House of Commons

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Commons Chamber

Thursday 22 October 2020

The House met at half-past Nine o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Order, 4 June).

[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Business before Questions

National Audit Office

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported to the House, That Her Majesty had received its humble Address of 1 July, praying that she should appoint Dame Fiona Reynolds DBE to the office of Chair of the National Audit Office from 10 January 2021, and that she was graciously pleased to comply with the request.

Local Government Boundary Commission for England

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported to the House, That Her Majesty had received its humble Address of 7 September, praying that she should reappoint Professor Colin Mellors OBE as Chair of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, with effect from 1 January 2021 for the period ending on 31 December 2025, and that she was graciously pleased to comply with the request.

Electoral Commission

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported to the House, That Her Majesty had received its humble address of 7 September praying that she should reappoint Alasdair Morgan as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 1 October 2020 for the period ending on 30 September 2022, and that she was graciously pleased to comply with the request.

Petition

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Business of the House

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Commons Chamber

00:04

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)]

The business for the week commencing 2 November will include:

Monday 2 November—General debate on covid-19.

Tuesday 3 November—Remaining stages of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill.

Wednesday 4 November—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Agriculture Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, followed by motion to approve the draft Blood Safety and Quality (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, the draft Human Tissue (Quality and Safety for Human Application) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 and the draft Quality and Safety of Organs Intended for Transplantation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

Thursday 5 November—Debate on a motion on coronavirus business interruption loan schemes, followed by general debate on the UK Government’s role in ensuring innovation and equitable access within the covid-19 response. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 6 November—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 9 November will include:

Monday 9 November—Second Reading of the Financial Services Bill.

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank the Leader of the House for the business next week and for the motion extending proxy voting until 21 March. I do not know whether he has heard the outcome of the Public Health England visit, but I say again that the voting queues are not safe. On Monday, as we were walking round and round, it felt like something out of the book “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich”. We want remote voting because it is safest for Members and, most importantly, for staff, and it is quickest for staff behind the scenes.

The Leader of the House continually talks about democracy and “Erskine May”, but he is excluding Members from taking part in debate at this really difficult time, because some of them are in tier 3 areas that are in lockdown. Will he please reconsider remote voting? It is just for the pandemic, not for life. He will know that proxy votes do not count as a quorum for private Members’ Bills on Friday. We know that more than 25% of Members have proxy votes. I wonder whether he could consider, perhaps through the usual channels, a fairer way of enabling Members to take part via a proxy, so that those votes are not wasted.

Again, there is no update from the Foreign Secretary on Nazanin, Anousheh and Luke Symons, even though Iran is now in its third lockdown and other countries are having some success.

They came for our public money and wasted it. The Government have already spent £12 billion on Test and Trace, and yet they have accounted for only £4 billion, with the private sector consultants being paid £7,000 a day and everyone saying that this is a failed Test and Trace programme. The worst thing is that the Care Quality Commission has been told that its inspectors cannot have weekly testing when they go into care homes. That is one of the most important jobs that needs to be done at this time. Could we have a debate on the whole Test and Trace programme? Who is getting the money? Let it be laid bare. It is difficult to get answers from the Government. Even if we table written questions, the responses are taking a long time to come back. The Government need to be accountable for public money during this pandemic.

Then they came for the Labour Mayors. The Government are now dictatorially moving areas from one tier into another. The Mayor of Greater Manchester has brought everybody together. The Conservative leader of Bolton Council, the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green), who has resigned as a Parliamentary Private Secretary, and the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady)—a really serious person who has been in the House for a long time and is chair of the 1922 committee—have all said that they want to do the best for their community in Greater Manchester. On Tuesday, in response to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said:

“the cases were shooting up before we took action and then levelled off.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 1032.]

It would be nice to know what figures he is using. If cases are levelling off, why are the Government taking this action?

Let us look at the facts. Liverpool city region has received £44 million; that is £29 per person. Lancashire has received £42 million; that is £28 per person. After three months of restrictions, Greater Manchester was offered—by text—£22 million; that is £8 per head. Will the Government publish the funding formula behind those decisions? The shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), has called it a “phantom” formula.

Then they came for the trade unions. The union learning fund is about to be abolished, at such an important time. It was established in 1988, in the time of Margaret Thatcher. It is one of the most successful learning, training and reskilling projects currently running in British industry. It is value for money. For every £1 invested, there is a return of £12.30, with £7.60 going to the worker taking part and £4.70 going to the employer. The Trades Union Congress said that it contributes £1.4 billion to the economy at a cost of £12 million. Can we have an urgent statement on that decision or a reversal of it?

Yesterday marked the 54th anniversary of the Aberfan disaster when 116 children and 28 adults lost their lives. There was a one-minute silence on Wednesday at 9.15. We must remember them.

Our thoughts are also with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), who is in hospital after testing positive for covid-19. We wish her well, as we do my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), who is an assiduous attender in the Chamber, and all other Members who may not have said that they have got covid.

Yesterday, the deputy leader of the Labour party, despite grieving for her aunt, Anne Irwin, who died of coronavirus last week, came to the Chamber and said:

“I come here wanting the Government…to succeed, because lives literally depend on it.”—[Official Report, 21 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 1081.]

We say that there is another way: Labour in Wales’s two-week circuit break and £300 million package, just as was done in New Zealand. The Prime Minister of New Zealand memorably said that the tooth fairy was an essential worker, and we congratulate Jacinda Ardern and Labour party on their historic landslide victory. As they in New Zealand, “Mihi.”

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I hope the right hon. Lady will provide a translation for the benefit of Hansard.

[Valerie Vaz]

Congratulations.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The right hon. Lady kindly translated not only for the benefit of Hansard but for me. I believe the Prime Minister has also congratulated the Prime Minister of New Zealand.

I absolutely align myself with the right hon. Lady’s remarks on the anniversary of Aberfan. I am sure it will be remembered. It was a great tragedy, and it was acted on, with most coal tips removed for safety reasons. I also very much join her in sending best wishes to the hon. Members for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). The hon. Lady is an assiduous campaigner, and the work she has done on Primodos is of fundamental importance. I supported her strongly from the Back Benches, and I hope that she will soon be back to resume her effective campaigning and holding Government to account.

On the union learning fund—£1.4 billion on £12 million? That sounds a little bit exaggerated. One can always find experts to come up with some figures if they are asked. With that sort of return, they ought to be in my former profession of investment management rather than in a union learning fund.

As regards the Manchester issue, the Government have provided £60 million of taxpayers’ money, not £22 million. In Lancashire, Liverpool and South Yorkshire, agreement was reached with the Mayors, whereas in Manchester we had this ridiculous fandango with the Mayor pretending he did not know when he had been told by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government hours earlier. It was as if he was trying to go on the stage. It was the most ridiculous prancing performance that one could imagine when he should have been seriously trying to help the people of Manchester, which is what Her Majesty’s Government were doing. I am afraid he was playing party politics of the cheapest and most disagreeable kind, whereas people such as the Mayor of the Liverpool city region, who was clear in his political opinions when he was in this House, were able to work with the Government and put aside party political differences. He has shown himself to be a model of how to behave.

As regards Test and Trace in care homes, 120,000 test kits are made available to care homes on a daily basis, so the Government are doing everything they can to ensure testing in care homes. Of course, it is expensive to set up a system from scratch—that is not something people should be surprised about—but the system is now testing up to 300,000 people a day from zero earlier in the year, because nobody knew that Test and Trace would be needed. One should recognise that significant achievements have been made. Of course, I accept that it is expensive.

I will, once again, take up the issue of Nazanin, Anousheh and Luke Symons with the Foreign Secretary. I do so every week on the right hon. Lady’s behalf. She is right to carry on raising it. The Government are doing what they can, but obviously there are limits to what the Government can do when dealing with foreign regimes that are undemocratic.

As regards remote voting—we have discussed this on a number of occasions—it is important that MPs are here. MPs have a right to be here. They are essential workers, and all the advice that the Government have given, whether it be in tier 1, 2 or 3, states that people who have essential work to do must carry on doing it. We are in that category. We expect people to teach schoolchildren, and we expect other people in other categories to go to work, so we should do the same. We have, as yet, received no formal response from PHE on Divisions, but they seem to me to be working well and efficiently. We are getting through them in about 15 minutes, which is in line with the time that a Division takes ordinarily. The system is one that I think you came up with, Mr Speaker, and it is working extremely well.

[David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)]

In recent months, a number of constituents have written to me about completing processes online, and how it is assumed that they have a mobile phone that can receive a code, a smartphone on which they can download an app or, indeed, a good enough internet connection that will hold through multiple stages of a process. Given that more and more processes are going that way, may we have a debate about how we can ensure that our constituents are not indirectly excluded from being able to perform everyday tasks?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point, and I am sure that many Members across the House understand the challenges facing some of our constituents in today’s digital age, especially in the covid-19 era, which is replete with essential smartphone apps and fast-moving data. I assure him that the Government are driving forward access to the digital world, with £5 billion of spending to ensure that the whole UK benefits from world-class broadband infrastructure. Mobile coverage is improving, and 91% of the UK is covered by a 4G signal from at least one operator. Although 91% sounds quite good, I must confess that when I am at home in Somerset and I have no mobile signal, 91% is not good enough, so it needs to get better. As we become more digital, this becomes more pressing.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us head to the SNP spokesperson in Scotland.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]]

[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

You need to switch yourself on, Tommy. Unmute yourself. If the Leader of the House had worked in a textile mill, he would be getting this.

[Tommy Sheppard]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

We should, I suppose, be grateful for small mercies, so I welcome the Government’s intention to extend the limited virtual participation and proxy voting until Easter. At least that represents a recognition that normal service will not be resumed any time soon. It is a slightly more mature and considered approach than the histrionics of last week, when the Leader of the House likened MPs to essential service workers.

To be clear, this decision establishes a default position that, although it is better than nothing, hardly represents the optimum or enthusiastic use of technology to deliver democracy. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate at the earliest opportunity after the recess on how we can do it better, which includes switching the remote voting system back on and allowing full virtual participation? I know that he does not support either of those approaches, but he must accept that there is now a majority across the House, including many in his own party, who do so. Let us have an open debate on a Government motion that can be amended by others and, crucially, since individual MPs are affected in different ways, let us have a free vote on the matter.

This week will have brought home to many in northern England what it feels like to be Scottish. Devolved structures are created to allow the voice of people in particular areas to be heard, but if that voice differs from Westminster’s, it is ignored. Moreover, the representatives of the people are then attacked and vilified, just to be sure. I feel much empathy for the people in the great regions of England, but my principal concern is that the Government’s piecemeal approach in England has grave consequences for Scotland. The Barnett formula provides Scotland with a proportion of new public expenditure in England, but what happens when the extra spending is in only 10% or 20% of England? The Barnett formula was not designed for such a situation, and that is why I ask again for a debate on helping the Scottish Government to fight the covid emergency by removing the fiscal and policy constraints that the UK has placed on it.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman’s initial silence spoke eloquently for why we do not need a difference in the technology that we use. It showed why it does not actually work and why we are keeping this House sitting primarily in a physical sense, certainly for legislation: so that there can be proper scrutiny. It may be that some people like silence from the hon. Gentleman—most of us enjoy his questions—but that is not how to scrutinise Her Majesty’s Government.

As regards the funding for Scotland, UK taxpayers have contributed £7.2 billion to help Scotland, protecting 779,500 jobs. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) heckles me, saying “We are UK taxpayers.” Does that not prove how beneficial it is to have the United Kingdom? I am hoping that he will now become a Unionist and join our Benches, because it is the United Kingdom that has provided the £7.2 billion and is helping Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland and all the regions of our great nation.

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the support given to fairground and showground operators? Their livelihoods have been devastated by the restrictions placed on them by the coronavirus pandemic, and also by the taxation on red diesel.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am in so much sympathy with my hon. Friend. In normal summers I spend a lot of time at fairgrounds. That is one of the things about having six children; what else is there to do on a Saturday afternoon but try to find a fairground? This year I missed the opportunity to do that or to open the Clutton flower show, which has lots of amusements attached.

My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue. The Chancellor announced in the 2020 Budget that the Government will remove the entitlement to use red diesel from April 2022, except in agriculture, fish farming, rail and non-commercial heating. The policy is designed to ensure that the tax system incentivises users of diesel to improve the energy efficiency of their vehicles and machinery, invest in cleaner alternatives or use less fuel. That is the argument for it, but let us hope that fairgrounds flourish.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]]

I thank the Leader of the House for his statement and for guaranteeing time for Tuesday’s very timely and successful debate on Black History Month. Our Committee has been able to fill all the slots available to us in Westminster Hall for the majority of November, and we have two Backbench Business debates scheduled for Thursday 5 November: a debate on a substantive motion on the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme, and a general debate on the UK’s role in ensuring innovation and equitable access in the covid-19 response.

I am also the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for football supporters. Last week, England’s six richest Premier league clubs put forward a disgraceful proposal, Operation Big Picture, to restructure the league. It was laced with bribes to English Football League clubs, many of which are under extreme financial duress, to secure their agreement. Thankfully the proposal was rejected, but the hares are running. Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and a debate in Government time about the future of our national game, which is in the hearts of millions in our country?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Black History Month debate on Tuesday was indeed a very successful debate, brilliantly wound up by my hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities. I am delighted to hear that Westminster Hall is using its time efficiently, which is very important. It is a reason for getting Westminster Hall back up and running, and another reason why we are here physically: to ensure that the Government can be held to account, not just in the main Chamber.

As regards Operation Big Picture, I must confess that the detailed workings of the football leagues is beyond my remit and realm of knowledge; if the hon. Gentleman had asked about the County championship, I would have been better placed to answer. However, I think he should ask his own Committee for the debate, because it would be very well subscribed and of great interest to many Members.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) [V]]

Is the Leader of the House aware that over the years we have had several debates about unfair practices by the operators of private car parks, culminating in the passing into law of my private Member’s Bill, the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, which he supported? Now that the consultation period for the new code of practice has closed, can the Government avoid the need for further debates by acting quickly to bring the code into force and bring transparency, fairness and justice for motorists when parking?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My right hon. Friend knows the level of sympathy I have for that cause, which he has championed so effectively. He, like the Conservative party, is a fantastic supporter of motorists generally. He is a model for how we should back motorists and ensure efficient, fair and well-priced parking, which is one of the essential cogs in our local communities, and much of our local economy depends on it. Rogue private parking firms—they are not always private, it has to be said—have made drivers’ lives a misery, with improper fines, harassment, intimidation and over-zealous enforcement. I am very glad that the consultation has started, and I look forward, as my right hon. Friend does, to the implementation of the parking code of conduct, restoring fairness and accountability, and barring rogue parking firms from accessing Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency data. I hope the rogue parking firms are listening, because it is getting that DVLA data that has allowed them to make such a nuisance of themselves.

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

No sector has been harder hit by the pandemic than live music, and research this week says that the UK’s live music sector faces the loss of 170,000 jobs, which is nearly two thirds of the workforce. The culture recovery fund helped to some extent, but we did not help the thousands and thousands of freelancers who make up a big part of the industry. Could we have an urgent statement on what more we can do to help our fantastic, viable—when we are through the pandemic—and world-leading music scene?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman referenced the culture recovery fund, which is important, at a total of £1.57 billion. The Arts Council has spent £160 million of taxpayers’ money on an emergency package supporting more than 10,000 organisations and individuals. In addition, £3.36 million has already been allocated to 135 grassroots music venues. Action is being taken, but I completely understand the hon. Gentleman’s point that it is particularly difficult for freelancers in this area.

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

May we have a debate about how many Select Committees we have in Parliament and the use of cross-departmental Committees to scrutinise money spent over a variety of Departments?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Select Committees are ultimately a matter for the House and they have the opportunity to set up cross-cutting Sub-Committees among themselves. For the examination of cross-departmental spending, the Public Accounts Committee plays the crucial, most important role, but other Select Committees can, as I say, collaborate if they wish.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Yesterday, the Court of Appeal held that Home Office regulations used for the removal of people under immigration rules, which have been used in an estimated 40,000 cases, were unlawful. Why has the Home Secretary not come to the House to make a statement in relation to that judgment, or are the views of the judges at the Court of Appeal to be dismissed as those of a bunch of lefty lawyers?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Home Secretary has the greatest respect for our judicial processes, as do all members of Her Majesty’s Government. The Home Secretary will be here for oral questions on 9 November. The good news is that the Home Secretary has announced that legislation on this matter will be coming forward, which will no doubt increase the clarity over the immigration law.

[Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)]

Ahead of COP26 and during the lead-up to the UK hosting the presidency of the G7, does the Leader of the House agree that we have an opportunity and a responsibility to lead the world, and will he agree to a debate titled, “Keeping the lights on while reducing greenhouse gases”?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend—or, rather, Ynys Môn—leads the world in this respect. The nuclear power plant in her constituency can keep the lights on and the radiators warm in this country for decades for come, and that is a way of providing green energy. The UK is committed to delivering an ambitious and inclusive COP26 in 2021, to reaching net zero emissions domestically by 2050, and to doubling our international climate finance commitment to £11.6 billion from 2021 to 2025—but I think the answer is that where Ynys Môn leads, the United Kingdom and then the world follow.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

My constituent Ewan Cameron was involved in an accident and assaulted. He undertook successful private litigation because, basically, his insurance company did not want to know. It then rebuffed his complaints while withholding information from its own solicitors. The Financial Ombudsman Service found against Ewan, although the complaints handler did make some criticisms of the FOS. The regulator now refuses to engage with me, saying the matter is closed. So can I have a Government statement advising how the regulator is regulated and how I get clarity for Ewan over a saga that has spanned a few years now?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Once again, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the way he highlights issues for his constituents and regularly does so at Business questions. Regulators are, ultimately, accountable to this House, either via the Treasury Committee or via a Treasury Minister. I will happily take this matter up with the Minister responsible immediately after Business questions. I think the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has responsibility for this area, but I will certainly take it up with whichever of the Ministers it is.

[Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)]

My council, Kensington and Chelsea, is at the forefront of rolling out electric vehicle car charging. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to invest in our electric vehicle infrastructure, so we can phase out diesel and petrol cars more quickly than 2040?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I quite like petrol engines, I must confess, with some old cars. However, the Government have consulted on bringing forward an end to the sale of new petrol and—

[Valerie Vaz]

Mr Toad!

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I think that is a jolly good heckle, don’t you, Mr Speaker, though for the record, I deny that I model myself on Mr Toad. The policy on petrol and diesel cars will be beneficial, and a consultation is taking place on bringing it forward earlier. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the key to making this happen will be changes in behaviour driven by the ease with which people are able to charge their cars, and that means having more charging points. There is £500 million over the next five years to support the roll-out of infrastructure for electric vehicles, so taxpayers’ money is being spent in this direction.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]]

I thank both the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House for their kind words over recent weeks about my tandem skydive for local charity. I would also like to express my gratitude to the brilliant tandem instructor at Black Knights, Lee Rhodes, for safely delivering me back to earth without the need for a Denton and Reddish by-election. I did the jump for Florence, a six-year-old girl with a very rare life-limiting genetic disorder called GM1. Can the Leader of the House help find time for either a statement or a debate on GM1 and other extremely rare genetic conditions to help raise awareness across the House?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is very reassuring to see the hon. Gentleman, albeit virtually, all in one piece. I join him in congratulating Black Knights for ensuring that everything happened safely. How inspirational it is of him, as a local constituency MP, to be raising money for such an important cause, GM1. I suggest, initially, that this is very suitable for an Adjournment debate, which would of course receive a ministerial response.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

Does the Leader of the House agree that at a time of national crisis it is essential that Parliament continues to conduct its business of holding Government to account and representing our constituents in this place whenever possible? Will he commit to doing all in his power to enable Members of Parliament to continue to come to this place in person to enable us to do our duty?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Free, unhindered attendance at Parliament is one of our most ancient rights, going back to 1340. There is no law and no local lockdown that may prohibit elected Members from attending Parliament. But let us understand what we do in this House. Let us not downgrade our role. We are an essential service. It is crucial that the Government are held to account when extraordinary powers are taken, powers that many of us never thought a Government would be taking in our lifetimes. These must be scrutinised and voted on. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to use the word “duty”, which you personify, Mr Speaker. You have done your duty every day and we should do our duty, too.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Government’s view of devolution is that they dictate and local government must obey. The Transport Secretary has written to the Mayor for London, setting out his plans to expand the congestion charge to the north and south circulars. That excludes any opportunity for my constituents to have a say, because he wants it to be imposed in October 2021. Can we have a debate on devolution so we can speak up for our constituents against this dictatorship from the centre?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman overstates his case. He needs to remember that the finances of Transport for London were extremely difficult prior to the coronavirus. The Mayor was not running Transport for London well. He was failing voters in London and running a deficit. Do I want a widespread extension of congestion charging? Does the Prime Minister want that? No. The Prime Minister has said he does not wish to see that because we all know that congestion charging is a means of taxing the motorist. But Transport for London has to be paid for and the Mayor has singularly failed to do that.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

Last week I received a letter signed by eight local primary school headteachers. They are concerned about the state of their local leisure centre in Appleton, which has not been able to reopen since covid. That means that children cannot do PE lessons, at a time when we need to ensure that they are outside and getting lots of exercise. Set against that, Warrington Council has borrowed £1.6 billion to invest in offices in Manchester, supermarkets in Salford and even an energy company—all that while facilities in my constituency are run down and cannot be used. Can we have a debate in Government time to consider how local councils have accessed the Public Works Loans Board to fund reckless commercial investments, rather than using loans to support public facilities such as Broomfields leisure centre in my constituency?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises an important point about the use of borrowing by councils, particularly if they are not providing the services they are meant to provide. I hope that the good people of Warrington have been able to enjoy other leisure facilities in the meantime, possibly even private sector ones. The Government are clear: councils should not borrow more than they need in advance of their own requirements, purely to profit from the investment of the extra sums borrowed. Councils are not speculators and they should not behave as if they are.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) [V]]

A memo that was recently leaked to the Bloomberg news agency revealed the view of senior Tories that the majority of people in Scotland support independence. Will the Leader of the House make a statement to set out why he believes that support for Scottish independence is at record levels? Does he agree with the view in the memo that continuing to dismiss calls for an independence referendum in Scotland is counterproductive?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Six years ago, in the year of our Lord 2014, a referendum was held in Scotland to decide on whether Scotland wished to remain part of the United Kingdom. The people of Scotland, in their wisdom, voted to remain in the United Kingdom and that is why they are benefiting from £7.2 billion of UK taxpayers’ money to help them through the coronavirus crisis. The benefits of the United Kingdom are enormous. But I would say this, as an Englishman. I think it is absolutely wonderful that we are a single country to which Scotland has contributed enormously over the centuries. We are all kith and kin. We should be so pleased that we are a single country and grateful for the contribution of Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.

[Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)]

Carshalton and Wallington residents living in New Mill Quarter in Hackbridge recently woke up to find that they had no heating or hot water for the eighth or ninth time in a few short months, thanks to the failings of the local Lib Dem district energy network. The scheme has tied residents into a long contract with no option to switch suppliers, and despite the patchy services and high utility prices, they cannot do anything about it. Can we have a debate about decentralised energy networks and how we can protect consumers such as those living in Hackbridge?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who, every single week, manages to come up with another example of absolute incompetence by Lib Dem councils. Perhaps he should ask the Backbench Business Committee for a more general debate on why the Lib Dems cannot run anything and why it would be better voting Conservative.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Across the country, the hospitality, sports and leisure industries and their millions of workers are facing closures and restrictions, despite very little evidence being provided that they will have any significant impact on the pandemic—especially the 10 pm shutdown. May we have a specific debate, in which the Government can finally provide the basis for such draconian actions and we, the industry and the public can debate them and be clear whether the benefits really justify the costs of these measures? Frankly, they seem to be driven more by the need to be seen to be doing something than by any evidence.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is always difficult, when a debate has already been provided, when one is then criticised for not providing quite specific enough a debate. In a broad debate, any range of subjects can be raised relating to the coronavirus crisis. There is a debate later today, and one on the Monday when we get back, when these points can be raised. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has made regular statements to the House, where he can be questioned on these issues. Therefore, I think parliamentary time has been provided, while recognising the real difficulty that people in the leisure and hospitality sectors find themselves in. It is very tough for them, but the Chancellor is making a statement later, and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will want to listen to that with care.

[Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)]

Town centres such as Accrington and Haslingden are struggling. We have some of the most amazing businesses, such as the Unscripted boutique, D. T. Law and the Lancashire Tea Room. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on high street and town centre regeneration so that we can discuss how we can support amazing businesses such as mine in Hyndburn and Haslingden?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of support for town centres. There is the £3.6 billion town centres fund, which is making really important efforts to help rejuvenate town centres. Town centres are important as community centres as much as for the economic activity they provide, but their economic activity is crucial. I cannot provide a specific time for a debate, but I think it is a good issue for a Backbench Business debate.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I am sure, Mr Speaker, that you do not need me to tell you that rugby league clubs are the lifeblood of cities such as Hull. Yesterday I spoke to the owner of Hull FC, who explained the serious short-term challenges the club faces. May we have a Government statement to scrutinise the evidence behind the decision to close all open-air stadiums and what support can be given to rugby league clubs if the ban remains until April 2021?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As I have said before in the House, the Government are keen to look at ways of allowing spectators to go back in safely and will consider proposals as they are made. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will be here to answer oral questions shortly after we are back, on 5 November, and that will be a good opportunity to raise this with him.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

We all need a little light diversion in these grim times, so may we have a statement in support of the annual world puddle jumping championships, which take place at the much-loved Wicksteed Park in Kettering? This year, due to the pandemic, the championships are going virtual and children across the land are being encouraged to send in video footage of their jumps, which will be judged on the basis of height of jump, enthusiasm, distance of splash, and the amount of mud covering the participant. Is this not just the sort of tonic we need in these difficult days?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This is a brilliant idea, and who cannot recall the episode of “Peppa Pig” where Peppa decides to go and jump in a muddy puddle, that being her favourite activity? She is joined by her brother, George, by her father and her mother, and I have a feeling even the grandparents join in, and they all get covered in mud. I cannot promise my hon. Friend that that will be what the Rees-Mogg household are doing on world puddle jumping day, but certainly a number of my children will enjoy doing it very much, and he is to be commended for ensuring that world puddle jumping day has a wider audience.

[Mr Speaker]

And we mustn’t forget the Vicar of Dibley.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I have “follow me, follow, down to the hollow” ringing through my head now.

May I ask, I am afraid, about the Select Committee on Standards? As the Leader of the House knows, the Standards Committee is meant to have a majority of lay members who are able to vote. We have a lot of very important businesses; we have already done 11 reports in this Parliament and we have a major review of the code of conduct going on. We need a full quota of lay members. I am really grateful to the Leader of the House for tabling the single motion, which is down on the remaining orders, that would allow for Melanie Carter and Michael Maguire to be added to the Committee. I know that Standing Orders say we have to have a one-hour debate. Can I do a deal with the Leader of the House? If I promise that I will not speak in that debate and he promises that he will just move the motion very quickly, we could have a very short debate, and maybe we could get that done very quickly so that the Standards Committee can get on with its job.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

When Standing Orders provide for a one-hour debate, it is only right that that time is properly provided, should Members wish to use it, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are concerns over the way the recruitment process was carried out. There is disquiet in certain quarters with regard to that, and that is why the motion has not at this stage been brought forward, though it is under discussion.

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) [V]]

My right hon. Friend will recall the treaty of Wedmore in Somerset, by which, as he knows, the Vikings were finally kicked out of Wessex, and perhaps there are lessons there for us. Today, we have a counterfeit county council pretending to represent the whole of Somerset, and it wants to become yet another faceless unitary authority. It reminds me of the Viking army of Ivar the Boneless—all brawn and no legs. Thankfully, the Government have promised to look at every option, including the excellent ideas—and they are excellent—from Somerset district councils, which capture the true spirit of King Alfred. The districts want to bring our county together, not divide it still more, and I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has invited all Somerset councils, including our two existing unitaries, to submit ideas. Can we please have a debate on these matters soon because this county council, this narrow-minded Ivar the Boneless, wants to destroy our history? King Alfred must prevail.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Ivar the Boneless was given his marching orders actually from Nottingham by Alfred the Great with his brother Aethelred I—not to be confused with the unready one who comes a little bit later. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Ivar the Boneless must be moved out of Wessex—he ended up disappearing from history, as it happens, and is thought to have died in either 872 or 873. I have so much sympathy with what my hon. Friend is saying. Somerset is a great, single, individual county. It always seemed to me to be rubbing the salt in the wound of the 1974 local government reforms when Somerset County Council put up signs saying “Welcome to Somerset” when people were just going into its administrative area and not entering the great county.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Can we have a debate on the proposition that every child matters? I notice that this morning the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell), who was a Parliamentary Private Secretary, has resigned from the Government over yesterday’s debate and vote, no doubt because the tone of some of the speeches seemed to undermine that proposition and just wanted to attack the footballer Marcus Rashford who, following what happened said:

“Put aside all the noise, the digs, the party politics and let’s focus on the reality. A significant number of children are going to bed tonight not only hungry but feeling like they do not matter because of comments that have been made today.”

Every child matters—can we not all agree on that proposition?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Of course we can agree that every child matters. It is a fundamental view of all civilised people. It is not a party political issue. It is not a Government/Opposition matter. The debate yesterday was very clear: it is about how we look after people, not whether we look after people. I would point out that there are 100,000 fewer children in absolute poverty than there were in 2010. There are 780,000 fewer children growing up in a workless household. An additional £1 billion childcare fund giving parents the support and freedom that they need is being established, so the Government are taking great steps to support every child and ensure that every child has the best start in life.

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

I represent many fantastic communities in Redcar and Cleveland, but in Redcar town itself we have a specific problem with car crime. Every day we see images on social media of young lads in the middle of the night shining torches in car windows to look for valuables, and all too often the windows get smashed. I have raised this issue with my local chief constable, Cleveland’s acting police and crime commissioner, the Secretary of State for the Home Office and, now, the Leader of the House. Can we have a debate in Government time on how we can best tackle this recent surge in car crime, and does my right hon. Friend agree that the police and the courts should consider using all the mechanisms at their disposal to root out the yobs who are terrorising my communities?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue and to encourage the police to use all the powers they have to root out car crime, which is a particularly unpleasant form of crime. It must be very difficult for my hon. Friend’s constituents who are suffering in this way. The Government are recruiting 20,000 extra police officers, and several thousand have already been recruited. That will ensure a bigger police presence for communities across the country, including in Cleveland. My hon. Friend will be able to raise these questions further with the Home Secretary, but in this House there are many ways of raising issues to up the political pressure—Adjournment debates, Backbench Business debates, urgent questions—and I am sure that with your advice and wise counsel, Mr Speaker, my hon. Friend will find all the ways he can use to keep this issue at the front of public attention.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

National Mentoring Day is on 27 October, and the all-party parliamentary group on mentoring, which I chair, is, in conjunction with the Diana Award, absolutely delighted to have over 100 MPs from across this Chamber signed up to mentor a young person next week. I had hoped the Prime Minister might sign up, but I hope he will tune in this morning, and perhaps have a look at this again and lend his support. May we have a statement or debate on the importance of mentoring in building resilience in young people, alongside the long-awaited mental health of children strategy?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on what she is doing on mentoring. It is a way of giving young people a real chance to get ahead in their lives and make their mark. I am delighted to hear that 100 MPs are supporting her initiative. I will ensure that a message goes after this to No. 10 Downing Street so that the Prime Minister is aware of her request, although I cannot promise what the answer will be. I would really thank her for what she is doing. It is so important and such an important initiative.

[Mr Speaker]

We now go to Harrow airways and, with permission to land, Bob Blackman.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

Thank you, ground control.

Harrow Council is currently considering three very controversial planning applications for building high-density, multi-storey flats on Stanmore, Canons Park and Rayners Lane station car parks. These have received thousands of objections from residents all over Harrow who are concerned about the loss of car parking and the imposition of these high-rise developments. Harrow Council planning committee is likely to consider the Canons Park station application in December and the Stanmore one in January, but for some strange reason, Rayners Lane is going to be delayed till June. Stanmore and Canons Park are both in Conservative-held wards, and the Labour-run council has decided to postpone the Rayners Lane application until after the mayoral elections next year. Could we have a debate in Government time on political interference in the planning process, which reeks of corruption?

[Mr Speaker]

I think that is a bit too long a question.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend raises a point that is deeply concerning and he raises a very serious charge. Politically motivated interference in matters such as planning is improper, and I will ensure that the Housing Secretary is made aware of this. It is, of course, a matter for Harrow Council, but once the internal process has been exhausted, it may be possible to involve the local government ombudsman. Local authorities have to abide by a code of conduct, and to make planning decisions for electoral gain is thoroughly improper.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

My constituent Mr Latimer has for nearly two decades campaigned to halt the flow of illegal sewage dumping on to Seaburn beach behind his home. A ruling eight years ago stated that the levels of sewage breached legal guidelines, and new evidence shows that to this day dumping levels continue to be breached. This Government and the Environment Agency are ignoring him, the Whitburn Neighbourhood Forum and my pleas to try to sort this out. Why is this, and when can we have an urgent debate on this matter?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

This is a matter of great concern. It was raised last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke), who represents Dover and Deal. There are legal requirements on water companies to ensure that sewage is not dumped illegally. This must be taken up with Ofwat, and enforcement action must be taken if this is happening. I will ensure that the concerns the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) has raised are passed on. I cannot think of anything more disagreeable for her residents than to have to be suffering from this.

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

I can take the rough and tumble of this place as much as anyone, but some of the language we heard yesterday was abhorrent, particularly the use of the word “scum”. Now, I am sorry, but I got a phone call at half-11 last night from my mum saying that she had had people using that type of wording down the phone at her because she is my mother, and today my staff members have been called with that type of abhorrent abuse. It is absolutely not on. Can my right hon. Friend give us a debate in Government time on the standard of conduct we have in this Chamber, because the language we use impacts on people beyond us, and perhaps he will bring the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) here to apologise not just to us, but to my mum, who has had to abhor that today?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is right to say this. His mother should be enormously proud of his being a Member of this House. There is no greater service one can give to one’s fellow Britons than by being a Member of Parliament. It is the highest honour that one can have and the greatest service that one can do. I am sure his mother was aware of that before I said it, but I hope he will ensure that she does know that is a high position that he holds and that it is one of honourability.

The Chairman of Ways and Means dealt with the issue yesterday in the way we would expect from the Chair and dealt with it extremely clearly, but I remind Members of “Erskine May” paragraph 21.21:

“Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language.”

Inevitably when discussing heated political matters, people state their case forcefully, but they must do so politely.

[Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) [V]]

The Government have used negotiations with Transport for London to impose longer operational hours, the congestion charge and the removal of freedom passes and under-18 passes for transport. Only this week, leaked Government plans have shown their intention to expand the congestion charge to the north and south circulars and to impose above-inflation fare rises. Instead of levelling unfounded and unfair criticism at the Mayor of London—criticism that has not been levelled at private firms that the Government have bailed out during the pandemic—can we have a debate in Government time on these leaked eye-watering proposals that are likely to impact 4 million Londoners, including my constituents in Enfield North?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The Mayor of London has always done everything he possibly can to make life miserable for the motorist, and no doubt he wishes to continue to do so. He is no advocate of the motorist. The Conservative Government on the other hand are, with the largest road-building programme in decades and a real commitment to making motoring easier and helping people drive in the way that they wish to do. The fact that Transport for London has run out of money is because it was running out of money before the coronavirus, because it was badly managed by an incompetent Mayor.

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) [V]]

While it is important that our workplace is covid-secure and that we lead by example in Parliament, can my right hon. Friend advise how we avoid overstepping into a territory of impractical, unhealthy working conditions that overstretch even Government guidance and instead have an effective, safe, yet sensible working environment for colleagues and staff across the House? What is the process for reversing the unpopular measures that have already been employed, as and when we eventually emerged from this pandemic?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because she gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to the House authorities, obviously to you, Mr Speaker, and to Marianne Cwynarski. Between you, you have done amazing work to ensure that the House’s proceedings are carried on in a covid-secure way and that the staff of the House and of Members are kept safe in the House of Commons while we have been following Public Health England’s guidelines. My hon. Friend is right to say that we provide an essential service and we must be here, and that the restrictions must be lifted as soon as they can be. They are all temporary. I look forward to this Chamber being full and bustling once again, but that will have to come when it is safe to do so. I look forward to not having to wear a face mask, but again that must be done when it is safe to do so. We must lead by example to the country at large, both in our dutifulness and in our adherence to the rules.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

This Sunday, our clocks will go back one hour as part of daylight saving time. According to a recent Government report, 59% of the British population would rather remain on summer time, and I think we can all agree that the last thing our country needs is another hour of 2020. With that in mind, will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time to discuss the practice of moving clocks backwards, so that we can follow the EU in scrapping this outdated and unnecessary practice?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Until the hon. Lady said, “follow the EU”, I might have been tempted, but I am afraid that I always enjoy the extra hour in bed. It is such a luxury to find that one gets the clocks going back to Greenwich mean time and has that extra hour’s sleep. More importantly, people in Scotland in particular would have very late mornings if we did not change the clocks. This was debated in 2010 and 2011, and it has been considered recently. When it was last tried, it was then unwound in both the UK and Portugal, so I am not sure that the appetite for change—and certainly not the appetite to follow the EU—is all that great.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

In constituencies such as mine, the closure of the events and conference industry has hit local B&Bs and guest houses hard. Harrogate and Knaresborough are popular places to visit, even when there is not a pandemic. The House will be aware of the parks and gardens and Mother Shipton’s cave, and I know that my right hon. Friend is familiar with Bettys. With international travel being more difficult, can we have a debate on how best to support our domestic tourism sector and all the excellent hospitality businesses that are part of it?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am indeed familiar with Bettys, because when I went to speak for my hon. Friend, I was provided with a goody bag of delicious provisions at the end of the evening. I also note that Harrogate has been declared the best place in the country to work—I am sure that that is because it has such a fantastic Member of Parliament, and the broadband is merely incidental. The Government are trying to do what they can to help tourism. With our wider economic package, we have given one-off grants for eligible hospitality and leisure businesses, and VAT has been cut from 20% to 5% until the end of March. Tourism is obviously seasonal, and therefore the situation is being watched closely to ensure that the right policies continue to be implemented. He may want to raise further questions with the Chancellor—if you have been kind enough to put him on the call list, Mr Speaker—shortly after this.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

Last month, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), called for free school meals to be provided to every primary school pupil in the country, stating:

“I just want to make sure no-one falls through the cracks”.

Well, last night he failed to vote for free school meals, and his five Scottish colleagues voted against them. Can we have a debate in Government time on how many children in England will fall through the cracks as a result of his Government’s refusal to extend free school meals?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

As I said earlier, the Government have done a great deal to alleviate poverty for children and have provided £380 million in food vouchers for families in need over the summer. Free school meals have only ever been intended to support pupils during term time. There has been an increase in universal credit of £1,000 a year, an increase in local housing allowance, £180 million in discretionary housing payments to councils, a £63 million local welfare assistance fund so that councils can help those in financial difficulties, and £16 million for food charities.

The Government take this issue really seriously and have made great steps to help people who are finding life difficult due to the consequences of the coronavirus. We must sometimes understand in this House that we seek the same end, but by different means. There is nobody in this House who does not want to alleviate food poverty, but there are different ways of doing it. We think it is best done through the normal functioning of the welfare system and by the additional measures that the Government have taken. That is an honest disagreement, but it is not a lack of concern.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Last Friday I visited the Grimsby seafood village—which, despite its name, is in my constituency—and met businesses that had established themselves or, indeed, expanded during the covid pandemic. We will need those sorts of businesses to develop and establish themselves in order to ensure that the economy recovers after we get through this crisis. Could we have a debate to discuss how we may support new businesses?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

First, I congratulate Grimsby seafood village on doing so successfully in the current circumstances and my hon. Friend on being a promoter of it. The Government are taking unprecedented action to support jobs and livelihoods across the UK, with more than £200 billion of taxpayers’ money being spent, including £11 billion in business grants and £10 billion in business rate relief. The summer economic update contained £33 billion of support through the jobs retention bonus and the eat out to help out scheme. The Chancellor will be here momentarily, and I am sure the Cleethorpes champion will be asking for Cleethorpes to get its fair share.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On 13 August 2020, some 60 parliamentarians from 28 countries around the world sent a letter to the Vietnamese President, calling for the immediate and unconditional release of imprisoned Vietnamese human rights activist, Nguyen Bac Truyen, who was abducted by Vietnamese police on 3 July 2017 in Ho Chi Minh City. Truyen’s ongoing imprisonment highlights the issues that many face in Vietnam in the exercise of their right to freedom of religion or belief. Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement or a debate on this very pressing issue?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman is perhaps the House’s most tireless campaigner for freedom of religion and for protection of religious minorities against persecution, and he has a great deal of support for what he does. The UK is committed to defending freedom of religion or belief for all and promoting respect between different religious and non-religious communities. Promoting the right to freedom of religion or belief is one of the UK’s human rights policy priorities, as it should be. The UK remains deeply concerned about the severity and scale of violations and abuses of freedom of religion in many parts of the world, and this issue will be raised with the Vietnam authorities at all suitable opportunities.

While answering the hon. Gentleman, may I congratulate him? I believe that, this week, he has become a grandfather for the fifth time, though he does not look old enough to have possibly managed this.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]]

A number of Members across the House have been campaigning all their political lives to get this country free from the shackles of the European Union. Therefore, it is exceptionally good news that the European Union has recently changed its position on a comprehensive free trade agreement and that Mr Barnier is coming to London this afternoon to try to finalise that deal. Will the Leader of the House recommend to the Prime Minister that Parliament should be recalled next week for a statement and a debate if such a historic agreement is reached?

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I am sure that my hon. Friend took the pleasure that I took that Monsieur Barnier decided that he might come to talk to us on Trafalgar Day, which seemed to have a certain historic resonance. I do not think that it would be right to recall the House next week for a statement, but the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and, indeed, the Prime Minister have regularly kept this House up to date with developments in the negotiations.

[Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)]

Can we have a debate on how we can help our high streets and small businesses? I want to highlight Buxton’s future high streets fund bid, which has been shortlisted by the Government. I sincerely hope that it is successful. Buxton high street has had some difficult years, but there are lots of reasons for optimism, such as Buxton Crescent, which has just reopened after a £70 million heritage refurb into a five-star hotel and spa. That is just another of the brilliant reasons why everyone should come to visit Buxton, Britain’s best spa town, as soon as it is safe to do so.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

Buxton is a wonderful spa town. I might slightly quibble about “best” seeing as my constituency is so close to Bath, and I might upset my neighbours if I were to—[Interruption.] Ah, it is a city. We can agree then, although Harrogate might be upset. I had better not say which is the best in the country, but Buxton is certainly a very beautiful spa town. I am delighted to hear about the reopening of the Buxton Crescent after the £70 million refurbishment. As I said earlier, high streets are essential to our towns and our sense of community, and it is really important to use the £3.6 billion towns fund well. My hon. Friend is such a fantastic champion for his own area, and this is important because we want people to visit our great and historic towns and cities and spend money there and keep the economies going and thriving.

[Chris Bryant]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am seriously worried about the Leader of the House’s answer about the Standards Committee, because we do need to be fully functioning. It is in the interests of the reputation of the House that we have all seven lay members appointed. It is nearly six months now since we went down to five lay members instead of seven. It is three months since the Commission, which you yourself chair, Mr Speaker, agreed the names that came forward through a process in which I was not involved at all. I note that the legislation says that the motion can be brought forward by any member of the Commission, but I wonder whether there is any means of you making sure that we are able to function fully as soon as possible.

[Mr Speaker]

That is not a point of order for the Chair, but what I will say is that the Leader of the House has heard what has been said. I do not want to continue the debate from earlier, which, as an expert like yourself knows, I should not be doing. I do not want to make any further comment, so we shall leave it at that.

In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for a few minutes.

11:39

Sitting suspended.

Covid-19: Economy Update

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Commons Chamber

11:43

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)]

Let me speak first to the people of Liverpool, Lancashire, South Yorkshire and Greater Manchester, and other areas moving into or already living under heightened health restrictions. I understand your frustration. People need to know that this is not forever; these are temporary restrictions to help control the spread of the virus. There are difficult days and weeks ahead, but we will get through this together. People are not on their own. We have an economic plan that will protect the jobs and livelihoods of the British people, wherever they live and whatever their situation. Just as we have throughout this crisis, we will listen and respond to people’s concerns as the situation demands.

I make no apology for responding to changing circumstances, so today we go further. The Prime Minister was right to outline a balanced approach to tackling coronavirus, taking the difficult decisions to save lives and keep the R rate down while doing everything in our power to protect the jobs and livelihoods of the British people. The evidence is clear: a regional, tiered approach is the right way to control the spread of the virus. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury yesterday set out for the House our economic support for businesses that are legally required to close. We are providing: billions of pounds of support for local authorities and a grant scheme for affected businesses, worth up to half a billion pounds every month. Of course, we also expanded the job support scheme, with the Government covering the cost of paying two thirds of people’s normal wages if their employer had been legally required to close. For areas in local alert level 3, we have made available over £1 billion of generous up-front grants, so that local authorities can support businesses, protect jobs and aid economic recovery in a fair and transparent way. That is our plan to support closed businesses.

But it is clear that even businesses that can stay open are facing profound economic uncertainty. This morning I met business and union representatives, including those from the hospitality industry, to discuss the new restrictions. Their message was clear. The impact of the health restrictions on their businesses is worse than they hoped. They recognise the importance of the tiered restrictions in controlling the spread of the virus, but a significant fall in consumer demand is causing profound economic harm to their industry. It is clear that they and other open but struggling businesses require further support, so I am taking three further steps today.

First, I am introducing a new grant scheme for businesses impacted by tier 2 restrictions, even if they are not legally closed. We will fund local authorities to provide businesses in their area with direct cash grants. It will be up to local authorities to decide how best to distribute the grants, giving them the necessary flexibility to respond to local economic circumstances, but I am providing enough funding to give every business premises in the hospitality, leisure and accommodation sectors a direct grant worth up to £2,100 for every month for which tier 2 restrictions apply. That is equivalent to 70% of the value of the grants available for closed businesses in tier 3. Crucially, I am pleased to confirm that these grants will be retrospective; businesses in any area that has been under enhanced restrictions can backdate their grants to August.

I have been listening to and engaging with colleagues around the House, including—but not only—my hon. Friends the Members for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe), for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates), for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher), for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham), for Keighley (Robbie Moore), for Cheadle (Mary Robinson), for Leigh (James Grundy) and for Southport (Damien Moore), and I am pleased to confirm that the backdating of the new grants means that we are being more generous to the businesses and places that have been under higher restrictions for longer. Let no one say that this Government are not committed to supporting the people and businesses in every region and nation of the United Kingdom.

Secondly, to protect jobs we are making the job support scheme more generous for employers. If businesses are legally required to close, as we have already outlined, the Government will cover the full cost of employers paying two thirds of people’s salary where they cannot work for a week or more. For businesses that can open, it is now clear that the impact of restrictions on them is more significant than they had hoped, particularly for those in the hospitality sector. I am therefore making two changes to the short-time work scheme to make it easier for those businesses to keep staff on, rather than make them redundant: first, under the original scheme, employees had to work for 33% of their normal hours, whereas now we will ask them to work only 20% of those hours; and secondly, the employer contribution for the hours not worked will not be 33% as originally planned, or even 20% as it is in the October furlough scheme, but will reduce to 5%.

The scheme will apply to eligible businesses in all alert levels, so that businesses that are not closed, but which face higher restrictions in places such as Liverpool, Lancashire, South Yorkshire, and Greater Manchester, as well as the devolved nations, will be able to access greater support. These changes mean more employers can access the scheme and more jobs will be protected. We have made this one of the most generous versions of a short-time work scheme anywhere in the world. It is better for businesses, better for jobs and better for the economy.

Thirdly, as we increase the contribution we are making towards employees’ wages, I am increasing our contribution to the incomes of the self-employed as well. Today we are doubling the next round of self-employed income support from 20% to 40% of people’s incomes, increasing the maximum grant to £3,750. So far through this crisis, we have provided more than £13 billion of support to self-employed workers. Sole traders, small businesses and self-employed people are the dynamic entrepreneurial heart of our economy, and this Government are on their side.

In conclusion, a wage subsidy for closed businesses, a wage subsidy for open businesses, cash grants of over £2,000 a month for tier 2 businesses and up to £3,000 a month for closed businesses, support for local authorities, support for the self-employed, support for people’s jobs and incomes, all on top of over £200 billion of support since March. This is our plan—a plan for jobs, for businesses, for the regions, for the economy, for the country. A plan to support the British people. I commend this statement to the House.

11:51

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

For months, we have urged the Chancellor to get ahead of the looming unemployment crisis and act to save jobs. Instead we have had a patchwork of poor ideas rushed out at the last minute: a bonus scheme that will pay £2.6 billion to businesses that do not need it; a job support scheme that simply was not going to work for the majority of businesses under pressure and that we said at the beginning did not do enough to incentivise employers to keep staff on; and an approach to support for areas entering tier 3 that has been nothing short of shambolic.

This has had real consequences. The deadline for large-scale redundancies came and went before the Chancellor announced the job support scheme, the deadline for small business redundancies passed before he realised that he needed to amend it, and many parts of our country have spent months under tier 2 restrictions without adequate support. How many jobs have been lost because of that inaction? Over a million have already gone. In the last quarter, we saw a record rise in redundancies. The Chancellor could have done much more if he had acted sooner.

Now we see yet another last-minute move. Let me ask the Chancellor. What has changed that means that this is the right thing to do now but it was not when parts of the north and midlands entered tier 2 many weeks ago? Does he agree with his own Mayor for the west midlands who said that

“this particular point was just one that was completely missed”.

Completely missed was the need for support for tier 2 areas. The Chancellor has only caught up and listened to the anxiety of workers and businesses when it looks like these restrictions will be affecting London and the west midlands. Will he apologise to those who have already lost their jobs and seen their businesses slip through their fingers in those areas that have not had that support until now?

The Chancellor referred to £1 billion of generous up-front grants for businesses and jobs provided in a “fair and transparent way”. There has not been a system of up-front grants for those in the north and midlands, and the process has not been fair and transparent for businesses and workers. To be honest, it is nothing short of insulting to describe what we have seen over the past few weeks as fair and transparent. The Government still have not published the formula that has been used for business support in tier 3 areas, and they still seem addicted to the approach where they say they are in negotiations with different areas but the reality is something completely different. When will he come clean about that support and the formula that is being used?

Will the Chancellor also make good on his Government’s claim that the JSS extension will be topped up to at least 80% for workers facing hardship? I know this is difficult for the Government. I see that the Prime Minister is sitting next to the Chancellor; he thought it would be topped up for everyone to 93%. I think that is what he said. Clearly the Government are not very sure on this, so maybe I can spell it out for them. That support does not amount to 80% for huge numbers of workers facing hardship—for example, those who have modest savings or who are excluded for other reasons, as so many are—and they have to wait five weeks anyway before they get that help. That could be fixed speedily by the Government, but they are refusing to do so. Does the Chancellor also recognise that those fixes for social security must apply to the self-employed, for whom an increase to just 40% of their previous income will not stave off hardship—and that is not to mention those who have been excluded throughout.

This is becoming like a long-running television show: the winter economy plan, series 3. But the twist is that it did not last the winter, it did not do enough to help the economy and it was not a plan. We have to get ahead of this crisis instead of always running to keep up. That is why Labour has called for a national circuit breaker to give us a chance to reset and to fix the broken test, trace and isolate system, but time is running out to implement that circuit breaker so that it includes half term and maximises the opportunity it brings. Will the Chancellor change course?

[Rishi Sunak]

This is the third time I have come to this House in several weeks to outline additional support for the economy, jobs and livelihoods. It is a sign of the seriousness of the economic situation we face, and I will never make any apology for acting fast as the moment demands and as the health situation evolves. But at the heart of this debate is a more fundamental difference on the right approach for protecting livelihoods and lives. We on this side of the House believe it is right to be honest about the hard choices we confront and about the fact that there is no easy cost-free answer. With every restriction comes difficulty, and that is why we are doing everything we can to strike that balance between saving lives and protecting livelihoods.

We have made progress, and that is why we are now able to operate a localised, tiered approach. That is why, even now, in the most affected areas we are striving to keep businesses open, and that is why the support I have announced today is as generous as it is, to give as many businesses and employers as possible the opportunity to keep working and keep trading. All this progress and all this hope are being put at risk by Labour Members’ repeated calls for a damaging, blunt, national lockdown. They will not say for how long, but they have already admitted that it would roll on with no clear end in sight. They will not say how many jobs would be lost through such a national lockdown. They claim that their approach—an indefinite series of national on-off lockdowns—would be better for the economy. I am afraid the facts simply do not support that conclusion.

The policies we have outlined today strike that balance. They support our approach—a localised, regional approach that is striving to get that balance between protecting jobs and protecting livelihoods. They will support people in every region and nation of this United Kingdom. They will protect people’s jobs. They will support their incomes and provide their families with security and with hope for the future.

Throughout this crisis, I have always stood ready to work with all hon. Members in every business group, industry group and trade union to work through solutions and deal with this crisis. While the situation evolves and the challenges change, my approach will not—to build consensus, to reach out to those with different views, to work past tribal political point scoring and to support our country through this moment of immense challenge so that we come out on the other side a stronger, more United Kingdom.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) [V]]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Once again, he has listened to businesses. When it comes to lockdowns—I have to say that I agree with the remarks he has just made about circuit breakers—may I draw his attention to the minutes of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies meeting on 21 September, which state:

“Policy makers will need to consider analysis of economic impacts and the associated harms alongside this epidemiological assessment. This work is underway under the auspices of the Chief Economist.”?

Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the progress that has been made by the chief economist? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to ensure a balanced public debate, the chief economist or a similar economic expert should join the epidemiologists for No. 10 covid press briefings?

[Rishi Sunak]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Opposition referenced the SAGE minutes but seemed to forget about that part of them, which rightly struck a balance between protecting jobs and protecting lives. He can rest assured that the Government will always do that. I may spare the chief economist the pleasure of attending the press conferences, but my right hon. Friend is right to say that that analysis is taking place. I have presented some of it at the press conferences, and I am happy to talk more about it at the Dispatch Box.

Fundamentally, my right hon. Friend knows, as I do, that our economy faces enormous strain. Almost three quarters of a million people have already lost their jobs, and, sadly, more will. That is why a regional, targeted approach is the right one. It allows us both to protect lives and to protect livelihoods.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]]

This is the third statement from the Chancellor in the space of a month, but that is not a sign of good management; it is a sign of panic and chaos from this Government. None of this should be coming as a surprise to them. It is telling that the Government have put out more under embargo today than they gave out to the Opposition spokespeople—a sign of real disrespect to the other parties in this House.

We in the Opposition have called for more certainty and a plan, because the evidence is that we are not coming out of this coronavirus crisis any time soon. The Chancellor has not listened or responded, so I ask again for three things. I ask him to listen and to act; to extend furlough and the self-employment income support scheme at the rates from earlier in the year to protect jobs and livelihoods; and to fill the gaps and help those who are excluded completely from his support schemes. He knows that that is a problem, and he is choosing to ignore it.

I ask the Chancellor to keep the £20 uplift to universal credit and extend it to legacy benefits, including for those who have disabilities. Two thirds of the minimum wage is not enough to live on, and not everybody is entitled to universal credit. Huge gaps remain: carers, asylum seekers, those with disabilities and those with no recourse to public funds have all been left behind by this Government, with a cold, long winter ahead.

Significant sectors such as culture and the arts, hospitality, food and drink wholesalers, tourism, transport and aviation, and many more are not going back to normal any time soon, and they deserve Government support. Will the Chancellor align his support scheme with the Scottish Government’s public health proposals and those of the other devolved institutions?

UK Government support for Scotland does not go far enough to mitigate the local lockdowns that we have faced. The UK Government must now provide clarity on the Barnett consequentials to help us to plan and protect businesses and our people. The Scottish Government need this now—today—not in three months’ time, not eventually and not at some point in the future. We need it now, and the Chancellor should give clarity on it today so that the Scottish Government can act.

The Chancellor’s scheme has been full of holes. Time and time again, he comes here in a knee-jerk reaction, full of panic, rather than planning ahead for a situation that we told him would arise. This is nowhere near “whatever it takes”. I ask him to go further today, and to work with all the Opposition parties and the devolved institutions to get this right.

[Rishi Sunak]

When we outlined the original job support scheme, it was actually very warmly welcomed not only by various business groups, including the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and the chambers of commerce, but by the trade unions, because everyone at that moment recognised that it was a significant and generous intervention to protect the jobs and livelihoods of the British people. But the situation has changed. The health restrictions are having an impact, particularly in the hospitality sector, which the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) mentioned. That is why we have taken the steps that we have today. We are providing the certainty that she asked for, as this scheme will last for at least six months through to next spring. There is certainty over that. The grants we have outlined today will work on a monthly basis for as long as businesses are either in tier 2 restrictions or are closed under tier 3. Businesses can plan on that basis.

With regard to the Barnett consequentials, the Government will always ensure that people will benefit from this support wherever they are living in the United Kingdom. That is why we have provided an up-front guarantee to devolved nations worth £14 billion, which will help them also to plan at what is, I understand, a difficult time for everyone.

[Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)]

I am really pleased that the Chancellor has listened and shown that this Government will always support the north. I am delighted that these tier 2 retrospective measures, such as the expansion of the job support scheme and the business grants, will make a massive difference to people living in Glossopdale in my constituency who have been under tier 2. On the business grants, may I urge the Chancellor to make certain that the money and the guidance on how that money can be used is made available to councils as soon as possible so that the businesses who need it can get it urgently and help to save jobs?

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend has been right to champion the situation for his local businesses. I know that they will warmly welcome this. I can give him the assurance that we will work as quickly as possible to provide the guidance. As I said, the grant value will be calculated on the number of hospitality, leisure and accommodation business premises, scaled by their rateable value. Added to that will be a 5% discretionary top-up, and then the local authority can use its discretion to allocate the money as it sees fit for its local area.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

It seems the Chancellor’s much-vaunted winter economic plan has not even lasted the autumn. His tinkering with the system demonstrates that he has been behind the curve all along, and it has sowed hardship and confusion. Why is the support he offered in March not being replicated as the virus comes back and we are suffering a second wave in October? Why is he trying to achieve local lockdowns on the cheap?

[Rishi Sunak]

I would not consider that providing £200 billion of total support could ever be accused of doing anything on the cheap. That money has gone to support public services like the NHS, and people’s jobs, livelihoods and businesses. I commit to this House that we will continue to do everything that is required, and continue to adapt and evolve as the circumstances demand.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing forward this package, for listening and for acting in the interests of the economy. Is it not essential that we align the interests of business and the economy with the interests of controlling the virus, rather than let those become polar opposites in argument with each other? Can we perhaps draw back from some of the partisanship that has soured relations over the past few days, because that does not do any good for public confidence in how we are all tackling this very difficult and wearing crisis?

[Rishi Sunak]

Those are wise words from my hon. Friend. He is right to highlight the importance, in this House and elsewhere, of our adopting a constructive and collegiate approach to tackling what is clearly a national crisis, and one that we will get through. We will get through it by working together and emerging stronger on the other side.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

From tomorrow, Wales will begin a 17-day firebreak lockdown to help to control the spread of the virus. During that period, there will be two support schemes from the Treasury as one ends and another one starts. The First Minister of Wales has asked the Chancellor to allow Welsh businesses to access the job support scheme a week early. He has refused, so a further request has been made to ease the rules on furlough for one week to allow people to get that support. We need to ensure that bureaucracy is reduced to allow Welsh businesses to protect jobs, so will the Chancellor be flexible, and what support, specifically, will he give to Welsh businesses?

[Rishi Sunak]

We have tried to reduce the bureaucracy by making sure that we do not have overlapping schemes at the same time. That would only increase complexity for businesses. We have endeavoured in all ways to provide support on a UK-wide basis, as I have said in conversations with the First Minister and others. We are doing this on a UK-wide basis in the knowledge that devolved nations are making individual decisions that ultimately the UK Government and UK taxpayer will be funding. That situation will work only if people can work in a constructive and aligned spirit, which is what I have said to all, and I very much hope that that can be continued in the coming months.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I greatly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. The measures he has announced are significant and generous, delivered in a manner that is fast becoming this Chancellor’s hallmark. May I thank him for hearing the powerful arguments advanced by the west midlands Mayor, Andy Street, especially in respect of the hospitality industry, and for addressing the serious business jeopardy that did lie between tiers 2 and 3?

[Rishi Sunak]

My right hon. Friend is right that the Mayor, Andy Street, has been vocal, and rightly so, in highlighting the particular impact of the tier 2 restrictions on the hospitality industry. That helped inform our decision to act today, with speed and scale, to provide support to those businesses, which will be warmly welcomed in his area.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I wonder if the Chancellor regrets ruling out of hand the SNP’s calls in the spring for a universal basic income. Will he calculate what impact a minimum income guarantee like that would have had for employers, employees and the self-employed alike, and what the overall cost would be, compared with the billions he is finding for all these myriad schemes? Will he calculate the long-term costs of millions more on universal credit and other social security benefits, with the consequences of that on the economy and society?

[Rishi Sunak]

The Government do not agree with the universal basic income. It would not be right to provide money to millions of people who have absolutely no need of it; that would just detract our resources, which are targeted on those in most need, as has been our approach throughout the crisis.

With regard to universal credit and welfare, the Government believe that the best way to help people is to provide them with work and opportunity. That is why all our efforts are targeted on providing that support to protect as many jobs as possible while recognising that we cannot protect every single job. That is why we have also strengthened our safety net, with billions invested in universal credit and local housing allowance and, crucially, funding provided for new opportunities through training and apprenticeships to help people find fresh opportunity and a brighter future.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

Although I welcome the Chancellor’s statement, the imposition of tier 3 restrictions in Lancashire will inevitably mean that many of my constituents will be significantly worse off. While the additional funding for Lancashire, including the £42 million package, is welcome, there will still be far too many businesses who cannot access the Chancellor’s direct support. Hundreds of hotels in my constituency stand to lose thousands in lost bookings, but, because they have not been mandated to close, they will not be entitled to the additional support packages. Will he take steps to ensure that businesses such as small hotels, which are completely unviable under tier 3 restrictions, can access grants and the extended job support scheme?

[Rishi Sunak]

I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the money provided to Lancashire, as it entered tier 3, for overall business support can be used precisely to help the businesses he rightly mentions that are being affected by the restrictions, even though they are open. That funding is there for the county council and other local authorities to do that. The enhanced generosity of the job support scheme I have announced will go a long way to helping those businesses as well, making it easy and affordable for them to get the wage support they need from the Government to protect as many jobs as possible.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

While I appreciate yet another partial U-turn from the Chancellor, what the country needs now more than anything is leadership, clarity and confidence that the Government are in control rather than this constant reaction and a patchwork with every hallmark of having been written on the back of a cigarette packet that we are getting from this Government. I plead with the Chancellor to consider going the whole way and keep the job retention scheme going after the end of October, let the devolved nations know what consequentials they will have—they need to plan as well—and give the country what he promised. He said he would do whatever it takes; this is not it.

[Rishi Sunak]

The hon. Lady asks for an extension of the job retention scheme. It is worth drawing her attention to the fact that the employer contribution to the job retention scheme in October is 20%, whereas under the new, more generous, job support scheme it has been reduced to 5%. That is more generous and will protect more jobs and more people’s livelihoods.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to helping the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; we much value the money that has come forward. May I speak for the distribution sector, which daily delivers perishable foods not only to care homes, the NHS and schools, but to pubs, cafés and restaurants that are closed in tier 2 and 3 locations? The costs for distribution remain the same for jobs, vehicles and businesses. What help can those in the distribution sector access as a result of the Chancellor’s announcement?

[Rishi Sunak]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the supply chains of those who serve the hospitality industry. I draw his attention to two things. The tier 2 grant programme that I announced today will contain a 5% discretionary top-up, which local authorities can use at their own discretion to support local businesses; they may choose to use some of it to address the needs that he outlines. Also, we have not targeted the enhanced generosity of the job support scheme purely at the hospitality industry, or indeed purely at businesses operating in tier 2 areas, because we recognise the complexity of the supply chains that he mentions. The very generous job support scheme will be available for all businesses in all parts of the country, regardless of sector, which I think will make an enormous difference to the businesses that he mentions.

[Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)]

They say that good things come in small packages. Well, my right hon. Friend might be small, but he has delivered a huge package of job-saving, business-boosting support that will benefit the people of Stockton South and people right across the country. I thank the myth, the man, the legend who is my right hon. Friend for this life-saving support for businesses in my patch. Will he continue to review and react promptly to the ever-changing situation in his characteristically charismatic way?

[Rishi Sunak]

I am very grateful for my hon. Friend’s kind—I think—compliments; he knows that he is a large part of the reason why I am in this House, so he can take as much of the credit or blame for that as is required. I can give him the reassurance that he seeks. I have been delighted to visit his local businesses with him, and I know that he is an enormous champion for his local community, high streets and businesses. He works very hard on their behalf, and I know that the measures that we have announced today will make a difference to him and make sure that his community continues to be a thriving place.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

Alan Gent runs the Petersgate Tap in my constituency. He employs five members of staff and the impact of the pandemic was already choking his business. He is not currently paying business rates, but his private landlord has rejected his request for a rent holiday, and now that Stockport is in tier 3, he cannot stay open. The support currently offered is woefully inadequate. Will the Chancellor now commit to addressing the real hardship of those who work in Stockport’s pubs, bars and hospitality sector?

[Rishi Sunak]

I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s constituent—I know what a difficult time it must be for him and his team and for those in similar industries—but actually I think that the support provided already will help him. The pub will be eligible for a business rate cash grant of up to £3,000 per month that he remains closed under tier 3 restrictions; across the UK, it will vary by place, but that should largely cover the vast majority of small and medium-sized pubs’ rental bills for that time. Of course, the five team members that the hon. Gentleman mentions could be put on the expanded job support scheme at essentially no cost to the employer. Those employees’ wages will be protected and covered by the Government.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and thank him for all he is doing. Harrogate and Knaresborough is at the medium level, tier 1, but areas surrounding it are in the higher tier 2 category. Businesses have noted that with concern and are worried about what might happen should the position change and our tier be increased. The enhanced package will therefore be welcomed; I welcome it strongly. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reduction in employer costs will result in more jobs being saved?

[Rishi Sunak]

As ever, I thank my hon. Friend for his thoughtful comments. He is right. That is why we took the decision to make this a universal approach, with enhanced generosity, to deal with the situation he mentioned of businesses operating in proximity to other areas under restrictions—those supply chains. This is a universal, generous approach, designed, as he said, with a lower employer contribution, to make sure that we can protect and support as many jobs as possible.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Back in March, the Chancellor said that those in the exhibition sector with physical properties and business rates would be eligible for the cash grant, but when they approached their local councils they found out that that was not true and that, because they did not open their premises to the public, they were not eligible. Exhibition companies in my constituency have received minimal support and are really struggling, and it looks like conferences and mass events will not go ahead until a vaccine is in place. It might not offer a photo opportunity like being a waiter at Wagamama, but may I urge the Chancellor to meet exhibition companies, including those in my constituency, and hear how much they are suffering?

[Rishi Sunak]

The hon. Lady might make disparaging comments about photo opportunities at Wagamama, but that was precisely because that sector employs 2 million people who are disproportionately lower paid, from ethnic minorities, younger and women. It is right that we focus our support on those in the hospitality sector, because they are particularly impacted by the restrictions.

The hon. Lady is right to highlight the plight of those in the events and exhibition industry. I am very sympathetic to that. Those businesses with business premises will receive business rates relief if they are in those categories. Indeed, the categories for the tier 2 grants that we have announced today will include hospitality, leisure and accommodation, under the Valuation Office Agency codes. Exhibition and events spaces are typically included in that, so they will be included in the calculation of the grant value provided to local authorities.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Business leaders I speak to, both in Arundel and South Downs and nationally, recognise that tailoring our response to the circumstances is a strength, not a weakness. They also know that there are no easy choices, but the worst of all worlds would be a blunt national circuit break, which would cost rather than save jobs.

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right on his last point. We are lucky to benefit from the considerable business experience that he brings to this place. He is right that, in business as in public policy, it is right that we evolve and adapt to the circumstances. That is what we have done today, but it is right that we do it in a targeted, tiered way, not with the blunt national instrument that, as he rightly says, would unnecessarily cause hardship and cost jobs.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I understand that at half-past 4 today a Government Minister will meet local leaders in Nottingham to put us into the third tier. We had to find that out through the media, because local Members of Parliament have not been invited, which is saddening. If measures need to be taken to protect the health and wellbeing of our community, we will of course support them, but they will have a profound impact on our local economy. If Nottingham moves into tier 3 this afternoon, what package of support will the Chancellor put in place to protect our jobs and businesses?

[Rishi Sunak]

I know that it is a difficult time for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, and he is right that they should engage constructively. I am glad that he and his local area are doing that. There will be a variety of support available. Closed businesses will receive grants of up to £3,000 a month, paid centrally. Obviously, similar to other areas, there will be a negotiation and a conversation with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, which will result in an amount of support being provided for businesses. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman will know, there is also a formula to provide the local authority with support of up to £8 per head, and that money is used to enhance local compliance enforcement and contact tracing. I know that those conversations are ongoing and I very much hope that they will have a constructive outcome.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) [V]]

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and thank him for supporting people and businesses across Essex. Already more than 15,000 people have benefited from the furlough scheme, and more than 5,000 from the self-employment income support scheme. These additional measures to support those who have been adversely affected by the recent introduction of tier 2 in Essex are welcome. Will he confirm that he will continue to do whatever it takes to support our country and our economy?

[Rishi Sunak]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. He mentioned some numbers, and that is ultimately what it is about. We stand in this place and talk about many billions of pounds and policy, but often it is about the people and the jobs and livelihoods that we are trying to protect. I am delighted to hear that the 20,000 people he mentioned have benefited from the support that this Government have put in place, and I can give him and them the assurance that we will continue to do exactly that.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

As Wales enters a firebreak lockdown tomorrow evening, there are concerns that there will be a week-long gap in support between the end of the furlough scheme and the introduction of the new wage support scheme. It would be good if the Chancellor could consider giving Welsh businesses early access to that scheme. May I ask him to clarify the eligibility criteria, in particular whether seasonal workers will be eligible for support?

[Rishi Sunak]

There will not be any gap in support, I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman, because, as he knows, the CJRS runs all the way to the end of this month and the job support scheme starts on 1 November. There will be complete coverage and no interruption. We provided Barnett funding on the grants from the moment I announced them, so that is also available to the Welsh Government. With regard to the specific treatment of seasonal workers and the computation of the reference earnings, that is set out in the guidance for the CJRS and that will remain consistent in the new job support scheme.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

In his statement on 8 July, my right hon. Friend said his measures would be always

“unencumbered by dogma”

and

“driven always by the simple desire to do what is right.”—[Official Report, 8 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 937.]

He was right then and he is right today in announcing these measures. I noted the extension in support for the self-employed, which will now extend all the way through to April. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he is also working with the Health Secretary to ensure that we are doing whatever we can to get self-employed people and everyone else into work and back to work without restrictions as quickly as possible?

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The self-employed are a part of the entrepreneurial side of our economy that will help to drive our recovery. It is right that they receive support and I am proud that the support we have put in place—over £13 billion benefiting almost 3 million people—is one of the most comprehensive and generous packages of support for the self-employed. Ultimately, however, his last point is the one we should focus on. The best way to help people is to allow them to get on and do the job they love doing, and allow them to trade.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am not going to quibble; I think all of this is good and I am delighted that it is being announced today. However, I just want to say to the Chancellor that some of the measures he has announced apply across the whole of the UK and some apply only in England. That provides a lot of confusion for a lot of ordinary people out in the country who do not watch what we are doing in here every day and do not follow every element of the minutiae. Will he clarify precisely how much of the money he is announcing today is really new money to be spent in England through local authorities on the new business grants in tier 2 areas? How much extra money—I do not want to know about the earlier £14 billion for the devolved nations—because of Barnett consequentials is now coming to Wales?

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He is right and I can appreciate the confusion. We try to do things on a UK-wide level, but obviously not everything will be on that level. I cannot give him a precise figure, because these are demand-led schemes. What we have tried to do is provide upfront funding guarantees in advance of that demand being drawn down in England and the Barnett consequentials being delivered. We true those up on a regular basis—I am happy to write to him with further details—but we try to provide the funding to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in advance of that demand actually occurring in England. I think that is a better and more generous approach for the devolved nations.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

I welcome the Chancellor’s statement. Keeping a link to viable jobs is absolutely crucial, so does my right hon. Friend agree that it is better to keep businesses open and functioning where possible with support, rather than locking down nationally, multiple times?

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When I talk to both businesses and employees, they say that what they want is to be able to go to the jobs they love. They want to be able to do that. They want to be able to serve customers and they want to be able to welcome us all back to their restaurants, pubs, cafés and so on. She is right that we have to strike that balance. I think the approach that the Government have taken does that—it strikes that balance. The support we have put in place today will enable as many of those people to remain in their job working hard and hopefully have a fulfilling future to come.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) [V]]

It is good to see the Chancellor has found the magic money tree of Tory myth and given it another shake, but the money needs to go to the self-employed, the smallest businesses and the poorest households. He will have total control of VAT soon. Will he look at cutting tax on household essentials? Will he target the support for job retention schemes at the smallest businesses, so they can continue to employ people, rather than offsetting the wage bill of some supermarkets? Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Waitrose are not feeling the pinch the way that small enterprises are feeling it. Will he send the cash where it will do the most good?

[Rishi Sunak]

The hon. Lady is right in saying that support should now be targeted at where it can make the most difference. That is why our approach has evolved through this crisis, and what was universal at the beginning and at the peak of the crisis has now evolved into a more targeted approach. To give one example, a difference between the job support scheme and the old furlough scheme is that now large businesses—precisely the kinds of businesses she mentioned—will not be able to access the job support scheme, especially with its new, more generous terms, unless that business is seeing revenue decline. That sensible change means that support is rightly targeted at smaller and medium-sized businesses that need our help at this difficult time, and not at the large businesses that are not seeing any change to their business model.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us head to Ludlow and Philip Dunne. There is no sound, so I call Naz Shah.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I do not need to tell the Chancellor about the way we are going, with the economy plunging further into a crisis. The biggest thing that businesses in my constituency tell me is that uncertainty is their biggest enemy. We have now been under extra restrictions for more than 150 days. If we go into tier 3, and given that the Chancellor does not want a planned circuit breaker, what support will he give to businesses in my constituency of Bradford West? Importantly, how long should they be prepared for uncertainty?

[Rishi Sunak]

I am pleased to tell the hon. Lady that the tier 2 grants that I announced today will be backdated, so that her businesses and local authority will receive funding that is backdated to when they entered tier 2 restrictions. I think those grants worth up to £2,000 over a month will be of enormous support to businesses in her constituency, at what I appreciate is a difficult time.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Although Norfolk remains in tier 1, the additional support for hospitality, tourism and other businesses is welcome. As well as the short-term measures in this plan for jobs, looking longer term, will my right hon. Friend bring forward proposals in the spending review for tourism zones, including one for Norfolk and Suffolk? Will he accelerate the roll-out of gigabit broadband for businesses in North West Norfolk, so that they benefit sooner from greater connectivity?

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend regularly reminds us all about the importance of digital connectivity in rural areas such as his, and indeed mine, and he will know, as I do, that the Government are committed to bringing both gigabit-capable broadband and mobile phone networks to all the parts of our country that otherwise might not have as strong connectivity as they would like. I know he will join me in welcoming that, as it will make an enormous difference to the local economy in his and other rural areas.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]]

Twenty-three OECD countries had job subsidy schemes in place for a major event such as a pandemic, but unfortunately, the UK was not one of them. The Government’s piecemeal approach to the pandemic is leading many of my constituents to ask why we were so poorly prepared for it in every single way. In Oldham East and Saddleworth, unemployment has nearly doubled since March. We know now that across the country nearly 300,000 people were not eligible for social security support. A third of those people were disabled and one in 10 were from the north-west. How many low-income workers covered by this new financial package will be excluded from social security support to top up their wages?

[Rishi Sunak]

The hon. Lady is right to say that we did not have a wage support scheme when we entered this crisis, which is why I place on record my thanks to the fantastic team of officials at the Treasury and at HMRC for acting with unbelievable speed and decisiveness in helping me to create, design, and implement these schemes in record time, enabling us to help pay the wages and protect the jobs of more than 9 million people.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

Last night I had a meeting with the Hinckley business improvement district and met businesses that raised concerns about what would happen should they go into tier 2. At the time I told them that the Chancellor and the Treasury were listening, and I am pleased to welcome the support for businesses in tier 2, should my area move into that. In the spirit of listening, will the Chancellor consider providing a road map for businesses that are struggling the most, such as those running weddings, events and conferences and those in the travel industry, to try to provide some clarity and certainty going forward?

[Rishi Sunak]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this. He has raised with me the impact on businesses in his area of a potential move into tier 2, and I hope he will be reassured by the announcements today. Travel and events are interlinked. As he and I know, we must work to find a way to allow more travel to happen. The Transport Secretary has spoken to colleagues about that. He is actively engaged in working with industry and health professionals to see what more we can do to facilitate greater ease of travel, and therefore open up travel corridors and help our events industry.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) [V]]

It is important that the public health and economic support measures move in harmony. Northern Ireland had to go into tighter restrictions on 16 October, ahead of other parts of the UK. The 20% employer contribution in the outgoing job retention scheme is a major challenge for employers to keep jobs. Given that the Chancellor has shown some flexibility today, will he reconsider the timescale of the new scheme and backdate the 5% employer contribution to 16 October?

[Rishi Sunak]

Given that the grants are backdated, if that results in extra Barnett consequentials, of course that extra funding will flow to Northern Ireland, as it will to other devolved nations. With regard to the job support scheme, as I said, there will be no interruption of coverage between one scheme and the other. As the hon. Gentleman points out, the employer contribution will be significantly reduced on 1 November.

[Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)]

I am incredibly grateful to my right hon. Friend and the whole Treasury team for their work, and I would especially like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) for her engagement on this matter. I am already receiving messages from my constituents to say that they are delighted with these schemes. Bishop Auckland landlords will be helped out by this. I just have one question: how quickly can we expect these grants to hit businesses? I know that County Durham did an exceptional job of getting them out last time, but if he could provide a timeline, I would be grateful.

[Rishi Sunak]

I know that my hon. Friend is a proud champion of all her local pubs, judging by all her Instagram photos—I am very jealous. Having visited many of them with her during the campaign, I am glad that she is providing them with the support that they need at this difficult time. I know that these grants will make a difference. I can reassure her that we will work very quickly to get the guidance out. The funding will be available on a monthly basis; a month after the restrictions start, the funding will be there for those businesses.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]]

The Chancellor has announced the latest package of covid measures, and we clearly face a further protracted period of the crisis, with more and more areas going into local restrictions. Given the regional packages announced for England, will the Chancellor tell us exactly what the Barnett consequentials will be, as devolved nations need to plan properly for their own mitigation measures?

[Rishi Sunak]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). We have taken the approach of providing up-front funding guarantees to devolved nations, worth £14 billion currently, and we will update and review those regularly. In all ways, dealing with these demand-led schemes is difficult, which is why we have taken this approach, which is generous and better at providing up-front funding to devolved nations.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

The Chancellor’s measures will be welcomed by the hospitality sector in London, although I hope he might have a word with the Health Secretary about the point of a 10 pm curfew if it is members of a family dining together. Will he look carefully at support for the events sector? As he knows, that sector supports not only private events but many large corporate events. We have a great number of those of the highest quality in London. There are thousands of jobs and millions of pounds of turnover involved here, but because these businesses do not serve food directly to the public from their production kitchens, they have not so far been able to benefit from the business rate relief scheme. Can we look at those loopholes that they have been falling through?

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Where the guidance is not clear on businesses that are legally required not to open but not legally closed and therefore do not benefit from some support, we are actively looking at that and ensuring that we can fix it. Events and exhibitions are one of the VOA categories that will be included in the hospitality and leisure calculation that we use for the tier 2 grants I have announced today. More generally, the best thing we can do is try to open up more travel and, as time progresses and we can do more testing, to get life back into that sector by allowing it to get on with what it wants to do, which is to put on a fantastic events.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

In March, the Government increased the basic allowances for both universal credit and working tax credit by £20 a week, but that uplift is only temporary; it will expire next April. Does the Chancellor accept that, after what we all expect to be a tough winter ahead, that will mean taking nearly £1,000 a year away from those families who really need it?

[Rishi Sunak]

We did put in place the temporary uplift of universal credit  but, as the hon. Gentleman says, it still has five or six months to run; it will be in place to support vulnerable families throughout the difficult winter period and is there all the way until next spring.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I welcome the measures announced today. As the Chancellor will be aware, 15,400 people have benefited from the furlough scheme in South West Hertfordshire, and I applaud the sustainable and affordable approach he has adopted. Does he agree that the approach needs to remain pragmatic, with an evolution of policy, to give more certainty to our communities?

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the face of something we have never seen before—we are all grappling with how to deal with it—it is right that we remain pragmatic and flexible; it is not right to be wedded to dogma and be unwilling to change when the facts change. We will always do that, as we grapple with the health crisis and the economic crisis. We will remain flexible and nimble, but always with the same values and principles underlying what we do, which is to try to protect as many people’s jobs and livelihoods as we can.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]]

The UK Government wax lyrical about a flexible labour market as a strength of the UK economy, but the Chancellor’s support packages have excluded millions and so many will continue to be excluded from support. So will he again look at provisions for the millions who still fall through the holes in his schemes? If he will not do the right thing by these excluded groups, will he please release the resources to devolved Administrations to allow them to do so?

[Rishi Sunak]

Our support for the self-employed remains among the most comprehensive and generous anywhere in the world, and is now approximating almost £13 billion for almost 3 million people. Barnett consequentials of more than £13 billion or £14 billion have been provided to the devolved nations and, if the Scottish Government choose to do something different with that, that is of course up to them.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

In the past six months, the number of people forced to claim unemployment benefit in Barnsley has doubled. If the Chancellor is saying that livelihoods have to be balanced against lives, should the people of Barnsley expect unemployment to rise, the death rate to rise, or both?

[Rishi Sunak]

It is exactly because we need to adopt a balanced approach that we have taken the more regional and tiered approach that we have. We never pretended there are easy choices here—it would be wrong to say otherwise. We are balancing protecting the economy and protecting people’s jobs and livelihoods while suppressing the virus, in the least damaging way possible. There is no perfect answer. As I said, there are no easy choices. But we will always be honest about that and try to tread that careful path between those two things. What would be more damaging for people’s jobs and livelihoods is a blunt national lockdown, which would inflict unnecessary hardship and suffering on people where the virus is not particularly rampant.

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

Throughout this crisis, the Chancellor has shown himself to be adaptable, nimble, flexible, dextrous and agile—perhaps it is down to the Peloton bike or a yoga exercise. I do not know what it is down to, but those are critical skills, essential for success in any endeavour. I thank him from the bottom of my heart for the measures he has announced today, which will benefit my constituents, who have struggled so much to keep their livelihoods afloat. I am truly grateful to him. Does he agree that the sledgehammer blunt instrument of a circuit breaker or fire break—call it what you like, but that type of lockdown—would be devastating to our communities and our economy? Will he do everything he can to ensure that that does not happen?

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I thank her for her warm words. She knows, as someone who is a huge champion of small businesses in her area, repeatedly bringing their concerns to this Chamber, how damaging it would be to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on those businesses and those people’s jobs and livelihoods. That is why the Prime Minister’s and this Government’s approach of a regional, tiered strategy is absolutely the right one.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]]

The Chancellor will recognise that, although the tier system is only a few weeks old, Greater Manchester has been de facto in tier 2 for three months, before moving into tier 3 this week. The Chancellor told the House, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), that these grants will now be retrospective. Can he be absolutely clear: will the grants for Greater Manchester go back to the beginning of our period of de facto tier 2 and not simply to when the Government introduced the more formal, legalistic tier 2?

[Rishi Sunak]

Yes, I can, and I hope I did, provide that reassurance. For all areas that have been suffering essentially de facto restrictions, as the hon. Gentleman said, we will backdate the grants through to the beginning of August as required, and that will benefit many local businesses in Greater Manchester. I am grateful for the representations I had on this matter from many colleagues around the House, including many of those I mentioned in my statement.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us head up to Yorkshire with Julian Sturdy.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) [V]]

[Inaudible.]

[Mr Speaker]

We will go up to Scotland for the next question, from Neil Gray.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) [V]]

It has taken weeks for the Chancellor to tinker with his job support scheme to get it to a better place, as if he was surprised by the impact that the necessary public health restrictions would have; it really prompts the question why he did not just keep furlough. But the big question today is why he did not do anything about making the universal credit £20 per week lifeline permanent and extending it to legacy benefits, which would have disproportionately benefited disabled people at this difficult time.

[Rishi Sunak]

Maybe the hon. Gentleman knew something that the TUC and every other business group did not when they warmly welcomed the introduction of the job support scheme, but I am grateful to have his thoughts. He might also want to have a word with his colleague the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), who said that it was wrong to give support to large businesses that were benefiting from this crisis. That is exactly why it would be wrong to extend the furlough scheme. The job support scheme is more targeted in its approach, makes sure that those types of businesses are not able to access support and, as I have mentioned, is more generous to employers than the October furlough scheme.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the Chancellor’s statement and thank him and his colleagues, and indeed the Department, for everything they are doing. It would take the most churlish of people to claim that this is anything but flexible, nimble and massive support for business. I recognise that, in making the job support scheme more generous, the Chancellor is now providing support for businesses that are open, and that is absolutely welcome. What steps are being taken in respect of those businesses that are open and perhaps do not need as much support—or, indeed, there could be fraudulent claims—to protect the taxpayer?

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why we have evolved our approach. Whereas earlier in this crisis, when we were facing something that was happening with enormous speed and severity, we erred on the side of being more universal in our approach and acting quickly, obviously, as time has progressed, we can be more targeted—more effective—to root out misuse of these schemes and make sure that support is targeted where it is most needed. As I said, one example of that is all the various new eligibility criteria for the job support scheme, ensuring that large businesses that are not suffering a revenue decline will not be able to access the scheme. There are also conditions around redundancy notices and the ability of large companies to make capital distributions while using the scheme. All those are sensible changes that go to the heart of what my hon. Friend said: we should target our support on those who really need it.

[Mr Speaker]

Let us return to Yorkshire with Julian Sturdy. I think he has got his voice back.

[Julian Sturdy [V]]

Thank you, Mr Speaker—take two. I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to the concerns that have been raised by York’s tourism and hospitality sector and announcing an extensive package of support for areas such as York that have been left in limbo under the tier 2 restrictions. However, does he agree that the best way to support York’s wider economy is to get us back to tier 1 as swiftly as possible? Can he assure me that the support announced today will not be used to justify prolonging additional restrictions for longer than is necessary?

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the best way to help businesses and protect people’s jobs is to allow businesses to trade and allow the economy to function as normally as possible. The support we have put in place today will not be used as an excuse not to do that, and as the Prime Minister said, we will be reviewing all these restrictions on a 28-day basis. Of course, we all want to see our local areas get back to as much of normality as they can, as quickly as possible.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

One hundred and nine coach companies have gone bust, with 7,100 people made redundant, which is one sixth of the entire coach industry. Coach companies tell me that one reason for that is that they fall between gaps in support, being classified as neither tourism nor essential travel. Please will the Chancellor look urgently into what specific support can be given to the coach industry? Will the relevant Minister meet me and representatives of the sector to discuss their concerns?

[Rishi Sunak]

I am happy to organise for a relevant Minister to meet the hon. Lady. I hope that those companies—she is right about the difficult time they are experiencing—will have been able to access, for example, the bounce back loans or the coronavirus business interruption loans to help them with cash flow, and ditto with the VAT deferral and time to pay. But I appreciate that it is a difficult time for them, and the best thing we can do is allow more economic activity so they can get their coaches full as quickly as possible.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I warmly welcome this package of support. Nevertheless, as the Chancellor has acknowledged, this will be a difficult winter for some businesses. When we move into what I hope will be a spring recovery, we will see the reintroduction of the full rates of VAT and business rates. Would my right hon. Friend consider phasing in the reintroduction of those at slightly lower levels to allow businesses to get back on their feet in these very important sectors?

[Rishi Sunak]

As ever, I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s advice and support. He is right: the business rates holiday we have put in place this year has provided over £10 billion of support to almost 1 million businesses. I know what a vital lifeline it is, so of course we keep all measures under review. Future fiscal policy is for Budgets, but I thank him for raising the point with me.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) [V]]

When I previously asked the Chancellor about furloughed workers having to survive on less than the minimum wage, his callous response was that they would be “able to work elsewhere”, yet minimum wage workers in very high virus areas whose workplaces have been forced to shut will now have to live off just two thirds of the minimum wage. That is just £5.81 per hour—the minimum wage level of 11 years ago. Will the Chancellor introduce a wage floor so no such worker has to live off less than the minimum wage?

[Rishi Sunak]

We have addressed this point before, but I am happy to repeat it. Very low-paid workers will benefit from the flexibility and responsiveness of universal credit, and that is where the universal credit taper works. The way it works is that it will replace the falls in income with a top-up in universal credit worth about 63p in the pound. For example, a single person in their late 20s, working in hospitality and renting privately in a flat in a northern city, will receive about 92% of their original income on an after tax and after benefits basis.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

I too warmly welcome the Chancellor’s statement today. Does he agree with me that it is vital and absolutely right that we take this decisive action to support businesses and jobs today, but it is also important that we are mindful of the sustainability of public finances for tomorrow?

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will have seen the figures from this week detailing the difficult situation of our public finances, with the scale of the borrowing and the scale of the increase in our debt this year. While right now our primary focus should be on supporting jobs and employment, given the restrictions in place, it is always right that we have one eye on the future. We must be careful not to mortgage our children’s futures, and that is why our interventions will be done in a way that is sustainable and affordable for the long term to ensure that we live within our means over time.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]]

I was critical of the Chancellor on Tuesday, so I want to thank him for listening and acting on one of the key asks of all Greater Manchester MPs, of all the council leaders in our city region and, yes, of our Mayor, Andy Burnham, too. It was that our businesses and supply chains should be supported in tier 2, because we have had 12 weeks of these measures with no help and no support, and many really are struggling as we tip into a stricter tier 3. For some it will be too late, but I thank him for making this retrospective. How soon will these funds be released, because it is pressing, and what calculation has he made of the 12-week entitlement for Greater Manchester businesses?

[Rishi Sunak]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I would tell him that we will work very quickly with the Valuation Office Agency to calculate the value of those grants; we are just working through that detail. I hope to be able to provide him and all Manchester MPs with the figures as soon as possible, and we will of course release that funding as quickly as we have calculated the values.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)]

On behalf of my constituents, may I thank the Chancellor for this comprehensive economic package? Clearly, he is a Chancellor who listens and I thank him for that. Will he join me in commending Andy Street, the Mayor of the West Midlands, who has campaigned passionately for further support? He is not a showboater; he just gets on with the job and gets things done.

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am always grateful to hear from Mayor Andy Street. Andy has rightly put on the agenda the situation for businesses, especially hospitality businesses, in tier 2 areas, which my hon. Friend represents, and wanted me to be aware of what was happening. I am glad that today’s set of measures will make a difference to both my hon. Friend and Andy’s wider set of businesses and, I know, to many other businesses across the country.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]]

The Chancellor says that he will support only viable businesses. Kim runs a wedding photography business. She is self-employed and works from home and, like millions of people, she has not qualified for any of the measures that the Chancellor has announced. Weddings will need photographers again, and Kim already has 71 bookings for next year. Why is the Chancellor’s message to Kim, and millions like her, that he thinks her business is not viable?

[Rishi Sunak]

If the hon. Member wants to write to me with Kim’s particular circumstances, I would be happy to see what various things we have done that may be of benefit to her and her business.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

I welcome this statement. It will ensure that the hospitality sector, even in those areas with much greater restrictions than my own, can hopefully keep going and come through this, as opposed to the approach of the Labour party, which would hammer the hospitality sector, even in areas such as mine, in Ipswich, where we currently have very low levels of covid. It will also give some reassurance to my constituents that, if the worst comes to the worst and cases increase, there is that additional support in place. One thing that these grants could be used on is winter heaters and gazebos, because we can still socialise outside in the winter months. I just wondered what the Chancellor’s thoughts were on that.

[Rishi Sunak]

That is an interesting idea. Obviously, for areas in tier 3, the local authorities are receiving funding to use at their discretion. It may well be that that is an idea they want to take up. Of course, for both open and closed businesses in tiers 2 or 3, I have announced a series of grants today and it will be up to those businesses to use them on whatever they want. Primarily, we assume that they will use them to cover the fixed costs of things such as rent, but, of course, it will be up to them what they use them for. None the less, my hon. Friend makes a good suggestion, which, together with our planning changes, means that those businesses can serve as many customers as possible, even though they face restrictions at the moment.

[Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the additional support for tier 2 areas, such as my constituency in London. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to get London back into tier 1 as soon as possible as London is the engine of this country’s economy, accounting for 25% of all tax revenue?

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is a rightly proud champion of her businesses in central London. Obviously, what is happening not just to our capital city but to all our city centres is incredibly sad. We all want to see them springing back to life and vibrancy. Hopefully, the measures that we have announced today will provide some support and breathing space to help them get through a difficult period until they can get back on their feet and do exactly what we want them to do, which is return to where they were—bustling and welcoming us all back into their shops and restaurants.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

The Chancellor says that he has been talking to the people who are worried about their livelihoods and the businesses facing redundancy, so he will know that those redundancies are falling particularly heavily on mums. We know from the data produced by the Office for National Statistics last month that 79% of the increase in redundancies has come from women, and we know that it is mums who are losing their jobs, but his Department is sitting on £1.7 billion of unspent tax-free childcare funding. Will he use that money to ensure that our childcare sector can support every parent who wants to get back to work and to stop the tsunami of unemployment that we are about to face?

[Rishi Sunak]

The hon. Lady is right to highlight the particular importance of good-quality childcare, which, as she said, enables mums to be able to protect their employment. I am happy to look at the specific suggestion that she mentioned, but I think that we have recently made—in the previous Budget and before—some changes to the operation of tax-free childcare, so that it is more available to more people. She is right that the take-up has not been what was forecast, which is why we put the changes in place to broaden the approach and broaden the eligibility for it, but I am happy to look at her specific suggestion.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the provisions announced today, which I very much welcome. My constituency is partly in tier 1 and partly in tier 2, and I especially welcome the support for tier 2 areas, but also across the board into tier 1. Many constituents who work in the wedding and events sector, or across its supply chains, have contacted me with difficulties due to restrictions, uncertainty and a drop in trade. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that today’s announcement will also support the events sector and, crucially, those working across its supply chain?

[Rishi Sunak]

It is precisely because we took a generous and universal approach to eligibility for the job support scheme, with its new generosity, that supply chains of all affected industries will be able to benefit. There were some calls that it should only be targeted at those in tier 2 areas, or, for example, only those in hospitality. We have taken the decision to ensure that the new job support scheme, with its new generosity, is available to all employers and all employees wherever they are in the UK. I think that will be of benefit to the industries and businesses that my hon. Friend mentioned.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

There is no change in this announcement for people who are self-employed. A constituent of mine has contacted me. Back in March, she was assessed as earning too much to qualify for any assistance. Her income has now been revised down, but there is no way for her to appeal that original decision. This is no way to treat self-employed people. Can the Chancellor go away and look at these people who have fallen through the net?

[Rishi Sunak]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman missed that part of the statement; I apologise if it was not clear, but we have doubled the value of the self-employed grants that will be paid in the winter from 20% to 40%, mirroring the increase in the Government’s support for those who are in employment and ensuring parity between self-employed and employed. As I have said, that is generous and comprehensive. With regard to the income threshold, yes, the hon. Gentleman is right; we have decided to target support for the self-employed at those who earn less than £50,000. That is 95% of all those who are majority self-employed. The average income of those 5% who are not included is about £200,000.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I welcome the package announced by my right hon. Friend; he has quite rightly adapted the support that he is providing to the changing circumstances. May I look beyond the pandemic to the economic recovery, and urge continued support for my constituency in respect of the Greater Grimsby town deal? We also need broadband connectivity—and let me give a special mention in that regard for the village of Wold Newton. I know that he will be disappointed if I do not also mention free port status for Immingham and the Humber ports.

[Rishi Sunak]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that we can look through this crisis to our economic recovery. I know that his area will play a starring role in helping to drive that recovery, whether that is through Grimsby or a free port in Immingham. I am pleased to say that we are making good progress on the free port process. I hope to announce the bidding process very soon, and look forward to receiving his local area’s application when the time is right.

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

The nature of the Government’s interventions in this crisis are reactionary and there are significant gaps in the support. A principal casualty of those gaps are the 3 million excluded, who have had a devastating summer. The Chancellor has used the word “generous” over 20 times in this statement, so I urge him to advise me what support he will now give to the 3 million excluded. Will he do them the service not of telling us how he has supported other people, but of telling us what he will do for them?

[Rishi Sunak]

The circumstances of everyone who is self-employed will be different. It may well be that they own a business premises, which will benefit from business rates relief or a cash grant. It may well be that they have used the bounce back loan scheme, as over a million small businesses have. It may be that they are benefiting from the enhanced welfare system and the improvements to universal credit and the local housing allowance. Or it may be that they are the self-employed people who today will benefit from a doubling of the grant that I have announced, which will be up to over £3,700 this Christmas. This remains one of the most comprehensive packages of support for those who are self-employed anywhere in the world.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

On behalf of the Hop Pole pub in Wistaston, Hickory’s Smokehouse in Shavington, Pillory House in Nantwich, Giovanni’s in Crewe and Eight Farmers in Leighton, all of whom have been telling about the difficulties that they have been facing, I thank the Chancellor for the support measures that he has announced today, which will have a huge impact on their ability to get through this troubling time. Will he confirm when the support will be available and whether it will be backdated for those of us who have been in tier 2 for some time?

[Rishi Sunak]

If we are ending on this note, my hon. Friend has made me exceptionally hungry to hear that roll-call of great-sounding restaurants, which I hope I have a chance to visit with him. I can gladly give him that reassurance. We will be backdating the tier 2 grant support to the time that those restrictions were put in place, and I hope that will be of benefit to all the restaurants that he mentioned and many more small businesses in his constituency.

Royal Assent

[Mr Speaker]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Sentencing Act 2020

Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Act 2020.

In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I suspend the House for a few minutes.

13:05

Sitting suspended.

Covid-19: Disparate Impact

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Commons Chamber

13:10

[The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)]

With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement. I came before the House on 4 June, just after Public Health England had published its report “Covid 19: review of disparities in risks and outcomes”, as the Prime Minister had asked me to lead the cross-Government work to address the findings of that review. I return today to update the House on the progress I have made and to announce publication of my first quarterly report to the Prime Minister.

My work to date has focused on the impact of covid-19 on ethnic minority people. There is a wider strand of work within Government that is considering other groups that may have been particularly impacted by covid, such as disabled people, and I will include updates on that wider work in future reports. My report summarises the significant measures that Government Departments and their agencies have to date put in place to mitigate the disproportionate impacts of covid-19.

I have spoken with Mr Speaker and many members of the House staff about how impressed I have been with the measures put in place by the parliamentary authorities to protect all of us who use the parliamentary estate. It is clear that a lot of good work is under way. For example, as we have reported in Parliament, more than 95% of frontline NHS workers from an ethnic minority background have had a risk assessment in the workplace to ensure good understanding of the necessary mitigating interventions in place. The NHS is working hard to restore services inclusively so that they are used by those in greatest need, with new monitoring of service use and outcomes among those from the most deprived neighbourhoods and from black and Asian groups. We issued revised guidance to employers in July and again in September, highlighting the findings of the PHE review and explaining how to make workplaces covid secure.

We also reached out to all parts of the community through our information campaign. From March to July, we spent an additional £4 million to reach ethnic minority people through tailored messaging, strategically chosen channels and trusted voices. We have published messaging in well over 600 publications, including those that have readerships with a high proportion of ethnic minority people. We have reached more than 5 million people through the ethnic minority influencer programme. We have translated key public health messages into numerous languages, which initiated a marked improvement in recognition of our crucial “Stay alert” campaign.

My report summarises how the NHS, Public Health England and others are implementing the recommendations from the summary of the rapid literature review and stakeholder engagement work led by Professor Kevin Fenton. The PHE review indicated that people from ethnic minority backgrounds were disproportionately impacted by covid-19. It told us what the disparities in risks and outcomes were, but not why they had arisen and therefore it did not make any recommendations. It is therefore imperative that we understand the key drivers of the disparities and the relationships between the different risk factors to ensure that our response is as effective as possible.

That response has involved collaboration across Government, the Office for National Statistics and with universities and researchers. It includes some of the six new research projects to improve our understanding of the links between covid-19 and ethnicity, which received £4.3 million in Government funding in July. The research projects will give us new information on a range of issues, including the impact of the virus on migrant and refugee groups and the prevalence of covid-19 among ethnic minority health workers. The projects will also help to develop targeted digital health messages in partnership with ethnic minority communities. They will also provide a new framework to ensure the representation of ethnic minorities in clinical trials that are testing new treatments and vaccines for covid-19.

We now know much more about the impact of the virus than we did in June. We know more in particular about why people from ethnic minority backgrounds are more likely to be infected and die from covid. The current evidence shows that it is a range of socioeconomic and geographical factors, such as occupational exposure, population density, household composition and pre-existing health conditions, that contribute to the higher infection and mortality rates for ethnic minority groups. However, according to the latest evidence, part of the excess risk remains unexplained for some groups and further analysis of the potential risk factors is planned for the coming months.

What has emerged is that interventions across the entire population are most likely to disproportionately benefit ethnic minorities and are least likely to attach damaging stigma. That is best captured through our experience of the national lockdown and the shielding programme.

As the chief medical officer has said, we must assess the impact of covid-19 based on all-cause mortality to incorporate its indirect impact. On that specific metric, early evidence suggests that there is no disproportionate impact across different ethnic groups. Indeed, the OpenSAFELY study of 17 million adults from 1 February to 3 August concluded that

“data from England and Scotland has shown that most ethnic minority groups have both better overall health and lower rates of all-cause mortality than white groups.”

The evidence base is growing fast and we will continue to work with academics and the SAGE ethnicity sub-group to improve our understanding of the relationship between covid-19 and ethnicity.

I am particularly keen to deepen our understanding of how comorbidities interact with occupational exposure. This is a major gap identified by several studies to date and may well account for the residual risk between different ethnic groups of poorer outcomes from covid-19. In general, we must move away from seeing covid-19 as something that affects discrete groups in society and towards helping individuals understand their own particular risk profile as the evidence base grows.

Looking forward, we know that a vaccine is likely to present a long-term protection against this deadly disease. The only way to check how well a coronavirus vaccine works is to carry out large-scale clinical trials involving a diverse group of thousands of people. That is why I am leading by example and participating in a trial at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ hospital. Just last week, I wrote to all colleagues urging them to encourage more of their ethnic minority constituents to sign up to the NHS vaccine registry as these groups are still under-represented in vaccine trials.

We have made good progress, but more needs to be done. In particular, we need to work with local communities to protect the most vulnerable. I am therefore announcing today a new community champions scheme that includes up to £25 million in funding to local authorities and the voluntary and community sector. This will help to improve the reach of official public health guidance and other messaging or communications about the virus into specific places and groups most at risk from covid-19. Our community champions funding will support those groups at greater risk of this disease to ensure that key public health advice is understood and safer behaviours are followed. This will help to rebuild trust, reduce transmission and ultimately play a part in helping to lower death rates in the targeted areas and beyond.

Councils have been working tirelessly to support and engage their communities through this crisis. They know how to this best. The funding for a targeted group of councils will enable them to do more of what they know works but also to go further by enhancing existing schemes. Learning from the community champions scheme will be shared with all councils and across all relevant Government Departments, enabling Government and local authorities to hear directly from individuals and communities on the impact of the crisis.

There are other measures we can take to protect those most at risk, particularly those from minority groups. So in my report to the Prime Minister I outlined a number of recommendations and next steps. These include mandating the recording of ethnicity data as part of the death certification process, as this is only way we will be able to establish a complete picture of the impact of the virus on ethnic minority groups; appointing two expert advisers on covid and ethnicity who will bring expertise from the fields of medicine, epidemiology and clinical research to the Government’s work going forward, ensuring that new evidence uncovered during this review relating to the extremely clinically vulnerable is incorporated into health policy; and supporting the development and deployment of a risk model to understand individual risk from research commissioned by the CMO. I also want us to capture the good work being done by local authorities and directors of public health so that we can learn the lessons of what works at a local level. Therefore, there will be a rapid light-touch review of local authority action to support ethnic minority communities.

The package of measures I have announced today are the first steps in my year-long review. They will give us a better insight into how the virus is impacting ethnic minority groups, how we can best protect those who may be most at risk and how we can address long-standing public health inequalities. I will report back to the House with a further update at the end of the next quarter.

13:19

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab) [V]]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement.

Coronavirus continues to expose deep-rooted structural inequalities in our society, and these drive the health inequalities. Today, the Minister has published her first quarterly report on progress into addressing covid health inequalities, but it is now well over four months since both Public Health England reviews were published. The country is now sadly well into a second wave of the virus, yet we are still lacking a forward-looking national strategy and action plan.

Just this week the Institute for Public Policy Research and the Runnymede Trust showed that well over 2,000 black and south Asian deaths could have been avoided during the first wave of the pandemic if those populations did not experience a higher risk of death from covid-19, and that 58,000 people would have died in the first wave if the white population experienced the same risk of death from covid as our black populations. The Government must be prepared to admit and act on the root causes of the hugely disproportionate impact that coronavirus has had on our black and ethnic minority communities.

I welcome the Government’s decision to make the recording of ethnicity as part of the death certificate process mandatory, but collecting data is only one part of what needs to be done. The Minister mentions that there will be further research, but we do not know when this research will report or how quickly the Government will act on its findings. It is also unclear how the Government can measure or demonstrate the effectiveness of their public health communications for diverse communities and ensure that such communications are inclusive and accessible. Given the scale and the urgency of this crisis, the Government have fallen short of doing what is needed.

This first quarterly report does not commit to much that is quantifiable or timed, so I ask the Minister these questions as a matter of urgency. She mentions that she will be looking into the clinical groups of people who are severely in need of support. When will that review take place, and when will those groups be added to the list of those who are shielding?

Where is the Government’s plan of action to address the long-term structural inequalities, such as the deep-rooted inequalities in housing and employment, including occupational discrimination? Where is the Government’s implementation plan, with milestones, for protecting our black, Asian and ethnic minorities during this pandemic? Which local authorities will receive some of that £25 million funding for the community champions programme, and how did the Government reach that amount? How will that funding be allocated to the local authorities and what will the criteria be?

Will the Minister now publish in full any or all of the equality impact assessments of the likely impact on our black, Asian and minority ethnic communities of the Government’s covid-19 responses? It is absolutely right that the NHS has carried out 90% of its occupational risk assessments, but why have the Government updated the guidance only for employers, rather than putting in place proper checks and balances to ensure that our workers are being protected? Finally, why has it taken so long for the Government to act on the disproportionate impact that covid-19 is having on our ethnic minority communities? The volume of evidence that we have seen has been coming forward to us for months. We are already in the second wave, and this is now beyond urgent.

[Kemi Badenoch]

It does not appear to me that the hon. Lady has actually read the statement that I sent to her. She asks about what the Government are doing. I have just given a statement about what the Government have been doing over four months.

I think we need to restate this: we did not wait until today to say what we were going to do. As soon as we discovered this disproportionate impact, actions were put in place. The hon. Lady talks about us not issuing revised guidance to employers, but we did that in July and, as I said in my statement, we did it again in September, highlighting the findings of the PHE review and explaining how to make workplaces covid-secure. We required passengers to wear a face covering in taxis and private hire vehicles, and we asked this to be done for hospitality staff, many of whom are from ethnic minority backgrounds. We provided £4.3 million in funding for six new projects. We provided a range of guidance to support those living in multi-generational households. We spent an additional £4 million on reaching ethnic minority people through tailored messaging, strategically chosen channels and trusted voic-es.

The hon. Lady talks about the NHS guidance and risk assessments as though that was the only thing we have done. We have been implementing new payments for people in low-income areas with high rates of covid-19 who need to self-isolate and cannot work from home. What we are not going to do—it is clear what the hon. Lady and her party are expecting—is to implement segregated policies for people from ethnic minority backgrounds. What we are doing is looking at risk groups, but tailoring support for the whole population.

The hon. Lady talks about the IPPR report, and my answer is that I do not recognise those figures. Its methodology was not transparent, and our statisticians in the Cabinet Office could not understand where it got the numbers from. I found the presentation scaremongering and alarming. It is really important to me that we let people have trust and faith in the Government, and that we let them know what we are doing. That is why I am standing here in Parliament giving this oral statement, rather than just making a report to the Prime Minister.

The hon. Lady talks about what the Government have done. I wrote a letter to every single Member of Parliament asking them to share with ethnic minorities and their communities how they can join the national vaccine register, and I have been taking vaccines myself. Opposition Members have not been doing so. Especially when it comes to the hon. Lady, knowing that she has a large ethnic minority population in her community, what has she done to tell them to join the national vaccine register? We have not seen anything to that effect on her social media. It would be good if Opposition Members showed us that they are looking to help people, rather than looking for reasons to bash the Government. We must not politicise covid-19.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]]

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for advance sight of her statement, which arrived while I was at a conference with Dr Tony Sewell, the chair of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities. His passion for ensuring that there is no stigma is equalled only by that of my hon. Friend. I welcome her commitment to mandatory recording of ethnicity data on death certificates, but could I ask her to give us a little more information about the commitment on new evidence relating to the clinically extremely vulnerable? Exactly how will that be incorporated into health policy, and by when?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. That is something that should happen right now. We want to make sure that things do not happen separately in Government, and I have been very keen to ensure that there is no silo working. A frequent problem is that different Departments do different things, and they often duplicate information and work, so we have been at great pains to make sure that that does not happen.

I share every single thing that I do with Ministers across Departments. We have a group of Ministers who look at equalities in the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education, and we feed into that group everything that we learn. The findings from the race disparity unit and ONS research are fed in as those Ministers make policy, whether in health or otherwise. We do not want this to be a separate Government project that requires new oversight; we all have to work together, and that is how I plan to do it.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for her statement. I am interested in everything that it contains, and I commend her for volunteering to be part of the vaccine programme.

I want to raise two issues—possibly three, if I have time. Minority ethnic women are particularly over-represented in frontline care roles, so they are at particular risk of job disruption, as highlighted in a report by Close the Gap. Why have the UK Government not matched the Scottish Government’s action of a 3.3% wage increase for all adult social care workers to ensure that at least the real living wage is paid across frontline care, covering all hours worked, including sleepovers?

The Minister said that help that is provided across the population disproportionately benefits black, Asian and minority ethnic people, but that does not apply to those who have no recourse to public funds. I know that she has spoken about this before, but most people who have no recourse to public funds are from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. Will she support our calls to enable them to get support?

Finally, I note that the Minister said that she would include in future reports updates on other groups who are disproportionately impacted, and I want to make sure that older people are one of those groups. We know that people living in poverty are disproportionately impacted, and one way to lift older people out of poverty is to make sure that they know about pension credit, and to make it as easy as possible to apply for. The more voices across this House and across the Departments who commit to ensuring that older people know about the £2 billion-plus that is unclaimed every year in these islands, the better. I hope that she will commit to paying particular attention to that.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. She is absolutely right to mention older people, who are the most disproportionately impacted group. Someone who is over 70 or 80 is 80 times more likely to have the disease, whereas someone from an ethnic minority background is between 1.2 and 1.8 times more likely to have it. We must keep this in perspective, and we are looking at everybody who is impacted and vulnerable in whatever way.

The hon. Lady asks about money we are spending on adult health and social care. We are spending an unprecedented amount in the pandemic. We have targeted as much money as we possibly can to all the groups we believe need it. It may not be exactly what people asked for, but we are looking at decisions in the round to ensure that we are covering all groups.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) [V]]

I congratulate the Minister on a comprehensive report. She has clearly done a great job of identifying the numerous factors that exacerbate the problem and acting rapidly on them. However, of the first 26 doctors in the national health service to die of covid-19, 25 were from minority ethnic backgrounds. Those doctors will have been comparatively well paid, so poverty cannot be the full explanation.

Vitamin D deficiency is prevalent across virtually all the groups who suffer disproportionately from covid-19, from the elderly to the obese, diabetics and ethnic minority communities. Today’s review considers only two studies on vitamin D and does not consider a huge range of new evidence that has come out in the last couple of months that shows powerful links. Will the Minister commit as her colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care have done and look at the latest evidence on this matter?

[Kemi Badenoch]

It was the number of ethnic minority doctors who died right at the beginning of the pandemic that alerted us to this issue. We did look across a range of issues to see why that was the case. I remind my right hon. Friend about occupational exposure, which we believe is the biggest cause, and those doctors were the most exposed, probably doing the shifts right before we knew what was going on and catching the virus. We looked at vitamin D. The SAGE report from 23 September shows that it looked at vitamin D studies to see if it had had an effect and did not find any relationship.

We have found that there is a small residual risk, and I am looking at the interaction between comorbidities and occupational exposure, which we think provides the explanation. We had a second literature review and stakeholder engagement report where many people talked about their experiences of systemic racism—I asked the Race Disparity Unit specifically to look at that—but the findings were that systemic racism did not explain that. For example, when we take into account comorbidities, Bangladeshi women and white women have the same rates of mortality. Systemic racism also does not explain the differences between groups, such as black Africans and black Caribbeans. If it was systemic racism, we would expect the figures to match and they do not.

There is still quite a lot going on as we look at the socioeconomic and geographical factors, occupational exposure, population density, household composition and pre-existing health conditions. We will continue to do this work. Remember that this is the first report, not the last, and the review will be ongoing.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Having volunteered in recent months to become a community champion locally, I welcome the additional funding announced by the Minister and sincerely hope that our excellent scheme in Slough will be able to gain some of that funding. The report mentions a SAGE sub-group on ethnicity. What are its terms of reference, membership and programme of work?

[Kemi Badenoch]

The SAGE sub-group is looking at this issue. Not all of our research is original—much of what we have found out has come from that sub-group. Emran Mian has been leading from within that sub-group and is working with us. I am afraid that I do not have the sub-group’s terms of reference, but I will write to the hon. Member on that to provide more information. However, we are very supportive of the work of all community champions, and the work he is doing in Slough is very important. If it is possible, we will ensure that he can access the community champions fund. He will have to apply through the regular process, but we want to do as much as we can to support MPs across the House.[Official Report, 5 November 2020, Vol. 683, c. 6MC.]

[Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)]

I join my hon. Friend the Minister in encouraging Carshalton and Wallington residents to follow her lead and volunteer for vaccine trials. I welcome her statement, including the appointment of independent experts and the mandatory reporting of ethnicity on death certificates. Does she agree that that gives us the opportunity to learn a lot more about the impact of covid on our black, Asian and minority ethnic constituents? Will she say a little more about how that data will be used to improve health outcomes for everyone in the country?

[Kemi Badenoch]

The reason I have asked that we mandate recording is that that was one of the gaps identified. We did not get a full picture of what was going on, and we need to have a full picture. As my hon. Friend rightly says, everything we are doing will help the whole population. We are not segregating people on the basis of this disease. Mandating ethnicity data will not just help ethnic minority populations; it will help everybody.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]]

I am sure the Minister will be well aware of the research by the Financial Conduct Authority showing that while one in three of our fellow citizens has seen an income cut because of covid, that rises to 40% among black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. The impact is not just on individuals or even households: where there is a concentration of people from BAME backgrounds, it affects the much wider community. What research will the Minister engage in on the economic impact, because we know that economic collapse leads to lower mental and physical health and all the other social aspects that come with it?

[Kemi Badenoch]

That would be outside the terms of reference of the review that I am leading over the year. However, as a Treasury Minister, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we have distributional analysis that comes out with all this information and influences all the policies that we put out in terms of economic interventions for specific groups.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend for her statement and for the report. Given the high level of concern about the impact of covid-19 on ethnic minorities, and given that a vaccine will be a very large part of the solution to the pandemic, why does she think there has been such a disproportionately low number of ethnic minority people coming forward to volunteer for the NHS vaccine registry?

[Kemi Badenoch]

That is an excellent question. I have been particularly disappointed at the amount of anti-vaxxer disinformation campaigns that are out there. I have received three separate messages myself from people telling ethnic minorities not to take part in vaccine trials. I am really sorry to say that an Opposition Member said in this House that the Government were using ethnic minorities as cannon fodder in their battle against coronavirus—one of the worst things that I have ever heard said in this House. That really causes division and tension. We need people to have faith in the Government. We need people to have faith in our health service and trust it in order to take part in things like vaccine trials. I hope that the work we are doing will go some way towards remedying some of the scaremongering.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I welcome the Minister’s acknowledgement early on in her statement of the disproportionate impact of covid on disabled people. She said that work is ongoing and there will be future reports, but I hope she will agree that we need urgent action. She will know that disabled people are 11 times more likely to die from coronavirus. We have also heard very disturbing reports of “do not resuscitate” orders being put in place, particularly for those with learning difficulties, without consultation with their families. I recognise that the Care Quality Commission is investigating this, but will she commit to ending this injustice urgently?

[Kemi Badenoch]

The Government rightly take very seriously the outcomes for those with disabilities. The largest disparities were by age for both males and females, done by gender. However, there is a wider strand of work that the hon. Lady references, where this will be looked into. We cannot allow any part of the population to feel that they have been forgotten; they have not. I can assure her that we are taking this seriously, not just in the equality hub but in the Department for Work and Pensions.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

My hon. Friend will know that my constituency is home to a wide variety of people from different nationalities and ethnic backgrounds, particularly from the Indian subcontinent. Very sadly, we have seen many deaths, particularly among people from the Indian subcontinent. One of the reasons suggested for this is one of the virtues of that community—namely, that they often have grandparents, parents and children living in the same household, where the grandparents look after the children when they come home from school, and the parents go to work and commute, particularly into central London. In those instances, many people seem to have been infected with the disease and very sadly died. Will my hon. Friend look at this particular issue to see whether it is that mixing of people that is causing so many problems among our ethnic minority friends?

[Kemi Badenoch]

My hon. Friend is right. Household composition was definitely one of the things that we looked at; it was identified as a factor, and we are looking further into its significance. In the interim, the Government have provided a range of guidance to support those who are living in multigenerational housing, alongside detailed advice to employers and key workers on how they can protect themselves. We will continue to ensure that our guidance is clear, enables people to protect themselves adequately and includes guidance for those who are shielding. To support this, we have given councils an additional £1.6 billion of the covid budget fund to help them to protect and support people during this national emergency. As I always say, the Government will do everything that we can, but we cannot do everything, which why we need people to know how they can protect themselves.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Since the start of the covid pandemic, the all-party parliamentary group on deafness has repeatedly called on Ministers to ensure that all communications are accessible and inclusive, but on Monday we saw reports that deaf children are being deprived of their access to education. I note that the Minister has promised future updates, but is the Race Disparity Unit working across Government to ensure that all communications are accessible to deaf and blind people? What is she doing to ensure that black, Asian and minority ethnic disabled people are not doubly disadvantaged by the measures needed to control the virus?

[Kemi Badenoch]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. This is an issue that we have looked at; for instance, the Government have looked at sourcing personal protective equipment for people who need to lip read, so that they can continue to communicate. She is also right to point out that some people are affected in multiple ways, but looking at each issue separately does not mean that one aspect will be forgotten. They will be helped by all the separate work that is being done across the board to look at vulnerability.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) [V]]

I thank my hon. Friend for her comprehensive statement; I note that she seems to be on a bit of a roll in the Chamber this week. Will she recognise that there remains a paucity of data around health outcomes for LGBT people, perhaps not least in respect of the intersectionality with BAME people in respect of covid? The data deficit was identified in the LGBT action plan. Will she recommit the Government to securing the data, not least by ensuring that future public health surveys record data on all protected characteristics?

[Kemi Badenoch]

My hon. Friend is right that we are looking across the board, but I just remind him that we are looking at those who have been most disproportionately affected and are most vulnerable. Although we have not found that LGBT groups specifically have been disproportionately affected, we know that they are losing out where healthcare services have been unavailable because they have had to close or provide other services to deal with the pandemic. We are looking to improve that, but the review that I am carrying out looks specifically at vulnerability and disproportionate impact.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]]

I am glad that information is available in different languages; real language choice provides a clear functional gain, as we know in Wales. However, I am against shifting away from seeing the pandemic as affecting discrete groups. Will the Minister commit the Government to continuing and extending economic support as further evidence reveals the groups who have been hardest hit?

[Kemi Badenoch]

The hon. Gentleman is right to speak of making sure that people have access to all the information available. Much of the work that we have been doing has been with PHE, which looks mainly at England, but I will find out what information I can provide about the work that is being done in Wales. The Government are looking to ensure that everybody has access to the information, and we are working with the devolved nations to make sure that they have examples of the best practice that is happening across the board.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her statement, which highlights a whole range of factors that are distributed right across the country. We know and understand the cost of covid to a certain extent, but there is also the cost of the lockdown. National figures, for example, show reduced GP appointments, cancer screening and hip operations. Will my hon. Friend commit to working with ministerial colleagues to produce a constituency by constituency covid lockdown health impact assessment, because in order to represent our constituents we have to have that local data?

[Kemi Badenoch]

That is an interesting suggestion. I believe that information like that exists. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issue further, to understand exactly what it is that he is looking for and see if we can do something to produce information like that.

[Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) [V]]

With data showing that only one in 10 lower earners can work from home and that 69% of low earners are women, women have clearly started this crisis from a position of economic disadvantage. In many areas they have led the fight against coronavirus, but millions of women are stuck in low-paid and insecure jobs. Why, then, according to Business in the Community, have the Government chosen to exempt companies from having to file any gender pay gap data this year, resulting in only half of businesses actually doing so?

[Kemi Badenoch]

The reason we suspended gender pay gap reporting is that it was right in the middle of the pandemic and we wanted to reduce burdens on businesses that were facing an unprecedented situation. We were not going to put any additional burdens on them. Companies that are able to do so can continue to carry out their gender pay gap reporting, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that this review is about those who are affected most disproportionately medically, and at the moment that is actually men, not women.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) [V]]

I very much commend my hon. Friend on her statement. The educational attainment of white working-class boys is among the lowest, and that has only been exacerbated by the effects of covid-19 and their not being able to be in school. What discussions has she had with our right hon. Friend the Education Secretary to ensure that any child from any background can achieve and will not be left behind, for the future wellbeing of our country?

[Kemi Badenoch]

My hon. Friend is right to allude to the importance to children and young people of being in school. The Government have been very clear that limiting attendance at school should be a last resort, even in areas where the local alert level is high or very high. We have been providing laptops to the most disadvantaged pupils, and 4G routers to families who do not already have mobile or broadband, for example. In the unlikely event that certain schools will need to reduce attendance, we are also helping them to deliver quality remote education. More broadly, on ethnic disparities and attainment, the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, announced by the Prime Minister in June, will look at outcomes for the whole population, and it is looking specifically at education.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I hope that the Minister has also been liaising with my constituency colleague, the Minister for Health in Wales, Vaughan Gething, on the work he has been doing on these issues. He was one of the first to identify them, set up a taskforce and put in place measures to address what he said in his recent statement was a very clear

“adverse and disproportionate impact on people from BAME communities.”

The evidence from the UK Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre has shown consistently throughout the crisis that, compared with the general population, a higher frequency than expected of patients from BAME backgrounds have required critical care. The latest figure is over 30% in the past few weeks, which is very disproportionate compared with the wider population. Why does the Minister think that is happening, and is she incorporating that important research into the evidence that the Government are looking at?

[Kemi Badenoch]

We have been considering the factors of occupational exposure and comorbidities, but we have not finished looking at the research; there are so many research projects out there that are trying to find out exactly what is causing severeness in criticality of infection, for example. I think that the RDU has looked at that. We have taken information from across the board, across lots of universities, researchers and the ONS, and I believe that that has been fed in. If it has not, we can look to do that in the next quarter.

[Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)]

Our BAME communities face a medical risk not only from covid but from the fallout from other health conditions. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should encourage the BAME community to access the treatments that are available to them, such as cancer treatment, because those are important for their health?

[Kemi Badenoch]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We must reduce fear and build confidence among ethnic minority people in engaging with NHS services. Phase 3 of the NHS covid-19 response is taking urgent action to reduce health inequalities and regularly assess progress. NHS trusts are encouraged to restore services inclusively, so that they are used by those in greatest need. Covid wards and spaces are being separated, which should give people confidence to return and allow more routine procedures to continue.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

The Minister mentioned further research. One area where there is very specific and clear research is pregnancy. The UK obstetric surveillance system showed that black pregnant women were eight times more likely to be hospitalised than white pregnant women due to covid, and half of all pregnant women in hospital due to covid are from black and ethnic minority backgrounds. That research came out in May and June this year. Will she update us on what is being done to protect black pregnant women from the risks of covid and whether there will be an investigation into that specific issue?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank the hon. Lady for that question. I co-hosted a roundtable on maternal mortality rates for ethnic minority women with the Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention on 2 September, to develop appropriate solutions to benefit pregnant women and their babies during this period. Given that covid-19 has fundamentally changed the way that women access maternity services, the national maternity safety champion and chief midwifery officer for England published a four-point plan for all maternity services in England to follow. That includes increasing support for at-risk pregnant women, reaching out to and reassuring pregnant ethnic minority women with tailored communications, ensuring that hospitals discuss vitamin supplements and nutrition in pregnancy with all women, and ensuring that all providers record on maternity information systems the ethnicity of every woman, as well as other risk factors. This topic has been of particular interest to me, because I returned from maternity leave after having my third child this year, so it is close to my heart. I am doing quite a lot of work on it and will continue to do so.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I welcome the appointment of independent experts on covid-19 and ethnicity, such as Wycombe resident Dr Raghib Ali. What main risk factors has my hon. Friend identified, working with them, to explain why BAME communities are so disproportionately affected? Will she take steps to make those risks more apparent to the individuals affected?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I am delighted to announce the appointment of Dr Ali and Professor Neal, specialist epidemiologists and health technology advisers who are experts on covid-19 and ethnicity. I am appointing them to provide medical expertise as critical friends, not just people to agree with everything that we say over the coming months.

On the risk factors, analysis from the ONS, PHE and academia reveal that differences in covid-19 mortality between ethnic groups were strongly associated with geographical and socioeconomic factors. The ONS found that the risk of death from covid substantially reduced when factors other than age were accounted for, but there was still a higher risk for black and Indian adults and Pakistani and Bangladeshi males. Similarly, an Oxford University study found that ethnic differences persisted even after accounting for key explanatory factors, such as the ones that I mentioned, and we are still looking at that as part of this work.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]]

Data shows that nearly a third of covid patients admitted to intensive care since September are from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds, meaning that once again, we are bearing the brunt of the coronavirus. It appears that no lessons were learned or effective actions taken over the summer. The chair of the British Medical Association, Dr Nagpaul, has described the situation as “groundhog day”. Does the Minister recognise this failure?

[Kemi Badenoch]

No, I do not recognise that statement. In fact, I have had meetings with Dr Nagpaul, and we have had many discussions about further recommendations that he has given directly to me, which we have taken forward.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]]

I thank the excellent Minister for coming to the House to make this statement. I think she said that people over 70 were 80 times more likely to be affected by covid. If that is the case, what measures are the Government taking to protect people who are 70 or older? [Interruption.]

[Kemi Badenoch]

I might have misspoken. It might have been that people over 80 are 70 times more likely. I need to make sure I am getting the statistics right. I will confirm that for Hansard. The Government take this extremely seriously. We have made sure that people have the guidance on what to do, depending on their individual risk profile. People who are elderly, especially those who are clinically extremely vulnerable, as my hon. Friend will know, were shielded. We are making sure that information is being provided to local authorities, NHS trusts, GP surgeries and other support within the community to make sure we continue to do so. This might be something that the community champions can reinforce.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

That noise may have been a passing motorbike.

[Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) [V]]

It is very clear that, alongside BAME communities, women have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. They make up the large majority of workers in those sectors that are unable to operate and in very many cases they are obviously carrying much larger roles in caring, both informally and formally. Northern Ireland already had the lowest levels of employment for women, and that is in the context of the UK, even before the pandemic, slipping down gender inequality rankings. Will the Minister be advocating for specific targeted economic support for women to address the structural inequalities that are being very much exacerbated by covid-19?

[Kemi Badenoch]

The approach that the Government Equalities Office is taking is that support has to be given in the round. We are not isolated as individuals and we are certainly not segregating. On gender, for example, in the work we have been looking at in this report, it is men who are disproportionately impacted medically. Economically, depending on the sector they work in, it is women who are disproportionately impacted. We need to look at helping everybody. What we are not able to do is say—in fact, it might contravene the Equality 2010 Act—that we will give specific help to women, but not to men or to specific groups based on protected characteristics. We need to provide support to people based on need and that is what we will continue to do.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the community champions scheme and on the new funding today. Our excellent Lancashire local resilience forum has been advocating for that and there is no substitute for on-the-ground intelligence. Will she ensure that the champions are prioritised for tier 3 areas such as Lancashire, to make sure we can make the most of getting the transmission rates down?

[Kemi Badenoch]

Evidence shows that Government covid-19 guidance is not reaching certain communities or audiences who are being disproportionately impacted. That is why we are providing up to £25 million to local authorities, and voluntary and community sectors, to improve the reach of official public health guidance and other messaging into specific places and groups most at risk—and that does include tier 3. We want to ensure that the funding is used to support communities and groups who have been shown to have suffered a disproportionate impact.

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) [V]]

The Minister acknowledged that disadvantage through ethnicity can be compounded further by disadvantage through disability. In those circumstances, will she press her Government colleagues to recognise the vital need to address poverty that compounds it still further, and argue for the retention of the universal credit uplift and an extension to legacy benefits, including those for the disabled?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor have spoken about that specific issue many times in this Chamber. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that poverty, deprivation and various factors are contributing to health inequalities. That is something we do know. Those issues will not be solved by a year-long review. They need to be looked at across Government, as he says, and the Government are absolutely committed to that. We talk over and over again about levelling up. That is absolutely the ambition of this Government and we will do it in the ways that we believe are best.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I welcome the update from my hon. Friend and applaud her on the excellent work she is leading in this arena. Will she tell the House what steps she is taking to improve public health communication, especially to those communities that are normally harder to reach?

[Kemi Badenoch]

We have worked with the covid comms hub in the Cabinet Office and ministerial colleagues to build on the way public health messages are delivered effectively to ethnic minority people. In addition to the central marketing campaign, we have spent approximately £4 million to reach ethnic minority people through tailored messaging, strategically chosen channels and trusted voices. Additional funding and resources from the central campaign are also used to reach communities in specific regions, supporting local authorities to deliver bespoke translated material on request.

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

On 3 May, Ranjith Chandrapala, a bus driver from Hanwell in my constituency, became one of the many BAME frontline workers to die of covid-19. Since then, I have asked the Chancellor and the Transport Secretary to extend the Government’s covid-19 life assurance scheme for families of health and care workers to others, including the families of bus drivers, such as Ranjith’s. Unfortunately, I have received only promises that support for key workers will continue to be reviewed. As the Minister mentioned that today’s report highlights a significant occupational exposure, will she commit to meet me and Ranjith’s family to discuss how we can ensure that this scheme is extended?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and share the deep sympathy he has for the suffering of his constituents. All of us, across the House, are seeing this. I have had cases such as this in my constituency and they are devastating and heartbreaking. I know that many Members across the House have lots of suggestions for specific interventions we can make. I do not stand here just as an Equalities Minister and a Treasury Minister. We have said we are going to do whatever it takes, but we cannot do everything that everyone likes. If he would write to me on the issue—I have not had sight of this—perhaps I will be able to provide him with further information.

[Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) [V]]

In our continued battle against covid-19, we have become much more knowledgeable about this terrible disease. However, what remains unclear is why some people are more at risk than others, including the more elderly residents of North Devon. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are to tackle this virus effectively, it is essential that we understand the key drivers of its disproportionate impact?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I like re-emphasising that we should not jump to conclusions—we need to know why. If we misdiagnose, we are not able to solve the problem. We need to find out the exact reasons why things are occurring so that we can have the right solutions.

[Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I totally and utterly agree with that. I thank the Minister for her statement and promise to read it carefully after today in order to work out what I can personally do in my constituency to aid this work. In June, I urged the Government to act upon the unequal risks before the second wave, and I pointed out that black and Asian people were not properly represented in the clinical trials. The second wave is here and the data has shown that the same inequalities are occurring. So will the Minister assure me and my constituents that from now on research projects and clinical trials will have the appropriate numbers of people from black and minority communities, reflecting their higher risk?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I agree with the hon. Lady; she and I are not going to have a disagreement on this issue. We need to get as many people from all communities represented, but we cannot force people; we need to encourage them and get them to see the benefits of that, so I urge everyone across the House to do that. If we scare people or allow those who are sending misinformation about vaccines to continue with their messaging, we will not see that. So I agree with her and thank her for raising the question.

[Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and congratulate her on the further support for community champions, who are vital at this exceptional time. Can she share further details as to why the measures are not targeted specifically at ethnic minorities and what that means for my constituents in Wales?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I know that my hon. Friend is a real champion for communities in Ynys Môn, particularly with her hidden heroes campaign. I thank her for her hard work on that and on behalf of her constituency. The current evidence is showing that there is a range of factors, which I have mentioned already, particularly occupational exposure and co-morbidities. These factors affect the whole population, regardless of race, and we need to protect the whole population. But I am also keen that we do not stigmatise ethnic minorities or make it seem as though they are carriers of the disease. Targeting specific things and saying, “This is just for black people. This is just for Asian people” will create division and stigmatise, and it will not necessarily go to the people who need it most. That is the message I would send to her colleagues in Wales. This is what we have found. We hope that they agree with us and accept this as the way to go. It is about targeting the whole population, knowing what the vulnerabilities are, and not stigmatising groups.

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP) [V]]

I spent most of my professional career in London working with friends and colleagues from the BAME communities, so it was upsetting for me to find that more than 70% of all NHS and care deaths during the first wave of covid were among the black and minority ethnic communities. Although the reasons for those deaths are not fully understood, there is some anecdotal evidence that the deployment of staff from BAME communities to high-risk or low-protection areas may have played a role in that feature. Will the Minister advise me what action has been taken, in collaboration with the Department for Health and Social Care, regarding potential structural issues in the care services to prevent any repeat of this in the second wave?

[Kemi Badenoch]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that issue. As he will remember, I mentioned that 95% of ethnic minority workers have had risk assessments—we have spoken about that at several points during oral questions in the House. That is the issue that they have been trying to tackle. It is important that risk factors are taken into account before people are deployed in various sectors. We know that ethnic minorities are over-represented in lower-paid parts of the NHS, and we will be tackling that structural issue. But risk assessments are the key thing to ensure that people understand their risk and that is how we will deal with that.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement, and the Health and Social Care Committee is also starting to consider this area. Is she aware of the paper in The Lancet entitled, “The impact of ethnicity on clinical outcomes in COVID-19: A systematic review”, which was published in June? It broadly picked up three areas: biological, the ACE2 receptors and difference in immune responses; the medical aspects, people having different cardiovascular or diabetic risks; and the socio-economic factors around crowding and job type. The study noticed limitations with all those areas and had questions about which predominates, so will the Minister commit to a road map to get more evidence and research to better understand the factors that we can control, and those we cannot?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I will ask my colleagues in the Race Disparity Unit to see whether we can have a road map.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

Many cleaners, facilities management staff and security staff working in Government buildings are from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. What action is the Minister taking to address the terrible disparity in employment terms and conditions for those staff? That leaves them without the protection of full sick pay in the event that they have symptoms or need to self-isolate, putting them, and others working in the same buildings, at greater risk.

[Kemi Badenoch]

The Government are providing money to those people who have to self-isolate. On the broader issue of people from ethnic minority backgrounds working in lower-paid employment, this is one of the things that we dealt with as part of the employer risk guidance, which we repeatedly gave in July and September.

[Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)]

May I say what a fantastic job the Minister is doing in tackling some of the most difficult issues head on? I pay tribute to her for her courage and I thank her for participating in the trial at Guy’s and St Thomas’s. It is abhorrent that any Member of the House should do anything to discourage participation in any such trial. Does the Minister agree that it is the duty of every Member of the House to work with our communities, as leaders, in encouraging participation in such an important trial?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I agree with my hon. Friend and, as I said to the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), this is not something that should be a cause for division in the House. We should be working together on this. I did not write the letter just to Conservative colleagues; I wrote it to all colleagues, and I hope that people will take up the notices in it and share them across their communities.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I am glad that the Minister referred to her letter, because I have just had a check and I certainly have not received a letter from her; she referred to the matter in her answer to our shadow Minister.

On 19 April, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health and asked about languages specifically, offering my help and support in reaching ethnic minorities. I have a large minority. I come from Bradford—a diverse city—and Bradford West is one of the most diverse constituencies in the country. Again, I asked about languages commissioned in September, in a written question, as have others. While I appreciate that today the Minister has said we have spent £4 million, the truth is that, while this debate has been going on, I have spoken to commissioners for Geo News, Dunya News, ARY and Channel 44, and £4,000 has been commissioned for the 12 channels that I know of that communicate in the language of Urdu, and that is without speaking to all the BAME media, while this statement has been going on. Sunrise Radio, the largest Asian radio station outside London, has had one campaign, from 2 to 7 May, in Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu, but it had nothing from 7 May right until 19 October. So how can she stand here and tell this House that the Government have been reaching out to BAME communities? Jang newspaper had to go to Downing Street and negotiate for written—not for radio communication and not for TV—adverts. So when will the Conservative party get real about communicating honestly with black and minority ethnic communities in their languages?

[Kemi Badenoch]

We have published public health messages in over 600 publications. If the hon. Lady would like to write to me with places that have not received communications, that is something I can take up with the Cabinet Office, but I myself have done quite a bit of media—BBC Asian Network, BBC Radio Manchester and other local media outlets—and I have done lots of social media activity. We have had ethnic minority influences reaching 5 million people. I am sorry to say that if the hon. Lady is not seeing these things, then perhaps she is not watching, but the money that we have spent is a testament to how hard we are working to reach people. There are still some hard-to-reach communities, and that is why we are having the community champions, because at the end of the day it cannot just be TV and it cannot just be social media. We need local authorities and people who know their local areas to be able to go out and find those people who still are not hearing the message. I hope that is something that she will do. I will find out from the House why she has not received the letter. It should have been sent to all colleagues, and I know many across the House have received it.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

I recently had the honour of becoming the ambassador for BSC Multicultural Services in Ipswich, which as well as supporting our large and thriving Bangladeshi community, supports people from over 50 other nationalities. Throughout the covid-19 pandemic, it has provided invaluable work giving food parcels to the most needy from those communities, but right now its finances are under strain ever so slightly. I was wondering if the Minister could give both me and the other leaders of the group some reassurance about potential financial assistance to them.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I commend my hon. Friend for the important work he is doing to support his community. The Government agree that charities play an invaluable role in this country, which is why we have committed a £750 million package of support specifically for charities, social enterprises and the voluntary sector, so that they continue their work through the outbreak. That includes £200 million that has been distributed by the National Lottery Community Fund through the coronavirus community support fund. The fund closed to new applications on 17 August, but about 97% of the total fund value had been awarded as of 13 October. In addition, £150 million has been released from dormant accounts to help social enterprises get affordable credit to people who are financially vulnerable and to support charities tackling youth unemployment.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]]

Covid is the disease of poverty. The evidence clearly shows that there is a higher prevalence of, and mortality from, the disease in areas of high deprivation. In addition to people from black, Asian and minority ethnic groups being at risk of covid, disabled people accounted for nearly 60% of all deaths between March and July. They are more likely to live in poverty than non-disabled people, and also accounted for a third of the 300,000 people who were not eligible for social security support in the spring. I understand that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is examining discrimination of disabled people during covid, but what are the Government doing to protect disabled people’s lives and livelihoods in the second wave?

[Kemi Badenoch]

As I said earlier, the Government really take seriously the outcomes for those with disabilities. There is a lot of work happening across Government, across very many Departments. We are not leaving anyone behind; we are making sure that support is available, not just at national level through support schemes, but through local authorities and through the Department for Work and Pensions locally. If the hon. Lady wants more information, I am sure that this is something I can write to her about. I do not have the full information to hand, but I know that there is a lot of work going on across Government.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend and welcome this incredibly important ongoing work. Does she agree with me about the importance of using science to determine individual risk as a way to help people make informed decisions about their lives and their work?

[Kemi Badenoch]

Yes, absolutely; it has to be evidence-led. Everything that we are doing in the Equality Hub is evidence-led. We have a real focus on data, to ensure that we base our decisions on what is actually happening and do not take them for reasons of politics or other things that are not science-based. I completely agree with my hon. Friend; I do not think there was anything to disagree with in what he said.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

When, in Tuesday’s Black History Month debate, I said I was angry that six months into this pandemic all we seem to know is that black and ethnic minority people are two to three times more likely to die from covid, but not why, the Minister intervened on me and said that she would give me the answers today. I am sorry, but she has not. She seems to be saying that there is no link with ethnicity but it is up to individuals to protect themselves. The report is quite clear in that it mentions factors such as socioeconomic background, but it does not say whether those factors are causes or correlations. So I ask her again: when will we have the data-based evidence as to the causes of this heightened risk? Specifically, are the Government using artificial intelligence techniques to correlate the different factors so that we know why this is happening in our black communities?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I disagree with the hon. Lady. I think we have answered the question. Saying that something is a factor means it is having an effect—it is part of the reason. She says—[Interruption.] It does mean that. She asks for the causes of covid. What is causing the disease is people catching it; it is a contagious disease. This is not rocket science. What we are explaining is why certain groups are disproportionately impacted. We have explained that it is household size, it is population density, it is geographic factors, it is socioeconomic factors—all those things are having an effect. I know where the hon. Lady is getting to, but we have also explained that for some groups, such as Bangladeshi women and white women, when we take out comorbidities, the disparity is completely gone. I am sorry that the report does not give her the answer that she is looking for, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) rightly said, we are basing it on the science, not politics.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and for answering 39 questions over an hour. I also thank the technicians, as many of the questions were virtual. Thank you very much.

Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).

Point of Order

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Commons Chamber

14:17

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have received very poor responses from Ministers in recent weeks. I asked about the withdrawal of Randox covid-19 tests; the responses did not answer the question. I asked about stocks of flu vaccine; I have heard nothing. I asked about customs agents at our ports; the answer was derisory—just six words. We are trying to do our job and hold the Executive to account, but this Parliament is being short-changed. Anybody would think the Government were trying to block scrutiny and hide their poor performance. Mr Deputy Speaker, will you please advise me whether it is the Leader of the House who is best placed to help me seek straightforward answers from his Cabinet colleagues to reasonable questions from Members of this House?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Member for giving me advance notice of his point of order. Mr Speaker has repeatedly called for Departments to give higher priority to prompt and substantive answers to parliamentary questions at this time, when accountability is of great importance. The hon. Member is right about the role of the Leader of the House, to whom he can make his own representations, but I do hope that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard his point of order and will get that message across to the Leader of the House, and to all Government Ministers and Departments.

Bill presented

Marriage (Authorised Belief Organisations)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Rehman Chishti, supported by Crispin Blunt, Ms Angela Eagle, Steve McCabe, Jeff Smith, Rachel Hopkins, Wera Hobhouse and Daisy Cooper presented a Bill to amend the law on marriage to permit authorised belief organisations to solemnise marriages; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2021, and to be printed (Bill 203).

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We are now going to suspend for a few minutes in order for the Dispatch Boxes to be sanitised, and for the safe departure and arrival of various key players.

00:01

Sitting suspended.

Covid-19

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Commons Chamber

14:23

[The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)]

I beg to move,

That this house has considered covid-19.

The House meets today to debate the coronavirus pandemic once more. The peril of the pandemic has no short-term quick fix, but calls for ingenuity, commitment and resolve from us all. We have responded with one of the greatest collective efforts that this nation has seen in peacetime, but the fight is not over: the virus continues to spread, and cases, hospitalisations and, tragically, deaths are all rising. Yesterday we learned that Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust is now treating more patients than it was at the peak in April, and across the UK the number of deaths has doubled in under a fortnight. And yet, just as the situation we face is grave, so the hope of a solution is growing. With every day, my confidence in the ingenuity of science to bring resolution grows. But until that moment, we must have resolve. We are focused on finding a long-term solution, and we reject political point scoring. I call on the House to work together in the interests of our whole nation—and, indeed, the whole world.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I just wonder whether one problem we have at the moment is that we do not have enough capacity in the whole of the NHS to take on covid in a long-term way, as the Secretary of State suggests, and still be able to do all the things that we really need to do. How can we ramp up that capacity so that we are still treating people for cancer, for brain injury and for all the other things that we all care about?

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He represents a seat in Wales, and this is a challenge for the NHS in all four nations of the United Kingdom. I was going to come on to this, but one thing that we have learned in the first phase is how we can do better in keeping the other services running that the NHS must and should provide, for instance for brain injuries, for cancer treatment and for heart patients. There are also those things that are not life-threatening, but that harm people’s lives—a painful hip or a cataract that needs treatment. In the first wave, as we knew so much less about this virus, many of those treatments were stopped altogether.

In the second wave, we have two things at our advantage. The first is that this is a much more regional second wave, which puts more pressure on areas such as Liverpool and Lancashire than elsewhere in the country, but that does mean that elsewhere the elective and the urgent operations can continue. The second difference is that we know much more about the virus and how it spreads, so we have separated the NHS into green sites and blues sites. Green sites are for where we have a high degree of confidence that there is no covid, using testing and asking people to isolate before going in for an operation, so that people can have more confidence. The central message across all parts of the UK is that the NHS remains open. Finally on this point, the best way we can keep the sorts of treatments that we all want to see going is to keep the virus under control.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has answered my question in part with the importance of green and red. One of the big problems in the first wave is that people were frightened, even if they feared that they had cancer or some other condition, to go into the hospitals, and we have to reassure them that they can go there and they can be safe.

[Matt Hancock]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We have an advertising campaign, “Help us to help you”, to make the simple point to people that, if they are asked to go to hospital by a clinician, then it is safer to go to hospital than not to do so. In fact, we call them green sites and blue sites. Green means free from covid—we are as confident as we can be that they are. It is blue, not red, which means that we still want people to come to hospital, even if they have to come to A&E, because there is only likely to be, at worst, as much covid as in the general population, unless, of course, a person is in a covid ward treating only covid patients. The NHS has learned a huge amount both about the microbiology of the disease and about how to run health services in a world when covid is at large.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Of course this is a dangerous disease and, of course, cases are rising, including in my own area, so it is with some humility that I have a look at the daily excess all-cause deaths in all ages in England, which show that there has been no significant excess all-cause mortality observed in week 40 overall. Is it not the case that the good news in this second wave is that the disease is not progressing as it did in the first?

[Matt Hancock]

I want to keep it that way. It is true that the all-cause mortality rates are around the typical levels for this time of year, and that is partly because non-covid deaths are actually lower at the moment than in most years, and because, thus far, we have worked to keep this virus under control. We know from the basic mathematics of compounding growth and the exponential nature of the growth of any virus that the number of deaths will increase if the number of cases increase exponentially, hence the need for the actions that we in this House have voted for.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

On that point, many of my constituents were frightened to go to hospital because they thought that they might get infected with covid. With that in mind—I am quite sure my right hon. Friend has thought of this—would it not be an idea to separate out hospitals, so that we have a covid centre of excellence, say using the Nightingale hospitals, where everyone goes, and then the normal hospitals that deal with everything else? Forgive me for raising this point, because I am quite sure that the Secretary of State has a very good answer.

[Matt Hancock]

It is a brilliant idea—so brilliant that the NHS has spent the summer working on that concept. We cannot do it as perfectly as my hon. Friend suggests, and the reason is the practicalities of the treatment of covid—for instance, if someone has covid and something else, they need a normal intensive care unit. But the Nightingale hospitals are there—in fact today, sadly, the Nightingale hospital in Manchester is reopening. For all the rest of the hospitals, we are making sure that different parts of the hospital are deemed either blue or green—essentially covid-free or at risk of covid. Some of the different buildings are covid-free or non-covid, or, in some cases, whole hospitals are covid green sites and people cannot go to them unless they have tested negative. That means we can have a high degree of confidence because, for instance, if we are treating cancer patients, we want to ensure that there is not any covid in there.

We need these long-term solutions and, like other liberal democracies around the world, we are wrestling with this question—as we have wrestled with it in the last few minutes—of how to keep people safe from the virus while protecting other important things in life: our liberties, our livelihoods and the things that we love. That is what leads us to the strategy of suppressing the virus and supporting the economy, education and the NHS. The NHS needs to be supported to do all the other things that it needs to do until a vaccine is available.

I reject the false choice that says we must pick a side and choose between a healthy economy and a healthy nation, because the two are intrinsically linked. If, God forbid, we were to let the virus unleash its full force, the damage to not just the NHS and the hundreds of thousands of lives, but our livelihoods would be catastrophic. We can only get our economy and our society going gangbusters again if we drive this virus down, so that people have the confidence that they need to live their lives to the full—and drive it down we must.

This is a deadly virus, and, yes, it reserves its biggest impact for the oldest in society, which means the rise in the number of cases among the over-60s gives me a lot of cause for concern. We also just heard compellingly from the Minister for Equalities about the impact on people from ethnic minority backgrounds, but the impact is not confined to these groups. The virus can affect anyone of any age and any background, and we have already seen worrying numbers of young, fit, healthy people suffering debilitating symptoms months after contracting covid. Yesterday, a study by King’s College London showed that one in 20 people with coronavirus is likely to have virus symptoms, such as fatigue, breathlessness, muscle pain and neurological problems, for eight weeks or more. Yesterday, I visited the cutting-edge long covid clinic at University College London hospital. I have met people in their 20s and 30s unable to work, sapped of all their energy, living with the long-term effects of a virus that has completely changed their lives. Therefore, to anyone of any age, catching covid can be very grave indeed. Long covid underpins, again, our strategy for suppressing the virus until a vaccine arrives.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

When my right hon. Friend came to the Health and Social Care Committee a few weeks ago, he talked about long covid and the fact that clinics were being set up to deal with it. Will he give the House an update on where that has got to?

[Matt Hancock]

These clinics are being set up—the London clinic is now open—but we need to see them right across the country. The NHS now has a programme of rolling out clinics to be able to support people and, of course to communicate with GPs. That is important because primary care is often where people arrive with long covid, because there appears to be no correlation between the seriousness of someone’s initial illness and how long they can have these debilitating consequences. In some cases, people have no symptoms of the coronavirus initially, but then find that they have months and months of fatigue, a brain fog and muscle pain, and they do not know where it came from until they are diagnosed with long covid. It is a very serious complication.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

To enable us to get a picture, could the Secretary of State tell us what percentage of people up to 25 suffer from the condition?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes. We have two points of evidence; one is the evidence from King’s College London that shows that approximately one in 20 people with coronavirus is likely to have long-term symptoms, but the other evidence implies that in adults under 50, the proportion is more like one in 10. There seems to be some correlation that implies that it is more of a problem among younger people, but the understanding of long covid is still in its early stages and an awful lot more research is needed.

[John Spellar]

I am sorry to press the point, but it is a question of roughly what percentage is affected; not of those who contract the disease, but of the overall cohort.

[Matt Hancock]

It is very difficult to know. We estimate that approximately 8% of the population have had covid and that one in 20 people who has had it has symptoms for longer than eight weeks. Of course, the fewer people who get covid, the fewer people who get long covid, which reinforces the overall strategy of suppressing the virus until we get a vaccine. Let me turn to how we do that.

We cannot reiterate enough the importance of the basics: social distancing and “hands, face, space”. The next area is following rules on local action, which are at the core of how we and an increasing number of other countries around the world are tackling the crisis at the moment. Through our local covid alert levels, we have been able to take a balanced approach; I would like to update the House today on some further changes that we are making.

Unfortunately, we are seeing rising rates of infection in Stoke-on-Trent, in Coventry and in Slough. In all those areas, there are more than 100 positive cases per 100,000 people, cases are doubling approximately every fortnight and we are seeing a concerning increase in cases among the over-60s. We have agreed, in partnership with local leaders, to move those areas into the high local alert level, which will come into force at one minute past midnight on Saturday.

The central change is that people will not be able to meet other households socially indoors. This applies in any setting—at home, in a restaurant or in any other venue. The rule of six still applies in any outdoor setting, and although people may continue to travel to open venues, they should reduce the number of journeys where possible. I thank local leaders in the areas for the work they have done and for their co-operation. I can assure the people of Stoke-on-Trent, of Coventry and of Slough that we will support them all the way through, including with the business support that the Chancellor announced earlier today for all areas with a high local alert level.

We are also formally beginning discussions with Warrington about moving into the very high alert level, owing to a continuing rise in cases there.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the ongoing dialogue with me as a Warrington MP and with my colleagues in Warrington. I was particularly concerned this morning after having seen Public Health England data about the rapid rise in the infection rate among the over-60s in Warrington. Could he say a little more about that information?

[Matt Hancock]

I am worried about the rise in cases, especially among the over-60s in Warrington. We have seen that case rate continuing to rise, despite the hard work of people locally, since Warrington was moved into local alert level 2. There is an excellent local hospital in Warrington, but it is dealing with a very high number of cases and is working with other local hospitals to ensure that everybody gets the treatment they need. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has provided great leadership in his local community. I hope that with everybody supporting these measures and taking the actions necessary, we can keep these restrictions in place for as little time as possible, but I am absolutely convinced that we need to make progress. I have announced today that we will formally start the talks; I hope that we can reach an agreement and resolution soon.

The virus moves quickly, so we must respond quickly and in a targeted way like this to keep it under control. As part of local discussions, local authorities including the Local Government Association have asked for stronger enforcement powers, and I agree. To support businesses who are doing the right thing it is fair that we take action against those business who are doing the wrong thing. Firm enforcement helps make these restrictions fairer for all. We want to put in place stronger regulations to give local authorities further powers to take further action in their area. The proposals that we will bring forward will mean that councils will be able to act without delay and use closure notices to shut premises on public health grounds to help suppress the virus. We will work with local authorities in the coming days on the details of these proposals so that we can act in a firm and fast way against the minority who are breaching these life-saving rules.

These changes will help us fight the virus in the here and now but we are also making progress on long-term solutions. The long-term solution is not to give up, as some would have us do, or wish the virus away; it is to harness the science and the ingenuity of innovation while supporting people through.

First, on testing, thanks to exceptional work from so many people we have built a critical national infrastructure of diagnostic testing. Today’s testing capacity is now over 370,000. Alongside this expansion of the current technology, I want to update the House on mass testing. I know there have been many questions about this project. Last week, we began rolling out new testing technologies to hospitals based on the point-of-care LAMP—loop-mediated isothermal amplification—test. That will allow the regular repeat testing of NHS staff and patients. I am delighted to be able to tell the House that yesterday we began the roll-out of lateral flow tests to schools and universities. Lateral flow tests do not require a lab or a machine; the kit gives a result within minutes. We have successfully purchased many millions of these tests and they will allow us both to find the virus where it spreads and to reduce the disruption that virus control measures inevitably create.

If we can deliver a mass-testing solution so that pupils in a bubble do not have to isolate for a fortnight when one in the bubble tests positive, we will not only help control the spread of the virus but we will protect education better and help schools, teachers and parents to live their lives much closer to normal. These tests will also allow directors of public health to have more rapid access to testing capacity and we are starting the roll-out to councils, including today with the council in Stoke-on-Trent.

The second area to touch on is vaccines. Progress continues on the development and the deployment of vaccines, and we are determined to give those developing vaccines all the support they need. I can inform the House that we are initiating human challenge trials to speed up the development of the coronavirus vaccine and to improve further its safety. We are contributing £33 million to back these trials, joining forces with academia and industry. A human challenge trial involves taking a vaccine candidate that has been proven to be safe in trials and giving it to a small number of carefully selected, healthy adult volunteers who are then exposed to the virus in a safe and controlled environment closely monitored by medics and scientists. That gives us the chance to accelerate the understanding of promising vaccines that have been through the clinical trials so that we can improve on their safe development. The UK is one of the only countries in the world with the capability to run that kind of programme, and we should all be proud that, once again, we are leading on this global effort.

Our response to this lethal virus has been one of the greatest collective endeavours that this nation has seen. Thanks to those efforts, we are better prepared this time round. As a nation, we built the Nightingale hospitals in just nine days. As a nation, we came together as one to protect the NHS, and it was not overwhelmed. Now the NHS is better prepared still. As a nation, we built the biggest testing capability of all our peers, and we have made huge and historic advances in vaccines and treatments. We understand this virus infinitely more than at the start of this pandemic but we are not there yet—not when the virus is spreading at pace. So we must each of us look at what we can do, the role we can play and what actions we can take. We have seen throughout this pandemic that we are at our best when we come together. We know that with science on our side ultimately we will prevail.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Colleagues will see that there are many who wish to contribute to this debate. Therefore, I will impose an immediate five-minute time limit on Back-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

14:44

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given the numbers who are interested in the debate and given that I have enjoyed the indulgence of the House now for four days in a row—I am not sure what I will do next week; I might just come here and make a speech for the sake of it—I will try to be brief. I also apologise to the House, because I have a long-standing commitment and so I will not be here for the wind-ups. I apologise to the House for that discourtesy on this occasion. I have spoken to Mr Speaker about it, and he understands the particular circumstances.

I noticed that the Secretary of State has updated the House on Slough, Stoke-on-Trent and Coventry, but he did not mention anything about Nottinghamshire and West Yorkshire, and he will know that they are candidates that are widely speculated as the next to go into the tier 3 lockdown restrictions. For example, in parts of Nottinghamshire, localised infection rates are 370 per 100,000 in Gedling and 362 per 100,000 in Rushcliffe. In West Yorkshire, the rate is 307 per 100,000 in Wakefield and in Calderdale. Given that, he must be considering the future of West Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire.

I am just aware that we are going into the parliamentary recess. I do not know whether I can invite the Secretary of State to say anything now, because Members from those areas will be concerned that with Parliament not sitting next week, they might not have an opportunity to put their points to him or get their points on the record. If he does not want to say anything now, it would be important if the Minister of State could offer some reassurance to people in those parts of the world as to what might be happening.

[Matt Hancock]

As previously announced, discussions are under way. We want to proceed in consultation with and working with the local areas. With the parliamentary recess next week, we will find a way to ensure that colleagues are appraised of the situation, preferably in advance of any announcement.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I am truly grateful for that reassurance, because the Secretary of State will understand that many people in those areas will be concerned and Members will want to get their points of view on the record on that front.

The virus has caused a pandemic because it exploits ambivalence and takes advantage of our human vulnerabilities. It undermines our biological defences and spreads through human social behaviour and clustering. We know that people with long-term chronic conditions in particular are vulnerable, and we know that there is a greater burden of illness in our more disadvantaged areas, which covid cruelly exaggerates. We know that as we entered this crisis, we had less resilience as a society. We entered with life expectancy falling for some of the poorest and stalling nationwide, and life expectancy is a summary of our overall health.

In the past 10 years, the amount of life in good health has decreased for men and women. Our child mortality rates are some of the worst in Europe, and poor health and chronic illness leave communities acutely vulnerable to disease, so it should come as no surprise to any of us that some of the boroughs currently fighting the most virulent fires are some of the very poorest in our country, with the very worst life expectancy.

I welcome the progress being made on diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccinations, which the Secretary of State has updated us on today. We welcome the expanding of mass testing, including the saliva testing and the lateral flow testing. I hope, by the way, that the Secretary of State will invest in our great universities, which are developing some of this saliva-based testing, because they will need the equipment and the labs to process it. He will probably need to invest in robotics and artificial intelligence to do some of that, because there are not enough staff to do it at the moment, and I hope that is part of his agenda. As well as all that, because the virus is now endemic, we will need a health inequalities strategy to get on top of this virus for the long term.

In the immediate term, we also need to adjust our behaviours to bring infection rates down, which is why I have supported the difficult restrictions that the Secretary of State has had to impose, and it is why we are saying we need clarity all the time from Government. But people also want to know that there is light at the end of the tunnel, because it is still not clear to families in Bury, Heywood and Penistone and all those other places that have been put under lockdown in recent days how they will escape it.

We still do not know whether the restrictions across the north will be lifted when the national R falls below 1 or when local regionalised R values fall below 1. We still do not know whether restrictions will be lifted across the north when hospital admissions stabilise. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that decisions are

“based on a number of things including the R—also, of course, rates of infection, rates of admission to hospital and other data.”—[Official Report, 21 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 1053.]

He did not tell us what that other data is. Perhaps the Minister responding to the debate can outline how an area in the north in tier 3 gets out of those restrictions. I know that the areas will be reviewed every four weeks, but what are the criteria to inform those reviews?

I represent Leicester, where we are in tier 2, but we have been in a version of restrictions for 114 days. We went directly from national lockdown to local lockdown. In fact, we endured tougher restrictions than those currently designated for tier 3. Our hospitality closed, our non-essential retail closed and—I did not agree with this—our schools closed as well. All those measures together did help to bring infections down in Leicester to about 55 per 100,000—to be frank, many Members would bite your hand off for 55 per 100,000 now—and even at 55 per 100,000 we remained in a version of lockdown.

Now, months later, after all the sacrifice we took in Leicester—after months with our businesses closed, with the mental health impact of people not being able to see their loved ones and families denied the opportunity to visit a care home to see their grandmother or mother—our infection rates in Leicester are 219 per 100,000. The Secretary of State will therefore have to forgive me when I express some scepticism that his approach will work and suppress the virus to the levels sufficient to bring the R value down, because although the early restrictions in Leicester did have an impact, after months we are still under restrictions with infection rates over 200 per 100,000.

The Secretary of State updated us on the situation we are in. He has been good at updating the House repeatedly; I have no criticism of him at all on that front. The growth rate in the virus is slower than in March—it is more muted, thanks to the great sacrifices of the British people, with hand hygiene, social distancing and everything we are doing—but it is not plateauing. We are dealing with an autumn resurgence, and for all the heat and fallout we have had across the House this week, the truth is that the virus is at worrying levels everywhere. The national R is between 1.3 and 1.5. The R across the south-east is between 1.3 and 1.5, across the south-west between 1.3 and 1.6, and across the east of England between 1.3 and 1.5.

Of course, admissions to critical care are currently concentrated in the north and the midlands, but while at this stage in the first wave those admissions to critical care were beginning to come down, they are continuing to go up. It is right that improvements in care mean that people are less likely to die. That is a good thing, and we all celebrate that, but general and acute beds are filling up with covid patients across the north and across the midlands.

We know that the Prime Minister has rejected a circuit break for now—he does not rule it out indefinitely. We think he should have taken advantage of next week’s half term. He decided not to do that. But we should remind ourselves that SAGE advised the circuit break on 21 September. A month later, on 21 October, we had these grim statistics: 191 deaths; 996 hospital admissions; 6,431 in hospital; 629 on ventilation; 26,688 tested positive; and 249,978 cases in the past 14 days. Many will ask how much of that could have been avoided, had the Prime Minister gone along with SAGE’s advice a month ago.

Today, the Chancellor said in his statement that we have to find a balance between saving lives and protecting livelihoods, but I do not believe that the two are in conflict. It is not a trade-off. Actually, I do not believe the Secretary of State thinks it is a trade off—the tone of his remarks was very different from that of the Chancellor earlier. Saving lives and protecting livelihoods go hand in hand. I worry that the approach the Government are currently taking—while understandable, because nobody wants to be in a lockdown, and none of these decisions are easy or do not have negative consequences; I think we are all mature enough across the House to appreciate and understand that—means that there will, by necessity, have to be tougher, deeper action in the weeks to come, not only in autumn. Winter has not hit us yet.

Professor John Edmunds of the London School of Hygiene said yesterday in one of the Select Committees that

“there’s no way we come out of this wave now without counting our deaths in the tens of thousands…I think we are looking at quite a bleak situation unless we take action…I don’t think we should be taking action just specifically in the highest risk areas, but I think we need to take action everywhere”.

A similar sentiment was expressed by Sir Jeremy Farrar, who is also on SAGE. For balance, Professor Van-Tam said at the press conference this week that he disagreed, but also that

“we may have to push on the pedal a little harder”

to get it under control.

I know the Secretary of State is a decent man. He has been very good throughout this crisis in talking to me privately; one would expect a Secretary of State and a shadow Secretary of State to have those discussions. Whenever I have asked for briefings, all the way back to January, he has ensured that the chief medical officer would give me confidential briefings, as I am sure that every Member across the House would understand and appreciate. So I know he is a decent man. I know he is not playing games or anything like that. I know that these are difficult judgment calls of extraordinary gravity. I know there is no easy solution. Everything has trade-offs; everything has negative consequences. But we also know that unless we take decisive action, the consequences could be even worse. No one should pretend to the House that that is not the case. There is a worry that by not taking action now, we will, in the words of Professor David Hunter, an epidemiologist at Oxford,

“all wind up in tier 3 eventually.”

According to Times Radio yesterday, Government sources were telling it that the Government are now planning a three-week circuit break next month across all tier 2 and tier 3 areas. If that is the case, then the Government should probably level with us so that we can all start preparing for it.

This is not just about minimising harm and deaths from covid. As the Secretary of State said in responding to questions from my hon. Friends, we have a huge responsibility and duty to minimise harm and deaths from non-covid conditions as well. We have to avoid the situation that we were in in the spring, when the immense lockdown, which was actually a number of different interventions all at once, meant that to build surge capacity in the national health service, we had to cancel elective operations to free up general and acute beds, and much important diagnostics work and treatment got delayed. That has left us with a situation today where 110,000 people are waiting beyond 12 months for treatment, compared with just 1,600 in January; 3 million people are waiting for breast, bowel or cervical screening, and more people are waiting for treatment.

My worry is that we will end up building a greater backlog in treatment if we do not act. General and acute beds are filling up. We have a number of hospitals cancelling electives already. Bradford has just suspended non-urgent surgery. Birmingham is talking about suspending non-urgent surgery. It is happening in Nottingham. We know that Merseyside is under considerable pressure; the Secretary of State outlined it. It has just been revealed in the Health Service Journal that we are heading into this winter with 2,000 fewer beds than we had last winter. Today the Royal College of Emergency Medicine has warned that over half of A&Es across the country are caring for patients in corridors due to the lack of beds—and we are not even in winter yet. Our overcrowded A&Es are not ideal at the best of times, but during a covid pandemic it is obviously highly dangerous to be treating patients in corridors of A&Es. The president of the royal college, Katherine Henderson, has pointed out that this situation

“will put more lives at risk than it ever did before.”

If the Government really want to drive down infections, suppress the virus and ensure that general and acute beds are not overwhelmed and more operations are not cancelled, then they have to seriously consider what steps they need to take to go further. Unless the Secretary of State or the Minister is going to get up at the end of this debate and say, “Actually, we’re going to do a circuit breaker over half-term next week”, I accept that the Government have probably missed that window of opportunity now, but at some point they will have to take further action.

We could have avoided much of this if test and trace had been more effective. The Secretary of State is spending £12 billion on this programme. Twelve billion pounds is a colossal amount of money. Some of it is going on consultants who earn £7,000 a day, but where on earth is the rest going? We are throwing around figures in this covid debate, and we are becoming quite complacent and relaxed about them, but £12 billion is an extraordinary amount of money; we could probably run the NHS for a month or so on that. We learn today that the system is contacting only 59.6% of contacts, which is the equivalent of failing to contact 101,000 people. That is not world beating; it is a world-beating shambles. I really hope that the Government look at stripping all the failing private outsourcing firms, such as Serco, of these contracts and putting local public health teams in charge. That would be much more effective.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I want to pick up a point about the app. It is telling people to self-isolate, but it does not give them the code that they need for the process, so they cannot claim their £500. That is creating chaos across local authorities. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to get on top of this quickly?

[Jonathan Ashworth]

Absolutely. There have been problems with the app. When I am in Leicester, it tells me that I am in an area that is both medium and high alert. Leicester has been under lockdown for 100 days, so how can the app say that in the part of Leicester where I live?

[Matt Hancock]

I thought that the hon. Gentleman’s comments were very thoughtful until we got to the unnecessary political knockabout. I want to make a couple of factual points about the app. It only takes the first two segments of someone’s postcode, some of which spread over two different alert levels, so that is why it describes the situation in Leicester as it does. When it comes to making sure that people press the button on the app to access the £500 self-isolation payment for the low-paid, that button is there on the app.

I want to leap to the defence of Test and Trace, because in the past fortnight the number of contacts and cases that have been reached has doubled. In slightly more than the last month, the distance travelled to get a test has halved, and the turnaround time for tests that are sent to care homes—those tests are critical for saving lives—has come down. More than 50 statistics on Test and Trace are published every Thursday, and of course the hon. Gentleman can look through them, find a couple that are going in the wrong direction and complain about them, but I think it is better to have a balanced opinion.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

That was a spirited defence, but the statistics have been bad every week. The Secretary of State knows that, because I have raised it with him every week.

[Matt Hancock]

What happens is that every week, the hon. Gentleman looks through the 50 statistics and finds the ones that are not going in the right direction. I am merely pointing out that the system is doing much more than it ever has. One place where the huge amounts of money that we are putting into Test and Trace go is into the record amount of testing capacity, which is now more than 370,000. I think he should stand up and thank all the people who are delivering on this colossal effort.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I am very happy to thank the people who are working in Test and Trace.

[Matt Hancock]

U-turn.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

That is not a U-turn. Thanking the staff is not a U-turn. The Opposition are on the side of the workers; the Secretary of State is on the side of the bosses. Of course we are happy to thank the staff who are working on Test and Trace, but he cannot seriously look at the statistics and tell us that the system is effective. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster did not defend it. When he was asked about the statistics on “The Andrew Marr Show” on Sunday, he said that

“any test and trace system of whatever kind has less utility”

when the virus is accelerating. If the Secretary of State thinks that there is a good set of statistics, perhaps he should send it to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who took a different line on Sunday.

Let me come to a conclusion, because I know that many people want to speak in this debate. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State tells me to leave out the knockabout, but he is the one who started it off. The problem is that we went into this pandemic with an underfunded NHS, public health cut back and less resilience as a society. This will not be the only pandemic that we have to deal with. Climate change, urbanisation and deforestation mean that we are likely to see more viruses jump from animals to humans. The big challenge for us as a society when we come through this pandemic, as we will, is that we have to start building the health security to protect us for the future, because unfortunately, all of us across the House will be dealing with more of these pandemics in the years to come.

15:04

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I draw the House’s attention to my outside interests. This is the first time I have sought to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, in any of the covid debates. I want to express strong support for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He has an impossibly difficult job to do, which in my view he is doing very well indeed, and we should all support him. I also want to express my gratitude and admiration for the health facilities in my constituency, in particular Good Hope Hospital.

I want to encourage a few small changes—to use a nautical metaphor, an adjustment on the tiller—to be made when possible. I am pleased to see that my right hon. Friend is working far more with Members of Parliament. The wisdom from our constituencies, as we report back in the House from the frontline, is very important and should play a critical part in the Government reaching their conclusions. Working closely with local authorities and Mayors is not easy and not always elegant, but it is vital for my right hon. Friend successfully achieving what he wants to.

For many years, I have not had many nice things to say about Birmingham City Council, but the public health authorities under Justin Varney are doing an exceptional job under the regional Mayor, Andy Street, whose leadership we all admire. It should also be said that Birmingham City Council did a first-class job in dealing with the homeless at the start of the pandemic and ensuring that they all had somewhere to go off the streets. Politicians in the west midlands, who I think it is fair to say never agree on anything, have worked closely together since March and established a good working relationship. This is not a political crisis; it is a health crisis. We should all play our part in keeping the aggro levels down, and the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State set a good example today.

In the trade-offs that Ministers inevitably must make between protecting our health and the health service and protecting jobs, livelihoods and investment, I would push the tiller a bit more towards the economy and economic activities. I am lost in admiration at the ingenuity, impressive optimism and vitality of the private sector in Sutton Coldfield as I visit their businesses and hear their determination but also their anxiety.

I wish to mention two sectors. The first is the events and exhibitions sector, which employs 600,000 people and has a turnover of about £80 billion each year, which is roughly the same as the automotive industry. A couple of weeks ago, I visited Solutions2 in Minworth in my constituency, which previously had a £6 million turnover but since March has had a turnover of precisely £8,000. It has 36 staff, 35 of whom are furloughed. They showed me a map of Europe, which showed that there was activity in their sector across Europe and in the middle east and far east but not, alas, in this country. They pointed out that an exhibition had taken place in Dusseldorf for the caravan show, which 107,000 people had visited.

The second sector that I wish briefly to mention is weddings and the marriage industry, which is flat on its back in Sutton Coldfield. More could be done to relax the tight restrictions in favour of covid-sensible arrangements, and I hope that the Government can show some flexibility on this. Venues such as Moor Hall and the wedding car industry, for example, are being badly affected.

I think I know the Prime Minister well enough to say that he is a social liberal at heart who dislikes the massive extension of the state as much as I do—the framework of restrictions and ways of living; the language of authority, with curfews, lockdowns, compliance and bans; and the machinery of coercion, with informing, policing, snitching and fining. I was horrified to hear this morning that four students in Nottingham have been fined £10,000 each—more than a year’s fees—for breaching the rules. The lives and opportunities of young people in particular have been blighted by this dreadful pandemic. We probably need to protect the elderly and vulnerable a little more and shield and curtail the young a little less. It is about a touch on the tiller, being a little less didactic and a little more trusting in the good sense of social solidarity of the vast majority.

Finally, I am a former member of the all-party parliamentary group on mental health, along with Alastair Campbell and Norman Lamb—probably one of the best public health Ministers we have had since the war. We are facing a mental ill health epidemic. People who are, inevitably, not being seen really should be seen. We must keep this issue at the front of all our minds as this crisis continues.

00:00

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

I would like to start by acknowledging that the Government are in an unenviable position. This is a tough gig.

[Matt Hancock]

Hear, hear!

[Anne McLaughlin]

I see that the Health Secretary agrees with me somewhat. Everybody on these islands is tired at the moment, but those making the tough decisions do not have the option to give in to the tiredness. I might not always agree with everything they are doing—I do not generally agree with most of what they do—but I understand that everybody is an expert these days.

Some of what the Government did in response to the pandemic was good. Furloughing was not just good; it was fantastic. I am not going to qualify that. These islands were not alone in having the idea, but it was a great idea. When I sat and watched the Chancellor’s initial response, I thought he was fast, flexible and responsive. I felt at that point that ideology had gone, that politics had been taken out of the situation and that the Government were simply doing what they could to support people as best they could. In fact, I remember thinking that when the Chancellor appeared on “Spitting Image” he would be wrapped in the red flag, so socialist were some of the furloughing policies.

We also heard about people slipping through the net. As everybody keeps saying, we are in unprecedented times. We had those Paymaster General calls every day, and much of what we reported was acted on initially. It was a terrible time, but it was a good time for politicians to work together in the interests of the four countries of these islands.

Not everything was acted on, however, and not everyone was supported. Some of those gaps were never filled. I want to mention two things in particular. First, my constituency has many wholesalers who chose not to furlough their staff because they wanted to play their part in responding to the pandemic. They wanted to ensure the flow of food and drink, particularly to hospitals. I know something was said in the statement earlier today, which I have not yet seen, but they have felt for a long time that they did not receive a response.

I wrote to the Chancellor to ask about that and I just want to say something about the responses I have been getting. The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) made a point of order about this earlier. Some of the responses have no reference—when we put a reference, they do not include it when responding. One of the complaints made in the point of order was about a six-word response to a question. I got an eight-page response to something, but I have no idea what the question was because, as I said, it did not give a reference. In addition, it seemed to be eight pages of “Isn’t the Government great?” which is just not acceptable. I do not know why the replies are like this. I wonder if it is an attempt to stop us asking questions in the first place, because I am certainly giving up sometimes.

The people who have formed the campaign organisation ExcludedUK have not given up. I am part of the all-party parliamentary group on the ExcludedUK. They have been incredible, but they are in a really difficult position and I, too, would have been in their position had I not won my seat in December. I was self-employed but I had not been self-employed for long enough. I will not go into the details, but I know that if I were one of them right now, I would not be living in the home that I have lived in for 10 years. I do not know what would have happened to me, so I identify with them and want to keep supporting them.

It was really good that the Government added £1,000 a year to universal credit, although it had been cut to the extent that that simply brought it back up to 2011 levels. On the other hand, I did not expect a Conservative Government to do that, so I am glad that they did. However, they need to extend it and they need to add it to legacy benefits. I implore them to do that and to extend the furlough scheme. Whenever that is mentioned in this place, Government Members shout, “For how long can we do that? We can’t sustain it forever!” But it would not be forever, and even though we do not know exactly how long it would last, we can estimate and reasonably suppose that by next summer there will be some kind of normality, so why not extend it until then, if needs be? In the past few months, I have noticed some terrible situations with employers and I have many examples. I already gave some examples when I spoke in the debate on whistleblowers a while back, but I want to raise one situation today, because I am hoping that Government Members will do something about it. It is a very serious matter. The employer is the Government. Whoever took the decision that I am going to tell the House about should be ashamed of themselves.

There are three service centres in Glasgow for the DWP and the situation concerns people working in those service centres who do not have to do face-to-face. I am telling the House what is happening in Glasgow, but I am sure this will not just be the case in Glasgow; I imagine that it is widespread across these islands. Workers were on a work-from-home pilot scheme. Some teams were allowed to work four days a week at home and one day in the office. Others worked three weeks at home and one week in the office.

On 23 September, the Prime Minister and the First Minister both gave the instruction that anybody who could work from home should work from home. Naturally, those workers expected that they would be allowed to work from home full time, but they were refused permission to do that. Some of the workers, who are all kitted out at home, are having to bring their equipment into the office on that one day of the week or that one week of the month, despite what the Government were saying people should do. They were constantly being told that it was fine, it was safe and that there was no danger to them. Well, that was not what the Government were saying.

On the week ending 9 October, it was announced that two members of staff in that building had tested positive. On 12 October, another three members of staff were reported to have tested positive. On 15 October, a further two members of staff tested positive—seven cases in less than a week. On 19 October, Monday of this week, there was another case and on 20 October, Tuesday, there were another two. So that is 10.

I am sure that Members can understand the fears that those workers were experiencing, but I will tell them who did not understand—or maybe they did and just did not care. Last Friday, a senior manager at the DWP held a Skype meeting with the teams to reassure them that the office was safe and to remind them that the pilot could not be changed and there could be no flexibility, despite what the Prime Minister and the First Minister were telling employers to do. I understand that the tone was more threatening than reassuring. The senior manager warned that if workers continued to raise concerns the pilot might be cancelled and they would all be forced to work in the office full time. She “hoped” that that would not have to happen. That is workplace bullying and I hope the Secretary of State will raise it with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. I certainly will be raising it.

Yesterday, just to bring everyone up to date, staff were told that the pilot had been suspended. That is good in the short term, because all those who can work from home are now doing so full time, but there is no information and no answer to their questions about how this situation will progress. Given threats that speaking out might mean that the pilot is cancelled and everyone will be forced to work in the office, one can be forgiven for thinking that that is what is going to happen. So I just want to ask a few questions. Why, if they could work from home and are equipped to work from home, were they forced to work in the office? Of the 10 testing positive so far, how many were part of the work-from-home pilot? How can a Government agency be given permission to ignore the restrictions that everyone else is rightly following? Will management punish the “unruly dissenters” who complained about it by forcing them all to work in the office, as was suggested by the senior manager? Do the Government understand the message that the workers are getting, which is, “You don’t matter, you have no power”?

Well, not only do they have no power, but their MP seems to have no influence. My attempts to represent my constituents started on 4 October, when I had a meeting with DWP senior managers. I had just been made aware of the situation—the meeting was about something else—so I said I urgently needed to know who to contact to raise the issue on behalf of the employees. They got back to me yesterday, 21 October, after being prompted three times. I waited 17 days and their response was, “You might need to give us some more information.” If I cannot represent those employees as an MP and make any difference to their lives, and they cannot as workers, who else can?

Madam Deputy Speaker, you are looking at me like you want me to stop—[Interruption.] No? Oh, that’s excellent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am sure the hon. Lady is aware that there are a great number of speakers, but I am quite happy for her to finish her remarks.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I have had less than half the time that the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) had, but I thought his speech was great anyway.

I want to talk about some other people who have been prevented from working from home—namely, MPs. We can participate virtually in question sessions, and when it comes to voting we can nominate a proxy, but we cannot participate virtually in debates such as these. I heard the Leader of the House confirm this morning that the virtual Parliament would be extended to Easter, so we will be able to speak in question sessions and nominate a proxy vote, but we will not be able to take part in the debates that are the lifeblood of our democracy.

I was interested in the so-called reasoning behind that decision in response, this morning, to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), who again questioned why MPs who cannot be here in person cannot participate in debates virtually. His microphone was muted and there was a 10-second gap while that was resolved. The Leader of the House then used that as a justification for not allowing virtual debates, but he had just said that it was fine to participate virtually in question sessions. The question session that they were taking part in had a glitch of 10 seconds, but the question got asked and it got answered, and the roof did not cave in and nobody came to any harm. No catastrophe would fall upon us if there were such a glitch in a debate like this, so why does this place, which many like to think of as the mother of all Parliaments and a great bastion of democracy, silence the voices of MPs who, through no fault of their own, cannot be here in person? Worse, why does it silence the voices of their constituents?

Madam Deputy Speaker, I will stop there, even though I have a good eight minutes more, because I know lots of people want to get in.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for being so understanding. I am going to reduce the time limit to four minutes, but Members will need to brace themselves for the fact that not everyone will get in. However, there is a whole day’s debate on covid-19 on Monday 2 November, the day we come back from recess.

15:21

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the general covid update debate. Last time I spoke, I welcomed the tiered approach the Government had put in place to deal with the covid virus, and today I am pleased to welcome the support the Government have put in place as a further measure that is more nuanced and more targeted to help those in most need. I have been asking questions today about road maps and plans for the future. If we start with the economic side, these questions are key. I met representatives of the Hinkley business improvement district last night, and one of the biggest questions they had was about what would happen if we moved from tier 1 to tier 2. I was pleased to be able to tell them that the Treasury and the Chancellor were listening. That message was heard, and new support was put in place. That security will be greatly welcomed in Bosworth and up and down the country.

The other thing that businesses need is some form of certainty and a road map of where they are going. We are lucky in this House to have a learned Friend in my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who is no longer in his place. He has highlighted areas about which I also have concerns after meeting constituents and businesses last Friday.

The wedding industry, the events and conference industry and the travel industry are all going to face difficulties because of the very nature of their business: the people business. The virus thrives on people’s interactions, and those industries feel as though they are now zombie businesses, because they are not officially closed, but they cannot open fully because there is no trade for them. I think it is reasonable to argue that, because of that, they need some certainty over what the future may hold for them, with a roadmap of how to get there and what the support might look like after we have made choices in the hospitality sector.

Equally, there are non-fiscal measures we can take. We can relook at the levers that we may be able to pull to allow a change of use or the extension of licensing, so that businesses like those in the wedding sector can use their facilities in a different way. After all, they are keen to be open and keen to innovate. The Government need to give them the chance to do so.

I was also pleased to hear today about a further roadmap relating to health. I mentioned a couple of weeks ago to the Health Secretary and to the House the importance of knowing where we are going and how we can innovate to get our way out. It is fantastic news that laminar flow testing is being rolled out, because until we have a vaccine, this is the way to enable people to take responsibility of their own testing in organisations and hopefully even in their personal situation. When people go to school, when they go to the hospital or when they come to Westminster, they will be able to test themselves, find that they are negative and carry on with their daily life. Of course, if they are positive, they will be followed up and isolated in the correct way. It is really important and will be a stalwart step until we get the vaccine.

In the Health Committee, I was pleased to hear from Professor Edmunds that SAGE feels that a vaccine is coming. That is important to factor in when we think about what lockdown measures to take, because there is a big difference between waiting for months and waiting for years. That comes with a word of caution. From the very start, Chris Whitty—both in private and public announcements—said that there are a range of measures that are easy to take and that all have a different weighted impact. If we are getting a vaccine and improved testing, we cannot lose sight of the simple basics that must be in place: hands, face, space. Without doing those things, it will be very hard to control the virus, even with the testing and when we start to roll out a mass vaccination. I am therefore keen that the Government are clear in articulating, and continue to push, the message of hands, face, space, because the virus has opened Pandora’s box, and what we really need to see is the guarded hope left.

15:26

[Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

There is an increasing weight of evidence showing that covid-19 and the response to the pandemic—however necessary to contain and slow the spread of the virus—is having a significant impact on and leading to a growing epidemic in mental ill health. As we are forced to contend with the fear, stress and worry of contagion for ourselves and our loved ones, these feelings are compounded by anxieties about the monumental changes to everyday life.

Working from home, shielding, furlough, self-isolation, home schooling, face coverings, and a lack of physical contact with family and friends have become the new normal. Faced with these new realities and a growing sense of uncertainty, we are already beginning to see the impact of the pandemic on people’s mental health. Social isolation, loneliness, bereavement, health anxieties, loss of income and jobs, poor or unaffordable housing, a lack of access to outdoor space, and working in frontline services are triggering mental health conditions or exacerbating existing ones.

Covid-19 has undoubtedly increased the drivers of worsening mental health, but at the same time it has reduced access to and interrupted the provision of essential mental health services, just when they are needed most. To compound the problem further, the pandemic has diminished many of the coping mechanisms that people typically use to deal with stress, worry and anxiety, such as meeting up with family and friends, exercising or going out to work. As a result, there is a real fear that we are building up considerable mental health problems for the future, and could see a wave of acute and untreated mental illness after the pandemic.

To avert a mental health crisis, we must ensure that mental health needs are treated as a central component of our response to and recovery from the covid-19 outbreak. We need to increase significantly investment and capacity in services during the pandemic and beyond, to ensure that all people living with mental ill health have continued access to treatment to prevent their conditions from worsening and becoming more acute. In Coventry, there are some excellent community groups delivering tailored local support to tackle these growing problems. I recently visited one such group, the Mote House Community Trust. I saw the fantastic work that it is doing in conjunction with our health services to combat loneliness, and deliver positive health and wellbeing outcomes.

From tomorrow, at just past midnight, Coventry is due to move to tier 2 of the local covid alert system. Although there was a sad inevitability about this decision, given the rising number of coronavirus cases in the city, the new tighter restrictions such as those imposed on other towns and cities in tiers 2 and 3 will simply add fuel to the fire of the mental health epidemic, unless we can ensure that the right support is in place. I sincerely hope that Ministers will confirm that mental health services and social prescribing schemes will be given the requisite support to tackle the growing mental health epidemic before we reach crisis point. After all, failing to recognise the importance of good mental health and invest appropriately in services now risks storing up significant mental health and physical wellbeing problems for the future. That would come at an unacceptable human, social and economic cost.

15:30

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

If we were to ask a scientist, “How do you stop a virus that spreads through human contact?”, we should not be surprised if he answers by telling us that we must stop human contact as far as is possible. It falls to us, however, to decide whether the price is worth paying in terms of the misery and unemployment it generates. We are talking about a generation marred in their life chances; and mindboggling borrowing that we will have to pay off over years, which will diminish proper investment in public services and industry. All that, and for what? The Secretary of State has told us this week that the average number of deaths is consistent with the long-term average for this time of year. Some 1,600 people die every day, but covid is by no means chief among their killers. It is no good to say, “Well, every other jurisdiction in the world is following basically the same policy”. That would strike me as herd stupidity.

Speaking of herds, I understand that a number of Ministers have questioned the existence of herd immunity, which is odd, given that a successful vaccine programme relies on herd immunity and that is the basket into which the Government have placed all their eggs. We can throw into this mix: the fact that we appear determined to claim every possible death as a covid death, as though we were in some sort of international league and competition; the failure to be absolutely up front on the limitations of the PCR—polymerase chain reaction—test as a means of tracking the disease; and the way we use large numbers to terrify people. We have been told that intensive care units are at 80% of their capacity, but of course at this time of year that is exactly what we would expect them to be. No wonder our constituents are writing to us with ever greater conspiracy theories—it is because our actions defy rational explanation.

Hallelujah—the consensus has been broken; the Prime Minister has finally resisted the advice he has been given by the scientists, just at a time when the Opposition have embraced it with enthusiasm. Now at least an argument can be had, and proper scrutiny and freedom from groupthink will arise. The danger is that if we do not change the way in which we respond to this disease, in years to come historians will pick over how a prosperous society entered into such a devastating act of self-harm.

15:33

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

In business questions today, the Leader of the House brushed off my suggestion for a specific debate where the Government could present their evidence that the closures in and restrictions on the hospitality, sport and leisure industries would have a significant impact on the course of the pandemic. I was trying to be helpful. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister was asked:

“is there a scientific basis for the 10 pm rule?...If there is a basis, why do the Government not do themselves a favour and publish it?”—[Official Report, 7 October 2020; Vol. 681, c. 897.]

The industry would not necessarily have been happy with that, but it would at least have been comprehensible. Indeed, had it been published earlier, things may have been even better because those in the industry would not have had to spend considerable sums on changing their premises, only to have that disregarded. They may have the slightest suspicion that the evidence is non-existent or at best very thin, and that the policy has been driven more by the desire to be seen to be doing something, but at huge cost to this industry, which is not only a huge part of the economy, but part of what makes our country stand out in the world. What a vast industry we are talking about: pubs and clubs; restaurants and cafés; betting shops; bingo halls and casinos; cinemas and theatres; gyms; music venues; wedding venues; football and rugby clubs and racecourses—the list goes on—as well as the myriad suppliers and transport companies that service them. There are hundreds of thousands of businesses, some international brands, but most small businesses whose owners have invested their life’s work, dreams and savings in them. They have been hanging on, hoping for better times. The Government’s response is depriving them of that hope. Of course they need relief and the belated help that was announced today, but they also need customers and trade.

That is another reason why the Chancellor’s contribution today was disappointing. There seemed to be no recognition of the Government as a customer—a major purchaser of goods and services. The Government could have a big impact on employment and economic revival. There was no indication of any sense of urgency in Whitehall for that.

As an example, the order for fleet solid support ships has been hanging around with the Ministry of Defence for years, and they are needed. This week, the Defence Secretary announced that the MOD will be inviting bids for a British-based contract, but it will not issue the invitation until the spring. Why further dither and delay? Get a move on. Get industry gearing up. The same goes for buses, trains, cars, trucks, hospitals, schools, road and rail fares—the list is endless. What that means in the end is jobs, jobs, jobs. Earlier in the year, the Prime Minister claimed to be channelling his inner Franklin Roosevelt. Well, let him take a lesson from the Works Progress Administration in the US and get real projects—the output but also the work—rolling fast.

The Secretary of State talked about suppressing the virus until we get a vaccine, but let us be clear: we have only ever eliminated one virus—smallpox—and that after many decades. We face significant harm, here and around the world, from viruses, bacteria and fungal conditions, but even with a vaccine, thousands die of flu every year. We all acknowledge the incredible efforts of the scientific community here and around the world to create a vaccine, but they rightly warn that they cannot be sure of success. As the PM himself acknowledged, after 18 years, we still have not found an effective vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome. Furthermore, if we do get an effective vaccine, it will not be effective for all—no vaccine is—and that is before we consider the constraints of production and the need to overcome resistance from anti-vaxxers. As I have said before, we probably will have to learn to co-exist with the virus while maintaining the economy and society. The sooner we face up to that, the better.

15:37

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

We face a difficult winter. Many areas of England are under heightened restrictions, including Elmbridge, part of which forms part of my constituency. We face the national challenge of a new disease, with a population that is largely unexposed to it and has built no immunity to it through either prior infection or other means, such as vaccination. It spreads easily and quickly, and can make people in high-risk groups, particularly the elderly, seriously ill. It can spiral out of control and overwhelm our health service.

I supported the first lockdown and I support the current restrictions. As an NHS doctor, I say with all my body and soul that we cannot let the NHS be overwhelmed. But lockdowns and restrictions are deeply harmful in themselves. The long-term effects will be profound—a higher burden of disease from poverty, with associated costs in lives; loss of livelihoods; misery and damage from isolation, and reduction in liberties. We need a way out.

My constituents are feeling it—especially those who are now in tier 2 restrictions in Elmbridge—and I pay tribute to them for their resolve. They rightly ask me, “What’s the way out? How does this end? How do we escape the cycle of lockdown?” The current strategy is to suppress until there is a vaccine, but what if there is never a vaccine? As people start to tire of lockdown, increasing coercion and punitive measures are being put in place. On my commute from Runnymede and Weybridge, I travel to Waterloo station, and I have seen the signs there change—from a £100 fine for not wearing a face mask, to £3,000, to £6,000—in the course of a few months. It is inevitable that greater coercion will be needed. When does that stop?

Coercion is illusory. It works briefly, but after a while it fails, unless we take people with us and they own the decision. Of course, in a public health response to an infectious disease, we cannot have a free-for-all, but at the same time, in my constituency, I see people at low risk from covid who ignore the guidance because it will not directly affect them and all they see is harm from restrictions. I see people at high risk ignoring guidance because life is short and they want to see their grandkids. I see people terrified of covid hiding away from the world. Day in, day out, people make decisions about their health risks, such as to smoke or not to smoke—indeed, given that 76,000 people die every year from smoking, probably more people have already died this year from smoking than from covid. People decide whether to put salt on their chips, or not to eat chips. We all make compromises and trade-offs, but rather than the state deciding those trade-offs, we must find a way to let people decide their own.

[Chris Bryant]

Is not the problem that whether I choose to have salt on my chips is a matter for my health, but when I take risks with covid, I take them not just for myself but for everybody else with whom I interact, and for the whole of society?

[Dr Spencer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I will come to precisely that point in due course.

I supported the first lockdown, and I support the current restrictions, but we need a way out that works, irrespective of the invention of a vaccine. We need a way out that supports people to take their own decisions and respects free choice but, as the hon. Gentleman said, we must also protect society from an infectious disease. Such a system needs to be sustained for a long time, and those measures will need to be in place for a long time.

It is easy to criticise, but it is more difficult to put forward other options. We therefore need a debate about what a plan B could look like. We started with a national lockdown, but that was too blunt. We rightly moved to targeted measures, which are better, but still not great. The geographical area is too large, and people do not live their lives by local authority boundaries. The next logical step is to shrink the geography further—to the household or individual—and to have a system that allows people to make decisions for themselves regarding their own risks and the people they come across socially or at work.

We must use our testing capabilities in a targeted, risk-based manner, so that those at high risk, should they choose to, can shield and have support to do that. Those at low risk would be able to live their lives more freely, should they choose to do so. At the same time, we must ensure that things do not spiral out of control, with broader measures and restrictions available in reserve if needed. We must invest in our NHS surge capacity, and carry out research into vaccines and treatments.

The challenge, of course, is how we support those at medium risk, or those who live or work with high-risk individuals, and we need to have that debate. Lockdowns are not a cure for covid. They only regulate the pressure on the health service and, important as that is, in time they can, and will, be worse than the disease itself. We need to have that difficult debate and there is no easy solution. While I suggest that we wait for the phase 3 trials of vaccines, which come out imminently, we must start putting flesh on the bones of a plan B, based on individual choice, and consider a pilot in the UK. To get through this pandemic, whatever we do will be difficult. Difficult decisions have to be made, and more difficult decisions remain to be made.

15:42

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

In his statement earlier today, the Chancellor claimed to be targeting support where it is most needed, but one early and obvious lesson from the covid pandemic was the disinvestment and chronic underfunding of social care, which led to a system that was ill-prepared for that pandemic. The 2018 report into social care from the other place, led by Lord Forsyth, found that the social care system needed around £8 billion, just to return quality and access to the sub-optimal levels of 2009-10. According to Age UK, councils now say that they need an additional £6 billion on top of that to meet the extra costs of covid-19. Therefore, a minimum investment of £14 billion is urgently required to return social care in England to a pre-austerity position.

The social care system entered the pandemic underfunded, understaffed, undervalued, and at risk of collapse. Any response to covid-19, however vast or comprehensive, would have needed to contend with that legacy of political neglect. It is telling of this Government’s approach to social care that a recent Health Foundation report found evidence that

“the government acted too slowly and did not do enough to support social care users and staff”.

As has become all too clear throughout the recent crisis, in England protecting social care has been given far more priority than the NHS. As we have all witnessed, the Government’s handling of the covid crisis has left much to be desired, as we have seen with most clarity in the major and widespread problems that have been experienced in social care in England. In the most extreme cases, councils are now meeting a person’s needs only if not doing so would breach their human rights.

The right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) is on the record as claiming that he wanted to produce a 10-year plan for social care to match the one drawn up for the NHS two years ago, but that that was blocked by the Treasury. He said:

“The political pressure is never as great for social care funding but the reality is additional NHS funding will be wasted if we don’t sort out social care.”

He is right: the crisis in social care cannot be ignored. Just as the numbers of people going without care will continue to rise, in particular with respect to long covid sufferers, so will the pressure on the NHS and the public purse. We are a year on from the statement on the steps of No. 10 in which the Prime Minister claimed that he would “fix” social care, but like so many of the Prime Minister’s promises, that claim was without substance.

When the Minister for Care appeared before the Health and Social Care Committee last week, I asked why the Government’s professed dedication to the reform of social care was not reflected in policy. I received a terse response:

“Clearly, the Department has been dealing with a pandemic.”

But that is precisely why reform must push ahead. I echoed the words of the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey):

“The Covid crisis makes the need to fix social care more urgent, not less.”

Despite all that, the Minister was completely unable to provide any response beyond a vague, non-committal commitment. If that is a measure of the Government’s commitment to target support where it is most needed, they have failed to learn the most vital lesson of the pandemic.

15:46

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

The Government and the whole of British society have made an amazing response to covid and to the challenge that we have faced. We knew very little about it at the beginning, but we have evolved and adapted with time. Society now is so different—who would have believed at the beginning that we would be in this position now, sanitising our hands every time we went into a shop, wearing masks and socially distancing?

We know far more today than we did then, and we understand the impact and cost of covid, but we are also in an increasingly good position to understand the cost of the lockdown. We hear figures about millions of cancer screening appointments and tens of millions of GP appointments not being taken up, and we understand far better that in the weeks, months and years ahead there will be a huge cost from the lockdown, but the details have not been adequately explained to the British people as a whole or to right hon. and hon. Members of Parliament. We heard moments ago about colleagues asking questions—quite reasonable, quite straightforward questions—and getting a six-word answer.

I have written to the Secretary of State to raise concerns about Bolton, which has been in a particularly difficult position with a rather severe lockdown. Constituents tell me about the impact on their mental health, their physical health and their ability to get treatment—it has a cost. I wrote to the Secretary of State on 29 September to raise concerns that in Bolton borough 20,000 fewer people than last year have had a referral from a GP to hospital. Serious treatments have not been taken up as a result. This is serious—it is life and death—for my constituents, and I think it is replicated around the country.

I have yet to receive a response to my letter, but I do have an answer to my written question about what action has been taken in relation to the 20,000 fewer referrals from GPs to hospitals this year than last. The answer that came back was:

“No specific assessment has been made.”

That is 20,000 people in Bolton as a whole whom GPs think should have a hospital appointment of one form or another. I do not know how many of that 20,000 would be in the category of life or death, but I suspect a very significant number. I suspect that this would be replicated right across the country. To get a six word answer —“No specific assessment has been made”—to cover that 20,000 is disappointing to say the least. It is also covering a health time bomb that will explode. That is already happening at the moment. Far more needs to be done so. Will my hon. Friend commit to delivering a covid lockdown health impact assessment for every constituency around the country?

15:50

[Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

In West Ham, we had the highest number of people furloughed in the country—almost 30,000. All of those people and so many more who are self-employed are potentially at risk of real economic hardship, and we simply do not know how many more will lose their work over the coming winter. The scope for damage to our already deprived and very vulnerable communities in Newham is vast.

As we know, there are differences in economies across the country. In my constituency, many parents work two or three jobs to pay their rent and their living costs. Let me tell Members quickly what it is like in Newham. The lowest quartile of private rent is higher than the lowest quartile of earnings. A month’s wages does not even cover the rent on its own. In many cases, if parents lose one source of income they will be under threat of homelessness and it will immediately mean cutting back on the things that children need and that parents want to provide, such as food, clothes, shoes for the winter, internet access and books. In this wealthy country of ours, losing that second or third job will leave parents with no choice but to cut back on food—first for themselves and then for their children. We know that when parents are pushed into poverty, the impacts can be lifelong on their children’s health, education and opportunity.

Last week, the End Child Poverty coalition estimated that almost 20,000 children were in poverty in West Ham alone—20,000 children! That is more than half the children in our local schools, and those numbers are from before the pandemic began. We have 20,000 children living in poverty in just one constituency. I worry about how bad this is going to get even if the Chancellor does not follow through with his threat to cut universal credit next year, and I hope to God he does not.

Around 575 school days have been lost since March. Only 8% of children with special educational needs and disabilities or under the protection of a social worker attended school during lockdown—8%! How can schools or local authorities identify the children who are at risk of abuse or neglect when they are not being seen? Self-isolation for covid is a really quick excuse that can be used for everything. Our services need to find new ways to proactively check children at risk and they need the resources to enable them to do that.

In my area, county lines see gangs grooming children with life-destroying consequences. This problem is now even more acute, because normally extended absences from schools are one of the clear signs that a child is being exploited to run drugs and put at risk of seeing and doing things that no young person should see or do. If preventative support is not given, it will create more damage in our communities and more costs for the public purse in the future, but most of all it will kill the hopes and the dreams of the children and the parents in deprived communities, cause much pain and waste so, so much potential.

15:54

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

May I place on record my thanks to the residents of Blackpool for the tremendous sacrifices they have made over the last seven months? The way in which my community has risen to the challenges we have faced has been fantastic to see, and I would like to extend my gratitude to our amazing key workers and all of those volunteers who continue to keep Blackpool going. There are too many fantastic individuals to mention them all, but it would be remiss of me not to highlight the fantastic contributions that Linda Mcevilly, Ryan Smith and Mark Butcher have made over the last few months.

Infection rates in Blackpool have been consistently below the Lancashire average, and as such, I had hoped that Blackpool would remain in tier 2 in the short term so that hospitality businesses could stay open during the upcoming half-term period, which is a most important time of year for my tourism-based local economy. There is no doubt whatsoever that the increased restrictions will financially hurt businesses in my constituency. Most work is seasonal, and businesses are now staring at a bleak winter, following a heavily disrupted summer.

I have been contacted by a significant number of businesses in the sector, including hoteliers, all of whom have exactly the same concerns: how can the Government impose restrictions and advise holidaymakers not to travel to Blackpool, but not order them to close so that they can access the local restrictions support grant and the extended job support scheme? I welcome the additional measures outlined by the Chancellor today, and the hundreds of billions of pounds that this Conservative Government have already spent to protect people’s jobs and businesses since March. An additional £30 million for businesses across Lancashire and the £4.6 million un-ringfenced grants given to Blackpool Council only today are also to be welcomed.

But such are the challenges in my constituency that we will continue to require additional support. It may be pointing out the obvious, but our small hotels cannot survive on local bookings alone. Winter is coming, and the tourism industry will not survive without further support. I would urge the Treasury to allow small hotels and B&Bs that voluntarily close to access the grants and the extended job support scheme available to businesses that have already been mandated to close.

I appreciate that health considerations have meant that Blackpool must be included with Lancashire in the highest tier of restrictions, and I was grateful that local leaders put politics aside to work together and agree a sensible solution. However, we are obviously seeing contrasting levels of virus across the UK, so a full national lockdown or a circuit breaker would be a blunt instrument affecting businesses and jobs in places with low infection rates.

The tiered system is much more precise and targets additional measures exactly where they are required, and for this reason it has my full support. We simply have to give the tiered approach enough time to prove effective. Arbitrary decisions to close specific industries in the highest tier cannot be made by Ministers without clear and transparent evidence. For example, we need better communication to explain decisions such as closing pubs at 10 pm and the enforced closure of betting shops in tier 3. The latter seems to be a particularly unjustified decision, which will cost jobs and cost the Exchequer a substantial tax revenue, and for which there is apparently no scientific basis.

15:58

[Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)]

I want to take this opportunity to recognise some of the work being done in my own constituency of Carshalton and Wallington, but also to highlight some of the challenges that these various sectors continue to face as we deal with a big pandemic.

To start with the health and social care sector, as a former NHS worker, I know how dedicated the health and social care staff in the United Kingdom are. St Helier Hospital in my constituency was one of the first hospitals to have to deal with a case of coronavirus and sadly also had one of the first confirmed deaths from the virus, which has taken far too many of our loved ones from us too soon. The hospital’s incredible efforts in caring for patients, consoling grieving families and looking out for the mental health of staff, not to mention keeping other hospital services going, is to be applauded.

The hospital is being supported by the fantastic teams working in our local care homes, and I want to thank providers such as Churchill and MHA, which have engaged constructively with me throughout the pandemic. The care sector plays a vital role, and the pandemic has shone a clear light on the challenges that the sector faces. I look forward to seeing the Government’s proposals for a long-term, sustainable social care plan.

When we talk about the health response to the pandemic, I want to ensure that we do not overlook the fantastic work of our local community pharmacists. I was privileged to have a call with some of our pharmacists earlier in the week. They told me how extremely busy they have been and how they have had to work exceptionally long hours to catch up on dispensing, after seeing hundreds more patients in need of advice on minor ailments. I believe that pharmacists can play an even more vital role in the future by making better use of their advisory capacity and ability to deliver vaccines, taking pressure off GPs, and using their community links to improve the health of local people. I hope that the Minister, in winding up the debate, will say something about the recently published Ernst and Young report on pharmacy funding and how we can further support community pharmacists.

The coronavirus response has not only been about the health and social care sector. It has brought out the best of the entire community in Carshalton and Wallington, and I particularly want to pay tribute to the voluntary sector. Community Action Sutton, Volunteer Centre Sutton and Age UK Sutton have harnessed the good will and the power of hundreds of volunteers. I have met some truly inspirational people as I have joined them to deliver PPE. I thank them for everything that they have done to keep the community going and look after others during the pandemic.

I launched an “unsung heroes” scheme, as many other Members did, to recognise those who have gone above and beyond to help others during the pandemic. I wish I could list the hundreds of amazing stories I heard—people like Connal Donovan and the team at the Duke’s Head pub, who have used their kitchens to cook for elderly people; Su Robertson, the housing manager at Laurel Lodge Retirement Living; and Carshalton High School for Girls, which created over 200 items of PPE for the local hospital. There are so many examples that I could give.

Residents have worked hard to keep the virus down and, understandably, they are quite concerned about being moved into tier 2 restrictions, but I am encouraged that four further testing facilities will open up in the borough, and I was pleased to hear the Chancellor announce further financial support packages today for tier 2 areas such as Carshalton and Wallington. This has been an incredibly tough time for businesses and particularly the self-employed, so I am grateful that the Chancellor has heard those calls and taken appropriate action. As we continue to fight this virus, we need to find a balance between protecting the economy and protecting health, and I am hopeful that, as we continue to tackle this virus over the coming weeks and months, we can strike that balance and come through this together.

16:02

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Sometimes it feels like we are living in a parallel dimension. When we think of our lives a year ago, it feels like another galaxy far, far away. For many of my constituents —particularly those isolating on their own—it is the impression of being stuck in a parallel life, subject to confusing and inconsistent communications, battling alone through a long tunnel with no light at the end that is so dispiriting, undermining mental wellbeing and the success of public health measures. That is why we need a circuit breaker now and a road map to control the virus.

I imagine another parallel universe—one where the Government got a grip on the virus back in March and did not let go, and where the Secretary of State did not decide to stop tracking community infections in March but instead took up the offer of local environmental health officers and gave local authority public health teams, such as the one in Newcastle led by the excellent Eugene Milne, the responsibility and resources to set up local community tracking and tracing. As Allyson Pollock, professor of public health at Newcastle University, said in April,

“You need people on old-fashioned things like telephones or going door to door and they need to be local teams because they need to understand the local communities.”

The fact is that without the Government’s Health and Social Care Act 2012, which led to the decimation of public health disease control and both its centralisation and fragmentation; without 10 years of austerity, which slashed the capacity of the state and our public services and drove up inequality, on which the virus feeds; without a Secretary of State who put his faith in technology, when, as an engineer, I know that it is only ever people who are the solution; without a Prime Minister who is scared of difficult decisions and unable to grasp detail; and without a Government steeped in the ideology of the free market knows best, we could be in that world.

Instead, we find today that only 60% of Test and Trace contacts are reached by the £10 billion Serco test and trace. We should be in a position where we know where the disease is, so that while coronavirus remains a deadly threat, we feel confident that we know where it is and how to avoid it. In Newcastle, we are battling to stay in tier 2, and I urge everyone to follow the coronavirus measures—the security measures—but I also say that without a proper track and trace, we are working blind, and the failure to control the disease is a failure of the Government and not my constituents.

Finally, I want to talk about jobs and the re-emergence of mass unemployment on Tyneside, which would be another failure of this Government. Two weeks ago, I held a business roundtable in Newcastle and I was struck by how hard so many businesses are working to do the right thing, investing thousands and in covid security, keeping their customers safe, keeping their employees safe and protecting jobs. I really want to urge the Government to work with local authorities, to work with Newcastle City Council, to communicate effectively to businesses who feel betrayed and to ensure that the support is there for businesses as well as a plan that they can follow, but also to make sure that no one is excluded. We have seen mass unemployment in Newcastle under a previous Conservative Government. If our viable sectors—and our sectors are viable—and our viable jobs are destroyed during this pandemic, it will be another failure of a Conservative Government.

16:06

[Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)]

The current crisis is difficult for so many reasons, but overwhelmingly, I have seen it bring out the best in the people of High Peak. Back in April, I launched the High Peak hero awards to recognise those who have gone above and beyond to help others during the pandemic. I have received a huge number of nominations and it has been wonderful to learn about the efforts of some truly extraordinary local people. I wish I had time to name them all, but let me give a few examples.

Leon Haynes, at the Surrey Arms in Glossop, tirelessly delivered essential shopping and meals to those unable to leave their homes. Hayley Roebuck, a care worker at Goyt Valley House care home in New Mills left her family to live in at the care home to minimise the risk of infecting vulnerable residents. Helen and Phil Flanagan, landlords at the Peels Arms, paid out of their own pocket to supply meals to the elderly and vulnerable in and around Padfield. Lia Roos from the Residents of Fairfield Association, has been running a Foodshare scheme in Buxton, delivering food to the vulnerable, those self-isolating and key workers having to work longer hours—I could go on. Needless to say, I am incredibly proud to represent the people of High Peak.

Turning to the challenge that we now face, I welcome the Chancellor’s additional measures to protect jobs and businesses in areas such as Glossopdale that have been under tier 2 restrictions. Those measures are vital, though I hope that we can continue to consider the impact on businesses in the supply chain and in the events industry, which have also been very badly affected and will need to play a vital role in the economic recovery.

Thinking ahead to this winter and where we go next, I want to talk about restrictions and the impact that they have on people’s lives. It is essential that we do all we can to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed to help to save lives, and that needs a multifaceted approach. As we learn more and more about coronavirus, we need to follow the evidence and make the difficult decisions about restrictions and public health guidance. We also need to pull out all the stops when it comes to researching a vaccine, something on which the UK is currently leading the world.

However, we also need to recognise that there is a huge cost to these restrictions, and there is a difficult balancing act between fighting coronavirus and other public health challenges. I am increasingly concerned about the long-term impact on our nation’s mental health and other serious health issues. How many illnesses have got worse because people have not felt able to get the treatment they need? How many serious conditions have not been diagnosed in time because screening and scans have not been possible? A good example in my constituency is the recent commissioning decision by NHS England to withdraw the breast cancer screening units from New Mills, Buxton and Chapel-en-le-Frith, citing covid as the reason. Instead, women in the High Peak are being asked to travel to Bakewell. Given the state of the roads and public transport in the Peak District, especially during winter, I am worried that many will not be able to get to appointments. A huge number of local people signed my petition calling for the reinstatement of the screening units, and I will meet Health Ministers shortly to discuss how we can do that. I desperately hope that we can get the right outcome.

I absolutely support the necessary measures that the Government are taking, but I also believe that we need to start a national conversation about how we can live with covid in the long term. We must not get ourselves locked into a never-ending cycle of constantly tightening and easing restrictions with no end in sight. To do that, we need further to increase capacity in the NHS, especially in intensive care. Since the start of the crisis, the Government have achieved a lot in that area but there is a lot more to do. I have been campaigning for new urgent care centres at Tameside Hospital and Stepping Hill Hospital as well as a major new health centre in Buxton. We need them now more than ever.

The road ahead is uncertain. It is challenging, but I am confident that High Peak and the rest of the country will get through this together.

16:10

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I want to talk about a dangerous bit of fake science that is doing the rounds—the so-called Great Barrington declaration which calls for focused protection for the vulnerable and ending all lockdowns and restrictions so that everyone else should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. It sounds wonderful, doesn’t it? Idyllic. Some 6,300 people have signed the declaration. That sounds impressive, but that is a tiny, tiny proportion of all the medical professionals in the world, the vast majority of whom dismiss that approach out of hand.

Many of the signatories to the declaration are not world-leading epidemiologists and virologists. Many of them are homeopaths and self-certified therapists. They include the famous Dr Johnny Bananas, the Rev. Booker Clownn, Dr Person Fakename and Mr Matt Hancock, although not the one of this parish. I remember what fake science did over the MMR vaccine when lots of journalists paid court to one man, Dr Andrew Wakefield, simply because he had the title Doctor in front of his name. That caused immeasurable harm to a very important vaccine programme.

Some of the people who signed the declaration told us earlier this year that the virus would just melt away by the summer and others guaranteed that there would not be a second wave. Yet some people still support them. None of the declaration’s assertions is supported by evidence. They do not even pretend to be. There are no references to peer-reviewed research; they are simply assertions.

It is completely wrong to call people who believe all this stuff “nutcases”. I did earlier this week and I wish that I had not used that word the other day. I have worked long enough in acquired brain injury and as a personal counsellor to others to know that that is wrong. I apologise. But this really is a fringe opinion shared by conspiracy theorists, funded by hard-right economic libertarian extremists in the United States of America and advocated entirely by fake scientists. Ignorance is one thing. Deliberate ignorance really is stupidity.

At the heart of the declaration is the belief that we need to acquire herd immunity by letting everybody get infected. The facts—and there are no alternative facts here—are that there is no evidence that contracting covid-19 grants long-term immunity to future infection. We already know that one can catch it twice and it is not yet a year old. Other coronaviruses only grant temporary immunity. Fact.

[Bob Stewart]

To support the hon. Gentleman’s case, may I point out that if we could achieve herd immunity, we would not contract diseases like measles? We still get them, so herd immunity is impossible to achieve.

[Chris Bryant]

In this case, the point is that we will not achieve herd immunity just by trying to let everyone get the disease. That is an immoral proposition. We have all heard the line that this virus is not that dangerous and is less dangerous than flu. I am sure that we have all had emails about it. The facts—and again there are no alternative facts here—are that covid is more easily transmitted than flu and has more complications for more people. Between January and August 2020, there were 48,168 deaths due to covid-19—not associated with it—compared with 13,619 deaths due to pneumonia and 394 deaths due to influenza. The number of deaths due to covid up to 31 August this year was higher than those due to influenza and pneumonia in every single year since 1959, including years when we did not have a vaccine for flu.

The other theme of the great declaration is supposed to be focused protection. Again, that sounds great—“let’s protect the most vulnerable”—but we cannot just shut the elderly and vulnerable away and throw away the key. They do not live in hermetically sealed units, funnily enough. They rely on nurses, carers, home helps and family members. All those people would presumably have to be locked away. Is somebody going to suggest that the most vulnerable communities—in fact, the BAME community—are en masse all going to be locked away, as well as the overweight, no doubt, and all the men? Of course, that is a complete and utter nonsense. By one estimate, we would be incarcerating a quarter of the whole UK population.

There is a cruelty at the heart of this proposal: it is basically survival of the fittest. Yes, it does make me angry when people propose it. It makes me angry for those who have lost loved ones this year, who seem to be ignored. It makes me angry for the NHS staff who have slogged their way through the misery on our behalf and need us all to realise that there is a much better creed than survival of the fittest, and it is that we are all in this together.

00:02

[Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. For many months, we have all been engaged in hand-to-hand, all-encompassing national combat with the coronavirus. We are deep, deep in the trenches. In our fear of the virus, we must not lose ourselves—our compassion, decency and humanity, our sense of right and wrong, our very values as a nation and the progress we have made as a society.

We stand at a crossroads as we face down the next wave. In our mission to save lives from the virus, we are increasing the risk of physical and mental health harm, and no person is more at risk of such harm than the very poorest and most vulnerable in our society, including those who are most dependent on others: the homeless and destitute, the mentally ill, those in care homes and hospitals and in our prisons.

As Winston Churchill said, the test of a civilised society is how it treats its prisoners. Since the pandemic hit, prisons have been in severe lockdown. Just this week, the chief inspector of prisons, Peter Clarke, described the dangerous situation in very bleak terms. He has raised real concerns about long-term damage to prisoners’ mental and physical health, as prisoners are locked up for 23, 23 and a half or even 24 hours a day, day after day in the name of covid.

To avoid any misunderstanding, I have researched the position in prisons from Swansea to Stafford and beyond. I have taken note of contributions from the other place, as well as speaking to many involved with prisoners, including current prison chaplains, prison charities and many others besides. In raising this national matter in this debate, my remarks should not be taken to refer to the situation of my son Thomas or his father’s prison.

There is no doubt that the report of the chief inspector of prisons should be considered with grave concern, because it also affects the lives of those outside prison, particularly the children of prisoners. The National Information Centre on Children of Offenders estimates that there are more than 300,000 children of prisoners. Of those, around 10,000 each week had prison visits before covid. That is 10,000 visits by children to a parent each and every week. For thousands of prisoners and their children, these vital visits in person and by video call have stopped or can be scheduled only during school hours during the week, so school-aged children are cut off from their parent entirely.

Despite assurances that secure phones will be made available during covid for prisoners without access to phones in their cells, several thousand prisoners have no such access to a cell-based phone, so they are unable to speak to their children, sometimes for days on end. As covid continues, days turn into weeks and weeks turn into months. Now they look to turn into years. This is an inhumane, dangerous and unsustainable position.

In addition to family visits and calls, in many prisons there is no access to a library or a gym. There is no daily exercise hour of exercise, walking around that small yard in the drizzling rain. There are no skills courses, no education, no English language lessons—there is nothing at all to help prisoners in that situation. I hope that, by raising this matter today, we will take urgent steps to avoid long-term physical and mental health harm in our prison population.

16:20

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

There has been, quite rightly, much discussion of the mental health impact of covid during the pandemic. I have spoken about it on a number of occasions, largely with regard to children and young people and those working on our frontline in health and care, but today I will focus on two groups who have been largely forgotten and overlooked by the Government and are suffering the mental health impacts of the pandemic immensely: those excluded from financial support and unpaid carers.

We had a welcome statement from the Chancellor earlier, but those excluded from support since the start of the pandemic were yet again overlooked. We know well that those are largely self-employed freelancers and small business owners, especially in hard-hit industries such as the arts, the events industries and exhibitions, as well as many others. The financial struggle and anxiety is taking its toll on their mental health. They are struggling to put food on the table, support their families and keep a roof over their heads. ExcludedUK has already reported four suicides and large-scale insomnia and depression among those affected. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), the chair of the gaps in support all-party parliamentary group, wrote to the Health Secretary and the Chancellor on that on 16 July but has yet to receive a response. We requested financial support for that group, a boost in mental health services and support for debt counselling charities.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady is right that mental health is one of the core issues, but there are many issues. Does she agree that one thing the Government could do is provide a phone service that people could contact to get guidance on what to do? People are left to their own devices and, if that continues, clearly we will have very serious times.

[Munira Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman, as ever, makes a valid point. That is why I have been calling for additional support, whether signposting or helplines. We actually need a cross-Government strategy on mental health going forward.

On those who have been excluded from financial support, as the Chancellor remains intransigent on that point, I urge the Minister first to speak to her Treasury colleagues and ask them yet again to think again. Will she also step up mental health support for those who have been excluded? The mental health impacts will cost us a lot down the line.

The other very important group is the more than 9 million unpaid carers who are the forgotten heroes in our society. I hope the Minister agrees when I say that our health and care systems would be overwhelmed if it were not for the work of unpaid carers in our society. The Exchequer saves billions thanks to their work. Four out of five unpaid carers have taken on more caring responsibilities during lockdown, and almost two thirds have seen their mental health worsen during the pandemic. Many have lost their access to respite care, which has affected their ability to earn money. She will be aware that carer’s allowance is pitifully low at £67 a week.

One thing that would help respite care and day care centres to reopen—Homelink in my constituency is taking all sorts of safety measures and is desperate to reopen—is access to regular testing. I raised that in the Chamber with the Secretary of State for Health on 7 July. He told me that a plan was in place and he would write to me about it. He never wrote to me, but I did not chase him about it because I heard that testing had been made available to day centres—briefly; I have now heard that it is no longer available. My council has spoken to colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, who say that they cannot offer tests to respite care day centres. Those officials say that they are following SAGE priorities, and that suggests to me that there never was a plan. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that point. This is an issue for the Department, and I urge her to address it urgently, because respite care is a lifeline to so many unpaid carers. I also ask the Minister to speak to her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about addressing the woeful level of carer’s allowance. How can anyone be expected to survive on the equivalent of £1.91 an hour?

The Chancellor previously said to the public,

“you will not face this alone”.

Can we say, hand on heart, that unpaid carers and those whom the Chancellor has excluded from financial support have not been left alone? They feel abandoned and their mental health is suffering, so I urge the Minister to address these injustices.

16:25

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I have said it before and I say it again: lockdowns, whether they are partial or total, are the wrong strategy. They are oppressive and profoundly unconservative. As a Conservative, I have always believed that the role of the state is to provide a safety net for those who cannot help themselves. Now we have a Conservative Government who are preventing people from helping themselves by engaging in economic activity, and, having prevented those people from engaging in economic activity, the Government are not providing a safety net to all of them. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) has just said, people are missing out because they are not allowed to engage in economic activity. In my constituency, people who work on cruise ships, people who work in the events industry and people who run luxury coaches are but three examples of the terrible cases that have come to my notice in recent days.

In their actions, the Government are treating citizens not as individuals but as part of a collective, and that is depersonalising. It is most obvious in the Government’s refusal to differentiate between those who have had covid-19 and are therefore immune, whether in the short or long term, and those who have not. If the state wanted to maximise liberty, it would remove the restrictions on freedom wherever it was possible so to do. What threat is there to public health from allowing those who are immune to covid-19 to go about their normal business? That is what happens in Sweden.

I asked the Secretary of State about that in a written question, but I have not had a reply, even though I referred in the debate on 13 October to that failure to respond. I am afraid that that is indicative of the Government’s arrogance in this respect. In that debate, I also mentioned the number of deaths in Sweden. I have looked up the latest figures, and there have been two deaths in Sweden from covid-19 in the last five days. Sweden allows much more social activity than we in this country have done, and its Government rely on individual citizens to trust each other. Sweden’s citizens trust the Government, because the Government trust them. Why can we not do something similar?

We have heard the scaremongering, and the Department refuses to justify some of its most alarmist rhetoric. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said on 1 October that

“hundreds of thousands of deaths…would follow”

if the Government

“just let the virus rip”.—[Official Report, 1 October 2020; Vol. 681, c. 503.]

I asked if he would publish the evidence in support of that statement. He has failed to do that—because, I suspect, there is no evidence in support of that statement. That was gross scaremongering. Instead of trying to build people’s confidence to engage in economic and social activity, the Government are actively frightening them. All this talk about long covid is also designed to try to frighten people, rather than addressing the collateral damage that the Government’s oppressive measures are causing.

16:29

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

I draw Members’ attention to my membership of trade unions and to donations from Unite the union, as outlined in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I welcome this debate on covid-19. Stockport and Greater Manchester have been hard hit by this pandemic. I pay tribute to the leader of Stockport Council, Elise Wilson, and to the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, for all they have done. Stockport Council has much to be proud of in its response to date. The transfer of many council functions to home working has gone well, which is a credit to all the staff involved. Stockport was one of the most effective authorities in Greater Manchester in distributing covid grants to local businesses. Our council workers do a very important job in difficult circumstances, and I speak on behalf of my constituents when I thank them from the bottom of my heart.

I believe that Members on both sides of this House will agree that the hospitality sector has been particularly hard hit in recent times. My trade union Unite has published a hospitality and tourism rescue plan this week. The hospitality and tourism sector is the third-largest employer in the UK and Northern Ireland, creating one in six of all jobs and employing 6 million people, 3.2 million directly. The hospitality industry has lagged behind many other sectors in terms of good working practices, with average pay of just £8.84 per hour and more workers employed on zero-hours contracts than in any other sector. I urge all Members to look up Unite’s hospitality and tourism rescue plan, as it is an important document. The recommendations include extending the sector-specific job retention scheme for six months, adequate sick pay and routine testing for hospitality workers, and a call for the Government to work with Unite’s proposed hospitality commission to retrain workers who lose their jobs.

The Test and Trace system has been a national disgrace. The Labour party’s analysis shows that the Government’s contact tracing is going backwards across England, with just over half of contacts—57.7%— reached last week. In my region of the north-west, more than 26,000 people were not contacted. I urge the Government to give local communities additional resources to carry out door-to-door testing and contact tracing and to check in on people to ensure that they are able to self-isolate in areas such as mine that face additional restrictions.

In the absence of any form of effective test and trace, frontline staff, including all key workers at hospitals, schools and local authorities, must be provided with access to personal protective equipment. I used to work as an industrial organiser for Unison North West and often went into hospitals and care homes to recruit union members. Sadly, care home residents and staff have suffered badly due to the mismanagement by the Department of Health and Social Care. Weekly testing of care home residents and staff is critical to saving lives, yet there have been repeated delays to the rolling out of testing, and care homes have waited days for their results. There are also serious concerns about vacancies in the care sector during the months ahead.

The Government must provide an immediate plan to better support care workers in all settings, including the 9 million unpaid carers across our country. That includes covid-19 test centres, which is why I have recently highlighted concerns that my constituents have raised about the lack of PPE at Tiviot Dale church test centre in my constituency. I have received a letter from a secondary school teacher, who informed me that the only protective measures in place were disposable face masks for staff and visitors, and that the manager had informed them that they did not need them. This is deeply concerning, given that a large number of staff were from an ethnic minority, who, as we know from the first wave of the pandemic, suffered disproportionately. Our test centres should be the first step towards controlling this disease, not hotbeds for its spread. I have written directly to the Health and Social Care Secretary on this issue, but I have yet to receive a response. It is simply not good enough, with Stockport and Greater Manchester facing sharp spikes in infection rates and cases rapidly spiralling out of control.

We are reaching a crisis point with the virus, and we badly need the Test and Trace system fixed and adequate support for all workers and businesses.

16:33

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the health and social care workers, education and childcare workers, those working in the food supply chain, local government, civil servants, utility workers, food bank workers and everyone in my constituency who is fighting in my constituency of Jarrow and across the country day in, day out in the fight against this virus.

I am sorry to say, however, that it seems to me that, on just about every measure, the Government are losing control and, sadly, we are going backwards in this fight. This lack of control has seen the Government resort to treating the north of England as some sort of sick experiment this week. It is beyond belief that now, because London has moved into tier 2, the Chancellor has rejigged his support package and now gone some way in addressing what we in the north have been asking for for weeks. Previously, it fell on deaf ears. Why did it take London going into tier 2 for this to happen when areas like my constituency of Jarrow in the north-east have been in similar restrictions for many weeks? This has come far too late for some and is no consolation for those who have already been made redundant or for businesses that have already closed. Significant economic damage has already been done. The new support will help going forward, but we still need a bold strategy to level up our region to stop covid from further increasing existing inequalities.

Now let us have a look at the money wasted by this Government. We have seen £108 million for a PPE contract going to a firm that is best known for making sweets—it has certainly left a bitter taste in my mouth—and £12 billion for a private track-and-trace system that is now reaching fewer than 60% of close contexts. The only people benefiting are Dido Harding and her Tory mates. With the constant changes in guidelines and restrictions, we are going round in circles. The Government must listen to Labour’s call for a national two to three-week circuit breaker that will give us a chance to fix testing, protect our NHS, and save livelihoods.

Moreover, the Government’s new plans for the job support scheme are still not enough. People on low wages are already struggling, and today’s announcement still leaves many to fall through the cracks. It is still not as generous or as well targeted as others, like the German scheme, and other European countries extended their furlough schemes through to next year months ago, giving certainty and clarity—and those schemes are not dependent on tiers. We must remember that the cost of living in England is much higher than in our European counterparts. We have the highest rents in Europe and pay some of the highest bills for our gas and electricity, so receiving a fraction of what is an already low wage is pushing many further into poverty. Renters who are struggling financially can now, of course, be evicted.

The Government need to stop jumping from one announcement to another. Businesses need to be able to plan in order to survive, and the Government need to stop their haphazard approach. If the Government had had a clear plan from the start, then we would not be where we are now. The Government must change tack, as well as moving to a circuit breaker. They must ditch the proposed job support scheme and extend the 80% minimum furlough scheme across the country. The confusion in the Minister’s eyes says it all. The Government have lost control of the virus and lost control of the message, and they are now completely ignoring the scientific advice from SAGE. My constituents and those across the country deserve better.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The last speaker from the Back Benches will be Greg Smith. I know that many Members who have waited to speak this afternoon will be disappointed, as quite a large number have not been called. I must point out that all the people who have not been called are those who have spoken many times in recent weeks. I am sure that a little arithmetic will show that with the number of Members there are, 650, and with the amount of time that we have to debate every day, which is eight hours, it is actually not possible for most Members of Parliament to make more than one speech in a week or several speeches in a month. It is not possible and it is not normal.

16:38

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

I rise to add my voice to those expressing the urgent need for the Government to develop a plan B in the event that the vaccine that we all hope and pray can be developed and come good does not in fact materialise. I am clear in my mind that if that vaccine is not forthcoming, and quickly, we simply cannot, as a country, go on much longer with the restrictions that we have.

Covid is of course an horrendous disease, and it is right that all reasonable steps are taken to quell its spread, but we must also look, as others have said, at the deprivation of liberty in all our daily lives. We must look at the impacts—despite the unprecedented and enormous support package the Chancellor has put in place—on jobs and livelihoods, particularly for those who have so far been unable to access support, on the health outcomes for those suffering with conditions other than covid, and on the long-term mental health challenges.

As I have reflected on this debate, I have read and re-read many of the emails that I received from my constituents about the impact of the restrictions—real life stories. In my examples, I will maintain the privacy of my constituents by not naming them. Mr W writes:

“At that time I felt the argument being made to flatten the curve and protect the NHS and save lives made sense…and within a matter of perhaps 3 months or so could return to normal and recover. That did not happen and the lockdown cost me my business, it cost me my relationship and worse of all it cost me my health.”

To be clear, Mr W lost his health not to coronavirus, but to a misdiagnosis of a deep vein thrombosis.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) on her work around maternity services during the pandemic—a cause highlighted by my constituent, Mrs S, whose husband has been denied access to join her at appointments, not least at the review meeting after an emergency scam following concerns of a heart complication in their unborn child. Mrs S writes:

“I can honestly say waiting for that review meeting with the consultant was the most agonising wait of my life. So much so, I entered the room in tears, unable to control my emotions…when all I needed was the support of my husband”.

What made it all the more complicated for Mrs S was that she could not understand why—in a room that contained a sonographer, the consultants, a midwife and herself—her husband could not be there, given that he works fully from home and does not even leave the house for a weekly shop. She concludes:

“I am sure there are multiple women who…have had to go through devastating news alone.”

I turn to Mrs K, whose son was so excited to go to Exeter University this year, but on arrival has been treated worse than a prisoner in his halls of residence, with sniffer dogs deployed on site to break up groups of students. The isolation of this experience has taken a serious toll on him, leading to him having to return home. I have not even got to the list of the many businesses that, if they have not already gone bust, face the prospect of doing so.

I seriously hope and pray that the vaccine comes good and we can get our lives back to normal. But if the vaccine does not come good, I urge the Minister to consider that serious plan B—thinking about how we learn to live with this virus, looking at work, including that of Dr Raghib Ali, and listening to other ways that we could move forward.

16:42

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

We have heard some superb speeches in this debate, but due to limited time, I cannot personally refer to them all. We have heard stories from every part of our nation, of the heroism of our NHS workers, of the stoicism and resolve of the British people, and of the tragedy and loss caused by this cruel disease. But there is something else too: a growing sense of frustration, a loss of confidence and a lack of trust in this Government; a feeling that decisions are guided by politics and public relations, not by science and evidence; and a sense that many sacrifices have been in vain, and that the current strategy has all the pain but so little gain.

We heard in Prime Minister’s questions yesterday that there is no clear route out of the tier 3 system if the R remains above 1. We have seen Ministers in broadcast studios squirm as they try to explain byzantine rules to an increasingly bewildered public. We have seen advisers flout the coronavirus rules while calling for stiffer penalties for the rest of us. We have heard the cries of anguish from hospitality and events, retail, the arts, aviation, small businesses, the wedding sector and 3 million freelancers excluded from any support. Job losses mounting; young people’s education in chaos; students treated like prisoners; a crisis in our care homes; people scared for their future; and, all the while, the number of infections rising, hospital admissions rising, the death toll rising.

The Government’s strategy is not working. Winter is coming and we all understand the pressure that winter places on our NHS. I know from serving on the NHS frontline that winter is the cruellest season, from slips to falls to flu to loneliness to hypothermia to respiratory diseases to depression and other mental health conditions triggered by these darkening days. Now we are piling on the huge pressures from covid-19. There is a real risk that, just as Ramadan as well as the Jewish high holidays were disrupted by covid restrictions, so too will Christmas be on the line. After this terrible year, people deserve to know whether they can spend Christmas with their families; whether they can hug their loved one in a care home for what may be their last Christmas. The Government have shown that they are willing to take free school meals from the mouths of children. Surely Ministers do not want to steal Christmas as well?

A harsh winter without respite will hit the nation’s mental health and it will hit it hard. I have heard from the Samaritans that many, many more young people are struggling. Self-harm among women has increased. Older people are isolated. University College London reported that after a month of lockdown, nearly a fifth of people had thoughts of self-harm and/or suicide. The charity Rethink says that 79% of people with an existing mental health condition have experienced it getting worse. Mind found that a quarter of people trying to access mental health services were simply unable to do so. Mental health services, especially child and adolescent mental health services, were stretched to the limit before covid. Now they are being pushed over the edge. I hear every day from teachers in schools and desperate parents crying out for help from CAMHS, but who are unable to get on the waiting list and unable to get help. A new report out today highlights that one in six children have been identified as having probable mental health illness, increasing from one in nine in 2017. One in six children—that is staggering.

We know that covid is having a marked impact on our children and young people. We know the impact on people in abusive relationships. We have heard about the impact on cancer patients, on people with addictions, on people and families in prison, on people waiting for operations or diagnostic tests. We know the waiting times in A&E have increased nationally. The fact is that we are storing up a huge public health crisis that will last well beyond the last case of covid-19. NHS staff are exhausted. I have seen tears of desperation, of frustration, of rage, of exasperation and, now, of disappointment that the Government are not listening to frontline workers and their pleas.

Just today, the NHS absence rates for June were published. Alarmingly, 32% of all sickness absence in the NHS in June was for mental health reasons, up 3% from May. Mental health-related absences were three times higher than covid-related sickness at that time. Frontline workers have had to bury their colleagues. They have had to deliver the most painful of news and be the last point of call for so many of their patients. They are suffering immeasurably, so many of them, with post-traumatic stress disorder. All they are asking for is some timely help before it gets so unmanageable that they cannot manage their own lives and their families, and have to be off long-term sick. We owe them that at the very least. Every month, I highlight the growing absences and tell the Government that they should serve as a wake-up call, but clearly they just keep hitting snooze. We must ease the pressure, care for our carers and pay them properly.

The track and trace system is failing, so let us get rid of the private consultants and let the public health teams take over. The tier system is confusing, it is unfair and, seemingly, without a way out. It wrecks our national unity. The Government have been pitting Mayor against Mayor, business against business, region against region. It has to be fair. That is why the Labour party is calling for a national circuit breaker. As the Government’s own scientific advisers say, it would save up to 7,000 lives and halve admissions to hospital. Two to three weeks to curtail this disease, followed by the real prospect of a Christmas as close to normal as possible.

This House has heard many great clashes of ideology over the centuries, but this is not one of them. This is not the time to be playing politics with people’s lives or their livelihoods. This is the time to listen to science, reason and evidence, and to show humanity. There is no shame in the Government reversing their position, even at this late stage. There is no burn in a U-turn. I tell Ministers that the Opposition will support them, the nation will applaud them and history will judge them well if they announce a circuit breaker this afternoon. It is time to do the right thing.

16:50

[The Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention (Ms Nadine Dorries)]

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and others have made clear during this debate, although so much has been done to get this virus under control, the fight is not over. I thank all the Members who have spoken in this debate. It is clear that this pandemic has had a huge effect on everyone’s constituents, across the country. I wish to start by paying tribute to all the hard work of NHS workers, social care staff and volunteers throughout the pandemic. I also pay tribute to the British public for the sacrifices they have made to help us combat coronavirus and for observing the essential social distancing measures that have kept us all safe. Thanks to that hard work, we are able to protect the NHS, just as it is always there to protect us. As my right hon. Friend said, this has been an incredible national effort, and we are seeing the increasing effects of it today in the compliance with social distancing, particularly among young people, which is helping us very much to slow down the progression of the virus.

I wish briefly to outline to the House a few further areas to those set out by the Secretary of State where we have strengthened our response. I will go through these quickly because I want to answer some of the points raised today. We know that we have delivered more than 4.2 billion items of PPE since last February, and our adult social care winter plan, published in September, sets out the actions for the Government and every local care provider.

I want to get straight on to some of the points that have been raised, because some really important issues have been discussed today. I cannot mention everybody and every point, but some people will definitely be receiving a letter from me, particularly the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). I will write to you and answer your points, because you are always very constructive in the way you ask for information and I will make sure you get that information. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made the best speech I have ever heard you make in this House—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am going to stop the Minister. I let her do it once; she called the hon. Member for Twickenham “you” and now she is calling the hon. Member for Rhondda “you”. Please call him “the hon. Gentleman”.

[Ms Dorries]

I do apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is because I have not been here very often lately.

The hon. Gentleman made one of the best speeches I have heard him make in this House, probably because he agreed with every word I have been saying—indeed, I almost ripped up this speech. I applaud him for some of the comments he made.

[Chris Bryant]

I will have to resign now!

[Ms Dorries]

Possibly; the hon. Gentleman is in a very difficult position now. I say well done to him for taking apart the Great Barrington declaration. I will now not go into it, as he did an excellent job.

Turning to herd immunity, without a vaccine how do we attain herd immunity? With no knowledge of immunity from coronavirus, how do we obtain herd immunity? I will share with the House that I was diagnosed with coronavirus on 7 March, I had a severe dose and my antibodies had disappeared 12 weeks later. I am no longer immune to coronavirus. That is not just my story; it is the story of many, many people. Many people who were donating their plasma post-coronavirus for convalescent therapy were told quite quickly, “We no longer need your plasma because you do not have any antibodies left.” Work is going on into immunity, and we have not reached a conclusive position yet, but I can speak from my own experience and from the experiences that we are hearing about, and if people do not have long-term antibodies and we have no vaccine, there is no such thing as herd immunity. I say that again because it is the truth.

On the comments about the measures we are putting in place, how restrictive they are and social distancing, all I can say—and this relates to the number of deaths in hospitals—is that back in March no one was wearing face coverings and no social distancing was being complied with by the public, and the rate of infection was doubling every three to four days. Now, it is doubling every seven to 14 days, because the public are wearing masks, they are hand washing and they are socially distancing, and that means that when someone contracts coronavirus, they contract a smaller viral load, which is enabling doctors to treat those patients once they reach an intensive care unit. In ICUs, people are now living, not dying, but we still need the ICUs and we still need the ICU beds in which to treat those people in order that they can live. The fundamental purpose of every measure we take is to protect the NHS and to keep those beds in ICUs, so that they are there to treat people and to keep people alive.

I described this to someone today who argued with me that face masks and coverings are unnecessary. If people are in the space of someone with no facemask—I will use a scale of one to 100—they will breathe in 100 droplets and a full viral load, but when someone has a mask on it is much less. This is not a scientific experiment; it is my own analogy, but the figure is probably 10. The hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) knows this much better than I do, and can confirm or deny it. Therefore, with a mask, people’s viral load is lower and it is far easier to treat them once they arrive in hospital at A&E and are transferred to an ICU, and there is a huge chance of success. That is what we are seeing in action now in our hospitals. If we all abandon our face coverings, stop social distancing and stop hand washing, we will be back to where we were in March, when the virus was doubling every three to four days.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) mentioned Sweden, but an article in The BMJ—a research study—concluded that Sweden and the US are the only two countries that are failing to reduce their numbers of deaths. In fact, it is far more accurate to compare Sweden with its Nordic neighbours. Sweden has 586 deaths per 1 million people, while its neighbour Norway has 279, so I am not quite sure why Sweden would be cited as a country of success.[Official Report, 24 November 2020, Vol. 684, c. 8MC.]

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Will the Minister give way?

[Ms Dorries]

No, there is no time—I am sorry—because I want to go on to what other Members have said.

I want to talk about mental health and just correct a few points, particularly on frontline workers. On the evidence we have at the moment, the two groups of people who are suffering with their mental health as a result of this pandemic are those people who had pre-existing mental health conditions and frontline workers who are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. For those frontline workers, a package was put in place straightaway by the NHS, which provided each frontline worker with three counselling sessions, numerous apps and the ability to have a contact and to receive immediate counselling, as well as a website where they could go through the tools used to work through their feelings. Almost every trust manager put in place a support package for frontline workers in their hospitals, and yesterday the NHS announced a further £15 million to support the mental health of frontline workers.

For those with pre-existing mental health conditions—and I would like to pay tribute to Claire Murdoch, who is responsible for mental health delivery in the NHS—trusts across the UK put in place 24-hour mental health crisis helplines in a matter of weeks, and they have had a huge impact. The Government have committed the £2.4 billion; we have accelerated the long-term plan; we have accelerated the trailblazer schemes in schools; we have introduced the wellbeing package in schools for children returning to school, and we have supported the third sector financially to deliver additional mental healthcare to almost every sector of society, including on eating disorders. I always say that is one of the worst mental health conditions because it has a high rate of morbidity, and it too has received additional funding. We have put a huge amount of work into mental health, and I know that Claire Murdoch and others are proud of what the NHS has done in terms of the mental health services that it has delivered.

I cannot answer anybody else, but I will write to people. This has been an important debate in the middle of one the greatest public health emergencies that this country has faced, and I would like to end by again thanking everyone across the country for playing their part to reduce the rate of transmission and to protect their loved ones and our local communities.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered covid-19.

Business without Debate

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Commons Chamber

Proceedings during the Pandemic (No. 5)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 9(6)),

That the Orders of 2 June (Proceedings during the pandemic (No. 2)), of 4 June (Virtual participation in proceedings during the pandemic), and of 23 September (Proxy Voting during the pandemic) shall have effect until 30 March 2021.—(David Duguid.)

Question agreed to.

Support for rugby league

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Commons Chamber

17:01

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford calling for support for rugby league clubs during the covid crisis. The petition is signed by my constituents, and it also has the support of more than 1,300 people from across our area—many of them strong Castleford Tigers supporters but also supporters of other rugby league clubs—who have shown their support online.

The petition calls on the Government to recognise the importance of rugby league to our towns, the role that Castleford Tigers and other clubs play supporting our community, families and people young and old, and the pressure that rugby league is under, as supporters cannot return to grounds but bills still need to be paid. The petitioners therefore request

“that the House of Commons urge the Government to recognise the importance of”

rugby league to our towns and to ensure that our important rugby league clubs get the support they need so they can keep supporting our communities through the covid crisis.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of the residents of the constituency of Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford,

Declares that Castleford Tigers rugby league club is at the heart of the town of Castleford, and supports the whole community, but is now under pressure; further declares that the rugby league faces financial difficulty as COVID-19 restrictions mean that supporters cannot go to the Jungle or other grounds but clubs still have outgoing bills to pay; and further declares that it is vital that the Government provides proper support for the rugby league over the course of the pandemic.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to recognise the importance of the rugby league to towns by ensuring that they get the support they need to survive the pandemic.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P002617]

Down Syndrome Awareness Month

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(David Duguid.)

17:02

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

This is a particularly poignant debate for me to lead, as chair of the all-party parliamentary groups on disability and on inclusive entrepreneurship, which I will mention a bit more later. This year’s theme for Down Syndrome Awareness Month is “what holds me back”, which I will discuss, but I want also to speak about the real skills, abilities and potential of people with Down’s syndrome and why nothing should hold them back.

To begin, it would be appropriate to thank a number of organisations for their campaigning on Down’s syndrome inclusion and for their support in preparation for this debate and Down Syndrome Awareness Month. Those include Down’s Syndrome Scotland, the Down Syndrome Research Foundation UK, the Down’s Syndrome Association, Scope, Right To Life and Mencap, to mention but a few.

[Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady join me in also thanking organisations such as Get on Down’s in Carshalton and Wallington, and Lucienne Cooper, who has done incredible work to raise awareness of the needs of Down’s syndrome children in places such as Carshalton and Wallington?

[Dr Cameron]

Absolutely. I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning those very important organisations and the work that they do. It is a credit to him that he has come to the debate to speak and to commend the work they have undertaken.

Every year in October, people across the UK and around the world mark Down Syndrome Awareness Month. Among other things, it is an opportunity to celebrate the achievements and contributions of people with Down’s syndrome to their local communities and to our society as a whole. I tabled an early-day motion on Down Syndrome Awareness Month just a few weeks ago, and I urge Members across the House to consider signing it if they have not already done so.

Today I hope to build on this work and take the opportunity to add some individual names and narratives that speak to the talents, passions, hopes and dreams of those living with Down’s syndrome in the UK today. These are people who have been in touch with me in my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability and have participated on a number of occasions in our recent online meetings, which I have been extremely pleased to host and which have brought me up to speed with modern technology, much to my delight.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. In my constituency, there are a number of groups that support those with Down’s syndrome and their families. Does she share my concern about the fact that the number of babies born with Down’s syndrome has dropped by 30% in NHS hospitals that have introduced new non-invasive pre-natal tests, which will soon be available free of charge nationwide? It is beginning to mirror the process that sees almost 100% of Down’s syndrome babies aborted, which is chilling to the core.

[Dr Cameron]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that extremely important point. I do share his concern. I understand that, in England, the number of babies born with Down’s syndrome is down by about 30%. I was alerted today to an article in one of our Scottish papers, the Daily Record, about Stacey Corrigan, whose six-year-old son, Daniel Murray, has Down’s syndrome. She said:

“When many think of Downs Syndrome it’s most often with a negative outdated view”.

She also said that the language used by medical staff when speaking to parents-to-be is really important and should not be negative, and that parents should be given “balanced information and support”.

As I was saying, I want to build on the positivity and speak about people’s talents, passions, hopes and dreams. Their accounts are not uniform and follow no common narrative, but that is exactly the point. The richness and diversity of the Down’s syndrome community across the UK reflects the richness and diversity of society at large. However, all too often their lives and contributions have historically been medicalised or pigeon-holed into discussions about difference and limitations rather than talent, skills, ability and contribution. A more comprehensive and accurate narrative needs to be provided.

One baby in every 1,000 in the UK is born with Down’s syndrome, and there are approximately 40,000 people who have Down’s syndrome living in the UK today. Down’s syndrome was first described by an English physician, John Langdon Down, in 1862, and that then became the universally accepted descriptive term. It is a genetic condition occurring as a result of an extra chromosome—chromosome 21. People with Down’s syndrome can experience cognitive delays, but the effect is usually mild to moderate and is certainly not indicative of the many strengths and talents that each individual possesses.

People with Down’s syndrome have an increased risk of certain medical conditions such as congenital heart defects and respiratory and hearing problems, to name a few, but many of those conditions are treatable. Nowadays, most people with Down’s syndrome lead healthy lives.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my friend, the hon. Lady, for giving way. My family had a child with Down’s syndrome when I was young, and unfortunately he died very young. Does she agree that modern medicine has extended the lives of people with Down’s syndrome so much that they live as long as anyone else—perhaps as long as me?

[Dr Cameron]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for all his excellent work in the House of Commons in so many ways, on this issue as well as on the armed forces. I totally agree with his point; in fact, I understand that life expectancy has increased dramatically in recent decades, from 25 years in the ’80s to 60 today. Medical science has advanced and people can live extremely healthy and long lives and be great contributors to our society.

Every person with Down’s syndrome is, of course, a unique individual. People with Down’s syndrome attend school, work, participate in decisions that affect them, have meaningful relationships, vote—which we should all remember to do—and contribute to society in many wonderful ways.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this debate, having worked with people with Down’s syndrome for many years. I put on the record my huge gratitude to the Once Seen theatre company in York, where people with Down’s syndrome act. Their acting is so powerful and so moving, because it is about life experience. Does she agree that we need to put on a platform so much of the talent that people with Down’s syndrome have?

[Dr Cameron]

Absolutely. I am thankful for that intervention, which exemplifies our debate and the change in the narrative that all of us across this House wish to see. We should be promoting the excellent work of those individuals and groups with Down’s syndrome who are achieving so much in society.

Up About Down is a campaign run by the Windsor Essex Down Syndrome Association, a fantastic charity that has being raising awareness about Down’s syndrome through positive and accurate information since it was founded in 1990. It is all about changing the narrative surrounding Down’s syndrome; it is about looking beyond medical prognoses and seeing the individual stories and successes of individuals with Down’s syndrome who live happy and fulfilled lives and who are crucial contributors to local communities, economies and industries. It is absolutely in that spirit that I bring this debate before the House.

In 2019, an article was published that caught my eye, entitled “10 brilliant breakthroughs by people with Down Syndrome”. It highlighted Zack Gottsagen, a theatre major graduate of the Dreyfoos School of the Arts who starred in

“a modern Mark Twain style adventure story, The Peanut Butter Falcon, which tells the story of Zak…a young man with Down syndrome, who runs away from a residential nursing home to follow his dream of attending the professional wrestling school of his idol”.

The article also highlighted Heba Atef, who

“became the first-ever Egyptian flight attendant with Down syndrome to embark on a special flight from Cairo to Khartoum…the ‘Journey of Humanity’ took place under the sponsorship of the UN International Committee and was specifically tailored for people with special needs.”

The article notes that the Swindon Advertiser reports that

“a scaffolder living with Down’s syndrome was named Britain’s number one apprentice. His boss, the owner of Coles Scaffolding company Martyn Coles, said Todd had great determination. ‘He comes in every day and proves people wrong. Winning the award just shows he can do it.’”

Emmett Kyoshi, a teenage artist living with Down’s syndrome in Chicago, hosted his third art exhibition in 2019,

“showing the world that the extra chromosome he was born with is anything but a disability.”

Then there are Madeline Stuart—the world’s first catwalk model with Down’s syndrome—and Francesca Rausi, who have been credited for proving society’s perception of beauty wrong. They had the opportunity of walking at New York Fashion Week and meeting some of Hollywood’s biggest stars; again, they changed the narrative.

Closer to home, Positive about Down Syndrome told me about Tom, who lives in London and has two part-time jobs as a barman and catering assistant and is also an award-winning weightlifter; Bethany who works for West Mercia police; and Hayley from Essex, who loves singing and acting and is part of a drama group performing at the London Palladium. These few accounts represent the stories of so many: those students with Down’s syndrome who are in college or university; those who have jobs and hobbies; those who are moving home, winning awards, falling in love, getting married and achieving great things.

For each of these stories, there are also children who have dreams and aspirations. I heard about Rebecca, who wants to perform on stage; Ben, who wants to be a postman; Jessica, who wants to be a pop star; Jack, who wants to play football for Nottingham Forest or Manchester United; Hollie, who wants to be a vet; James, who wants to be a police officer; and Samantha, who wants to be a make-up artist. I am sure that I speak for every parent when I say that we support and absolutely share in the dreams of our children every single day.

A sense of fulfilment and purpose that people with Down’s syndrome have from their work is a common thread connecting many of the accounts that I have mentioned. With that in mind, I draw particular attention to the work of the Down’s Syndrome Association and the importance of its WorkFit scheme. The WorkFit scheme was set up to train and assess employers who want to include those with Down’s syndrome in their workforce. All employers registered with WorkFit receive training, which includes their duties under the Equality Act 2010, and practical advice on how to make reasonable adjustments. The Down’s Syndrome Association is in constant dialogue with companies and organisations that have employees placed with them through WorkFit, to answer any queries they may have, and to work through any challenging situations. The programme was set up in December 2011, and to date it has placed 416 individuals with Down’s syndrome in a range of full-time, part-time and volunteer roles, as well as in adapted internships.

In recent weeks the Government announced the kickstart scheme, and I want to ask the Minister whether young people with learning disabilities, or disabilities, could perhaps be further supported through that scheme, or through an internship or apprenticeship. The excellent Speaker’s internship scheme for people with disabilities was developed in 2016, and perhaps there is more that hon. Members could do to support the training, inclusion, skilling and work of those who have Down’s syndrome.

I am delighted to chair the new all-party group for inclusive entrepreneurship, which was established to remove barriers and raise the profile of entrepreneurs with protected characteristics, particularly disabilities. We must also change the narrative more broadly from disability to ability, and from being solely about employees to people having the potential to become employers. Will the Minister consult colleagues in government, and find out whether there are particular supports and schemes for which those with disabilities can perhaps be given funding or additional support for adaptations, so that they can start their own businesses with their skills, talents and abilities?

A study by Mencap found that 62% of adults with learning disabilities in the UK want to work, although only 6% have a paid job. We need to address that, and we must all play our role in our constituencies, and by working across the House and across parties, to ensure an inclusive employment programme for everyone across the UK. In this time of covid a recession could occur, and many jobs are already at risk. We would not wish one of the outcomes of covid to be a further tragic impact on those with disabilities.

Government mantras of “building back better” and “levelling up” can and should include people with disabilities and Down’s syndrome, making every aspect of society richly diverse and productive. I will conclude with a quote from a young lady, Kate Powell, which was provided to me by the Down’s Syndrome Association:

“Being a person with Down’s Syndrome makes me proud. I am a person to make a difference to a lot of people. That’s me. We may find things difficult, everyone does. We should tell people about Down’s Syndrome—the more people the better. Being a person with Down’s Syndrome I can do anything in life. We may need help to do the things we want to do in life. It is good to see people with Down’s Syndrome achieving their dreams. That’s my dream.”

That, Madam Deputy Speaker, should represent all our dreams.

17:19

[The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)]

I would like to thank the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for securing this debate on this important topic, and also for her work as chair of the all-party parliamentary disability group. Thanks to her, we are marking Down Syndrome Awareness Month here in the House with this debate today, and I am truly pleased that we have this opportunity to celebrate the brilliant contribution that people with Down’s syndrome make to our society, and also all the work of the many people and organisations who support those with Down’s syndrome to live their lives to the full.

Today, the hon. Member has outlined some fantastic stories about the achievements of people with Down’s syndrome, and also their hopes and dreams. I would like to share Michael’s story with the House. Michael has Down’s syndrome, a visual impairment and the muscle condition hypotonia. Despite his family being warned by doctors that he would probably need a wheelchair for the whole of his life, Michael has represented Wales and Great Britain in the Special Olympics and he has won more than 60 medals, which is an incredible achievement. He has not let the pandemic stop his plans. Earlier this month, he ran his first marathon in support of Mencap. He ran through rain, wind and mud to complete the virtual route around his local area in Wales. I want to take this opportunity to extend my congratulations to Michael on such an outstanding achievement.

While Michael’s achievements stand out as an inspiration to us all, I also want to celebrate the everyday achievements and contributions that people with Down’s syndrome make to their families and our communities, and the contribution they make to employment through participation and through love, friendship and laughter, enriching all our lives. That said, people with Down’s syndrome still face too many challenges and barriers. I want to see a society that works for everyone, where everyone can participate fully, feel included and be free to be themselves, so I want to talk briefly about some of the work we are doing to ensure that disabled people, including those with Down’s syndrome, are enabled to live full and rewarding lives.

First, in education, our ambition is for every child, no matter what challenges they face, to have access to a world-class education that sets them up for life, and that absolutely includes children and young people with Down’s syndrome. Supporting children, young people and adults with special educational needs is a particular need for us at this time, and our aim, even during the pandemic, is that education, health and care continue as far as possible, so that children and young people with SEND get the provision and support they need to fulfil their potential and achieve their ambitions.

The hon. Member spoke about work and employment in her excellent speech. We want everybody to have the opportunity to participate in meaningful and rewarding work and to gain the life skills and rewards that come from doing that. I am sure she knows from her work on the APPG that the Government have several programmes in place to support disabled people. An example is the Access to Work grant, which enables employers to buy personalised and tailored support to help disabled people to move into and retain employment. I should also say that, during the pandemic, Access to Work has particularly strengthened its support by making greater use of assistive technology and supporting the transport of assistive technology from workplaces to homes to enable more disabled people to work from home.

There is also the intensive personalised employment support programme, which helps disabled people with complex needs who want to work but require specialist support to do so, and the Disability Confident scheme, which supports employers to have the confidence to recruit and retain disabled people. However, I will take away the hon. Member’s question about what specific support is available through the kickstart scheme for people with disabilities, and also her point about particular schemes for those with disabilities to start their own businesses.

I also want to talk about health inequalities. We had a brief exchange about the improved life expectancy for people with disabilities, particularly those with Down’s syndrome, but despite the increase in life expectancy, there are still health inequalities facing those with Down’s syndrome and also those with learning disabilities. For instance, they are more likely to experience premature mortality. The recent Learning Disability Mortality Review report stated that the life expectancy gap for those with learning disabilities is 22 years for men and 27 years for women. That is absolutely not right.

[Bob Stewart]

When I was born in 1949, the life expectancy of someone with Down’s syndrome was 12 years. The life expectancy now, we hope, is somewhere in the 60s or 70s. I am sure the Minister will agree that we have to find a way to employ these people properly, and not just because, as some people would say, they are disabled; in my view, they are not.

[Helen Whately]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I do know that those with Down’s syndrome are in employment, but let us continue to support that as one of the rewarding things for everybody to experience in life. As he said, life expectancy has indeed improved enormously, but I am ambitious and determined that we go further and make sure that we reduce health inequalities for people with disabilities.

[Rachael Maskell]

I appreciate that this is a really sensitive topic, but we know that coming into the world is a real challenge for somebody with Down’s syndrome. Will the Minister go away and look again at the conversations that are had with parents who are diagnosed in pregnancy with somebody with Down’s syndrome and see how we can change that conversation, so that people can understand the positivity of bringing up a child and raising someone into adulthood with Down’s syndrome?

[Helen Whately]

The hon. Member makes a really important point. It is clearly a very difficult and sensitive topic, but it is absolutely the case that if, during pregnancy, any abnormality is detected or suspected there should at no stage be any bias towards abortion, which is what, as I understand it, she is referring to. I want to make that absolutely clear. It must be the case that all health and care staff involved in the care of a woman or a couple who might be considering the termination of a pregnancy must adopt a non-directive, non-judgmental and supportive approach. That absolutely should be the case throughout our health system. Should anyone experience anything different and find that that is not the case, they should raise it, because women and couples should be supported in a positive way so that they can make the right choice for them. I am choosing my words carefully given that this is a very sensitive topic.

While I have the opportunity, I want to talk briefly about the importance of the Oliver McGowan mandatory training in learning disability and autism, which the Government have committed to rolling out to make sure that all health and social care staff receive training in learning disabilities and autism. That is really important to make sure that people with those conditions get the right and appropriate care when they are in the health and care system, including, I should say, for end-of-life care, making sure that do not attempt CPR—cardiopulmonary resuscitation—orders are used appropriately.

In the light of the pandemic, one thing that has been raised with me, particularly for those who are caring for those with disabilities, is the importance of day services and respite services. I have been working really hard, including with the Social Care Institute for Excellence, on guidance to support the reopening of day services and to encourage local authorities to make sure that those are reopened.

To conclude before we are out of time, I am so glad that we have had this debate and been able to talk about the contribution that those with Down’s syndrome make to our society, and, to use a phrase from the excellent speech by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow, to have made our contribution to changing the narrative. It is crucial that we should celebrate the achievements and contributions of those with Down’s syndrome to our society, so we have been and are taking action to support those with disabilities, including Down’s syndrome, but I believe that we can always do more and go further. So I say, let’s do that. Let’s do more and go further to support people with Down’s syndrome to achieve their dreams.

Question put and agreed to.

00:19

House adjourned.

Ministerial Correction

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Ministerial Corrections

Thursday 22 October 2020

Education

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Ministerial Corrections

Lifetime Skills Guarantee and Post-16 Education

The following is an extract from proceedings on the statement by the Secretary of State for Education on 1 October 2020:

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

The lifetime skills guarantee is extremely welcome, as it should help to boost the covid recovery. In order that those adults who will take up the guarantee can realise their full potential, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the new gold standard of T-levels will be available to them?

[Gavin Williamson]

I can absolutely guarantee that. I had the great opportunity to see many youngsters in colleges taking on T-levels. These qualifications have been incredibly warmly welcomed. The real difference compared with so many past attempts at reform of qualifications in this sector is that this has very much been based on the needs of employers. T-levels have been developed to ensure that they actually take young people into work, further education or apprenticeships.

[Official Report, 1 October 2020, Vol. 681, c. 548.]

Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson): 

An error has been identified in the response given to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous).

The correct response should have been:

[Gavin Williamson]

I can absolutely guarantee that in due course T-Levels will be available to adults. I had the great opportunity to see many youngsters in colleges taking on T-levels. These qualifications have been incredibly warmly welcomed. The real difference compared with so many past attempts at reform of qualifications in this sector is that this has very much been based on the needs of employers. T-levels have been developed to ensure that they actually take young people into work, further education or apprenticeships.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill (Ninth sitting)

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 9th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 22nd October 2020 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: †David Mundell, Graham Stringer

† Anderson, Stuart (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)

† Atherton, Sarah (Wrexham) (Con)

† Brereton, Jack (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)

† Dines, Miss Sarah (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)

† Docherty, Leo (Aldershot) (Con)

Docherty-Hughes, Martin (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)

† Eastwood, Mark (Dewsbury) (Con)

† Evans, Chris (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)

† Gibson, Peter (Darlington) (Con)

† Jones, Mr Kevan (North Durham) (Lab)

† Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma (South Shields) (Lab)

† Lopresti, Jack (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)

† Mercer, Johnny (Minister for Defence People and Veterans)

Monaghan, Carol (Glasgow North West) (SNP)

† Morgan, Stephen (Portsmouth South) (Lab)

† Morrissey, Joy (Beaconsfield) (Con)

† Twist, Liz (Blaydon) (Lab)

Steven Mark, Sarah Thatcher, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Thursday 22 October 2020

(Morning)

[David Mundell in the Chair]

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

11:30

[The Chair]

Members will be aware of the need to respect social distancing guidance. I shall intervene if necessary to remind everyone. We now continue line-by-line consideration of the Bill. I have to draw hon. Members’ attention to an error: amendment 69, which is currently under debate, has not been printed on the amendment paper, so copies of the text of the amendment are in the room, printed separately.

Amendment proposed (20 October): 69, in schedule 2, page 16, line 5, at end insert “except where it appears to the court that it would be equitable to do so having regard to the reasons for the delay, in particular whether the delay resulted from—

(a) the nature of the injuries;

(b) logistical difficulties in securing the services required to bring a claim, so long as the claimant was making all reasonable attempts to secure such services, or

(c) any other reasons outside the control of the person bringing the claim.”.—(Stephen Morgan.)

This amendment introduces a discretion for the courts of England and Wales to allow a civil claim for personal injury arising out of overseas operations to proceed in prescribed circumstances so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing such claims.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 93, in schedule 2, page 16, line 5, at end insert

“save for exceptional cases where the overriding interest of justice should be served.”.

Amendment 70, in schedule 2, page 16, line 36, at end insert—

“(2C) Subsections (2A) and (2B) shall not apply where it appears to the court this would be equitable having regard to the reasons for the delay, in particular whether the delay resulted from—

(a) the nature of the injuries;

(b) logistical difficulties in securing the services required to bring a claim, so long as the claimant was making all reasonable attempts to secure such services, or

(c) any other reasons outside the control of the person bringing the claim.”.

This amendment introduces a discretion for the courts of England and Wales to allow a civil claim for wrongful death arising out of overseas operations to proceed in prescribed circumstances so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing such claims.

Amendment 71, in schedule 3, page 21, line 9, at end insert—

“(7A) The court may disapply the rules in subsections (5) to (7) where it appears to the court that it would be equitable to do so having regard to the reasons for the delay, in particular whether the delay resulted from—

(a) the nature of the injuries;

(b) logistical difficulties in securing the services required to bring a claim, so long as the claimant was making all reasonable attempts to secure such services, or

(c) any other reasons outside the control of the person bringing the claim.”.

This amendment introduces a discretion for the courts of Scotland to allow a civil claim for personal injury or wrongful death arising out of overseas operations to proceed in prescribed circumstances so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing such claims.

Amendment 72, in schedule 4, page 24, line 5, at end insert

“except where it appears to the court that it would be equitable to do so having regard to the reasons for the delay, in particular whether the delay resulted from—

(a) the nature of the injuries;

(b) logistical difficulties in securing the services required to bring a claim, so long as the claimant was making all reasonable attempts to secure such services, or

(c) any other reasons outside the control of the person bringing the claim.”.

This amendment introduces a discretion for the courts of Northern Ireland to allow a civil claim for personal injury or wrongful death arising out of overseas operations to proceed in prescribed circumstances so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing such claims.

Amendment 68, in clause 11, page 7, line 34, at end insert—

“(4A) The court may disapply the rule in subsection (4) where it appears to the court that it would be equitable to do so having regard to the reasons for the delay, in particular whether the delay resulted from—

(a) the nature of the injuries;

(b) logistical difficulties in securing the services required to bring a claim, so long as the claimant was making all reasonable attempts to secure such services, or

(c) any other reasons outside the control of the person bringing the claim.”.

This amendment introduces a discretion for UK courts to allow a HRA claim arising out of overseas operations to proceed in prescribed circumstances so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing such claims.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

May I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Mundell? It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again. I will talk about schedule 2 in general, but I will first refer to amendment 93, which stands in my name and which would amend the end of schedule 2 to say

“save for exceptional cases where the overriding interest of justice should be served.”

I will come back to schedule 2 in a minute.

We are again getting to the issue of justice for servicemen and women and veterans, in terms of the conditions they are bound by. I will come on to the Limitation Act 1980 in a minute, of which section 33 disregards the limits on the right of veterans and servicemen and women to make claims. We heard in the evidence sessions and during consideration of the Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South and others about particular issues affected by this hard stop of six years. We talked about mental health and psychological conditions, but there are also physical conditions. Mental health is a complex area. The Minister tries to hide behind the date of knowledge, and mental illness is difficult to pin down. I would certainly say that the whole gamut of mental illness should be treated as exceptional cases.

Did the Labour party, when we were in Government, get it wrong on the armed forces compensation scheme? Yes, we did, even though it was a landmark scheme, in the sense that it brought in lump sum compensation for the very first time. I remember people at the time complaining about the levels of lump sum payments. We had a big debate about that in around 2008. However, it brought in lump sum payments for the very first time for those injured in service of their country. Going back to the Falklands war, for example, no such thing existed, so it was quite a landmark.

However, we clearly had not seen the challenge around mental illness. When I was a Minister, I asked Lord Boyce to undertake a review into the effects of service on mental health, so that we could potentially bring into the scope of that scheme people suffering from an array of mental illnesses. That was the right thing to do, and it was an attempt to future-proof the legislation.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the Armed Forces Act 2006, particularly the part where the Labour Government pardoned those who had been shot at dawn during world war one. For shell shock to emerge and be accepted took some 60 to 70 years. The Bill was an example of a Government saying that they had got something wrong and were willing to backdate it to ensure that justice was meted out to the families so that they would not think that their grandparents or ancestors were cowards, as they were deemed at the time. If we can do that in that situation, we can surely do it in this as well, as we learn more about the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder and of alcohol and drug abuse as well.

[Mr Jones]

I do not disagree with my hon. Friend, but the problem I always have with veterans’ mental health is the fixation on PTSD. I am not for one minute downgrading PTSD and the numbers of people that suffer from it, but it is one of a range of mental illnesses that might arise later in life. My hon. Friend referred to alcohol abuse, which is sometimes a form of self-medication. Is it automatically recognisable that a mental illness that might come in later life is a result of service? No, it is not. I agree with the Minister here. Most people leave service and have a perfectly good career that is life-enhancing for many servicemen and women. They end up in a variety of careers and have a good quality of life. Obviously, the failures end up as Members of Parliament, but that is neither here nor there. I have always said that military service overall is a good and positive thing for people’s life chances because it gives opportunities to people.

However, some individuals can be affected. Is it easy to determine what caused someone’s mental health problem? No, I do not think it is. That was recognised in the armed forces compensation scheme. I want to add exceptional circumstances because, by taking section 33 out, we stop recourse to civil law and the ability to claim against the MOD. As Mr Byrne from the Royal British Legion said, this is not about protecting servicemen and women and veterans; it is about protecting the MOD. I have heard the Minister’s arguments about the date of knowledge and this, that and the other, but, as I have said before, if we leave it to the solicitors or lawyers in the MOD, they will use this to strike out these cases, and that cannot be right.

We then come on to physical conditions. I mentioned the other day the issue of cold weather injuries, which can develop later. There are also musculoskeletal conditions that develop not at the time but as the body gets older. If the body has been through large amounts of stress earlier on, whether it is physical or mental, the condition can start later on. That leads to a situation where a lot of individuals will not necessarily think straight away, “It was due to my service”. That is why I have always strongly argued—we did it in 2010, but the coalition scrapped it—for the importance of having a flag on people’s medical records as they leave the service so that in future doctors can see that people had served and then link the two together. We provided for that in 2010, but an election was called and the coalition seemed to forget about it, but I thought it was important not only in terms of physical injuries but, very importantly, for mental health issues. If a physician, a doctor or a consultant can see that someone has served, that is a red flag and they can ask whether that has had an impact on that individual.

The six-year longstop will stop those individuals taking cases to court. I accept that legally it might be difficult to insert the words “exceptional cases”, because we then get into the issue of what is an exceptional case. To be honest, the easiest way of solving it is to retain section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980, because then at least a judge will be able to determine what an exceptional case is. I accept that there are problems with the amendment as it is written, but it goes to the core of the issue of ensuring that, while as few cases as possible are brought out of time, people have the ability to do that.

I am not sure I would leave it to the MOD to make the decision, because I think the kneejerk reaction would be to use the Limitation Act to strike the cases out. I accept that the amendment is not expertly written, but I am not so proud as to prevent somebody from stealing the idea and drawing it up so that, at least in exceptional circumstances, members of the armed forces would be able to take their cases forward for consideration to determine whether they should go beyond the six-year longstop, which limits them at the moment.

We also heard about issues relating to the Human Rights Act 1998. I asked the Minister to write to me to explain how a time limit or a longstop can be put on human rights cases. I do not know whether he has been able to do that yet—I accept that I only asked the other day—but it would be interesting to know that before Report. There is the one-year time limit, but they are covered by section 33 of the Limitations Act. Hilary Meredith said that she found it difficult to understand how it would be possible to have a limitation on the Human Rights Act because it is part of a convention. The Minister responded the other day that it had been cleared and that it was human rights law-compliant. It would be interesting to know what the legal advice is on that, and whether there are any other cases—although there is already a time limit of one year—in which the Limitation Act is not applied to individuals.

As we heard from the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers in the evidence session, that issue was crucial in the Snatch Land Rover case. A widow took a case against the MOD—it was not a civil case, but a Human Rights Act case, because a decision had been taken in relation to the right to life. Again, that was about not putting the Human Rights Act on the battlefield but trying to ensure that a decision was taken about Snatch Land Rover’s procurement and deployment. It was not about getting the Human Rights Act into the battlespace. I suggest that people read the Smith judgment, because the Supreme Court is very clear about combat immunity and about human rights not applying. People sometimes argue that this Bill is somehow about trying to stop human rights intervening with our right to defend ourselves, but they should read the Supreme Court judgment, because it is very clear that it does not apply there, but it does apply to that important case.

There were two issues in that case. The first was whether it was out of time. Quite clearly it was, because the incident took place in 2006 but the case was not brought until after Chilcot, which was 2015, so it was way out of time. The reason it was taken forward was that, in the first instance, although the MOD argued that it was out of time—I have no complaints that it did that—it was successfully argued that it was not. There were special circumstances that meant that it could not be brought within the time period, and it was allowed to go forward. I understand that the case was settled before it went to court, and the individual widow got a substantial payment. As I said the other day, it also focused, in policy terms, Ministry of Defence thinking about the decisions on the Snatch Land Rover. It gave closure to the widow and some compensation, though no amount of money can ever compensate for somebody’s loss, but it also made MOD policymakers say, “Wait a minute. In future, we’re going to have to actually think about this.”

11:45

Had this legislation been in place, could it have been argued that that was an exceptional case? I think so, but it would have been interesting to see how. In that case, however, had this legislation been enacted, that widow and family would not have been able to get redress. Who would have been protected? It would have been the MOD, and none of the searching questions that went on regarding why Snatch Land Rovers were deployed and used in the way that they were would have been asked. The law is not just about compensation for the individual and getting someone the right support; it is about informing and making better policy in the future.

If we cannot have the clause as outlined, can we look at some other way in which a provision could be incorporated into the Bill to allow for those exceptional circumstances, which will occur? The Minister admits that 94% of cases are brought in time. As I said the other day, that means that 6% are not. I accept that there are disputes over the figures, but I reiterate yet again that one serviceman or woman, or family, who cannot get justice is one too many.

The issues around schedule 2 go to the heart of the Bill. Schedule 2, part 1, titled “Court’s discretion to disapply time limits”, amends section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980:

“Discretionary exclusion of time limit for actions in respect of personal injuries or death”.

The schedule introduces, as we have already heard, the presumption that a six-year time limit should be instigated. We have heard a lot about section 33, but it is there for a very good reason. As I said the other day, time limits are there for a very good reason: to ensure fairness not only for the complainant but for the individual who has been accused, in this case mainly the MOD.

Section 33 basically makes a provision for the court to exercise discretion. As I keep saying, it is important that it is a court that decides; not somebody at the MOD who suddenly decides that there is a time limit. It means that in those circumstances where, for whatever reason, a case has not been brought, such as the Snatch Land Rover case, the time limit can be argued for. It is not easy to get. The evidence we received in Committee demonstrated that it is not something that we just nod through; it has to be argued for in exceptional circumstances.

Anyone who pursues one of those cases does so because they think that they have a case. Most people do not take any form of legal case unless they think that they have good, sound legal advice. Most of these cases will be done by solicitors. They will also sometimes be funded by charities, thinking that it could be a test case. The implications of, for example, the Snatch Land Rover case could then be used in other cases. It comes back to what I have said on a number of occasions, that this part of the Bill does not sit happily with me. I understand why it is in the Bill, but the fact is that veterans will have fewer rights than the rest of us—including prisoners, I might add.

I know the Minister said we were trying to compare armed services personnel to prisoners and that it would go down

“like a cup of cold sick”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2020; c. 271.]

We were doing nothing of the sort. Obviously, we were not comparing the two, although there are veterans who become prisoners—a very small number, I hasten to add. No, what we were saying is that prisoners will have more rights to sue the Ministry of Justice than the veterans or servicemen and women and their families will have to sue the Ministry of Defence. In my opinion, it cannot be right that we are excluding people who have served our country and whose families have gone through a lot of trauma.

Perhaps the stench or smell of the cup of cold sick is not revulsion at that comparison being made—not that there is a comparison, as I said. It is revulsion at the armed forces covenant being completely broken, because the Bill would put armed forces families and servicemen and women at a disadvantage, whereas the entire intention behind the covenant was to ensure not just that servicemen and women were on a level playing field with the rest of us, but that they should get extra rights because of their service to their country. I passionately believe in that, and the covenant has widespread support among our constituents.

When I first came up with the concept in about 2009, it was called the welfare pathway. It built on work that Bob Ainsworth, the previous Minister for the Armed Forces, had done in relation to the Command Paper, trying to see how we could ensure that armed forces personnel and veterans were not at any disadvantage because of their service. The welfare pathway was work that I did on recognising that not everything happened in the MOD and that it was necessary to engage with other partners. And I was pleased that after the 2010 general election, that work carried on and was renamed the armed forces covenant.

The covenant has been welcomed by many of our constituents. I think the first welfare pathway that I was involved with was in Scotland—I cannot remember where, off the top of my head. Councils and others were eager to engage in the process. It gave people a focus to think about when they were doing policy work, whether nationally or locally; it made them think about the armed forces and veterans. It was a tough task. We had armed forces champions in different Departments; they were very good, but it was difficult sometimes when people were developing new policies to say to them, “Hang on—ask the question about veterans and the armed forces. How will this policy affect armed forces families, servicemen and women, and veterans?” What is remarkable is that the Department that led all that work and championed efforts to increase rights is now giving our armed forces—our servicemen and women and their families, and veterans—fewer rights than other people.

That is just wrong and it is not just me saying that. The Royal British Legion says it, too. I know that the Minister had—I was not there, but I read the transcript—a rather challenging discussion, to put it that way, with the secretary general of the Royal British Legion. The points the RBL is making are perfectly reasonable, which is why part 2 must be taken out of this Bill. Otherwise, life for our servicemen and women and our veterans will be worse than it is now.

[The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)]

We are beginning to cover some pretty familiar ground. I will set out the Government’s position clearly on the six-year limit and speak to all the amendments in the group.

As I have already said, the six-year longstop for both personal injury and death claims, as well as claims under the Human Rights Act, is an important part of the Bill. The longstop will provide the much-needed certainty for service personnel and veterans that we are trying to achieve with part 2 of the Bill. I cannot stress enough our belief that the negative impact on the ability of service personnel and veterans to bring claims will be limited. We have not made that up; it is based on our statistics and our evidence.

We are not trying to catch service personnel out or take away their rights to bring claims against their employer, against the MOD or against the Government. They will still be able to bring claims, and the date of knowledge provisions, which are such an important part of the Bill, mean that even in cases when an illness is diagnosed many years down the line, claims can still be brought within six years of that diagnosis, or 12 months for HRA claims.

I have heard the arguments that there are many current and former service personnel who have suffered injuries as a result of their service but who have not yet brought through their claims and would be timed out once this Bill becomes law. I have seen no evidence of that, but I again encourage those people to bring their claims as soon as possible.

[Mr Jones]

The Minister says he has seen no evidence, but he quotes the figure of 94% being brought in time. What is the number of cases that have been brought under the Limitation Act against the MOD? He says the limit gives certainty; well, it does give certainty to people—certainty that after those six years, they will not be able to take any claims at all.

[Johnny Mercer]

Many cases have been raised, I agree, such as Snatch Land Rover and the Royal Marines individual who has been mentioned a number of times. However, as I have outlined a number of times, none of those would be affected by this Bill, because the period starts from the point of knowledge. We have had this conversation before. I encourage people who feel that they could be disadvantaged to come forward, to speak to the Department or speak to me, but I have to operate in reality, not saying things that are not true. I include any non-service person who believes that they have a meritorious claim against the MOD, because fundamentally, we are not trying to stop legitimate claims.

[Chris Evans]

Will the Minister give way?

[Johnny Mercer]

Not at the moment.

[Chris Evans]

It is just a quick question.

[Johnny Mercer]

Of course it is in the best interests of claimants to bring cases in a timely manner, when memories are fresh and access to evidence is easier. We should also remember that the current time limit for bringing claims is three years for personal injury or death and one year for Human Rights Act claims. While the courts have discretion to extend those timelines indefinitely, claimants must persuade them that it is equitable in all the circumstances to do so.

[Chris Evans]

A quick question for the Minister: last week, in The Sun on Sunday, he said he would make it his personal mission to help to ensure that cases that might fall out after six years are brought within six years. Will he clarify how he would do that in action?

[Johnny Mercer]

Of course. Part of this Bill is a huge education campaign to get people to understand what their rights are. While we have drawn the line at six years, we have a duty to make sure all the people who are in our employment and who served with us understand what the rules are and where the boundaries are, and at the same time are protected from the vexatious sort of claims we have seen over the years. I genuinely believe it is a fair line to be drawn, and I reiterate that lots of cases have been raised, but when we have looked into them, none would have been precluded under the Bill.

[Mr Jones]

The Minister is not answering my hon. Friend’s question. I accept that there are good reasons for time limits; I have no problems with time limits on civil litigation and other things. I asked him earlier about the number of cases that have fallen outside the limitation period that the MOD has defended. I do not for one minute question the Minister’s commitment, but remember that he and I will not be here when this comes into force. I tell him now that the MOD will use this as a way to stop claims.

[Johnny Mercer]

I accept the right hon. Gentleman’s point that there is a risk of any legislation being interpreted in different ways by different Administrations over a period of time. That is the reality of life in this place, but I cannot accept the repeated regurgitation of cases. We have looked into individual cases. When these cases are raised, I write them down and go back to the Department to look into them. They are not affected by this legislation. Members can sigh and so on, but I cannot do anything other than operate within what is actually going on, rather than deal with stuff that is not true.

Members will remember that in one of the evidence sessions for the Bill, the representative of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, Mr Al-Nahhas, told us that he frequently rejects clients who want to bring claims that are out of time. Although I would urge everyone to bring meritorious claims as soon as they can, I know that sometimes the courts allow claims to proceed after the primary limitation period has expired. The Bill will not stop that happening. The courts will still be able to extend the primary limitation period for up to six years, but we are stopping claims—often unmeritorious—being brought many years down the track.

The amendments would effectively give the courts the same discretion that they currently have to extend the primary limitation periods indefinitely, but they are contrary to the intent behind the Bill and would reduce the certainty that we want to give to service personnel and veterans. Before I recommend that the amendments be withdrawn, I would love to give way to the right hon. Gentleman again.

[Mr Jones]

The Minister has raised something that is very complex for the courts. He said that the period will be six years from the date of knowledge, and the courts will be able to give discretion within the six-year period. Is he not expecting—some people will—to take this to court, in terms of saying that it is unjust if a case falls outside the six years? This will end up with a lot more confusion than just keeping what is there at the moment: section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980.

[Johnny Mercer]

I completely disagree; it is the current situation that we has produced the chaos we are trying to bring order to with the Bill.

[Mr Jones]

It has not.

[Johnny Mercer]

The right hon. Gentleman can say it has not, but people such as Bob Campbell, to whom he has alluded a number of times, would strongly disagree. We are trying to bring certainty for our veterans and service personnel going forward. That has been a strong Government commitment from the start of this Government, and I support it. I therefore recommend that the amendments be withdrawn.

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

We wish to withdraw amendment 69 and pick up the issue at a later date.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[The Chair]

Mr Jones, do you wish to press amendment 93 to a division?

[Mr Jones]

No, but may I just say one thing to the Minister? He talks about Major Bob Campbell. The legislation was not an issue in that case; it was the investigation that was the issue.

[The Chair]

Thank you, Mr Jones. You have saved me from saying that it was not a debate on the amendment.

[Stephen Morgan]

I beg to move amendment 89, in schedule 2, page 17, line 5, at end insert—

“(c) the court must also have particular regard to the importance of the proceedings in securing the rights of the claimant.”

This amendment adds a further consideration to which the courts of England and Wales must have particular regard when determining whether to disapply the standard limitation period of three years so as to ensure that the claimant’s interest in having their civil claim proceed is not subordinated.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 90, in schedule 3, page 20, line 32, at end insert—

“(c) the importance of the proceedings in securing the rights of the claimant.”

This amendment adds a further consideration to which the courts of Scotland must have particular regard when determining whether to disapply the standard limitation period of three years so as to ensure that the claimant’s interest in having their civil claim proceed is not subordinated.

Amendment 91, in schedule 4, page 25, line 5, at end insert—

“(c) the court must also have particular regard to the importance of the proceedings in securing the rights of the claimant.”

This amendment adds a further consideration to which the courts of Northern Ireland must have particular regard when determining whether to disapply the standard limitation period of three years so as to ensure that the claimant’s interest in having their civil claim proceed is not subordinated.

Amendment 88, in clause 11, page 7, line 23, at end insert—

“(c) the importance of the proceedings in securing the rights of the claimant.”

This amendment adds a further consideration to which UK courts must have particular regard when determining whether to disapply the standard HRA limitation period of one year so as to ensure that the claimant’s interest in having their claim proceed is not subordinated.

That the schedule be the Second schedule to the Bill.

That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.

That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.

[Stephen Morgan]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Mundell. I rise to speak to amendment 89, which stands in my name. During the proceedings so far, there has been much discussion in recognition of the role that mental health plays in the cases to which the Bill applies. Although the Opposition recognise the importance of the Bill in cases where the court is given discretion to disapply the time limits of three years, the court must also have particular regard for the likely impact of the action on the mental health of any witness or potential witness who is a member of Her Majesty’s armed forces. There is still more to be done here. There is an imbalance in the consideration of civil claims in the Bill. I will say it once again: where the Opposition see that the Bill can be improved, we will highlight it.

We have tabled the amendment to ensure that both witnesses’ and claimants’ interests have been secured. The Bill asks the courts to have

“particular regard to the likely impact of the action on the mental health of any witness or potential witness who is a member of Her Majesty’s forces”,

but we can do better. It is important to ensure that there is equality under the law and that the interests of the claimant are also considered. The intent of the amendments is to balance the considerations UK courts must have particular regard for in determining whether to disapply the standard Human Rights Act limitation period so as to ensure that the claimant’s interest in having their claim proceed is not illegitimately subordinated.

Over the last few days, we have received written evidence highlighting this very issue, including the submission from Rights and Security International, a charity which works to promote just and accountable security policy; it has over 25 years’ experience working in the field of human rights and national security policy in the UK. In its evidence submission, it said that it is concerned about the creation of a one-sided discretion to disapply the standard limitation period within the six-year mark.

“First, the proposed considerations have a discriminatory impact against the claimants. This is because they are illegitimately weighted in favour of the MOD operating solely to the detriment of claimants. They are overly focused on factors tending to preclude claims with no reference to the interests of the claimant in having his or her rights vindicated. This has the effect of creating a hierarchy of values and subordinating the claimant’s interest in bringing the claim”.

Secondly, RSI says that there is a requirement that the court give particular regard to the likely impact of the action on the mental health of the witness or potential witness who is a member of Her Majesty’s forces. They argue this is an inappropriate and disproportionate test because it is heavily weighted in favour of precluding claims from proceeding. This is because giving evidence is almost always stressful to any witness be they members of Her Majesty’s forces or not. It continues:

“It is disproportionate because there are many alternative ways to support vulnerable witnesses that do not have the effect of preventing access to justice for potential victims of human rights abuses, wrongful death or personal injury. Were the Government really serious about protecting members of Her Majesty’s Forces, ensuring the provision of such support services would be the focus of reforms to the law, rather than provisions which have the effect of protecting first and foremost the MOD.

Third, it is questioned whether it is really necessary that the court gives particular regard to the likely impact of the operational context on the ability of individuals to remember relevant events or actions fully or accurately. This is because it has been determined that effective legislation can still take place way after the event occurred. For example, the Malmo litigation proceeded over 50 years after the incident. The courts were still able to identify systematic rights abuses and systematic flaws on the part of the Bill relevant to the British colonial administration. This is evidence of the fallacy of the allegation that effective investigations can never take place well after the fact due to a loss of evidence or decreasing reliability of evidence over time”.

That is a lengthy quote, but I think it makes some very important points, which I will take in turn. Once again, we have heard that the Bill is not designed to protect our service personnel but to protect the Ministry of Defence. The legislation is heavily weighted against the ability of service personnel to proceed with civil claims. These are not my words or Labour’s; they are from a highly respected organisation that has covered the issues raised here for many years and is highly experienced in this area.

In light of this, will the Minister recognise the mistake that is being made here for the sake of our service personnel? Why is he so intent on rushing through the House a Bill that will disadvantage our troops? There is another theme here, which we have covered before—something that we have called into question before in other areas of the Bill: fairness and balance.

In its current form, this part of the Bill would create a serious imbalance of fairness within the equality of the law. If the Minister will not address these issues for the sake of our armed forces personnel, will he not do it for the sake of equality under the law, for which our country is so well respected and renowned?

We received further written evidence highlighting this problem of an unbalanced weighting. The Centre for Military Justice is a charity established to advise current and former members of the armed forces, or their bereaved families, who have suffered serious bullying, sexual harassment, sexual violence, racism, or other abuse or neglect. In its evidence, the charity outlined the need for the Bill to take into account the mental health of claimants, not just their witnesses. Specifically, the CMJ said that

“there are often very good reasons why some claims or parts of them need to be issued 6 years after date of knowledge or diagnosis; or where some of the damage would have been caused outside of the 6 year limitation period and some within it. If you are suffering from PTSD you may become aware that there is something seriously wrong within the limitation period, but it may be very hard for you to get help then or even for some time after.

Imagine if you are a veteran with undiagnosed PTSD—you are drinking heavily, or having a lot of personal problems (because of what you have been through)—you may know there is something wrong—you may even go to your GP—so that might be said to be your date of knowledge for limitation purposes—but you may not be able to take the next step of getting properly diagnosed and/or be able to get legal advice. Those are the kinds of cases that need to have the option of applying to the court to extend time and it makes no sense to add a hard ‘long stop’. If there are good reasons to extend time, the claimant should be allowed to try and persuade the court and the court should be allowed to apply the existing criteria.

Last year, The Times reported the case of Mark Bradshaw, 44, who suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) since he was involved in a friendly fire attack in 2010 while serving with the Royal Artillery. Despite the immediate onset of nightmares and hypervigilance, the veteran was not given a formal diagnosis until 2016. By then he was drinking heavily, had suicidal thoughts and had left the service and become alienated from his family. He was eventually awarded a settlement, but not without a fight, and he fears that the proposed legislation could discriminate against those who do not develop PTSD, or receive a diagnosis, until many years later. He called the plan to impose a time limit on claims ‘horrendous’. The Times reported him saying, ‘I got pushed to the GP. How many people sick with mental health won’t go to the GP?’”

That tragic case, which we have already heard about in Committee, shows that we need a proper and fair weighting of both witnesses and claimants. I hope this will make clear to the Minister the changes required in the Bill. In the light of the fact that his legislation is heavily weighted against the ability of service personnel to proceed with civil claims, will the Minister, for the sake of our service personnel, recognise the mistake that is being made here? Why is he so intent on rushing through this House a Bill that disadvantages our troops? If he will not change his mind for the sake of our armed forces personnel, will he not do so for the sake of the equality under law for which our country is so respected and renowned?

[Mr Jones]

Do I understand that we are also debating schedule stand part?

[The Chair]

Yes.

[Mr Jones]

Thank you—I will ask some questions about the schedules as outlined.

Schedule 3 references Scotland, and schedule 4 is about Northern Ireland. Mr Mundell, your great nation has always had a separate legal system, which in many ways is far superior to the one we have in England, given some of the common sense it contains. I would be interested to know from the Minister what representations were received from the Scottish Law Officers regarding the application of the Bill. It references overseas operations, but is clearly going to affect many servicemen and women, and Scotland is a good recruiting ground for those servicemen and women.

12:15

The other issue is Northern Ireland, which is referred to in the schedule. The Minister has boldly claimed that the Government are going to bring forward a similar Bill to cover Northern Ireland veterans, which—if I can put it in a “Yes, Minister” way—is a very bold statement. It will be interesting to see how that claim is implemented.

I have a lot of sympathy with Northern Ireland veterans, because they are of my generation—people who I went to school with. Some of the cases are, frankly, terrible, as is the idea that they are not being dealt with. I accept that the title of the Bill includes the word “overseas”—I do not want to invite the wrath of the hon. Member for Strabane and others, because Northern Ireland is not overseas—but part of the claims for this Bill is that it will somehow cover and solve all problems. It will not, and I want to understand how it interplays with the legislation that is going to come forward for Operation Banner and other veterans.

I have had experience of Northern Ireland politics as a Minister. On the issue of Northern Ireland veterans, I have spoken to all sides, including Sinn Féin. I accept that the lead is not going to be the MOD, and would be the Northern Ireland Office, but I very much doubt that a similar Bill could be brought forward for Northern Ireland veterans. That might be the tipping point, where we welcome the Minister back to the Back Benches. So it would be interesting to know how those two things are going to be squared.

In terms of the issues raised in the schedules around mental health, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South makes a good point. There is sometimes no date of knowledge in these situations; it is very difficult to pin that down. In his statement the other day, I think the Minister basically admitted that limitations are going to be set on people’s rights, but the benefits are going to be on the other side. He mentioned the case of Major Campbell. Well, there is nothing in the Bill that will stop another Major Campbell case. If we look at that case, it had nothing at all to do with time limits or with civil litigation—it was to do with the investigation process. I have moved some new clauses that would improve the Bill in terms of limiting investigations.

[Johnny Mercer]

Does the right hon. Member understand—I am sure he does—that he is fundamentally wrong to say that the Bill would not have had an impact in the Major Campbell case, which he keeps referring to? He talks about the investigations taking so long. Those investigations are driven by bringing civil or criminal claims. Bringing in the longstop would mean that the worst Major Campbell could have had was going through to 2009; he has repeatedly said that. Those are the facts of the matter, and it is important to bear that in mind going forward. The Campbell case is a very emotional case; however, we have to stick with the facts, and the facts are that this measure would have limited the experiences to 2009, as he has said, and as we have laid out on a number of occasions.

[Mr Jones]

I am sorry; I totally disagree with the Minister. He is wrong. It was not the claims that drove that case. As Hilary Meredith said in her evidence to the Committee, part of the problem was that the MOD started to pay out large amounts of compensation to individuals. I think I explained the reason why that was done at the time; it was partly to follow a little bit what the Americans were doing, and it was partly a cultural thing in Iraq—for example, if there was a car accident, a certain amount of money was paid and that was that. It even got to where we might call it brutal. I remember sitting once in Basra with a claims officer, dealing with claims. They were everything from a car accident, “My goat’s been shot” and “You’ve run over my dog” right up to, “You’ve ruined my crop landing a helicopter, or flying something into it.” They were paid out, and it even got to a point, which we might find quite cold, that somebody’s death was covered by making a payment—blood money, I think, is how the Americans referred to it. That might seem harsh and callous, but we did the same things, just with a legal process. That led to others.

The Minister and I totally agree about people like Phil Shiner. There is no defence there. However, in Campbell’s case, if an accusation had been made to the MOD, not from a civil case but because someone came forward to say, “This happened,” it was not, then, the claim that kicked it off—it was the accusation. I accept that Shiner, in some cases, was trying to put forward things that were false, or encouraging people—I think there were even cases where he paid people—but the Bill would not stop that case coming forward, because when an accusation is made to the MOD, it will have to investigate it.

That is the problem for the Minister. He has focused in, with something of a gut reaction, against people such as Phil Shiner, and I sympathise with him—I have lots of sympathy with him on that. I have no time for those things, but the MOD created part of the problem itself, in the compensation culture that it engendered. Then it made it worse—I know the Minister was trying to be party political the other day, but I am not going to be, shudder the thought—by setting up the IHAT investigation in 2010, under a Conservative Government. That just fuelled things.

I still plead with the Minister to do now in the Bill what Campbell’s case needed, though I accept his officials will say, “Minister, we must wait until next year’s armed forces Bill.” No, put it in now. If he includes issues to do with controls over investigations, he will have my 100% support, because that is what will drive down cases such as the Campbell one. It was completely unacceptable that that happened. Yes, political decisions were made about Iraq and Afghanistan about paying compensation. A Conservative Government set up IHAT, and, as happens with a lot of these things, it became like a licking lollipop, in terms of the way they keep growing. However, if the suggestions of the Judge Advocate General, Judge Blackett, about looking at investigations were put in the Bill, that would stop the Major Campbell cases. Just introducing a limitation period will not stop cases. They will still be investigated.

Let us be honest, it is a proud testament to the professionalism of our armed forces that, in the horrendous situations that they have been involved in over the past few years, in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have had small numbers of disciplinary cases. That is testament not only to their courage but to the system of discipline in our armed forces. We have a set of regulations, laws and training that ensure that people know what they are doing, and that they follow. As to the cases that have been brought, such as Marine A, that was not started by an ambulance-chasing lawyer. It happened because someone took a video of Marine A shooting a wounded Taliban fighter, which was clearly contrary to all his training. The Bill would not stop that. In that and other relevant cases—I am racking my brain to think of them—the investigations were complete within two years. That was quite quick, so I think it can work. It is about case management.

There is another point to be made about that. When the service man or woman gets to court, do they get a fair hearing? In that case, he did. My question is why on earth the legal representatives did not argue—quite rightly—at the first hearing that he had suffered mental trauma and other things. He was found guilty by a military court—not a civil court—of murder on the first count. But when it went to appeal, it was reduced to manslaughter, which was quite right, taking into account the circumstances in which the incident occurred, as well as credible evidence from mental health professionals about his mental state at that time. That does not excuse what he did, but it puts context around it.

That is why, as I said before, I am a supporter of the military justice system, because cases are dealt with by people who understand that system. Putting a time limit on cases will disadvantage members of the armed forces by taking them out of section 33 of the Limitation Act, and for what? For something that will not reduce the number of cases.

There is another point we could deal with very easily. I ask the Minister again, how many limitation cases have there been from civilians or anybody else? I suggest there would be very few, but that is not the point. The point is that servicemen and women have a right to go outside of that time if there are exceptional circumstances. Having taken limitation cases—not personally—I know that they are done only in exceptional circumstances, because the threshold is so high. That is why when the Minister said the personal injury lawyers said they sometimes advise clients not to take these cases on limitation, he is quite right. I have done that myself, because I know there is not a cat in hell’s chance of the court ever saying that the reasons are justifiable in terms of the Limitation Act.

The Limitation Act is there for a good reason. It is not—I think this is what the Minister has in mind—a green light for everybody to come out of the woodwork after a huge period of time and say, “Yes, I want to put my case.” It is not like that; it is very difficult. I support that, because there must be time limits for cases, for the reason the Minister gave—I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South said—which is that we have to try, if possible, to get cases done as speedily as we can. That is fair for the victim and fair for the accused. But this Bill will not do that.

The other thing that is said is that the Bill will stop investigations. It will not stop investigations at all, and they could go on a long time. As I said in a previous sitting, that must be horrible. We cannot imagine being accused of some of the horrendous crimes that Major Campbell was accused of and having that hanging over us for a long time. That is not fair to that individual.

[Johnny Mercer]

It has never been the Government’s stated position to stop investigations. I think the right hon. Member knows that. We cannot run a Department and refuse to investigate allegations that people bring forward.

[Mr Jones]

No, I am not suggesting for one minute that it is. I am suggesting to the Minister—this is what Judge Blackett came forward with—that we need a way of managing those investigations, to ensure that they are speedily done and that there is judicial oversight of the process, not oversight from the MOD or the chain of command, which could lead to accusations. I came forward with three suggestions of how to do that. Get rid of all the minor cases in the system. That is just good case management, and it also helps the individual who has been accused. If the judge thinks there is no evidence, they should throw the case out. That can be done in magistrates courts; why can we not do it in this system? That is a huge missing bit of the Bill.

To reiterate, I am not for one minute accusing the Minister or the MOD of turning a blind eye to serious allegations. If an allegation is made, it has to be investigated.

The issue is the way it is investigated and the time it takes to investigate it. The idea is that the time limit process will somehow reduce the number of claims. I do not think it will, because people will bring a claim within six years, it will have to be investigated, and someone will have to ensure that it is case-managed through the system.

12:30

This is also about ensuring a dispute resolution process. If a group consultation can be dealt with quickly, that is better than having it go on for a long time. Accusations will still be made against servicemen and women on operations overseas. It is nothing to do with claims being brought forward by locals or others. Why throw out a basic right that everyone else has, on the misunderstanding that somehow the measure will solve the number of cases being put forward? It will not. The Minister has raised a lot of people’s hopes with this Bill. I said that the other day, and the Minister should be careful about that. People are perhaps saying, “Great, we’ve got somebody doing this, and it’s going to achieve that.” It will not. One of the worst things that can be done in politics is to promise people things that are not delivered, and then the penny drops that people have not got what was suggested.

Another question is why this was not done before in legislation. It is a good question. Do I support the intention behind the legislation? Yes, I do support trying to ensure justice for servicemen and women, but we must also get justice for victims. Considered from the MOD’s point of view, if someone is suffering from an injury or a loss, as in the Snatch Land Rover case, are they the victims? Yes, they are. They do not want to be seen as victims, quite rightly, and I hate the word “victim” in that context. If someone’s mental health has been completely ruined because of their service, or they have had an injury or disease that has ruined their lives, what is gained by stopping them from taking a case to get compensation? In some cases it is not about compensation, but about making sure that the individual has some type of justice at the end of the day. The Bill will deny them that, and that cannot be right. With those brief remarks, I will conclude.

[Johnny Mercer]

I have listened at length and for many hours to a lot of the points that have been made, and I fear we are beginning to reach a point where we are repeating ourselves to a large degree.

[Mr Jones]

There is more to come this afternoon.

[Johnny Mercer]

Fantastic, fantastic. With any such legislation, I understand that there will be people with fears or concerns, and there will be an element of risk. I cannot honestly stand here and say that the Bill disadvantages troops or service personnel. I accept that there is a difference of opinion here, but I would not even think about introducing legislation that disadvantaged them.

Looked at in the round—and as I have said many times—this is a good, fair and proportionate Bill. I will defend it. I have already outlined that Government are creating new factors to ensure that the courts are directed to consider the uniquely challenging context of overseas military operations when deciding whether to extend the primary limitation periods for personal injury and death payments, and Human Rights Act claims. Amendments 88 to 91 are therefore unnecessary. They introduce a further factor to which the UK courts must have particular regard when determining whether to allow claims beyond the primary limitation periods of one year for Human Rights Act claims and three years for personal injury and death claims. Their stated intention is to ensure that the claimant’s interest in having their civil claim proceed is not subordinated to the additional factors being introduced by this Bill, but the courts already take into account the interests of the claimant in having their claim proceed when determining whether it is equitable to allow a case to proceed beyond the primary time limit.

For personal injury and death claims in England and Wales, section 33(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1980 states that the courts should have regard to any prejudice that might be caused to the claimant if the case is not allowed to proceed beyond three years. Prejudice would include the impact on the claimant’s ability to secure their rights through legal proceedings. For personal injury and death claims in Northern Ireland, article 50(1)(a) of the Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 has the same provisions. For personal injury and death claims in Scotland, section 19A(1) of the Prescription and Limitation Act Scotland 1973 sets out the equitable tests in more general terms, but that still includes considering the interests of the claimant in securing their rights through legal proceedings.

For Human Rights Act claims, section 7(5)(b) sets out that the court may allow claims to be brought beyond the primary 12-month period if it considers it equitable to do so, having regard to all the circumstances, which would include considering the interests of the claimant in vindicating their human rights through legal proceedings. The factors introduced in clause 11 do not replace the tests set out in section 7(5)(b) of the Human Rights Act; they just outline considerations that reflect the unique context of overseas military operations.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

As the Minister is arguing that there is sufficient protection within the law, can he explain the difference in the views taken by very many of the witnesses we saw in the first two days of this Bill Committee, the Centre for Military Justice, and Rights and Security International, whose primary focus is to ensure that our veterans and armed forces are properly represented? There seems to be a mismatch between what so many other people have said and what the Minister is saying.

[Johnny Mercer]

I accept that there was an imbalance of the views in the evidence that the Committee heard. Those groups, while I accept that they have a degree of concern for the welfare of service personnel and veterans, are not the sole arbiters or owners of that position. We are all here trying to help those who serve and veterans. In the end, we have to make a balanced judgment about what is in their best interests, and that is what this Bill is about.

This is not a sort of anti-human rights thing; it is simply bringing into that debate an understanding of the reality of modern combat that has not been there for many years and has resulted, as we have seen, in the experiences of people such as Major Bob Campbell. Those two things cannot be argued. There is, of course, the human rights element, but there is an application of the ECHR to the battlefield that is not correct and has resulted in what we have seen.

[Liz Twist]

What these amendments seek to do, and what those witnesses were asking us and the Government to look at doing, is improve the Bill so that it better reflects the broader range of interests. I am surprised that the Minister does not want to reflect on that and build in some of those protections.

[Johnny Mercer]

That is because I have reflected on those things, and in my and the Government’s view, which is allowed to be different, they do not improve the Bill. If we were to take away the six-year limit, we would start diverging away from one of the clearest aims we have, which is to provide certainty for veterans. I understand there are different views, but I am afraid I do not agree, and neither do the Government.

For those reasons, amendment 88 to 91 are not necessary. We have already discussed the reasons why clauses 8 to 10, which introduce schedules 2, 3 and 4, should stand part of the Bill, so I do not intend to repeat them here. I recommend that the amendment be withdrawn and schedules 2, 3 and 4 stand part of the Bill.

[Stephen Morgan]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Duty to consider derogation from Convention

[Chris Evans]

I beg to move amendment 57, in clause 12, page 8, line 20, at end insert—

“(1A) No order may be made by the Secretary of State under section 14 following consideration under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by, each House of Parliament.”.

This amendment would require significant derogations regarding overseas operations proposed by the Government from the European Convention on Human Rights to be approved by Parliament before being made.

Good afternoon, Mr Mundell. It is a pleasure to once again serve under your chairmanship as we head into the final straight of this Bill Committee. I rise to speak in support of amendment 57. I have concerns about multiple aspects of the Bill. This amendment is crucial to improving the Bill and safeguarding our reputation at home and abroad, and it can easily be implemented.

The amendment is simple. It asks that the Government seek approval from both Houses of Parliament before the Secretary of State for Defence approves any derogations from the European convention on human rights. I spoke in the last sitting about parliamentary scrutiny of the role that the Bill gives to the Attorney General, and I must once again raise the absolute importance of scrutiny. I remind the Government that the UK is not a presidential system—given what we see from the United States at the moment, amen to that. The Government draw their power from this House. This House must be consulted on matters as serious as derogating from our key international obligations. The Government are in danger of destroying our reputation as a country that upholds and defends international law. They should at the very least let Parliament act as a check on the worst urges that may come out this legislation.

The Bill would use article 15 of the European convention on human rights, the derogation clause. A guide from the Council of Europe says of article 15:

“It affords to Contracting States, in exceptional circumstances, the possibility of derogating, in a limited and supervised manner, from their obligations to secure certain rights and freedoms under the Convention.”

The words that stick out to me are “exceptional” and “limited”. If these cases are exceptional, there should be no problem with the Defence Minister seeking parliamentary approval on the very rare occasions when they deem derogation necessary.

[Mr Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the Human Rights Act is often portrayed as being used by unscrupulous foreigners to attack us, it is very important for our servicemen and women if they are bringing claims against the MOD for injuries that they have suffered?

12:45

[Chris Evans]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Human rights are a political football that is being kicked around by everybody. If hon. Members want to see the importance of the Human Rights Act, they would do well to look at the debate that I introduced last week about the Uyghur Muslims in China, and at what they are going through. We have had human rights problems with China. On the issue that my right hon. Friend raises, of course human rights are vital when claims are brought against the Ministry of Defence, and that should be considered. We should not attack anybody’s right to defend their human rights in court, and we should not view human rights as something bad. They are fundamental rights that we all have as humans.

Parliament can then decide whether a derogation is limited. If we are going to derogate from international obligations, consent must come from Parliament. The Equality and Human Rights Commission said in written evidence:

“At the very least, we recommend support for amendment 57, which would require significant derogations regarding overseas operations proposed by the Government from the ECHR to be approved by Parliament before being made.”

As it points out, the amendment is the very least that we should be doing to ensure that the UK upholds its very proud record of human rights across the world. To set a legal norm for derogation from the European convention on human rights would seriously damage Britain’s international standing. It would send a signal that these international conventions and treaties are not taken seriously by our nation, and would have the knock-on effect of harming the integrity of our troops.

In its briefing on the Bill, Redress said:

“the Bill risks undermining the UK’s influence on human rights in the global context”.

Derogating from the international conventions on human rights will clearly diminish our integrity on these matters. The Government should be keen to mitigate that in any possible way. The Opposition believe that this amendment is a good start if the option to derogate must be written into the Bill at all.

Martha Spurrier, the director of Liberty, said in one of the evidence sessions:

“The concern, of course, is when you take a wider view and look at this Bill as a whole, which very much signals the desire to water down the human rights arrangements”.––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 6 October 2020; c. 76, Q149.]

Surely the Government want to do everything in their power to counter those views and assure the global community that this country still regards human rights as of the utmost importance.

I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who said on Second Reading:

“At a time when we are witnessing an erosion of human rights…it is more important than ever before that we uphold our values and standards and not undermine them.”—[Official Report, 23 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 1109.]

In a similar vein, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission warned:

“At a time when the UK Government’s adherence to international law”

and the relationship with Northern Ireland

“is under increased scrutiny, it is imperative that the UK is seen to show the highest regard for the international legal order.”

To write in a system of derogating from European conventions regarding human rights would severely undermine us. This clause, unamended, will determine our international reputation, and therefore the reputation of the brave men and women who serve in our forces.

Amnesty has said that, as it stands, the Bill

“will do irreparable damage to the reputation of the armed forces of this country, undermine basic principles of access to justice and send a bad message internationally.”

The former director of service prosecutions, Bruce Houlder, has called the Bill an “international embarrassment”. David Greene, the vice-president of the Law Society, has added to the voices warning of our loss of international standing, saying that while

“Our armed forces are rightly known across the world for their courage and discipline”,

the provisions allowing for a derogation from human rights conventions and breaking international law

“would undermine this well-deserved reputation”.

Multiple people and organisations say that the Bill will damage our international standing. After all, how can we call on other countries to respect international treaties on human rights, or to honour international obligations, when we are setting a precedent in our legislation for derogating from them? How are service people supposed to carry out missions overseas with the integrity that the British forces have if they know that they might not always be held to international standards by their own Government?

If the Government insist on writing derogations from the European convention on human rights into the Bill, the legislation must be scrutinised at the highest level. It is that important. The Government cannot simply ignore international conventions without getting approval for doing so from both Houses, and ensuring that derogations are considered case by case and are deemed exceptional actions. That would signal to other countries that we still valued international conventions on human rights.

[Mr Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem with the European convention on human rights is that people are confused about how it relates to the European Union? Clearly, there is a dog-whistle approach to anything with the word “Europe” in it. The convention has nothing at all to do with the European Union. It is actually something of which we should be proud. Winston Churchill and others pioneered it at the end of the second world war.

[Chris Evans]

Yes, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He gets to the nub of the issues that we are facing nationally. In the press, and even in some quarters of the House, it seems that putting the word “European” on anything makes it something to do with the European Union, and then we open up a can of worms about Brexit. As he says, the European convention on human rights has a proud history, involving such luminaries as Sir Winston Churchill, who was responsible for setting it up.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we have to be careful about confusion. When the word “Europe” or “European” is slapped on something, people think it is all about Brussels and its rules on bendy bananas, or whatever else people want to throw at us. This is a really important point. Whatever side of the argument people are on—whether they supported Brexit or wanted to remain in the EU—they should realise that the European convention on human rights has nothing to do with the EU. This is fundamentally about human rights.

[Mr Jones]

Does my hon. Friend congratulate the Members of this House who sit on the Council of Europe? Its role is to ensure that the European convention on human rights is a beacon of freedom and rights throughout the world, but in parts of Europe today—Ukraine being one, and Russia another—the human rights that we take for granted are not practised.

[Chris Evans]

I echo my right hon. Friend’s comments about the work of the Council for Europe; I know how important it is. If we want to talk about human rights more widely, look at what happened in Nigeria yesterday, and what has happened in Azerbaijan, Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. We are the guardians of the rule of law. This whole country is formed on the rule of law, but we have always had an international and Atlanticist outlook whereby we defend human rights to the hilt. There is a fundamental belief, which I think is shared across the House, that if one person loses their human rights, we all do. That is something we should be guided by.

No member state of the Council of Europe has previously derogated from the European convention on human rights in the manner proposed in the Bill. That is how unusual its provisions are. What we are asked to agree to today would make us an anomaly right across the continent of Europe and beyond. It is therefore clear that intense scrutiny of derogations would be highly sensible.

[Mr Jones]

I agree. On combat in overseas operations, the Supreme Court was very clear in the Smith case that combat immunity was not in any way prevented by the Human Rights Act 1998. In that case, the MOD was trying to extend the Human Rights Act to cover planning decisions that were taken in Whitehall about Snatch Land Rovers.

[Chris Evans]

It comes back to the point that my right hon. Friend has so eloquently made over the last few sittings. I tell the Minister this: I have enjoyed my right hon. Friend’s contributions, though they may have been difficult.

[Johnny Mercer]

So have I, absolutely.

[Chris Evans]

Sometimes I am not sure.

I was not au fait with the case of the Snatch Land Rovers before I came here. The point my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham has been making is that one day, in the near future—a nearer future for some than for others—we will not be here, and others will come in, but the legislation will stay. We have to get it right. He knows as well as anyone else, given his experience, that the Ministry of Defence will hide behind its lawyers. In this case, they would have used the Human Rights Act. That is why it is important that we have scrutiny at the highest level. It is important that the provisions are not left open for lawyers to use at will. I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend.

To me, it is clear that intense scrutiny is highly sensible. It ought to be required when the UK decides to derogate from conventions; otherwise, we will be setting a dangerous precedent. This country has a unique role in global history. We have set the standard for so many countries to follow.

[Mr Jones]

The provisions may also pose a practical problem for deployment with other forces. Everyone agrees that in the future, many of our deployments will be with other nations, and if we have a derogation, and our situation is different from theirs, that could create problems in building alliances, or UK armed forces deploying with our allies.

[Chris Evans]

I absolutely agree. We do not know who will lead our combined forces in the future. If we have a piece of legislation that allows us to derogate from the European convention on human rights, that puts us at a disadvantage. This year we celebrated the anniversary of VE and VJ Day. Of course, during the famous D-day landings, we were led by an American, General Eisenhower. We might be putting our forces at risk if we are allowed to derogate from the European convention on human rights.

Given the UK’s standing and influence, there is a risk that if this provision remains in the Bill as it is, and is acted on without parliamentary scrutiny or consent, it would set a dangerous precedent to other countries in future conflicts. Having carte blanche to derogate from international conventions is not a precedent that the UK should set. As I said, other countries look to us for the standards that we have set in the past. We should be setting the highest standards in the future.

Other organisations have also raised their concerns about the Bill and giving the Government the ability to ignore international law. Justice stated:

“the Bill would damage the standing of the armed forces by acting contrary to established legal norms—both domestic and international…The Bill risks both contravening the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights…and other international legal instruments, many of which the UK helped to create.”

Our country has a proud history of upholding international conventions on human rights across the globe, but the Bill threatens to undo our international standing as the rightful champion of human rights. Amendment 57 will make it clear that our country still sees international obligations and human rights conventions as vital. It states that the Government will not derogate from human rights conventions without real and significant cause. It shows a commitment to transparency and parliamentary scrutiny.

13:00

[Mr Jones]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[The Chair]

The hon. Member for Islwyn has concluded his remarks.

[Chris Evans]

No, I have not; I have three hours of this. I give way.

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend is just getting into his flow. Does he agree that the problem with the Bill is that it does not define the circumstances in which a derogation will take place? We have a Conservative Government today, but if there is no definition of the reasons for allowing a derogation, a future Government could use the provision to do anything.

[Chris Evans]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. We have to be careful; we are in the here and now, but we have to attempt to future-proof the legislation we pass. That is true of anybody. It will be difficult, but if, God forbid, there was an extreme Government in future, they could do whatever they liked, using this anomaly in the Bill, and would be acting within the confines of the law. That is why it is extremely important to remember that the legislation will remain long after each and every one of us has gone.

[Mr Jones]

That is not in the realms of fantasy. In Europe, we need only look at the way Hungary is going under the leadership of Mr Orbán, who seems to disregard a lot of what we would take to be human rights legislation. This argument is not based on a figment of the imagination, or fantasy.

[Chris Evans]

This is on our doorstep. Look at the annexation in Ukraine. Hungary is running over human rights like a tank. If we leave these anomalies in the legislation and do not tighten it up, people can do whatever they like in future. It is extremely important that we have certainty; that is the most important element of law. Judicial precedent and statutory interpretation are important, too, but we need certainty, and that is unfortunately not in the Bill. It would be lovely if the Government supported the amendment—it would be the first Opposition amendment that they agree to in the Committee—because it would ensure certainty.

If we cannot give certainty, because we do not know when we will use the provision, we can at least ensure parliamentary scrutiny of derogations. As Justice and other human rights groups have publicly stated, the Bill signals that the Government are willing to break international conventions. It signals a worrying disregard of the European convention on human rights and the Geneva convention. That cannot be allowed to pass unchecked. That is extremely important. Particularly as we leave the European Union, we should be aiming to highlight our commitment to international conventions such as those on human rights. Any derogation from the European convention on human rights must be checked by Parliament, decided on democratically, and subject to the highest level of scrutiny, as any derogation should be.

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend refers to the Geneva convention; there are very good reasons for such conventions. They are not just the right thing to follow, in terms of human rights; they afford protections to our servicemen and women. In the past, we have rightly criticised—and, going back to the Nuremberg trials, taken cases against—individuals who ignored the Geneva convention.

[Chris Evans]

Absolutely. Our troops must be defended, and they must have the right protection in law.

I point out, Mr Derogation—please forgive me, Mr Mundell; that was my first mistake in a number of sittings. I point out, Mr Mundell, that derogation from treaties is extremely rare. To derogate frequently from a treaty would be to undermine it. [Interruption.] I see that I am shaping up to be the most unpopular Member present, because I keep speaking and eating into lunchtime, so I will come back later this afternoon.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Leo Docherty.)

13:07

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill (Tenth sitting)

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 10th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 22nd October 2020 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: David Mundell, †Graham Stringer

Anderson, Stuart (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)

† Atherton, Sarah (Wrexham) (Con)

† Brereton, Jack (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)

† Dines, Miss Sarah (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)

† Docherty, Leo (Aldershot) (Con)

Docherty-Hughes, Martin (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)

† Eastwood, Mark (Dewsbury) (Con)

† Evans, Chris (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)

Gibson, Peter (Darlington) (Con)

† Jones, Mr Kevan (North Durham) (Lab)

† Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma (South Shields) (Lab)

† Lopresti, Jack (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)

† Mercer, Johnny (Minister for Defence People and Veterans)

Monaghan, Carol (Glasgow North West) (SNP)

† Morgan, Stephen (Portsmouth South) (Lab)

† Morrissey, Joy (Beaconsfield) (Con)

† Twist, Liz (Blaydon) (Lab)

Steven Mark, Sarah Thatcher, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Thursday 22 October 2020

[Graham Stringer in the Chair]

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Clause 12

Duty to consider derogation from Convention

Amendment proposed (this day): 57, in clause 12, page 8, line 20, at end insert—

“(1A) No order may be made by the Secretary of State under section 14 following consideration under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by, each House of Parliament.”—(Chris Evans.)

This amendment would require significant derogations regarding overseas operations proposed by the Government from the European Convention on Human Rights to be approved by Parliament before being made.

14:00

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Welcome back to the Chair, Mr Stringer.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn spoke this morning about the duty to consider derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights. Clause 12 states:

“After section 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998 insert—

‘14A Duty to consider derogation regarding overseas operations”.

It then details ‘overseas operations’. I have a problem with that for many of the same reasons outlined by my hon. Friend. What do we derogate from, and for what reasons? The Human Rights Act 1998 gets a bad name in the sense that people start foaming at the mouth and think that it has something to do with Brussels and Brexit, but it is nothing of the sort. That is important to remember in view of the rights that it gives us and the signatories to it. The Act covers all 47 states that have signed the European Convention on Human Rights. As my hon. Friend said, this country has a proud history of acting as a champion of human rights under the convention, and was instrumental in the convention’s creation in 1950. It was championed by Winston Churchill, mainly as a result of the issues arising from the second world war. It is also important to note that the people who wrote it were members of the United Kingdom Government, and lawyers as well. That convention contains a fundamental part of British DNA—in fact it goes back to Magna Carta and the 1679 Habeas Corpus Act. We build up laws in this country over time, but the horrors of the second world war prompted us to enshrine basic rights for everyone. As I have said before, the Human Rights Act has been portrayed—as it has in terms of the Bill—as the means for nasty foreigners to be able to sue the Ministry of Defence. But the opposite is true: it is fundamental for members of our armed forces. I have already mentioned how it was used in the Smith case in connection with Snatch Land Rovers.

The Bill, as drafted, asks for derogations from the human rights convention. Such derogations are allowable, but subject to limitations, and an applicant must be clear about what they want. When people start chomping at the bit and foaming at mouth when we talk about the Human Rights Act and the human rights convention, I always say, “Just look at it and see what it does. Can you really disagree with it?” Unfortunately, some people do disagree with it, but article 2, which is the most quoted, relates to the right to life.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

Would my right hon. Friend accept—

[The Chair]

Order. Please address your remarks to the Chair.

[Chris Evans]

In the past, the European Court of Human Rights has been judged as the most effective international human rights court in the world.

[Mr Jones]

It is, because it sets a standard that I do not think many British people could disagree with. Article 2 enshrines the right to life; I do not think that most people would disagree with that. Article 3 relates to freedom from torture, again I am not sure that anyone would disagree with that. People may say that that is self-evidently accepted these days, but not that long ago in Iraq, one of our closest allies, the United States, did commit acts of torture. I did not see any evidence that UK servicemen and women were involved in that when I was part of the rendition report produced by the Intelligence and Security Committee, but there were occasions when UK servicemen and women, and our intelligence agents, were present. Perhaps we all take it for granted that we should be against torture, but there were such cases in Iraq in living memory.

Article 4 relates to freedom from slavery. Again, a few years ago we may have thought about slavery in terms of historical cases and the transportation of slaves from Africa to America and the West Indies. But today, in all our constituencies, slavery is, sadly, alive and kicking, even in my constituency of North Durham, where we had a case of modern slavery about 12 months ago. It exists in modern society.

Article 7 relates to the right to a fair trial, and that comes to the heart of the Bill.

[The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)]

The right hon. Gentleman has talked about articles 2, 3 and 4, and is about to discuss article 7. Is he aware that we cannot derogate from those articles, and nor would we seek to?

[Mr Jones]

If the Minister is patient, I am coming on to that.

[Johnny Mercer]

Sorry—I get excited.

[Mr Jones]

I know. If he is patient, I have a full description of what we cannot derogate from. If he sits back and just enjoys it, he might learn something as well.

We have already discussed how the Bill is removing veterans and armed forces personnel from section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980, and I believe that that does not allow people access to a fair trial. But we would all agree that the right to a fair trial is a basic right. Article 8— Minister, do not worry, I am not going to read out the entire list of articles in the Human Rights Act, but I want to concentrate on those that may come within of the Bill’s remit and may be subject to derogation—relates to respect for family and private life. No one should disagree with article 9—freedom of thought, belief and religion. A normal society should have no problems with such a freedom.

The Minister intervened to point out that any derogations are subject to limitation. That leads on to the important question about why such a derogation is included in clause 12. It has always been accepted that the rights given to us under the Human Rights Act should be considered in law according to their hierarchy in the convention. In terms of the Bill and warfare, people have focused on the idea that somehow that Act and the convention on human rights stop a country like ours, or members of the armed forces, using lethal force.

To come to the issue that the Minister just raised, I should say that, yes, there are some absolutes that cannot be derogated from. For example, article 15(2) of the convention states:

“No derogation from Article 2, except in respect of deaths resulting from lawful acts of war, or from Articles 3, 4 (paragraph 1) and 7 shall be made under this provision.”

That was upheld by the Supreme Court in the Smith case. It held steady—Hilary Meredith mentioned this point—in saying that lawful conduct cannot be questioned in terms of the use of the other ones, which the Minister referred to; this comes on to the rights that are absolute and cannot be impaired in any way. There is article 2, about the protection of the right to life, apart from the qualification that I have just given. Article 3 is about the prohibition of torture—something that the Bill could not derogate from.

I should say to the Minister that I disagree with some of my colleagues who said on Second Reading that the Bill gave carte blanche for torture. I simply said that, no, it does not, as would be clear if they read the Bill. Alas, these days many people hold forth in the Chamber without ever having read the relevant Bill—a bit of a disadvantage, I always think, if someone wants to make a useful contribution.

Article 4 is about the prohibition of slavery and forced labour. We cannot derogate from those issues. Article 7 is about punishment without law. One right that some might think we should be able to derogate from is in article 12—the right to marriage. We could not derogate from any of those rights. My issues with the Bill are not about the headlines that some have grabbed in saying that it gives carte blanche for torture. It does not, because of the limitations on derogations.

I then ask myself why the derogation that we are discussing is needed. All my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn was trying to do—and I asked about this earlier—is establish what we can define about what derogations are actually needed, and why. Is this a way of trying to protect the MOD from civilian claims, as I was saying earlier?

[Chris Evans]

Article 15 of the European convention on human rights allows derogation in times of war. The last time this country asked for a derogation was in the wake of 9/11 and the rise of al-Qaeda; there was another time in the ’70s during the troubles in Northern Ireland. Does my right hon. Friend agree that derogation is so important? Even when it was granted in the wake of 9/11, this country had still had to argue the reasons for derogation.

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend obviously must be reading my mind; I was about to come to the Northern Ireland case, which is important in respect of the limitations of derogation and the controls around it. The other thing about when a state wants to derogate from the European convention on human rights is that it first has to inform the secretary-general of the Council of Europe, who should be given an explanation about why. Can the Minister tell us in what circumstances he sees this Bill being used, in terms of the derogation from human rights, particularly when it does not limit lawful combat actions in a conflict situation? The Bill also needs to give the reasons and measures, and how they will operate, and set out why it will not be withholding those rights. It comes back into the tier, as I said, where there are some that cannot be touched and others that can.

14:16

My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn raised the example of a case where derogation was requested by the UK for the detention of terrorists, in relation to affairs in Northern Ireland. In that case, the UK Parliament passed legislation that enabled those accused of terrorism to be held for a period of up to five days when they were suspected of being involved with terrorism, although they were not charged with terrorism or anything connected to that. A temporary order was passed under section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984.

[Chris Evans]

I think my right hon. Friend is referring to the case of Lawless v. Ireland, where the European Court of Human Rights said that for it to be a state of emergency the entire population needs to be under threat for it to be possible to derogate from the convention on human rights. That underlines how significant it is to even ask for a derogation from the European Court of Human Rights.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

My hon. Friend is right on the second point, but that was not the first case I referred to. In the first case, legislation that the UK had put forward was challenged as a breach of the convention’s obligations. It is Brogan and others v. the United Kingdom. In that case, the judge ruled that the UK would only be able to apply for a derogation if it declared a state of emergency, pursuant to article 15.1 in the derogation clause of the convention. Under the Human Rights Act, there are good reasons why we are able to derogate, but, justifiably, they have to be damn good reasons. Those derogations were found to be unlawful, which allowed the respondents to claim compensation for unlawful imprisonment.

That demonstrates that these provisions are there for good reasons, but we should not use them loosely. I have not yet heard anything about why they are included in this Bill. Clearly, all the issues around warfare and people using lethal force on the battlefield are covered by the convention. That has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

[Chris Evans]

When a Government ask for derogation under article 15, the key words are “exceptional circumstances.” If, and only if, it is granted it is then limited and the Government have to justify that. That is the crux of the problem with the Bill and why we have introduced the amendment. The Bill seems to be going against the spirit of that article. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

[Mr Jones]

I do. I do not know why it is in the Bill, without an explanation about why one would want to use it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn said, there are perfectly good reasons why there are derogations in the Human Rights Act, for example in times of emergency. But for this area? I just do not see it, because as I say, lawful combat is covered. Torture and other things are proscribed anyway, so nobody can get derogations for those. For what other purpose would it be in the Bill? That is what I find very difficult to understand, and that is why I have a problem with some of this Bill.

The situation we are in is possibly due to the fact that the Human Rights Act 1998 has been portrayed by a lot of people as this horrible piece of socialist, human rights-hugging legislation brought in by a nasty Labour Government. It was not: all it did was incorporate the European convention on human rights into UK law. Previously, if claimants wanted to raise a case under the ECHR, they had to take that case to Strasbourg. Because of the Human Rights Act, those cases were able to be looked at in UK courts and decided by UK judges, which I think was a lot better than the previous scenario. It made it easier, but that is possibly why the focus and attention has been on human rights cases, or the uses of them.

The other thing about human rights cases, which gets into the mythology around those cases, is that the Human Rights Act is often quoted by lawyers and given as a reason why a case should go forward. It is often just struck out, because those lawyers are sometimes just flying a kite and seeing if they get anywhere, but it is quite a robust piece of legislation. It also gives us a lot of protections: it protects individual citizens, but more importantly, it protects individual servicemen and servicewomen when they are bringing cases against the MOD. That is the problem we have had with some of the optics around this, rather than what the facts themselves are. I have had these discussions with constituents, and when I tell them that the Human Rights Act has nothing to do with the EU and that it was actually Winston Churchill’s invention, they look at me agog.

The point is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn said this morning, these are the standards that we apply when we are arguing the moral case, both in foreign policy and in anything else. These are the things we want people to follow, and if we are just loosely throwing derogations into this Bill, we are going to be quite rightly accused of not holding ourselves to the same high standards, or somehow trying to wriggle out of our basic commitments under the Human Rights Act, which is very difficult for me. As I say, I do not understand why this is in the Bill.

The other issue, which I have raised before and was also raised by Hilary Meredith, is the time limits under the Human Rights Act. There is a one-year limit on Human Rights Act cases, but what we are saying is that there should be a longstop, because they are covered by the Limitation Act 1980. We are arguing for a separation of that, in terms of the six-year longstop, and I think Hilary Meredith said in her evidence to us that it would be interesting to know how that fits with the EHCR and its incorporations. I am quite happy for the Minister to write to me on this topic, but he did say that the Bill complies with the Human Rights Act, and I would like to see the explanation from the lawyers about the implementation of the time limits, because I am not sure whether that is something we would have to run by the secretary-general of the Council of Europe. What we are saying, in effect, is that we are limiting someone’s access to human rights. That is the use of human rights legislation, so I think that is the important point.

The other issue is, as the Minister said, the growth in the areas for these cases. I admit that, in some of the Phil Shiner cases, the Human Rights Act was just flying a kite, basically. Those cases should have been knocked down very quickly, and it should have been said that they were nothing to do with the Human Rights Act.

The Defence Committee did a very good report—I think the Minister was on the Committee at the time—called “Who guards the guardians? MoD support for former and serving personnel”. It is worth reading—I have read it, and it is a good report. The main issue in it is investigations, which we have been talking about throughout this Committee. It is very critical of the £60 million spent on IHAT, for example. There was no mention of it being anything to do with the Human Rights Act. It outlines in detail the chaos when IHAT was set up in 2010 by—I reiterate yet again—the coalition Government.

I would like to know what the justification is for having this measure in the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn said this morning, it potentially has huge implications for us.

[Johnny Mercer]

Clause 11 introduces new factors that the court must consider when deciding whether to allow human rights claims relating to overseas military operations to be brought in the normal time—[Hon. Members: “We are on clause 12!] I am sorry; I got carried away. Hon. Members are right—it is clause 12.

The measures in this Bill about derogation are not intended to change the existing and very robust processes that the Government and Parliament follow if and when a decision to derogate has been made. The requirement to consider derogation merely ensures that all future Governments are compelled to consider derogating from the ECHR for the purpose of the specific military operation. It is worth saying that the only change that we are bringing about in this Bill is the requirement to consider, rather than leaving it as an option. It is not actually a derogation; it is a requirement to consider a derogation and prove that it has been considered, not a derogation itself. That will ensure that operational effectiveness can be maintained by, for example, enabling detention where appropriate for imperative reasons of security. It is worth noting that the vast majority of the challenge that we face around lawfare has come from issues relating to detention.

Appropriate parliamentary oversight over derogation is already built into the Human Rights Act 1998. For the benefit of the Committee, I will spell out the existing obligations on the Government once they have made the decisions to derogate from any aspect of the European convention on human rights. The Human Rights Act requires that the Secretary of State must make an order designating any derogation by the UK from an article of the ECHR or a protocol thereof. The Secretary of State must also make an order amending schedule 3 of the Human Rights Act to reflect the designation order or any amendment to, replacement of or withdrawal of the designation order. A designation order ceases to have effect if a resolution approving the order is not passed by each House of Parliament 40 days after it is made, or five years from the date of the designation order, unless extended by order under section 16(2) of the Human Rights Act, or if it is withdrawn, or if it is amended or replaced.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Mr Stringer. I wonder whether the Minister can help me out, because I am a little confused. The Government’s own memorandum states:

“Clause 12 does not require derogation nor does it make a decision to derogate more or less likely; derogation is still entirely dependent on the particular circumstances under consideration at the time.”

It is unclear what the practical point of the clause is and what difference it will make. In other words, what is the point of it?

[Johnny Mercer]

The practical difference is that instead of it being optional to consider derogation from the ECHR, it becomes mandatory for Governments to demonstrate why they have derogated from the ECHR. It is much like in the prosecution setting, where we talk about factors to consider. Previously, people have said, “Well, they consider those anyway.” All we are doing is making it mandatory to prove that they have been considered, in order to demonstrate that the correct process has been gone through.

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields is right. This will have no effect whatsoever. I suspect it has just been put in the Bill for a bit of window-dressing—to suggest that the Government are feeding red meat to those who want to be against the entire Human Rights Act. The Minister is feeding the bogeyman around the Human Rights Act.

14:30

[Johnny Mercer]

Of course it is not.

In addition to the requirements laid out in the Human Rights Act 1998, the Government must communicate a decision to derogate to the secretary-general of the Council of Europe, including details of measures taken and the reasons for taking those measures, and inform the secretary-general when derogations have ceased. Those existing measures provide for an appropriate level of parliamentary debate of a decision to derogate. Requiring a parliamentary debate on decisions to derogate ahead of time could undermine operational effectiveness.

[Mr Jones]

Why?

[Johnny Mercer]

The Government may have to make decisions quickly, meaning there simply will not be time for a debate.

[Mr Jones]

Why?

[The Chair]

Order.

[Johnny Mercer]

Requiring a debate before an order is made may also result in discussion of operations that rely on an element of surprise. That would defeat the purpose of derogation in relation to overseas military operations, which should enhance operational effectiveness. I therefore strongly recommend that the amendment is withdrawn.

[Mr Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Johnny Mercer]

Next time.

[Chris Evans]

I am not going to go on forever and I will withdraw the amendment.

[Mr Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. It is interesting that the Minister has read his speech into the record like he used to, and his Whip told him to sit down. Can my hon. Friend think of an example that was so urgent for operational reasons that it would have to be rushed through on this basis? The Minister clearly did not want to give one.

[Johnny Mercer]

I can—

[Chris Evans]

Does the Minister want to intervene?

[Johnny Mercer]

I am happy to—for example, when the French conduct an operation in Mali and, without going too far, conduct counter-terrorism operations such as hostage rescue, whatever that may be, which will require them to detain in the country where there is not an agreement already, they will be required to derogate from ECHR compliance in order to make those detentions and those arrests.

[Chris Evans]

Does anyone else want to intervene now? I feel like a post box at the moment. With the amount of whys coming over my left shoulder, it was just like my four-year-old son asking me why all the time—I do not mean to offend my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham.

I hope this matter is revisited on Report. I believe the derogation is very important and, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, article 15 is so important. It is usually in states of emergency that derogation is asked for. That means it needs to be scrutinised in both Houses. I will withdraw the amendment at this stage, but I hope that we will revisit the issue on Report, when the Bill comes back to the Floor of the House. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Power to make consequential provision

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Jones]

We are moving in the direction of a lot of things in this House being done by regulation. Here again:

“The Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor may by regulations make provision that is consequential on any provision made by this Act.”

We have just had a discussion about the Human Rights Act, and I am less than convinced. The other issue—because, again, this is a contentious area—is the statutory instruments that will be used, and how the provisions will be amended. Once the Bill is passed, it will, I think, lead to a lot of problems, so I would just like to understand a bit more about how the powers will be used.

[Johnny Mercer]

I have little to add to what I previously said. The point of these provisions is simply to formalise our position and make sure that where we should have derogated previously to prevent the abuses that we have seen, and we have not, we simply bring forward legislation to make it mandatory to consider that derogation and prove the workings thereof.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

Commencement and application

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Jones]

Again, I want clarification about clause 15, because there is hype around the Bill somehow righting all past wrongs, and giving rights. Northern Ireland, which we spoke about this morning, is not covered by the Bill, but there is also the question of cases that are currently going on, or those that have been. I just want the Minister to give a response to the fact that the Bill will not apply to past cases relating to Iraq and Afghanistan, and there will not be any fast resolution. I want to get clear parameters from the Minister for which cases will fall within the Bill’s scope, because I think—there has been press comment on this—things have been a bit confused, perhaps intentionally and perhaps unintentionally.

[Johnny Mercer]

I am more than happy to answer that. If the Bill receives Royal Assent, it will apply immediately. It will not apply to any cases where an external, independent decision from the prosecutor on whether to prosecute is awaited, but it will apply from Royal Assent, and there is therefore an element of retrospection to it in that if further things come from Afghanistan, Iraq or wherever it may be, the Bill will apply and provide that certainty. We have been clear all along on the Northern Ireland issue. I have been clear that we will not leave Northern Ireland veterans behind. It was an important concession to achieve—that veterans who served in Northern Ireland will receive equal treatment to those who are covered by the Bill.

[Mr Jones]

indicated dissent.

[Johnny Mercer]

The right hon. Gentleman can say no, but that is the reality of the position. The Northern Ireland Secretary has spoken before about how he intends to bring forward legislation before Christmas to do that, but it is an issue for the Northern Ireland Office, and I think the right hon. Gentleman knows that.

[Mr Jones]

I do, and having dealt with the Northern Ireland Secretary, I wish him luck, because he is going to come up against huge problems with that. Is the Minister saying that whatever happens in Northern Ireland will be a mirror image of the Bill?

[Johnny Mercer]

That is not what I am saying; I am saying that they will have equal treatment as those who are covered by the Bill.

I appreciate that such matters are hard. When I started all this, I was told that we would never introduce this legislation, but we are. The balance is shifting, and we have a duty to those who serve. The Bill, and the measures from the Northern Ireland Office, will see that through.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

We now come to new clause 2, which we debated as part of an earlier group of amendments. Mr Morgan, do you want a vote on the new clause?

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

indicated dissent.

New Clause 3

Access to legal advice for service personnel

“Within 12 months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall commission an independent evaluation of access to impartial and independent legal advice for members and former members of the regular and reserve forces and of British overseas territory forces to whom section 369(2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (persons subject to service law) applies, in relation to legal proceedings in connection with operations of the armed forces outside the British Islands, and lay a copy of the evaluation report before Parliament.”—(Stephen Morgan.)

This new clause would require the Government to commission and publish an independent evaluation of service personnel’s access to legal advice in relation to the legal proceedings covered by the provisions in the Bill.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Stephen Morgan]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 4—Access to legal aid for service personnel in criminal proceedings—

“Within 12 months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall commission an independent evaluation of access to legal aid for members and former members of the regular and reserve forces and of British overseas territory forces to whom section 369(2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (persons subject to service law) applies, in relation to criminal legal proceedings in connection with operations of the armed forces outside the British Islands, and lay a copy of the evaluation report before Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Government to commission and publish an independent evaluation of service personnel’s access to legal aid in relation to the criminal proceedings covered by the provisions in the Bill.

New clause 5—Access to legal aid for service personnel in civil proceedings—

“Within 12 months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall commission an independent evaluation of access to legal aid for members and former members of the regular and reserve forces and of British overseas territory forces to whom section 369(2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (persons subject to service law) applies, in relation to civil legal proceedings in connection with operations of the armed forces outside the British Islands, and lay a copy of the evaluation report before Parliament.”

This new clause would require the Government to commission and publish an independent evaluation of service personnel’s access to legal aid in relation to the civil proceedings covered by the provisions in the Bill.

New clause 9—Access to justice for service personnel—

“Within 12 months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall commission an independent evaluation comparing—

(a) access to justice for members and former members of the regular and reserve forces and of British overseas territory forces to whom section 369(2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (persons subject to service law) applies, in relation to legal proceedings in connection with operations of the armed forces outside the British Islands, with

(b) access to justice for asylum seekers and prisoners seeking to bring an action against the Crown.”

New clause 10—Duty of care to service personnel—

“(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a duty of care standard in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations, as defined in subsection (6) of section 1.

(2) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of this standard before Parliament within six months of the date on which this Act receives Royal Assent.

(3) The Secretary of State shall thereafter in each calendar year—

(a) prepare a duty of care report; and

(b) lay a copy of the report before Parliament.

(4) The duty of care report is a report about the continuous process of review and improvement to meet the duty of care standard established in subsection (1), in particular in relation to incidents arising from overseas operations of—

(a) litigation and investigations brought against service personnel for allegations of criminal misconduct and wrongdoing;

(b) civil litigation brought by service personnel against the Ministry of Defence for negligence and personal injury;

(c) judicial reviews and inquiries into allegations of misconduct by service personnel;

(d) in such other fields as the Secretary of State may determine.

(5) In preparing a duty of care report the Secretary of State must have regard to, and publish relevant data in relation to (in respect of overseas operations)—

(a) the adequacy of legal, welfare and mental health support services provided to service personnel who are accused of crimes;

(b) complaints made by service personnel and, or their legal representation when in the process of bringing or attempting to bring civil claims against the Ministry of Defence for negligence and personal injury;

(c) complaints made by service personnel and, or their legal representation when in the process of investigation or litigation for an accusation of misconduct;

(d) meeting national care standards and safeguarding to families of service personnel, where relevant.

(6) In section (1) “service personnel” means—

(a) members of the regular forces and the reserve forces;

(b) members of British overseas territory forces who are subject to service law;

(c) former members of any of Her Majesty’s forces who are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom; and

(d) where relevant, family members of any person meeting the definition within (a), (b) or (c).”

(7) In subsection (1) “Duty of Care” means both the legal and moral obligation of the Ministry of Defence to ensure the wellbeing of service personnel.

(8) None of the provisions contained within this clause shall be used to alter the principle of Combat Immunity.”

This new clause will require the Ministry of Defence to identify a new duty of care to create a new standard for policy, services and training in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigations arising from overseas operations, and to report annually on their application of this standard.

[Stephen Morgan]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.

A running theme throughout the Committee’s evidence sessions was the sad cases of those who could have claimed justice had they received the proper support and advice. We are a country of fairness, one that prides itself on having a legal justice system that is seen as a bastion of truth, founded on the right to a fair trial. It has become clearer and clearer, however, that there are cracks in the system, and that we are not affording people the right support and guidance in accessing the right to a due process and a fair hearing.

There is also the concern that we are not affording our personnel the proper pastoral care and mental health and wellbeing support that they need when required. That is not acceptable. It is imperative that we ensure that our commitment to the armed forces covenant is maintained, and that that promise is honoured. Our country owes a huge debt to our service personnel yet many are unaware of or unable to access support—at least a fair hearing, for instance, when their employer may be liable for negligence against them, or other such claims, or even get the pastoral, mental and wellbeing support that they require when most needed. That is all because of a lack of resources and proper guidance. That risks breaching the armed forces covenant, and also undermines the reputation of our legal system. In turn, it also undermines our country’s wider international reputation, and I know that the entire membership of the Committee does not want that to happen.

Although Labour accepts that it would be counterintuitive and unproductive for the MOD actively to invite litigation and investigation into itself, the MOD has its own reputation to uphold. It is not just a matter of its standing in terms of representing our country throughout the world, whether on operations with our security partners or on humanitarian missions to provide support where it is needed most, but in terms of its own reputation. That cannot be compromised, and our partners need confidence in our MOD, whether that is in relation to an operational security matter, or a legal one. That confidence is necessary because of what it says about how effectively the Ministry is run. If that is called into question, that undermines confidence in two critical areas. First, it undermines our security partners’ confidence in the MOD to run an effective operation. Secondly, it undermines confidence in our MOD and, more broadly, the wider Government to operate our country’s security competently and effectively.

The Bill presents the opportunity to fix the problems that could cause such loss of confidence. We have an opportunity to get this right. I repeat what Labour has said throughout the process: we want to work with the Government to make the Bill better. Where we think we can see it improved, we will work constructively with the Minister, so that the Government get the Bill right. However, these amendments are just an example of how the Bill can be improved and, Mr Stringer, please do not just take my word for that; this issue was specifically raised in earlier evidence sessions by none other than Major Bob Campbell.

14:45

I know that the entire Committee is aware of the difficult experience that Major Campbell has been through and that all Members will join me in offering our sympathies to him and his family, and our gratitude for his service. However, Major Campbell raised the importance of having access to legal aid and advice, as well as the importance of having wider pastoral support, both for dealing with things when they happen and to ensure that cases like Major Campbell’s never happen again.

When Major Campbell spoke in the evidence session, I directly asked him whether the MOD had offered him any support when he was facing the eight criminal investigations that he was subjected to, and he said:

“No, there was none…in the early investigations under the Royal Military Police we were told just not to think about it and to get on with stuff. No concession was given to us in our day-to-day duties. Later on, when the Aitken report was written in 2008, we were not approached prior to the publishing of the report; I heard about it on the radio like everybody else, while I was driving home. It is rather unpleasant to discover on the radio that your own Army accuses you of killing somebody in Iraq, three years after you have already been cleared of that allegation.”

Sadly, the situation got worse. In relation to the civil claim made by Leigh Day in 2010, Major Campbell went on to say

“we were ordered to give another statement and we were ordered not to seek our own legal advice by the Treasury Solicitors. We ignored that instruction: we got our own legal advice, and we declined to assist the Ministry of Defence in defending the civil claim, because frankly we thought they had rather a cheek after previously accusing us of committing that offence.”—[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 6 October 2020; c. 24, Q50.]

That is simply unacceptable.

Let me address the points arising from this evidence in turn. First, on criminal proceedings, to offer no support to our troops during a period like the one that Major Campbell went through is not only quite simply damning banning but is behaviour completely devoid of the high standards that we know our armed services hold themselves to. It is quite something for the Government to claim, on the one hand, that they are actively looking to support and protect our troops, and then, on the other hand, to leave them completely shut out, offering no support or guidance, not even allowing staff time to deal with criminal proceedings. That is beyond hypocritical. Is this truly the way the Government want to treat our service personnel, whom they claim to hold in such regard? Is this really the treatment that the Government deem acceptable?

It is cases such as that of Major Campbell that highlight the need for a guarantee of pastoral support for personnel in circumstances such as his. However, it is also why we believe it is critical to establish a duty of care standard in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations, as well as a requirement for the Secretary of State in each calendar year to, first, prepare a duty of care report and, secondly, lay a copy of the report before Parliament, to ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny of this provision and that the armed forces covenant is honoured.

Moving on to Major Campbell’s remarks on civil cases, it is one thing not to provide the support and guidance for employees when they face investigations, but to actively be discouraged from seeking justice by the Government in this brazen manner is a line that should never be crossed, particularly in this circumstance. Does the Minister believe that behaviour is acceptable? Is this the treatment that he would accept if he were in the same position, and, if so, why?

We also heard more evidence of this issue and that a serious level of change is needed to improve legal support for our troops in both civil and criminal proceedings. In an evidence session, we heard from a representative of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, a not-for-profit organisation that campaigns for victims of injuries and negligence. During that session, when we asked whether the Government could do more to help troops to be more aware of their route to compensation, the APIL representative said

“absolutely I think they could. In fact, at the moment I do not think that they do anything to inform service personnel of their rights to bring a civil claim…I think that the Ministry of Defence has an obligation under the armed forces covenant to be fair to service personnel. They do provide them with information about the AFCS”—

the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme—

“but, as I said, there is a much longer period of time to claim under that scheme.”

He went on to argue:

“I think that we also need to bear it in mind that service personnel are quite unique legal creatures in a way.”—[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 6 October 2020; c. 52, Q97.]

The witness then gave an example, explaining that personnel are not allowed, unlike civilians, to join a trade union; that service personnel would not be given advice to look for a solicitor, where appropriate. He said that the MOD needed to address this and be fairer with service personnel about the information available to them.

Two important points arise. The first is the risk of breaching the armed forces covenant. This comes back to the point about armed forces personnel being treated fairly. If the Government do not treat our troops with the respect and fairness that they deserve, they could risk breaching the covenant. I know that all the members of the Committee would not countenance that, but can the Minister really support such a state of affairs that breaches the covenant? Labour accepts that it would be both counterintuitive and unproductive for the Ministry of Defence to invite investigations and litigations against itself, but surely a balance needs to be struck to ensure that the covenant is not breached and to get the Bill right.

In oral evidence to the Committee, Hilary Meredith of Hilary Meredith Solicitors discussed whether there was any support in this area. She said:

“If you are a veteran, there is nothing—there is no chain of command. A number of times, the MOD said to me that veterans can go and see the chain of command, and I say that they are retired and are veterans, so there is no chain of command, or their commanding officer has retired. Who do they contact? If you are in service and have a good commanding officer, you can go and seek help through them. I know that the Army legal services tried to help in some instances, but I think there is a conflict of interest with the Army legal services protecting the Ministry of Defence and trying also to protect individuals.”—[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 6 October 2020; c. 22, Q44.]

This shows a serious gap in pastoral care and support as well as additional legal support for current and former personnel, and it must be filled. Can the Minister really support a Bill that breaches the armed forces covenant with regard to the unfair treatment of our troops in terms of legal support? Does the Minister believe this behaviour to be acceptable—for troops to be actively discouraged by the Government from seeking justice in the brazen manner outlined by Major Campbell? Is this treatment that he would accept if he was in the same position? If so, why?

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I rise to speak to new clause 9, which is in my name. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South made an important point. We ask our servicemen and women to do dangerous, remarkable things on our behalf. Is there a straight read-across to an equivalent civilian job? No, I do not think there is, if we are talking about combat and some of the other things that we are asking people to do. We are asking two things: that they will ultimately have to take human life or give their own life in defence of this country and their comrades. That is a unique set of circumstances that many of us will never experience.

It is important, therefore, that we get it right and support our servicemen and women on two sides: where, because of their actions, they are accused of wrongdoing, or where, in the service of their country things are done to them through no fault of their own. They may contract a disease as a result of work conditions or the way a piece of equipment is designed. The problem with some of the Bill is that we are quite rightly focusing on the unique set of circumstances in foreign combat. There is also a whole swathe of areas where people are not in immediate danger but are capable of being injured while serving their country. That applies to a chef on a ship right through to somebody who is working in a maintenance depot.

If these service personnel were in civilian life, they would be allowed to join a trade union and to get independent legal redress. I think it was mentioned in the evidence session that the Dutch armed forces have a staff association or trade union. Although they do not have recognised trade unions in the United States, they have very strong regiment associations. The US Marine Corps has a very strong representative for its members and, having met the individual, very strong lobbying power on Capitol hill.

[Chris Evans]

When I was a young parliamentary researcher, a rather young hon. Member for North Durham raised this issue in a Westminster Hall debate in, I think, 2006—it might have been 2007. At the time, he was on the Back Benches and was yet to be appointed Minister for Veterans. What was stopping some form of staff association emerging? He argued for such an association in the Westminster Hall debate, but what sorts of obstacles did he encounter from military brass when he was in the Ministry of Defence?

[Mr Jones]

I am not in favour of a trade union for the armed forces—let me make that very clear—but there needs to be some type of representative body for members of our armed forces. The reasons argued against it were the same reasons that were argued when we brought in the service complaints commissioner and the ombudsman —that somehow it would affect the chain of command. Has the world stopped since we have had the ombudsman and the service complaints commissioner? No, it has not. It is not perfect, but the world has not stopped. I used to describe it as a pressure cooker: it allows another avenue for disputes or complaints to be dealt with in a timely way.

Reading the ombudsman’s annual report, I think she is making great progress, but there is a long way to go. A lot of the complaints that come forward are nothing to do with combat; they are to do with the way in which the Army handles its personnel issues—issues that, to be honest, would in some cases be very similar to what we would find in private industry.

I turn to the issue of representation. If we are going to have fairness, there has to be a level playing field. It surely must be right that there should be some way for members of the armed forces to have legal redress. I am not talking about minor disciplinary cases and things like that; I am talking about some of the serious cases that have been outlined. If you cannot sleep tonight, Mr Stringer, it is worth reading the Defence Committee’s 2016 report on this issue—I referred to it earlier—called “Who guards the guardians? MoD support for former and serving personnel.” The Minister was on the Committee at the time. The report was mainly about the issues around the IHAT inquiry. It did not only find, as we have already heard, the catastrophic delays that were happening, but it raised the issue of who represented the members of the armed forces who were being accused. As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South says, not only were they not represented, but they were actually encouraged in some ways not to take representation. I think even Major Campbell said in his evidence to us that he was more or less told, “Go away—it’ll be okay, everything will be all right.”, but it dragged on and on.

15:00

In its 2016-17 report, the Select Committee said:

“The MoD is now reforming its package of support for servicemen and women. In October 2016, it announced that it would now cover the legal costs for all of those under investigation by IHAT.”

That was welcome, but by that stage IHAT had been going for nearly six years. I do not know whether that continues today for other accusations made against servicemen and women. That should be the basis: that in the first instance they have access to preliminary basic legal advice. If that could be brought in for IHAT—that was quite clearly done because of the publicity that it got—I would ask why we are not doing it now for servicemen and women who are affected by cases today.

That comes to an issue that came up in the evidence session: if we are going to have a system whereby servicemen and women have a limited number of rights already, why do they then not get the support they need when it comes to this? That is why in this Bill Committee someone referred to “stripping the tree” further by taking away their limitation rights under section 33 of the Limitation Act. That came through in the evidence of not just one witness, as has already been said, but quite a few.

If we look at, for example, Lieutenant Colonel Parker’s evidence to the Committee, he said:

“When I was involved in a public inquiry—it was the Baha Mousa public inquiry—there were five separate teams of lawyers and barristers, of which two were consulting me as a person giving evidence, not in any accusatory sense, but for contextual evidence. I was amazed by how much effort and money was going into that. The accepted norm is that a lot of people are left to their own devices and are not able to access the same level or scale of funded assistance when they are accused by…investigations such as IHAT and others.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 110, Q220.]

That is someone who had actually been part of that. The Minister has asked how the Bill could be improved and he has said he is listening, but there is not much evidence of that so far. I have already tabled my new clause on investigations, but this is one of the single things that could be in this Bill, accepting the point that we need a level playing field so we do not find a situation whereby, as was referred to by Lieutenant Colonel Parker, we have a small battalion or lawyers and barristers at God knows what cost and then servicemen and women are basically left on their own.

That cannot be right. That is not justice, because if we are going to say that the armed forces covenant means anything, surely we should be treating people fairly and making sure that they get access to justice. I do not think it is a level playing field. I raised in an evidence session the issue of support, and not only when people are going through cases. What happens afterwards when, like a lot of these individuals, they have not been found guilty of anything, but they have gone through a lot of trauma, such as in the Campbell case? Where is their resource then? That is the important point. We should allow people to have some type of advice on what redress they could get against what is a totally unacceptable pack of cards that is basically stacked against them.

I will now refer to new clause 9. You will be pleased to know, Mr Stringer, that we are now back to limitation and the issues surrounding that. I do not expect to repeat everything that I said this morning, but there is no money resolution for the Bill, so we cannot add things that cost money into the Bill. But this proposal would not cost money. It just asks the Secretary of State to commission an independent evaluation. If we are as confident as the Minister is that 94% of veterans and servicemen bring their case within a particular time, we should see whether there is access to justice.

The new clause is about access to justice for servicemen. It says:

“Within 12 months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall commission an independent evaluation comparing—

(a) access to justice for members and former members of the regular and reserve forces and of British overseas territory forces to whom section 369(2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (persons subject to service law) applies, in relation to legal proceedings in connection with operations of the armed forces outside the British Islands, with

(b) access to justice for asylum seekers and prisoners seeking to bring an action against the Crown.”

The reason why I use those two examples is that if the Bill goes through as it is—the Minister seems determined to ensure that—we will have, as I said this morning, a situation whereby servicemen and women, just on, for example, section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980, will have fewer rights than prisoners and asylum seekers. That, to me, cannot be right.

This proposal would also allow us to test the situation that the Minister is so confident of. How many people do not get access to justice? For me, one is too many. The Minister seemed quite content that 6% do not get access to justice; he thinks that that is fine. I do not personally, because I think this goes to the heart of how we support our servicemen and women and the issues that surround the covenant.

Therefore, this proposal would allow us to look at the issue about section 33, but also to look at other issues, which I have already raised. What is the experience of the members of our armed forces regarding access to justice? I do not think that at the moment that is a level playing field, as I said, but I also do not think that it is being looked at by the MOD. I think that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn said, that is because it is seen as a threat, potentially, to the chain of command. I just do not accept that at all. It is about being fair by our people. This balancing act between the two is, I think, wrong.

The response to a question asked by the hon. Member for Wrexham in an evidence session was as follows:

“We have to remember, again, that the individuals concerned are not people who are able to sit and pick through legal documents, nor understand them. Whether we ask the most vulnerable or tough people in our society to go forward and do these extremely tough and brave point-of-the-spear jobs, such as combat roles, we must remember that we have a duty of care to protect them from anything—intellectual or otherwise—that might affect them later in their distress.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 112-113, Q225.]

I completely agree. That is what it comes down to, and we need to be able to assess that.

The new clause would also help with the concerns I have around the Bill and the covenant, because the limits it places on section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 clearly breach the commitment that we all have to the covenant. That was clearly demonstrated in evidence from Charles Byrne, who said:

“I think it is protecting the MOD, rather than the service personnel—that is the debate that we have had.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 86, Q163.]

That would be an unintended consequence because as I said this morning, I do not think that that is the purpose of this change. To pick two groups at random—we could add more, such as Members of Parliament—I think most people would be horrified if asylum seekers and prisoners had more rights than service personnel, or if cases were being prevented from being taken forward by members of the armed forces because of the Bill’s limiting of section 33 of the Limitation Act.

I have a couple of final points on this. On the level playing field and trying to go up against the Phil Shiners of this world, in respect of the first incident I talked about the new clause would actually have given the member of the armed forces who was bringing a case against the MOD the right to legal advice. However, the other case was a situation in which the serviceperson was accused. Early legal advice in some of those cases would quite clearly have been very useful for those individuals: it would have given them peace of mind, knowing that they had somebody who they could refer to and ask about their position. I know it is always said that there is the chain of command, but the chain of command in these cases, as we heard from Major Campbell, is sometimes a bit conflicted. The new clause would give those individuals the confidence that they had somebody on their side.

The new clause would also shoot down some of these cases very early on as well, because another set of legal eyes looking at some of the spurious cases that Shiner brought forward would have turned around to the MOD and said, “Hang on a minute. Why aren’t you just closing these down now that they’re here?”

Another issue that came around was that certain servicemen and women were not able to stand up and say, “Wait a minute. I have rights here.” As we heard in evidence, under the Human Rights Act people have a right to a fair and speedy trial. The coalition Government spent, I think, £60 million on IHAT. Just a fraction of that would have been helpful to those servicemen and women, and would have given them some confidence.

Another thing that Major Campbell raised—it must be awful, as I said this morning—was the people accused of something who do not know what they had supposedly done. There is also an access to justice point, in terms of people being kept informed of what is happening with their cases. We heard evidence from the Defence Committee and, I think, Major Campbell that they are left in legal limbo—just left there. The new clause would have given them confidence.

In assessing these cases, we come back to the issue raised in the ombudsman’s annual report this year. She said that the problem with the MOD is that it takes too bloomin’ long to get on and do the most simple of cases. That adds to people’s mental ill health. If we had an annual report that had to be put before Parliament and discussed, that would put a focus on this matter annually. We could ask questions. Although we have the annual report from the ombudsman, that is about people who take cases to them.

15:15

Access to justice for our armed forces—cases, numbers and what is actually happening—would allow us in Parliament to make the case. It would also focus minds in the Ministry of Defence and cause the Secretary of State, whoever he or she was, to think that this matter is given priority. That is the purpose and, again, the Bill is a missed opportunity, because such a provision could have been added. I understand why, even if the Minister wanted to, his civil servants would perhaps resist including it, but if we really mean what we say about standing up for our servicemen and women, we have to do it.

Even if that meant some finance, which it would—though I doubt that it would cost anything near the £60 million that IHAT cost—it would at least do two things: it would reinforce the covenant, and it would lead to a situation whereby we can say that we are standing behind and supporting servicemen and women who have limited rights and cannot get legal redress elsewhere. It is the decent and right thing to do.

[Chris Evans]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 10 on a duty of care, but before I begin it would be remiss of me not to mention the good work that the Minister has done since he came to the House on the treatment of mental health, which I believe has put the issue to the forefront. We have a knockabout in this place—I speak for the Opposition; he for the Government—but when somebody is trying to do their best, they should be praised and that should be put on the record. I place on the record my thanks for all the work that he has done on mental health—not just since becoming a Minister, but since coming to this House. I think we can all agree that that has been the right thing to do.

New clause 10 provides for a duty of care to service personnel. It says:

“The Secretary of State shall establish a duty of care standard in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations, as defined in subsection (6) of section 1.

(2) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of this standard before Parliament within six months of the date on which this Act receives Royal Assent.

(3) The Secretary of State shall thereafter in each calendar year—

(a) prepare a duty of care report; and

(b) lay a copy of the report before Parliament.

(4) The duty of care report is a report about the continuous process of review and improvement to meet the duty of care standard established in subsection (1), in particular in relation to incidents arising from overseas operations of—

(a) litigation and investigations brought against service personnel for allegations of criminal misconduct and wrongdoing;

(b) civil litigation brought by service personnel against the Ministry of Defence for negligence and personal injury;

(c) judicial reviews and inquiries into allegations of misconduct by service personnel;

(d) in such other fields as the Secretary of State may determine.”

That really drives at the heart of the concerns that we have had about the Bill. We have talked often about legislation and how it will change, but as we have seen in many interventions from my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and my hon. friend for Portsmouth North—

[Stephen Morgan]

South.

[Chris Evans]

Sorry. Maybe next time; that is the third mistake I have made today. As my right hon. and hon. Friends said, the crux of the Bill is not just about the law but the investigation. I believe from what the Minister has said that he has some sympathy for that as well.

The problem that we have with mental health, of course, is that we do not know what somebody’s background is when they join. Yes, they do psychometric testing and follow tests for reading and writing, and so on, but we do not know what was in their background. What was their family history? Might they have experienced personal distress or trauma in their childhood? That leads on to the problem that military investigations are often preceded by internal disciplinary acts.

What actually happens is that someone is faced with two pieces of law, especially if they have had a mental health problem. They have civilian law on the one hand and military law on the other, making things extremely complicated.

For example, investigations in military contexts are often more complex and involve additional investigative personnel, many of whom do not deal with investigations as their primary task. Therefore, we have all these multi- layered rules and regulations that are not in civil law.

[Mr Jones]

I agree with that. The Armed Forces Act 2006 tried to simplify the legal system, but the issue, again, is time delays. If we look at the ombudsman’s report each year, some of the simplest disciplinary issues should have been dealt with. That is not about investigations; it is about resources.

[Chris Evans]

As I said, the military are not employing full-time investigators. Many of the people who are investigating are doing other jobs as well.

It can get even more complicated. In cases of suspected disciplinary misconduct, the initial investigation is usually done by the immediate disciplining senior officer. That can then move on to the military supervisor, which makes it even more complicated again. In cases of suspected criminal acts, military police and probably legal advisers are called in as well. So we have large numbers of people who are not speaking to each other and who are getting confused about the rules, regulations and what is covered by what law. It is increasingly confusing.

Consider someone who already has problems with alcohol or drugs. I have some sympathy with what my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham said earlier. When veterans are going through the criminal justice system—I am sure the Minister knows this—they often rely on the defence of post-traumatic stress disorder, but if we look at the facts, there is little research into how much it affects criminal behaviour. I am aware that 4% to 5% of the prison population—

[Mr Jones]

It is 3%.

[Chris Evans]

It was in 2016. The figure I have is 4% to 5%. If my right hon. Friend wants to correct me, I would be happy to take an intervention.

[Mr Jones]

Before 2010—I instigated the review—they had no figures at all about the numbers. The important thing is that the number is small. Most of the people who go through military life get a positive benefit out of it.

[Chris Evans]

That is the point I was getting to. Based on the Ministry of Justice figures that I have—the Minister may want to correct me—2,500 former members of the armed forces are in prison, largely because of sexual or violent crimes. However—again, my right hon. Friend might want to correct me, because I might be using out of date figures—0.1% were discharged from the armed forces, usually for mental health reasons. Are those figures that he recognises?

[Mr Jones]

The problem my hon. Friend underlines is the same problem I think the Minister will confirm we have today. Some people claim that 25% of the prison population is veterans, which is nonsense. The real problem—again, it was a problem when I was a Minister, and I am sure it still is today—is early service leavers. A lot of these people are early service leavers.

[Chris Evans]

Whatever the figures are, these people are still vulnerable to social exclusion and homelessness. I well remember a harrowing case from when I was growing up of a boy who joined the forces. He came straight out of care, and he did not do very well in the forces—he did not get above private. He had severe mental health problems. He came out and he could not operate outside of a stringent regime. He went to pieces and ended up in prison for committing a violent crime. It was very harrowing because I knew the family.

[Mr Jones]

Just because someone joins the armed forces, it does not mean that their mental health history is scrubbed at the recruitment door. My hon. Friend is right. A lot of things are put down to military service that are pre-military service. It is sometimes wrong to blame the service for some of those issues.

[Chris Evans]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The person who was recruited in this case was clearly unsuitable for the forces. He did not take advantage of the fantastic opportunities that there are in the forces. He clearly had some sort of problem, and he needed to live in that regime where he was told what to do day in, day out. Once that left his life, his life went completely off the track. He said that he missed not just being told what to do but the camaraderie of his unit. Once that was gone, he felt friendless and alone.

However, the problem we have is that there is a dearth of academic research, and that is why we need a report. We do not know the unique factors that have an impact when it comes to military investigations, including the psychological wellbeing and the mental health of service personnel. I know that the Minister is a champion of this in the Government, and I am glad of that fact—I know that he will work on this issue for as long as he is a Minister—but that is the problem we have, and it is why we need a report. There are large numbers of factors that help personnel deal with the complexity of disciplinary and criminal proceedings and the potential of those two processes, but we do not know their effects.

Returning to the example from many years ago that I mentioned, there is also the point about camaraderie. When someone is under investigation, whether disciplinary or criminal, that has an effect on the morale of their unit, which in turn has a wider effect on their mental health. At the end of the day, many people who find themselves under investigation will say one thing: “I was simply following orders. Why am I the one being investigated?” Also, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham alludes to, there are far more laws, regulations and rules in a military investigation. Some military laws have different objectives from criminal and civil laws: in contrast to the criminal law, military discipline has educational objectives, positive as well as negative.

I am not an expert on military law, but I would say that it is confusing. Take the example of a military guard guarding a checkpoint in Helmand 15 years ago, protecting the security of a region’s population. An approaching vehicle opens fire on them—imagine it is you, Mr Stringer. In this role, you as the guard are the victim: you have been fired on. However, you return fire, and you kill the alleged insurgents in the vehicle. That could mean you are investigated simply for following orders and returning fire. That is the crux of the problem: on one hand, somebody is the victim of a crime; on the other hand, they are the perpetrator of a crime, simply because they have followed orders. That is the type of thing I hope we can clear up in future.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to hear the hon. Gentleman speak, and I am enjoying his contribution, but I think he is perhaps being overly simplistic. At the stage he describes, we are not sure that a crime has been committed. There are clear rules of engagement, so there is not a perpetrator and a guilty party at that stage. The military needs to investigate quickly, and as long as the rules of engagement have been followed and that guard can demonstrate that, in their own mind, they were acting to protect life—their own or that of people around them—a crime has not been determined to have been committed at that stage.

[Chris Evans]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention: he is always thoughtful, and his intervention was helpful. I should apologise, because I should have put “allegedly” in front of that example. I hope Members will accept that apology. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that was a very helpful intervention—I would not expect anything different from him.

However, what I would also highlight about these investigations—again, this is because of the lack of academic research—is the vulnerability of so many of these people, and I want to say something about learning disabilities.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke makes a very good point, because these things are covered by the rules of engagement and the training that takes place. However, they are incredibly easy to look at and make a determination about while sat in a nice, comfy armchair away from the place where they occurred. These cases involve split-second decisions, and mistakes do happen. The important thing, surely, is that the investigation that comes afterwards should be done as rapidly as possible so that it takes the onus and pressure off the potentially accused individual.

[Chris Evans]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: the investigation should be effective and efficient. As I said while building up the background to this issue, if we could cut the multi-layered process that people have to go through down into one simplified investigation, that issue would be resolved pretty quickly.

15:31

[Mr Jones]

Would that not be achieved by including in this Bill the suggestions that I made in my new clauses—suggestions that are completely missing from the Bill—about making sure there is some judicial oversight of those investigations after a certain period of time? The individual my hon. Friend refers to would at least be able to have his or her case looked at judicially after a certain period of time, and if the investigation was going nowhere it could be dismissed.

[Chris Evans]

That is eminently sensible, and I hope that at some stage the Government will accept that and perhaps put it in the Bill. That is up to the Government, but I think that that is absolutely right. The problem is that these investigations seem to go on for ever and ever. For ex-service personnel or veterans, if there is no end in sight, that will affect their mental health. That is surely one resolution that could be written into the Bill.

I want to talk about learning disability. Obviously, if someone has a physical disability, they are disbarred from joining the armed forces, but we have to address the issue of mental disability. Someone can go through life without being diagnosed as dyslexic or autistic, or as having attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. There are many cases of people in their 40s and 50s being diagnosed with those conditions, which we do not know about. When someone is under investigation, how do we know that they do not have those types of disabilities? Usually, if someone is arrested under civilian law, they have a responsible person with them—a designated person. People do not have access to that in the military.

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. When I was a Minister, the average reading age of some of the infantry when they were recruited was 11 years of age. All credit to the Army and the Darlington College at Catterick for doing a great job of getting people’s reading ages up,. The problem that was spotted, which had never been spotted before, was dyslexia. Individuals had gone through the education system without being diagnosed until they were in their late 20s.

[Chris Evans]

There is still a huge stigma in relation to illiteracy, as my right hon. Friend knows. A lot of issues in the prison population concern people with undiagnosed learning difficulties. There are higher than normal levels of illiteracy that we need to address. However, someone who has come through the basic tests to join the forces might be on the autistic spectrum but still able to function, and they need the help of a designated person as well.

I have written down something about a split decision. I do not know whether Members remember the case of Alexander Blackman, a Royal Marine who had his conviction for murder quashed on the grounds of diminished responsibility in 2016 after he had fatally wounded a Taliban prisoner. Blackman’s lawyers argued that he had an adjustment disorder at the time of the killing, because of months on the frontline in terrible conditions, and we can see how that would affect his mental health.

The whole issue of investigations comes down to one thing: training. Written evidence from David Lloyd Roberts and Dr Charlotte Harford stated:

“Regular and effective training for the armed forces on compliance with the law of armed conflict can reduce the risk of situations arising in which allegations of war crimes are levelled at British service personnel serving overseas. There is no need for military personnel to be given a comprehensive legal education. However, if knowledge of and consistent respect for the following ten principles, at least, can be instilled in all members of the armed forces, they should have little reason to fear prosecution…Torture is prohibited in all circumstances…Summary executions are prohibited…Those hors de combat may not be attacked…Only military objectives may be deliberately attacked…Civilians may not be deliberately attacked unless they are taking a direct part in hostilities…Buildings, material, medical units and transport, and personnel using the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions in conformity with international law may not be deliberately attacked…Combatant adversaries may not be treacherously killed or wounded…The wounded and sick must be collected and cared for…Prisoners of war should be evacuated from the combat zone as soon as possible…The dead may not be despoiled or mutilated …Effective training on the law of armed conflict is likely to take the form not of the testing of theoretical knowledge, but of presenting members of the armed forces on a regular basis with hypothetical (but realistic) scenarios in which to practise thinking how military operations in a particular context might be conducted effectively in compliance with the above principles.”

I think that is eminently sensible, but if we are producing a report to Parliament, we can start building on the gaps in knowledge about mental health and its effect on service personnel. I look forward to the Minister responding on the basis of his knowledge. I am sure he will give us an interesting insight.

[Johnny Mercer]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman. This place can get packed with people who left the military quite a long time ago who think that they are the sole voices that matter on these issues. They are clearly not, and I have always maintained that. [Interruption.] I am talking about people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot. [Laughter.]

Just to be absolutely clear on the previous point, the correct position on commencement provisions is that the Bill does not apply to any proceedings that started before the provisions come into force. I mentioned prosecutions; it is proceedings before any provisions come into force.

On this part of the bill, I want to speak to the new clauses, and then I will finish with a couple of remarks. New clauses 2, 3 and 4 would require the Defence Secretary to commission and publish an independent evaluation of access—

[The Chair]

Order. We are on new clauses 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10. We have dealt with new clause 2.

[Johnny Mercer]

Sorry. New clauses 3 and 4 would require the Defence Secretary to commission and publish an independent evaluation of access to legal advice and legal aid for service personnel and veterans in relation to the legal proceedings covered by the Bill. The MOD has a long-standing policy that, where a service person or veteran faces criminal allegations in relation to incidents arising from his or her duty, they may receive full public funding for legal support, as well as pastoral support for as long as they are serving. That was not the case when I first came here, and Bob Campbell indicated to us his experiences. The situation changed when I was running the inquiry into the Iraq Historic Allegations Team. Clearly, my views on that are well known, and they have not changed just because I have become a Minister.

[Mr Jones]

Is the Minister saying that, in the future and now, that will include families’ legal costs?

[Johnny Mercer]

Yes. There is full pastoral support and full legal support, paid for by the MOD, for everybody swept up in these investigations. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was not like that until about two years ago, so that is a very fair point to raise.

We do that because we should look after our armed forces, both on the battlefield, where they face the traditional risks of death or injury, and in the courts, where they face the risk of a conviction and a prison sentence. We therefore aim to provide legal aid case management and funding for those who are, or were at the time of an alleged incident, subject to service law.

Because of the risks our service personnel and veterans face, our legal support offer is now very thorough. For the benefit of the Committee, I will set out some if its provisions. The legal aid provided by the armed forces legal aid scheme provides publicly funded financial assistance in respect of some or all of the costs of legal representation for defendants and appellants who appeal against findings and/or a punishment following summary hearings at unit level. That includes applications for extensions of the appeal period by the summary appeal court, for leave to appeal out of time, or to have a case referred to the Director of Service Prosecutions for a decision on whether the charges will result in a prosecution. That includes offences under schedule 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which are referred directly to the Director of Service Prosecutions by the service police, as well as matters referred to the Director of Service Prosecutions by the commanding officer. It also includes those who are to be tried in a court martial or the service civilian court; those who wish to appeal in the court martial against the finding and/or sentence after trial; and those who are entitled to be tried in a criminal court outside the UK.

The legal aid scheme applies equally to all members of the armed forces, including the reserve forces when they are subject to service law, as well as to civilians who are, or were at the time of an alleged incident, subject to service discipline.

[Mr Jones]

The Minister calls it a legal aid system, but does it mirror that system? Unfortunately, over the last few years the cutbacks in the legal aid system have made it difficult for many people who we—including myself, the Minister and you, Mr Stringer—would not think of as having access to a lot of resources, and they are finding that they have no recourse at all. Does it mirror the national legal aid system, or is it a bespoke system without the financial constraints?

[Johnny Mercer]

It is a bespoke system for military personnel. It is now used extensively by veterans in particular, who previously have not been supported. For example, Government legal services were provided in the al-Sweady inquiry. The challenges came when these investigations got to the case of, for example, Major Bob Campbell. They were not being funded at the time, but they are now. It is based on the same principles as the civilian criminal legal aid scheme. They are the same principles but it is bespoke for the military. It makes necessary adjustments to take into account the specific circumstances and needs of defendants and appellants in the service justice system. As a result, I am confident that we are already ensuring that service personnel veterans are now properly supported when they are affected by criminal legal proceedings.

[Mr Jones]

An issue I have always felt very passionate about is the representation of families at coroners’ inquiries. Does it also cover that? Many service men and women, and many families, felt daunted that they were up against legal representation, when they were there on their own in many cases.

[Johnny Mercer]

I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman on that subject. As I understand it, a coroner’s court is different. There is support for service personnel or for bereaved families in those cases. These are often not criminal proceedings so the requirement for legal aid is not there, but they are supported and I am happy to outline that in a letter.

I am now confident that service personnel and veterans are properly supported when they are affected by criminal legal proceedings. The armed forces legal aid scheme does not provide legal aid funding for civil proceedings, but we are content that the funding available for service personnel and veterans through the legal aid regimes in different parts of the UK is now sufficient. If a service person or veteran brings a claim against the MOD, we obviously cannot fund that claim as there would be a conflict of interest. We have heard from a number of law firms, as well as the Royal British Legion, that may be prepared to support those cases if they see merit in them. If veterans or service personnel need to access the legal aid scheme, they would be doing so on the same terms as a civilian would. However, in the first instance—before considering whether to bring a claim—I would encourage any service person or veteran to consider the armed forces compensation scheme, which the right hon. Member for Durham North mentioned. It provides compensation irrespective of fault across the full range of circumstances in which illness, injury or death may arise as a result of service, and it avoids the need for claimants to go to court.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

A number of our witnesses, including Hilary Meredith of Hilary Meredith Solicitors, talked about the lack of support for veterans. If someone is still serving in the armed forces there may be something, but for a veteran it is as if they were not formally part of the armed forces. These new clauses, among other things, were designed to assist in that progress towards ensuring that the support is in place.

[Johnny Mercer]

I am confident that the support is of a different nature from the support available when I started this process years ago. Obviously the Department cannot fund legal action against itself, because of the conflict of interest. What is being requested here is not deliverable. As I outlined previously, the RBL and many law firms are prepared to support cases if they see merit in doing so. For cases where individuals are called to be witnesses at inquests and public inquiries, of course we provide legal advice, and logistical and financial support, to those who need it to attend court and inquest hearings. As I have outlined, a comprehensive support package is in place in relation to legal proceedings. There is also the provision of welfare and pastoral support. I will cover that in more detail in relation to new clause 10. I therefore suggest that a review is unnecessary, given how comprehensive our legal support package now is.

15:45

New clause 9 would require the Defence Secretary to commission an independent evaluation comparing the access to justice available to service personnel and veterans in relation to legal proceedings in connection with overseas operations with the access to justice available to asylum seekers and prisoners seeking to bring claims against the Government. In my view, that comparison is not the right one to make. Prisoners and asylum seekers are not involved in legal proceedings in connection with overseas military operations. They do not face the same risks as our personnel and are unlikely to witness some of the situations that service personnel will. It is too easy to compare someone who is not a service person with a service person and make those comparisons when it suits, but comparing prisoners and asylum seekers with veterans and service personnel in this way is like comparing apples with pears, and it ignores the intent of the Bill.

The purpose of the limitations in the Bill is to provide greater certainty for service personnel and veterans in relation to vexatious claims associated with historical events that occurred in the uniquely complex environment of armed conflict. Prisoners and asylum seekers are not exposed to those same environments. It is also worth reminding the Committee one last time that the Bill will not prevent service personnel and veterans from bringing claims within the required timeframe, which historically most have done anyway.

New clause 10 would establish a duty of care standard and require the Secretary of State to report on it annually. We take extremely seriously our duty of care to our personnel. Pastoral and practical support will always be available to them. In particular, veterans of events that happened a long time ago may have particular support requirements and concerns, in which case we can put in place special arrangements for them.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

As we are coming to the end of the Committee, it is appropriate to remind the Minister that on 5 October, at the Joint Committee on Human Rights, in accepting that there were deficiencies in the Bill, the Minister said he wanted to

“work with Committee members and Members across the House to…improve this Bill”.

Can he point to where he has done that in Committee? Since he acknowledges that there are flaws in the Bill, what does he intend to bring forward on Report to improve a Bill that he has already acknowledged is flawed?

[Johnny Mercer]

I do not accept that and have never said that this legislation is flawed.

I have already covered the comprehensive legal support that we already provide to service personnel and veterans in relation to legal proceedings, so I will not repeat them here. In terms of mental health, welfare and pastoral care, a range of organisations are involved in fulfilling the needs of personnel who become involved with legal processes, which will vary according to individual need and circumstance.

Veterans UK is the official provider of welfare services and supports former service personnel throughout the UK. It will often act in partnership with service charities or other third sector organisations—for example, the Royal British Legion, Combat Stress and SSAFA—towards whom veterans are directed. The regimental association of a veteran’s parent regiment will often be the most familiar and accessible link through which the individual can maintain the link to the military hierarchy, which allows any issues of concern to be raised with the Army chain of command or the MOD, outside of legal channels. That is often the most relied upon and effective way of providing pastoral support. Of course, veterans can also access help and support 24/7 via the Veterans’ Gateway.

In relation to service complaints, there is a well-established process through which service personnel can make complaints. The Service Complaints Ombudsman reports annually to Parliament on that. These are all well-established policies and processes, but of course we continually review them to ensure that they provide the best support and care possible for our personnel. We are clear about our responsibilities to provide the right support to our personnel, both serving and veterans, and to seek to improve and build on them wherever necessary. I do not believe that setting a standard for duty of care is therefore necessary, and nor does it require an annual report to Parliament. I therefore request that new clauses 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10 are not pressed.

Question put and negatived.

[The Chair]

Does any Member wish to move any other new clauses formally?

[Mr Jones]

New clause 9 is a probing amendment. The important point is that I think the Minister has missed the point again—the comparison is that prisoners are going to have more rights than veterans.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

15:51

Committee rose.

Written evidence reported to the House

OOB14 Law Society of Scotland

Westminster Hall

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Westminster Hall

Thursday 22 October 2020

[Clive Efford in the Chair]

Foreign Affairs Committee

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Westminster Hall

Select Committee statement

13:30

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new call list system and to ensure that social distancing can be respected. Members should sanitise their microphones using the cleaning materials provided before they use them and should respect the one-way system around the room. We come in one way, and leave by the door marked “Exit”. Members may speak only from the horseshoe and only if they are on the call list. That applies even if debates are undersubscribed. Members cannot join the debate if they are not on the call list. They are not expected to remain for the wind-up speeches. Members in the latter stages of the call list should use the seats in the Public Gallery and move to the horseshoe when seats become available. I remind hon. Members that there is less of an expectation that they stay for the next speeches once they have spoken. This is to help manage attendance in the room. Members may wish to stay beyond their speech, but they should be aware that doing so might prevent Members in the seats in the Public Gallery from moving to the seats in the horseshoe.

Tom Tugendhat will speak on the publication of the fourth report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, “A brave new Britain? The future of the UK’s international policy”. He will speak for up to 10 minutes during which time no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members as they appear on the call list to put questions on the subject of the statement and will call Tom Tugendhat to respond to them. Questions should be brief. We have 20 minutes.

00:01

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Efford. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and it is good to see the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), back from his adventures in the middle east. It is a huge privilege to have him with us today.

This is not the speech that I had hoped to give. I was hoping that the report that we in the Foreign Affairs Committee produced would help the final stages of the integrated defence and foreign policy review, but sadly that has been put on hold. For reasons obvious to all, and to all members of the Committee with whom I was fortunate enough to draft the report, the Government have delayed the multi-year settlement that is necessary to make the document one that will be fit for the future. That is more than unfortunate. It is a mistake. Although I understand the pressures on the Government and on Government finances in the coming years—it is true that the world has rarely been less predictable—this is the very moment in which to invest in the future, because it is at moments like this that change happens.

Over the coming months and years, new deals will be done and norms will be set that change the international system. Agreements over everything from a medical assistance programme or vaccine sharing to new supply chains or travel corridors will set a new tone for a new world. We need to make sure that Britain’s voice helps to shape that. This matters more to us than to most. Our economy is truly global. Our services are international and our historic norms have set the pattern for the world, and we now exploit that today. It did not happen by accident.

Over centuries, British integrated effort helped an emerging order. We all remember the troops and ships that achieved it. Yesterday’s celebration of Trafalgar Day reminds us of the Royal Navy’s contribution to the system we enjoy today. But the reality is that it was the quiet clerks, just like in Parliament, who really ran things. As an aside, I should say that our report was brilliantly drafted by Nicholas Wade of the Foreign Affairs Committee. He has been working with us for several years, and his understanding of strategic integration is matched only by the two who were stolen from the Committee a little while ago to go and work in No. 10 in a very good act of theft by the Prime Minister.

Those organisers and accountants created a network of plumbing and accountability that has shaped the world we enjoy. They encoded the concepts of the individual, the company, the state, and values of privacy and freedom so deep into our system that they now reflect the embedded nature of liberty and the pursuit of happiness that others went on to champion. Today, that operating system is under threat.

We all know that China’s rise is one of the great successes of the free market. Since it broke away from communist isolation and instead turned to co-operation—okay, albeit that it is authoritarian—with the integrated system, China’s people have prospered. Capitalism, the system rejected by Chairman Mao, has lifted 850 million out of the poverty that he reduced them to. With a bit of luck, it will help more.

In the past few years, the international co-operation that we have been used to has been under strain. Its very operating system is being reprogrammed by those seeking to replace networked interdependence with a bilateral obedience. At moments of stress, like now, that will only speed up. That is why Britain cannot afford to wait. We cannot simply focus on our own internal difficulties and hope that others will wait for us to catch up when we are ready. They will not and cannot. The world moves on, and our choice is simple: will we help to drive the change and choose the direction, or will we wait and find out where we are going?

Our Committee speaks louder when it reflects the many voices that we hear as witnesses. The line-up that we had for this report was unprecedented. Serious people from every corner of the Earth said the same thing. We were exceptionally lucky to have a first: His Majesty the King of Jordan spoke to us on the record. Former Presidents of Colombia and Liberia, both of whom have Nobel prizes, shared his view. They want Britain to take a lead. We had three Foreign Ministers, three former ambassadors to the United Nations, and a United Nations high commissioner. On top of that, 80 written submissions were published, and we surveyed more than 1,500 young people from around the world. What was striking was not just the different perspectives but the common desire. They want Britain back on the world stage, not to command, but to shape and enable other voices.

The implication from some, which we hear too often, is that after Brexit, Britain is essentially a diplomatic irrelevance outside the EU. Some even say that it is a small country nostalgic for an imperial past. That is not the view shared by our friends—not even by France’s former ambassador to China. All our witnesses said that the UK is an influential country with a modern and innovative contribution to make. They regretted our recent absence, called on us to do more and feared that we may retreat. That is a view that I hope we can all share.

The other view that was widely shared was one of struggle: not that we are countries at war, but that we are under threat. We are engaged in an intense struggle to protect our values and interests as democratic and free powers. The UK is admired abroad as stable and prosperous. It is a predictable country, but one that stands for something more than itself. That should not be taken for granted and must be protected. We have to take decisions that will matter and make a difference.

I hope my fellow Committee members will forgive a slight digression from the report. Although we did not cover defence, which is rightly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), my views are clear. We need to ensure that this interconnected world is addressed with an interconnected strategy. That is the point of the integrated review. Too often in our country and our defence industry, we have made decisions that have cost our country influence and cash because we have made them for the short term. We need this review to reverse that, to address long-term thinking and shape a new future in which recognising that we need allies and partners shapes our decisions as we purchase, not just as we operate, so that the kit that we buy works with the shallower end of the technology pool, not just the most exquisite and unique.

Those decisions should not be made in the Ministry of Defence alone. We should no more be planning defence equipment in isolation than buying a kitchen for a house that we have never seen. If we do not know where it is going, we will spend a long time trying to force it to fit. That is why diplomacy matters. Talking to each other and helping partners to solve problems and realise opportunities is a huge chance for Britain. Get it right, and we see a rising tide that raises all ships. Get it wrong, and we see the rocks emerge, and wrecks are more likely.

Diplomacy is the glue that holds global co-operation together. It is seen as the key skill that the UK possesses on the world stage. Do not take just my word for it or that of the Committee, it was emphasised by witnesses and the British Council survey. We have a great diplomatic service and some of the world’s finest diplomats—use it, resource it and come up with a strategy that allows it to lead. 

Yesterday’s announcement was understandable, but it does make life for our diplomats harder. They can only shape the views of partners and achieve the aims that we need for our country if Whitehall is clear in the strategy that it seeks, with tasks and outcomes prioritised in the crisis we are in. We know that this is not a time to rest. Although I know that no one in King Charles Street or Downing Street is sitting idle, the reality is that we need to up our game. Nigerian protests today show the instability that can exist in countries with very young populations, especially when covid has knocked the economy for six.

If a deep international crisis breaks out tomorrow, on top of the pandemic we are already in, the rest of the world will not care whether we have launched our reviews or not—they will only care if we are ready to help and if we have thought about it. If the Government seek to publish the integrated review now, it should be followed by a clear plan for how it can be delivered in the current circumstances. Writing a strategy is the easy bit; it is delivering on it that is hard. That is why we call on the Government to make it clear that their foreign and national security priorities are clear, have been determined and are now prioritised as regards the funding that they will require to be delivered.

We need to make sure that businesses in Glasgow have the reach they need in the Gulf; that in Cardiff, the regulations that shape manufacturing are built on principles we share; and that from Belfast to the great county of Kent, the strength of our services continue to underwrite that growth.

This is not an academic exercise that can simply wait. The integrated review is about promoting the prosperity and happiness of the British people across these islands, and nothing is more important than that. As, today, the Government rightly announce the space programme out of the Shetland Islands, we should think about not just our islands and space, but the world that comes between.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Order. We have 10 minutes for questions, so brief questions and brief answers, please. I call Wayne David.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

My congratulations to the Chair of the Select Committee on an excellent report. He said that it has been indicated that the Government intend to delay the publication of the integrated review. Has he any indication of when that publication will see the light of day?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am afraid I cannot speak for the Government on that, and I do not know. All I can say is what I read in the newspapers yesterday and heard from the Treasury.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I congratulate the Committee and the Chair on its report. Who knows who else No. 10 might snatch for promotion!

The hon. Member has touched on this point: does he share my concern that there is a bit of a mismatch between the rhetoric and the reality of the Government, particularly the domestic-facing Departments? We have UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office embassies saying, “Come to the UK and study on Chevening scholarships,” and the Home Office refusing visas to students who have been granted Chevening scholarships; we have the FCDO publishing frameworks on business and human rights and then we have the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy funding companies that are perhaps in breach of some of those business principles. The integrated review needs to be properly integrated.

Could the hon. Member also say a word on the scrutiny of official development assistance and the role of a dedicated ODA Committee in this House?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I agree. The point about integration is that it is not just about having Foreign Departments for the sake of co-ordinating embassies—it is about delivering effects for the British people across these islands. That means that integration needs to include the Home Office, of course, and Education and Justice. That does not mean, I hasten to add, that everything should be run by our diplomatic service, but merely that it should be co-ordinated so that the effect is properly strategic. The hon. Member’s own work in Malawi, to which I pay huge tribute, is a demonstration of how co-ordination can work between the public and private sectors and between different levels of government on our islands. I think there is a real opportunity there.

On his second point, there is always a challenge in the rhetoric. We have to make sure that the rhetoric matches the reality. That is why linking up the strategy with the money really does matter.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on a really interesting and readable, well-presented report, which should be the foundation of our thinking about a new and confident United Kingdom as we progress to our new independent status. I also commend him on emphasising how important delivery is. Strategy is not complete unless it reconciles ends, ways and means, which means that we need to consider what resources we are prepared to commit before we can decide what policies we should adopt. Can I ask him, in particular, to focus the attention of his Committee on the people? Our people are our greatest force multiplier: how will they be trained and developed, including developed for leadership roles in a way we perhaps have not thought about deeply for many years?

[Tom Tugendhat]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. The one brief response I will make is that one of the big changes William Hague made when he was Foreign Secretary was to reopen the language academy. Bringing together understanding, as well as leadership, is fundamental if we are to have the delivery that my hon. Friend rightly emphasises, and bringing that together with the military elements of leadership and co-ordination makes a huge difference.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I confess that when I listened to the witnesses, I kept remembering those words of the Victorian poet:

“We are not now that strength which in old days

Moved earth and heaven”.

However, the truth is that much still abides for this country. The BBC is the most respected newscaster around the world; English is still becoming the world’s language; we are often the penholder in all the major international institutions; and many people want to do their legal business in this country because we respect the rule of law. Do we not need to find that new niche where we are still special?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I personally pay huge tribute to my friend the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), whose work on the Committee in recent years has been so important, and I agree with him totally. We came up with the idea of a very lateral system, as we have been calling it: a system in which the enabling element, the bureaucratic element, if you like, of the UK is the strength that brings people together. I agree with him entirely that there is a huge opportunity for us to co-ordinate and cohere with other countries.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend on his statement and the quality of his report. Were the Government to accept his recommendation to tilt to the Indo-Pacific and to deploy atrocity prevention capabilities, how much of the Government’s Foreign Office efforts does he think would be taken up with China?

[Tom Tugendhat]

It is quite clear that a lot of our effort will be taken up with China over coming years, no matter what we do. However, the tilt to the Pacific should be seen not just as a tilt towards China, but a tilt towards the countries that we also have as friends in the region—Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, and I could go on—and the effort we could make there not just to balance against some of the nefarious aspects of China, but to help China grow into the integrated global system that we think will enable future prosperity for all of us, including the Chinese people.

[Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his statement, and congratulate him on the publication of his report. I firmly believe that the FCDO’s work, as well as having a global impact, can have a really positive impact on my constituents as they live their lives across Bishop Auckland. From the findings of his report, can I ask my hon. Friend how our diplomats, who, I know, do great work across the network, can ensure that my constituents have more job opportunities, better services and a cleaner environment, and can continue to stay safe?

[Tom Tugendhat]

The truth, as my right hon. Friend knows—my hon. Friend, I mean, although I have no doubt that she is very soon to be right honourable—is that the people of Bishop Auckland depend not just on their proximity to Durham, or indeed their place in the wonderful County Durham, but on a global and international system that is linked through services and trade to an entire world. The delivery of an integrated review is not just about the prosperity of some people in some parts, but about the fundamental prosperity and happiness of the British people: our ability to travel and trade, love and study, anywhere in the world.

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for having brought forward this report at a crucial crossroads for Britain’s future as a global power. Britain has many international opportunities lying ahead of us, and part of the risk—as highlighted in the report—is not grasping those opportunities in defence and aid. Perhaps our largest strategic threats are the destabilising effects of Russia, China and Iran on the global scheme. Could my hon. Friend share some of his thoughts and concerns on that matter?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I pay huge tribute to my hon. Friend, who knows more about Iran than I will ever know. His work with the various communities in the area that have been particularly concerned about it is inspiring. At the moment, we seem to be falling between two stools—the E3 and the United States. We can bring together an integrated review and we can make it count.

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend on this fantastic and digestible report. When it comes to our wider strategy, one way to ensure that all parts of the country benefit from a truly strong FCDO, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) mentioned, is to consider how we package brand Britain. Part of that is ensuring that our diplomats understand the regional variances in our country so that, as we go out there with that soft power, all parts of the country benefit.

[Tom Tugendhat]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Whether it his constituency or indeed that of the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), different parts of the United Kingdom have different aspects that need to be prioritised. That is hugely important, and having diplomats who can speak not only for Kent—although it is, of course, the most important—but for places such as Scotland and the north of England is absolutely essential, and of course, who could ignore Wales, which is so well represented on the Committee.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

Order. I will suspend the sitting for one minute while we get Mr Linden into the room. Those of you who are taking part in the next debate should please remain. We will get going as quickly as possible.

00:01

Sitting suspended.

Integrated Activity Fund: Transparency

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Westminster Hall

13:52

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered transparency of the Integrated Activity Fund.

May I say from the outset that it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, and to see Members here for this Thursday afternoon debate? Many MPs from different parties have attempted to question the Government on this fund, only to be met with unclear and murky answers. This is a fund of up to £20 million each year to countries accused of human rights abuses, so the last thing the Government should be is unclear and murky.

I will raise several issues regarding the transparency of the fund, in the hope that the Government can finally provide some answers. We know that the fund is spent across the Gulf Co-operation Council states—Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. However, the Government have failed to provide a breakdown of spending in each country. Ministers reason that this lack of transparency is because:

“Many of the projects and programme activities were delivered regionally, so it is not possible to provide a breakdown by beneficiary state.”

It seems clear to me that a solution would be to outline the projects that the IAF supports, then we could understand how the money is spent across the region.

However, when MPs have inquired into the projects that the fund supports, the Government continue to be vague:

“The Integrated Activity Fund supported a range of non-ODA programmes and projects across the Gulf. These included, but were not limited to, activities focusing on culture, healthcare, youth engagement, economic diversification and institutional capacity building.”

I am afraid that that is not clear enough. The House deserves to know exactly what projects the UK Government are funding across the region through the IAF.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is setting up the debate nicely here, but may I suggest that it might be helpful to go back to first principles and ask ourselves whether, in the areas he has just outlined, the need for any reform within the Gulf Co-operation Council countries may not necessarily be rooted in lack of money?

[David Linden]

The right hon. Gentleman puts a good point on the record, and it is something I will attempt to develop later in my speech. In terms of first principles, he is perhaps right, and I am sure that when he speaks he will reaffirm that to the Minister.

Considering the accusations from human rights groups over the legitimacy of this fund, the Government should be obliged to publish the results of the risk assessment that they should obviously have undertaken. However, the Government will not even disclose to the House the beneficiaries or implementers of, or projects funded by, the IAF, giving Ministers and the public no idea how their money is being spent.

Members of this House and of the other House have repeatedly questioned the Government on the specifics of the Integrated Activity Fund. However, we have only received vague half-answers in response. I guess that begs the question: if the Government have nothing to hide, why will they not be completely transparent on the fund?

The question of transparency clearly links with a topic brought up by hon. Members across the House, that of human rights abuses in the gulf region. Hon. Members have brought up the fact that the UK Government funds projects in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, where we know the death penalty, torture and political imprisonment take place. Indeed, the human rights situation in those countries is worsening; Saudi Arabia executed a record 184 people last year, while the indiscriminate Saudi-led bombing of Yemen is responsible for what the United Nations describes as the world’s worst man-made humanitarian catastrophe.

This is not the first time the Government have been criticised over their funding of projects in GCC states. A case in point is the controversial conflict, security and stability fund, the CSSF, which drew criticism from UK aid watchdogs for serious shortcomings in the way it operated. It was found to have been insufficiently rigorous in applying safeguards to prevent collaboration with foreign entities with suspect human rights records.

One project funded by the CSSF was the contentious security and justice programme in Bahrain. In its 2018 report, the Foreign Affairs Committee urged the Government to review the programme, particularly in light of the evidence that Bahraini prison staff and security personnel had been implicated in torture and extrajudicial killings.

That programme, which cost at least £6.5 million, caused the CSSF to come under parliamentary investigation for its lack of transparency. However, once the programme began to face scrutiny, it was simply transferred over to the Integrated Activity Fund. If the CSSF faced severe criticism from this House for its funding of the programme, then it is only natural that the IAF, which is arguably more opaque, should receive the same investigation.

The IAF has also come under further scrutiny for its links to the Bahrain Special Investigations Unit. Recent freedom of information requests obtained by the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy revealed that in 2018, visits were made under the IAF from the College of Policing, the Independent Office for Police Conduct, and Merseyside’s professional standards department to meet counterparts at Bahrain’s Special Investigations Unit. Since those visits, Bahrain’s SIU has been criticised by the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims as “critically flawed” and failing to meet,

“the minimum professional standards and minimum international legal standards”.

Bahraini judges and representatives from the Ministry of Interior visited the UK in 2018 and 2019 under the IAF. According to the Bahraini embassy in London, these visits were conducted to discuss,

“both the scope and implementation of alternative sentences in the UK”.

The FOI requests also indicate that no overseas justice and security assessment was conducted for the judges’ visit, violating the Government’s own human rights safeguarding policy.

Prior to a mass prisoner release to ease the severe overcrowding of Bahrain’s prisons following the outbreak of covid-19, evidence suggests that alternative sentencing legislation was discriminating against political prisoners, including Sheikh Mirza Al-Mahroos and human rights defender Ali Al-Hajee. Alongside revealing the other contentious programmes and activities that the IAF supports, the FOI requests further highlight that at least two programmes have been provided exclusively to Bahrain. This evidence shows that certain activities are, in fact, country specific, thus negating the FCDO’s claim that country-specific breakdowns are impossible, since activities are only covered regionally. In the light of that, I again urge the Government to provide a clear breakdown of the individual projects and programmes they fund in each of the countries that the IAF supports.

With a history of controversial projects and their insistence on being vague about the Integrated Activity Fund, the Government are not painting a particularly clear image of their support for the GCC region. Lord Scriven said of the IAF:

“I have never seen a situation where it started open and became more swiftly opaque as criticisms grew… the Government have become hypersensitive if not paranoid to the fact that the truth will be exposed”.

It is imperative that the Government are more transparent about the Integrated Activity Fund, including by releasing information on the specific projects that the fund supports, in what countries, and crucially, whether they comply with the human rights risk assessment. I look forward to the Minister, for whom I have the utmost respect as a personal friend, enlightening the Chamber this afternoon as he closes the debate on behalf of the Government.

[Clive Efford (in the Chair)]

We have until about 2.40 pm for Back-Bench speeches before we bring in the Front Bench in and ask Mr Linden to wind up. If I do the maths, that is roughly nine minutes each.

00:02

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I say to the Minister through you that we need three things. First, we need a direct answer to the question of why the Government will not provide the information that has been asked for over the years, not just, “It’s the spy clause” or whatever else it may be. Why has not the information been made available in the way it would be on virtually every other element of Government spending, whether through the Cabinet Office, the FCO, the British Council or the Home Departments?

Secondly, how can MPs and the public judge the effectiveness of the programme if they do not know what the money is spent on? We can all produce a list of things that we would like money to be spent on, whether in these fields or others.

The third issue, which is the underlying one, is the transparency process. One of the Minister’s predecessors, Alistair Burt, was very sympathetic and helpful as far as he could be as a Minister when I and others worked with the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy on some of the Opposition activists whose experience of the Bahraini justice institutions was appalling.

I have been in Parliament for some time. Two periods have been under Labour Governments. I would class myself as an Opposition activist. There are times when I have been on the streets protesting about things—whether it is trying to help drug dealers by imprisoning the social workers or a whole range of issues, when I have challenged either our fiscal politics or our justice system. We have to believe in the rule of law, but the law is not always justice. A campaign to change the law or constitution is something that ought to be allowed and encouraged. I take pride in living in a country where I can stand outside No. 10 Downing Street and shout abuse, or at least say to a Prime Minister, “I think you ought to be a different person or a different party.” That is part of opposition and we find that, without the kind of dictatorships we had 400 years ago and without the slaughter of political opponents, we have developed a better system—not perfect, but capable of improvement and recognising mistakes when they are made.

My judgment on the limited information that is available in public is that the Government have made a mistake in not being more transparent about this fund. I think we probably knew more about its predecessor fund than this one. It is interesting that it has not always been spent. The average spend is only about two thirds of the allocated £20 million a year.

This debate is not just about effectiveness, transparency and the other things I have talked about. The fund is also a way of introducing those countries where it may be spent on co-operation and all kinds of things from institutional changes to aquaculture and the like, to the idea that we are interested in their trying to make fewer of the mistakes that we made in our past so that they will make fewer of the mistakes that they are making in their present. If we are going to be effective collaborators and we can put our weight of different kinds, be it military, diplomatic or economic, behind the states that are trying to resist some of the more powerful and worst elements in that region—we understand the difficulties they are facing—we would like to know that public money and public process is working in a way that allows us to understand what is going on, so we can support the money being properly spent. That is why we need to have greater transparency and greater effectiveness from the money.

00:05

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, for the first time. I hope it all goes well—from both sides.

Some people might think this is something of a niche debate concerning relatively small sums of public money in the context of overall Government spending. We have heard that it has been about £20 million a year for the past five years, although there were predecessor funds and not all of that was spent. Having said that, we could pay for a lot of free school meals in the holidays with the money that is going to what many people will think is a rather prosperous region of the world.

I pay tribute to other sponsors of the debate, the hon. Members for Glasgow East (David Linden) and for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). I remember a lot of Conservative Members—I exonerate the hon. Member for Worthing West from this—complaining that the former Department for International Development funding regime wasted money by sending it to countries such as India and China. I wonder whether we will hear the same about money being sent to Abu Dhabi and Saudi Arabia. That in itself deserves some explanation.

I thank the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy, which has been mentioned, and Reprieve, which has helped with briefings for the debate. It sometimes seems like a thankless task, but they and other human rights organisations labour constantly to bring to light abuses of human rights in Gulf countries. The crux of the issue—I think it has already been said—is to do with secrecy. There have been few statements about the fund. Initially, there was no admission of the fund at all. It was like the security services used to be—it did not exist. When it was finally introduced to the public, the distinguished former Minister, Alistair Burt, said:

“The IAF provides funding in support of a range of programmes across the Gulf Region. These include, but are not limited to, activities focusing on aquaculture, sport and culture, healthcare and institutional capacity building.”

What could sound more benign than that? Aquaculture sounds like a wonderful thing to spend British taxpayers’ money on in Oman. “Salmon Fishing in the Yemen” is perhaps a sorer point.

However, that is not really the full extent of it, is it? With all due respect to Alistair Burt, for whom I have a great deal of time, it emerges that about a third of the projects could be euphemistically called “justice projects”: they are related to justice, security, imprisonment and other similar issues. Despite the plethora of FOIs, the Library briefing is almost entirely made up of questions with inadequate answers to them—some from the Minister, who I am sure will give us a far more candid response. We have a whole list of UK Government Departments that are spending the fund’s money, but we do not know how much each is spending or, indeed, on which projects. We do not know which of the Gulf countries are in receipt of the money and how much each of them is given. I notice that a written answer to the noble Lord Scriven said,

“All IAF-funded project work undergoes assessment and review. We are not able to disclose information related to particular IAF projects in greater detail as we have a duty to maintain the confidence and confidentiality of our partners.”

It appears that they do not want us to know what they are doing in the aquaculture field.



A couple of months ago, I asked a question that drew attention to the contrast between the funding of Bahrain through the IAF and the two prisoners who had undergone abuses through the Bahraini justice system, Mohammed Ramadhan and Husain Moosa, who are still on death row. Again, the reply simply said, “Yes, we object to the death penalty being used in these circumstances, but we are designing to support Bahrain-led reform in areas including human rights.”

I return to the question asked by the hon. Member for Worthing West: how effective is that? The answer must be, not very effective. The record on human rights across the board is getting worse year on year in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Saudi Arabia, which is much larger and more proactive in the region—although, UAE is becoming increasingly so—draws a lot of the attention. We have heard about the 184 executions, quite a number of them by crucifixion and other horrific practices. We know about those protesting for women’s human rights who were locked up and tortured. All of that is happening now under the current Saudi regime.

However, we also know that Bahrain lifted its moratorium on the death penalty in 2017, has executed six people and has a further 26 on death row. Those are the headline figures, but the practices and conditions in prisons, which are squalid, lead to epidemic-level outbreaks of illness. Prisoners do not get treatment for serious health conditions. Many of these individuals are long-standing human rights campaigners going back decades. They are now quite elderly, but they are locked up. Despite having serious health conditions, they do not receive any health treatment.

The situation in Bahrain has gone downhill since the Arab spring, when there was a popular uprising, which was supressed using Saudi forces. Since then, anyone speaking out on human rights has been dealt with in a summary fashion. Civil liberties in these countries are virtually non-existent now. Things that we would take for granted, such as a free press, the right to assemble and the right of opposition political parties to form—most of them have now been dissolved—do not exist. In Bahrain, unlicensed gatherings of over five people are illegal and public protests are supressed with violence.

I ask the Minister, how are our attempts, funded by the British taxpayer, to improve human rights in these countries going? It all seems to be going in the opposite direction. I do not have time to go over the many individual cases, but there are cases of people—such as Ali Al-Hajee, Ali Al-Wazir, Hassan Mushaima and all those on death row—who should be held up as supporting human rights and arguing for better conditions of life, but who are being supressed by entirely oppressive regimes.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

It would be a good idea if the Minister could say that some of this fund was used to help support human rights organisations in some of these countries.

[Andy Slaughter]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that obvious point, which I wish I had thought of. Now that it is on the record, perhaps the Minister would like to respond to it. Why are we supporting the organisations that we have heard about today, such as the special investigations unit and other human rights bodies in Bahrain? They all have wonderful names, such as the ombudsman. The problem is not just that these organisations are ineffective, despite the money they receive from the UK, but that they collaborate with the prosecuting authorities. They provide a shield against proper investigation and often turn down investigations on little or no evidence, which puts the individual whose case they are reviewing in a worse position than when they started. Yet those are exactly the organisations that we are supporting.

When I was shadow Justice Minister, I put it to the then Lord Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), in very strong terms, that we were selling prison services—this is a peculiarity of our relationship with Gulf countries: half the time we seem to be giving them money, and half the time we seem to be selling them services—through what was called the Saudi prison contract, when in fact what was going on in those prisons was torture, abuse and appalling conditions. To his credit, he ended the contract that had been started by his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), which was exactly the right thing to do.

If mistakes have been made in the past, look at them again. How effective are they? Are they, in fact, giving cover to repressive regimes? Are they, in fact, making the situation worse? We cannot answer those questions because of the secrecy surrounding this and other funds. It is simply outrageous that the Government continue to use national security or other measures to disguise the use of money that they say is for entirely benign purposes. We look to the Minister for some answers today, but what we would actually like is a proper review of whether this is an appropriate use of taxpayers’ money.

14:16

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I remind the Chamber of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I chair the all-party parliamentary British-Qatar group. I am struggling to remember, but I think I am also an office-bearer for the all-party parliamentary group on Kuwait, but other hon. Members will know that the amount of commitment that those offices bring with them is, shall we say, variable. My engagement with those APPGs has, however, given me, I hope, a small measure of insight into engagement with Gulf countries—those in the Gulf Cooperation Council in particular, although I am not sure that there really is a functioning GCC at present.

I am not without sympathy for the purposes behind the idea of such funds. As I said to the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), I am not really persuaded that the deficiencies in civic Government, human rights and even in agriculture—rarely does a debate come up where the MP for Orkney and Shetland cannot talk about agriculture—are necessarily down to a lack of funding. However, I am also always aware that when one engages with countries that have deficiencies in those and other areas, it is best always to do so from a starting point of a measure of humility. We rarely achieve much by lecturing and preaching to people in other countries. Understand a bit of their own history and how they have come to the point they are at today.

To draw on my experience with Qatar, for example, I have been genuinely impressed in recent years to see some of the progress that has been made in relation to labour rights. The abolition of the kafala system and the opening of an International Labour Organisation office in Doha are significant achievements, and we should be pleased. When I speak to people in the Qatari Government, of course we want to talk about those things, as they inevitably do—every Government always want to talk about where they have made progress—but we also have to be mindful that there is still a significant way to go in relation to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights, for example. To engage with any measure of integrity with these countries, we have to be able to tell them that, while appreciating the progress they have made, we see other areas where progress still has to be made.

I am always very conscious of the fact that in Britain the abolition of the death penalty and the legalisation of homosexuality both happened in the course of my life. Both date back to the 1960s, so we should engage and encourage, but we should be mindful of the fact that we have not always had the greatest story to tell. On labour rights, for example, let us not kid ourselves, because we still have a problem with human trafficking in this country, notwithstanding the gangmasters legislation that we have now had for about 10 to 15 years. So humility is the order of the day.

That said, engagement must bring with it other things. The most important of those, as the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) said, should be transparency and accountability. It is in the operation of the IAF that we find a worrying lack of both transparency and accountability, and I fear that permeates other aspects of our engagement with Gulf Cooperation Council countries.

Although it is not necessarily directly on point in relation to the operation of the IAF—at least I suspect that is the case, but who knows?—I am very concerned that the police chief in Dubai appears to be a front-runner for the presidency of Interpol. Nasser Ahmed Al-Raisi was in charge of the police service that detained a British academic, Matthew Hedges, for around six months on trumped-up charges, bluntly, which Matthew has always denied. I understand that he was eventually forced to sign a confession in Arabic, which he just did not understand, and in that time he was tortured. The engagement with the United Arab Emirates in relation to that case, for example, is not one that in any way, shape or form can be seen as working in the interests of United Kingdom citizens.

It is because of the lack of transparency and accountability that the business of engagement with GCC countries looks, from time to time, as if it is operating on double standards. We criticise China—I am 100% behind the Government’s new policy on China—but at the same time we seem to find it very difficult to criticise the Saudi Government, notwithstanding, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) outlined, their truly appalling human rights record. Yes, they have recently passed legislation allowing women the right to drive, but at the same time they are jailing those who actually campaigned for that very right. They also use the death penalty for people who would have been minors at the time they committed any crimes. They seem to continue on an almost unrestricted basis, including—God help us—having crucifixions.

If UK taxpayers’ money is being spent in such countries, the UK Government have a duty to account to taxpayers for where it is being spent and what it is being spent on. The little that we do know about the operation of the IFA, particularly as it relates to Bahrain, is that it involves sentencing reform and alternative sentencing there. That is a cause that I am prepared to support—indeed, it is a drum that I have beaten for many years in this country. That is certainly something we should support. However, if we consider the way in which alternative sentencing policy is pursued in Bahrain, we find very quickly that in fact there is no benefit for the political prisoners there. The beneficiaries of alternative sentencing are all within the country’s criminal justice system. I would have thought that one of the things we would want to promote is equal treatment, at the very least, of criminal prisoners and political prisoners. We should of course be pursuing a situation in which there are no political prisoners, but for those who find themselves imprisoned in Bahrain, any advances should be equally available to all.

There is a case for doing at least some of the work associated with the IAF, but I cannot think of many areas of public expenditure, even at this scale, that are allowed to be maintained in such conditions of secrecy. It is totally lacking in transparency and accountability. If the money is genuinely being spent on capacity building, we should expect it to be spent through non-governmental organisations, which I know is not easy in Gulf countries. However, they are there and they do operate, and they would seem a more obvious route for channelling support through, as we do in virtually every other theatre in which we spend overseas development moneys.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

This fund is not part of our aid budget; it is overseas spending.

[Mr Carmichael]

Indeed, which is why I deliberately did not use the terms “overseas aid” or “overseas development assistance”. However, to the hard-pressed British taxpayer, it is money that is being spent overseas, and the objectives set for the IAF would not look out of place in our overseas development assistance budget. If the objectives are the same, there would have to be some compelling reason why, on this occasion, we are effectively giving money to state actors, rather than non-state actors.

I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in this regard. I fear that it is a topic to which the House will continue to return for some time to come.

14:27

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, Mr Efford. I am conscious that other Members have other places to go, so I will not dwell on my speech for too long. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for setting the scene, as he always does. He and I might have a difference of opinion on one big issue, but we agree on a great many other things, which is important. I am always glad to see the Minister in his place as well. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief.

I have long spoken in this House about the need to ensure that any funding for conflict zones should be traceable to relieving the effects of conflict on innocent victims, not to those who carry out the conflict. One example of that has been—I make no apology for this—the funding to the Palestinian Authority, who carry out campaigns against Israeli women and children, and who use education and propaganda to perpetuate hatred between the two nations. As the UK has not published a full list of the projects that the IAF supports, it is unclear whether we directly fund such textbooks. I seek clarification on that from the Minister, and receiving that today would be extremely useful.

The British Government have signed a memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Authority. The text is regurgitated each time it is signed. Paragraph 2(i)i confirms that, to receive our support, the Palestinians must adhere to non-violence, yet they do not, but the money seems to keep rolling in. My concern lies in the fact that if the Government have difficulty in enforcing an agreement that sends tens of millions of pounds every year to people who endorse violence, what chance do they have of controlling and properly supervising the IAF, the budget of which is a fraction of the size? I have argued that we need more transparency, and I am very happy for this debate to take place today. No one should benefit from British aid who is not carrying out the most basic human rights obligations.

One such issue raised with me relates to Bahrain, which other Members have referred to. Freedom of information requests have demonstrated that IAF funding has supported religious organisations in Bahrain, and the Government have frequently praised Bahrain on its religious tolerance, stating on their website that:

“Bahrain maintained a positive record on freedom of religion or belief.”

However—there is always an however—it has been clearly illustrated that that is not what is happening.

The US Commission on International Religious Freedom has repeatedly raised concerns about systematic discrimination against Bahrain’s indigenous Shi’a population by the Sunni Government. Without full transparency about Government funding to the Gulf, how can taxpayers be sure that public money is not being used to underpin bodies involved in religious discrimination and the violent suppression of civil societies in the Gulf Co-operation Council? That is why we need transparency and why this debate is so important.

The Government have often pointed to Bahrain’s alternative sentencing legislation as an IAF success story. However, although an impressive number of individuals have been released on alternative sentences—that should be noted and congratulated—I have been made aware that there might be evidence to suggest that releases may have discriminated against political prisoners. At Jau prison, there are now reportedly entire cell blocks that exclusively house political prisoners, and those on criminal charges are granted alternative sentences.

A notable example of discrimination relates to the prisoners known as the Bahrain 13—the leaders of Bahrain’s political opposition, jailed for their role in the 2011 pro-democracy uprising. Four of those men—Sheikh Mirza al-Mahroos, Mohammad Hassan Jawwad, Mohammad Ali Ridha Isma’il, and Sheikh Abdul-Hadi Abdullah Hassan al-Mukhodher—have completed nine years of their 15-year sentences, making them eligible for alternative sentences. However, despite their advanced age—some of them are over 70—all have been excluded from recent prisoner releases, while individuals convicted of violent criminal offences have been released ahead of them. When International Activities Fund-backed legislation is applied in such a discriminatory manner, without any transparency in how the IAF money was spent supporting this initiative, how can the public, the British taxpayer and we as elected representatives be confident that our taxes are promoting genuine reform in Bahrain and the wider GCC?

Mohammed Ramadhan and Hussain Moosa are Bahraini political prisoners who have been sentenced to death for his participation in pro-democracy protests and are at risk of imminent execution. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) referred to them. It is clear that they were tortured, sexually assaulted and forced to sign false confessions, which acted as the basis of their capital convictions. As a matter of principle, the UK opposes the use of the death penalty in all circumstances, and I welcome that. However, the use of executions has risen in Bahrain by a factor of more than 10 since 2017, in spite of IAF assistance to strengthen the rule of law.

The Special Investigations Unit is an IAF beneficiary—it sounds very dramatic and it has lots of power. The results of its so-called investigation were criticised for being flawed, failing to comply with the Istanbul protocol and leading directly to the re-imposition of the death sentences, so that review and investigation led nowhere. Amnesty International has found that IAF beneficiary oversight bodies that are responsible for investigating allegations of torture and abuse

“continually contribute to a pervasive culture of impunity in Bahrain through their failure to independently carry out their mandates.”

In the light of those well-documented and well-known failures, will the FCDO freeze funding until an independent review has been conducted?

Naji Fateel, a prominent Bahraini human rights defender, is currently serving a combined sentence of 25 years and six months for his human rights activism—something that we all subscribe to and speak about. He has now been away from his five children for more than seven years. When he was arrested, he was severely beaten and officers stomped on his head. During interrogation, Naji was severely tortured: he was kicked, forced to stand for long hours, suspended from the ceiling for long periods of time and electrocuted grievously on his genital area. His torture was so severe that he lost consciousness multiple times and had to be rushed to the hospital. There are publicly available pictures of the resulting scars on his body and he has suffered long-term consequences from this torture. Although Fateel now requires specific medication and surgery for his various injuries, the Jau prison authorities routinely deny him such treatment and have cancelled surgical appointments numerous times. Again, are we helping those people financially through the International Activities Fund, and are they then disregarding human rights, as they seem to?

After Naji made complaints to a human rights oversight body, the National Institute for Human Rights, it merely reviewed his medical records and swiftly closed his case, concluding he has

“his rights related to access to healthcare”

without a proper investigation or any action to remedy his situation. If the National Institute for Human Rights cannot do that job fairly, impartially or in a way that we can be satisfied about, it is time to do something about it.

[Mr Laurence Robertson in the Chair]

To conclude—it is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Robertson—will the Government make their funding streams to the GCC transparent, so that Naji and the British taxpayer can be sure that money is not going to, in effect, the institutions that cover up abuse?

Those are just a few examples of why the so-called secret package of funding must be transparent. Let us see where it goes, so that we can hold people accountable and allow for scrutiny. We must have dialogue with those we are helping, to ensure that human rights protections are not just a talking point, but a reality. Those examples show why we need it.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

We now come to the Front-Bench speeches. Please remember that we need to leave two minutes at the end for Mr Linden to wind up.

14:35

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I put on record that I am also all-party parliamentary group on democracy and human rights in the Gulf. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) on securing this important debate and thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part for their contributions this afternoon, for the way they have sought to get to the truth of exactly what this fund is and what it is being used for, and for shining a light on places where, frankly, the Government and the recipients of the money would rather a light not be shone.

Although this debate has been a useful exercise, it remains a matter of deep regret that in a democracy there should be such a lack of transparency about how the shadowy Integrated Activity Fund is being used that the only way that we as hon. Members can scrutinise it is to have the occasional debate every couple of years. I fear that, as always happens when the Government are asked about the fund, we are going to be fobbed off with the standard response that the IAF is being used for

“aquaculture, sport and culture, healthcare and institutional capacity building.”

Sadly, that old “Nothing to see here” answer has been the hallmark of the Government’s response ever since the fund was established. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) was absolutely spot on. The Government must think we button up the back if they are asking us to believe that sending money to the cash-rich states in the Gulf is, “to help to develop aquaculture and sporting activities—but don’t ask about it, because it’s a secret.”

We live in hope, however, and the Government should be aware that even the expected non-answers will not deter us from continuing to ask these hugely important questions. The secrecy and lack of transparency that surround this fund make a mockery of the Government’s claim to be pursuing an ethical foreign policy. An ethical foreign policy does not fund states that are complicit in human rights abuses, and then seek to deny elected representatives the right to scrutinise that.

How can it be remotely ethical to give money to regimes that are accused by many highly-respected international human rights organisations of routinely using torture and executing political dissidents? How can it be remotely ethical for a Government to do everything they can to prevent democratic scrutiny and avoid public accountability for what has been done in our name? The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—always a great champion of the rights of people across the world to practise their religion or belief—is correct when he points out that we do not believe that there is freedom of religion and the ability to practise one’s belief in those states, and we should not be funding states that deny that.

I am sure in his response, the Minister will say that the UK Government fully respect human rights and that he will condemn any form of torture and say that they are working to promote best practice among our allies. That is absolutely fine, and no one would disagree that they should be doing that. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East said in his opening remarks, the problem is, if they are so confident about their position, why do they run a mile from any form of serious scrutiny?

Due to the Government avoiding scrutiny, it remains unclear where the money goes and what has been done, leading to the inevitable conclusion that they have something to hide and know that, should that truth get out, they would have plenty to answer for that would not be covered under the

“aquaculture, sport and culture, healthcare and institutional capacity building”

defence. The hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) said that the Minister has to accept that hiding from public scrutiny is not a good look and only leads to further suspicion, and that the reason the UK keeps this out of the public eye is because they know that there would be outrage if the UK taxpayer discovered what their hard-earned cash was being spent on. If there is nothing to fear and nothing to hide, why this lack of scrutiny and transparency? Maya Foa, director of Reprieve, said:

“The only way for the British public to be confident their money is not leading to abuses abroad is for the government to publish a full and transparent account of projects we are funding and the human rights assessment for each.”

There is nothing in that that I can see a democratic Government could argue with.

Despite all the evidence of the human rights abuses that this money is going towards, the Government continue to give their unconditional political and economic support to many Gulf states. I think we should be asking more of our allies and friends. Surely we have a moral and ethical obligation to reassess any current aid relationship we have with states that stand accused of human rights violations.

I commend the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for calling out the double standards at play here, considering that we treat other states, quite rightly, as pariah states for how they treat their political dissidents. I fear that the United Kingdom stands accused of turning a blind eye to abuses when it believes it has something to gain.

Given that the opportunity to dig into the workings of the fund are extremely limited, in the time remaining I will ask the Minister a series of questions. He may wish to answer them this afternoon, but I am more than happy to receive a more considered written answer, so long as they do not contain the words

“aquaculture, sport and culture, healthcare and institutional capacity building.”

First, will the Minister accept that criticism of the fund is growing and will not go away? If the UK Government are so confident that the fund only funds lawful, peaceful and legitimate activities, will he explain what they have to fear from an open and independent review of how it is being used? Why, at a time of this supposedly ethical foreign policy, will he not agree to suspend the fund while it undergoes that independent review, in the hope of restoring public confidence? Why do the Government believe that there should be no transparency or independent democratic scrutiny of the activities of those who benefit from these funds? In what way do the Government believe that releasing the information about the activities of those receiving funding would threaten our relations with the GCC states?

The Government have claimed much credit for the human rights oversight bodies now operating in Bahrain, yet numerous human rights organisations have accused them of being complicit in torture and other serious abuses. Will the Government publish their internal evaluations and let Members of this House and the public see how they assess the recipients of IAF money and how they are making progress towards building those effective and accountable institutions? The UN committee against torture and the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy have revealed that those organisations have frequently failed to investigate and have actively shared confidential correspondences with Government bodies. They have been shown to be not only ineffective, but deeply compromised. Does the Minister not agree that those bodies provide the Bahraini Government with a veneer of reform, while achieving very little in the promotion of human rights?

The Government repeatedly claim that they benefit from an ongoing and genuine dialogue. If that is true, why have the Government been unable to come out to condemn the death sentences against torture victims in Bahrain? Why is the receipt of funding from the IAF not contingent on the states seeking it not executing people, including their own dissidents? What is Minister’s explanation for why two states in particular, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, which receive millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, are now executing more people, at a faster rate, than they were before receiving money from the IAF? Will the Government name all the bodies that receive funding, as well as those that deliver the funding? Will the Government provide a breakdown by country or activity? Do the Government believe that there is, currently and in the past, no IAF programme that has failed to comply with the UK’s human rights obligations?

Finally, I once again thank all the Members who have contributed today, and put on record my gratitude to, appreciation of, and respect for those human rights organisations and committed activists who, on behalf of us all, are shining a light where too many people do not want a light to be shone.

14:45

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. To start with, it is worth making the point that there have been six contributors to this important debate so far this afternoon, and there has been a commonality among all their contributions, which I really think the Government have to take note of. It is also worth reminding ourselves of why we were told this fund was established in 2015. The then Minister of State for the Middle East indicated that the fund was

“intended to support the delivery of flexible, cross-cutting and sustained investment in the region. The IAF provides funding in support of a range of programmes across the Gulf Region. These include, but are not limited to, activities focusing on aquaculture, sport and culture, healthcare and institutional capacity building.”

However, it is pretty clear that the fund is used for a whole range of activities that go well beyond the limited areas that were specified.

A few months ago, I participated in a Zoom conference organised by the Bahraini Government, on the alternative sentencing programme in that country. Many positive things were stated, and there had no doubt been a distinct British influence on what was described to us. However, I have to say that, as we all know, the programme was very limited, because it included only certain kinds of prisoners. Other prisoners, such as political prisoners—who, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) mentioned, should not exist anyhow—are not included in such programmes. They are people who are unspoken of and unrecognised, but we all nevertheless know that they are there.

It is also important to recognise that it is not simply parliamentarians complaining about a lack of information and transparency. It is objectively true that this information is not fully, freely available to a whole range of non-governmental organisations, and is certainly not available to members of the public and anybody else who wants to inquire about how the money is actually spent. Even the House of Commons Library, on which we rely for objective information, has been unable to find out very much about the allocation of resources. I have read the Library briefing on this topic, which said very clearly that although the funding allocations are

“reported in the FCO’s departmental Estimates and its Annual Report and Accounts”,

there is little else besides. The Library has looked everywhere for additional information, and has had “to rely on PQs” and written replies from the FCO and other Departments to glean more information, but it knows very little about this fund. This debate is therefore incredibly important, and the Minister’s response will be very important as well.

As we all know and as Members have mentioned, there are a whole range of concerns about human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, and many people believe that, far from getting better, the situation is getting worse. It is therefore extremely important that we focus acutely on how these resources are allocated and why, and whether or not they are being used truly effective.

Two organisations that have done a tremendous amount of work in this area are Reprieve and the Bahrain Institute for Rights and Democracy, and it is significant that BIRD submitted a freedom of information request to the Government in July 2019, in which it asked a number of important questions.

One of the key questions asked in that letter was

“whether any risk assessments were conducted by the Government under the overseas security and justice assistance guidance to evaluate the human rights implications of such assistance, and, if so, what were the findings of these investigations?”

What was the answer from the FCO?

“No OSJA risk assessments were carried out.”

That is it. The FCO did not bother to ask, look or inquire. It simply did not carry out the assessments.

Not only is that wrong, but it is in stark contradiction to the express policy of the Government themselves. They are proud of those assessments, yet they do not bother to implement their own policy. That is why I think the debate is important. I also think that it must continue beyond today. I welcome the request that has been made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), for example, for responses following the debate. We will look carefully at the responses from the Government, because the debate is not a one-off. Our concern is deep, entrenched and widely held, and I look forward to the Government’s responses to questions asked today, and to those that will inevitably be asked later.

It is central to a modern democracy that we have openness and accountability, and that the Government should give us a clear statement about how public money is being used and whether it is being used appropriately and effectively. It is not our money that we are talking about. The people of this country have a right to know how their hard-earned resources have been spent by the Government, and whether that is effective. I look forward to a full response from the Minister and hope that our debate will continue beyond this afternoon.

00:04

[The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Robertson. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and the hon. Members for Glasgow East (David Linden) and for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) for securing the debate today. I am also grateful for the contributions of other hon. Members, and I will attempt to answer as many of the points that have been raised as possible.

The UK continues to look at ways of deepening our already strong and historic relationships with Gulf partners. Our 2015 strategy sought to increase our mutual security, prosperity and regional stability interests. In making that point, I reflect on the comment of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) about doing things with a degree of humility, as well as the importance of doing them with a degree of sensitivity. He was right to highlight that. The UK Government seek to work alongside the GCC countries and to support and encourage a positive direction of travel in reforms there. However, being a hectoring bystander is probably not the most effective way to do that.

[Brendan O'Hara]

On being a hectoring bystander, I take the Minister’s point. We were paying through the nose to be that hectoring bystander. When there is transparency and accountability, that is when it becomes possible to hector, surely.

[James Cleverly]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and will address some of his points in my speech.

The creation of the Integrated Activity Fund in 2016 was part of the process to support that work to encourage and steer our friends in the GCC. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland highlighted the fact that they are for the most part wealthy countries, and a number of Members have questioned whether there should be any expenditure at all in the region. I remind Members that diplomacy is cost-efficient, but it is not free. If we want to make a positive difference and be a force for good in the world and in the region, we must recognise that it has to be paid for, but it is completely understandable that Members and the British public want the money to be spent ethically and effectively.

[David Linden]

I do not disagree with the Minister. I understand that diplomacy costs money, but does he accept that when that money is being spent on behalf of British taxpayers, they also want transparency to follow that?

[James Cleverly]

I will touch on the transparency of our expenditure in the region.

Earlier this week, I came back from Oman, where I saw first hand some of the work that the fund has enabled us to deliver. For example, it has helped to provide technical assistance to key economic institutions to help them respond to the reduced oil revenues and strengthen their regulatory process and staff capabilities, because stronger economies underpin stability. This work creates a stronger business environment, which is beneficial to the people of Oman, and it builds a better business environment for UK traders and investors. We also launched the UK-Oman digital hub in partnership with UK universities and industry to raise Omanis’ digital skills. That helps to build an innovative and more diverse economy in Oman. In February, we used the IAF to fund a trade mission to Saudi Arabia, which secured export contracts worth £80 million in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s smart cities sector. Our support for scientific and medical work on genomics in Qatar has established the UK as the partner of choice in that field.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the importance of tolerance, religious freedom and human rights. He is absolutely right to do so, but it is through such partnerships that we are able to raise these incredibly important issues with our partners in the GCC.

[Jim Shannon]

I want to recognise the excellent work that the Government and the Minister do, but I gave three examples of human rights being deliberately abused and disregarded. That surely indicates that the words that the Minister has with the people in the Government there are not effective. If that is the case, we need to find a different way.

[James Cleverly]

I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman makes, and I will attempt to address them in my speech.

As I was saying, this co-operation, which is to the benefit of the people of both the Gulf and the UK, is possible only because we are able to build strong and resilient partnerships with countries in the GCC. Of course, building trust has to be balanced with the desire for transparency—a point that various right hon. and hon. Members have made. I take issue with a comment made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), who said that the only way to scrutinise the Government’s activity in this area is to have debates. I remind him that that is the way that Governments are meant to be scrutinised; that is how Parliament works. I am here at the Dispatch Box to be part of the scrutiny process of the Government.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I think the Minister knows the point that I was making: having this debate once every 18 months or every two years is simply not enough, and having written questions fobbed off time and again with almost identical answers is an inefficient and inadequate way to do business.

[James Cleverly]

I understand. The hon. Gentleman knows that, since becoming the Minister for the region, I am the responding Minister. If he is critical of repetitive answers, it is because the same questions keep being asked, but I will try to address promptly some of the points that were raised, if hon. Members permit.

I am very conscious that, as we have seen today, through written correspondence and more broadly, there has been criticism of the fund, and particularly of our work in Bahrain, but our policy has been to engage with Bahrain and to encourage and support its institutional reform through targeted assistance. For example, the IAF has enabled British expertise to help develop Bahrain’s independent human rights oversight bodies. I know that Members present have been critical, but the creation of those bodies is important, as is their improvement and reform. I know that the ombudsman’s office has, again, been criticised, but it must be recognised that it has investigated more than 5,000 complaints. I invite hon. Members to consider whether those investigations would have happened had we not been involved.

[Mr Carmichael]

The Minister cites two examples that we have discussed already. That is good, but if he can tell us about those examples, why can we not be told about them all?

[James Cleverly]

I am going to try to rattle through my speech, because, unfortunately, I will run out of time otherwise. A number of the points that Members have raised are embedded in it, but if I do not get to the end, I will not be able to cover them.

The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) said that the alternative sentencing programme is a welcome step in the right direction and that he would like to see it go further. He is right, but if it were not in existence it would not be able to go further, and it is in existence at least in part because of the technical assistance from the UK Government. Those outcomes have strengthened human rights adherence and accountability in Bahrain, and they are possible only because—

[Wayne David]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Cleverly]

No, I am going to make progress. Otherwise I will—

[Wayne David]

The Minister did mention me.

[James Cleverly]

I give way to the hon. Member.

[Wayne David]

I thank the Minister for his generosity. The way forward could be very simple for the Government: they could simply provide a comprehensive list of all the projects that are funded. Will he or will he not do that?

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the Minister responds, I remind everybody that I want to leave two minutes for Mr Linden to wind up.

[James Cleverly]

Thank you, Mr Robertson. The UK is confident, and it is evident, that we are having a significant positive impact on human rights in the region because of the funds that we have allocated to technical assistance. We conduct rigorous overseas security and justice assessments in support of this work. That preparation enables us to put safeguards in place that ensure that our co-operation strengthens rather than undermines human rights and the rule of law.

The fund has evolved and is now the Gulf strategy fund. Ministerial colleagues and I will continue to use these funds to work with countries in the region to support our mutual prosperity and, as I say, strengthen their adherence to human rights. We have reviewed and strengthened the governance of the fund, so we do listen to concerns raised by colleagues from both sides of the House. We have invested in our programme expertise and brought more senior-level oversight through a streamlined cross-Whitehall governance board in London. We have appointed new programme teams in each Gulf state, with the ambassador or head of mission held accountable for effective programme delivery and value for money.

I can confirm that we will publish a summary of work funded by the Gulf strategy 2021 for Members of this House and broader society to scrutinise. Please be assured that I and my colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will continue to monitor the governance and operation of the Gulf strategy fund, as it now is, so that it delivers true value for money and viable results, supporting the UK’s explicit desire to be a force for good in not only the region but the world

00:00

[David Linden]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Robertson. I am grateful to colleagues from a number of parties. Normally, a Westminster Hall debate on a Thursday afternoon would be one man and a dog. Unfortunately, in this case, it is several men and no dogs, but the point remains that we have had Members from the Conservative party, the Labour party, the SNP, the Democratic Unionist party and the Liberal Democrats. It is very unusual for so many parties to come together and, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) said, to affirm the same message to the Government. I hope the Minister reflects on that.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) made the point that, several times in his remarks, the Minister, for whom I have the utmost respect, was able, on a country-by-country basis, to reference countries such as Oman, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, where funding is becoming available. I am afraid that that rather flies in the face of the argument that has been made to hon. Members of this House who have lodged written questions that the information cannot be provided on a country-by-country basis, but that is what the Minister has just done that in his summing up.

I welcome what the Minister said about publishing a summary of 2020-21 financial year spending, but I come back to the central point that we are not just looking for a summary; we are looking for all the information. If the Government have nothing to fear, they will have no difficulty publishing that information.

Finally, I have been involved in politics for 19 years, including three years in this House, and more often than not Conservative Members demand to know about every single payment spent on international development. A number of us in this House have had concerns about the merger of the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I accept that that has gone ahead, but the Government cannot have their cake and eat it. If they want to have that level of transparency in international development funding, it must surely be the same with the IAF.

I hope the Minister will accept that this is not something that will go away. I invite him on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) to come to the all-party parliamentary group on democracy and human rights in the Gulf to continue this conversation. As he knows, I consider him a friend, and I am sure he will be more than happy to continue this conversation and to seek to allay the fears of hon. Members of this House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered transparency of the Integrated Activity Fund.

00:02

Sitting suspended.

Ministry of Justice: Legal Aid Spending

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Westminster Hall

15:10

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I beg to move,

This this House has considered the spending of the Ministry of Justice on legal aid.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Mr Robertson, and to move this motion on behalf of my colleagues on the Select Committee on Justice, which I have the honour to chair. I am delighted to see a number of colleagues here today.

People might think that spending on legal aid is a technical and rather dry subject, but it is not, and nor should it be, because ultimately it is about access to justice. When preparing for today, I was struck by a comment from the late Lord Diplock, one of our very distinguished jurists, who said:

"Every civilised system of government requires that the state should make available to all its citizens a means for the just and peaceful settlement of disputes between them as to their respective legal rights. The means provided are courts of justice to which every citizen has a constitutional right of access.”

The last point is important. It is the realistic ability to access justice that is important, if we are to talk about genuine access to justice, as opposed to the theoretical.

Rightly, after world war two, the legal aid scheme was set up under the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949. Governments of all parties have sought to provide means of access. To quote another distinguished late jurist, Lord Bingham:

“Denial of legal protection to the poor litigant who cannot afford to pay is one enemy of the rule of law”.

In a democracy, we are all committed to the rule of law. We debated it not long ago in Westminster Hall, Mr Robertson. To achieve that, it is important that those who have rights that they seek to enforce have a means of going to the courts to do so. They should not be constrained in exercising those rights by their means. The test ought to be the merits of their claim, rather than the means they have to bring it. In the same way, in criminal matters, those whom the state charges with an offence are entitled to a proper means of putting the state to proof as to whether that offence is made out against them. Their ability to do that should not be constrained by their means either. The test in a criminal case should be whether the state can prove the case against them on the merits and the evidence, to the appropriate standard. Those are basic things we all sign up to.

We have to ask how we can do that effectively in reality, in circumstances where many of the population find affording to pay for litigation, which no one embarks upon lightly, not viable or within their grasp. It is not just about litigation. I remember that when I started as a young barrister—I refer to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—some of the most important things were those done through the green form scheme, such as giving important early advice on whether a contract case, or a case for possession of property, or a matrimonial case, had merits. It is not purely legal criminal matters that we are concerned with. Often, that early advice saves a great deal of trouble for individuals and for their families, either enabling them to resist an unfair claim against them, or warning them off pursuing an unwise course of action that might get them into more expense.

Access to justice and an effectively functioning legal aid system are in everybody’s interests and a societal good. Governments of all complexions have had to balance the need to do that with the need to sustainably fund it at times when there are other pressures on the public purse. It has struck me throughout my time in this place, that governments of all complexions have, from time to time, reduced spending on legal aid. No one is entirely free of that, and it is almost inevitable at a time when the Ministry of Justice also has to deal within its budget with prisons, probation and many other matters. It is very easy for legal aid spending to be seen as one of the more discretionary elements in the system and to be squeezed out.

That is why on a number of occasions over the years the Justice Committee has carried out inquiries and issued reports on spending on legal aid and its sustainability. Indeed, very recently we conducted an inquiry into legal aid in the context of the pressures placed on the legal profession and the court system by the covid-19 pandemic. We have now embarked on a fresh inquiry into the future of legal aid; we started it on 7 September and we are looking for evidence until 2 November. I hope that people will submit evidence to the Committee on the broad sustainability of legal aid.

Of course, the current statutory basis of legal aid is the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, or LASPO, but the Government have rightly undertaken to review that. There have been delays in that process and it has taken some time, but we need to see how effective that Act is. Some of the changes it made were sensible; others have not necessarily stood the test of time and we need to be honest about that. Perhaps the problem was that the introduction of LASPO was linked with a very significant reduction in legal aid spending. It was not the first time that had happened; the Labour Government before the coalition reduced spending on legal aid quite significantly in a number of areas. Now, however, we have a chance to consider what is a sustainable basis for legal aid. I hope that eventually we reach a degree of consensus so that legal aid ceases to be something of a party political football, which any type of public spending can sometimes become. I hope that the Minister will be able to update us on the progress of the Government reviews.

That does not mean that in the future we have to deliver legal aid in exactly the same way as before. However, it is important that people should have access to early advice, and there is no doubt that, for various reasons, the financial pressures on the system are creating real difficulties in delivering to people the level of service that we would wish to see. I note the briefings that have been provided by both the Law Society and the Bar Council in that regard.

As many will know, I spent most of my life in practice at the criminal Bar. A great deal of my work, either prosecuting or defending, was publicly funded. There is no doubt that there is a real problem now in attracting bright young lawyers, either solicitors or barristers, to undertake that sort of work. The cases that I worked on started with a solicitor attending the police station—in those days, the duty solicitor scheme had been brought in quite recently. We have heard compelling evidence over the last two or three inquiries, and indeed over the last two or three years, from solicitors and other practitioners that there is now a real dearth of people who are willing to undertake the fairly onerous task of turning out, sometimes in the middle of the night, to sit in a police station when somebody charged with an offence—often a serious criminal offence—is interviewed. It is part of that person’s constitutional right—part of ensuring both that the guilty are properly prosecuted and the innocent are defended—but in many areas now it is very hard to find legal aid solicitors available to undertake that work. The average age of a duty solicitor is pushing 50, whereas the average age of those in the legal profession as a whole is much younger, so disproportionately legal aid work is becoming an older person’s part of the profession. If we do not recruit new people to do the work, the supply of duty solicitors will dry up.

In the civil field, there is a geographic difficulty regarding the availability of housing advice; that was a particular example that we were given. I suspect that post covid more people will be in financial difficulty, facing problems of debt, and housing possession actions will loom even larger in the courts. However, in many places, including quite large local authority areas, it is physically very hard to find more than one legal aid practitioner who will provide advice on housing law for people. That is not a sustainable position.

The position is similar at the Bar. Even large specialist sets of criminal chambers—such as mine, and I suspect the Minister’s—will probably say anecdotally that far less of their work is publicly funded than was the case in the past. That bears particularly hard on young barristers just starting out, who very often cut their teeth on this sort of work. We need a sustainable means of making sure that people can make a living. I am not talking about a grand living—one of the most unpleasant and annoying things for those of us who understand this area is these ridiculous headlines about fat cat lawyers doing criminal work; that is simply not the case. The facts clearly demonstrated to our Select Committee in reports over the years show that that is not the case, but of course the easy headlines make the most noise, as far as public debate is concerned.

We have recommended that a particular focus should be given to ensuring that we can uplift the funding for criminal legal aid. I recognise that the Government have put more money into this and revised some of the payment schemes. I welcome that, but I say to the Minister that there is more still to be done. Particular issues have been raised with us about interim payments to ensure that at the present time, during the covid-19 pandemic, cash flow for solicitors firms and sets of chambers undertaking publicly funded work continues to be available.

I know the Minister had an important role in securing the valuable money that has been expended in support for legal advice centres. That is important and welcome, but we need to ensure that they are put on a sustainable footing, too. There is a concern about the very high level of administrative costs in the Legal Aid Agency. An administrative budget of £88.8 million seems an awful lot for the organisation, which is supposed to be a light-touch operator.

That comes against the background—as the Minister himself rightly said when he was a distinguished member of the Select Committee—that spending on legal aid is a fraction of a fraction of total public spending in the United Kingdom,; it has been said to be about 0.1% of total spend. We are not talking about large sums of money in the overall scheme of things, but those sums of money make a profound difference to the citizen’s ability to enforce their rights or to defend themselves against unjust accusations.

I have not had time to talk about family or civil work, but I know that some of my hon. Friends will show their expertise in those areas. I will, however, make two points. Since certain changes were made, there has been a real collapse in the number of people able to access the employment tribunals. I suspect that, given the pressures of an economy damaged by the pandemic, demand will grow in that area.

It was always thought that changes to family legal aid would lead to more mediation. In fact, we found that mediation fell through the floor, because early access to the lawyer was the gateway for pointing people to go into mediation as a cheaper and less confrontational means of resolving their family disputes. Actually, the risk is that some of the savings that were taken out have not been cost-effective; they have been false savings, because there has been a growth of litigants in person, making the cases longer to deal with, resulting in greater burden on the judges and court time, and less good outcomes for the individuals and society as a whole.

I know the Minister understands these matters much better than most. I hope that the Government will commit to continue the review of LASPO in a timely fashion, and that we will not be afraid to come to certain interim conclusions and put some interim money in, where it is appropriate and justified by the evidence, to keep the legal aid market sustainable under the current pressures. I hope we will take a broader view about the sustainability of legal aid going forward.

Finally, perhaps all of us could use this as an opportunity to improve public awareness of the importance of the law. The law is not a purely transactional matter. I think Lord Kerr put it well in the Unison case. This is not purely a matter of private concern between the individuals; there is a public good in access to the courts. It is important constitutionally that people should be aware of their rights and how they enforce them.

We should not be afraid, therefore, of saying that any civilised society should resource its justice system just as much as it would resource any other social service—as much as we would expect to resource education, care for the elderly, healthcare or housing. Those are all matters that we would regard as part of the fundamental social fabric. Access to a workable court system is an equal part of that, requiring proper funding of the courts and judiciary, as well as, where appropriate, ensuring that those who have meritorious claims—a test to ensure that is fair—are not deterred purely by want of means from bringing them.

I hope that serves as an introduction to this debate. I have tried to explain why we think this is important, and why we regard the inquiry that the Select Committee is currently undertaking as important. I hope the Government will be able to respond positively.

15:25

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair for this debate, Mr Robertson. I congratulate the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), on securing the debate and on the content and nature of his speech, which I think will strike a number of chords across the Chamber. He made, as always, a powerful case for the principles on which legal aid rests. It underpins the rule of law in this country. If people are unable to access representation in civil and criminal cases, the rule of law is effectively denied to them. That is a powerful and important point. He also laid out some of the ways in which the pressures on the legal aid system are affecting individuals and communities, which I am sure will be reinforced, and which I certainly intend to reinforce myself.

[Siobhain McDonagh in the Chair]

Two years ago almost to the week, I was fortunate enough to open a debate in this Chamber on legal aid and to set out a number of the facts of what has happened to the legal aid service in the years since the LASPO Act was introduced. The grim truth is that, in almost every respect, the situation has got worse in those two years, and I will refer to a few of the figures in a moment. However, I particularly want to adopt as the context for my comments—as was briefly introduced by the hon. Gentleman—the impact of coronavirus. Grave as the situation was before, we are about to enter a period in which all the inequalities in access to justice and in the experiences on which that rests will become significantly worse.

We all have different experiences in different parts of the country, but I can say that my case load as a Member of Parliament has doubled in the past six months or so. Of those cases, a worrying—indeed, terrifying —number are outside my capacity to do anything about. They include people seeking urgent advice, help and representation on aspects of their lives that have been fundamentally disrupted by covid, particularly in the area of employment. Although there are sources of advice out there, and although—I will reinforce this again in my comments—I am lucky, in terms of the access to services that I have in my part of inner London, it has been absolutely terrifying how little assistance there is to refer people to.

I spoke to my local citizens advice bureau, which is superb, about that demand and about the early advice that it has been able to give. It told me that it received 6,000 separate inquiries between April and June, with 1,400 about social security—people losing incomes and jobs—1,000 housing-related inquiries and 500 employment- related inquiries, covering self-employment, redundancy or dismissal, the furlough scheme and access to employment tribunals.

It is absolutely clear from my case load, the citizens advice bureau’s and many other organisations’ that under the surface of the volume of need for advice, advocacy and representation, some of it is a need for early help and some is a need for being guided to the right kind of advice for people to make the right decisions in their own circumstances. However, it conceals a significant number of cases involving rogue employers or rogue landlords—sometimes rogue employees and claimants too, it must be said—where people are at severe risk. They are being exploited and need legal representation, which they are unable to get. I do not consider myself able to give any form of employment advice, so I have to signpost people to sources of help that are often simply not available to them.

I have had to deal with the number of illegal evictions during these past months. There was an evictions ban, now lifted by the Government, during the worst of the coronavirus months, but we know that people have been exploiting the vulnerability of a number of tenants and there have been illegal evictions. We need to be able to provide representation for those individuals. While we all agree that early help is a good thing and is frequently lacking, access to a legal aid solicitor is crucial in those circumstances, and far too often it is simply not forthcoming.

As I say, I am aware that we are well-resourced in London—nothing like compared with the level of need, but certainly compared with some other parts of the country. We know from the figures what has happened to the number of legal aid suppliers in different parts of the country. For example, when the LAA carried out its civil tender exercise in April 2013, it found that there were 3,500 civil provider legal aid offices, but as of October 2020 that had dropped to 1,774, or half the number of civil providers. In crime the picture is not so different: in 2013, there were 2,338 offices practising criminal legal aid. As of this month, that figure has now dropped to 1,058.

The number of providers has plunged and some parts of the country are simply deserts—we know the phrase—in terms of legal aid and access to services. As for access to civil aid in community care, the Law Society figures show that 37 million people in England and Wales are in a local authority area without a single community care legal aid provider and 37% of the population now live in a local authority with no housing legal aid providers at all. As need has intensified and as the coronavirus has exposed the level of need and vulnerability even more starkly, the providers are simply not there, and that is reflected in the expenditure figures and in the numbers of matter starts in all those areas of service.

We know how grave the situation is. We rely on legal aid lawyers now to carry out their work effectively, in some parts of the service almost for nothing. The level of remuneration is so poor that we rely heavily on the goodwill, dedication and vocation of legal aid lawyers to do this work. The Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, referred to the kind of demands we place on people in the criminal service to provide services in the middle of the night in police stations, but in civil law we are also asking people to carry out work on very complex cases for an extraordinarily low level of remuneration.

At the same time, we are asking this overstretched and under-resourced service to cope with more and more demands on it. We have a constant, but increasingly faster, drumbeat of abuse of the legal profession: they are all too frequently labelled “fat cat legal aid lawyers” who are regarded as if they are growing rich at the public’s expense. Also, sadly all too frequently, there is this smearing by associating lawyers with political motivation and the label of “activist lawyers”, which is a highly dangerous way of labelling a profession. I am sorry to introduce a non-partisan element to the debate, but it is disgraceful that Ministers—I exempt the Minister who is here today—are not standing up for the legal profession in the way that they should. In not defending those professionals, they are undermining the rule of law, which we all agree that legal aid is such a central part of.

The need is greater than ever it was. If it was a dire situation in 2018 when we last had a full debate on legal aid, we are now on the edge of the abyss in terms of legal aid provision. As we say again and again, the expenditure is not great, proportionately in public expenditure terms, but the expense of failing to invest in legal aid properly is great. I am not saying for a second that rising homelessness is a consequence of the lack of legal aid services, but I do say that when people are unable to get proper advice and representation in dealing with debt or housing benefit claims, that is part of the reason that people lose their homes. We have seen street homelessness double and family homelessness increase by 50% in the last 10 years. Those figures are not wholly accidental and that is an expense that falls on other parts of the public purse. It is truly a false economy.

I am delighted that the Justice Committee is conducting its inquiry. The all-party parliamentary group is also conducting an inquiry; we will have the first meeting next week, looking at criminal legal aid. We are looking at legal aid in the context of the recovery from coronavirus, and it is absolutely right that we should do that. We need to embed our public policy in the context of a set of pressures that we have never seen before in this country; it cannot be isolated from that. I look forward to what the Minister has to say, but I echo what the Chair of the Justice Committee said: we need assistance for the sector and we need it urgently.

15:37

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), for securing this debate and for raising the points he has.

When I looked at the figures, the overall cut in expenditure for the Ministry of Justice since 2010 was about 38% and the reduction in legal aid spending was about 18%. My first question to the Minister is, was it worth it? Have we cut out a tremendous amount of abuse of the legal aid system, or have we merely tinkered away at the edges or cut out things that we ought not to have? In that context, and particularly in the context of the overall reduction in departmental spend, just how much have the changes that are occurring in the legal system been recognised? Have they been factored into the changes to its budget and to the legal aid budget? There has been an enormous advance away from litigation to mediation and arbitration. I must declare an interest as an associate of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, which I happily do. The Minister and I were talking about it earlier. He was amazed that I had the time to be able to carry on any work at all, but there we are. There is an important point here, however. Yesterday, I spoke at a very big event, with about 200 mediators and arbitrators. The question that came up was: what we can do in order to get the message out? Many of the disputes of the kind that the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) has mentioned can be better sorted by mediation, and occasionally by arbitration.

I pointed out that when I did an Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship in the law, I sat for the first couple of times with a judge in the commercial court. Both cases were quite complex, but personal—one was a lawyer who was complaining about his treatment by a firm of lawyers. The judge made the point that they should go away and conduct mediation before they came back to him. I have no idea whether that person was eligible for legal aid, but the point is that mediation can sort things out much more quickly, and it can do it much more cheaply. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on alternative dispute resolution, I am trying to get that emphasis on mediation and arbitration pushed through the whole of Government and outside, so that people are able to take it on. There have been great successes. In family law, many people take mediation before they go into divorce proceedings, and I know from my own experience that that is done at a cut-price level. Again, I ask the Minister: has that been factored in? Is it part of the benefit that we are getting out of the reduction in legal aid?

The Chairman of the Justice Committee mentioned not-for-profit legal organisations, which provide a lot of experience. Education is needed there, too, about the fact that mediation is a better way of approaching things than going for expensive litigation in the first instance. I am pleased that the Government have put almost £5.5 million into that, but they need to look at the role that not-for-profit legal organisations play and whether they can be used in a far better way.

There is no doubt that this covid experience that we are all going through has changed how people access and want to access legal services. I am sure it has meant that a lot more people want to go for mediation and arbitration, rather than litigation. We should seize the moment to press these points home, enable people to do that and encourage the development of these skills in the legal profession, but not just there—one of the great advantages of mediation is the breadth of the types of people who have the skills to conduct it. I have to say that I think politicians are ideal to conduct mediation. We deal with it all the time when we resolve disputes between constituents and big organisations. I do not know about hon. Members in the Chamber, but I certainly approach that with a mediation bias, and use the skills that I have acquired in the process of looking at this. A lot of work could be done to ensure that the provisions are there for litigants in person to be provided with the right sort of legal aid to take this forward.

I will end on two questions to the Minister. First, what are the challenges for the future of legal aid, and has he taken mediation and arbitration into account? Secondly, what has been the impact of covid on legal aid? That is the basis on which we seek to provide the access to justice that so many people want, but they do not necessarily want it in court. As long as they get their access to legal justice somehow, they are very happy with that sort of solution.

15:43

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh, and to follow the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill); the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on legal aid, my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck); and a fellow member of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell). We have the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), a shadow Home Office Minister and the shadow Justice Secretary to come. I hope the Minister is taking that on board and realises the quality, if not the quantity, of what he has. I hope he is not thinking, “Oh, it’s Thursday afternoon in Westminster Hall. It must be Members from London and the home counties present.” I know he is a better man than that.

To save time, I would like him to make a series of admissions. I think he probably would admit that the cuts to the Ministry of Justice have been some of the highest, if not the highest, in any Government Department over the past 10 years, that legal aid has been in the frontline of those cuts and, indeed, that those cuts have gone too far. I think that is axiomatic: given that the Government are rowing back from some of the cuts now, there must be some appreciation of that fact.

I do not know whether I can stretch my luck and ask the Minister to admit that the premise of LASPO and the criminal legal aid changes that followed it was the wrong approach. As Members present will know, the main feature of LASPO was that it overturned 70 years of practice in legal aid. Instead of allowing matters to come within scope unless they were specifically excluded, it required matters to be entered into. The consequence was that the majority of welfare law, private family law, social welfare law, and a whole range of other disciplines—housing, immigration, and so on—was wiped out, or almost entirely wiped out. In practice, those disciplines were wiped out, because most firms could not keep going with what little remained in scope. That was a mistake, and I hope the Government will come to admit that. If they do not, I hope that a future Labour Government will reverse that trend, which has been detrimental to access to justice and equality of arms in the courts ever since.

I do not want to dwell on this too much, so I will race through what I think have been the developments over those 10 years. I am afraid that Ken Clarke, now Lord Clarke, who we all appreciate for his stand on Brexit and other matters, was the axeman in these cases, as he so often was in other Governments. He cut a swathe through civil legal aid in particular; that was not his area of practice, so I wonder whether that is a case in point. He was followed by the next Lord Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who caused the chaos and confusion in criminal legal aid that we are still living with to this day, not just through the cuts in funds but through the way in which it has been so shambolically reorganised. Of course, his reverse Midas touch is known across the piece in the MOJ, and is now a matter of legend.

A number of concessions were allegedly made in response to the Government’s many defeats in the House of Lords when LASPO was going through, which turned out to be nugatory. There were a number of significant—but again, small—victories in the court under judicial review in the areas of domestic violence, children’s law and refugee law, which corrected some of the worst features of LASPO. There have been several very moderate and well-reasoned reports over the years, such as the Bar Council report and the Low commission, which have tried to appeal to the Government’s better nature by saying, “At least look at these areas of law in which the most suffering has occurred.” Those reports have mainly fallen on deaf ears.

Finally, we got the review of LASPO, slightly beyond the five-year period in which it had been promised during LASPO’s passage. I distinctly remember that report, because it was a well-written report by civil servants that gave all the justifications for why LASPO was wrong, and then threw a few crumbs on the table at the end of it. Yes, it is welcome to have £3 million to support the now huge number of litigants in person; yes, it is great to have £5 million for innovation in the justice system; but compared with the hundreds of millions of pounds that have been sucked out, those sums of money really do not touch the sides.

I am struck by the fact—I noticed it in one of the briefings we had for today’s debate, from the Bar Council—that there has been a slight change of approach by the professions, perhaps because they have been bashing their head against a brick wall for 10 years. In the Bar Council’s spending review submission, to which it alludes in today’s briefing, it is almost starting from scratch: rather than saying, “Can you put this back into scope? Can you change this back?” it is saying, “This is the basis of what a modern legal aid system should look like.” It talks about access to early legal advice, non-means-tested legal aid for all domestic abuse cases, and early access on social welfare issues. Those are laudable aims, but I would nevertheless urge the Bar Council, the Law Society and other representatives of the profession not to give up yet, because I do not think we can turn our back on LASPO quite yet.

I heard what the hon. Member for Henley said, but my understanding of the briefings I have read is that there has been a cut of about 38% in legal aid funding over the past 10 years, from about £2.6 billion to about £1.7 billion. At its lowest point, it was £1.6 billion. In any case, there have been such large cuts that they have threatened the whole sustainability of the field.

The changes to the means test have excluded many people on low and moderate incomes from having any access to legal aid. We have the abhorrent the innocence tax. I am sure that if the Minister were speaking freely, he would say it is wrongly conceived and executed. It is a sin crying out for justice, if not vengeance.

The Chair of the Justice Committee said quite a lot about criminal legal aid, so I will not say a great deal about it. The most striking figure is the 8.75% cut in fees—until very recently there had been no increase in fees for about 20 years. There was a cut in 2014 and the net effect of that—the median net profit for practitioners after that—was minus 3%. In other words, businesses were on average running at a loss. Where else would the Government, even in their most intolerant mode, expect people to work for nothing or less than nothing and not complain about it?

It is equally true on the civil side. The number of providers of civil legal aid has been cut by half over the last seven years, but the number of cases starting has gone down by more than 80% over the period 2010, when austerity first came in, to 2017. A particular point of sorrow for me is the way that law centres and other advice agencies have been treated. I declare an interest as a non-practising barrister, but also as somebody who sat on the management committee of Hammersmith and Fulham law centre for nearly 30 years, and have seen it struggle for survival. Organisations whose very existence is to help other people in need were themselves living hand to mouth from month to month, just to keep going. Frankly, sometimes they were not able to provide anything like a comprehensive service. I am pleased to say that, thanks to the generosity of the local authority and others, but in no sense thanks to the Government, our law centre is now growing and thriving again. It is now almost entirely reliant on grant aid and charitable funding rather than legal aid starts.

The reviews that are under way have already been mentioned and we welcome them. I am pleased to be taking part in the Justice Committee and the all-party parliamentary group reviews. I hope they will throw up some arguable points to bring to the Government. I am also aware that the Government are themselves undertaking a series of reviews. Will the Minister tell us a little more about the scope and timetable of those reviews and their ambition? Part 2 of the criminal legal aid review was announced in August—part 1 did not do very much—but there is no timetable. Two years after we were first promised a review, there is still no timetable for the principle of sustainability and the majority part of that review.

We have a review of the means test—again, long overdue—but that was paused in June. What is happening on that? Although we do not have a formal review of civil legal aid, I will here quote from the Select Committee’s brief, which, as always, is extremely useful. The Lord Chancellor’s cover letter, which is attached to the Government’s response to the legal professions report, states that, alongside the legal aid means test review, the Government are

“looking into the sustainability of the civil legal aid system and will consider the delivery and contractual model for civil legal aid within this work.”

Again, that is long overdue. Can the Minister say a bit more about what is promised from those reviews?

In a way, it is dispiriting that we are still looking at reviews 10 years on. We all know about the level of need, but it is in the Government’s hands. Can we at least have a sense of urgency and a promise that if it is a fair review and serious problems are found, as I think will be the case—underfunding, or the way that the Ministry acts with the profession—they will be seriously corrected?

I repeat what the chair of the all-party parliamentary group, my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North, said: it is not an auspicious time when we have the Home Secretary, and indeed the Prime Minister, making frankly childish and incendiary remarks about lefty lawyers, legal activists and things of that kind. It is trivial and it is what we have come to expect, particularly from this Prime Minister, but it has serious consequences, as we saw with the attack on lawyers’ offices. The specific aim of the attack—a man has been charged with serious criminal offences as a consequence—was to punish people for simply doing their job. Given the Minister’s distinguished career in the profession, I know he will share those views. I hope he is able to say them publicly.

We are told that the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General have expressed their reservations privately to the Home Secretary. I know the Minister is a trusting and ambitious man in Government, and perhaps he will want to put on the record that he also deprecates those attitudes. It is a serious matter. We cannot expect the Government to deal fairly with the profession and, more importantly, with its clients—particularly their poorest clients, who go without representation now—if at the same time they are denigrating those who are trying to carry out this essential work.

00:04

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

I, too, thank the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), for securing the debate. It feels to me like a really important opening to be talking about legal aid. Perhaps for the first time in about a decade, there is a real opportunity to shift the terrain.

When I was preparing for the debate, I returned to my earliest days in practice in order to remind myself what the atmosphere around legal aid was in 2007. We were swimming in such different waters. I read Lord Carter’s review of legal aid procurement, which had been commissioned by Lord Falconer. He was dealing with a system that he described as bloated and inefficient, and he talked about wasteful legal practices and the budget, which had swelled by about 35% to £2 billion. It kept on going from there, because by 2010 Jack Straw said on record that we were

“in grave danger of becoming over-lawyered and underrepresented.”

When we got to 2010, it was therefore inevitable that a Government of any stripe would have to make some tough choices about legal aid. Then we got to LASPO. It is fair to say that those choices were deep and dramatic, and they affected the criminal side and the civil side, particularly by removing from scope housing and welfare and by circumscribing a lot of education law —apart from special educational needs—and a lot of private family law, as has been observed.

When the post-implementation review was published last year, some people said it was overdue, but it was a really important moment to take stock. I want to focus my remarks on a few conclusions that emerge from that. I will start with aspects of civil law, then I will talk about criminal law. On the civil law side, one of the things that really came through from the review concerned representation. Access to justice has a number of component parts, and being able to access affordable representation is one of them. Any significant cut to legal aid runs the risk of denying the people who most need recourse to the courts the ability to get legal advice and representation. It does not matter whether we limit the scope of claims that qualify or reduce the eligibility thresholds. The reality is that it leads to two outcomes: either the person abandons their claim, in which case there is a rank denial of justice, or they proceed with their claim on their own. A lot of judges have either written or spoken about what that means in court: pressure on court staff and judges having to act as quasi-lawyers and perform the representative function. It leads to delay, inefficiency and extra costs, and, in my own experience, it sometimes does not lead to the right result.

There has been investment—I think it is £3 million—in the legal support grant for litigants in person, and there was more previously, since 2015, but I hope that when the civil legal aid review is undertaken, this sphere will be kept under close review and investment considered.

The second thing I want to talk about is the quality of support available for early resolution. When Baroness Hale retired and did her circuit of valedictory speeches, I was struck by the fact that in almost every single one she talked about legal aid. When she addressed the Legal Action Group last April, she did an exercise where she imagined herself as a hypothetical mum in her hometown of Richmond—I think there is a military barracks in Catterick—and she created an example of a serviceman who had come back from war. He was drinking, the relationship with his wife had become violent, and social services said that they would take the kids into care unless she resolved it. So she needed to separate from him and get herself housing and a non-molestation order. She needed to make arrangements.

Baroness Hale took herself to the library in Richmond. Approaching it as the young mum, how could she find out what she had to do and who would help her? It is not all bad; it is not a story with a terrible ending. She found quite a lot of information, but she said that the picture was patchy in terms of the level of the service offered and the extent of the information available. She said that developments in online information and filing may help to iron out the differences, but they do not make up for the lack of properly informed advice from a skilled person who is not necessarily a lawyer, who can not only give advice and information but set about doing something concrete to help, whether that is making calls, writing letters or filling in the court forms. She said that she believed the Secretary of State understood the problem and was trying to think creatively, but that where securing the right result depends more and more on the early resolution of claims, the focus must remain on the accessibility of adequate legal advice.

I think I am right in saying that law centres have got all the money that they asked for during the crisis, but also that they have a backlog and there are delays, so the funding of not only law centres but equivalent services is something that the MOJ should keep a particular focus on.

On criminal legal aid—I need to use the right expressions—the August announcement was part of the accelerated asks scheme. I know that it is welcome and viewers will know that the criminal Bar or criminal lawyers have said that it is not enough. It is fair to say that—I do not want to say too much—it has been a really long road for criminal practitioners and criminal legal aid. I will confine my remarks to the point about retention and diversity, which is so important. The nuts and bolts of how each piece of work gets remunerated will be a question for the next stage of the review, but it should be informed by a sense of who we want to recruit and retain to do this difficult and important work. This question has to be asked: what is the pathway for a young person who does not have any public funding and is considering a career at the criminal Bar? They can use the Inns of Court scholarships to get them to the door, but then they have to try to earn a living.

I spoke to a practitioner yesterday, who gave me a really neat case study. She said that if someone was a young junior in her chambers and they covered a sentencing hearing, they would have three to four hours of prep and maybe two hours on their feet, so six hours’ work for a case where the stakes are high. It concerned the deprivation of liberty and the person might be looking at 10 years behind bars. For that they get a standalone fixed fee of £126. That has a chilling effect on not only recruiting talent, but retaining it.

One of the most eye-catching features of the Government’s published response in August was at the end. I am sure that others noticed it, too. It was the equality impact assessment where they said that the focus of the funding was about proportionately increasing fees at the junior end of the criminal Bar, and that is where we find the majority of ethnic minority practitioners and the majority of female barristers. We know that this kind of diversity at the junior end of the Bar is not just desirable, but essential. It is from there that you get the pipeline into silk and the pipeline into the judiciary. If we do not act, in 20 years, we will have a judiciary that does not look as we would wish it to look.

The August announcement was interim, and a comprehensive review remains ongoing. It is an independent review, but the choices that follow it will be political. Of course I know that it is important that public funds for legal services are used efficiently and economically, but when it comes to early and effective legal advice, less is definitely not more. Also, remuneration for those engaged in the system has to be commensurate with the level of skill and expertise. It should be possible to say what a junior legal aid criminal practitioner should earn, and ask how we set about putting the mechanisms in place to achieve that.

[Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Before I call the next speaker, I would just like to point out the time. We have until 4.30 pm, so if we are to give 10 minutes each to both Front Benchers, I am sorry, but I am putting a squeeze on the contribution of the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous).

16:06

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I will be as brief as I can.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) who chairs the Select Committee. It was a real pleasure to serve under him for the two years I was on the Justice Committee.

I start by pointing out—as already mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter)—the cuts to legal aid since 2010. The budget was cut from £2.6 billion to £1.7 billion. For criminal legal aid, that figure dropped from £1.4 billion to approximately £897 million today. That is a huge cut. Those cuts were made by the coalition Government under the guise of austerity, which underpinned LASPO. The guiding principles of LASPO were to discourage unnecessary adversarial litigation at public expense, to target legal aid towards those who needed it most, to make savings to the cost of the scheme, and to deliver better overall value for money for the taxpayer. Only one of those objectives was achieved, and that was saving money. That money was obviously swallowed up by the Treasury because it was not reinvested in justice and legal services.

Moving whole areas out of scope, such as family, employment, immigration, welfare and benefit law, has led to more litigants in person. As the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) said, that has caused huge problems in various proceedings. I recently read “Fake Law: The Truth about Justice in an Age of Lies” by The Secret Barrister, and it draws an analogy about litigants in person attempting to navigate legal proceedings with someone trying their hand at removing a gallbladder for the first time. The author says that it would take far longer and create more of a mess than if it were carried out by a trained professional. That is true. The expertise is needed to make sure that things are done properly in the legal sphere.

Although I welcome the £3 million made available to support litigants in person, it is woefully inadequate when we consider the £900 million that has been taken out since 2010. We do need more money in that area. The book gives various examples of people in circumstances that are not in scope, who do not get the legal aid help they need with their cases. Rachel was fleeing domestic violence and a sexually abusive husband. She had to deal with his legal proceedings to have contact with the children. Florence was bought to the UK as an undocumented minor by her mother, then abandoned and made homeless. At 16, she was taken into care, and on reaching the age of 18, she faced detention and deportation unless her status was regulated. Jenna had life-changing 50% burns to her face and body following an acid attack, leaving her housebound and unable to work. She needed help to appeal the decision of the Department for Work and Pensions to strip her of her disability benefits. Those people would have been helped had legal aid been available.

The Bar Council reported that, among their members in 2018, 91% of respondents found a significant increase in litigants in person in family law, and 77% found an increase in civil cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Karen Buck) referred to advice deserts, and the Chair of the Select Committee referred to criminal legal aid being a problem.

The Law Society has noted that there is an existential threat to criminal legal aid firms. Shockingly, there are 124 fewer legal aid firms in 2020 than there were in 2019, which in turn was far fewer than the 1,861 there were in 2010. The Law Society has also highlighted a number of instances of criminal legal practitioners being in decline, and it has highlighted the existential threat. It believes that in five to 10 years’ time there will be insufficient numbers of criminal duty solicitors in many regions, leaving many people vulnerable, in need of legal advice and unable to access justice.

I know that the Minister understands that because he and I served on the Justice Committee when we produced the report on criminal legal aid and the need for more support for practitioners. I ask him to listen to the Law Society and Bar Council’s call to fast-track the criminal legal aid review, particularly on legal aid fees, and promise the significant investment in the criminal justice system that is desperately sought. Post the implementation of LASPO, there was also a promise to look at the pilots for early legal advice in civil legal aid by autumn 2019. That is way behind and we very much need to see it take place now.

As the Secret Barrister puts it:

“Without legal aid, without access to the knowledge and the skills by which we can enforce our rights, we are voiceless.”

It is therefore up to us to ensure that those voices are heard.

16:11

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I congratulate the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), on securing the debate, and I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Westminster North (Ms Buck), for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), and those of the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), in particular, to whom I am very grateful. I declare an interest as an associate tenant at Doughty Street Chambers, which uses legal aid.

The right to a fair hearing is a human right guaranteed by the Human Rights Act 1998 under article 6. Just like the right to no punishment without law, the right to freedom of expression and the right to participate in free elections, it is a fundamental part of our democracy. A legal verdict is not fair if one side is able to pay a team of expensive lawyers to fight on their behalf while the other is left to make their case on their own. That is why paragraph 3(c) of article 6 states that if a party

“has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance”,

they should get

“it free when the interests of justice”

require it, and they do require it. In this country we have legal aid, which gives assistance to people who are unable to afford representation.

Too often, legal aid is not given to those who deserve it. Consider the case of Zane Gbangbola. On the evening of 7 February 2014, seven-year-old Zane and his mother and father went to bed in their Surrey home. Due to circumstances that remain unexplained, Zane tragically died in his sleep and his father was left paralysed for life. The 2016 inquest into Zane’s death found that he died as a result of carbon monoxide poisoning caused by the use of the petrol pump used to remove water from their flooded home. However, numerous doubts have been expressed regarding the verdict reached by the coroner from both sides of the political spectrum, including the local Conservative council.

Over the course of the past seven years, Zane’s mother and father, Kye and Nicole Lawler, have fought tirelessly for answers to what caused his death. One of the reasons justice does not appear to have been reached in this case is that Zane’s family were denied legal aid after the case was deemed not to be in the public interest. It is completely unjust that the family, at the time of their greatest need, were left to present their case with just one crowdfunded lawyer against a team of six QCs. Extraordinarily, the coroner was also given his own legal team. Of all those present at the inquest, Zane’s parents were the only ones not to have a barrister in some way funded by the public purse.

Access to the justice system and the ability to enforce our rights should be open to every person, regardless of their wealth, social class or background. Legal aid has long provided this for many of us, and for many of the most vulnerable people in society at their most vulnerable moments, but legal aid spending and access to justice has reduced significantly since the passage of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. A review of the Act published in February 2019 moved in the right direction, but there is still so much more to do.

Two years since the post-implementation review, recommendations on early advice, legal aid, means tests and support for litigants have not been implemented in full. The impact of LASPO, combined with the 8.7% cut to criminal legal aid providers in 2014, as well as inflation and small profit margins, have resulted in the contraction of the market for both criminal and civil legal aid.

The criminal legal aid review is designed to look at the sustainability of the profession, but we do not have time to wait for action. The report is not likely to be published until 2022. By then it will be too late to save money, or to save many firms that are going out of business. Already in June 2020 there were 124 fewer criminal legal aid firms than the 1,271 there were in 2019, a drop of almost 10% in the past year and far fewer than the 1,861 firms that existed in 2010. How many more firms are the Government prepared to lose? Without urgent steps there is a genuine risk of the system collapsing on itself.

Between 2010 and 2016, net spending on legal aid fell by an eye-watering 38% in real terms, from £2.6 billion to £1.6 billion. It has since increased slightly, to £1.7 billion, out of the Ministry of Justice total budget of just more than £10 billion. As the Chair of the Select Committee put it, it is just a fraction of a fraction.

To put that £1.7 billion into perspective, last night Serco CEO Rupert Soames revealed to UK taxpayers that his outsourcing company had £1.2 billion per year of Government funding. That is even before its failed £12 billion experiment with track and trace. Labour has repeatedly called for access to legal aid to be a priority for this Government, especially during a time when people are so vulnerable.

As a result of LASPO, large areas of civil legal aid are deemed out of scope. This leaves thousands of people each year without the representation they need. When legal aid was first introduced by Clement Attlee’s Government after the second world war, around 80% of people were eligible for it. By the 1990s, that figure had dropped to 45%. Today it is a miserly 20%.

In 2020, most housing, employment and family disputes do not get legal aid. This causes real injustice. In 92% of domestic violence cases in the family courts in 2019, one or more parties was left without legal representation. But it is not just for adversarial cases that we need legal aid. It is a crying scandal that those who were deported and detained as a result of the Windrush scandal could not access legal aid.

At a time when the court backlog is approaching 50,000, we cannot expect legal aid practitioners to weather the coronavirus storm with warm words alone. Even before the pandemic, there was a 45% reduction in prosecutions over the past decade, but since the crisis began, many areas of legal aid work have been nearly cut in half. There has been a 41% decrease in police station attendances, a 45% decrease in applications received for representation in the Crown courts, and a 42% decrease in applications received and representations made in the magistrates court.

When asked what support this Government would offer to keep the professions functioning, the Minister responsible pointed to unbilled work. He stated that legal aid providers were sitting on hundreds of millions of pounds for unbilled work, interim payments and hardship payments. This, he explained, was why legal aid providers were being hung out to dry. Legal aid providers were essentially told to pull themselves up by their bootstraps in the worst crisis since the second world war. The implication behind that was that they were not working hard enough to claim unbilled work.

Even if we accepted the dodgy maths, is the total that the Minister pointed to enough to keep a vital part of our democracy functioning? The Minister’s statement was made back in May, when the Government pretended that they had a grip on the crisis. Now we know that the crisis will go on right through 2021, what will happen when the unbilled payments are billed? Will the Government finally rethink? The breaking point is likely to arrive early in 2021, especially when the volume of completions in the Crown court remains so low. The legal aid profession has received little support, if any, during the covid-19 crisis, and that must change.

Much of this debate has been financial. It is about CLAR 2—the second criminal legal aid review—LASPO, court backlogs, funding cuts and legal aid, but if we zoom out of the detail, this is a debate about the type of society that we want to build. There are two paths we can go down. The first is to continue on the route that the Government have set, letting legal aid collapse and allowing advice deserts to grow. A new legal wild west would result, and how someone does in legal disputes will depend not on their right to a fair trial but on how deep their pockets are compared with the person against them. The vast majority of the public will be unable to pay for representation in any serious legal matter. The wealthy 1% will be able to bully and buy their way to the verdict that they desire. That is a vision not of a democracy but a plutocracy—a society controlled by people of great wealth or income. It is a step back to pre-enlightenment, a period we should have long left behind.

However, there is room for hope. The second option is to give legal aid the support it needs, restoring it to where it was as a public service back in 2010. By doing so, we can build a better society at the heart of a real democracy founded on justice, fairness, equality and opportunity for all. I know that is a society worth fighting for.

16:21

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I congratulate the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), on securing the debate and on opening it in such a full, balanced and helpful way.

In preparing this speech, I looked back at previous debates, and what a joy it was to see that the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) secured a debate here in 2010. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) was there, as indeed was the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). There was a rather lovely moment when the hon. Member for Hammersmith paid tribute to the hon. Member for Westminster North’s

“unrivalled record in pursuing such matters”—[Official Report, 14 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 207WH.]

If she had an unrivalled record in 2010, it is even more unrivalled now. I genuinely congratulate her on the work she has done over so long in raising these issues.

I begin by emphasising some important points that have been made powerfully but bear emphasis. Legal aid stands as a pillar of our constitution and a bulwark of our freedoms. For a great many people, it operates out of sight; they may go through their entire lives without encountering it, and in that way it is not like the NHS or schools or policing. However, for those who do encounter it, its importance is immediately understood. Legal aid ensures that the guilty are convicted and the innocent walk free; that those facing conviction, punishment and disgrace on the accusation of the state will have those allegations properly tested. It is there to ensure that the rights and liberties of ordinary citizens, often created by this Parliament, are upheld. To paraphrase Lord Reid in the Unison case, legal aid ensures that statutes are not rendered a dead letter.

I echo the points that the hon. Lady for Westminster North made about practitioners. She referred to the good will, dedication and vocation of those who practise in legal aid work, and I cannot use any better words. She put it very well. They are not fat cats. I make the point, as I made in an earlier debate, that those who act in these cases, or indeed any cases, may very well not agree with their clients on the substance of what is being advanced, but they know that their first duty is to the court and their second duty is to their client. They must defend those interests and fight that case, within the law, without fear or favour. Those principles underpin why the Government spent £1.7 billion last year funding legal aid for those who need it. It is imperative that we properly protect this support and that it continues to be available in the future.

The hon. Member for Hammersmith asked me to concede that funding is less now than it was in 2012. That is a fact, so he is right about that. In fairness—I pay tribute to the entirely appropriate tone that the debate has been conducted in overall—in 2010 there was a sense that, whichever Government came into power, there were going to be some cuts. However, the question at this stage, as we take stock, is what legal aid should be required for and to what extent. That is a careful consideration that we intend to apply.

Over the past few months, the importance of the advice and legal sectors has been brought into sharp focus. My officials and I have been engaging extensively with various organisations across the advice sector throughout this period, and I know how challenging it has been for providers and their service users alike. I also know how many providers and practitioners across England and Wales have gone above and beyond to ensure that vulnerable people across society can continue to get the help they need.

As a Government, we have tried to support that work as best we can over this difficult period. I am delighted that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) pointed out, we were able to secure £5.4 million of emergency funding for the not-for-profit advice sector, to ensure that providers across England and Wales were able to adapt their operations and continue to provide their important services. In the early days of the pandemic, we understood that almost half the law centres in England and Wales were facing potential collapse, and I am extremely pleased that our funding helped to prevent that outcome. I do not suggest for a second that it solved all problems, but I hope it is fair to say that it was of some significant assistance.

I am also grateful for the close working relationships we have built with actors across the sector to ensure that funding can be utilised in the most effective way possible. Beyond the funding, we made a number of changes to support legal aid providers in the short term, including changing rules for payments on account and ensuring that providers can claim the same for remote hearings as they can for face-to-face hearings. In August we announced additional funding of up to £51 million for criminal defence lawyers through the criminal legal aid review.

Respectfully, and notwithstanding the point that can always properly be made that there needs to be more, £51 million is a significant sum. The point that I would gently make is that that was the first occasion when people were being paid for reviewing unused material. As practitioners in this room no doubt well understand, it is those hours spent between 10 o’clock at night and midnight reviewing the unused material that all too often discloses that critical point that allows them to advance in court the key issue that might lead to the acquittal of their client. That is now being remunerated in a way that it was not before.

I have very limited time, so let me try to deal with the issue of sustainability. Although I maintain that we have made some positive changes in the time available, I think everyone here would acknowledge that there is more to be done to ensure that the legal aid and advice sector thrives into the future. Many of us here will be well aware of the challenges faced by the sector, and we do not seek to suggest that they do not exist or to downplay them. The demands on providers, and indeed on the courts, are high and will likely remain high over the coming months as the covid-19 recovery gathers pace. Those impacts will no doubt be felt across society.

We are already doing important work in this space, and we want to go further in the coming months. As has been trailed, I recently launched our new legal support for litigants in person grant, which builds on the more than £9 billion that the MOJ has invested. There are some who would say, as did the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), who is no longer in his place, “Look, it’s not enough.” I understand why he says that, but we need to look forensically at what it is going to develop. The answer is that law does not stand still, just as the rest of the world does not stand still. There are other mechanisms by which legal advice and assistance can be delivered using technology, and we must be alive to that.

In some of the excellent conversations that I have had with law centres, they have started to recognise that maybe their catchment area of need is not simply the area around, say, North Kensington for North Kensington Law Centre or the area around Hammersmith for the Hammersmith and Fulham Law Centre—which, incidentally, I know fine well the hon. Member for Hammersmith has spent many years supporting. Is there scope for technology to widen that catchment area, to broaden access to justice?

We have also launched a new project considering the issues relating to the wider long-term sustainability of the civil legal aid system. I am only too well aware that many practitioners and stakeholders say that this is a long-standing issue, but now, of course, it has been made more pressing due to the current situation, and we are taking a broad look at the system. Some hon. Members have raised the point about fee levels, and that is fair. In addition to considering the fee levels, we will look at structural issues such as the delivery model for civil legal aid and will seek to improve the remote delivery of advice where appropriate, to ensure support is available for those in hard-to-reach places, learning both from what has worked well during the pandemic and what has worked less well.

I have only a minute left, sadly, and I want to give my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst time to speak. I could have talked about the means test review. I wanted to talk about CLAR, the accelerated areas, the courts estate, which is getting more money, and my principal passion, early legal support and advice. I am absolutely of the view that intervening early makes a huge difference.

Let me end by saying that covid-19 presents a great challenge to our way of life, perhaps unknown in the modern era outside wartime. Other priorities will likely dominate the headlines—jobs, schools, hospitals, debt—but in a nation of laws, legal aid is vital, now and in the future. Legal aid work will never provide the personal financial rewards for practitioners of a commercial or chancery practice, and nor should it, but we need a system that continues to attract lawyers of sufficient calibre, prioritises acute legal need, achieve redress and improves people’s lives. That is the platform for those priorities that I have set out today.

[Sir Robert Neill]

Even I can’t be that short.

16:30

Motion lapsed, and sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(14)).

Written Statements

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Written Statements

Thursday 22 October 2020

Rohingya Donor Conference and Funding

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Written Statements

[The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)]

My hon. Friend the Minister of State for South Asia and the Commonwealth (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) has made the following written statement:

The UK is co-hosting a donor conference today for the Rohingya refugee response, alongside the United States, European Union and UN refugee agency (UNHCR).

Bringing together donor countries and partners from the region, this conference will rally international support for the Rohingya humanitarian response in Bangladesh, Myanmar and other countries hosting Rohingya refugees in the region. Our aim is to ensure sustained support for Rohingya refugees and displaced populations, while working towards long-term durable solutions.

Maintaining international funding will become increasingly difficult over time—yet three years on from the terrible violence that erupted in August 2017, the Rohingya remain one of the world’s most vulnerable populations. I pay tribute to the resilience, courage and tenacity of the Rohingya people. I also express our gratitude to the Government and people of Bangladesh for hosting the 860,000 refugees currently living in Cox’s Bazar district.

The UK continues to support the Rohingya on both sides of the Myanmar-Bangladesh border while we push for a long-term solution that enables their voluntary, safe, and dignified return to Myanmar. This includes advocating for the implementation of the Rakhine Advisory Commission recommendations, including reform of citizenship laws and freedom of movement. The UK is clear that there must be accountability for atrocities. This will be fundamental to give the Rohingya people confidence that it is safe to return.

The UK is already one of the biggest donors supporting the Rohingya. The crisis remains a priority and we have worked hard to prioritise resources to maintain assistance in Myanmar and Bangladesh.

I am therefore pleased to announce that this Government are committing a further £37.5 million to the Rohingya response operation in Bangladesh to continue our life-saving support, a total of £293.5 million committed to the crisis since 2017. This funding supports refugees in Cox’s Bazar with protection, food, healthcare, water and sanitation, counselling, and will help mitigate the impact of natural disasters and disease, in addition to supporting local communities.

Covid-19 has created an additional dimension to the adversity Rohingya communities have faced. So far, UK aid has added more than 2,400 handwashing facilities in the camps and created capacity for over 600 beds for treating refugees and locals alike suffering from severe respiratory infections. I am happy to announce that we are also committing £10 million support for Bangladesh to help the country respond to coronavirus and natural disasters nationally.

In the meantime, providing education for Rohingya children and livelihood opportunities for adults is fundamental to equipping Rohingya with the essential knowledge and skills for their future in Myanmar and to prevent a lost generation. It is also the best guard against rising domestic violence, criminality and tensions between the refugee and host communities. Significant material support will be needed for the foreseeable future to uphold basic standards of living.

The UK also provides significant support to the Rohingya in conflict-affected Rakhine state in Myanmar. This includes over £25 million since 2017 for Rohingya communities for nutrition, water, health and sanitation, protection, skills and livelihoods support. UK aid is also working hard to respond to the additional health and humanitarian needs brought on by covid-19, amidst access restrictions.

We hope that the international community will continue to demonstrate its strong commitment to the humanitarian response and find solutions for the Rohingya that will enable them to return home voluntarily, safely and with dignity. We will continue to push for regional and international attention and support in helping manage and resolve the crisis.

[HCWS532]

Joint Committee on Human Rights Reports: Detention of Young People with Learning Disabilities and/or or Autism, Human Rights and Implications of Government Covid-19 Response

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Written Statements

[The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)]

Today we have published the Government’s formal response to the recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report “The detention of young people with learning disabilities and/or autism” published on 1 November 2019 and those made in its report “Human Rights and the Government’s response to covid-19: The detention of young people who are autistic and/or have learning disabilities” published on 12 June 2020. A copy of the response will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

We welcome the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ (JCHR) reports and their recommendations. Protecting the rights of people with a learning disability and of autistic people is a matter of the utmost importance to the Government. Rights must be upheld regardless of wider circumstances, no matter how unprecedented. This is especially so for those who may be at a particularly vulnerable time in their lives, in crisis or receiving treatment in specialist mental health inpatient settings. The Government’s manifesto committed to improve how people with a learning disability/and or autistic people are treated in law and to make it easier for them to be discharged from hospital in recognition of some of the challenges faced by this group of people.

The JCHR made recommendations for Government and their system partners to improve the care and support of people with a learning disability and/or autism which was not found to always meet the high standard we would expect for each and every individual.

We have carefully considered these recommendations and are accepting in full or in principle the vast majority, including:

The JCHR have specifically recommended that a legal duty is introduced on local authorities and clinical commissioning groups to ensure the availability of sufficient community-based services. We have accepted this recommendation in principle and plan to consult on new duties to ensure an adequate supply of community services for people with learning disabilities and autistic people.

In response to the recommendation that families should not be prevented from speaking out about poor care, we will introduce guidance on the use of injunctions to stop the inappropriate use of injunctions and ensure that families are able to speak out, driving up the standard of care for people with a learning disability and/or autism.

This guidance will require health bodies to notify the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care of their intention to seek an injunction. This will enable us to monitor these instances and take further action such as following up with the body in question to seek additional information on the grounds seeking the injunction if required.

We propose to take forward a number of recommendations made by the JCHR through reform of the Mental Health Act and more detail will be provided in a Mental Health Act White Paper in due course. Reforming the Mental Health Act will help to ensure that when someone is admitted to hospital, the care they receive is therapeutic and beneficial and will have a positive impact for people with a learning disability and/or autistic people who are admitted for assessment or treatment. The White Paper will provide an opportunity to consult on changes as recommended by the JCHR including:

Placing care, education and treatment reviews (CETR) on a statutory footing. This would help to ensure that the CETR process is more robust and that there is greater involvement, where appropriate, of families. This should ensure that the process for resolving problems that keep people in hospital for longer than they should is improved along with improving current and future care planning, including plans for leaving hospital.

Reforming the detention criteria and the detention process should reduce inequalities by making sure inpatient care for people with a learning disability or autistic people is only used when it offers clear benefits. For those who need inpatient care, having a say in the care they receive and requiring care to be therapeutic should ensure that people with a learning disability or autism are treated with the same dignity and respect that we would all expect.

Enforcing and enhancing the rights of individuals and families to advocacy will be addressed, including through recommendations on improving access to independent mental health advocates, which would expect to have a positive impact in supporting individuals with learning disabilities and autistic people and their families.

The action we are taking in responding to these recommendations will help to ensure that people with a learning disability and autistic people are supported to live fulfilling lives in the community and that if they are admitted to hospital, the care they receive is both therapeutic and beneficial. The steps we are taking will also ensure that where appropriate family members will have a greater input into the care and support their loved ones receive. We must remain committed to delivering on our existing plans and on the new steps set out in this response.

[HCWS530]

Istanbul Convention Ratification: 2020 Report on Progress

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)]

The Government have today laid before Parliament and published the fourth annual report on the United Kingdom’s progress toward the ratification of the Council of Europe convention on combating violence against women and domestic violence (the “Istanbul convention”). The UK signed the Istanbul convention in 2012, signalling our strong commitment to tackling violence against women and girls (VAWG) and this Government remain committed to ratifying it as soon as we possibly can. The report sets out the work undertaken by the UK Government and the devolved Administrations to tackle VAWG since the 2019 report on progress, as well as the remaining steps required as we progress towards ratification.

Our measures to protect women and girls from violence are already some of the most robust in the world, and in most respects we comply with, or go further than, the convention requires.

Since signing the convention in 2012, we have significantly strengthened our legislative framework, introduced a range of new protective tools, and issued new guidance for professionals to better protect victims.

This year, the covid-19 pandemic has placed those at risk of violence against women and girls in an even more vulnerable situation. In response to this, the Government announced enhanced support for victims, including £76 million of funding to ensure that victims and survivors of domestic abuse, sexual violence and modern slavery, as well as vulnerable children and their families, receive the support they need during the pandemic.

On 3 March 2020 we reintroduced the landmark Domestic Abuse Bill in Parliament, which includes a package of measures to transform our response to domestic abuse. The Bill was passed by the House of Commons in July and has now moved to the House of Lords. The Bill, together with the Domestic Abuse and Family Proceedings Bill currently before the Northern Ireland Assembly, includes the necessary legislative measures to ensure all parts of the UK are compliant with article 44 of the convention, which requires that criminal courts in the UK have extraterritorial jurisdiction over certain violent and sexual offences.

The Northern Ireland Executive had not been restored at the time of the last progress report, so the Domestic Abuse Bill as originally introduced in July 2019 contained a provision for a new domestic abuse offence which would criminalise psychological violence in Northern Ireland, as required by article 33 of the convention. Following the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland, provision for this new offence was omitted from the re-introduced Westminster Bill and placed in the Domestic Abuse and Family Proceedings Bill, which was introduced into the Northern Ireland Assembly on 31 March 2020. As this is a devolved matter, the timetable for the Domestic Abuse and Family Proceedings Bill is for the Assembly to set. Nevertheless, I know that Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive share my desire for ratification of the convention to proceed as swiftly as possible and that they will do all that they can to enable swift implementation of the new offence once the Domestic Abuse and Family Proceedings Bill is enacted.

The issue of support for migrant victims of domestic abuse was raised by the Joint Committee on the draft Domestic Abuse Bill, and we committed to undertake a review of the Government’s overall response to migrant victims of domestic abuse. This review has been completed, and the findings were published on gov.uk on 3 July 2020. More detailed evidence is needed to demonstrate which cohorts of migrant victims are likely to be most in need of support, the numbers involved and how well existing arrangements may address their needs.

In response to the review, the Government therefore committed to launch a £1.5 million support for migrant victims (SMV) pilot scheme to address these evidence gaps, which will then enable us to take well-grounded and evidence-based decisions on how best to protect these victims in the long term. Details of the pilot scheme were published on 19 October. We have therefore recorded articles 4(3) (to the extent that it relates to non-discrimination on the grounds of migrant or refugee status) and 59 as “under review” this year, pending the evaluation and findings of the SMV scheme.

The publication of this report fulfils the requirement of section 2 of the Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Act 2017. I will lay before Parliament the report required by section 1 of that Act when our timescale for ratification is clear.

Copies of the 2020 progress report will be available in the Vote Office and it will be published on the Government’s website at gov.uk.

[HCWS531]

Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation Report on Operation in 2018 of Terrorism Acts

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)]

In accordance with section 36 of the Terrorism Act 2006, Jonathan Hall QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, has prepared a report on the operation in 2018 of the Terrorism Acts, which was laid before the House on 19 March 2020.

I am grateful to Mr Hall for his report and have carefully considered the recommendations and observations included within. I am today laying before the House the Government’s response to the report (CP 310). Copies will be available in the Vote Office and it will also be published on gov.uk.

[HCWS534]

Points-based Immigration System

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)]

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today laying before the House a statement of changes in immigration rules.

In February and July 2020, we published our policy statements on the UK’s points-based immigration system. This set out how we would fulfil our commitment to the British public to take back control of our borders by ending free movement and introducing a single, global immigration system. The points-based system will cater for the most highly skilled workers, skilled workers, students and a range of other specialist work routes including routes for global leaders in their field and innovators.

The changes to the immigration rules are a crucial part of the future points-based immigration system. They also introduce the new Hong Kong British national (Overseas) (BN(O)) route for a BN(O) citizen who wants to live and work in the UK and will extend the Afghan interpreter ex gratia scheme.

The rules also represent a significant further step in our commitment to simplify the rules, implementing many of the recommendations of the Law Commission to ensure we provide greater clarity to migrants, employers and all other users of the rules.

At the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020, free movement will end and newly arriving European economic area (EEA) and Swiss citizens will come within the scope of the new global immigration system. These rules will generally commence between 1 December and 1 January, but EEA nationals will not be granted permission until after 1 January as they are able to rely on free movement right until then.

I have set out in a separate document the details of the changes we are making to the immigration rules, which should be read together with this statement.

The attachment can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2020-10-22/HCWS533/.

[HCWS533]

Financial Support for Local Authorities: Covid-19

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)]

Following the Prime Minister‘s announcement on 12 October of new financial support for all local authorities, I wish to set out to the House how that support will be allocated to local authorities.

The allocation of this financial support, worth over £1 billion in total, consists of:

£919 million in further un-ringfenced grant for all local authorities;

£100 million package of support for public leisure services, to be administered by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.

The Government will once again be using the covid-19 relative-needs formula to distribute the grant funding, as well as taking account of previous allocations. My approach also guarantees each authority gets at least £100,000 in additional funding—recognising that all areas continue to face pressures as we head into winter. This approach will ensure the funds are distributed in a way that balances the need to support all areas across England, while maximising efficiency and targeting resources where they are most needed.

Un-ringfenced grant for local authorities

As with previous support, the great majority of this additional funding is un-ringfenced, recognising that local authorities are best placed to identify the specific pressures they are facing and to respond to local priorities. As with previous rounds of funding, local government should prioritise: adult social care, children’s services, public health services, household waste services, shielding the clinically extremely vulnerable, homelessness and rough sleeping, domestic abuse, managing excess deaths and support for reopening the country.

The grant funding also includes an amount from the Department of Health and Social Care’s PPE fund to support councils in relation to PPE expenditure.

Package of funding for leisure centres worth £100 million

To address the ongoing challenges council leisure centres are facing, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will introduce a new £100 million fund to support centres which are most in need. This complements the existing sales, fees and charges scheme established by the Government which supports leisure centres run directly by local councils. Further details on the scheme will be set out in due course.

Overall position

This brings the total direct funding provided to councils through this pandemic to £6.4 billion, comprising £4.6 billion in un-ringfenced funding, £1.1 billion from the infection control fund, £300 million to support test and trace as well as funding allocated to councils from the new local alert level system and a number of grants to support communities and vulnerable people.

The funding announced today is in addition to the up to £465 million that the Government have already announced for local authorities moving up to a higher local alert levels—this will ensure that councils, working alongside NHS Test and Trace can take the additional steps needed to contain the virus.

The Government have always been clear that we will stand behind local councils, and this funding demonstrates that the Government are taking the necessary steps, so that local government can continue to fulfil its pivotal role in the response to the covid-19 pandemic.

[HCWS535]