necessary, and with universities about the admissions process if A-level results come out later?
Lord Bethell
The noble Lord makes an extremely important point, which I cannot answer specifically, as that would be for the Department for Education. If I may answer in the round, it is Government’s objective to avoid as much economic and social disruption as possible, while making safety our number one priority. That is our guiding star.
Lord Broers (CB)
My Lords, in 2009 the Science and Technology Committee of this House, which I chaired, conducted a report on pandemic flu. I recommend that the Government look back at it. We spent a lot of time considering antiviral drugs, including that there should be enough of them in this country and that they should be distributed adequately. Was our recommendation on that topic fulfilled, and will those antiviral drugs be available?
Lord Bethell
We are grateful for the work of the noble Lord, Lord Broers, which is well known. The epidemiology of this virus is not yet fully understood. We do not understand whether it will respond to traditional and conventional antivirals in the way that other viruses have. To date, there is no evidence that the usually stockpiled conventional antivirals will necessarily be effective. For that reason, I cannot provide a direct answer.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the Government seem very dependent on people using NHS 111 telephone lines, NHS 24 in Scotland, or NHS Direct Wales. I seek the Minister’s confirmation that the resourcing of NHS 111 and the other similar lines will be sufficient to meet the demand the Government are anticipating with trained staff who can give good-quality advice.
Lord Bethell
My Lords, the pressure on 111 has risen over many weeks. It was identified as an incredibly important part of our response to this pandemic at a very early stage. Thank goodness we have 111; without it GP surgeries would really be struggling. I can assure the House that massive resources have gone into providing additional support.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interests. Is the Minister content that the current regulations governing the evaluation of medicinal products for human use are sufficiently flexible in the current circumstances, such that they will not present an impediment to the rapid testing of new therapies for the prevention and treatment of this coronavirus?
Lord Bethell
My Lords, this Government are committed to doing whatever it takes medicinally to tackle this epidemic. We will not allow regulations to stand in the way.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, I listened very carefully to the Minister’s comments on behavioural change and discouragement, but there is nothing of any substance in this Statement on the provision of early information that could affect personal conduct—which is very important on this—particularly for the elderly, apart from hand-washing and tissue cover when coughing. The public want detailed information now on transmission points—where they are and what they are—and on the life of the virus under various conditions. Detailed, authoritative information will influence personal conduct. In my view, personal conduct may well be more important than what the Government do. At the moment, all we have is an internet riddled with rumour, speculation and unattributable advice. The Government have missed a real opportunity. Can we have far more detailed information at this stage?
I am also concerned about the conflation of statistics on the risk of mortality. The 1% to 2% figure is misleading. Among the over-70s, the figure is 8%; among the over-80s, it is 14.8%. If you have underlying health conditions, it is even higher. Why can Ministers not be more up front on the elderly? I understand that the stats I have just given are now being repeated by the Government, but not openly.
Lord Bethell
My Lords, there is an enormous amount of detailed information on the Public Health England website. I will be glad to forward the noble Lord a link if needed. I completely share his profound desire to know all the details of how the virus behaves, but at this stage we simply do not have that information. It is not being withheld; there is no secret to this. The behaviour takes time to be analysed and pinned down. Our scientists are working incredibly hard to get that information and it will be shared as soon as we have it. I share his frustration about the fake news and data; different people are using different numbers and there are clearly people muddying the waters. The Government are organising significant investment in resources to tackle fake news.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, coming back to the nature of the virus, has my noble friend noticed Chinese health officials’ reports that 14% of patients discharged from hospital after recovering from the virus later test positive again? Even if 14% is an exaggeration, has that tendency been noted and is there validity to the claim?
Lord Bethell
These stories have been seen. They are not fully understood. It is possible that those thought to have recovered did not actually recover—that their symptoms were subclinical and there may have been an issue with the original testing.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether specific briefings will be held for the public service interpreters who work in the NHS and whether advice and information to the public will be provided in languages other than English?
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness asks a very important question. I do not know the precise answer but will be glad to reply to her later.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, I commend the Minister for his excellent and balanced answers and for the clarity provided by the action plan today. It is clearly right that we remain in the containment phase. Listening to the debate today and outside, there are a lot of questions around which social distancing measures might be introduced in the delay and mitigation phases, when they might be implemented and what the social and economic costs might be. Could the Minister explain what work is ongoing to understand the effectiveness of specific distancing measures and on whose advice there might be recommendations for them to be implemented?
Lord Bethell
In all these matters, the Chief Medical Officer guides the Government’s decision-making. We are looking at the modelling done by SAGE—the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies—which guides our decision-making. It has sophisticated computer analysis, which all this information is being plugged into, and that helps inform the decisions that we make about the guidance on isolating and social distancing. It is not possible to lay out today exactly what guidance we will issue or what decisions we will make in the weeks or months to come, but when those decisions are made they will be broadcast with energy through public communications.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will know that residents of nursing homes and care homes are overwhelmingly in the high-risk category. In the containment phase, is any advice being given about restricting visitors to such homes, either family or those who provide much-needed activities? When we get to the mitigation phase, is any advice being given about how to deal with staff shortages? I remind the Minister that when we talk about volunteers going into such institutions, volunteers themselves are overwhelmingly aged, and therefore in the high-risk category.
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness raises an issue that is uppermost in our minds: the care of and provision for the aged, who are clearly the most vulnerable to this virus and whose support will be most hard-hit by the virus itself. It is clearly a dilemma that the Government are struggling with. We are seeking to delay the spread of the virus as much as possible so that the peak does not knock out in one go all those who provide support, so that mitigation provisions can be put in place. I reassure the noble Baroness that when we talk about volunteers, we are not talking just about family members: we are talking about full community commitment.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
Can my noble friend advise us on the accuracy of the screening tests? Do we know whether there is a degree of false negatives, where people test clear but in fact have the virus? Are there any false positives, where tests show that people have the virus when they do not? For example, they might have a different kind of coronavirus—one of the common cold ones.
Lord Bethell
This question arose in the debate last week and I followed it up with the Chief Medical Officer. As far as I understand it, there is no issue with the testing. It is possible that some people seemingly recover—their symptoms fade from view—but they are still infected with the virus. We are working hard to understand how this works.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, first, as I understand it, currently the test is laboratory-based. How much emphasis are the Government, in their research, putting on a rapid diagnostic test that can be used at the bedside or immediately? The differential diagnosis between diseases that manifest with high temperature and a cough is absolutely essential in this area. I say this based on my experience: I was in Sierra Leone during the Ebola outbreak. Secondly, the one piece of behavioural advice that is very clear is about washing hands. If you were in Sierra Leone or west Africa during that time, you did not enter a public building without washing your hands. It was fairly crude—it was a bucket of water with disinfectant in it—but it was in the high commission and every hotel and office. The idea that the only kind of handwashing that is acceptable is conventional handwashing in circumstances that people expect might not be sufficient if this goes further.
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness is absolutely right to emphasise the question of diagnosis. I know from my own experience that the delays that people experience create huge anxiety and prevent them making the important decisions they need to make for themselves and their families about how to do the right thing—self-isolating if necessary and making provisions for their other family members. A ferocious race is under way at the moment. The Government have instructed six private companies, which are all seeking to build exactly what the noble Baroness describes: a bedside testing kit that can be rolled out across the country to provide swift, on-the-spot diagnosis. We are hopeful that that will come shortly. On handwashing, I too have travelled in Africa and know exactly the kinds of provisions she talks about. The advice from the CMO is that we are not there yet but nothing is off the table.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, referred to the Telegraph story about the conflict within the Government regarding the EWRS scheme. That same story referred to the Health Secretary wishing to travel to meet his European counterparts and not being allowed to by Downing Street. Can the Minister reassure your Lordships’ House that any necessary visit to Europe by a Minister or an official will be allowed to go ahead? As the Minister rightly said, we are in the EWRS until the end of this year. However, I asked a Written Question last week, to which I have not yet had a response, on the European Medicines Agency rapid approval and procurement system for vaccines and drugs. As I understand it, we are not in that system now that we are not part of the EU. Switzerland is also not in that system but has asked for special access. Have we asked or will we ask for special access?
Lord Bethell
I reassure the noble Baroness and the House that we are clearly in the midst of a global pandemic, and nothing will stand in the way of the Government’s best efforts to work with our international partners, in Europe, through the WHO and abroad, to find a proper solution to this challenge.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, there is a consensus on the necessity of handwashing. Will the Government ensure that sufficient quantities of gel are readily available around the country? There are reports that, nationwide, stocks are just not there to supply people who wish to get hold of that product to follow government advice.
Lord Bethell
The noble Viscount is right; I have also read the reports of sanitiser shortages. I wish I was in a position to reassure the House that we could somehow guarantee that there was enough sanitiser in the country for the next six years. I am not sure whether that is either reasonable or possible. However, I can tell noble Lords that the CMO’s guidance is clear: washing your hands with soap and preferably hot water is much better than using sanitisers.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend indicate a little more about the search for a vaccine for this disease? Who is leading the search, and is the United Kingdom involved?
Lord Bethell
Public Health England is leading the search and British scientists are playing an incredibly important role. However, the guidance I would give the House is from the CMO: the heaviest impact of this epidemic is likely to be within weeks, whereas the search for a vaccine is likely to take at least months and possibly years.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is to be congratulated on the way he is answering questions in difficult circumstances, trying to keep the balance right. There is one area where we have great problems in controlling what happens. We have nearly 6 million people who are self-employed. We have talked about what you could do with people in employment and the support that could be given to them. What attention is being given to the issue of the self-employed? The Minister also mentioned that the Government have looked at the way in which the sequencing of communications should take place. Perhaps he might say a little more about that. Perhaps we might explore the opportunity to be positive. We have many people who are lonely, and I hear that many people are fearful—very frightened. Perhaps we should start getting some positive messages to them as well somewhere in the sequencing, so that they can feel less fearful than they are at the moment.
Lord Bethell
The noble Lord is quite right to ask about those who are either in the gig economy or unemployed. The Government need to look at this matter more closely. Provisions have been made on statutory sick pay and there are welfare arrangements through universal credit, but if those are not enough and do not provide the financial security and necessary provisions for those in need, we will review them and make the appropriate changes. The noble Lord’s points on the community are well made. I confess that we in the Department of Health are super-focused on the medical challenge, but one cannot help feeling that this may be a moment for the country to come together. If communities seek to support those in need, there may well be a silver lining to this cloud.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, apropos the testing, I understand that a Northern Ireland company is currently testing a rapid diagnosis in China. My important question relates to the action plan. At paragraph 4.50, it states that the Government
“will implement a distribution strategy for the UK’s stockpiles of key medicines and equipment”.
Can the Minister tell us: what stockpile, what medicine, what equipment and how much?
Lord Bethell
The noble Lord is right to refer to this. I cannot give him an exact inventory of the stockpile. All I can share with the House is that, partly because of our no-deal preparations, the warehouses are bursting with medicines and medical equipment. This is an inadvertent but not unwelcome aspect of the situation we are in.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, one issue that has not been raised is public transport. There is no more dangerous place than public transport when infections are rife. Has thought been given to restricting the number of people who can travel on buses and trains—perhaps one in two seats? That could be of some help if distance is an important factor.
Lord Bethell
My Lords, this is exactly the type of dilemma being considered by SAGE and the CMO. It will be the focus of work between the Department of Health and the Department for Transport.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I am delighted that at Randox, my former constituents are leading the research into this virus. Can the Minister assure us that the Government’s plans to tackle this will be carried out or taken forward equally across the United Kingdom, and that the necessary finances will be made available to the Northern Ireland Executive to tackle this serious issue?
Lord Bethell
I reassure the noble Lord that the four CMOs from all parts of Britain have worked extremely closely and that their decision-making has been done on a joint basis. Work on a possible Bill has also been run past the Executives and Assemblies of all the nations; there is extremely close collaboration between all parts of Britain.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Throughout this transitional phase, are the Government still availing themselves of the medical expertise in the respiratory field that is available through the European reference networks?
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness is more of an expert on those networks than I am. All I can say is that we are going about this epidemic by focusing on all our strong relationships to make the most of everyone we know. We are throwing ourselves into every opportunity we have with gusto.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, many passengers use our airports in transit. I fear that our staff may be vulnerable to people making such journeys. Obviously, they are not British passengers, but they are using our airports. What are the Government doing to protect our staff on the ground?
Lord Bethell
The noble Lord is quite right to raise the issue of airline staff, who are very clearly on the front line of this epidemic. They are in confined spaces and are sharing aeroplanes with people from all sorts of destinations. It is not the role of the Government to intervene in this, but we are encouraging all employers, as a matter of principle, to care for their staff and to put staff welfare at the top of their priorities.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend say what action the Government are taking to work with local authorities so that they can help hard-to-reach communities? Not all communities are a homogenous group.
Lord Bethell
My noble friend is absolutely right. Work through the MHCLG is ongoing. The Department of Health does not lead in that matter, but I reassure her that, in matters such as social care, which is at the front of everyone’s minds, the work of local authorities will be absolutely essential, and they will play a key role on the front line of this epidemic.
Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill
Tuesday 3rd March 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Act 2020 View all Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 3 March 2020 - large print version - (3 Mar 2020)
Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill
Tuesday 3rd March 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2020 View all Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [HL]
Tuesday 3rd March 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 View all Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 2-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Committee - (2 Mar 2020)
Lord McColl of Dulwich
(2) The divorce process under subsection (1) consists of three stages and must be accompanied by—(a) for the first stage, a statement by the applicant or applicants, if a joint application, on the filing of the application for a divorce order that they think that the marriage may have broken down irretrievably,(b) for the second stage, a statement by the applicant or applicants on applying for a conditional order asserting that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, and(c) for the third stage, an application for the final divorce.(3) The court dealing with an application under subsection (2)(c) must—(a) take the statement given under subsection (2)(b) to be conclusive evidence that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, and(b) make a final divorce order.”
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to speak to Amendment 1 in my name. The Government have said there should be a minimum timeframe between petition and conditional order
“to give couples sufficient time to consider the implications of the decision to divorce and to agree practical arrangements for the future.”
They acknowledged that this is especially important because the digitisation of the divorce process could result in some parties rushing to divorce before the prospect of reconciliation has been fully explored. Importantly, they argue that the minimum timeframe provides
“opportunities for couples to change course.”
There are 27 references to reconciliation in the Government’s document, which includes the statement:
“But the law can—and should—have a role in providing couples with an opportunity to reflect on that momentous decision and to pull back from the brink if they decide that reconciliation is achievable.”
All of the Government’s sentiments about the proposed reforms sound well intentioned. However, proposed new Section 1(2) provides that a respondent who receives notice at the start of the divorce proceedings will do so with a statement from their spouse that
“the marriage has broken down irretrievably.”
The law is thereby designed to begin the divorce process with a statement that makes it inevitable. I cannot see how a respondent would feel that such a statement does indeed provide opportunities to change course. They will feel that the hammer has already fallen.
I do not believe that the wording of proposed new Section 1(2) is in any way consistent with the hopes for reconciliation expressed by the Government’s Reducing Family Conflict paper. A statement of irretrievable breakdown must clearly come at the end of the process, immediately prior to divorce, but designing the law in a way that asks one party to a marriage to make this very strong assertion right at the start of the divorce process is counterproductive.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, which I very much hope the Minister accepts. This amendment has two important virtues.
First, as has been noted, it creates an environment for the 20-week period during which there is a chance for genuine reconciliation. The divorces between 2003 to 2016 tell their own very important story. It must be right not to condemn the process to failure from the start by encouraging a statement of irretrievable breakdown without the need for any prior warning. Under the current law, the only way to move to irretrievable breakdown in the absence of unreasonable behaviour, such as adultery, is through a prolonged period of separation, such that a formal notice of divorce cannot come as a surprise. By contrast, under this Bill, being presented with a statement of irretrievable breakdown could be the first you know of a difficulty. How did such an extraordinary proposal get past the family test? I rather suspect that we are still waiting for the family test to take place.
The second virtue of this arrangement is that it treats the respondent with greater respect. One of the things that disturbs me most about this Bill is that it seems to have been fashioned with the interests of one party in mind—the petitioner—and demonstrates little or no regard for the respondent, or any children who might be caught up in the divorce process. It currently stands as a petitioner’s charter. The Bill gives the petitioner the power to suddenly announce that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, from which point there is absolutely nothing that the respondent can do to get any kind of fair hearing if they disagree. While this amendment does not completely reverse the shift in power from the respondent to the petitioner, it will at least give the respondent the opportunity to have a voice and express their perspective during the reflection period in the limited but important sense that the termination of the relationship is, for that time, not a foregone conclusion. The petitioner has made a statement that they think the relationship may have broken down but there is, in this statement, something of a question and an opportunity for the respondent to engage: they are not being presented with a fait accompli.
It may be that at the end of the 20-week period the response of the respondent has not resulted in the petitioner feeling that the marriage can continue. It may have brought them both to a place where they conclude that they need to make a statement of irretrievable breakdown but, crucially, the respondent will have been given a period of time during which they will be fully aware that the future of their marriage is in the balance and during which they can take steps, if they wish to do so, to see whether the relationship can be saved.
As our law, in providing the option of marriage, gives a couple the opportunity to make a lifelong commitment, something would be very wrong if that same law allowed one party to make without any prior warning a statement of irretrievable breakdown, from which point the other party would have no kind of credible voice to express a contrary view. This cannot be right, which is why I strongly support Amendment 1.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I was a family judge for 35 years and spent a great deal, if not most, of my time dealing with families who were divorcing. This is an excellent Bill and few of the amendments ought to go through, except for those of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, on the Henry VIII clauses, which require consideration.
The view that I take about this Bill is strongly supported by Exeter University and the Nuffield Foundation’s detailed research, led by Professor Liz Trinder at Exeter, and by Resolution, which has 6,500 family solicitor members who care deeply about looking after their clients, as I know as an honorary member. I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and what has just been said, but the evidence from the research is that the majority of people know perfectly well when a marriage has irretrievably broken down. A respondent to whom such a matter comes as a complete surprise would be very much the exception.
The research shows that the current system, and any system that takes a long time, is likely to be adverse for the children. Children are extremely important and play an important part in the background to the Bill. One of its purposes is to get the divorce over so that children suffer less. There are various ways in which we could help the children more than we do, particularly through information. Parents who are deciding to divorce—the petitioner and the respondent—should be given an information pack which would explain the impact on the children of disagreements between the parents. Perhaps the most important thing I learned as a judge is that in almost every case the children love both parents, and if parents are seriously at odds with each other, they do not realise that the children love the other parent as much as they love them. Such an information pack would be extremely helpful.
The way in which the noble Lord, Lord McColl, wants to delay this is contrary to the current detailed research and earlier research in the 1980s and 1990s. All these amendments will not be helpful—other than, as I have said, the two amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti—and I hope your Lordships will think that the Bill should go through largely unopposed.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I do so because I fear that a fundamental pessimism underpins Clause 1. It is an attitude that we have heard in speeches from Ministers and others to the effect that once a person files for divorce a marriage has by definition broken down. The Minister in the other place said that
“the moment one person decides that the marriage is over, it is indeed over.”—[Official Report, Commons, 25/6/19; col. 602.]
I question that. I do not think it is inevitable that a marriage, even one that has come to that point, is over. I prefer to allow room for reconciliation.
People can change their minds, and often do. Marriages can go through very rocky periods, yet come out the other side stronger than before. I am sure many noble Lords can think of examples. In my view, hope for reconciliation should be maintained for as long as possible, including into the divorce process. I believe reconciliation remains possible. I think that is borne out by the figures showing that each year the number of completed divorces is considerably lower than those applied for. At present, approximately 10% of divorce petitions that start each year are subsequently dropped. Couples do give their marriage another chance. I know that other explanations are offered for the shortfall: cross-petitions, petitions being re-filed on a different basis, and so on. I acknowledge all that, but are we really to believe that there are not some reconciliations within the thousands of divorces that do not complete? If there are any at all, they expose as false the assumption that divorce is inevitable after a divorce application is made. A Bill designed on that false assumption would clearly be flawed, so I am uncomfortable with Clause 1 as it stands.
At the very outset, the divorce process requires a definitive statement by the applicant or applicants that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. As I see it, that can serve only to close minds, inhibit dialogue and reduce the chance of reconciliation. The Minister in the other place described the 20-week period as “a period of reflection” but, under the Bill, the 20-week period starts out with assertion by one or both parties that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. That encourages not reflection but defeatism.
The modest change this amendment seeks to make is to reduce the sense of inevitability ever so slightly. Rather than applicants stating at the outset that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, they would have to state that it “may” have broken down irretrievably. Only at the stage of applying for the conditional order would we get to the assertion that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. This change would make the 20-week period one of genuine reflection in the hope of saving marriages. I believe it deserves noble Lords’ support, so I support the amendment.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the wise words of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and think that Amendment 1 is not helpful. It replaces the proof of irretrievable breakdown on the basis of a sworn statement at the outset, with that being proven only after a second sworn statement has been made after the time has elapsed for the conditional order to be made. I also dislike the wording,
“they think that the marriage may have broken down”.
It is a bit patronising. Leaving a further 20 weeks could make it more difficult for a spouse to leave an abusive relationship: “You only think our marriage is over, dear. Why don’t you come home with me and think again?” I realise that this is not consistent with my remarks at Second Reading when I spoke about periods of reflection, but I have had my own period of reflection in the intervening time. I have listened to the research findings already referred to by the noble and learned Baroness, such as those from the Finding Fault? study, which established that people do not initiate divorce proceedings unless they are sure that, for them, the marriage is over. We from these Benches will not support this amendment.
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I have been doing this work for 40 years. If the amendment is successful, people will file quicker: they know they will have to wait 20 weeks, or however many weeks, so they will put in their petition sooner. When a marriage has broken down, it is necessary to sort it out cleanly and without blame and delay. Delay causes grief. Uncertainty causes grief. Children get destroyed by uncertainty, which is why I have jointly tabled an amendment related to finance.
In relation to the breakdown of a marriage, I agree with the noble Baroness that it is patronising. It is not a charter for petitioners but a mutual charter to let people get divorced without the blame and shame of naming the person who is more at fault. For most marriages, it is not as simple as one party being 90% at fault and the other being 10% at fault, or one party being 100% at fault. There is mutual blame, so to suggest that that one party has to take the responsibility for being, effectively, the aggressor, causes grief. It causes grief to people who cannot operate on their own. Some people have the luxury of going to solicitors, but I really object to the suggestion that this is a solicitors’ or a lawyers’ charter to make money. When it is done online, it will be a great deal cheaper. There is a nice little industry in colluding with the solicitor on the other side to try to dream up grounds that neither party finds objectionable so that it can go through unopposed—but unfortunately, those grounds now have to be sufficiently serious to get past the very high bar that is being imposed, which means that blame has to be made. I do not see any benefit at all when one party—generally both parties—wants to get out of marriage in there being any further delays, so I do not support this amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I was not wishing to push myself forward too soon, but one has to look quite closely at the wording of this amendment, which says:
“The divorce process under subsection (1) consists of three stages and must be accompanied by … for the first stage, a statement by the applicant or applicants, if a joint application, on the filing of the application for a divorce order that they think that the marriage may have broken down irretrievably.”
The general rule is that one applicant is sufficient, and therefore there is no question of a requirement that they should agree that the marriage has broken down irretrievably at that stage.
I have not been a family judge for 40 years, but I have been concerned with this matter for even longer than that. As I said at Second Reading, I was concerned with cases where there were long debates and proofs about who was responsible for the breakdown of the marriage. I never found them to be of any practical use: they did not reconcile people—very much the reverse—and they were absolutely useless.
I am as strong supporter of the institution of marriage as I can be, and I have made that plain. Indeed, so plain was it when I introduced the corresponding Bill 20 years ago that I was invited to be interviewed on the “Today” programme—Ministers went in those days—by no less a person than John Humphrys. One of the first questions that he asked was whether I would care to be called the “Minister for Marriage” instead of Lord Chancellor. That suggested pretty plainly that he thought that I was trying to support the ordinance of marriage as far as practicable.
The situation here is that you are asking for a divorce, not applying for a consideration of something else. What is a divorce? It is an order that finds that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. Therefore, if you are going to ask for that, you must ask for it. There is no sense in saying, “I’m considering whether I should apply.” You either do or do not apply. If you apply, the process starts. However, of course I am all in favour of the idea that during that process people might come together. That happens, and there is nothing in the Bill that I know of to discourage it, except possibly the length of time involved. As I understand it, the result of the consultation process was that it should be a year, but a period of six months was chosen for the Bill. When my Bill went forward, I chose a year and Parliament increased it to 18 months. So it is not the first time that an attempt has been made to lengthen that period—something that will be considered later. However, the amendment does not appear to me to be right. If you are asking for a divorce order, the statement must state the ground on which the law allows a divorce.
Sadly, I agree entirely with what the noble and learned Baroness said about the children. Over the years, my experience in talking about and dealing with this issue in various ways is that, generally speaking, the children are devoted to both parents. They love them both, and when the parents separate in life or in the way that they treat one another, it tears the heart of the children, which is a terrible result. It is important that, before parents get involved in divorce proceedings, they think seriously about the effect on their children. On the other hand, there is nothing worse for children than being in a situation where their parents are continually at loggerheads. Sadly, the institution of marriage is such that it requires the loyalty of both parents all the time. If that stops, the result is, sadly, inevitable.
I entirely accept that my noble friend Lord McColl and those who support him would like to see reconciliation. I am entirely in favour of that, but I think that reconciliation is sometimes assisted when the parties see that what is required is an answer to the situation—when the marriage has broken down irretrievably and they are prepared to reach a conciliation. That does happen and there is every reason to support it happening during the divorce procedure, but I do not think that you can start the divorce procedure on the basis that it is going to happen.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, leaving aside the fundamental principle behind this amendment, there seems to me to be a real weakness in the wording of the proposed new subsection (2)(a), which says that,
“they think that the marriage may have broken down irretrievably”.
That seems so vague and unsatisfactory. Does the noble Lord think that this amendment would be improved and be worth further serious discussion if it instead said that they “intend to apply for an order on the grounds that the marriage has broken down”—in other words, that the first application would be a statement of intent?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, the unfortunate thing about that is that it is the application: once you have applied, you have carried out the intent. It is an application for a divorce, and the divorce procedure lays out what has to happen before the divorce is granted. When you apply, you are applying for a divorce. I cannot see any other possible way of proceeding. It does not seem to make sense to say, “I was thinking of applying—I was thinking of suing you—but I am still considering the matter.” If you want an order, you have to ask for it. That is essentially why I think this amendment has grammatical difficulties but also an enormous underlying theoretical difficulty.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and the remarks of my noble friend Lord Morrow.
I have never been a judge to grant people a divorce, but I have been a minister for over 50 years, marrying people and endeavouring to keep families together. I am delighted that, over those years, people have come to me with the intention of divorce but made another decision on reflection. To this day, they are very happy families. After reflection, speaking to me and receiving advice, they were able to make another decision and heal the breach in the relationship.
The Government were elected on a promise to strengthen families and acknowledge that a strong society needs strong families. To the best of my knowledge, there was no mention in the manifesto of the no-fault divorce. I believe that time for reflection would be helpful. I would like this Committee and the Government to consider the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has brought before us.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, not for the first time. I particularly want to associate myself with the very humble reflections of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and the unparalleled expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I do not want to repeat what has been said. However, I might shorten what I say about other amendments if I make a few comments now, because I think the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is broadly right: this is a good Bill that will generally not benefit from much amendment, subject to concerns of the Delegated Powers Committee.
As was rehearsed by many in your Lordships’ House at Second Reading, divorce is not generally a happy matter. I suspect that it is mostly in Hollywood cinema that people celebrate and have parties upon divorce. I have heard of such things, but they are perhaps the exception and not the rule. This is therefore an unhappy subject and an unhappy moment in lots of people’s lives—as it happens, a very significant portion of the population. For some people, it is a story of liberation after trauma; for others, it will be a matter of loss and trauma. It is not a happy matter. The law should be about legal protection and not legal fiction.
I understand the sentiments of noble Lords who would like people to reflect before they put themselves through this trauma. But I would have more in common with that sentiment if we were seeking to provide counselling for every adolescent and adult in the country, or, indeed, if we were seeking to reinstate the availability of legal aid for people contemplating and going through divorce. In my experience, good family lawyers will always go through a process of reflection with their clients before advising them to go through this traumatic process. Those matters, unfortunately, are beyond the scope of the Bill—I know this because I had a go. I am told by the Public Bill Office that reinstating legal aid for people with contested contact matters is also unfortunately not in the Bill.
In the future, I would happily talk to any noble Lords who want to persuade the Government that legal aid should be reinstated, at least for matters concerning the children. That would be a very good thing. As I said to the Minister, who very kindly met me yesterday, it seems perverse that if the state seeks to take your children you have access to a lawyer, but if your ex-partner is depriving you of contact you do not. That is a real concern, as are the issues about adequate provision for counselling, mediation and so on; provision is needed. I do not see how people will reflect and reconcile when they have extra hoops to jump through by way of legal process. For that reason, I hope the noble Lord, Lord McColl, will think again about this amendment.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, just as he did at Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, has expressed his desire to ensure that those intent on divorce should have the opportunity to consider reconciliation. Of course, we agree with that, which is one reason we are building in a statutory pause: the new 20-week period between application and conditional order. It is also why we are retaining the two-stage order, as well as the bar on divorce applications in the first year of the marriage.
The noble Lord expressed concern, as did others, that the Government’s statistics give the impression that a significant number of divorce petitions never reach decree absolute. There is, however, no evidence that these represent cases of reconciliation. Indeed, analysis of court data by the Nuffield Foundation, referred to by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, shows that the majority of non-completions are due to the technical difficulties of the legal process for unrepresented parties, the obstruction of respondents and, in some cases, protracted negotiations over finances. Indeed, a sample of 300 undefended cases were analysed, in which 51 were found not to have completed. Only one of those cases was identified as having ended in an attempted reconciliation. It is not only the recent Nuffield research that indicates this. Research undertaken by the University of Newcastle, following the Family Law Act 1996, also found that the decision to divorce was not taken lightly or impetuously; it was typically a protracted one based on months, if not years, of painful and difficult consideration.
I appreciate the intention behind the amendment; the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, spoke of the profound importance of marriage to society and I could not possibly disagree with that. However, we believe that this amendment would have the potentially perverse effect of encouraging speculative applications. Someone facing marital difficulties might file an application saying, “I think my marriage may be over, though I’m not sure. I can always make my mind up after 20 weeks, or after as long as it takes.” As the noble Baronesses, Lady Burt and Lady Shackleton, observed, that is not the process that parties go through in reality. Indeed, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, observed, it is inconsistent with the idea that you are applying on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown.
Applying for divorce should, of course, always be a last resort; certainly, we have seen no evidence that it is anything else. In the vast majority of cases, the applicant reaches the decision after considerable soul-searching and, indeed, after attempts have been made to mend difficulties in the marriage. It should never be seen as a warning shot. Divorce is not a remedy for marital difficulties; it is a remedy for a marriage that is no longer functioning because it has irretrievably broken down. It is right, we suggest, to continue to demand irretrievable breakdown at the point of the initial application as the grounds on which decree could then proceed. Of course, divorce should never be automatic, but again neither this Bill nor any other is going to make divorce easier for those affected by it.
We consider that the existing ground for divorce, namely irretrievable breakdown, should remain, and I urge the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
My Lords, I am very grateful for all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I have been practising medicine for more years than I care to remember, and I have, almost every day, had to break bad news. I took a great deal of time to get over to medical students that this had to be done gently and with respect. Although my amendment does not seem to have much support, I hope that there is some way in which a person who wants a divorce can indicate to his partner what is in his mind long before he puts down an official request. Breaking bad news does not cost too much money. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the courts to take the wellbeing of any children in the family into account before granting a divorce order to end a marriage.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I shall also speak to my Amendment 14 to Clause 3.
At Second Reading, I expressed concerns about how the proposals in this Bill would bring a profound shift in power from the respondent to the petitioner, because they propose that the petitioner should be able to initiate the divorce with no notice and that the respondent should have no right to contest.
Rather than exhibiting a balanced concern for both parties to the marriage, this Bill is, to a greater a degree than is wise, a petitioner’s charter. In its fervour to create a good outcome for the petitioner and the busy court system, however, this Bill demonstrates not only a lack of regard for the respondent but a complete lack of credible regard for any children involved.
We must not forget that this momentous life event we are debating in this Bill is not merely a life event for children but is officially classified as an ACE—an adverse childhood experience. Adverse childhood experiences greatly increase the likelihood of children facing damaging impacts on health and other social outcomes, such as alcoholism, misuse of prescription drugs, depression, heart disease and intimate partner violence.
My concern in tabling my amendment is that we must have the best interests of the children at the forefront of our thinking, not the objective of delivering the petitioner his divorce as quickly as possible. I am, of course, very aware that some have sought to argue that the proposals in this Bill—in removing fault—are motivated by a desire to minimise acrimony and to make the divorce process as amicable as possible, precisely because this will help any children involved. As I will demonstrate, however, this assertion, which at first glance seems to make sense, is in fact deeply problematic.
First, we need to understand that the vast majority of marriages that end at the moment are already low in conflict. Data from the survey Understanding Society shows that high-conflict warring couples are a rarity among married couples who split in the UK, comprising only 9% of those who split up. In contrast, 60% of married couples who split up were low-conflict and had reported a degree of happiness. Notwithstanding this fact, however, Judith Wallerstein, who conducted a 25-year study on the impact of divorce on children concluded:
“Findings from this study challenge the central assumption of our court policy: namely, that if parents refrain from conflict, issues around custody, contact, and economic support will be settled expeditiously, both parents will resume their parenting roles, and the child will resume her normal developmental progress. But it is manifestly misguided to expect that muting conflict between divorced parents by itself will reinstate the course of parenting observed in intact families.”
Lord Framlingham (Con)
I entirely support the amendment of the noble Baroness. Does she agree that while we talk about the reasons for the mental health of young people, austerity, local councils and educational support, we rarely talk about family? We never talk about parents and we never talk about absent fathers. Does she agree that as a country we are in grave danger of completely ignoring the huge distress and permanent damage done to children every year?
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
I entirely and completely agree with the noble Lord.
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia
Some of the damage could be avoided by proper education before people have children, to avoid the distress of having children with the wrong person. There is very little education in school to support that.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 2 and 14, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote. Before I do so, I welcome the new concept of divorce by mutual decision through a joint application. Anything that reduces the stress, cost and emotional aggravation of a broken-down relationship must be for the good. In previous debates, many noble Lords have attested to the psychological and emotional damage done to children from broken homes. It is one of the Bill’s strengths that a joint application keeps the door open to reconciliation. I very much support the amendment to Clause 1 tabled by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, for the court to send information about mediation and relationship support services, as this could result in reconciliation, particularly in this type of divorce.
However, there is another dimension to the Bill which has made me really anxious: the treatment of divorce instigated by one party alone. In contrast to the provisions of divorce by mutual decision, the possibility for one party unilaterally to apply for divorce is a step backwards, at odds with our manifesto commitment to strengthen families. As I see it, the Bill’s fundamental weakness, as repeated by noble Lords many times in previous debates, is to discriminate in favour of the applicant against the recipient. I call them the recipient because this person has no right to respond. In practice, it would allow divorce by unilateral denunciation. It removes all rights and protections from the recipient and ignores two of the most contentious issues when a marriage breaks down: the financial settlement and arrangements for the children.
It could result in a situation where the recipient is left without financial provision and even access to his or her children, tantamount in extreme cases to parental abduction. This is unacceptable. It would contravene the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to see and have access to both parents. It is also especially cruel to those of modest means who cannot afford to hire a lawyer to try to remedy the situation. It is hard to see how such a narrow focus on divorce, excluding money and children, can be justified when they are inextricably linked.
The Bill claims to remove family conflict as much as possible when reconciliation is impossible, but you do not need to go through a contentious divorce, as I have—some noble and learned Lords in this House know about my case—to know that the greatest source of conflict between couples is not about whether or not you want to divorce but about financial settlements and with whom and where the children will live. This is the moment when children really become embroiled in litigation between their parents and find themselves put in an impossible position. This is particularly so today, as children are more and more involved in court proceedings. Judges tend to interview them to find out how they feel and with which parent they want to live —in other words, asking children to choose between their parents. This can often lead to one parent manipulating the child against the other parent, so that when the child speaks in court, they will say bad things about the other parent. Sometimes children are even convinced that they have been sexually abused by one parent.
I speak from experience. I am not a judge; I have not been looking at other people’s cases from the outside. I have been on the inside: I founded a charity called Action Against Abduction. I have spoken to many parents and, indeed, adult children who have grown up after horrible experiences when they were young. We made a documentary about it, and I can tell noble Lords—and this is why I feel quite strongly about the Bill—that the effect on children is devastating. The point about the Bill is that it is fine if people agree, but that does not apply to everybody. The law should protect the most vulnerable, and the most vulnerable are the children. The most complicated cases are those in which parents do not agree. Giving one parent the right to divorce without the courts having even looked at the financial situation or the welfare of the children is very difficult. I hope most noble Lords will help me support this amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I absolutely disagree that this is a petitioner’s charter. It is a way of bringing a failed marriage to an end. If noble Lords think about it, if one member of a couple says, “This marriage is at an end; in my view it has irretrievably broken down,” what on earth can you do about it? I am not sure whether noble Lords who have been speaking are expecting a couple who cannot get on to go on living together. If one side says that it is at an end, there is no longer a consensual marriage. Having been happily married for many, many years—
Lord Framlingham
Is the noble and learned Baroness actually saying that there is no possibility of that person changing their mind?
Baroness Butler-Sloss
Of course there are wonderful situations where reasonable couples talk it through and decide not to do it, whether for themselves or for their children. In some cases, that works and in some cases it does not. But there is no doubt that there are many, many people who seek to bring a marriage to an end because, from the point of view of that person, their marriage is no longer one that that they can endure. A lot of people leave. In the famous Owens divorce case that went to the Supreme Court, the couple are still married because five years is not up and there was no consent by the husband. The wife did not stay: she is not living with the husband who would not allow a divorce; she has moved out. There they are living separately, but not divorcing. Is that a happy situation?
The Bill is not a petitioner’s charter; it is an opportunity taken by the Government—and I congratulate them—to deal with the very important research that shows that unhappy marriages are not good for children. I do not understand how, if a couple do not get on, or if it is a case of domestic abuse—and we know how serious domestic abuse is—and the victim of the abuse wants to bring it to an end, they should not be allowed to do so. I cannot believe what is happening to the children while she—it is usually a she, but not always—remains in the house with the children and the domestic abuser. There is a great deal of evidence about that.
Fortunately, most parents, when they bring their marriage to an end, are civilised about it and about the children. The important thing about this Bill is that it is dealing with the issue of divorce and leaving the two extremely important issues—the most important issues of all—of what happens to the children and the financial outcome to be dealt with, I hope, in further legislation. The issue of children does not have to be dealt with in further legislation; the various Children Acts have dealt with that, whether they are the children of those who are married or of those who are not. Finance desperately needs changing—I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, will say more about that today. It absolutely needs to be looked at, and I hope that the Government will go for a consultation paper on how we can improve legislation that dates back to as long ago as 1973, and which certainly needs an update. However, that is not a reason not to have the Bill.
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia
This is not about the finances. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, brought in the Children Act, it took away the stigma of custody. That Act as been a godsend to all of us, as we do not have to identify which party has care and control—custody. It has been the most enormous success, for which everybody who practises in this field is eternally grateful. I suspect that it was considered very novel at the time.
People forget that most responsible solicitors, when somebody who wants a divorce comes to see them, go through with their clients the possibility of not getting a divorce. I believe passionately in marriage—I am a patron of the Marriage Foundation, which supports the Bill—but by the time somebody wants out, they want out. I cannot tell your Lordships how many people are shocked when I say to them, “Are you sure you really want this? It’s not necessarily greener on the other side.” They say, “Do you really think I saved up the courage to come and see you to be told to go back and try a bit harder?” Once the game is up and the marriage is over—once it is dead—clinging on to it is not in the children’s interest at all. People need to move on. You cannot make somebody who is unhappy happy. It takes one person to make the marriage unhappy and two people to make it happy. The Bill goes some way towards addressing that problem.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
I will just finish with the two further points I wanted to make.
On the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, with which, as noble Lords may have gathered, I do not agree, I cannot see how a court can adequately assess whether the children will be better off if the parents, one of whom wants a divorce, are still together or separated. There will be a difficult balancing act for the judge, and it will take a long time, because the family courts are seriously overburdened. How on earth will you find time to do this, and between a couple who will not be represented? As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, there is no legal aid for couples who divorce, so the judge will have two people at odds with each other, with one or perhaps both determined to be divorced, and the children in the middle. The children ought to be informed of what is going on, but very often they are not. They need help at that time from parents who do not realise that they need help, and they particularly need information. But how on earth is the judge—or the magistrates, but in particular the judge—to say to the couple, “What is going to happen if you’re together or if you’re parted? How on earth am I to find out which way the children would want it to be?”? Particularly in cases where there is domestic abuse, the sooner that couple is parted, the better. So I am very concerned about this proposal.
Of course, we should be very careful about what we do regarding the welfare of children. However, research from the University of Exeter and the Nuffield Foundation found that where the parents cannot agree, very often the children would be better off by having them separate, and what their future ought to be can then be dealt with under the Children Acts.
Baroness Burt of Solihull
My Lords, I can see the sentiment behind considering the interests of the children in this matter. We will all have been moved by the testimony of the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, about the terrible experience that she and her children underwent, but this amendment would hand the court the impossible task of deciding what is in the children’s interests without the mechanisms to do so, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, just said.
How would you implement a judgment forcing parents to stay together in the children’s interests? You cannot force a couple to stay together any more than you can order warring parents to create a loving environment. I hope that we are past the stage where parents stay together for the sake of the children—unless it is a mutual voluntary agreement—because, on the whole, that has been shown to do more harm than good. Children may fare better from having two loving parents who live in different places, often with different families of all kinds. Love and the secure knowledge that they are loved are what matters, no matter who makes up their family. Research has shown that parents are usually the best judge of what is in their children’s interests. Where this is not feasible, the family courts are there to help.
I am afraid that we will not support the amendment from these Benches.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendments 2 and 14 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe.
I note with interest that these amendments were tabled in the last Session in another place by the right honourable Frank Field, who served with great distinction from 1979 until last November as the Member of Parliament for Birkenhead. He made a significant contribution to children’s issues and chaired the Field review on early years intervention. I am sure he will be pleased that the noble Baroness has taken up these amendments, which could not be debated in the other place.
Divorce affects a community: the adults involved, their friends and families and, of course, the children. The likelihood is that the effects on most children will be long-lasting. Children have to watch their parents go through a divorce, then continue their lives afterward. The research base demonstrating the damage to children from divorce is so widespread—the fact that it is now recognised as an adverse children experience, or ACE, has already been alluded to—that I will not detain the House by looking at it in any detail other than to note that family breakdown is now recognised as the biggest factor behind the UK’s child mental health crisis. More than a third of children whose parents had split up reported poor mental health, compared with a fifth of children with parents who were still together. Moreover, Hetherington and Kelly’s research interviewing the children of divorce later in life revealed that 20% to 25% of children of divorce continue to suffer lasting social and psychological problems in adulthood, compared with just 10% of children from intact families.
The fact is that, after a divorce, children find themselves in a difficult situation. As has been referred to, Cockett and Tripp’s work in The Exeter Family Study demonstrates how divorce changes family life. Their research showed that in parental conflict during marriage, the child may be able to remain on the sidelines, whereas after divorce, they may be obliged to take a central role; for example, carrying messages between resident and non-resident parents who find that they are unable to communicate face to face. Children in re-ordered families reported that their parents frequently told tales about each other or each other’s new partners. Children also sometimes felt that they had to suppress telling one parent about enjoyable times they had had with the other, or had actually been asked by one parent to keep something secret from their former partner.
Inevitably, the child’s relationship with their parents changes; for example, one may move away and the other may become more prominent in their life while finding their own way after the divorce, potentially with less financial resources. The child might find that they have to move to be with a parent and change school. A recent article on parental divorce or separation and children’s mental health said:
“Marital instability presents not a single risk factor, but a cascade of sequelae for children.”
Baroness Meyer
My Lords, I will make one correction. This amendment is not about forcing parents to stay together. It asks for the courts to be satisfied that the well-being of the children has been considered before the final divorce is granted.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendments 2 and 4. First, I would like to say how much I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, when she talks about education, because I too have been an advocate and supporter of education on marriage, parenting and relationships for many years. I believe that it would make such a difference to the outcome of the pain and suffering that too many people go through, and which directly affects children.
However, in all our debates on the Bill we must not forget children. They are innocent parties in family break-ups, and everything we decide in this House, or in the other place, must not neglect their interests. So much of our family policy is built on the principle of what is in the best interests of the child. But when it comes to divorce, which can be devastating for children, the focus is too often solely on the interests of adults. This is why I am supporting these amendments.
The stated aim of the Bill is to reduce acrimony in divorce proceedings. The former Minister of Justice stated in the Government’s response to the consultation in April 2019 that this will
“support better outcomes for children.”—[Official Report, Commons, 9/4/19; col. 8WS.]
Supporters of the Bill claim that children of married parents who argue will be better off if their parents can divorce more easily, without having to allege fault. The logic is that parents continuing their marriage is more damaging to children than simply ending the relationship. The truth is that children need not be involved in any consideration of fault, but they are necessarily involved in the fact of divorce. It is the fact of divorce, not the process, that is harmful to children.
The Exeter Family Study found that divorce does not usually reduce conflict for the children. In fact, the opposite is true. The study says that
“the experience of most children whose parents have divorced is of increased conflict over an extended period, with the child involved to an extent that may not have been the case while the marriage lasted.”
Once parents have officially split, the door is open to children being the subject of disagreements in a way they never were before. These findings are corroborated by a US study that shows that children suffer negative consequences even if their parents divorce amicably. The authors express concern that
“some parents are lulled into believing”
that a good divorce will mean
“that their children are adequately protected from all of the potential risks of union disruption.”
There are of course exceptions, where divorce is the only and best alternative, especially when it comes to domestic violence and abuse. However, there is so much research that shows the benefits for children of living with their married parents, and the harm the divorce does to children. For example, having married parents increases the chances of getting a university degree. It is better for teenagers’ mental health and increases a person’s chances of getting married themselves. Young people whose parents separate are much more likely to become homeless and get into trouble with the law. Behavioural and emotional problems are also more likely to be found in children from broken homes.
There have been studies suggesting that children suffer more from divorce than from the death of a parent, and that this continues long term. Various reasons are offered for this. One is that divorce is seen as a choice. From a child’s perspective, their parent chooses to leave them, resulting in a sense of deliberate abandonment. There is also the ongoing yearning for reconciliation, while death is final. Children often cling for many years to the hope of their parents reconciling, causing reoccurring disappointment. I state all this to emphasise the importance of children’s interests in these debates. They should be front and centre in decisions about divorce, including in the court’s consideration of a divorce application.
I fear that this Bill will make divorce quicker and easier, leaving less time and motivation to compromise or attempt to reconcile—and children will suffer. I believe that these amendments help to focus on these innocent victims—because, remember, childhood lasts a lifetime.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I need no conviction that children are better when their parents continue together, undivorced. I am strongly in favour of helping people who run into difficulties in their marriage. Various things can happen that require help. One of the amendments today refers to part of the 1996 Act that is still in force, providing money to help people to overcome these difficulties.
I need no conviction that divorce is bad for children, but I do need conviction that, if the parents are determined to divorce, nothing can be done to make it better for the children. That is where the arrangements under the Children Act are important. I believe that they are as good as can be achieved, but the important thing is that I would much prefer no divorce at all. We must concentrate on trying to keep parents together and keep the marriage going as a marriage and not in any other way.
I cannot see that the court can say, “This divorce is not good for the children” or “This divorce is good for the children”. Can noble Lords imagine a judge having to decide whether a divorce is good for the children? The answer is no in every case I know of: it is not a good thing for children that their parents have reached the conclusion that they have to divorce, as I said earlier. It is like tearing the children apart, because they love both parents and are very upset when anything happens to part them—but, sadly, the responsibility for staying together is with the parents. I strongly believe that doing everything that can be done to help them to stay together is the best help for the children.
Baroness Chakrabarti
My Lords, as I said, it has taken decades of distinguished professional experience for some noble Lords to make the contributions they are making to this debate. However, I have no doubt that it has taken a mountain of courage and not a small amount of eloquence and self-possession for the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, to make her contribution—for which I am sure we all thank her. I thank her and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for giving us the opportunity to talk about children with what I hope will prove to be a probing amendment that puts the interests of children into this discussion.
However, for the reasons stated by other noble and learned Lords, the place and moment for a court to consider the best interests of the child—for example, under the Children Act—should be in matters of contact and finance. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I say once more that the place for your Lordships’ House to consider what we should do ought to be in putting back legal aid for such contested family matters.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I begin by correcting a misapprehension disclosed by a number of noble Lords. We have produced a family impact assessment in respect of the Bill. Indeed, it was published with the Bill and can be found on GOV.UK. I invite those noble Lords who expressed an interest to have regard to that.
I have no doubt that this amendment is well intentioned, but its effects could be quite draconian. It would in effect require the court to weigh up whether the interests of the marriage’s children should override the autonomous decision of one parent—or indeed both parents, in a joint application—to seek a divorce. It could result in a parent being trapped in a failed or even abusive marriage. It could also reintroduce contested divorce in cases where there are children, because it would allow a parent to put forward arguments that divorce is not in the children’s best interests. It is difficult to see how this would serve the best interests of the children or even the parents. Indeed, this amendment could cause a worsened parental conflict through the legal process of divorce, with further damaging consequences for the children involved.
I understand why some may regard it as important for the court to consider the impacts on children of the decision to divorce, but that ought not to be a matter for the divorce process. The decision to marry or divorce is an autonomous one. It is not for the law to stand in the way of one or both parties who no longer wish to be in a marriage. The legal process of divorce should focus only on ending the legal relationship between the adult parties. Issues that may arise from the divorce, such as disputed arrangements for children, can and are dealt with now under separate statutory provision.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which has been extremely interesting and wide-ranging. Despite what has been said, the role of children and the effect on them of divorce proceedings would not have had anything like the prominence that it has had but for this amendment. I did not realise that the family test assessment is available; I was going to suggest having a meeting before Report with that as a central feature. Maybe noble Lords on all sides of the argument could come together. Clearly, we need to discuss all this on Report. All noble Lords who have taken part, with their very strong feelings and differing views, must be glad that children are a central part of all the proceedings. With that in mind, unless the Minister would like meetings for further discussion before Report, I will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am perfectly happy to have meetings on this or any other issues that may arise before Report, and to have the relevant officials present. I hope I have expressed clearly our position regarding the distinction between the divorce process and the interests of children, but I am perfectly content to have a meeting.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
It would be desirable to have some meetings. Under the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“( ) send, to the applicant and to the other party to the marriage, information about—(i) relationship support services, and(ii) mediation services,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that divorcing couples have access to information about relationship support and mediation so that they can think again about the best way forward before being issued a final divorce order.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
My Lords, this is a very simple amendment designed to give those divorcing or separating some basic information. It would require a court to
“send, to the applicant and to the other party to the marriage, information about—(i) relationship support services and, (ii) mediation services”.
As I mentioned at Second Reading, the concept of irreversible breakdown as a basis for divorce goes back to the recommendation of a Church of England Commission in 1966, which was accepted by the Law Commission in the same year and passed into law. Since then, however, up to the present time, as we know, it has been necessary to provide evidence of that breakdown, either by a period of separation or behaviour. Thirty years later, the Family Law Bill, introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, in 1996, sought to do away with those tests. I strongly supported that Bill, but it met fierce opposition at the time, although it was finally passed by both Houses of Parliament.
The reason why many people who might otherwise have opposed that Bill did in the end support it, was the key role played by information sessions in the process of divorce. These involved meetings with the divorcing couple, who had the opportunity to avail themselves of relationship support or mediation should they need it. Though, as I say, that Bill was passed, it was not implemented by the incoming Labour Government and was eventually repealed. One reason for its repeal was that the information sessions as initially conceived were judged unable to achieve the objectives for which they were set up. Six pilot programmes were tried but none was judged successful.
It is clear that doing away with the need to provide objective evidence of breakdown is much more widely supported now than it was in 1996—and that is a good thing—and in the light of experience this Bill has much broader support now than it did then. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that while most divorces rightly go through, there are some marriages that can and should be held together even at a late stage of the process, or that might benefit from mediation.
I believe that the role of lawyers is essential in most marriage break-ups. However, the process appears from the outside to be essentially adversarial. A recent film now available on Netflix—“Marriage Story”—shows the process at work. It does not, I am afraid, depict lawyers in a very pretty light. As one lawyer in the film says, “If you start from a place of reasonable and they start from a place of crazy, when we settle we’ll be somewhere between reasonable and crazy”. The point is, of course, that both sides will think that they are reasonable and the other side is crazy. Yet, even in that unhappy story, one has to admit that the wife, in the end, benefited from having the issue settled by a court.
That said, I was talking recently to a friend about the Bill at present before the House. She revealed that she was a lawyer and that her first job in a law firm was dealing with divorces because, as she said, that was the sort of work thought appropriate to women in those days. She tried with her clients first to get them talking and exploring what they really wanted—in other words, she did what the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, said all good solicitors should do. Eventually, she was very surprised to be hauled in by her bosses and told that she was being transferred to another branch of the law as she was losing the firm too much money. I assure noble Lords that I did not make that up; it emerged spontaneously out of the blue and I was rather surprised. I quote it not as an anti-lawyer statement—I do not want to be a Daniel in a den of lawyers, because there are so many lawyers in the House that we feel inadequate anyway about not being a lawyer. The point I am making is that there are other ways forward and it is important that a divorcing couple of fully aware of this, even at a late stage.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, for the coalition Government, told the House in 2013:
“The research concluded that none of the six models of information meeting tested was good enough for implementation nationally. For most people, the meetings came too late to save marriages and tended to cause parties who were uncertain about their marriages to be more inclined towards divorce.”—[Official Report, 23/10/13; col. GC 365.]
I agree that this is likely to be a true reading of the situation, but the phrase the noble Lord used was “for most people”—it is not all people. There is a minority for whom, even at a late stage, there might be a better way forward. Nor is the conclusion the noble Lord drew from the other point as useless as he suggested. It caused, he said, some parties who were uncertain about their marriage to be more inclined towards divorce. The proper conclusion to be drawn from this is that, if it was right for them to divorce, a final chance to have this conviction strengthened is a good thing. We want couples to be clear about what they want after a final chance to consider the options before them.
As I say, I am not arguing for a reinstatement of the information sessions of the 1996 Act. It would be unrealistic to do so. However, what I am proposing is simple and cheap: it simply requires the court to send both parties some basic information which, I imagine, would be provided at no cost by the relationship support and mediation services. Those who receive such information might glance at it and throw it in the wastepaper basket; others might read it carefully and conclude that it is not for them—they are clear that divorce is the right way forward. There will be some, however, who read the information not having properly considered options other than divorce, and who wish to follow this information up.
Society has a big stake in stable marriages and stable civil partnerships. Divorce or separation is sometimes absolutely necessary and essential, but, if there is a chance of a few marriages that would otherwise split up being saved by the simple provision of information, this chance should be taken. I beg to move.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 3. I regret to speak in disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for whom I have great respect. I also have some disagreement with my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries.
Amendment 3 is, like Amendment 1, based on the assumption that, even after divorce proceedings are under way, there is a reasonable number of couples who can be reconciled. My reading of the research on this issue suggests that such reconciliation is rare once divorce proceedings are under way. Nobody starts divorce proceedings unless they are pretty desperate.
Having provided relationship support services as a social worker many decades, never mind many years, ago, I am, of course, a supporter of this approach to marriage problems. However, in response to this amendment, I suggest that a couple would benefit far more from such a service long before either parent considers divorce. A divorce petition is sought only once at least one of the partners is clear that the relationship has broken down irretrievably. It is very likely, although it is not always the case, that one partner will by that time be well involved with a third party and have little interest in perpetuating the marriage. At that stage reconciliation is very unlikely, although of course it is possible.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 21, which is grouped with Amendment 3. It is also about marriage counselling once the application for divorce has been made. My amendment requires the Government to offer relationship and marriage counselling before and during the divorce procedure.
Marriage is the specific relationship form being directly affected by the Bill so it should be the focus of additional support. Much weight has been put on the evidence from research at the University of Exeter funded by the Nuffield Foundation, Finding Fault? It describes itself as the first empirical study since the 1980s of how the divorce law in England and Wales is operating. It is a piece of grey literature—that is, it has not been peer reviewed. The Government very rarely act on single studies, especially those that have not been peer reviewed by academics from other universities, which often challenge the conclusions of whichever study it is. The reliance of the Government and noble Lords on this research is surprising, to say the least. In reality, it is one study with 81 interviews and an analysis of 300 divorces. There was a survey in which around half the participants were divorcees and the other half were nationally representative: 71% of them supported retaining fault, which was ignored. I put that at the beginning of what I am saying because, in the Government’s argument, an awful lot of weight is being put on this research.
In the early 2000s, there was a healthy marriage initiative in the United States. Many of the programmes were focused on unmarried couples. It taught them the basics of commitment and how to resolve conflict and brought many to a point where they perhaps knew enough to separate because they realised the relationship did not have a future, or where both partners felt able to make the formal commitment of marriage. I notice a right reverend Prelate is in his place. The Church of England and many other churches run good marriage preparation courses which go into gritty detail of the problems that marriages can present.
Much has been said about the need to avoid the complexity of the Family Law Act. My amendment does not reintroduce information meetings, but makes it more likely that a couple who see no alternative to divorce, perhaps because both sides of the family have been through it, will, by going through counselling, have their eyes opened to the possibility that times can get better if you stick together. It allows people to reflect on the possible implications of what they are doing. Wealthy people can often access divorce consultants who dispassionately lay out the implications of staying together or splitting up. Many people pull back when they have someone dispassionately explain to them, for example, what has been termed the indissolubility of parenthood—that their relationships with their children, which the vast majority are absolutely determined to maintain, will require them to have ongoing relations with their ex-spouse not only to ensure the smooth running of day-to-day contact arrangements, but to negotiate every future major family event.
Professor Janet Walker led the evaluations of the pilots following the passage of the Family Law Act 1996. She interviewed more than 6,000 people. She commented that funding for relationship services was identified as a necessary part of divorce reform during the passage of the Family Law Bill and remains necessary today. She goes on to say that knowledge and understanding of what works in supporting relationships at times of change, challenge and crisis has also grown, and it is apparent that early intervention to support relationships increases opportunities for relationship ruptures to be repaired and for partnerships to thrive and endure. Therefore, we need to be sure that the opportunity to seek support is provided when relationships begin to deteriorate as well as in the period after an application for divorce is made, when the focus is likely to be on helping couples to reduce conflict and to focus on the ways in which they will continue to parent in a life apart. Relationship support, she says, must be accessible, affordable and available when it is first needed and at any time when families are seeking to repair or manage difficult relationships. In a follow-up study, which involved over 1,500 people, she found that, two years on from divorce, many people wished they had been warned beforehand of the harsh realities of post-separation life. If they had been forewarned, they might have sought reconciliation. They now have to work harder than ever to get on with their ex, given the need to maintain harmonious arrangements around finances and children.
US researchers, in the early 2000s, found that people who are unhappy in their marriage are more likely to be happy five years later if they did not divorce than if they did. Two out of three who were unhappily married but avoided divorce ended up happily married after five years. The problem is that, in our society, it is still stigmatised to ask for help with one’s couple relationship. When he was on “Desert Island Discs”, the American ambassador to the UK, Matthew Barzun, was very up front about the ongoing relationship counselling he and his wife had to maintain a good status quo in their relationship. Let us hope he is an early adopter, but the broad culture is not there yet. Marriage support and counselling can create a context where the root of the conflict can be addressed and terminated, rather than the relationship itself.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I support both amendments. I want to look at Amendment 21 first; it contains a reference to Section 22 of the Family Law Act 1996 and one of the provisions supported by Professor Walker in the passage that my noble friend quoted. I regard it as absolutely essential that the Government should support families in difficulties. There are plenty of reasons for difficulty in family relationships, perhaps more than there were. But in any case, whether that is so or not, there are still difficulties, and help in overcoming these is essential as early as possible. Amendment 21 deals with Section 22 and the need for counselling in relation to the later stage.
I also support the provisions in Amendment 3, which are a last resort. It is so important that people really consider what is happening and get what help they can before it happens. The idea that it is always too late is not quite right. Sometimes reconciliation can come quite late—and better late than never—which is what Amendment 3 supports. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, was Bishop of Oxford when the 1996 Act was considered and ultimately passed. I think it was he who put this amendment in form first. The Government fully supported it, as I do now. I also support its continuation, which is in the amendment.
There are some quite interesting amendments. Section 22 of the Act says:
“The Lord Chancellor may, with the approval of the Treasury”.
I am not sure why I had to put that text in the Bill, but it must have been part of the price I paid for getting that section into it, which remains law. The amount provided for it now has fallen. I would like to press on Her Majesty’s Government that one of the most important things for the present is that our family life is preserved and strengthened. I am sure that, as was said on earlier amendments, a good deal of difficulty has arisen from the failure to support family life in the way that the Government should. Therefore, I am very much in favour of Amendments 3 and 21.
Lord Browne of Belmont
My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, which focuses on marriage support services. It requires the Secretary of State to make grants for marriage support services
“before and during a marriage.”
The public policy benefits of marriage are such that this is a very appropriate use of public funds. Indeed, in terms of the public finances, investment in relationships is good value for money. The estimated cost of family breakdown to the public purse is £51 billion a year. In January 2018, the Government said in another place that between April 2015 and March 2017 they had invested £17.5 million in relationship support services. That is a very small sum, given the scale of the costs of family breakdown. It is estimated that Relate’s couple counselling work delivers £11.40 of benefits for every £1 spent. Surely this should make the Chancellor consider upping the Government’s investment in supporting married couples and those in civil partnerships.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 21, which aims to put relationship support funding on a firmer basis. At the outset I should declare an interest as a former chief executive and current vice-president of the relationship counselling charity Relate, and I am also a former chair of Cafcass.
Many of the reforms contained in the Bill are certainly to be welcomed, but—this is a real gap—the Bill is silent on the provision of relationship support, which in my view needs to be available much earlier in the process of relationship breakdown, as well as at the later stages, which we are very much focusing on today. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has already said, funding for relationship support services was identified as a necessary part of divorce reform during the passage of the Family Law Bill, and I agree with him that it remains just as necessary today. In fact, I should like, very briefly, to take us back to the Denning report of 1947. As Lord Denning said, there should be a marriage welfare service “sponsored by the State but not a State institution”. It should be a function of the state to support marriage guidance as a form of social service. I underline the words “as a form of social service” because they are germane to my argument.
Over the years, successive Governments have taken their responsibilities in this area seriously—to a greater or lesser extent, I contend—to ensure the availability of relationship support services for those who want and need them. It has been my personal experience that some Ministers and, indeed, some Prime Ministers have shown a much greater interest in this area than others: some have really wanted to champion the need for proper relationship support services, while others have taken much less interest. I think that it is genuinely a real problem that proper funding for relationship support—which I see as a core responsibility of government in providing necessary social services—has sometimes felt over the years as if it has come down to the whim of a particular Minister or Prime Minister.
Over the years, responsibility for funding relationship support services has moved between a large number of departments—frankly, having been quite involved in some of those moves, I feel that I could write a book on it. It currently rests with the DWP. Funding over that time has steadily been eroded and now focuses—very narrowly, I think—on interventions to do with workless households and helping to give support where there are high levels of parental conflict. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with focusing on high levels of parental conflict or workless households, but there is a much broader need to support relationships across the rest of the general population. This particularly helps families and children to thrive, which we discussed very eloquently in last Thursday’s debate.
I also feel that having properly functioning families with good relationships within them and trying to minimise relationship and family breakdown whenever we can is so fundamental to so many of the Government’s broader social policy objectives, be they in education, health or employment. It really deserves to be taken a lot more seriously than it sometimes feels that it is. It is clear that early intervention to support relationships—again, the subject of our debate last week—increases the chances for relationship difficulties at the early stages to be repaired. We therefore need to make sure that those chances to seek support are provided when a relationship begins to deteriorate, as well as in the period after an application for divorce is made, when the focus is likely to be on helping the couples to reduce conflict and on ways in which they can continue to successfully co-parent but live apart. Those things can have long-lasting benefits for children, particularly for their emotional well-being.
As has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, relationship support must be accessible, affordable and available when it is needed to help families seeking to repair or manage relationship difficulties. This is a really key point for me: relationship counselling must not just be seen as a middle-class preserve. It has to be available and affordable for all, irrespective of income or ability to pay. As far as I am concerned, I have always seen the availability of relationship support services as a social justice issue.
Government funding for relationship support services must be recognised as an essential component of the Government’s new approach to divorce and separation if the aims of this Bill are to be fully recognised. The Government really must take core responsibility for ensuring that there is good relationship support available and not just see it as a fluffy little discretionary add-on.
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury
My Lords, I rise in support of Amendments 3 and 21 and to provide a brace of bishops. I want to observe the seriousness and the quality of this debate as we as a House navigate the support of marriage as an institution and of couples in keeping their vows while recognising that marriages break down and trying to provide adequately for those circumstances. If the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, is right that support for the relationship support services sometimes depends on the whim of a Minister or Prime Minister, one might hope that the present occupant of 10 Downing Street would take a particular interest in these matters.
On average, the Church of England conducts about 1,000 weddings a week. We have experience of conducting, preparing people for and supporting them in marriages. Quite often, couples that I have prepared say that they want to get married in church because they know that they are standing and making their vows in a solemn and serious place that has significance in the community and before God. They want the support of the community gathered around them. In the modern marriage service, we say, “Will you support them in what they are doing?” The congregation comes back with, “We will”. The role of gathering around a couple to support them in keeping what we know to be quite difficult things to keep is a very significant part of the service. Marriage is a gift of God in creation. A marriage in civil ceremony is, therefore, as big a deal. That means that we need to gather around these couples too and support them in upholding their vows.
However, marriages break down. That is costly in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, itemised; there is a financial cost to society. It is also emotionally costly to the individuals in the couples. This is not done lightly: there is a real cost to this, as well as a financial cost to the family concerned. It needs good support to wrap around it. Tolstoy observed that all happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in is own way. That is a good reason for saying that the support of marriages is complex and that we need to put in relationship counselling provision early on to support that.
Both amendments seem valuable to me for the support that they give individuals but also because they make a point in a Bill that, as my right reverend friend the Bishop of Portsmouth observed at Second Reading, might better be focused on kinder divorce rather than easier divorce. Through these amendments, we would be making a statement about the seriousness and importance of marriage, and the support that needs to be wrapped around it, both at an earlier stage and, by noting the availability of resources, at this last stage before the matter is finalised.
Baroness Burt of Solihull
My Lords, I am fully in support of having strong support services for couples but, by the time they decide to divorce, I would suggest that that stage is passed and it is already too late for conciliation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has pointed out.
I totally support Amendment 21 and the comments of my noble friend Lady Tyler. It is just the question of timing that I dispute. Professor Liz Trinder points out that practical help and advice would be of value, and financial help for these services would be most welcome, especially on benefits, housing and child support. In the vast majority of cases, mediation would not only be too late, it could be harmful. The Finding Fault? study found that more than a third of behaviour divorces included allegations of domestic abuse, some of an extremely serious nature. Why would you give the perpetrator a golden opportunity to browbeat—or worse—the victim by suggesting that the marriage may not be over, and present the spectre of having to return to the site of the abuse?
We on these Benches will not support the amendments other than Amendment 21, well intentioned though we believe they are.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 21 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
The Bill’s family impact test issued by the Ministry of Justice stresses multiple times that a central policy intention behind the legislation is to promote opportunities for reconciliation where that is possible. I admire the stated aim, but this amendment reflects the view that the Bill as it currently stands lacks ambition in this respect. Without funding for essential marriage support services, this policy goal will mean little to struggling families across the country. Families who desperately want to stay together, but are at a loss as to how to move forward, need support. It is one thing to provide an opportunity for reconciliation, but another thing entirely to provide a means of reconciliation.
According to Relate, the UK’s largest provider of relationship support:
“Evidence suggests that low income families are likely to experience increased strains on their relationships because of financial pressures. Their financial vulnerability also means they are less able to afford relationship support.”
This may well be having a very real bearing on family breakdown statistics. By the age of five, almost half of children in low-income households have seen their families break apart, compared to only 16% of children in higher-income households. Funding for counselling services could make all the difference to families who struggle to get by financially—families like Laura’s, on a household income of £16,000 per year, who told Relate:
“I want my husband and I to stay together because I know we truly love each other, as well as for the sake of the family, but desperate situations push people towards desperate measures, such as contemplating divorce. I am trying to stay strong for my family by blocking things out emotionally, which I know isn’t healthy but I have nowhere to turn. What we need is to speak to somebody objective who can help us to find a way forward. I agree there should be more funding for relationship support—healthy relationships create healthy families which in turn creates healthy citizens.”
Unfortunately, loving someone is not always enough and there may come a time where we all need more support and guidance. In a context where the Government are moving to reduce the time for reconciliation by promoting divorce within six months, it is vital that we invest more in marriage support and focus some of that money specifically on the shortened divorce process. This amendment rises to this challenge and is particularly important because, unbelievably, answers to Parliamentary Questions reveal that the Government are not allocating any funds for marriage support through Section 22. This is extraordinary, especially when we consider previous government undertakings in this regard. On 1 February 2017, for example, the Minister in the other place stated that
“the Department intends to continue to work very hard to ensure that marriage gets the support it needs to continue being a strong bedrock for the families and the children for whom we want to secure the best possible outcomes in the future.”—[Official Report, Commons, 21/02/17; col. 389WH.]
It also makes no sense. The Relationships Foundation’s Cost of Family Failure Index in 2018 estimated the annual cost to the Government of family or relationship breakdown to stand at £51 billion—my colleague and noble friend Lord Browne has already referred to this figure—which is up from £37 billion 10 years ago. The scale of this crisis demonstrates that proper investment in marriage support services is long overdue. The move would also be in line with public opinion. ComRes polling from 2017 showed that 76% of British adults believe that extra money should be spent strengthening families.
In this context, where the Government are proposing to reduce the time for divorce and thus reduce the opportunity for reconciliation within divorce, it is especially vital that they now adopt a new approach to marriage support. Providing funding to parents in conflict, who do not have to be married, is no substitute for marriage support, which should not be limited to those who have children. We need a significant, serious focus on marriage support.
When difficulties arise in relationships, giving up often seems easier than going on. This Bill risks making giving up easier, while doing little to meaningfully support those who want to go on. It communicates the message that marriage breakdown is often a sad inevitability and that, if you get to that point, the law will make it easier for you to “get the relationship over with”. I suggest to noble Lords that we can do better than that. Let us be a country that believes in fighting to rescue relationships, so that when they hit the rocks our response is not simply to mitigate the fallout, but to offer a lifeline of support to families in the form of counselling. Amendment 21, and indeed Amendment 3, will help us rise to this challenge. I very much hope that the Government will support this.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown
My Lord, I support Amendment 21 and Amendment 3. Amendment 21 speaks about funding for marriage support services, and says:
“In subsection (1)(a), at the end insert ‘, both before and during a marriage’.”
The reality is that many young people are not really prepared for marriage. Many go into it with great expectations: that everything will be rosy, everything is going to be beautiful, and that they are going to have a great life. They do not realise that the reality of life for everyone can be facing difficulties and hardships—not only financially, but in family circumstances.
There are many reasons for family breakdown and, certainly, each one is a tragedy. There used to be an old statement in our home: “a family that prays together, stays together”. It is also true that a family that talks together can stay together. The tragedy today is that families no longer talk together the way that they once did, because they are talking into an iPhone or an iPad. I was raised on a farm, and when I was a child there was a large family table we sat around and talked together. The reality is that, in the homes built today, you could not do this because the kitchen or living room is so small the family could not get around the same table. So where do they go? They go to their rooms. They used to sit before a computer but it is not like that any more; they just sit with an iPad. I sat in a home recently, where a family was gathered for a family bereavement. There was a young person of 17 years of age there. We were having conversations about the grandmother at the home, the background of the family and their upbringing and the day that young person’s mother got married. That young person heard nothing. We sat for 35 minutes. He did not speak, and neither was he listening because he was completely absorbed in his phone.
The Government should do more to encourage families to talk together. Then, I believe, many of them will stay together. The tragedy is, even within relationships, husbands and wives no longer converse as they used to. If you have a problem, the best way is to share it because a problem shared is a problem halved. Therefore, there should be more preparation for young people before marriage, and during marriage they should receive more encouragement. Certainly, when it comes to the possibility of a family breakdown, society should encourage the family unit to stay together—not to make them unhappy, but to build relationships again.
Baroness Chakrabarti
My Lords, I am so grateful to all noble Lords who spoke about this group. We do not support families by lecturing them, hectoring them or even creating obstacles to divorce. We support families with fellowship, with community, with solidarity and with social infrastructure. As I have said, I would like people to have access to lawyers—we wicked lawyers, but when you need us we are not so wicked—in time times of trouble, but also to counselling and relationship support long before there is trouble and, indeed, all through their lives. I really have taken on board the points that were made by two noble Baronesses at least about timing, because this support should be available very early in life and, as noble Lords opposite have said, perhaps even before people entertain the idea of marriage. That was the reason for supporting the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, in Amendment 3, although I take the points about timing and do not want to delay noble Lords further on this.
I hope the Minister will take the opportunity, in responding to this group, to set out what the Government propose more generally by way of this kind of provision for counselling and relationship support, because it seems, to me at least, all-too scant at the moment.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I will begin with Amendment 3, moved by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. I am grateful to the noble and right reverend Lord, not only for his thoughtful contribution to the debate and the scrutiny of the Bill but for meeting me to discuss his proposals.
The Government share the sentiment underlying this amendment, and the observations of a number of noble Lords that couples considering divorce should have available to them information about the services in question, and that where reconciliation is still possible, the legal process should not dim that prospect. On the second point, the Bill introduces for the first time a minimum timeframe of 20 weeks from the application to when the court can be asked to make the conditional order of divorce. The Bill also retains the two-stage procedure for obtaining a divorce under the distinctive procedure of English law, so that each step on the way to divorce requires an intentional and, indeed, conscious decision to end the marriage.
The Government’s view is that best prospect of saving a marriage is when difficulties first arise, not much later when divorce proceedings have begun. In the University of Newcastle evaluation of pilots to test the information-meeting provision that was central to the no-fault provisions in the now-repealed Part II of the Family Law Act 1996, the report noted:
“If the objective of providing information is to facilitate marriage saving, the evidence suggests that it will be more effective if it is provided while spouses are still together and before they make the decision to live apart.”
The Government share the desire to encourage more couples to resolve any disagreements about children or financial arrangements through mediation, avoiding, wherever possible, the need to seek a court adjudication. For these reasons, the Government do not support this amendment but believe that its laudable ends can be achieved by other means.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to these amendments. I was slightly surprised that my noble friend Lady Meacher was so hostile to my amendment, as it would not require the divorcing couple to do anything and would not in itself delay the process of divorce. It would mean simply that they receive information, treating them as mature human beings who are aware of the information available.
As the Minister said, I had a very useful meeting with him, in which he outlined some ways of making people more aware of relationship support and mediation services through the internet. We talked about the possibility of there being a question on the original application form asking the applicant whether they are aware of these services. Perhaps when he comes back on Report he could spell out in more detail what he has said to the Committee and to me. I realise that this is not a matter for legislation, but perhaps he could put on the record the kind of thing which might appear on either the original application or online. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Agnew of Oulton
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 30 January be approved.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office and the Treasury (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, I shall also speak to the Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Regulations 2020.
The Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations set the national insurance contributions rates, limits and thresholds for the 2020-21 tax year. They will allow the Government to deliver on their manifesto commitment to cut national insurance contributions for 31 million hard-working people across the United Kingdom. National insurance contributions, or NICs, are social security contributions. Payment of NICs determines eligibility for the state pension and other contributory benefits. NIC receipts go towards funding the NHS and these same contributory benefits.
I will first outline the changes to the class 1 primary threshold and class 4 lower profits limit. The primary threshold and lower profits limit indicate the points at which employees and the self-employed start paying class 1 and class 4 NICs, respectively. These thresholds will rise from £8,632 to £9,500 per year. These changes, promised in our manifesto, underline the Government’s commitment to ensure that work pays, putting more money into the pockets of hard-working people. They will benefit around 31 million taxpayers, with a typical employee £104 a year better off compared to 2019-20. Increases to the primary threshold and lower profits limit do not impact on state pension eligibility. This is determined by the lower earnings limit for employees and payment of class 2 NICs for the self-employed.
The lower earnings limit will rise in line with inflation from £6,136 to £6,240 per year. The upper earnings limit, where employees start paying 2% NICs, is aligned with the higher-rate threshold. As announced at the 2018 Budget, it will be frozen and remain at £50,000 per year.
The self-employed pay both class 2 and class 4 NICs. The rate of class 2 NICs will rise in line with inflation from £3 a week to £3.05 a week. The small profits threshold is the point above which the self-employed must pay class 2 NICs. This will rise with inflation from £6,365 to £6,475 per year. For class 4 NICs, as already outlined, the lower profits limit will rise to £9,500. The upper profits limit is where the self-employed start paying 2% NICs. This is also aligned with the higher-rate threshold and will remain at £50,000 per year.
For employers, the secondary threshold determines where they start paying employer NICs. This will rise with inflation from £8,632 to £8,788 per year. The level at which employers of people aged under 21 and apprentices aged under 25 start to pay employer NICs will remain frozen at £50,000 per year.
Finally, class 3 contributions allow people voluntarily to top up their national insurance record. The rate for class 3 will increase in line with inflation from £15 to £15.30 per week.
The regulations also make provision for a Treasury grant of up to 5% of forecasted annual benefit expenditure to be paid into the National Insurance Fund, if needed, during 2020-21. A similar provision will be made in respect of the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund. I hope that this is a useful overview of the changes we are making to bring rates of support and contributions to the Exchequer in line with inflation. I commend to the House the draft regulations.
Moving on to the Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Regulations, the Government are committed to delivering a welfare system that is fair for claimants and taxpayers while providing a strong safety net for those who need it most. These regulations will ensure that tax credits, child benefit and guardian’s allowance increase in line with the consumer prices index, which had inflation at 1.7% in the year to September 2019.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to say a few words about child benefit. I will not repeat the general arguments about the four-year benefit freeze that I made in Grand Committee but simply want to underline the implications of that freeze for child benefit, particularly because the freeze about to end must be seen in the context of the treatment of child benefit since 2010.
Child benefit had already been frozen between 2010-11 and 2013-14 and was then increased by only 1% for two years before being subjected to the freeze in working-age benefits. This means that, with the exception of two years when inflation was really low, its value has been reduced every year since 2010. The result is that not only has its real value been reduced by around 6% because of the four-year freeze but, according to the House of Commons Library briefing, it is now worth 17% less for the first child and 16.5% less for subsequent children than it would have been had it been uprated in line with the CPI since 2010. That means a loss of nearly £370 this year for a two-child family.
The Resolution Foundation calculates that for second and subsequent children the benefit is now worth less than when it was fully introduced in 1979, is less than half as generous as it used to be compared to average earnings and, shockingly, is less generous than the post-war family allowance. For first children, it is close to an historic low. The Resolution Foundation concludes that
“it is fair to say that child benefit is at its stingiest in forty years.”
Thus, while we are of course all pleased that the freeze has come to an end, as required by law, simply uprating benefits in line with inflation is not good enough. The Minister said that an extra £800 million was going to be spent on this and tax credits. Is that £800 million simply due to inflation-proofing? If so, it is not extra at all but simply keeping things as they are. If austerity is genuinely coming to an end, the Government should make good at least some of the loss that child benefit has suffered during the past decade, as it is unfair that families with children should bear the brunt of austerity. Raising child benefit by more than inflation would be much more effective in helping low-income working families than a further rise in personal tax allowances.
It is not just the benefit that has been frozen but the thresholds for the high-income charge introduced in 2013, which are still frozen. I will spare noble Lords the principled and practical arguments against the introduction of the charge, but, having introduced it, is there not a responsibility on the Government to ensure that the thresholds keep pace with median earnings? Both the Resolution Foundation and the IFS have analysed the effects. According to the IFS, in the last financial year around 270,000 more families lost some or all of their child benefit than would have been the case had the threshold been price-indexed. The difference would be bigger still had it been earnings-indexed, which is arguably what it should be unless the Government want to hit families lower down the income distribution than originally intended.
Unless there is a change of policy, the IFS warns that by 2022 as many as a fifth of families will be affected. Moreover, if the higher-rate tax threshold continues to be indexed in line with inflation while the child benefit threshold remains frozen, it points out that
“for the first time significant numbers of families without a higher-rate taxpayer will lose some Child Benefit”,
possibly as many as 120,000 by 2022-23. Is this really what the Government want? Extrapolating further into the future, the Resolution Foundation points out that, because the income charge is applied to an individual’s income and universal credit is based on family income, there could come a point when some people are simultaneously receiving universal credit and being subjected to the high-income child benefit charge. As it observes:
“This would be somewhat absurd, as well as creating marginal tax rates of near 100 per cent.”
As the IFS points out, cutting benefits “by stealth” in this way
“can do nothing for trust in government.”
Can the Minister explain the justification for freezing the thresholds? As a matter of urgency, could he take a message back to the Treasury asking the Chancellor to stop the rot in the next Budget and increase the thresholds, preferably in line with earnings but at the very least in line with prices, and restore them to their position when introduced?
There was a time when the Conservative Party strongly supported child benefit, which of course replaced child tax allowances as well as family allowances. It acknowledged the important role it plays in recognising that children reduce taxable capacity at every income level, in strengthening work incentives, in providing families, particularly mothers, with a degree of financial security and in supporting the next generation regardless of the family they are born into. It hailed it as “simple and well understood”, although it is rather less simple now because of the high-income charge.
Some 75 years ago, during the final stage of the then Family Allowances Bill, Eleanor Rathbone told MPs:
“In early days I used to describe meetings of employers and employed, landowners and rentiers sitting round a table competing for their share in the national income with a woman coming from behind and holding out her hand, saying, ‘I am the mother, the future citizens and workers depend on me; where is my share?’ This Bill gives the mother through her children her share, although it is only a very little share so far.”—[Official Report, Commons, 11/6/1945; cols. 1419-20.]
Can the Minister assure us that the Government are committed to ensuring that children now receive their fair share through the child benefit scheme that replaced family allowances, or are we witnessing the gradual destruction of Eleanor Rathbone’s dream?
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for illuminating the underlying policy issues that underpin these statutory instruments. There is a real fear in my party—and I know in hers—that the changes that are taking place today embed, in effect, austerity for those on benefits and those on the lowest incomes. However, because we are looking at statutory instruments, I am going to make my comments extremely narrow. I recognise that for the annual rerating of NIC contributions and various other benefits, we are simply implementing a mechanism that has been through a normal parliamentary process. Frequently, this has been part of a Budget; it would certainly have been debated in both Houses, and MPs would have had an opportunity to express an opinion in the Commons if they wished to make changes. However, I am somewhat at a loss—and perhaps the Minister will help me—as to how any of that applies to the changes in PT and LPL.
It is not that I have a particular objection to the changes, but it appears that their basis lies in the Conservative manifesto, not in actions taken in the other place either in the form of a Budget—because the Budget is not due for another week—or in a finance Bill, which is where I would expect fundamental changes such as this, which affect most working people, to be embedded. It is hard to accept that changes are being made to national insurance contributions, which have a major impact on the Budget, but not within the context of the Budget. I am rather concerned that the Government might be returning to a pattern that we have seen in the past, when major policy change was introduced by statutory instrument rather than through primary legislation or being put into the Budget framework, where full debate and challenge could take place. It happened with universal credit, as I think everybody who is present in the House today will remember, and I am now concerned to see this appearing here within two of these statutory instruments. So that is where I would like the Minister to focus: to explain why a change which, as far as I can see, perfectly belongs to next week’s Budget and a finance Bill, is appearing in a statutory instrument, where, by definition, the debate is extremely limited and challenge is, frankly, near impossible.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I will take a similar self-denying ordinance to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and speak relatively briefly. I would like simply to put on record my support for the excellent speech by my noble friend Lady Lister. I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, in failing to understand why this is not part of the Budget. Because it is not part of the Budget, it is lacking in process. In some senses, virtually all the changes that the Minister described are designed to introduce the CPI increases of 1.7%. Insomuch as that has previously been announced in budget processes, I cannot object, except on the wider basis that my noble friend Lady Lister outlined.
There is one particular increase, however—the increase in PT, which I am told is the “primary threshold”—which is not in line with inflation. Its excuse for being introduced is that it is in the Conservative manifesto. I have a copy of that manifesto and I have to admit that I could not find it. Fortunately, a member of the Treasury was able to advise me that it was on page 15—which was conveniently not numbered, but never mind. It says:
“We not only want to freeze taxes, but to cut them too. We will raise the National Insurance threshold to £9,500 next year—representing a tax cut for 31 million workers.”
I thought that a basic rule of introducing a change of policy would be that it would be properly costed. Just to make sure that this was not trivial, I did a few sums. The effect, as the Minister said, is to increase the threshold by £868; it would have increased a little anyway because of the 1.7%, but the policy impact is something like a real £720 increase. If you multiply that by the 12% rate and the 31 million people involved, you get a figure of, say, £2.7 billion. My concern is that such a sizable sum ought to have been properly set out and illustrated.
The Explanatory Memorandum says:
“A Tax Information and Impact Note has not been prepared for this instrument as it gives effect to previously announced policy and it relates to routine changes to rates, limits and thresholds.”
Well, it does not. This one is clearly a policy change, and clearly the cost is a few billion pounds. Will the Minister tell us how much it will cost? Why was it not set out in the Explanatory Memorandum? Surely it is improper to introduce a national insurance change that is a reduction in taxation without calculating its cost and putting that in the public domain.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, I will try to deal with the queries raised by the noble Baronesses and the noble Lord. I will start with the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on the impact of the historic benefit freeze. We have to put all these events into some context. When the freeze was originally announced in 2010, we were putting the public finances back on track. For example, before 2010, welfare spending was rising at an unsustainable rate. Between 1997-98 and 2010-11, welfare spending rose by £84 billion in real terms—a 65% increase. The Government are committed to building a welfare system that ensures that work pays, that there is a strong safety net for people who need it, and that the system is fair for claimants and taxpayers. As I mentioned in my earlier comments, this is a substantial payment back into the system to support some of our most needy and vulnerable people. However, the Government are not able to provide a blank cheque for an unlimited uprating from the years of austerity that we have had to come through.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I asked some specific questions, which I do not believe the noble Lord has answered. I will not get into a long debate about sustainability and so forth, although I addressed that in Grand Committee—there is no evidence at all that it was unsustainable. First, I asked about the extra £800 million to which the noble Lord referred. What is that? Is it simply raising in line with inflation? If so, that is not new money. I asked him what the justification was for continuing to freeze the high-income charge threshold, and whether the Government were still committed to child benefit.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
The answer to the first part of the noble Baroness’s question is that this is what it will cost; the figure I mentioned earlier in my comments, which I think was £800 million, is the cost. The second question was: what about the people at the top end? Again, I am proud to represent a Government who are focusing our attention on those at the very bottom end of income, so this is where we are at the moment. I cannot speak for the Budget—
Lord Tunnicliffe
Can I just check the Minister? The area that I was concerned about, which is the increase in the PT, affects virtually every taxpayer and is not in any way concentrated at the bottom end of employment.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I was dealing with questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister; if I understand correctly, she was concerned—
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I point out that if the Government were really concerned about those at the bottom end, they would put more money into child benefit rather than personal tax allowances. Personal tax allowances are no good at all to families at the bottom end, whereas child benefit is extremely helpful to them. If they were really concerned about people at the bottom end, as I argued in Grand Committee, they would be raising basic benefits by more than inflation this year to start making up for the freeze, which was much bigger than expected because inflation was higher than anticipated. I therefore ask the Minister not to say that the Government care most about people at the bottom end.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, the policy of our Government, progressively over the past 10 years, has been to get people into work. We are now seeing some of the highest levels of employment since the war, and in the last year we saw earnings start to outstrip inflation. That has taken a long time, but that is what we have done. We strongly believe that, if we are to help the most vulnerable people in society, the best way is through the dignity of employment and earnings, which is why we have focused on that area.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about the primary threshold and lower profits limits. Again, this comes back to what I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, which is that, yes, this is a manifesto promise. We said on page 15, as the noble Lord quite rightly said, that we were going to do this; this is what this statutory instrument achieves today; it will be a tax cut for around 31 million people; and it is £104 a year, which, for people at the bottom end, is a meaningful improvement in their lives.
Baroness Kramer
Could the Minister explain why it is appropriate to do that through a statutory instrument, and to what extent that undermines the ability of Parliament to hold the Government accountable? I am sure that he has great respect for his Members in the other place, but they may well have had opinions on this issue. They may have had the opportunity to express them in the sense that the SI has gone through the other place, but I very much doubt that they have had the opportunity for any kind of detailed debate or challenge. In addition, they cannot possibly know what the consequences are, because it has to be in the context of a Budget, where, presumably, the loss of revenue is made up for in some other way or by borrowing, and those are major consequences. As the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, pointed out, the numbers are not de minimis but incredibly significant.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I respectfully repeat what I said to the noble Baroness: we are trying to focus support at the bottom end of the income scale. To deal with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, since 2010 we have seen over 700,000 fewer children living in workless households and over 1 million fewer workless households overall. We believe that that is how you deal with poverty and improve dignity.
The NIC regulations set the rates, limits and thresholds for the 2020-21 tax year. They allow for the collection of £120 billion of NICs to fund the state pension and contribute to NHS funding, and deliver on the Government’s promise to deliver a tax cut for 31 million working people. I commend the draft regulations to the House.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I have another question. I asked specifically: are the Government still committed to child benefit? The Conservative Party used to be committed to it; are the Government still committed to it? The Minister gave me no answer, which implies that he is not.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, I have absolutely no indication that we are not committed to child benefit.
Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Regulations 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Agnew of Oulton
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 30 January be approved.
Employment Allowance (Excluded Persons) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Agnew of Oulton
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 16 January be approved.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office and the Treasury (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to the fact that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee described this instrument as an “instrument of interest” in its third report of 30 January.
This draft legislation will allow the Government to target the national insurance and employment allowance at those businesses that need it most. Employers pay class 1 national insurance contributions on their employees’ earnings above the secondary threshold, set at £8,632 this year. That is charged at 13.8% and contributes the largest business tax by revenue in the UK.
The employment allowance was introduced in 2014 to help businesses with employment costs and to encourage businesses to grow and hire more staff. It is claimed by more than 1 million employers to reduce their employer NIC bill by up to £3,000. Since its introduction, it has taken 590,000 businesses out of paying NIC altogether.
I remind noble Lords that the employment rate is at an all-time high of 76.2%. Since 2010, youth unemployment has halved and 3.7 million more people are in employment. This is a nationwide phenomenon. In the past year, three-quarters of employment growth was outside London and the south-east.
At present, all businesses—from greengrocers to Goldman Sachs, butchers to Barclays and pubs to Primark—can receive a relief from the Government of up to £3,000 off their total employer NIC bill. Big businesses get the same benefit as small ones. However, for larger businesses, that £3,000 is a small amount relative to their total employment costs, and is therefore unlikely to encourage them to take on more staff. It is right to target the support at smaller businesses for which this £3,000 makes a difference to the cost of doing business. It is for this reason that the Government decided to restrict the employment allowance to smaller businesses in the 2018 Budget, which means that, from April 2020, only businesses with an employer NIC bill below £100,000 will be eligible for the employment allowance. More than 99% of micro-businesses with fewer than 10 employees and 93% of small businesses with fewer than 50 employees will remain eligible for the employment allowance. Around 80,000 employers will lose the employment allowance. This constitutes just 8% of businesses currently receiving it, all of which have a wage bill above £700,000 a year.
Targeting the employment allowance at smaller businesses means that it falls under EU de minimis state aid regulations, which relate to small amounts of aid that can be given without notifying the European Commission. Most businesses can receive up to €200,000 of de minimis state aid cumulatively in a three-year period. Under the de minimis regime, to claim the EA, businesses need to notify HMRC annually as part of the existing claims process and confirm that they can receive the employment allowance without exceeding their cap. After consulting widely, we removed the requirement to specify exactly how much state aid businesses receive, to make it easier for them to claim the reformed employment allowance. As the Prime Minister announced, we will develop our own separate and independent policy on subsidies when the transition period has ended. We will have a modern system for supporting British business in a way that fulfils British interests.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that while the employment allowance aids small businesses, giving large businesses with a wage bill of £700,000 or more £3,000 off their NIC bill is not good value for money. The Government have committed to go further with their support for small businesses. As the Government look to level up across the country, this reform will raise more than £1 billion over the course of this Parliament to fund vital public services and target support for small and medium-sized businesses.
I am grateful for the House’s consideration of these regulations and for any points that noble Lords may like to make.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will be extremely brief. I am supportive of this change. It seems appropriate that the employment allowance is focused on the smallest businesses. I fully accept what the Minister says: that small businesses will be far more motivated to take on additional staff than any large business by this—in effect—grant.
On reading this, it seems that one of motivations is to make sure that the employment allowance is covered by only the de minimis regulations in the EU. Am I correct that it is the Government’s long-term policy focus to direct this aid towards small businesses, and that this is not just an accommodation to what they see as an EU framework—in other words, that it portends the future? Can the Minister give us any further assurance that any money saved will be redirected into the small business community?
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“The purpose of this reform is to target the Employment Allowance to support smaller businesses.”
It directs us to Employment Allowance: Excluded Persons Regulations 2020, a document published in January this year, which repeats that statement:
“This reform is designed to focus the Employment Allowance at the original intended beneficiaries: smaller businesses.”
This is rubbish. You have businesses that can currently claim this £3,000, you have a very large group of businesses whose NI bill is less than £100,000—for which the rules will not change one iota as a result of this SI—and you have another group in the £100,000-plus category that will get nothing. It may be the Government’s intention to focus on smaller businesses, but this SI has no such effect. In fact, the sole impact of this SI is to save the Government money. I do not mind this, and the statutory instrument is perfectly reasonable. I just do not like the fact that false claims are made in this document. Unless the noble Lord is able to give me the assurance that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer seeks, it seems improper to claim that taking money from one group while doing nothing about another somehow focuses more money on the group that you are not going to change.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I thank noble Lords for their comments. I think I can answer the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, together with regard to our commitment to supporting small businesses. It is very much our intention to do this. We have a manifesto commitment to increase the employment allowance. On the issue that he raised, I hope that by freeing up some of the money that is frankly not particularly benefiting larger business, we will have some flexibility to help those at the lower end. That is very much our policy, and I hope we will hear more about this in the Budget, which I of course cannot forestall.
I turn to the noble Lord’s technical comment about burdens, and certainly commend him for his forensic analysis of those numbers. I will write if I get this wrong but I genuinely think that we are trying to make claiming this a bit easier. We are removing the need to list de minimis state aid. Therefore, to fill this form in—I hope—needs only a few minutes, as his arithmetic would indicate. However, I will write to him formally if I have got the wrong end of the stick, because I am not as well informed as he is on that item.
These regulations make important changes by restricting eligibility for the employment allowance to businesses with an NIC below £100,000. They enable the Government to target support at small and medium-sized businesses which need it most. As I have mentioned, they will raise £1 billion over this Parliament to fund public services and to continue to support small businesses. I commend these draft regulations to the House.
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [HL]
Tuesday 3rd March 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 View all Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 2-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Committee - (2 Mar 2020)
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Member’s explanatory statement
This would extend the minimum legal period for a divorce from six months to one year (with the additional six weeks between the conditional and final orders).
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I understand that the question to which this clause is an answer was in the consultation and that the answer in consultation was 12 months, whereas here it is six. I just wonder what superior knowledge the Government had in mind in going to six months when the consultation seemed to say 12.
I have had some experience in this area, 20-something years ago. When I proposed the 1996 Bill, I put in 12 months—that is what I am asking for now; I am nothing if not consistent—but on that occasion Parliament decided that it should in fact be 18 months. Putting it up by six months is something with which I am fairly familiar, so I invite my noble and learned friend to explain the situation.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, this amendment more than doubling the period before conditional order seems to be based on the proposition that the law obliging people to stay married for longer will either help children or encourage more reconciliations. In the debate on Amendment 2, speakers on all sides of the House demonstrated the fundamental commitment of us all to the welfare of children, who—as we all agree—suffer badly from family breakdown and its consequences. The noble and learned Lord spoke eloquently on that. For all the reasons given by many noble Lords in the earlier debate, I agree with those who have said there is no basis for saying that the children’s interests would be best served by denying or delaying divorce to one or both parties to a marriage who have determined on a divorce.
As for the second proposition, that keeping unwilling couples tied into a failed marriage for a longer period may lead to more reconciliations, the evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary. The decision to divorce is a hard one, rarely taken lightly. Of course, changes of mind occur. Separated couples often get back together—sometimes successfully and sometimes not, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, pointed out earlier—but in every such case they make the decision to reconcile willingly, not because they are obliged by law to try to do so. In some cases, of course, divorced couples even remarry each other. Again, that step is open to couples after divorce and is dependent on free will, not obligation.
Once the decision to divorce has been made, forcing parties to stay married for longer than is necessary to confirm that decision serves no purpose. Enforced delay rarely leads to reconciliation. It extends the unhappiness and uncertainty. It infringes on the parties’ autonomy, preventing them making decisions for themselves, arranging their new personal lives and futures, making safe and secure arrangements for their children and organising their family finances. It also—most significantly, I suggest—extends the hostility between the parties, who are frequently embittered by divorce proceedings and whose embitterment starts to heal only when the divorce is finalised and they go about the business of joint but separate parenting or building new, separate lives. This Bill is all about reducing bitterness by removing fault from the actual process of divorce.
The Government have proposed a 20-week period—reflecting other jurisdictions, such as New York and Finland—as appropriate for the confirmation of the decision to divorce. No period will ever be perfect to the week, but my belief is that the 20-week period to a conditional order is about right and is supported by the evidence. I commend the Government for choosing it.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I have attached my name to Amendment 21 tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. As he said, his original Family Law Act 1996 required this longer period, and explicitly stated that this enabled the children and the finances to be resolved. Importantly, this meant that someone was not free to remarry before these important responsibilities from the former marriage had been put to bed. To quote my noble and learned friend, at Second Reading on the Family Law Bill, he said:
“A very important requirement in the Bill is the requirement that parties decide all arrangements relating to their children, finance and home before a separation or divorce order can be made… In making this change the Government have been influenced by those who responded to their consultation paper who were of the view that parties who marry should discharge their obligations undertaken when they contracted their earlier marriage, and also their responsibilities which they undertook when they became parents, before they become free to remarry.” [Official Report, 30/11/95; col. 703.]
I am fully aware that the report Finding Fault? Divorce Law and Practice in England and Wales states that the average length of divorce proceedings is currently six months. A six-month minimum period would therefore mirror current practice. A longer period would be punitive for those who need to divorce quickly. This would include those experiencing domestic abuse, as we have heard, with 15% of Finding Fault? petitioners citing physical violence.
To this I say two things. First, it seems that when it suits the researchers, behaviour patterns are accurate, so when 15% cite domestic violence, what they say is accurate. Yet as I understand it, one of the main reasons for this no-fault divorce—for removing fault from divorce—is that in the majority of cases, the reason given is either false or inaccurate.
Secondly, in the consultation preceding the Bill before us, in response to the question: “What minimum period do you think would be most appropriate to reduce family conflict, and how should it be measured?”, 1,044 people—33% of the 3,128 responses—said a year. Only 297—9%—said six months.
In their response to the consultation, the Government said:
“Those opposed to reforms proposed a minimum period of one or two years, depending on whether the application was joint or sole, or on whether the couple had children.”
In other words, those opposing the reforms should be ignored, even though they were in the majority. Remember the bigger picture of the consultation: 83% wanted to retain the right for an individual to contest a divorce. Only 15% stated that this right should be removed. Also, some 80% did not agree with the proposal to replace the five facts with a notification process. A mere 17% were in favour. However, the Government also said:
“Those who selected nine months or longer felt that this would enable counselling or mediation and proper reflection to enable reconciliation where possible. In particular, those suggesting a year or more felt that this would more properly reflect the importance of both marriage and divorce as significant life decisions, particularly in cases involving children or where one party wishes to remain in the marriage.”
This Bill takes account only of the worst-case scenario—domestic violence—and deems the application for divorce to be a one-way street towards a final order.
The Bill should also take account of good things happening. The Government have said that they wish to make sure that couples have sufficient time to reflect on the decision to divorce and that that reflection period may result in them pulling back from the brink. I have heard noble Lords say today that when someone applies for a divorce because of irretrievable breakdown there is no going back, but we are introducing a new element into divorce proceedings based on the applicant saying that there is one-fault divorce. For example, a husband who is having an affair with someone in the office and his wife has no idea about it, knows that all he needs to do is write a letter to the court and say that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. The wife has not been advised and this comes as a bombshell to her. There could be many instances like this where, because of the new procedure, a unilateral request for a divorce is not recognised by both parties.
Many people initiate divorce early in the new year, which is also a popular time for booking one’s summer holidays six months hence. We all know that that six months goes extremely quickly and, before you know where you are, you are in June when it was January. Likewise, a divorce which gathers momentum and is all over at the end of six months will seem to come around very quickly, especially for the party who has been unilaterally divorced. Time for reflection and reconciliation will be squeezed out.
If the Government were to accept the amendment, I would expect it to extend to Clause 4 and to civil partnerships.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, when the Government consulted in 2018 on the Bill’s proposals, a number of headlines suggested that we were introducing quickie divorces; indeed, in some quarters, that misapprehension may linger. However, in a sense, we are putting an end to them. Under our reform Act, applicants cannot apply for a conditional order until at least 20 weeks have passed from the start of the divorce proceedings, along with the current six weeks between conditional and final orders, and that is a minimum period. Of course, progression from one stage to the next will never be automatic.
Applications for divorce are increasingly made online and the Government’s updated impact assessment, which was published last April, projected that, under these reforms, on average we would be adding between nine and 10 weeks to the divorce process based on the expected impact of full implementation of online divorce. So we are certainly not reducing the overall time for the average divorce. Indeed, at present rather more than 80% of divorces take place sooner than the timescale set out in the Bill.
I acknowledge that there is no magic number as far as this timing is concerned. A single divorce law must work for everyone and, in introducing the new minimum period before conditional order, we have carefully considered what period would most effectively help applicants consider the implications of divorce and allow couples to reach an agreement on practical matters without unduly lengthening the process. That is the purpose of the minimum period. It is certainly not intended to be punitive in any way.
The question then arises: why six months overall rather than a year or even a month? The Government have reflected on the different views put forward during the consultation and, at that time, some key organisations broadly supported six months as a reasonable period to meet the emotional and practical needs of divorcing couples. However, they also noted that there could be problems if that period was longer. Indeed, a period substantially longer than at present could unduly delay necessary financial arrangements, for example, and it would be particularly unhelpful if a couple had already been separated for a long period of time before the application is made. We therefore made the judgment that six months strikes an appropriate balance that allows a better opportunity for parties to adjust and a reasonable period for them to consider the implications of the step that they are taking.
As I say, there is no magic number. It is a case of exercising judgment and we consider that the period of 20 weeks, together with the six-week period, is appropriate in the circumstances, and we would not propose to extend that period by way of amendment to the Bill. In these circumstances, I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, of course it is a matter of judgment. I had to do the judgment some time ago. The other angle which has to be taken into account is that when the divorce proceedings are finished, parties are apt to lose interest in their responsibilities under the marriage that has been terminated. I have seen that as a matter of fact from time to time. For example, fathers who desert find it very difficult to remember to pay the necessary support money to the deserted lady. That kind of thing can be made worse if the divorce has been completed before all the financial matters have been settled. However, I agree that this is a matter of judgment, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Farmer
“( ) For the purposes of subsection (5), “the start of the proceedings” means—(a) in the case of an application that is to proceed as an application by both parties to the marriage, the date on which both parties apply for a divorce order, or(b) in the case of an application that is to proceed as an application by one party to the marriage only, the date when the notice of an application for a divorce order has been served to the other party to the marriage.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to address that, if the 20-week period begins as soon as the application is made, the respondent may have less than 20 weeks by the time they have been served notice.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I support this amendment on the basis that it is not right that the length of the notice should be determined solely by the applicant. The present definition of the start of the application is settled by the rules of court. It would be a good idea if the rules of court committee examined this matter because if it is willing to change the present rule to a rule that accommodates the need to make sure that the respondent has received some kind of notice, either as a deemed service or as an actual service, at the start of the proceedings, that would be satisfactory. It would also be satisfactory if it were left to the rules committee because who knows what difficulties might arise? Nobody can forecast every possibility. If it was with the rules committee it could make the necessary adjustment later without recourse to Parliament. It is good idea that the rules committee decides this question. I think that is the best answer to it.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Burt of Solihull. Amendments 8 and 9 concern applications for divorce orders, Amendments 11 to 13 concern applications for judicial separation orders, and Amendments 17 and 18 concern applications for dissolution orders in respect of civil partnerships. In speaking, I shall address the applications for divorce orders, but the others run in parallel.
Our amendments have one theme: the Bill starts the 20-week period leading to the conditional order with the start of proceedings. I see the point the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, makes that that is not technically defined, but on any ordinary construction—the construction intended by the drafters of the Bill—the start of the proceedings is the issue of the application.
Concern was expressed at Second Reading and publicly that, under the Bill as drafted, the respondent may not receive notice of the application for a conditional order—this the point the noble and learned Lord was making—before much or all of the 20-week period has passed. He or she may not, therefore, have had time to consider his or her position before the proceedings are effectively determined, so the respondent could find himself or herself subject to a conditional order before even knowing of the proceedings. To that concern, some supporters of the Bill—which I strongly support—respond that to start the 20-week period only on service of the proceedings would encourage, or at the very least enable, unco-operative respondents to evade service or to refrain from acknowledging service, and that would frustrate the proceedings. This concern was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord at Second Reading. Our probing amendments are designed to encourage a search for a compromise by requiring an applicant to serve his or her application for a divorce order quickly, with provision for that applicant to apply to dispense with service, or to apply for an order that service be deemed. Those provisions would involve an obligation to ensure that the applicant knows of the proceedings well before a conditional order is made and, at the same time, to prevent respondents from seeking to frustrate the proceedings by avoiding service or not responding to them.
We have suggested a time limit of six weeks for service by the applicant—of the application for an order or for an alternative order—dispensing with or deeming service. We recognise the concerns of some, including those of Professor Trinder from the University of Exeter—I completely endorse her views on every other aspect of the Bill—but it is difficult, at present, to secure an order dispensing with or deeming service within a six-week time limit. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that rule changes could be made to speed up those procedures. There is a possible concern, also mentioned by some, that “service” needs better definition for this Bill. Perhaps it does, but that can be achieved.
Neither I nor any other noble Lord who supports these amendments is dogmatic about the precise definitions or time limits. At Second Reading, the Minister indicated an openness to discussion on this issue. I am very grateful to him for the time he and his officials have given to the discussions we have had between Second Reading and Committee. I hope that discussions with and within the department will enable a compromise to be reached which will achieve an acceptable balance between applicants and respondents and between simplifying procedures and avoiding injustice. We hope to discuss these issues further, including any necessary rule changes to implement a compromise and the procedures needed to bring about or clarify those rule changes, before Report.
Lord Farmer
My Lords, I shall speak now to my Amendments 5 and 15, which includes civil partnerships. If the 20-week period begins as soon as the application is made, the respondent may have less than 20 weeks by the time they have been served notice. There is even the possibility that they may not hear about it until the end of the period. We can all imagine scenarios in which this could have very negative consequences for the respondent in a sole petition who may have been unaware that the marriage was in the dire straits that a divorce application suggests. It also gives the applicant the advantage. One hears of parental alienation syndrome, where one party can persuade the children to come round to their way of thinking. Also, when it comes to talking about and arranging the finances, one party can find that they have been hidden away.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, as I believe I indicated previously, we accept that we should address the service issue in the context of the Bill. Therefore, I can advise the Committee that my right honourable and learned friend the Lord Chancellor raised this issue with the President of the Family Division last week. The Family Procedure Rule Committee will be invited to consider the matter when reviewing the rules required to implement the Bill, including a rule requiring service of the application within a specific period following the issue of proceedings.
The rule committee has a statutory duty to consider whether to consult on rule changes. I hope it will decide to do so in order that wider scrutiny can be given to any proposals for achieving timely service. I also hope that through the increasing use of an online divorce service many respondents will be served quickly and efficiently by email, as the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, suggested. However, I am clear that the provisions in the Bill will need to work for the many cases that, at least in the short term, will continue to be dealt with through paper applications to the court.
Amendments 5 and 15 seek to provide in the Bill different definitions for the start of proceedings in respect of joint and sole applications. For sole applications, the practical effect will be to define the starting point for the 20-week period as the date on which notice of the proceedings is served on the respondent party. However, that will create the potential for new disputes as to when notice is served or received. The only certain way to evidence this is through an acknowledgement of service, if one is returned by the respondent. Such an approach risks handing too much power to a respondent party who wishes to frustrate the divorce proceedings by avoiding or disputing service or delaying the entire process.
Resolution, the leading body in England and Wales, representing over 6,000 family justice professionals, has identified this as the greater mischief. Its concerns are underpinned by evidence. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to the work of Professor Liz Trinder. In her study, she found that no acknowledgement of service was returned by the respondent in a sample number of cases representing 13.7% of the total. That was only a sample, but it would amount to about 14,000 cases annually if extrapolated nationally. In the majority of cases where there was no return in the sample, this appeared to reflect a decision of the respondent not to co-operate with the process, whether they were opposed to the divorce in principle or simply wanted to make the process difficult for the petitioner.
The amendment creates new potential for mischief from a respondent who is not co-operative. The Government are concerned to avoid introducing new opportunities into the revised legal process for divorce for a perpetrator of, for example, domestic abuse to exercise coercive or controlling behaviour. It is a question of achieving the right balance. We consider that the right way to achieve this is by working with the Family Procedure Rule Committee to address the issue.
I shall deal with the entirety of the group of amendments beginning with Amendment 8, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and consisting also of Amendments 9, 11, 12, 13, 17 and 18. I thank the noble Lord for his consideration of this issue and our discussion of it. Amendments 8, 11 and 17 would amend the Bill to insert a new delegated power into Section 1 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and a new Section 37A into the Civil Partnership Act to enable the Lord Chancellor to make provision by order to set out a further minimum period within which a sole applicant must effect service of notice. Amendments 9, 13 and 18 would make that power subject to the negative resolution procedure and Amendment 12 would apply in judicial separation cases.
These amendments would add to the Bill further delegated powers that are simply not needed. We consider that the best way to achieve resolution of the service issue is to work with the Family Procedure Rule Committee to address the rules around service. The provisions of the Courts Act 2003 already provide a power for the Family Procedure Rule Committee to make rules of court regulating matters governing the practice and procedure to be followed in family proceedings, including the requirements for service. I am quite happy today to give a commitment that we will work with the Family Procedure Rule Committee to address these concerns over service. They already have the relevant statutory powers to address this. In these circumstances, understanding that these were put forward as probing amendments, I invite noble Lords not to press them.
Lord Farmer
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanations. I am to some degree heartened by him wanting new advice to be gained from the rule committee. In this instance, we wish him well and hope we can come to a sound agreement. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Chakrabarti
Member’s explanatory statement
Omits new section 1(6) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, as recommended by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 6 I shall speak also to Amendment 16, both amendments having been recommended by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The reasons set out in the DPRRC report are, in a nutshell, that the matters dealt with under the Henry VIII powers in the Bill are too central to its purpose and therefore not appropriate for the procedure, at least not as currently set out in the Bill. I hope that, in the light of that report, the Minister will consider either accepting my amendments or, perhaps, subjecting these powers to the affirmative procedure.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 6, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. I apologise to the noble Baroness that I did not get a chance to have a chat with her before this evening, as I had originally added my name to the amendment. As the noble Baroness explained, the Bill as it stands proposes minimum periods of 20 weeks and six weeks for the two stages of divorce and dissolution proceedings. I thank the Minister for the very helpful meeting we had last Wednesday, where he clarified that a statutory instrument to shorten the period for divorces would indeed be subject to the affirmative procedure. The question has been whether there is any reason at all why the Lord Chancellor should be given a Henry VIII power to reduce the length of either of the two periods through delegated legislation.
The Bill is very clear that, in a particular case, an application may be made to the court to shorten the period for the proceedings. For example, if one of the partners is dying and wants to sort out their affairs before they die, it would of course be perfectly reasonable for them to make an application to the court to reduce the period required. Also, if there is a need to protect an abused spouse, time may be of the essence. However, to shorten the minimum period for divorce or dissolution in all cases is quite another matter. We have to think about that.
The then Minister for Justice, Paul Maynard MP, emphasised in the Commons Public Bill Committee on 2 July 2019:
“The 20 week period is a key element in a reformed legal process.”
There is currently no minimum period, and with respect to the second stage, the Minister said that part of the objective was
“to improve the financial arrangements. People may wish to delay a little longer until such a point. It is not a maximum period; it is a minimum, and the process might well take longer.”—[Official Report, Commons, Public Bill Committee, 2/7/19; col.35.]
As the Minister knows, I expressed my concern at Second Reading about a future Lord Chancellor having the power to allow for a more rushed process, without proper parliamentary scrutiny. Certainly, the decision to apply the affirmative procedure to any statutory instrument reducing the time period is, in my view, an important improvement. The Government argued in a memorandum that the Lord Chancellor
“will be able to make adjustments to the time periods, for example, if policy considerations meant that it would be appropriate to shorten one or both of the time periods.”
I do not want to be difficult, but when I asked the Minister during his presentation to the Cross-Bench meeting what policy considerations might justify reducing the timeframe for divorces in a general sense, neither he nor the civil servants present could provide an answer. However, during the meeting last Wednesday, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, came—probably quite inadvertently—to the rescue and suggested a justification for the use of this power. The noble and learned Lord suggested that if, for example, there were repeated applications to the court to reduce the length of time from 26 weeks, then a more general reduction in the minimum period would be helpful. Repeated applications to the court are unhelpful to the people immediately affected; I imagine there are delays and all sorts of things, including perhaps costs.
This sounds a very sensible justification for the Henry VIII power. The concern of the Delegated Powers Committee, on which I sit, had been that Ministers at that point had offered no rationale for the Henry VIII power. Now, thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, to whom I must give due credit, we have such a rationale, as well as confirmation from the Minister that the affirmative procedure would be applicable. I am therefore personally satisfied that this matter has been acceptably resolved—I had intended to say “satisfactorily resolved”, but it has certainly at least been acceptably resolved. However, I must emphasise that I am not, of course, speaking for the Delegated Powers Committee as a whole; I am speaking purely as one member.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, under the procedures set out in this new Bill, something like 80% of divorces will now take longer than they otherwise would have done. Having regard to that, it is considered prudent that the Lord Chancellor should have the opportunity as matters develop to be able to adjust the timeframes under which provision is made for divorce in this Bill. What I refer to are future, unforeseen policy considerations, which might indicate that it is appropriate to shorten the length. As was observed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, cited, as an example, a situation in which there were a multitude of applications to reduce the timeframe and it was felt that this directed us towards a conclusion that there should be an overall reduction in the timeframe, because it was creating particular difficulties. That is why these powers exist.
There are essentially there of them: one in respect of divorce, one in respect of partnership and one in respect of nullity of marriage. As the Bill was drafted, these statutory instruments would have been subject to the negative procedure, but, as I indicated during meetings with a number of noble Lords, it is our intention to amend that and to apply the affirmative procedure in order that Parliament may have oversight of any such proposed step. In these circumstances, and with that undertaking to amend before Report stage of the Bill, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Chakrabarti
My Lords, I am hugely grateful to the Minister and to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who does not speak for the committee but is clearly a very important member of that committee. In the light of the assurances given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Farmer
“( ) In the case of an application that is to proceed as an application by one party to the marriage only, there shall be no commencement of financial provision proceedings until the end of the period of 20 weeks from the start of the proceedings for the divorce order unless—(a) the other party to the marriage agrees to the commencement of financial provision proceedings, or(b) there is an application under section 22 for the court to make an order for maintenance pending suit.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that there are no discussions about financial settlement for 20 weeks unless both parties agree or there is an application to the court for interim maintenance and financial injunctions.
Lord Farmer
My Lords, this amendment would ensure that there are no discussions about financial settlement for 20 weeks unless both parties agree, or unless there is an application to the court for interim maintenance and financial injunctions.
The 20-week period I refer to is dependent on the longer period argued for in Amendment 4, which was 46 weeks. If the minimum period is only 20 weeks before a conditional order is granted, a shorter legislation-free period would be appropriate. However, as I am arguing with my noble friend for a 46-week minimum period, waiting 20 weeks before even starting to sort out finances allows the genuine pause for reflection the Government say they are committed to.
There are already many divorces initiated which are not pursued to final order. That number might reduce considerably under a legislative framework that has no natural brake pedal. The Law Society supports the concept of a litigation-free period. I beg to move.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I support Amendment 7. It would carve out a specific 12-week period at the beginning of the divorce process where no financial provision proceedings may take place. Of course, this would not include cases where both parties agree to commencement of such proceedings, or where there is an application for maintenance.
This is a vital amendment, as it would act in the interests of vulnerable respondents and improve the chances of reconciliation. It serves to recognise that the parties to a marriage might have very different perceptions of the marriage at the point when a divorce application is made. It may come out of the blue for one party—we have heard that referred to earlier. They will need time, and it is not helpful to be plunged into the heat of battle over finances. Financial provision proceedings are by nature contentious and would serve only to undermine the chances of meaningful conversation between spouses in the initial weeks. I believe that keeping the first 12 weeks free from litigation would increase the possibility of the parties being able to discuss their marriage without having to take up entrenched positions.
All couples should be given an opportunity, perhaps even be incentivised, to consider the ramifications of divorce carefully and work towards saving their marriage. Some divorcing couples do reconcile and most of those do so in the initial weeks of an application for divorce. This initial 12 weeks is a key period to try to save the marriage.
Ministers in the other place have said that once one party has asked for a divorce, inevitably—in 100% of cases—it means that the marriage is over. But they fail to mention the more than 10,000 divorce proceedings that are dropped each year, while this position is also counter to their own policy objective of making space for reconciliation. I know that we could argue all day about the reasons for that and whether some of them are attributable to cross-petitioning, but no one can deny that some people embark on a divorce and then change their mind because they reconcile with their spouse.
In evidence to a committee in the other place last year, David Hodson OBE, a distinguished family lawyer and spokesman for the Law Society, argued strongly for a 12-week litigation-free zone. He told the committee:
“We are very keen for there to be a period of reflection and consideration, which is what we had in the 1996 legislation in another form, to give an opportunity to pause, reflect, talk, maybe to have counselling, maybe in some cases to have reconciliation and maybe for one party to get up to speed with the other party. It is the constant experience of divorce lawyers that one party may have come to terms with the ending of a marriage before the other, so we are dealing with a very different emotional timetable. This three months will not be of any prejudice. If urgent applications have to be made for interim provision, that is fine. It will not affect children or domestic violence, which are always separate proceedings. It just is a litigation-free zone for three months.”—[Official Report, Commons, Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill Committee, 2/7/19; col. 9.]
Writing into divorce law the concept of a three-month litigation-free period will send a vital signal of hope to divorcing couples that perhaps they can work out their differences. It will give them the time and space to attempt to do so. Most of the debate on the Bill has focused on the barriers to divorce which couples face when their marriage has broken down, but not much time has been spent discussing how many couples reconcile and want to have a strong marriage.
I do not think I need to remind the Committee of the impact of family breakdown in the United Kingdom. We have one of the highest rates of family breakdown in the developed world. Surely this shocking fact places a duty upon us, as legislators, to do something to keep families together if possible. We all recognise that some marriages are unsavable but the Government should not focus on those alone. In addition, we must do all that we can to save marriages which are savable. They exist: why else would we have a proliferation of marriage counselling services? Does our own experience of marriage not tell us that, too? Many marriages go through rocky periods where the spouses, and their family and friends, fear that the writing is on the wall. But then conversations take place, apologies are offered and accepted, and changes are made to behaviour and circumstances—and a few years later, the couple are happier than ever. Let us do something for them, not just the ones where all hope is lost.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, the phrase “the heat of the battle”, just used by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, provides a very succinct and appropriate introduction to my amendment. Everyone who has spoken so far has been in agreement. We support the institution of marriage and civil partnership. We want people to be stable and happy, to avoid disputes, and to provide security and warmth for their children. We differ only on the detail of how best to do it.
The difference between the context of today and that of the last time divorce was debated is the social context: more varieties of relationship, more avoidance of marriage, less disapproval when things go wrong, and more individualism within and outside of the couple’s relationship. The enduring problem is the effect on children of the break-up and how to cope with the dismantling of the housing and financial structure created by the parents. They used to say, “Marry in haste, repent at leisure”; this Bill will put an end to that. It will be “Marry at leisure”—because so many people prefer to cohabit first—and “Repent or divorce in haste”.
I accept that the wish of nearly everyone is to remove as much dispute as possible from the divorce process: to get it over and done with, as quickly as possible, to reduce the pain. It is in that spirit that I am introducing Amendment 20. In their good intentions, the Government have put the cart before the horse. Divorce, whatever its basis, will be over and done with perhaps in weeks or months. But the financial settlement for the couple and their children will have a lifelong effect and is likely to take much longer to arrange than the divorce. It will contain all the bitterness and antagonism that this Bill tries to remove from the substantive divorce.
I have spoken many times about the iniquities of our outdated financial provision law and I will not rehearse them here, save to remind noble Lords that distinguished lawyers—and more importantly members of the public—find that law uncertain and overly judge-made, with little resemblance to the governing statute. The law has no public input, remains unreformed for half a century of social changes and is very costly. I have a list of cases where the legal costs amount to half or more of the couple’s assets. We must also remember that there is no legal aid, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has reminded us. Those who must represent themselves are left to flounder without even the most basic knowledge of what principles of division they should adopt.
Children’s needs are neglected while the adults fight. Only this week, the Times reported that one-third of separated parents are avoiding child payments. The Government will not succeed in removing hostility from the divorce proceedings unless they bring the financial provision law into line. It is almost oven-ready, as they say, as a few years ago the Law Commission drafted a Bill to put prenuptial agreements on a statutory basis. All who know Scottish law can see that its system is far better, cheaper and fairer, with much less recourse to litigation.
I have on several occasions set out proposals for reform, now taken up by the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, in her Private Member’s Bill—the Divorce (Financial Provision) Bill. She is unable to be in her place at this moment, but she is in full support of everything that I am saying.
With the Government’s Bill before us relating to substantive divorce as distinct from the money element, there are further urgent reasons to achieve reform of the financial element of divorce. I will set these out, as they underlie my amendment. In brief, there is no point in trying to achieve the aims of the divorce Bill—to make divorce less acrimonious and harmful to children—if the laws relating to the division of money on divorce remain as uncertain, expensive and acrimonious as they are. Research has shown that the quicker the divorce, the less likely the parties are to come to an agreed settlement, and that they will be more likely to settle on financial matters when more time has elapsed. This does not augur well for consensus in the proposed new law.
Twenty-six weeks is a brutally short period, after which one can well imagine that the unsuspecting spouse is still in the house, reeling with shock, utterly without plans about where to live or how to manage in the future, and without legal advice. The time taken to reach financial settlement is often far longer than the divorce itself, and even more prolonged if the couple cannot agree and must go before a judge. Financial orders can take years, as we read recently in the media about the highest in the land. It is not advisable to apply for the decree absolute, or final divorce order, until the finances are settled, as there may be tax disadvantages if there is a considerable gap between the end of the marriage and the consequential financial transfers.
As explained to me by that experienced noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, the court can adjudicate capital only when a conditional decree—what we used to call the decree nisi—has been obtained. The Bill enables a conditional decree to be obtained faster, but disengagement from marriage can occur only when finances are sorted. Thus the acceleration of the decree is valuable only if the law relating to finance is overhauled, and that too can provide some certainty.
Moreover, if a spouse is not satisfied with the financial settlement on offer at the time of a conditional decree, he or she may apply for the final divorce to be postponed. This is provided for in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and carried over into the Bill, paragraph 10 of the Schedule to which says that
“the court hearing an application by the respondent … must not make the divorce order final unless it is satisfied”
that there should be no
“financial provision for the respondent, or … that the financial provision”—
the offer—
“made by the applicant … is reasonable and fair or the best that can be made in the circumstances.”
Again, the quick divorce may be thwarted by a spouse who is not happy with whatever has been offered and wishes to delay matters.
Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has spoken so fully and clearly on her amendment that it is difficult to find much to say in support of it without repetition. However, three points are entitled to a bit of expansion or repetition: first, prenuptial agreements; secondly, the extraordinary flexibility—or, one might say, disarray—of the reasons the court has to take into account at present in making a financial provision order under Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973; and, thirdly and lastly, the suggestion, which the noble Baroness modestly did not refer to, that her drafting of this amendment shows a degree of favour for her own preferred solution to the very difficult problem of general rules for financial provision.
I will take these points in turn. First, on prenuptial agreements, in the early days of divorce, the notion that an engaged couple might think about and discuss a future divorce was regarded as so shocking that it was ruled in English law as a matter of public policy that a prenuptial agreement was unenforceable. That rule has gradually diminished in importance and has certainly now disappeared, as was confirmed by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in the important case of Radmacher v Granatino about 10 years ago. What the Supreme Court did in Radmacher v Granatino was to take account of the premarital agreement, not to enforce it.
The suggestion is—and it is a powerful suggestion—that the courts should now go further and treat any premarital agreement as to the division of property and resources on divorce as being valid and enforceable so long as it was entered into fairly and so long as it was based on full disclosure of assets by each side of the marriage and full access to independent legal advice for each partner to the marriage. The Law Commission has made a very clear recommendation to that effect, which was in striking contrast to its failure to agree any other part of the changes that might usefully be made to financial provision.
Secondly, turning to the court’s discretion under the existing law as to what financial provision to make, there is an extraordinary provision that has been in force for many years. Section 25(2) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 sets out a confusing list of eight disparate factors with no clear hierarchy or pecking order between them and no clear guidance to first-instance judges as to how they are to take account of these eight disparate factors in ordering financial provisions. Moreover, these eight factors were there long before 1973, since the 1973 Act was, of course, a consolidating Act. It has been very difficult to provide reliable and clear guidance to first-instance judges who have had to deal with these matters, sometimes on inadequate presentation of the facts and considerations in order to do justice.
In the case of White v White, which was decided about 20 years ago, the Law Lords, as they then were —and since then the Supreme Court—did their best to spell out, of the eight disparate factors, some sort of coherent code to be followed. The top court of this country has made heroic efforts to do that, but the result has been, I regret to say, singularly disappointing. It is also necessary to try to relate these factors, which have been part of the law for half a century, to the very different social conditions that we have today.
Surveys and research undertaken by numerous bodies—some working in conjunction with the Law Commission—have shown that there are wide variations in the way the eight factors in Section 25(2) are applied in different parts of the country and by different judges in the same parts of the country. That is not good for the administration of justice. It adds further stress and expense to what is in any event a sufficiently stressful and expensive procedure, especially if one has to take account of the possibility of appeals to higher courts because of the different ways in which the discretion is exercised. By contrast, the new rules for financial provision in Scotland, which are much clearer and which limit much more the extent of judicial discretion, are working well, as a recent survey has revealed.
Thirdly and finally, it has been suggested—I think politely—that the noble Baroness’s amendment is tilted in favour of her own views as to the amendments that should be made to the law. One simple answer to that is that it would be unsurprising if that were so, because she has of course spent a great deal of time thinking about it. However, she has been somewhat modest about the fact that they are not only her own views. The points mentioned specifically in her amendment, including the rule on prenuptial agreements, are not simply her thoughts. She was too modest to mention the fact that they have been embodied in two Bills which passed twice through all stages in this House without a single adverse vote, but which have never passed into law because neither Bill succeeded in finding a sponsor and getting through the House of Commons before the end of the relevant Parliament. Therefore, the matters specified in the amendment reflect the views which have twice been before this House and which have twice been approved by it, without becoming law. I support the amendment and commend it to your Lordships.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
The provisions of Amendments 7 and 17A clearly relate to an important aspect of matrimonial proceedings; namely, the financial settlement. The amendments seek to ensure that there are no discussions about such financial settlements for 20 weeks unless both parties agree. However, does this not illustrate the need for legal advice to be available to the parties, or at any rate to at least one of the parties, in the situation of a divorce? I understand that attempts were made to amend the Bill in that respect, but it was ruled that it was not possible to do so. However, will the Minister undertake to look again, or to persuade his colleagues in the Government to do so, at the issue of providing legal aid for matrimonial matters, particularly of this kind, where one party may well have insufficient resources to procure the necessary advice in this important area of the consequences of a divorce?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I very much support Amendment 20, which the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, spoke to. Not very long ago, I got a fairly impassioned letter from a gentleman I knew who had recently been involved in a divorce. He said that one of the great difficulties in approaching that, which he found by no means easy, was that it was not easy to find out what was likely to happen in relation to finance, and that it was extremely difficult to guess. The reason for that primarily is that the present structure involves a very large amount of judicial discretion. Those of your Lordships who have had the experience of prophesying how a judge will react will understand the difficulty that you encounter with that kind of thing.
Discretion, as I think Lord Bingham said, is a departure from the rule of law, because the discretion becomes the rule not of law but of the judge’s wisdom or lack of it. I remember the old judge in the Court of Session when I first went there: Lord Carmont. He used to say that if you give a thing to a man’s discretion —he was not thinking of women at that time—you commit it also to his indiscretion. The limit of discretion is quite wide.
I thought about trying to do something about this in 1996, but I concluded that it was too difficult to try to mould it to what I was trying to do then. It is probably right that it should not be attempted as part of this Bill. On the other hand, it is mightily necessary to get on with it and get a framework that can be used in the majority of cases. It is true that some discretion may be required—you do not want the framework to be too rigid—but you want it to be fairly clear that this is the way the thing will work unless there are special reasons requiring the exercise of judicial discretion.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I rise to speak briefly in support of Amendment 20, to which the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Shackleton, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay and Lord Walker, have put their names. From a lay, non-legal perspective, it has much to commend it.
While political parties and Governments hesitate to legislate on family matters, in particular divorce, the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 has persisted over the legal landscape of marriage and divorce without being substantially updated by statute for far too long. For example, in recent times, uncertainty around the implementation in law of prenuptial agreements has resulted in bringing misery to many families, adding to the unpleasantness so often experienced at the difficult time of separation.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Shackleton, are to be congratulated on their sustained attempts to bring greater legal certainty to couples through their Private Members’ Bills on financial provision on divorce. Resolution around finance should not be dependent on which judge may be allocated to a case, which even now can predictably lead to wildly differing quantitative outcomes. New Clause 1(c), proposed by Amendment 20, could lead to one party seeking to add financial pressure through the cost burden of legal pursuit and representation, knowing full well that the other party will have to bear a proportion, often a large one, of any litigation.
Although some may argue that a deep examination of each individual situation will bring forward the relative merits of each case and each issue, custom and practice is not a useful or fair guide to society’s changes in family life. It should be a matter for Parliament, not the legal profession. The next legal battle is already developing over cohabitation. The decision to conduct a review of sections of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 under proposed new Clause 1 must be taken by the Government.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for tabling the amendment. I am also grateful to the other signatories to the amendment for sharing their experience and expertise with the Committee, as well as for highlighting the areas for review under the second part of the amendment. It is certainly unfortunate that the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, is unable to be in her place.
I urge the Government to think carefully about this amendment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I will first address Amendments 7 and 17A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. These would prevent the commencement of financial provision proceedings, except for maintenance pending suit, for 20 or even 12 weeks on his alternative, in the absence of the consent of the other party.
I suggest that these amendments—like earlier amendments that restrict the choice and autonomy of parties to a marriage that has failed—are patronising. As I understand it, they are supposed to allow for periods of reflection. I am all for periods of reflection where they will do any good, but they usually do good if they happen before any divorce proceedings are under way.
There are many cases where, by the time divorce proceedings are commenced, a financial provision application has become urgent. This is particularly so where one partner to a broken marriage has remained in an unhappy marriage or is enduring financial hardship, and even in cases where both parties agree to a divorce, but not to the timing or the form of financial provision. One example is when a home should be sold.
It is very important not to hold up financial provision applications on a blanket basis, given that parties frequently stay together long after their marriages have in reality failed, either because they have to live together in one home for financial reasons, or because they decide to stay together for the sake of their children. Why should parties in their position then be made to wait further for financial relief, when delay may cause considerable hardship and unhappiness?
There is, of course, no compulsion on a party to commence financial provision proceedings immediately. I suggest that the timing should remain within the choice of the parties and—where there are such—their advisers.
There are many other cases where, by the time the proceedings are commenced, the parties are living apart. One spouse may be with someone else. Generally speaking, such parties know of the issues between them relating to financial provision before proceedings are brought.
Take for example a currently well-known case. It would be appallingly high-handed to tell a practicing QC, married to a prominent figure—who was very publicly living with someone else, whom he had committed to marry and who was expecting his child—that she would have to delay for 20 weeks before taking steps to secure financial provision in divorce proceedings without his agreement.
There is no good reason to debar financial proceedings once divorce proceedings are under way, so I oppose these amendments.
On Amendment 20, which calls for the review to which the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has spoken so eloquently, I agree that a review of the law on financial provision is desirable. However, I do not think that the statutory requirement for such a review sits comfortably within this legislation, which is, and should be, limited to removing fault from the divorce process.
I take the view, eloquently expressed by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that the process of divorce ought generally to be kept separate from issues of financial provision. I would be happier for the Minister to commit to commissioning, in the near future, a wide-ranging consultation with a review of financial provision on divorce, with a view to updating an area of law that has become, for many, out of date and out of step with modern social mores.
I find in the terms of the noble Baroness’s amendment, borne out in her speech, and discerned and spoken to by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Walker and Lord Mackay, an element of prejudgment of what should come out of such a review. I am not sure that picking out the desirability of importing something like the Scottish provisions, the term of periodical payments and the enforceability of prenuptial and post-nuptial agreements, into what should be a wide-ranging and full review is the best path to conducting it.
I do not share the noble Baroness’s cynicism about the Bar, my profession, nor her view that no barristers support reform of the law in this area. Indeed, I support reform of the law in this area, in many ways on the same basis that she does. I certainly support her view that the law on financial provision is too complex and expensive. I endorse her view and that expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, that there is scope for some kind of a framework or model for use in the generality of cases.
However, there is room for discussion on the extent of judicial discretion, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, pointed out. On the term of maintenance payments, I am particularly concerned about the position of older applicants or those in ill health who would normally expect and be entitled to long-term provision. Cutting maintenance off in the short term might be a bad idea.
While I support the idea of a general review of financial provision, I hope the Bill will not be amended to incorporate a statutory requirement in the terms of the noble Baroness’s amendment—but I would welcome a commitment from the Minister to carry out a consultation and review.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I begin with Amendments 7 and 17A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, which seek to allow one party to block applications for financial provision on divorce throughout all the new 20-week minimum period referred to in the Bill. That is an entirely new restriction for which we have seen no justifying evidence. Nor do we know the potential financial impact it could have on people’s lives. These amendments would still allow financial applications by agreement of the other party, of course, and would also allow applications for maintenance pending suit, but financial orders are not there just for one or the other party to the marriage. They are also there to make sure that, for example, the children’s needs can be met. I appreciate that applications for financial provision in respect of children can be made at any time under Schedule 1 to the Children Act 1989, but we hardly want to promote a solution that pushes people towards yet a further set of legal proceedings.
There is no reason to delay applying for an order that in most cases can come into effect only when the divorce order is made final. Of course, the financial adjustment between the parties has to be made at some stage, but it is in no one’s interests to restrict when an application can be put in train. Indeed, it is worth noting that only once an application has been made can the court direct the parties to undertake full and frank disclosure of their assets and liabilities. Furthermore, these amendments could have the rather perverse effect of allowing one party to effectively coerce or control the other by frustrating attempts to secure a financial settlement and essentially to use that as a delaying tactic.
We are not in favour of this amendment at all. The Bill seeks to set out a very clear revised process for divorce within the existing legal framework. That is what we are anxious to implement, without being diverted by additional qualifications or controls.
I turn to Amendment 20 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. As I said at Second Reading, the Government are considering how to approach any reform of the law with regard to financial settlement. My officials on this Bill are already at work on how best to take this forward. Drawing on that, it will be necessary to essentially lay the parameters for a review that will require, among other things, knowledge and expertise from outside government, to build an evidence base and to assess the problems that the present situation creates.
I hear what is said about the wide diversity of awards that can be made under the existing law, and the potential benefits of embracing a system such as that reflected in the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 as a solution, but it is not a case simply of abandoning the present process of financial provision in the law of England and Wales and embracing that of another jurisdiction. There will be a great deal more than that to do. Therefore, to set a fixed period for review is not, I suspect, helpful, because we are going to have to produce very robust recommendations and proposals that will pass in this House and the other place, and that will require detailed consideration and detailed evidence. I cannot say that such a process would be concluded within a year.
Lord Beecham
Can the Minister respond to my request for the Government to look again at the issue of legal aid in matrimonial cases?
Lord Keen of Elie
The matter of legal aid is not within the scope of the Bill, and it is not the present intention to address it.
Lord Farmer
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I am saddened that mine was not welcomed more than it was, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
For the convenience of the House, when the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness is called, she may then have the opportunity to speak to it.
“Recording lack of consent
After section 1 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (divorce on breakdown of marriage) insert—“1A Supplemental provision in cases where one party does not consent(1) In the case of an application by only one party to the marriage for a divorce order, it must be recorded on the divorce order if the other party to the marriage did not consent to the divorce.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) the other party shall only be taken to not have consented to the divorce if they have made this known to the court prior to the divorce order being made final.””Member’s explanatory statement
This would allow a party to a marriage who did not consent to divorce to have it on record.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, the modest but important point of this amendment would be to permit a spouse who does not want to divorce to have that fact placed on the public record. As I explained at Second Reading, I am concerned that this Bill facilitates a significant shift in power from the respondent to the petitioner, without proper regard either for the best interests of the respondent or any children involved.
This Bill as defined is a petitioner’s charter. Under it, the departing spouse will be able to apply for divorce without citing any reason and will get their divorce in six months. The other party to the marriage will not be able to do anything about it. They will find themselves on a high-speed conveyor belt to divorce with no way of slowing it down, no opportunity to contest, no way to seek justice and not even a reasonable period to prepare themselves for life after the marriage ends.
New subsection (3) in Clause 1 makes it clear that the court cannot seek to examine or verify the departing spouse’s assertion that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. The other spouse may think it is retrievable —and may be right—but under the Bill their option must be ignored completely by the court. Like many couples who contemplate divorce, the right kind of counselling advice may get them through their current difficulties and they might emerge with their relationship strengthened and their understanding deepened.
I suspect many noble Lords will know of those who have experienced such times, but this Bill totally disempowers spouses trying to save their marriages. For some in such circumstances—perhaps for reasons of faith or other personal reasons—being able to record that it was not they but their spouse who sought divorce will be important mentally, emotionally and perhaps even spiritually, but the Bill allows no recognition that it was their spouse who walked away, no acknowledgement of the wrong the innocent party has suffered.
A fundamentally different approach to the respondent is required and I hope that the Government will register the concerns that I have set out today and at Second Reading in this regard. I do not really regard this modest amendment as a satisfactory solution to the problem but it is a way of drawing attention to it. People in such a situation should at least be able to have a line on the divorce order to say that they did not consent to the divorce. If you are stripping people of the right to contest a divorce or get the justice of their situation recognised, this is the least we can do. I beg to move.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, the Bill introduces the new option of both parties to a marriage making a joint application for divorce, which will allow them to approach divorce on the basis of a mutually agreed decision to bring a legal end to their marriage.
Consent in the context of divorce is a sensitive issue and I appreciate that it is unfortunate when one party does not wish to become divorced. The changes within this Bill rightly recognise that marriage is a voluntary union of two people who both wish to be with each other and it is therefore a marriage, not a divorce, that requires consent. The current court decree made under the existing law does not record whether or not the divorce has been contested, and the present concern may proceed upon a misapprehension that being a respondent to a divorce means accepting the blame for the breakdown of the marriage. That is not the case. The existing legal process seeks to determine only that a decree of divorce can be granted following the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
The law itself does not—indeed cannot—say who, if anyone, was to blame for that breakdown. It would not be helpful to allow the respondent to come forward in circumstances where they were content to be divorced but wanted to make clear their views about the cause of the breakdown. That would not assist. Indeed, it could provide the foundation for greater disharmony than would otherwise be the case if we were to maintain the present provisions of the Bill.
Giving a married couple the choice to make a joint application strikes the appropriate balance in these circumstances, and I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. It is a probing amendment and has afforded me an opportunity to make an important point about speaking up for the respondent. I will reflect on the Minister’s response but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Farmer
“Report on the impact on divorce applications and marriage support
(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report on the impact of this Act on divorce proceedings and marriage, with the first report to be published no later than 18 months after the day on which this section comes into force.(2) The report under subsection (1) must include, but is not limited to—(a) the number of divorce applications made under the provisions of this Act by the sex and income of the applicant and respondent;(b) the number of married couples or civil partners who seek relationship counselling during the divorce process, broken down by the demographics of the parties and geographic location;(c) the number of children in the relationships subject to the divorce applications; and (d) a statement on the support services and marriage counselling available to married couples or civil partners as an alternative to divorce proceedings under this Act.(3) The report under subsection (1) must be laid before each House of Parliament.”
Lord Farmer
My Lords, I am not at all convinced by the Government’s family test statement for the Bill, which says that there will be next to no long-term impact on divorce rates and that marriage will be unaffected. They again draw on Exeter University:
“Concerns that the removal of fault will undermine marriage and prevent reconciliation are not consistent with the research evidence or international experience.”
As I said at Second Reading, research relied on by the Ministry of Justice found that marriage rates reduce by about 3% to 4% following the introduction of no-fault divorce, and the likelihood of divorcees remarrying declines by around one-third to one-half. As Professor Justin Wolfers says,
“the benefits of marriage (tying your spouse to a contract) are reduced in a no-fault world.”
Less marriage will tend to mean more cohabitation, an inherently less stable relationship form. The whole of society is affected when the contract of marriage becomes devoid of meaning.
How will it impact divorce rates? Such reform leads to an immediate spike in the divorce rate that apparently dissipates over time. Let us be clear: that spike is made up of people, adults and children. If couples are struggling to persevere, the introduction of no-fault divorce undermines an important cultural underpinning of assumed permanence to marriage which could push such marginal couples into divorce. I am not, of course, arguing that couples should stay together if there is irresolvable violence, abuse or conflict. It is unsurprising if the numbers drop back, given that people are marrying less and that the divorce rate is calculated as a percentage of married couples.
Because of the many and varied ramifications of family breakdown which we have heard about this evening, which include education failure, poor mental health in children, increased pressure on housing stock, loneliness and fatherlessness, which can lead to gangs and county lines, the Government should commit to tracking the trends that follow this legislation. It is very important to do so. It is not enough that the Office for National Statistics collects the data. That is not the same thing as the data being laid before both Houses. The Government need to publish reports on family stability, as they committed to do when the Welfare Reform and Work Act was discussed in this House.
History has shown that we need to pin the Government down when it comes to tracing family stability. During the passage of the then Welfare Reform and Work Bill, the coalition Government promised to introduce a new duty to report on worklessness and educational attainment. They said that
“alongside these statutory measures we will develop a range of non-statutory indicators to measure progress against the other root causes of child poverty, which include but are not limited to family breakdown, addiction and problem debt. Anyone will be able to assess the Government’s progress here. The Government are saying, ‘Judge us on that progress’.”—[Official Report, 9/12/15; col. 1585.]
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 19A is in my name. One of the headline Conservative Government commitments in the relatively recent past was abolishing the couple penalty. The couple penalty, noble Lords will recall, was the unintended fiscal incentive for a couple with children on low to modest incomes not to live together or marry because of the benefits that would be lost. Abolishing this was a headline Conservative manifesto commitment in the 2010 general election. At that time the Government’s primary concern with respect to marriage was the removal of obstacles to marriage, whereas today, their focus in this Bill seems to be on removing obstacles to divorce.
In this context, I have tabled this amendment for two reasons. First, I think that as the Government engage with this new task, it would be wise to pause to reflect on the progress made in relation to the earlier task of abolishing the couple penalty. Given both the importance of removing the couple penalty to help couples commit, and the potential for easier divorce to inflame the commitment problem in the presence of an ongoing couple penalty problem, it would be premature to prioritise making divorce any easier until we have dealt with the couple penalty problem.
Secondly, we must understand the impact of the couple penalty on divorce itself. If a couple on low or modest income manage to marry despite the couple penalty, they will none the less feel the negative impact on their marriage in that, if they were to terminate it, they would experience some fiscal benefits. For this reason, it is very important that we understand the impact of the couple penalty on divorce rates.
The main mechanism identified by the Government for addressing the couple penalty was the marriage allowance. A fully transferable marriage allowance was proposed by the Centre for Social Justice, commissioned by the Conservative Party and chaired by the right honourable Iain Duncan Smith MP in 2007, and adopted by the then Conservative Party leader, David Cameron.
Some upper- and middle-class people scoffed at this proposal, stating sarcastically that they got married for love. The idea that anyone would fall in love for fiscal reasons was plainly nonsense, and the suggestion that the purpose of the couple penalty was to assist in this regard only helped demonstrate just how out of touch with reality the wealthy scoffers were.
The point was simply that, when a couple fall in love and decide that they want to be together, they have a choice about what form their relationship should take. If formalising their commitment through a “till death us do part” marriage commitment would cause them to lose benefits, they would be more likely to formalise their relationship in some other, less stable way.
The point of dealing with the couple penalty was that, if the tax and benefit design had the unintended consequence of making it harder for couples on low to modest incomes to formalise their commitment through marriage, with all its benefits for adult and child well-being, the couple penalty was a bad thing and should be removed. However, at the beginning of the 2010 general election campaign, Mr Cameron explained that a fully transferable allowance could not be afforded immediately and that we would start with a provision allowing a non-earning spouse to transfer 11.6% of his or her allowance to an earner spouse. He added that he wanted the allowance to be increased and that he was sure that in the course of the Parliament it could be.
The marriage allowance was not actually introduced until the very end of the Parliament, in 2015, and then only as an even more meagre 10% allowance. It has continued to be just 10% ever since. At 10%, the marriage allowance is so small that it barely makes any impression on the couple penalty, which remains very considerable. In this context, we must assume that the couple penalty continues to act both as an obstacle to entering marriage and as a pressure for divorce.
As the Government have moved on to prioritising helping people to leave marriages with greater ease, there is now an urgent need for them to address the couple penalty problem in order both to remove an obstacle to marriage and to remove a strain on marriages that we must assume provides a fiscal incentive for divorce. If the Government want to get this Bill through, they would be well advised to use the Budget to significantly increase the marriage allowance in order to be seen to balance their efforts to help people to leave marriages more quickly with efforts to strengthen marriage.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I put my name to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Farmer with the view that, if it is easy to produce those results, it might be quite wise to do so.
So far as the amendment of my noble friend Lord McColl of Dulwich is concerned, I noticed that he said that the Bill was intended to remove an obstacle to divorce, but I do not really think that that is a fair way to describe it. As far as I am concerned, the Bill deals principally with an unnecessary irritant to the relationship between divorcing parties. It does no good: it does not establish fault or anything of the kind; it just creates the possibility of renewed ill feeling as a result of a rehearsal of what one party to the marriage thinks about the other party. That is often not particularly flattering and certainly not particularly comforting, and removing it does not seem to remove an obstacle to divorce at all.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I begin with the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Farmer. The requirement sought within the amendment to report annually on the number of divorce applications is unnecessary, as this data is already publicly available and published in the Family Court Statistics Quarterly.
The amendment also seeks a requirement to gather data on the sex of applicants for divorce. This is also unnecessary, as official statistics already break down the number of divorces per year by the gender of the applicant. In addition, the amendment seeks a requirement to collect data on the income of applicants. However, such data would be unduly onerous for the courts service to collect and, more so, unduly intrusive for the applicants to supply.
The amendment also seeks a requirement to report on the number of divorcing couples who seek relationship counselling during the divorce process alongside relevant demographic information. Such information could not be provided without forcing divorcing couples to declare it, thus introducing an unnecessary burden at what is already a difficult time for them. The choice to seek such counselling during the divorce process would be a personal one for those involved.
In summary, as much of the information referenced in this amendment is already publicly available, the requirement to report on it would be unnecessary. As regards the other kinds of information referenced by the amendment, they would be not only onerous to collect but raise very real issues around what is appropriate from the point of view of demand placed upon applicants for the divorce process. I therefore respectfully invite the noble Lord to withdraw that amendment.
I turn to Amendment 19A. The noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, is persuaded that marriage brings many social benefits. The Government agree. However, if a marriage is broken down irretrievably, there is no virtue for the family involved or society at large in it continuing. This amendment would mandate an annual report to Parliament, which I presume the noble Lord, Lord McColl, intends to complement the data sought by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, in Amendment 19. However, it is not clear how the survey would operate or exactly what it would seek to demonstrate beyond, perhaps, interest in the married couple’s allowance.
Divorce is something in which society rightly takes an interest, but it is also a deeply personal and often distressing matter for the individuals involved. While I respect the courtesy of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, in proposing that participation in his survey would be voluntary and anonymous, the Government believe that such an invitation would be unnecessarily intrusive in any event. At worst, many of those questioned might feel that they were being asked to justify the state of the ending of the marriage, which strikes against the whole intention of the reform, for which it would appear to me that wide support has already been demonstrated in the House.
There is also an issue of the point at which the survey would be conducted. People’s perceptions of the divorce process will change between the time that they make an application and secure the divorce—or some time after, when they have gone through the process and been able to address it with the benefit of hindsight. The Government believe that this amendment would reintroduce an element of conflict into the divorce process. It would certainly be intrusive for those engaged in the divorce application. In these circumstances, we would not be prepared to accept it, so I invite the noble Lord not to press it.
Lord Farmer
My Lords, I am again saddened at the response from my noble friend the Minister. I may have misunderstood something but, to my knowledge, my amendment did not seek to find out any financial information. This report was to be put before Parliament so that it could respond to this Bill—the unilateral or no-fault divorce Bill—when it becomes law.
It is quite a big Bill on marriage to come through Parliament and become law. It is very important to me that Parliament can respond to the response to the Bill shown in marriages. How many people are getting divorced? Is it more? How many children are involved? What sort of support services are involved? Is there marriage counselling? There are all those things. It is important for both Houses of Parliament to look back and say, “Is this good? Is it working as we intended?” I am sure that my noble friend the Minister is right that this information is available here, there and everywhere. However, we want it brought back to us in one body related to this Bill.
Therefore, I am saddened at that response. Obviously, I will go no further on this occasion but this may come back on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Deech
“Review of operation of certain sections of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973
(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the operation of sections 25, 25A and 34 to 36 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (the “Act”) to determine whether they—(a) properly reflect the patterns of family life of the present day,(b) provide for a system which is reasonably predictable in its outcomes from case to case, and(c) act to exacerbate the costs of legal representation which must be expended by parties litigating thereunder.(2) The review must in particular consider—(a) whether it would be appropriate for provisions akin to sections 9, 10 and 24 to 26 of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 to be incorporated into the Act to assist the court in its determination of the matters to which the court is to have regard pursuant to section 25 thereof,(b) whether the operation of sections 25 and 25A of the Act in relation to the quantum and term of periodical payments is appropriate in the context of changes in the labour market since their entry into force, (c) whether agreements between parties (or prospective parties) to a marriage in relation to their financial arrangements should be presumptively binding on the court,(d) whether the provisions of subsection 25(1) of the Act are of meaningful effect in the majority of cases, and(e) any amendments to sections 25, 25A and 34 to 36 of the Act which may be necessary in consequence of the review.(3) The Secretary of State must begin the review before the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.(4) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report of the conclusions of the review and of any proposals which it makes within one year of the commencement of the review.”
Baroness Deech
My Lords, I thank the Minister for having spent some time with me and other supporters a week ago to discuss this. It was very constructive. If I do not press my amendment, it will be on the basis that he has given a commitment here to carry out a broad consultation on financial provision law, and indeed a speedy one. I offer a word of warning. I am worried about strong lobby groups that will try to take this over. Some of my best friends are barristers—I studied with them, taught them, regulated them, and I have been represented by them—but the eyewatering amounts that they charge in divorce is upsetting. I am married to a solicitor and I know that they get in on this act as well. I am not saying that they do not deserve it, but for poor couples who have no legal aid the legal costs are exorbitant. That is why I am worried about a consultation that is too heavily weighted towards the views of the legal profession. We need to hear from women’s groups and, indeed, from men; we need to hear from people who have been through a divorce—members of the public—and how it has affected them. We need also to remember that there is more than one feminist view on this. Indeed, as we might expect, there is a split between feminists on quite what the right outcome should be, financially, at the end of the divorce. I am grateful that the Minister has undertaken to have a wide-ranging and speedy review, so that the financial law will eventually get into line with the new divorce law.