Armistice Day
Mr Speaker
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.
House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020
Agriculture Act 2020.
Oral Answers to Questions
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
Today, on the 11th day of the 11th month, I am sure the whole House will join me in remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our country.
I have regular discussions with my Cabinet colleagues on all aspects of how we support the entire country, including Scotland, through the covid crisis. The coronavirus job retention scheme has always been a UK-wide scheme, and it has now been extended until the end of March 2021, with employees across the UK receiving 80% of their current salary for hours not worked.
Hannah Bardell
May I associate myself and those on the SNP Benches with the comments of the Secretary of State?
At the last Scottish questions, my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) raised a very serious concern about levels of poverty when the job retention scheme ended. The Minister at the Dispatch Box said that November would be the right time to look at a targeted scheme, as if he had some magical powers of poverty prediction. Imagine our surprise, Mr Speaker, when the south of England went into full lockdown and the full force of furlough came back into force. Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the notion of targeted is really targeted at the south of England, with a huge disrespect to Scotland and the rest of the devolved nations?
Mr Jack
Absolutely not. The Prime Minister was clear from the get-go, following Cabinet on the Saturday when we discussed the new economic situation in England, that it was a UK-wide scheme. It is 80% for the whole of the United Kingdom. It is a simple scheme and it is for our whole country and he has been absolutely clear about that from the start.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The UK Treasury has provided an up-front guarantee of £8.2 billion to the Scottish Government to help protect jobs and to help the Scottish Government tackle coronavirus, yet we are still to hear from the Scottish Government about where more than £2 billion of that funding is to be spent. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Scottish Government need to provide details urgently about how they will use that funding to support Scots?
Mr Jack
I agree with my hon. Friend. There has been substantial extra funding, guaranteed funding, to the Scottish Government—£8.2 billion, as he correctly identified. That is money received through the Barnett formula. The Scottish Government must not shirk their responsibility to be open and transparent about how that money is being spent. We need accountability so that the people of Scotland can judge whether it is being spent wisely.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) [V]
The Minister has recently said that the job retention scheme will last into next year, but he has also said that there will be no referendums on Scotland’s future for a generation. The Edinburgh agreement, signed by a Tory Prime Minister, provided the legal framework for the 2014 referendum, so can the Minister quote me where it says in that agreement that there cannot be another referendum?
Mr Jack
I commend the hon. Lady for trying to get a referendum into questions about the job retention scheme. While we are all fighting this pandemic and trying to secure and support people’s jobs, it beggars belief that the SNP carries on talking about independence referendums and about separation. I find it really quite disappointing. The answer to her question is that it was mentioned many times in the White Paper that the SNP Government produced in advance of that referendum. The words “once in a generation” were mentioned on a number of pages.
Mhairi Black
I thank the Minister for confirming that there is no legal basis for his assertion on the timing of a future referendum. Given that it was also agreed cross-party that nothing in the Smith commission prevents Scotland from becoming an independent country in the future, can he tell us whose decision is it whether Scotland has another referendum?
Mr Speaker
Order. The question must have some relevance. The first question got through, but you were trying to push your luck the second time. We cannot do that. The question must be relevant. Sorry about that. We had better move on.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) [V]
The extension of the furlough scheme demonstrated again how the UK Government continue to support jobs in all four nations of the United Kingdom, and we need that support and joint working to continue following the positive news about a potential covid-19 vaccine. Will the Secretary of State outline the work done between the Scottish Government and the UK Government to ensure that there is a seamless roll-out of this vaccine that has given us so much hope here in Scotland and across the UK.
Mr Jack
We have invested more than £230 million in manufacturing any successful vaccine. The vaccines have been procured and paid for by the UK Government on behalf of everyone in the United Kingdom. Doses will be distributed fairly and across all parts of the United Kingdom according to population share.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
A business operator in my constituency contacted me four days before furlough was supposed to end. He operates two bars in my constituency. As a responsible employer, he had kept on his 44 staff and taken on the debt from bounce back loans, but he was absolutely at the end of his tether with this Government and their last-minute decisions. Will the Secretary of State apologise to that business operator in my constituency for the severe stress that the Government’s dithering has caused him and for the distress that it has caused his employees, as well as to the many people who could not keep on their staff or who lost their jobs due to this Government’s incompetence?
Mr Jack
The hon. Lady will recognise that this is a dynamic and unprecedented situation, and we have to take decisions as we see what is in front of us. The employers of those who lost their jobs after 23 September, but were in employment and furlough up until 23 September, are allowed to bring those employees back and put them on furlough.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)
An effective response to covid-19 does indeed need to be a co-ordinated response across the UK. On 25 September, the UK Government and the three devolved Administrations published a joint statement on our collective approach to responding to covid-19. There are very regular meetings at both ministerial and officials levels.
Mr Speaker
I think Allan Dorans has been cut off in his prime, so I call Jeff Smith.
Jeff Smith
What is the Minister’s understanding of the application of the furlough scheme in Scotland and the other nations of the UK, given that Scotland is operating under a different tier system and different lockdown restrictions?
Iain Stewart
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has not vaporised into thin air. The lockdown scheme extends across the UK and is available whether a part of the UK—or a part of each nation within the UK—is in lock- down or not. It is there for everyone.
Alex Davies-Jones [V]
The Scottish Affairs Committee described a deteriorating relationship between the UK and Scottish Governments on joined-up covid-19 policy making, with the main issue being trust. What work has the Secretary of State undertaken to improve awareness and understanding of devolution among Whitehall officials, so that policy makers have mutual understanding of the impact of decisions on each nation of the UK?
Iain Stewart
The hon. Lady raises an important point. As I said in my initial answer, there are very regular discussions between all Government Departments and devolved Administrations at many levels—be that in Health, Transport or Education. I think that there is a widespread understanding of the need to balance UK-wide interventions with allowing local flexibilities where circumstances dictate.
Allan Dorans [V]
Will the Minister confirm or deny that taxpayers’ money is being used to employ consultants with the sole purpose of producing and promoting negative propaganda to encounter the increasingly successful campaign for Scottish independence? Is that not to the detriment of co-operation between the nations?
Iain Stewart
Forgive me, Mr Speaker, but I am not quite sure what that has got to do with the response to coronavirus.
Mr Speaker
In which case, I call the shadow Secretary of State, Ian Murray.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I join the Secretary of State in recognising that it is the 11th day of the 11th month, lest we forget those who gave their lives so that we could live freely today. We will always remember them.
I am disappointed that the Secretary of State did not congratulate President-elect Joe Biden on his wonderful election in America. Given that in a recent poll 75% of Scots said that they would vote for Joe Biden, they have eventually got the Government they would have voted for.
The announcement this week of a potential covid vaccine is incredibly positive. While it certainly does not mean, of course, that we have reached the end of this crisis, it does perhaps signal some hope for the public. If the vaccine is approved, the country will face an unprecedented logistical challenge. If mass vaccination is to be done successfully, we will need all levels of government working together. However, a poll just yesterday found that two thirds of Scots were dissatisfied that the Scottish and UK Governments do not work together and a majority wanted closer co-operation. So can the Minister inform the House: what work are the UK and Scottish Governments undertaking together to build an infrastructure that will be able to distribute and administer any future vaccines to everyone?
Iain Stewart
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question. Referring to his initial comments, I was delighted that President-elect Biden spoke to our Prime Minister ahead of any other European country, contrary to what some of the naysayers in the media were predicting.
The hon. Gentleman’s substantial question is a very important one and it illustrates the extent to which the UK Government and the devolved Administrations can and should work together. The vaccine—as he said, we are not quite there yet, but it gives very strong hope—is purchased by the UK Government on behalf of the whole UK. The distribution, the prioritisation of the vaccine will be a matter for the devolved Administrations. However, we are in regular contact and stand ready to assist with any logistics that will be required to make sure that it is distributed on the basis of clinical priority and not any other needs.
Ian Murray
I appreciate what the Minister said, but I think the public would look on it very unfavourably if both Governments did not work together to ensure that this vaccine is distributed.
But we also must not lose sight of today’s challenges. While the Chancellor’s latest plan to extend furlough until March is very welcome, there remain millions of people across the UK and in Scotland who have not received any support as lockdowns continue. The 3 million taxpayers excluded from Government support include countless self-employed, pay-as-you-earn freelancers, and many, many others. It is understandable that there may have been some cracks in hastily designed schemes announced in March, but not to fix those and to continue to exclude millions from any support is inexcusable. I raised this with the Secretary of State in this House on 1 July and 7 October, so, for the third time: will the Scotland Office demand that the Chancellor reconsiders and provides support to those taxpayers left without any help from this Government?
Iain Stewart
The hon. Gentleman’s question would have greater potency if furlough was indeed the only scheme that was available, but a wide range of support is available for businesses and individuals across the UK, including bounce back loans, tax deferrals, mortgage holidays and the like. In addition, the Chancellor has provided to the Scottish Government unprecedented levels of support, going up by an additional £1 billion. It is up to the Scottish Government, if they wish to provide additional support over and above the UK-wide schemes, to ensure that they have the resources to do so.
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I just say that I am very concerned that the question was a substantive question that was within this grouping? The problem is that the grouping is not good, but it was the Government who put the grouping together. So I think the Minister ought to try to see if he could answer the question from Allan Dorans, because it is within that section.
Iain Stewart
If I remember the question correctly, it was, “Are we spending taxpayers’ money on fighting the independence referendum?” My answer to that is that we do not wish another independence referendum. The last thing that the people of Scotland need, and businesses and jobs in Scotland need, is the uncertainty that another independence referendum would create.
Mr Speaker
At least there is an answer, even if it is not the kind I wished.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)
I regularly meet Scottish Ministers to discuss matters of importance to Scotland. Funding for the voluntary sector and community organisations in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Government. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the enormous work that charities and voluntary organisations do, in Scotland and the UK, to support our communities through this very challenging period.
Rachael Maskell
Charities and social enterprises are never more needed across the UK, but may I correct the Minister? The Government put forward a fund of £60 million for charities within the devolved authorities, so I would like to know how much the Scottish charities have received from that fund and what representations he has made for its extension, because charities are never more in need.
Iain Stewart
The funding that is given to the Scottish Government does not necessarily have to be used exactly for those purposes. They can supplement that as well out of the general funds that are transferred—the £8.2 billion. I am very happy to look into how that money is being spent, and I refer back to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) made about the questions over how the £2 billion has been spent.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I join the Minister on behalf of those on this side of the House in praising the voluntary sector and charities across Scotland, which have stepped up to support so many people right across the nation. At the same time, however, charities face an existential financial crisis. The Minister will be aware that a report earlier this year from the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator found that a fifth of Scottish charities were facing uncertainty because of poor finances over the next 12 months. With new restrictions now coming in across Scotland in different phases, will the Minister commit to working with the Secretary of State, with Scottish Ministers and, importantly, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that these voluntary sector organisations get any additional funding that they may need to support the people of Scotland during the pandemic?
Iain Stewart
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. He is right, and I have had a number of meetings with the Association of Chief Officers of Scottish Voluntary Organisations and they have an unprecedented leadership challenge. One of them put to me the analogy that they are trying to fix the wings of an aircraft when it is in flight. There is an enormous challenge on all of us, whether in government, in the charities themselves or in the private sector, to work closely together and for us to help them through this and for them to help us to rebuild our economy and society better than when we went into this period.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Mr Speaker
This question, No. 16, has been withdrawn, so the substantive question will be from David Mundell. Secretary of State to answer.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
Am I answering David Mundell’s question?
Mr Speaker
Let us carry on then. If the Secretary of State does not have the answer, it is easy—I call David Mundell.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) [V]
There are many different ways that the Government can provide economic support to Scottish businesses during covid-19. For the Scotch whisky industry, the biggest help in retaining jobs and supporting its businesses would be for the Government to resolve the US tariffs dispute, rather than escalate it by applying further retaliatory tariffs. Can my right hon. Friend update the House on progress on this vital issue for Scottish businesses and jobs?
Mr Speaker
Order. Secretary of State, the question is on the Order Paper, and I can assure him it is not about transport. Answer the question from David Mundell.
Mr Jack
To answer my right hon. Friend’s question, the Secretary of State for International Trade last night had a Zoom call with MPs from across the House, and I know that she stressed that the UK Government are determined to settle this issue as soon as possible and to mitigate the effects for those who are impacted by it. In short, we continue to raise the issue with the highest levels of the US Administration.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
The good news is I did bring this answer with me. This Government have always stressed the importance of the Union. The UK is a family of nations that shares social, cultural and economic ties that together make us far safer, more secure and more prosperous. As we have seen throughout the covid crisis, it is the economic strength of the Union and our commitment to the sharing and pooling of resources that has supported jobs and businesses throughout Scotland. It is the strength of our Union that will enable us to rebuild our economy following the crisis.
Ben Everitt
I am delighted to hear the Secretary of State supports the Union. The Prime Minister’s review into boosting transport links across the country is very welcome. Does the Secretary of State agree that this review into quality transport links will go a long way to levelling up economic opportunity wherever we are in the UK?
Mr Jack
There are no flies on my hon. Friend—he spotted that I am a Unionist and he has been able to highlight the importance of improving transport links. That is why I am so disappointed that the Scottish Government are not engaging in Sir Peter Hendy’s review of connectivity across our United Kingdom. That attitude is letting down the people of Scotland, who would benefit from those improvements.
Caroline Ansell
My great grandfather served in the infantry regiment of the Argyll and Sutherland. Will my right hon. Friend join me in commemorating all those Scottish servicemen who fought in the British Army for the freedom of the United Kingdom and the world, and in thanking servicemen and women today in Scotland who are engaged in our fight against the virus?
Simon Jupp
I represent a constituency that is geographically distant from Scotland, but I know people from Scotland who have made East Devon their home. They, like me, believe we are stronger together and cherish our precious Union. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the UK Government’s efforts during the pandemic—not least the furlough scheme and the £8.2 billion to Scottish public services—show that we have a common drive to defeat the virus, whether in Edinburgh or Exeter, and the SNP needs to focus on delivery, not division?
James Grundy
What measures is the Department taking to strengthen economic ties and promote business opportunities between Scottish communities and English communities such as those in my constituency of Leigh?
Mr Jack
The Union connectivity review that I referred to earlier and the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, will both promote the economic ties that my hon. Friend refers to. They will protect vital trading links and improve transport links.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
The Secretary of State is doing such a fantastic job of strengthening the Union that support for independence is at a historic high and has been at a sustained majority all year. Saying no to a majority in Scotland is only going to drive support for independence even higher. Apparently, he was only joking when he said that there would be no indyref for 40 years, just after John Major said that there would be two referendums in the next few years. The Secretary of State is renowned for his legendary wit and humour, but the Scottish people are not finding this democracy denial funny anymore. What is the difference between denying a majority in the Trump White House and denying a majority in the Scotland Office?
Mr Jack
That is quite a tenuous link, but I will answer the question. To be quite simple, my belief is that we should stick to the referendum from 2014 and respect it. It was very clear—the SNP said it at the time —that it was a once-in-a-generation referendum. I do not believe that we should go into a process of neverendums, which are divisive, unsettling and bad for jobs in Scotland. We should respect democracy, and that is what I am doing—democracy that was handed out by the Scottish people in 2014.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister described last December’s general election as “once-in-a-generation”, but I hope the Secretary of State is not suggesting that there will not be another one for 40 years. He seems to think that the way to strengthen the Union is by forcing a hard Brexit on Scotland against our will, taking an axe to devolution with the internal market Bill and denying any democratic choice on Scotland’s future until adults like me are dead. On that basis, does he think that the best recipe for a happy marriage is to lock up the wife, take away her chequebook and just keep refusing a divorce?
Mr Jack
No, I think that it is quite straightforward. I think that people should respect democracy, as I said in my previous answer to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). We are respecting democracy. We are acknowledging this is once in a generation; we do not believe Scotland should be thrown on to the uncertainty of neverendums. It is very straight- forward: a generation, by any calculation, is 25 years and, frankly, SNP Members just have to accept that and focus on what matters, which is recovering from this pandemic and us all pulling together.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
I know the whole House will want to join me in sending our deepest sympathies to the family and friends of Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, who sadly passed away on Saturday. His leadership had a profound impact on our whole country and across the world. May his memory be a blessing.
This morning, I attended the service at Westminster Abbey to mark the centenary of the tomb of the unknown warrior. Armistice Day allows us to give thanks to all those who have served, and continue to serve, and those who have given their lives in service of this country.
Ruth Cadbury
According to Home Office figures, just 12% of Windrush victims have received compensation and nine people have died waiting. This is two and a half years after the Windrush taskforce was set up. What will the Government do and what will the Prime Minister do both to rectify this injustice and to ensure that no others who have come to the UK to live and work suffer in the same way as the Windrush victims?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is right to raise this issue. What happened to the Windrush generation was a disgrace and a scandal, and we are doing our best collectively to make amends. I can tell her I have met members of that generation, and this Government are taking steps to accelerate the payments and to make sure that those who are in line with payments are given every opportunity and all the information they need to avail themselves of the compensation that they deserve.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed, and I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she does to champion that cause. We all know that wherever freedom of belief is under attack, other human rights are under attack as well. We will continue to work closely with like-minded partners to stand up for members of such marginalised communities.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
May I join the Prime Minister in his comments about Jonathan Sacks? May I also send all our thoughts to those affected by the terrible events in Saudi Arabia this morning? May I welcome the victory of President-elect Biden and Vice-President-elect Harris—a new era of decency, integrity and compassion in the White House? May I also welcome the fantastic news about a possible breakthrough in the vaccine? It is early days, but this will give hope to millions of people that there is light at the end of the tunnel.
Today is Armistice Day, and I am sure the whole House will join me in praising the remarkable work of the veterans charities such as Help for Heroes and the Royal British Legion. Like many other charities, Help for Heroes has seen a significant drop in its funding during this pandemic, and it is now having to take very difficult decisions about redundancies and keeping open recovery centres for veterans. So can the Prime Minister commit today that the Government will do whatever they can to make sure our armed forces charities have the support that they need so that they can carry on supporting our veterans?
The Prime Minister
I echo entirely what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says about Help for Heroes; it is a quite remarkable charity and does wonderful things for veterans. In these difficult times, many charities are, of course, finding it tough, and in addition to what the Government are doing to support charities through cutting business rates on their premises and cutting VAT on their shops, I urge everybody wherever possible to make online contributions to charities that are currently struggling.
Keir Starmer
I thank the Prime Minister for his reply. The truth is the Chancellor’s package for forces charities was just £6 million during this pandemic, and that is just not sufficient. May I ask the Prime Minister to reconsider that support on their behalf, because at the same time we have all seen this weekend that the Government can find £670,000 for PR consultants? And that is the tip of the iceberg: new research today shows that the Government have spent at least £130 million of taxpayers’ money on PR companies, and that is in this year alone. Does the Prime Minister think that is a reasonable use of taxpayers’ money?
The Prime Minister
I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is referring to the vaccines taskforce, and after days in which the Labour party has attacked the vaccines taskforce, I think it might be in order for him to pay tribute to it for securing 40 million doses. By the way, the expenditure to which he refers was to help to raise awareness of vaccines, to fight the anti-vaxxers and to persuade the people of this country—300,000—to take part in trials without which we cannot have vaccines. So I think he should take it back.
Keir Starmer
Nobody is attacking individuals—everybody is supporting the vaccine—but £130 million, Prime Minister: there is a real question about the way that contracts are being awarded and about basic transparency and accountability. I know the Prime Minister does not like that, but this is not the Prime Minister’s money; it is taxpayers’ money. The Prime Minister may well not know the value of the pound in his pocket, but the people who send us here do, and they expect us to spend it wisely.
Let me illustrate an example of the Government’s lax attitude to taxpayers’ money. Earlier this year, the Government paid about £150 million to a company called Ayanda Capital to deliver face masks. Can the Prime Minister tell the House how many usable face masks were actually provided to NHS workers on the frontline under that contract?
The Prime Minister
We are in the middle of a global pandemic in which this Government have so far secured and delivered 32 billion items of personal protective equipment; and, yes, it is absolutely correct that it has been necessary to work with the private sector and with manufacturers who provide such equipment, some of them more effectively than others, but it is the private sector that in the end makes the PPE, it is the private sector that provides the testing equipment, and it is the private sector that, no matter how much the Labour party may hate it, provides the vaccines and the scientific breakthroughs.
Keir Starmer
The answer is none: not a single face mask—at a cost of £150 million. That is not an isolated example. We already know that consultants are being paid £7,000 a day to work on test and trace, and a company called Randox has been given a contract, without process, for £347 million; that is the same company that had to recall 750,000 unused covid tests earlier this summer on safety grounds.
There is a sharp contrast between the way the Government spray money at companies that do not deliver and their reluctance to provide long-term support to businesses and working people at the sharp end of this crisis. The Chancellor spent months saying that extending furlough was
“not the kind of certainty that British businesses or British workers need”—[Official Report, 24 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 1157]—
only then to do a U-turn at the last minute. Yesterday’s unemployment figures show the cost of that delay: redundancies up by a record 181,000 in the last quarter. What is the Prime Minister’s message to those who have lost their jobs because of the Chancellor’s delay?
The Prime Minister
With great respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he knows full well that the furlough programme has continued throughout this pandemic. It went right the way through to October; it is now going through to March. It is one of the most generous programmes in the world, with 80% of income supported by this Government and an overall package of £210 billion going in to support jobs, families and livelihoods throughout this country. I think this country can be very proud of the way we have looked after the entire population, and we are going to continue to do so. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should bear in mind that the net effect of those furlough programmes—all the provision that we have made—is disproportionately beneficial for the poorest and neediest in society, which is what one nation Conservatism is all about.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister must know that because the furlough was not extended until the last minute, thousands of people were laid off. The figures tell a different story: redundancies, as I say, at a record high of 181,000; 780,000 off the payroll since March; the Office for National Statistics saying unemployment is rising sharply—so much for putting their arms around everybody. The trouble is that the British people are paying the price for the mistakes of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. If they had handed contracts to companies that could deliver, public money would have been saved. If they had extended furlough sooner, jobs would have been saved. If they had brought in a circuit breaker when the science said so, lives would have been saved.
Let me deal with another mistake. The Chancellor has repeatedly failed to close gaps in support for the self-employed. Millions are affected by this. It is bad enough to have made that mistake in March, but seven months on, the Institute for Fiscal Studies says the scheme remains—its words—
“wasteful and badly targeted for the self-employed”.
The Institute of Directors says:
“Many self-employed…continue to be left out in the cold.”
After seven months and so many warnings, why are the Chancellor and the Prime Minister still failing our self-employed?
The Prime Minister
Unquestionably, this pandemic has been hard on the people of this country, and unquestionably there are people who have suffered throughout the pandemic and people whose livelihoods have suffered, but we have done everything that we possibly can to help. As for the self-employed, 2.6 million of them have received support, at a cost of £13 billion—quite right. We have also, of course, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, uprated universal credit. That will continue until next year. He now champions universal credit, by the way, and calls for its uprating to be extended. He stood on a manifesto to abolish universal credit.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister just doesn’t get it. I know very well that the self-employment income support scheme has been extended, but the Prime Minister must know that that scheme simply does not apply to millions of self-employed people. They have been left out for seven months.
There is a real human cost to this. This week on LBC, I spoke to a self-employed photographer called Chris. He said to me:
“Our…industry has been devastated… Three million of us that have fallen through the cracks… Our businesses are falling—absolutely falling—and crashing each day.”
He asked me to raise that with the Chancellor. I will do the next best thing. What would the Prime Minister say to Chris and millions like him who are desperately waiting for the Chancellor to address this injustice?
The Prime Minister
What I would say to Chris—and what I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and to the whole country—is the best way to get his job working again, the best way to get this country back on its feet, is to continue on the path that we are driving the virus down. It is a week since we entered into the tough autumn measures that we are now in. I am grateful to the people of this country for the sacrifices that they are making, and I am particularly grateful to the people of Liverpool and elsewhere—tens of thousands of people in Liverpool are taking part in the mass testing work that is going on there. It is fantastic news that we now have the realistic prospect of a vaccine.
Science has given us two big boxing gloves, as it were, with which to pummel this virus, but neither of them is capable of delivering a knockout blow on its own. That is why this country needs to continue to work hard, to keep discipline and to observe the measures that we have put in. I am grateful for the support that the Labour party is now giving for those measures. That is the way to do it: hands, face, space; follow the guidance, protect the NHS and save lives.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
Absolutely; I thank my hon. Friend. I can tell him that the landmark Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill receives Royal Assent today, thanks to this House, paving the way for the fulfilling of our manifesto commitment to end free movement and have a new, fair points-based immigration system—one of the advantages of leaving the European Union that the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) would of course like to reverse.
Mr Speaker
Let us head up to Scotland and the leader of the SNP, Ian Blackford.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) [V]
May I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister on the death of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks? This being Armistice Day, we commemorate the day 102 years ago on the eleventh hour of the eleventh month when the guns fell silent and all those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in conflict since then. I also want to send our best wishes to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris on winning the election in north America. I look forward to the leadership they will show on the issues of climate change and fighting back against covid among other things.
The figures published by the Office for National Statistics yesterday demonstrate what the SNP has been warning about for months: that the UK faces a growing Tory unemployment crisis. It is now beyond doubt that the Chancellor’s last-minute furlough U-turn came far too late for thousands who have already lost their jobs as a result of Tory cuts, delays and dither. UK unemployment has now risen to 4.8%. Redundancies are at a record high and nearly 800,000 fewer people are in employment. To support those who have lost their incomes, will the Prime Minister now commit to making the £20 uplift to universal credit permanent and to extending it to legacy benefits, so that no one—no one, Prime Minister—is left behind?
The Prime Minister
I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman, the leader of the Scottish nationalists is now supporting universal credit. He was opposed to it at the last election. Yes, of course that uplift continues until March. I am delighted to say that the furlough scheme is being extended right the way through to March as well. That will support people across our whole United Kingdom, protecting jobs and livelihoods across the whole UK in exactly the way that he and I would both want.
Ian Blackford [V]
May I respectfully say to the Prime Minister that the idea is that he tries to answer the question that has been put to him? It is shameful that the Prime Minister still refuses to give a commitment to the £20 uprating of universal credit. The SNP will continue to demand a permanent U-turn on Tory plans to cut universal credit.
Another group who have been left behind by this Prime Minister are the 3 million people who have been completely excluded from UK Government support. Since the start of this crisis, the Prime Minister has repeatedly refused to lift a finger to help those families. In the run-up to Christmas, those forgotten millions will be among those who are struggling to get by and are worried about their future. Will the Prime Minister finally fix the serious gaps in his support schemes to help the excluded, or will he make it a bitter winter for millions of families across the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman knows, I hope, that we are not only continuing with the uprating of universal credit until next year, but we have invested £210 billion in jobs and livelihoods. We have also just brought forward a winter support package for the poorest and neediest: supporting young people and kids who need school meals, and supporting people throughout our society throughout the tough period of covid, as I think the entire country would expect. That is the right thing to do and we will continue to do it.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will have heard my hon. Friend’s words. I thank him for what he said; he is quite right to champion regional airports and the aviation business. The Bank of England’s covid corporate financing facility is helping to support the airlines’ current liquidity problems, with the sector drawing down £1.8 billion in support. The Department for Transport is also looking at giving bespoke support to particular regional airports to keep them going in these tough times.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
The Prime Minister
On the contrary, the UK Government are continuing to support all parts of the UK. We will now, as the hon. Gentleman knows, have the opportunity to fund projects with our own money, rather than siphoning it through Brussels. The quantum will be identical and, in addition, through the Barnett formula, the UK Government have already given the Welsh Government £2.4 billion in capital funding alone this year.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
While we are rightly focused on battling covid, we should not ignore humanitarian injustices and the plight of persecuted minorities. On Remembrance Sunday, 82 year-old Mahboob Ahmad Khan was shot dead, the fourth Ahmadi recently slain in Peshawar. His crime under Pakistani law: to call himself an Ahmadi Muslim, whose creed is love for all, hatred for none. Does my right hon. Friend agree that hatred preached in Pakistan ends up on the streets of Britain and that it is in the interests of our own security that Her Majesty’s Government should make it clear to Pakistan that state-supported persecution must end?
The Prime Minister
I agree passionately with my hon. Friend. I can tell him that that is why the Minister for South Asia and the Commonwealth recently raised this very issue with Pakistan’s Human Rights Minister and we urge the Government of Pakistan to guarantee the fundamental rights of all their citizens.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman raises an excellent point. One of the things that we are looking at, together with local authorities and the Welsh tourist authorities, is ways of making sure that we keep a tourist season going throughout the tough winter months.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Prime Minister
All I can say is that the more intensively we together follow the rules and the more we follow the guidance in this tough period leading up to 2 December, the bigger the chance collectively we will have of as normal a Christmas as possible and getting things open in time for Christmas as well.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Prime Minister
We are looking into the issue of repeat calls, but to say that the test and trace system has been a waste of time and money, which I think is what I heard the hon. Member say—I could not disagree more. It has enabled us to locate where the disease is surging, to take appropriate measures and to allow people in huge numbers to get tested. More people have been tested in this country than in any other country in Europe. The PCR tests that NHS Test and Trace is conducting are of real value in fighting the disease, and now we are rolling out the lateral flow rapid turnaround tests as well.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed I urge York council and councils across the land to take up the offer of mass lateral flow testing—it is a very exciting possibility. It is, as I said, one of the boxing gloves we hope to wield to pummel this disease into submission—the other is the prospect of a vaccine—and that is what we will do continuously throughout the weeks and months ahead. But I must stress that the way to get ourselves in the best position to achieve that is to make the current restrictions work so that we can come out well, back into the tiers on 2 December.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It is a subject in which I have a keen interest, because I had a wonderful morning on that crab boat where there were fantastic, prodigious quantities of crabs that, as I recollect, were being sold to China. I will make sure that the Home Secretary is immediately seized of the matter and that we take it forward. That is one of the things that we are now able to do thanks to taking back control of our immigration system, which, alas, his party opposed for so long and would reverse if it could.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes. One of the many merits of the excellent conversation I had yesterday with President-elect Joe Biden was that we were strongly agreed on the need once again for the United Kingdom and the United States to stand together and stick up for our values around the world: to stick up for human rights, to stick up for global free trade, to stick up for NATO and to work together in the fight against climate change. It was refreshing, I may say, to have that conversation, and I look forward to many more.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I had, and have, a good relationship with the previous President. I do not resile from that—it is the duty of all British Prime Ministers to have a good relationship with the White House—but I am delighted to find the many areas in which are the incoming Biden-Harris Administration are able to make common cause with us. In particular, it was extremely exciting to talk to President-elect Biden about what he wants to do with the COP26 summit next year, in which the UK is leading the world in driving down carbon emissions and tackling climate change.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
This Armistice Day, restrictions mean that we cannot mark the occasion with services as we normally would. However, in Heywood and Middleton, veterans associations are following the guidance to mark the day in a covid-safe way. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister join me in praising them, the Royal British Legion and, indeed, all those across the United Kingdom who are doing their best to ensure that we can pay tribute to those who made the ultimate sacrifice?
The Prime Minister
Yes indeed. It was really impressive to see the way the Royal British Legion organised covid-secure memorials across the country in the way that it did. As we salute our veterans, I just want to remind the House that we have launched a new railcard for our veterans and their families that will entitle them to substantial reductions in rail fares, and that we are introducing a national insurance break for employers of veterans in their first year of employment.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Of course we publish all contracts, and quite right. I would just respectfully remind the hon. Lady, as I reminded the Leader of the Opposition earlier, that it is absolutely necessary in a massive global pandemic to work with those in the private sector, not to scorn them or despise them, and to understand that it is they who make the PPE and the tests. Indeed, it is thanks to the researches of giant conglomerates—which Labour would break up if it could—that we have the possibility of a vaccine.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
On Armistice Day, as we remember those who gave their lives for our country and those who still serve, will the Prime Minister give a positive response to the “Living in our shoes: understanding the needs of UK Armed Forces families” report on making life better for our armed forces families? These wonderful people put up with more separation, moving of family homes and worry about the safety of their loved ones than anyone else, and looking after them should be a national priority.
The Prime Minister
Our armed services simply could not function without the support of their families, and I thank my hon. Friend for what he is doing to raise this issue and for the comprehensive piece of research that he refers to. We are making good progress on increasing childcare provision for armed services families and on our support for employment of partners of members of the armed services.
Mr Speaker
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.
Covid-19 Lockdown: Homelessness and Rough Sleepers
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on his plans to prevent homelessness and protect rough sleepers during the second national lockdown.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Kelly Tolhurst)
As we look ahead to the winter months, it is vital that we work together to prevent increases in homelessness and rough sleeping. The Government have set out unprecedented support on this issue, dedicating over £700 million to tackling homelessness and rough sleeping this year alone. Our work on rough sleeping has been shown not only to be world leading but to have saved hundreds of lives. We are dedicated to continuing to protect vulnerable people in this period of restrictions and through the winter months.
We used the summer to work with local authorities on individual local plans for the coming months. Last week, the Prime Minister announced the Protect programme —the next step in our ongoing, targeted support for rough sleepers. That will provide a further £15 million, ensuring that support is in place for areas that need it most, and addressing the housing and health challenges for rough sleepers during this period of national restrictions. That is on top of the £10 million cold weather fund, available to all councils to provide rough sleepers with safe accommodation over the coming months. That means that all local areas will be eligible for support this winter. It builds on the success of the ongoing Everyone In campaign in September. We have successfully supported over 29,000 people, with over 10,000 people in emergency accommodation. Nearly 19,000 people have been provided with settled accommodation or move-on support. We continue to help to move people on from emergency accommodation with the Next Steps accommodation programme.
On 17 September, we announced NSAP allocations to local authorities, to pay for immediate support and to ensure that people do not return to the streets, and £91.5 million was allocated to 274 councils across England. On 29 October, we announced allocations to local partners to deliver long-term move-on accommodation. More than 3,300 new long-term homes for rough sleepers across the country have been approved, subject to due diligence, backed by more than £150 million. We are committed to tackling homelessness, and firmly believe that no one should be without a roof over their head.
Throughout the pandemic, we have established an unprecedented package of support to protect renters, which remains in place. That includes legislating through the Coronavirus Act 2020 on delays as to when landlords can evict tenants and a six-month stay on possession proceedings in court. We have quickly and effectively introduced more than £9 billion of measures in 2020-21 that benefit those facing financial disruption during the current situation. The measures include increasing universal and working tax credit by £1,040 a year for 12 months and significant investment in local housing allowance of nearly £1 billion. As further support for renters this winter, we have asked bailiffs not to carry out evictions during national restrictions in England, except in the most serious of circumstances. As the pandemic evolves, we will continue working closely with local authorities, the sector and across Government to support the most vulnerable from this pandemic. These measures further demonstrate our commitment to assist the most vulnerable in society.
Thangam Debbonaire [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. The Minister’s words and the Prime Minister’s order last week to stay home will ring hollow for people with no home. In March, the Government told councils and charities that they should try to bring rough sleepers in, and the extraordinary effort prevented thousands of infections, more than 1,000 hospital admissions and 266 deaths. But now the Government’s rough sleeping tsar is no longer in post and she has warned that we are facing a “perfect storm of awfulness”. Many of those brought off the streets have returned and thousands more are newly homeless, with a record high 50% increase in young people sleeping rough since last year in London alone.
What has changed since March? It is colder, and the cold weather fund is lower than it was last year. So can the Minister tell the House why the Government have lowered their ambition? Their plan provides neither the leadership nor the funding to ensure all rough sleepers have a covid-secure place; £15 million in funding will be given not to all councils, but only to the 10 with the highest rough sleeping rates. Seventeen health and homelessness organisations wrote to the Prime Minister to warn against the use of night shelters as not covid-safe. Why have the Government refused to publish the Public Health England advice on this decision? The plan makes no reference to people with no recourse to public funds. Instead there is a rule change so that rough sleeping will lead to deportation. Does the Minister agree that it is immoral for people to be deported for sleeping rough?
On Armistice Day, will the Minister ensure that the Government record whether homeless people have a service record, so that we can get an accurate picture of the scale and need of those who have served our country?
Finally, the homelessness crisis is the result of 10 years of Tory failure, so will the Minister now commit to abolishing section 21 evictions, as the Government said they would, to prevent a further rise in homelessness, and invest in the support and social housing we need so that we can genuinely end rough sleeping for good?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. I hope she recognises, and I think she did at the beginning, that this Government have put £700 million into homelessness and rough sleeping support this year alone. That is unprecedented support, and it is decisive action that this Government took in dealing with the covid crisis. Although I strongly object to the fact that many have returned to the streets, we were working on this plan in the summer with local authorities in order to work out what the next steps would be after the Everyone In programme. As I outlined in my opening answer, more than £266 million is being provided to local authorities in order to provide move-on and next-step accommodation, with more than £150 million of that invested in long-term support and accommodation for rough sleepers.
To pick up on the point about the winter allowance being lower than last year, this must be taken in the context of the unprecedented amount of funding that the Government have provided in this area, in order to protect those individuals who were at threat of homelessness and rough sleeping throughout the pandemic. Indeed, a £10 million winter fund is available to all local authorities throughout the country, but it is right that the £15 million fund that was announced last year—the Protect programme—is focused on the areas in which there is the most need. We are working intensively, not only with those first-wave initial boroughs with the highest level of rough sleeping but in collaboration with all local authorities throughout the United Kingdom, in order to understand the challenges they face and the needs they have.
On the point about no recourse to public funds, I would like to make the hon. Lady aware that the rules of eligibility for immigration status, including for those with no recourse to public funds, has not changed. Local authorities are able to use their judgment when assessing the support that can lawfully be provided in relation to those individuals and their individual needs: this is already happening, as it does with extreme weather and where there is a potential risk to life. Local authorities provide basic support for care needs that do not solely arise from destitution, whether for migrants who have severe health problems or for families where the wellbeing of children is involved. Also, it is just not true that we are deporting individuals who are rough sleeping.
I will also pick up on the point about veterans. I am very pleased to be standing here on Armistice Day, and am pleased that the hon. Lady has highlighted the plight of our veterans. Our veterans play a vital role in keeping our country safe, and we are committed to ensuring that we are able to provide them with the support they need to adjust back into civilian life. The duty to refer in the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 states that public authorities are required to, with individual consent, refer
“former members of the regular armed forces”
to their local housing associations. There are a number of support services available, including Veterans’ Gateway and online, web and telephone resources for veterans, through which they can access a housing specialist who has up-to-date information on any vacancies that are available. In June of this year, we announced new measures to ensure that access to social housing is improved for members of our armed forces.
Mr Speaker, our Protect programme will protect vulnerable individuals from the threat of rough sleeping during the restriction process and into the winter, and tackle some of the health issues they are experiencing.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) [V]
The Everyone In programme ensured that homeless people and rough sleepers had a roof over their head during the pandemic, and I welcome the Protect programme initiative. However, it is vital that our solutions are also long-term and sustainable. I welcomed the roll-out of the three-year Housing First pilot in Greater Manchester, and the recent announcement of 3,300 units of move-on accommodation for rough sleepers. Would my hon. Friend also consider bringing forward future funding allocations so that local authorities, mental health charities and agencies that are able to offer wraparound support can have the certainty they need to ensure the success of these initiatives?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the wraparound services that organisations within local authorities provide to some of those individuals who are experiencing complex issues, such as substance misuse and mental health concerns. I am grateful that she highlighted the Housing First pilot projects, and we are encouraging and working with local authorities to get individuals who need such support into that programme.
I will also work hard to make sure that we are able to develop and work with local authorities to assist them to provide the local services and wraparound support that those individuals need. It is not just a home they need; they need the support services around them, and I am determined to be able to do that.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) on securing this urgent question. This feels like groundhog day, with the Government yet again in the spotlight for their decision to withdraw prematurely the protections and support for the most vulnerable people during a second wave of covid. In recent weeks, they have had to U-turn on providing free school meals and on extending furlough. I rather suspect that, quite soon, they will have to U-turn on providing more support for people who have been left homeless.
Thankfully, in Scotland, we have a Government with a bit more foresight than this bungling British Government, who reek of incompetence and chaos every single day. The SNP Government in Scotland have extended the ban on evictions until March, and we have committed to looking to extend that further to September if the evidence shows a clear need. Will the Minister do likewise?
I am appalled by the reports that the British Government plan to deport non-UK nationals who are sleeping rough. That is a totally inhumane policy, devoid of any compassion and fairness, even by this Conservative Government’s standards. Will they now urgently reinstate the pause on asylum evictions so that communities and individuals who we know are at greater risk of covid-19 are not put at increased risk?
Finally, has the Minister’s Department ever received any advice from Public Health England or, indeed, health directors about the risks to black and minority ethnic people being left homeless? If so, will she publish it? If not, why has she not commissioned it?
Kelly Tolhurst
I respect the hon. Gentleman’s comments, but he is completely incorrect in relation to this Government’s ongoing support for rough sleepers during the pandemic. We carried out an unprecedented and world-leading programme in Everyone In, we worked with local authorities constructively and intensively to develop programmes for the continuation of that support through Next Steps and Move On, and we secured accommodation. This Protect programme is the next step within that, and it is the Government taking quick action for what is now required within the restricted period and into the winter fund.
We announced the winter fund only a couple of weeks ago, and now we are on the Protect programme, so it is absolutely incorrect and completely wrong to suggest that this Government have not been taking the issue seriously and have not put the resources where they are needed. I have been determined over recent weeks, as the Minister, to make sure we have local authority by local authority checks on what is happening, looking at the local interactions on the ground.
The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) is categorically incorrect to say that we are deporting EU nationals who are sleeping rough. That is not what is happening, as he knows. In actual fact, we have been working with local authorities on the support and offer they can give to immigrants with no recourse to public funds at local level. Quite rightly, my colleagues in the Home Office and I are working through many issues that affect a number of different people.
I must also point out that all these individuals are different. Every individual has specific needs, and it is right that we work intensively with local authorities to make sure those individual needs are considered.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We have a lot of people who need to get in, and we have spent 15 minutes on the first three questions. We need to pick it up.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I welcome the measures and the very significant funding that the Minister has announced today. Does she agree that it is important to take the same kind of approach as that taken by Rugby Borough Council through its preventing homelessness and improving lives programme? That has made a tremendous difference to local families at risk of homelessness through early intervention by a dedicated support team, working with those who are vulnerable to prepare a plan to avoid a crisis situation later.
Kelly Tolhurst
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is by the good practice of councils such as Rugby Borough Council and programmes of that nature that they are able to work with those families and individuals before there is a need for them to sleep rough or become homeless—it is prevention. We know that since we implemented the Homelessness Reduction Act, that has had a significant impact in many parts of the country. I am pleased that we are determined and committed to make sure we implement that even further and work with local authorities to get better results.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) [V]
First, congratulations are due on the efforts that were made to get rough sleepers off the streets from March onwards. Great work was done by councils with voluntary organisations and with good support financially from the Government as well. The real pressure on councils now, I am told by my own city of Sheffield, is from people presenting as homeless from the private rented sector. An increase has led Sheffield City Council, which is very good at dealing with these matters, to have 80 families now in hotels and another 200 in temporary accommodation. That will cost the council around £500,000 extra in this financial year. If dealing with homelessness has to be a priority for councils, which certainly it should be, will the Minister make it a priority for Government to make sure that councils have the extra resources they need directly to continue delivering the services that people in the private rented sector will need in the coming, very trying months?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank the hon. Member for his comments and articulation of the work that has been done by the Government and many local authorities and the voluntary and charitable sector in the covid-19 pandemic. He is absolutely right that we need to monitor and make sure we are working intensively with local authorities to understand the needs and the challenges. That is why we are working with local authorities to provide plans, that is why we have put in the Next Steps funding, to provide that Move On and Next Steps accommodation support. We will continue that work through the winter and evaluate any impacts that we are seeing through the covid pandemic. We need to bear in mind that we have also provided councils with over £6 billion in funding to deal with some of the issues that are coming out of the covid pandemic.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment and on attending the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness within days and answering our questions. I also congratulate the Government on a brilliant job in pulling rough sleepers off the streets and putting them into secure accommodation. As my hon. Friend rightly says, the problem now is that every case of homelessness is a unique one. Many people who have been rough sleeping have physical and mental health problems, and they are also probably addicted to drink, drugs or other substances, so it is vital that we roll out the Housing First initiative from the pilot sites throughout the country and also fully fund my Homelessness Reduction Act when the funding for it comes to an end. Will she therefore commit to rolling out Housing First across the country and to ensuring that local authorities are fully funded for their duties under my Act?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and it was a pleasure to attend the APPG. I also thank him for his work in this area, for which he is a passionate advocate. Housing First is a great pilot, and we have continued to make sure that we can get individuals through those schemes, even during the pandemic. We are working with those sites to make sure that we can maximise that funding and that pilot to get the data and information. I am very supportive of the Housing First programme, and I would very much like to extend it. That is something that we will be working on in Government. I am committed to making sure that the Homelessness Reduction Act is implemented fully, and we will have further discussions about the funding to be able to deliver on that.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
A street homelessness reduction programme is not world leading if the numbers sleeping rough on our streets are rising. It is shocking that the number of young people sleeping rough on our streets is now at a record high. What will the Minister do to ensure that homelessness prevention services offer appropriate support to young people with particular needs, such as young prison leavers?
Kelly Tolhurst
I refute the assumption that rough sleeping numbers are increasing because of the action taken during the pandemic. If we look at the snapshot, we see that in actual fact at September there was a significant reduction in rough sleeping compared with last year. We have been working hard with local authorities in order that everyone who had been brought on to the Everyone In scheme has stayed in emergency accommodation or moved on to Next Steps accommodation. We are working hard to make sure that those numbers are reducing.
The hon. Lady makes an incredibly important point about young people, their particular needs and the threat of becoming homeless. I am working with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice on how we can further support offenders. I have a particular interest in young people and care leavers, and we are investigating what other measures we can put in place to support them when they are at threat of homelessness.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to £311,000 for the borough of Gedling for local secure-accommodation schemes for people at risk of sleeping on the street. Does my hon. Friend agree that this funding is a significant step forward towards fulfilling our manifesto commitment to end rough sleeping by 2024? Will she join me in thanking all those in Gedling who have worked so hard to get vulnerable people into safe, secure accommodation?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend for his comment and pay tribute to those not only in his constituency but throughout the country who are working and have worked incredibly hard over the summer and through the pandemic to make sure that those individuals have had the help and support they require. He is absolutely right that this funding is part of our next steps to reach our target and make sure that we tackle some of the issues and develop the accommodation to house some of the most vulnerable in our society.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure the Minister would agree that a number of homelessness charities have warned that tens of thousands of young people have been made homeless since the start of the pandemic. Many of these young people work in hospitality, so they have not had a job for many months. They are struggling to support themselves financially and make up the bulk of people in insecure accommodation. The Government’s decision to bring forward the eviction ban was welcome, but it is not working, so will the Minister outline what steps the Government will take to ensure that the ban is properly enforced? The Minister said she would work with bailiffs to stop the evictions, but the reality on the ground is that that is not happening. What concrete steps will there be to protect people from enforcement?
Kelly Tolhurst
The hon. Lady highlights the plight of young people and the particular challenges that they face during the pandemic because of the types of work and sectors they are involved in. It is true that we have placed a ban on evictions and, before the announcement of the restrictions for this month, evictions were not taking place in areas in tier 3. That is obviously the case for this month, and we are also saying that no evictions should be taking place from 11 December into January. We are working with our colleagues in the MOJ, but I must highlight the fact that we have given a six-month stay on those proceedings and only the most egregious cases will be taken forward. We will keep that under review, as the House would imagine, and make sure that we monitor it. If the hon. Lady is referring to particular circumstances, I would be interested to see the detail and I will happily communicate with her directly in respect of any individual circumstances.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
May I congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment? The Rochester by-election feels like a lifetime ago.
The Government have a golden opportunity, having supported 29,000 people this year, to achieve their ambition of ending rough sleeping by the end of the Parliament. Will my hon. Friend commit to ensuring not only that those who have been helped will continue to get support, but that anyone at risk in the coming months will have the support that they need?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said and it is a pleasure to be answering his question. He is absolutely right. Throughout the pandemic, we have been working with local authorities on an individual basis to understand the needs and challenges that are driving homelessness within those areas. I am committed to doing exactly that to make sure that we understand all those individual circumstances that are creating demands in different parts of the country. We are developing practices and policies to ensure that we can reach our commitment of ending rough sleeping by the end of this Parliament and of significantly reducing it.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Simply asking bailiffs not to physically remove desperate people who cannot afford to pay their rent until 11 January will not allow the Secretary of State to keep his promise that no one will lose their home due to a drop in income because of covid. How he could keep that promise would be, for example, to raise local housing allowance so that nobody finds that it is less than the rent they owe. Given that a third of those who are excluded are also private renters, he could also make sure that those people who have been excluded from financial support since March are no longer excluded and are given the support they need. Finally, given that the Government are in the mood for rushing through legislation, why do they not keep their manifesto promise and scrap section 21 evictions, and do it now?
Kelly Tolhurst
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, but, as I have outlined, we have asked bailiffs to pause evictions over the Christmas period and that is something that we will monitor and keep under review. It is absolutely right that we have taken this action, and the Secretary of State took it quickly and swiftly. We are still committed to abolishing section 21, but legislation must be balanced and considered to achieve the right outcomes for the sector, and we will keep those under review. The Government will continue to take decisive action, as they have done at all stages of the pandemic, and as I have done today in outlining our Protect programme.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Our veterans have given so much in the service of this country and it is vital that we ensure that not a single one ends up on the streets. Will the Minister therefore reassure me and my constituents who care deeply about this that veterans continue to have priority need to keep them off the streets and that the funding provided by this Government means that if someone finds themselves in hard times this winter, local authorities have not only the duty, but the resources to give them the home that they deserve?
Kelly Tolhurst
My hon. Friend is right to highlight again the vital role that our veterans have played in keeping this country safe. I am sure that everyone across this House feels, as I do, a great sadness and deep concern for those veterans who face hard times and are in very difficult circumstances. They have priority when it comes to the reduction of homelessness and will continue to do so. We will continue to work with our colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to ensure that those veterans can get access to the support and services that they need to continue with their lives.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The Children’s Commissioner has raised concern about the almost 130,000 children in England who spent the first lockdown in temporary accommodation, where poor conditions made it difficult to study, play and self-isolate. Why does the Minister think that there has been a 78% increase in homeless children since 2010?
Kelly Tolhurst
The hon. Lady asks about families and children in temporary accommodation. I, too, have concerns about any families and young people having to live their lives in temporary accommodation. As I have outlined, that is why this Government are investing in the Move On programme and the Next Steps accommodation programme. We are also committed to investing long-term in our housebuilding programme, and in affordable and social rented homes. I totally understand the pressures and challenges for young people in insecure homes, and it is something that this Government and I are determined to resolve.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On a recent visit to YMCA Lincolnshire in Gainsborough, I was briefed on the excellent work done for homeless people in Lincoln at the charity’s Nomad Centre. But when I talked to the chief executive this morning, she told me that her main worry is not so much the level of Government support, but whether it is trickling down from local government to charities quickly enough. That leads me to a wider point, which I suppose is also a Conservative one: in a pandemic we always think that the state can do everything, but we should really be empowering and supporting charities.
Kelly Tolhurst
We are working with local authorities to ensure that the support is trickling down to exactly where it is needed. We are working intensively with local authorities on plans for how that money will be spent, and on the impact on the ground. If my right hon. Friend has any further details, I will happily take up this issue. Indeed, if any Member across the House has any particular local issues, I will take them up and investigate further. It is true that this Government have taken unprecedented action to tackle rough sleeping and homelessness during the pandemic, and I remain committed to continuing that work.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) [V]
After speaking with ACORN Liverpool and local volunteers such as Councillor Sarah Morton who are out on the ground every night in Liverpool helping the homeless, I would like to ask about one of their many concerns right now. The enforced evictions guidance has no basis in law. It does not protect against bailiffs, despite the Government saying that they have asked bailiffs to hold fire, and people are living in fear of eviction during this lockdown. The only way to ban evictions is through legislation, as with the ban between March and September. Will the Minister commit to such legislation and consider increasing funding for local authority discretionary housing payments, which are a vital resource in supporting early intervention and preventing homelessness?
Kelly Tolhurst
The Government have invested heavily in support for homelessness, particularly through the rough sleeping initiative. Liverpool is part of Housing First, which is one of the pilot projects to help rough sleepers, who have multiple complex needs. I hope that the numbers of people moving into that pilot will soon increase in Liverpool. The hon. Gentleman mentions an important point about evictions. It is true that there is a six-month stay on possession proceedings in court to 30 September, and that only the most egregious cases will be taken forward, such as those involving antisocial behaviour and crime. We are committed to that and have made it clear that we do not expect any evictions to take place. If we need to take further action, I am sure that we will find the tools to do so.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
Is it not just so sad when we see homelessness and rough sleeping on our streets? One reason that I was so proud to stand as a Conservative party candidate at the last general election was our commitment to eradicate rough sleeping by the end of this Parliament. Homelessness is often seen as an urban issue, but it is very much a rural one as well. Conservative-led Dorset Council has reduced rough sleeping, though, by 39% up until 2019. I suggest to the shadow Secretary of State that maybe she asks the same questions of her own Labour-run Bristol City Council, where homelessness has increased by 20%—
Mr Speaker
Order. First, the question is too long. Secondly, it is not for the Opposition to answer the questions; it is for the Minister. Don’t take the Minister’s job away—it is not fair to her.
Kelly Tolhurst
You will have to excuse me, Mr Speaker; I fell down the stairs yesterday, so I am struggling to do the bobbing up and down.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I would like to praise the work of Dorset Council, which has been able to continue to reduce rough sleeping. We hope that we will be able to share information with colleagues in other areas to ensure that, where there is great practice and local authorities are taking great steps to reduce rough sleeping and homelessness, the lessons are learned throughout the country. We learnt a lot through the Everyone In programme, and I hope that those lessons will help us to develop policies.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) [V]
As chair of the all-party parliamentary dog advisory welfare group, I have been contacted by Dogs on the Streets, an excellent charity that cares for homeless people who have dogs and are sleeping on the streets. The charity tells me that it is often very difficult for homeless people who are sleeping rough to be admitted into accommodation if they have a pet, particularly a dog. Will the Minister meet me and Dogs on the Streets to talk about the available options? Pets are often a lifeline for people, and we must be extremely compassionate and ensure that those who are compassionate to pets are not left behind on the streets.
Kelly Tolhurst
I will happily meet the hon. Lady to discuss that. She has highlighted an issue that affects not only people sleeping rough but those who are at threat of being made homeless. It transcends the two categories, so I would be happy to discuss it further.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
In December 2019, a report outlined that 216 individuals were being housed in short-term shelters in the Wakefield district. Prior to covid, homelessness and rough sleeping in the district had risen sharply, raising concerns about the safety and wellbeing of those who suffer this plight. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to increase the number of homes available for people who are currently homeless as part of the Government’s ambition to end rough sleeping by 2024?
Kelly Tolhurst
The Government are investing more than £150 million in permanent accommodation, delivering 3,300 units, to give an asset to the country that will provide properties for individuals who are sleeping rough and who are then able to come into the system. That is an amazing step forward. It is the biggest investment in this kind of housing since the early ’90s, and I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to make that point.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
The Home Office immigration rules published on 22 October make it crystal clear that among the reasons that would normally lead to a refusal of leave to remain in the United Kingdom is failure by the person to accommodate themselves or their dependants without recourse to public funds. Any provision of accommodation for the homeless would be recourse to public funds. My question for the Minister is very simple: what is the advice—be kicked out by the Home Office or freeze on the streets?
Kelly Tolhurst
As I have already outlined, those who have no recourse to public funds do work with local authorities. Local authorities already assess those individuals who are in need and make decisions on whether they can lawfully provide support within that area and for those individuals’ needs. It is simply not true to say that we will be removing individuals on the grounds that they are sleeping rough. It is absolutely right that we continue to work with that cohort, as well as with the charities and voluntary organisations across the country that are working with those individuals to establish pathways and provide help with regard to the EU settlement scheme. That work will continue, and I am happy to have further conversations with the hon. Gentleman about that.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend for the work she has done in tackling homelessness and rough sleeping, but it has been the west midlands that has led the way in this fight, under the leadership of our Mayor, Andy Street, and his homelessness taskforce, which has seen year-on-year decreases in the number of people rough sleeping. Can she reaffirm that she will indeed work with the West Midlands Combined Authority and our Mayor, Andy Street, to ensure that the lessons they have learned during this process can be carried through to Government, so that we can finally, once and for all, fulfil that manifesto commitment and end rough sleeping?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend and, yes, I totally will. I have already met Andy Street to discuss the issues within the area. I am very grateful for the work that he and others have been leading, such as Jean Templeton from Saint Basils, who has been doing a tremendous job up there, and for the leadership of young people in that area. I look forward to continuing to work with all parts of the country to achieve this ambition.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
In 2019, one in 46 people in Redbridge, which Ilford South is part of, were homeless. That is a shocking statistic. While recent funding is obviously very welcome, I wonder if we can have a situation where I do not have to walk outside Ilford Exchange or outside my constituency office and see once again the many cardboard cities, which so miraculously disappeared, literally in a week, once the Government decided to act and house those homeless people and rough sleepers. Could the Minister ensure that, once lockdown ends, they will uphold their commitment to permanently ending rough sleeping?
Kelly Tolhurst
Actually, I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue in his constituency. It is true, and I am sure I speak for everyone across the House, that every one of us really feels sadness and regret when we see any individual sleeping rough in a tent, a box or whatever. It is just not satisfactory. That is why this Government have committed to ending rough sleeping, and why we have put in this unprecedented level of support to achieve that goal. My challenge is to keep working with those local authorities to deliver on that promise.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I welcome the funding that my hon. Friend has outlined for councils, including over £1.6 million for Buckinghamshire Council to provide accommodation for people at risk of rough sleeping. Can she confirm how many additional such homes the Government intend to fund by the end of this Parliament?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend and I am glad that we were able to allocate funding to Buckinghamshire to deliver on those programmes. At the moment—this is our first tranche, obviously—we are delivering 3,300 homes by the end of March 2021 and that is within our commitment to deliver over 6,000. We will continue to work, as I keep repeating—I am sorry, Mr Speaker—with local authorities, because we have to be very clear that each individual area is very different. The drivers, challenges and needs in those areas are so different, as are the needs of the individuals. It is so important that, when we are announcing these things and making policy, we are making sure we are delivering policy that does actually achieve the ambitions we want to achieve.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
No one could accuse this Minister of being heartless or uncaring. I know her to be a woman of great integrity. However, I would put to her that her Government have been in power for a long time now and we still have this real problem of poverty—family poverty—stalking our land. The report by Anne Longfield, the Children’s Commissioner, this morning shows the link between homelessness, rough sleeping and the dreadful way we treat children in care in this country. It is all joined up and there are some common reasons, and I think her Government and her Department should look at that too.
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very kind comments about me. I always find him to be very compassionate as well. He makes a valid point about the impact that homelessness and poverty can have on young children and particularly children who are leaving care. This is an area that I personally am very passionate about—young people and care leavers. It is true to say that this Government are working across Government. I am working with colleagues across Departments in order to find solutions and develop policies to tackle that and deliver on our ambition.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I commend the Minister for the outstanding work she is doing in her new portfolio. The Passage, a charity based in my constituency working with her Department on the Home for Good model, has seen many people being paired with a mentor in the community that they have been resettled in. That has had great success in sustaining tenancies and preventing a return to the streets. Does she agree that it is investment in these types of programmes for preventive work that makes lasting change in the lives of people coming off the streets and that it should continue to be supported?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she has done in this area and the passion that she has in working with me and the Department to tackle this issue. She is absolutely right. It is so important that we are working with local authorities and that money is going to organisations to develop programmes to help with prevention, to deliver support and to provide the mentoring that is so valuable. It is all very well for me as a Minister to stand here today and say what we are doing, but people who have had real-life experience and understand what the reality is are able to impart that and then hold the hand of those individuals who are affected as they navigate the system. That is so invaluable.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
In a letter to the Secretary of State in June about rough sleepers during covid-19, community organisations, faith leaders and Ealing Council wrote:
“Without question, the hardest group to support under the current framework is those with no recourse to public funds.”
The Secretary of State’s announcement last week made it clear that the new Protect programme funding was there to ensure that
“everyone sleeping rough on our streets”
has
“somewhere safe to go”.
Could the Minister therefore confirm whether this funding can be used to help those sleeping rough who have no recourse to public funds?
Kelly Tolhurst
The rules on eligibility to immigration status have not changed, including those on no recourse to public funds. It is down to local authorities to use their judgment in assessing the support that they can lawfully give to the individuals. This does already happen. We were very clear to local authorities in May that, under Next Steps, they were to carry out individual assessments of people who were rough sleeping and take decisions on who they would provide support for. Part of that was providing accommodation to vulnerable people.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I welcome the Everyone In plan and last week’s announcement of the £15 million Protect programme. This morning, I had the opportunity to speak to the new chief executive of Dacorum Borough Council, Claire Hamilton, and she too welcomes the additional funding provided by this Government. However, the concern she wants me to raise with the Minister is that, in two-tier areas like mine, South West Hertfordshire, the money is given to Hertfordshire County Council. Could she use her good offices to ensure that the money is given to the frontline as quickly as possible?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I will use my position to make sure that that money is being targeted at and provided in the areas where it is actually needed. This funding and this package is all about being able to target work intensively with local authorities. This is an offer to all Members who have a particular issue at a local level. I am always happy to take that up with local authorities and to have further discussions on their behalf.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Minister to her post. I think she is the 12th Minister in this position in the past decade. Her enthusiasm for the efficacy of Government policy would be infectious but for the detailed work on the Government’s housing policies we have been doing on the Public Accounts Committee, which I commend to her. We are talking a lot about rough sleeping today, but I have far more families who are hidden homeless, or two households in one. They are struggling through the pandemic. It is a public health issue and it is damaging our children. Will she consider talking to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) about a housing market package to buy up hard-to-sell properties in the private sector and provide these people and rough sleepers with the Move On accommodation they so desperately need?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and I am always happy to meet her to discuss particular issues affecting her area and to listen to ideas that Members think may or may not work in their local setting, but I have to reiterate that London has had significant support with the Next Steps accommodation. The exact focus of that is to move those individuals out of temporary emergency accommodation and into longer-term stability and pathways, delivering that security that those individuals and families need. I will happily meet her to discuss that further.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
I start by thanking this Government, who have supported 29,000 people who have been rough sleeping this year alone. I have only a handful of rough sleepers in my constituency—a handful too many—but I thank the Government for finding secure accommodation for them during the pandemic, helping to protect lives and prevent the spread of the virus. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking local charities in my Stourbridge constituency such as Leslie’s Care Packages, which works tirelessly to ensure that rough sleepers have the support they need?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend, and I happily pass on my thanks to the charities and the organisation in her constituency, Leslie’s Care Packages, for the work they have been doing throughout the pandemic. Again, I extend my thanks to all in the charitable sector and the voluntary sector, who have done such a lot of work in this area, working constructively with the Government and local authorities to ensure that we are targeting support to those individuals who need the help the most.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) [V]
In the spring, the Everyone In programme showed that where there is the political will, it is possible to take action to provide shelter for people who need it, but that should not be done only in emergencies; it should be done all year round, guaranteeing safe and warm shelter to everyone who needs it, including those with no recourse to public funds. Rather than wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on covid contracts for friends and family of the Conservative party, will the Government instead provide permanent funding to end homelessness for good?
Kelly Tolhurst
The hon. Lady will know that part of our follow-on from the Everyone In programme—it is still ongoing and has not stopped—is the Next Steps funding, which delivers exactly what she is asking. It is providing not only funding for local authorities to deliver that next stage, Move On accommodation, but £150 million of investment in permanent accommodation —the largest investment in delivering homes in this area since the ’90s.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
In Cornwall, homelessness and rough sleeping has historically been an issue. In recent years, some excellent work has been done in Cornwall to combat the issue by St Petrocs and by the local authority, particularly with the success of the recent Pydar Pop UP project in Truro. Of course more needs to be done, and I welcome the £5.5 million that the Government have provided to Cornwall Council since September to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping. It is a substantial amount of money that creates a real opportunity to end rough sleeping in Cornwall. However, does my hon. Friend agree that that money needs to be spent on long-term solutions to find homes for those who are homeless and rough sleeping, not just on the short term and quick fixes?
Kelly Tolhurst
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The investment we are making as a Government in long-term secure homes is so important. That is what the Secretary of State and I are driving to achieve, within the realms of the funding, and we are seeing delivery across the country. We are committed to working with local authorities, including Cornwall, to understand the specific challenges. As I have said, every area is slightly different and sometimes there is a different solution for every area. We have to understand those things so that we can work effectively with the local authorities so that they can deliver that change and we can achieve our objectives.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).
Point of Order
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 13 October, I submitted a named day written question to the Cabinet Office on whether contractor relief identical to that set out in procurement policy note 02/20 would be given from 31 October, given the ongoing covid outbreak. Nearly a month later, I still have not received a response, and I submitted a named day written question on 5 November asking when my initial named day written question would be answered, but I still have not had a response to that. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, please can you advise me on how I can elicit a response from the Minister for the Cabinet Office on this really important issue?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am very concerned to hear what the hon. Lady has to say, and I suspect from my own experience as a constituency Member of Parliament that a great many Members around the House are having the same experience as the hon. Lady. [Hon. Members: “Yes.”] I see that almost everyone present in the Chamber is showing their assent. Mr Speaker has made it clear on several previous occasions that Departments must do better in answering questions from hon. Members. We all appreciate that many people are having to work from home and in rather more difficult circumstances than usual, but it should not be wrong of us to expect a certain degree of efficiency from professional civil servants, so the delay to which the hon. Lady refers is unsatisfactory.
I am sure that those on the Government Front Bench will have heard the hon. Lady’s concerns, my concerns, Mr Speaker’s concerns and the echo all around the Chamber of almost every hon. Member: this is happening far too often. The hon. Lady may wish to write to the Leader of the House, and I certainly in answering this question right now hope to draw to the attention of the Leader of the House this predicament.
The Leader of the House said in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter):
“Named day questions must be answered within the named day period…and questions should be being dealt with in timely fashion.”—[Official Report, 5 November 2020; Vol. 693, c. 495.]
I am quite sure that the Leader of the House will be cognisant of the fact that almost every Member of this place shares the experience that the hon. Lady has just described and that he will take steps to ensure that his ministerial colleagues answer their questions in a timely fashion and that those who are supposed to support them do so efficiently.
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 item of business, I will suspend the House for three minutes.
Supported Housing (Regulation)
Wednesday 11th November 2020
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Supported Housing (Regulation) Bill 2019-21 View all Supported Housing (Regulation) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate supported housing; to make provision about local authority oversight and the enforcement of standards of accommodation and support in supported housing; to prohibit the placing of children in care in unregulated accommodation; and for connected purposes.
We quite rightly in this country have a regulatory system in place for care homes through the Care Quality Commission. In Scotland, as I understand it, the Care Commission also covers supported housing. I am calling for the same to happen in England for hostels, refuges and other accommodation for people with support needs, so that vulnerable people are housed only in decent, safe accommodation where they will get the support they need and where unscrupulous landlords will no longer be able to exploit them to make a quick buck through the housing benefit system.
I stress that there are many respectable, decent providers of supported housing out there, and I appreciate that theirs is not an easy job. In particular, I pay tribute to the work they have done during this pandemic, with local authorities, to house rough sleepers. Sadly, however, not all providers are like that. Because the local housing allowance is so low in places like Bristol, for some private landlords with an eye to profit, renting at the usual rates has little appeal when, if they convert to supported housing, they can charge much more. They only have to provide a level of support that is “more than minimal” to qualify for an exemption that can get them the enhanced rates of housing benefit that make it so attractive to them.
The situation at Wick House, a large supported housing project in my constituency, is why I got involved, in particular the death of residents—there have been seven deaths since a particular charity began running the place—and in particular the deaths of George Mahoney, whose body was found in a pool of blood in 2016, and Paul Way, who died in 2017 and whose body, despite it being supported accommodation, was not found for three days.
One former worker at the hostel shared with me emails he sent to George’s family after his death in which he describes the living conditions. He talks about visible bed bugs on residents. He said that the Salvation Army would fumigate the kit of anyone coming from Wick House. He spoke of the “employment of career criminals”, the victimisation of vulnerable residents and his concern for women living there, saying:
“there is quite a lot of sexual activity in a drunken/drugged and prostituted state.”
He described a “woeful” lack of support: a visit once a fortnight from a local drugs project and from a mental health team for certain residents, but that was it. He also said—I stress this was back in 2017—that the management
“can’t claim not to know about it—they are facilitating it. I don’t really care whether this is deliberate or accidental, it’s still happening and it needs to be stopped, not ignored.”
What many of us came to realise, however, was how little power anyone had to stop them. When a council commissions supported housing, control can be exercised through the contract, but with such an uncommissioned service, Bristol Council was really limited in what it could do. The council did refuse to refer people to Wick House, and both it and I urged prison and probation services to do likewise, but Wick House did not find it difficult to fill its rooms with self-referrals and referrals from outside the local area.
In 2017, the landlord attempted to increase the rent from £125 to £343 per tenant, resulting in tribunal proceedings in which the judge, by consent order, reduced it to £170. The management responded by expanding Wick House from 47 residents to 87, cramming them in to recoup the lost income. Even though Wick House was in breach of planning rules, the council still had to pay housing benefit for all 87 tenants regardless, and tried to enforce measures on the breach.
In September 2019, the Charity Commission published a report on Bristol Sheltered Accommodation & Support—the charity that ran Wick House. It found a failure to report serious incidents, including the death of a resident; unauthorised salary payments to trustees; poor financial controls; and unmanaged conflicts of interest. A new charity is now running Wick House. At the time, the Charity Commission warned that the investigations had brought to light wider issues around the regulation of supported housing that limited its ability to hold charities providing such accommodation to account.
It is quite clear that this is not an isolated case, and many colleagues have expressed similar concerns, particularly in cities. In September this year, The Sunday Telegraph published a piece on suburban family homes that were being converted into unlicensed bail hostels—again, the motivation was landlords wanting to get their hands on higher housing-benefit payments. The article said:
“Such family homes contain a volatile mix of ex-prisoners, drug addicts, those with severe mental health issues, refugees and women fleeing domestic abuse.”
Bail hostels that are classed as approved premises are tightly regulated, but their unregulated equivalents are not, and providers can often get away with little to no supervision or support. The West Midlands police and crime commissioner said:
“Regulation needs to come from central government. At the moment, the law is quite free and easy around these areas. Some of these landlords are actually criminals who are making money out of people’s misery.”
The Bill seeks to protect young people. The recent report, “Unregulated”, by the Children’s Commissioner, revealed that 12,800 children in care —or one in eight—spent some time in an unregulated placement that was not registered with Ofsted in 2018-19. They are usually older teens, but there are some under-16s and children with high needs. They are housed in independent or semi-independent accommodation with limited support that is not regulated by the quality inspectorate. The accommodation might be a flat, hostel or bedsit. Even worse, in some cases, it might be a caravan, tent or barge. Children who are supposedly in care are left to fend for themselves with limited support from key workers—perhaps five hours a week or fewer. Young people use words such as “disgusting”, “absolutely terrible” and “like a prison cell” to describe their living arrangements. In some instances, they end up living alongside vulnerable adults, who have their own difficulties, or in placements where they are exposed to the risk of exploitation and other negative influences. The Children’s Commissioner has called for the use of semi-independent and independent provision to be made illegal for all children in care and for the regulation of unregulated settings. That is included within the scope of the Bill.
There has been growing awareness in recent years, but little action. In May 2017, for example, in a joint report on the future of supported housing, the Committees on Communities and Local Government and on Work and Pensions recommended that the Government should establish a set of national standards to enable monitoring of quality provision in all supported housing in England and Wales. They said that all providers should be registered with a local authority, whether or not their services had been commissioned locally, and that local authorities should undertake annual inspections of all supported housing schemes in their area to ensure a minimum standard of provision.
In response, the Government committed to working with local authorities on how they might best ensure decent and appropriate standards. Very little happened until three years later. Last month, on 20 October, we suddenly saw some movement from the Government. Five pilots in priority areas—Birmingham, Hull, Blackpool, Blackburn and Bristol—will be funded to the tune of £3 million for collaborative working between local partners to test different approaches on greater oversight and enforcement of higher standards in non-commissioned provision. That has been accompanied by the publication of a statement of national expectations that focuses on accommodation.
I am pleased that Bristol was chosen for one of the pilot schemes, and that the Government recognise the good work that Bristol City Council has done. The funding will give the council the opportunity to carry out a quality check on the city’s non-commissioned sector involving a team from environmental health, safeguarding, support review officers and housing benefits to help identify the problems and take what enforcement action we can. However, for reasons I have already set out, I have my doubts about whether a voluntary approach is enough. Local authorities do not have sufficient powers to enforce standards—which are only expected standards, anyway—and while many decent providers will be happy to co-operate, those in it purely for the money will not do so.
Jess Turtle, co-founder of the Museum of Homelessness recently told The Big Issue that the new measures were “nowhere near” enough. She said that
“40% of the deaths we recorded in 2019 occurred when a person was in emergency or temporary accommodation, and our research clearly shows these tragedies will continue without real action”.
She questioned whether providers would really take time to follow recommended guidelines and was concerned that private landlords and providers, who account for 86% of the £1.1 billion temporary accommodation industry, had not even been identified as supported housing providers in the policy. I think the Government—or at least some Ministers—recognise the flaws in the voluntary approach and view the pilots, which run only for six months, as an evidence-gathering exercise, which I hope will inform future regulation.
I have had Ministers from three different Departments acknowledge in one way or another the need to address the concerns I have raised. I am meeting two more Ministers, including the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), who is in her place today, before the end of the month to discuss what can be done. Across the Atlantic, we have seen a new expression of a desire for bipartisan working in difficult times and, despite our many differences across the House, people would want to see the same approach from us on an issue such as this.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Kerry McCarthy, Mr Clive Betts, Shabana Mahmood, Steve McCabe, Bob Blackman, Helen Hayes, Fleur Anderson, Tim Loughton, Andrew Selous, Mohammad Yasin, Munira Wilson and Andrew Gwynne present the Bill.
Kerry McCarthy accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read the Second time on Friday 15 January, and to be printed (Bill 212).
Remembrance, UK Armed Forces and Society
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered remembrance, UK armed forces and society.
It is a real honour for me to open the debate not only as the Minister for the Armed Forces in the Ministry of Defence but as someone who has served on four operational tours to Iraq, Afghanistan and Northern Ireland. I hope that, at the end of my remarks, the House will indulge me in giving some personal reflections on the meaning of remembrance.
Before that, I want to draw your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the call list for the debate, which would make for a formidable half-company, should the nation ever call for us. The number of colleagues in the House who have served underlines the affinity between this place and our nation’s armed forces. A Defence Minister can often reflect on how the partisan hullabaloo of other areas of policy rarely encroaches on how we debate defence in this place. I know, as someone who served in at least two operational theatres that caused some political disagreement, that it really matters that this place not only robustly debates how and where we use our armed forces but does so always in a tone that makes those doing this place’s bidding in dangerous and dusty places realise that everybody in this House has the interests of our armed forces at heart, even when we disagree on how best to use them. I therefore look forward to another characteristically respectful and constructive debate.
It is an honour to take part in this debate on Armistice Day. This is a particularly significant year for remembrance. We are commemorating a century on from the installation of the Cenotaph, and we are marking 100 years since the interring of the unknown warrior in Westminster Abbey. That soldier represents the multitudes who gave their lives in the great war: a soldier buried
“among the kings because he had done good toward God and toward His house”.
Of course, this year we are also celebrating 75 years since the end of world war two.
Inevitably, due to covid, we have had to mark remembrance differently. On Sunday, instead of tens of thousands marching past the Cenotaph, just 26 veterans took part. Instead of people congregating on Whitehall in their thousands, the streets were quiet and still. The remembrance ceremony that I attended in my constituency this year was in Burnham-on-Sea. We attended in small numbers, I with the chairman of the Royal British Legion; at 9 am we laid our wreath, followed shortly afterwards by a group of councillors.
I actually thought it was quite poignant that things should be remembered in that way, but it also meant, for the first time in a long time for many of us, that we were at home at 11 o’clock and able to watch on television the coverage of the ceremony at the Cenotaph. It was the first time I had seen it for a number of years, and I congratulate all those who put together such a poignant and reflective ceremony worthy of the magnitude of that occasion, while respecting the constraints that we are under because of covid. For all that we bash the BBC, particularly from the Government side of the House, I thought that it got both its coverage and its commentary spot-on on Sunday.
It was also important, I thought, that we had a moment of remembrance this morning in the House. I know that the nation will have looked to us, as well as to the Cenotaph on Whitehall and to Westminster Abbey, for leadership at this important moment in the year. It was great to see that marked here in the Chamber.
There are three points that I want to make today: our appreciation of the support our armed forces receive from the public at large, from the service charities, and from the Royal British Legion in particular; our admiration for the service of those who continue to put their lives on the line in the defence of our great nation; and our reverence for those who have made the ultimate sacrifice so that we may enjoy our freedom.
When I was in Afghanistan and Iraq, every time that we received a delivery of mail, there would be all the mail from our family and friends but there would also be hundreds of letters and parcels from people with no connection to the armed forces beyond their admiration for what young men and women were willing to go away to do. I can tell the House that when we were in remote operating bases such as I was in Sangin, the fact that somebody had taken the time to write a letter to a soldier they did not know, or to send some biscuits or sweets, meant an enormous amount. It reminds our armed forces always just how close they are to our nation’s hearts.
We have seen that ourselves in our constituencies over the last few months, where soldiers, sailors, airmen, airwomen and marines have been delivering testing centres, delivering personal protective equipment to the local hospital or, earlier in the year, stuffing sandbags. I can tell the House how much it means to our men and women when members of the community just go up and say, “Thank you. Well done. You’re doing a great job.” People do that, unprompted, because they admire those who wear the uniform of our armed forces in the service of our nation.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister refers to what happened in Afghanistan—the letters and things that went there. Seven years ago, I had the opportunity to represent my party in Afghanistan in meeting the Royal Irish Regiment. I knew their love of Tayto potato crisps, so I took lots of them with me and gave them out to the soldiers, both male and female, who were there. That brought them close to home, and that is really important whenever they are in Afghanistan serving their Queen and country.
James Heappey
The hon. Member is a keen supporter of our armed forces, and I can tell him that the great pleasure of serving in his beautiful corner of the world, as I have done, is not the stunning landscape or the Bushmills, but the Tayto chips in our packed lunches on the ranges.
Beyond the support of the community are our amazing service charities. So many of them do great work for our armed forces all year round, but at this time of year it is particularly important to reflect on the contribution of the Royal British Legion and the importance of its poppy appeal. It is an amazing commitment from poppy collectors all over the country that normally they go out in all weathers, from dawn till dusk, to sell poppies wherever they can. This year, of course, they have been more limited in what they have been able to do, but again and again I have seen in my constituency, and I know colleagues will have seen likewise, that they have done everything they can—within the law—to get out and raise as much money as they can for this important cause. We are all hugely grateful to them for doing so. I know that we would all want anybody watching today’s proceedings or reflecting on the fact that today is Armistice Day and they are yet to get their poppy to know that there is still time and that their money makes a real difference, in looking after both the families of those who have given their lives in conflict and those who have been forever scarred by their service.
That leads me to the service of our armed forces and the unlimited liability that they accept in the service of our nation—to do anything, anywhere, at any time, if this House and Her Majesty’s Government will it. That is an extraordinary thing to sign up and do. Some of us have done it for a few years. Some of us have done it for entire careers. Some of us have not done it at all, but to those who continue to serve, what matters is not whether a person has served but that they pause and reflect that as they go on with their life, and as their family are leading their lives, those who serve have accepted a responsibility on behalf of the nation to drop everything and leave at any moment to go and do whatever the nation requires anywhere in the world. That is an amazing act of selflessness that we should all be grateful for.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Minister talks about years of service. I wonder whether he would commend and congratulate my constituent, Mrs Barbara McGregor, who is due to retire in January next year after 44 years of service in the Royal Navy to Queen and country. Mrs McGregor is taking part in Armistice services this week, and she was meant to be leading the parade march in the Bridgend county borough this weekend but was not able to. Would the Minister commend her and congratulate her on her service, and on the fact that she has put everything—Queen and country—as a sole focus of her entire service in the Navy?
James Heappey
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman’s constituent on the longevity of her service and remark on what an amazing lifetime of commitment that is, with all the moments for her family, within her community and for her friends that she missed because she put her service of our country first. It is a quite extraordinary commitment, and I commend the hon. Gentleman for raising it in the House this afternoon.
Over the last few months, I have had the opportunity to see fast jet pilots serving in different corners of the European theatre, going out on missions where split-second decisions can be the difference between mission success and catastrophe. I visited helicopter crews in Mali operating in austere conditions, where it is dusty and dangerous and it is pretty hard to keep the Chinooks flying. I have seen air transport squadrons flying day after day and night after night to maintain the extraordinary efforts of our nation’s armed forces around the globe. I have seen troops operating in Estonia, Iraq and Afghanistan, and others on Salisbury plain preparing for a new deployment to Mali next month. I have seen training teams, big and small, working with our partners around the world.
The Royal Navy has had ships recently in the Barents sea, the Black sea, the eastern Mediterranean, the Caribbean, the Atlantic, the Gulf and the Indian ocean. Our sailors and Royal Marines right now are responding to the humanitarian disaster that has followed in the wake of recent hurricanes in the Caribbean. We are rebuilding our sovereign carrier strike capability, and yesterday, I had the enormous honour of seeing the awe-inspiring work of Her Majesty’s Submarine Service, who keep our continuous at-sea deterrent hidden from view—silent but utterly deadly, and non-stop for 51 years.
That would just be business as usual for Defence, but this year, there has been an extraordinary contribution in supporting the Government’s response to covid as well. As we emerge from the covid crisis, there is an expectation that instability will follow in its wake, so our armed forces can look forward to even more activity in even more uncertain parts of the world, reassuring our allies, deterring our adversaries, demonstrating our resolve to uphold a rules-based international system and destroying those who mean us harm when they have to.
There are also a vast number of people who have served in our nation’s armed forces and who we must now look after as veterans. I pay tribute to the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), for all the work that he does in that regard. Our veterans community matters enormously. They are an important part of the moral component of fighting power. If you are serving in the armed forces now, your confidence to act decisively on behalf of the nation is motivated by how you see the nation supporting its veterans back at home at that time. You want to know that if you get hurt, or take a decision, the Government and the nation will stand behind you for the rest of your life, and that is a commitment that this Government are proud to make.
Finally, sacrifice. Last week I was in Egypt visiting HMS Albion, which was in Alexandria after a successful deployment to the eastern Mediterranean. While I was up on the north coast of Egypt, I went to the cemetery at El Alamein. Like all Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries, it was immaculately maintained. It was vast, and all over it were grouped graves, which I understand is symptomatic of an armoured battle where entire tank crews or armoured personnel carrier crews died in one go. Very often their remains were almost impossible to separate, so they were buried with four or five headstones immediately adjacent to one another. That makes one pause and reflect on the horror of a battle of that intensity.
Then, as in so many other Commonwealth war graves cemeteries around the world, there were the unmarked graves of those who we will never know exactly who they were and who lie now underneath foreign soil to be remembered anonymously for all time. Then there were the Commonwealth graves, thousands of them, reminding us that this was an effort not just from all corners of the United Kingdom but from all corners of the Commonwealth. It was pleasing, therefore, to see that in Commonwealth war graves cemeteries around the world and in our embassies and high commissions on Sunday, there were moments of remembrance to reflect on the sacrifice of so many from other countries in the defence of our great nation.
This year, marking 75 years since the end of the second world war, has been a great opportunity for us to reflect not only on victory in Europe but on victory in Japan. That Pacific campaign is so often the one that is spoken about less, yet the acts of heroism and derring-do were no less important. Indeed, in many of the stories I have heard, the deprivation was far greater because of the environment in which the forces were operating. Since then, brave servicemen and women from the United Kingdom have given their lives in Korea, the Falklands, Northern Ireland, the Balkans, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan. It is on those last two conflicts that I have my own personal reflections.
When you join up, you know there is a risk that the moment might come when you have to put yourself in a position where you might lose your life. When you stand there at Sandhurst, Dartmouth, Cranwell, Catterick or HMS Raleigh and the flag is there and the Queen is on the wall and the Bible is put in your hand, you are filled with confidence that you are on a career path that is worthy and great, but when you are behind a wall and the rounds are hitting the other side or an improvised explosive device has just gone off and you know that you have to stand up close with the enemy and do your duty, that is a moment when you realise a lot about yourself. It is also a moment, sadly, from which people do not always return, and their loss is something that I feel keenly every time I pause and reflect on my experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I know that for the entire veterans community there will be a face that is in their minds when the Last Post is blown and the two minutes’ silence is followed. In communities across the country, there will be people who are remembered because they were there one month and then, six months later when their friends and comrades returned, there were no longer there. They were just a name on a war memorial. Those names are lives cut down in their prime and as we pause, over Remembrance Weekend and on Armistice Day today, let us never forget that they turned up at a recruiting office and embarked on their military careers, believing that what they were going to do would make a difference for our country and protect our freedom. They knew in the back of their mind that perhaps they might be called upon to give their life, but they hoped and even expected that it would never be them. Hundreds of thousands have answered our nation’s call and given their lives in doing so. We will remember them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the spokesman for the Opposition, I thank the Minister for his brevity in his opening speech. It will be obvious that there are over 50 colleagues trying to catch my eye, and that we have only three hours for this debate. I therefore have to start with a time limit on Back Bench speeches of six minutes. That will be reduced later in the debate, and people who are further down the list must recognise the reality that they are unlikely to be called, but I am happy to call John Healey.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have to say that it is an honour to follow the Minister and his moving speech this afternoon, and I pay tribute to him for his four tours of duty and his decade of service in the Rifles, just as I pay tribute to the service that other hon. Members in all parts of this House have given to our armed forces. Parliament is all the better for Members who have committed service in the forces, and this House is also all the better for the service of Members who are committed to the forces. I look forward to the contributions to this afternoon’s debate of many of those hon. Members who are on the long call list.
As we did this morning in this Chamber, this is indeed the moment we commemorate the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, when hostilities ceased in 1918. It is the focus of our national remembrance each year: the moment the nation comes together to honour those who have served, those who have fought to keep us safe, and above all, those who have made the ultimate sacrifice with their lives so that the rest of us may continue to enjoy the freedoms we do today. The Minister put it far more eloquently than many of the rest of us can, but the men and women who wear a British military uniform make a unique commitment to, if needed, put themselves in harm’s way to protect the rest of us. I want this day’s debate to recall not just the lives of those lost in the two world wars, but those of the 7,190 UK service personnel who have died in operations since 1945.
I was reminded of this on Sunday, when I, like the Minister, was proud to lay a wreath alongside the president of our local British Legion branch in Rotherham. His name is Ron Moffett; he served for more than 20 years in the Royal Army Ordnance Corps, and he talked to me of comrades he had lost in Northern Ireland, in the Falklands, in Afghanistan, and in Germany in training. I want my relatively brief remarks in this debate to concentrate on the ordinary servicemen and women: on their extraordinary sense of duty, and on our duty, in turn, to them.
The Minister was right to say that remembrance has a particular poignancy this year. During 2020, we have marked 75 years since the end of the second world war—VE Day and VJ Day—and 80 years since the battle of Britain, and we have all been forced to find new ways to remember: ways that are perhaps more private, but no less important and no less personal. This year, we have also seen the hallmark values that have been there in generations of our forces personnel come to the fore again, as our troops have stood alongside frontline workers in the fight against the covid virus. I have said to the Defence Secretary that during this new national lockdown in England and the national vaccination challenge ahead, if the Government are willing to make further use of our forces in this fight, they will have our full support and strong backing from the public. The system that we have of military assistance to civil authorities is sound. It has been used 341 times for covid help since mid-March and 41 agreements are still in place, but people want to know now what the plan is. They have a right to know, and they also have a right to regular ministerial reporting on such decisions. I say to the Minister that I hope he and his colleagues will do this, because it will also help better understanding and better support for our military.
The Chief of the Defence Staff was right when he said recently that this should worry us all. He said that the level of understanding about our armed forces is at “an unprecedented low.” That is borne out by research that the British Forces Broadcasting Service published in June, which confirmed that 68% of the population do not know what the military actually do when they are not in combat. One third had no idea that our military play a part in thwarting terrorism or dealing with the aftermath of floods, and 53% believe that they use battle tanks to get around on a daily basis.
John Healey
The hon. Gentleman is harking back to the days when perhaps he did use battle tanks on a daily basis, but I think we are a little short of tanks to go round these days.
On a serious point, the number of veterans in society is set to fall by a third during this decade. It is clear to me that we must do more at all levels to reinforce our country’s understanding of and commitment to our armed forces.
On cadets, community cadet numbers have been falling and we cannot just rely on private schools. We can do more to reinvest in more community cadet forces. We now rely more on the professional expertise and skills of reservists, but the numbers are still below target, and we can do more to make recruitment better and employer support stronger.
On resilience, the covid pandemic has demonstrated that national resilience is an important part of national defence, and we can do more to strengthen Britain’s total deterrence, with large-scale joint civil, corporate and military exercises. On veterans, the Office for Veterans’ Affairs was a welcome step last year, but we can do more to make the UK the best place to be a veteran by enshrining the armed forces covenant in law. I say constructively and respectfully to the Minister that if the Government are willing to take those steps, they will have our full support to do so.
In this debate, we rightly celebrate the national pride we have in our military personnel, full-time and reservist. They are respected around the world for their professionalism and their all-round excellence, but I say again constructively and respectfully that if Ministers talk up our armed forces, they must also account for the declines there have been in the past decade or two. Since 2010, our full-time forces numbers are down by 40,000. Our military has never been smaller since we fought Napoleon 200 years ago. Forces pay is down, forces recruitment is down and forces morale is down. One in four military personnel now say they plan to quit before the end of their contract.
In 2015, the strategic defence review, in 89 pages, devoted just one and a half pages to personnel. Just like the 2010 defence review, it was largely a cover for cuts, which is why our armed forces are nearly 12,000 short of the strength promised in that 2015 review. It is why essential equipment, from new tanks to the radar system to protect our new aircraft carriers, is long overdue, and it is why our defence budget has a £13 billion black hole.
The Defence Secretary has rightly said that previous reviews
“failed because they were never in step with the spending plans”.—[Official Report, 6 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 647.]
Both sides of the House recognise that the Chancellor cut the ground from under the Defence Secretary when he postponed this year’s comprehensive spending review, but we also know that our adversaries will not pause. They confront us with continuous and constantly developing threats that no longer conform to any distinction between peace and war and are no longer confined to the land, sea and air domains of conventional warfare. So the Government’s integrated review is needed now more than ever.
As we move, as the Defence Secretary has put it, from “industrial age” to “information age” warfare, we must never neglect one fact: at the heart of our defence and security remain our forces personnel. Autonomous weapons, artificial intelligence and robotics will all become more and more widespread in the years ahead, but the essential utility of the men and women of our armed forces will remain central. Whether it is the frontline forces personnel doing city-wide covid testing in Liverpool or the special forces who took back control of the Nave Andromeda in the English channel last month, these are only the most recent reminders that although high-tech systems are essential, our highly trained British troops are indispensable. When the Chief of the Defence Staff launched our important new military doctrine, the military integrated operating concept, in September, he stressed that it
“emphasises the importance of our people—who have always been, and always will be, our adaptive edge.”
We honour them and we remember them.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate. Defence is a subject that we do not discuss enough, so I suspect that, just as the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said, we will wander away from giving gratitude to those in the past and look at some future challenges. I am pleased to see my fellow Rifleman, the Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey), in his place. The whole House joins him in saying thank you to our gallant, brave warriors, who have defended our shores, skies and interests over the years. It is important that despite the pandemic, we are able to continue to say thank you.
We pay tribute to those in the past, whom we all appreciate. I recall sitting on my grandfather’s knee when he explained the first world war medals that he had been awarded. That created a bond with me that has never gone away. It perhaps influenced me in stepping forward, wanting to serve. That link between myself and those in the armed forces is different from that between society and our armed forces today, as our armed forces have shrunk. We have seen vivid illustrations of some perceptions of what they now do, so part of what we are doing today is about educating the next generation on the importance and value that we in Britain bestow on our armed forces, which is perhaps uniquely different from what happens in other countries around the world.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
On the work that our armed forces do today—other Members have mentioned their immense contribution during the covid crisis—will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the British Army units based in Wiltshire, on Salisbury plain, in my constituency, which is of course the home of the British Army, despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) might like to say? Would my right hon. Friend also welcome, as I would, a welcome home parade, which might be organised by the Houses of Parliament, for soldiers once the covid crisis is behind us, to honour troops who have contributed to tackling it, just as we honour the contributions of troops who have been deployed overseas?
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful for that intervention and I was pleased to see the Minister nodding as my hon. Friend was speaking. That is exactly what we did with troops returning from Afghanistan and it is another way to engage with the public. I do not dare go down this avenue too much, but in reporting the great work being done in Liverpool the BBC had to give a health warning to say, “You are about to see images of armed forces on the streets in Liverpool. Please do not be worried.” That is a testament to how much work we need to do to change the culture that is building up in this country.
On the pandemic, I am afraid that I do concur with the view, as I said yesterday, that, while the military is doing fantastic work across the country with regard to logistics, transport and so forth, it is an under-utilised asset when it comes to emergency planning, crisis management and strategic thinking. Some of the decisions that have been made by this Government have, I am afraid, been clunky. The best decision makers and strategists that we have are in the Ministry of Defence, yet there is not a military person to be seen in the quad, the top decision-making body dealing with this pandemic.
On the issue of veterans, which came up in Prime Minister’s questions, I simply underline the pressure that our service charities are currently facing. One fifth of them may go out of business by Christmas. They are not able to raise the funds that they need. We will be breaching the armed forces covenant unless we are able to provide that support. I hope the Prime Minister is listening. It is something that I raised at the Liaison Committee. It is so important to recognise that, from their own surveys, mental health issues have increased by 75% and loneliness by 70%. These are issues that we need to embrace and recognise.
We can all see that, internationally, we are in a very interesting place. We have a United States that is now waking up to recognise that it needs to improve its global leadership. We need to be in the room as that happens, because, over the past 10 years, there has been a demise in what the west stands for, what we believe in and what we are willing to defend and our wily adversaries, not least China, have taken advantage of that. We have not even had our integrated review yet. We do not even know what we stand for, what we believe in, and where we want to go. Please, Minister, and I know you believe this yourself, get that integrated review done. We cannot even work out how many tanks or aeroplanes we will have, let alone our going over to the United States to say that our thought leadership is the best in the world, our soft power is the best in the world. It will not take us seriously unless we complete that review and it is fully funded. I make the case—Madam Deputy Speaker, I can see that you are already looking at me in that way—that this is a day when we say thank you to our armed forces for the past and a day, I hope, when all of us will be resolute in defending, supporting and urging the Ministers on to say, “Let’s invest in the future of our armed forces”, so that we can be as proud of them in the future as we have been in the past.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), the Chair of the Defence Committee. It is also an honour to speak in today’s debate on behalf of the Scottish National party. I want to start by placing on the record our grateful thanks to all service personnel for their commitment to defending these islands.
Like many other hon. Members, I marked Remembrance Sunday in my own constituency at the weekend. In Parkhead, the Eastern Necropolis includes the graves of 76 soldiers who died in the first world war and of 32 soldiers who died in the second world war. These 108 graves of soldiers serve as a reminder to me of the brave men and women who sacrificed their lives to fight for us to live in a peaceful and tolerant society. Although these soldiers were laid to rest in Glasgow, many soldiers did not, of course, return home. A total of 134,712 Scottish men and women died in world war one. According to the most recent assessment, 26% of all Scots who went abroad in the war effort did not return to Scotland. We are unified in remembrance of the selflessness, heroism and the personal sacrifices endured by millions during and since world war one.
In remembering the horrors of the first and second world wars, we should reaffirm their commitment to peace, fairness and the rule of law. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) is currently stuck in Committee at the moment so cannot be here, but she wanted to place on record her thanks to the Bridgeton Cross VC memorial group to remember Private Henry May who rescued two comrades under machine gun fire as well as others lost from the local community.
While remembering the past, we must also consider what support we currently provide for our service personnel and veterans across the UK, many of whom face an array of challenges from mental health to homelessness. I am privileged to have a top-class Scottish veterans’ residence complex in my constituency in Cranhill, and it is an honour for me to be wearing their tie for today’s debate. However, as politicians, it is our responsibility to ensure that when veterans return to civilian life in our communities, they are supported through this transition. We know that service personnel are more likely to suffer from problems surrounding mental health, particularly post-traumatic stress disorder. Indeed, 6% of all ex-military personnel suffer from PTSD. Mental health support must be made readily available for all, without any judgment or stigma attached—I hear that message time and again at my bespoke veterans’ surgery in Cranhill. Last year, the No Homeless Veterans campaign identified 3,500 veterans who were experiencing homelessness, either sofa-surfing, living in temporary accommodation or even sleeping rough. As the SNP spokesperson for housing in this place, I believe it is important to highlight this ever-present issue and to ensure that no veteran experiences homelessness.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I commend what the hon. Gentleman is saying and thank the many local authorities that are putting veterans at the top of their list of people prioritised for council housing. Reading Borough Council has done so and I encourage other local authorities to do the same. It is important that we respect veterans in that way and provide them with the homes that they need once they have finished their service.
David Linden
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments and commend the support that has been provided by Reading Borough Council. At this juncture, I also pay tribute to Phil Greene, formerly of Glasgow City Council in my own patch, who has done a sterling job on that issue as well.
Combat Stress, the UK’s leading mental health charity for former servicemen and women, found that service personnel were waiting until their 60s to receive help for alcohol and substance abuse. With understandable pride deterring former service personnel, many delay seeking the help that they need.
I am proud of all the work that the SNP-led Scottish Government are doing to support ex-service personnel across Scotland, including the appointment of the Scottish Veterans Commissioner—the first person to hold such a position in the UK. The Scottish Veterans Fund has been established to support projects that provide a wide range of advice and practical support to veterans across Scotland, and to support the creation of an armed forces union to be a voice for the wide range of interests, concerns and identities within the forces community. On that note, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who led the way with his ten-minute rule Bill on that subject.
On a personal note, I am proud to be a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, alongside the Royal Air Force. The scheme is led by Wing Commander Greg Smith and the programme has given me a unique window on the lives of service personnel and the challenges that they face as part of their service. When I went to RAF Leeming, it really struck me to see people operating drones from inside what was almost a metal tin. When I considered the intensity of the work that they were doing in there and the fact that they still go home to a normal civilian household, it really reaffirmed some of the challenges that our serving personnel face in the light of a changing landscape. It is important to understand the hardships faced by many veterans, both in service and in the return to civilian life. We should always look to ensure that every possible support is available to them.
As others have said, Remembrance Sunday has been very different this year. With covid-19 restrictions in place, we were not able to gather all together as a community to reflect and to remember all those who died in military service. However, we found ways to commemorate the fallen with private services, and landmarks across Scotland have been lit up red to raise awareness of the poppy appeal. It is right that Members put on the record their concerns about some of the funding for such organisations—indeed, Gordon Michie, head of fundraising at Poppyscotland said recently:
“This has been one of the most challenging years in the history of Poppy Scotland, but the breadth of landmarks and businesses involved in this campaign shows that Scotland still stands shoulder to shoulder with our country’s service personnel.”
During this Covid-19 public health crisis, it is important to recognise that the wars we fought decades ago did not eliminate conflict and suffering. Today, millions still suffer because of wars and atrocities, and societies are arguably more divided than ever, but we must all reflect on the lessons of the first and second world wars. In particular, Governments must remember that peace and tolerance must prevail over hatred and conflict. Everyone in this House must consider how we can use our influence to better prevent conflict from arising and better promote the compromise and dialogue that can lead to enduring peace, safety and fairness around the world.
While I laid my wreath at the Eastern Necropolis on Sunday, I thought of the thousands of other men and women who never returned home from war. The Scottish poet Neil Munro wrote:
“Sweet be their sleep now wherever they’re lying,
Far though they be from the hills of their home.”
We will remember them.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Ind)
Because we are commemorating the 75th anniversary of the end of world war two, I shall concentrate entirely on that conflict. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you are quietly but rightly proud of your father’s brave record of fighting in the second world war, but as the years and decades go by, fewer and fewer people have that sort of direct personal knowledge. In the limited time available, I would like to take one brief example from each year of the second world war, to try to humanise the picture a little bit for those who do not have the sort of personal connection that I just described.
Let us take, for example, November 1939. A converted passenger liner, HMS Rawalpindi, found herself trapped by two of the largest and most deadly ships in the German navy: the Scharnhorst and the Gneisenau. The captain of HMS Rawalpindi was Captain Edward Kennedy, who was 60 years old. He had come out of retirement after his service in the first world war and between the wars to re-enlist. Rather than surrender, he took on those two deadly ships, and the Rawalpindi, as was entirely predictable, went down with all flags flying and with few survivors. I am going to develop that theme, which is that many of these events are not necessarily successful, but that does not mean that they are not ultimately setting standards for inspiring their fellow service personnel, their comrades and future generations. They certainly inspired me.
We move forward from Captain Kennedy—who, incidentally, was father of the late Sir Ludovic Kennedy—to November 1940. In 1940, another converted passenger liner, HMS Jervis Bay, was escorting a convoy of nearly 40 ships. The Jervis Bay found herself standing between that convoy and the German pocket battleship the Admiral Scheer. The convoy was instructed to scatter, and Captain Fogarty Fegen, who was the commander of the Jervis Bay, steamed towards certain death and destruction and saved three quarters of the ships in that convoy. There was a time when the names “Rawalpindi” and “Jervis Bay” were known throughout the land, and it is important that we periodically remind ourselves of these inspirational examples where people sacrificed themselves doing the right thing, even though they knew they had little or no chance of survival.
On a happier note, we turn to May 1941, when HMS Bulldog is a member of a flotilla of anti-submarine escorts that bring to the surface the U-110. My late friend, the then 20-year-old Sub-Lieutenant David Balme, heads up a rowing boat of half a dozen sailors. They get on board the U-110 submarine, which has been forced to the surface. They go down, not knowing whether the submarine will blow up from scuttling charges or whether there are people waiting armed at the foot of the conning tower ladder as they climb down, unable to defend themselves. They recover the Enigma machine and the code books and thus make a vital contribution to the winning of the battle of the Atlantic.
Then we come back to the Scharnhorst and the Gneisenau. It is February 1942, and half a dozen clapped-out, obsolete Swordfish biplanes take on the Scharnhorst and the Gneisenau as they sail up the English channel with enormous air cover. Of those six biplanes, all six were shot down. Five of the aircrew survived the operation and four survived the war, and one of them later became my friend: Pat Kingsmill DSO. He is typical of these people who did courageous acts that were on everyone’s lips at the time, but then went on to live quiet lives—in the case of Pat Kingsmill, as an administrator in the NHS for many years.
John Healey
I suspect that, like me, the whole House is enjoying the right hon. Gentleman’s year-by-year exposition of the second world war. I wonder whether he would accept another minute as a result of my intervention.
Dr Lewis
That is extraordinarily generous, but quite typical of the right hon. Gentleman.
We come to September 1943, and three midget submarines attack the German battleship Tirpitz in a Norwegian fjord. Godfrey Place, the captain of the X7, escapes from his sinking submarine, and later becomes admiral in charge of reserves. Although he was a very important figure in the Royal Navy, he still had time to meet somebody like me—a schoolboy in Swansea, when he was there on a visit—and to autograph a book about submarine escape. These little gestures from truly great men inspire young people.
We come to the last two. The airborne assault at Arnhem in September 1944 was another disaster. But Tony Hibbert MC, who later became a friend of mine through my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), went on to work throughout many years, trying to argue for civil defence and protection for this country.
Finally, Operation Meridian—the raids on the oil refineries at Palembang in Sumatra—happened in January 1945. Norman Richardson—again, a friend of mine, who sadly passed away—was commemorated on the 75th anniversary of the end of the war in the special edition of obituaries in The Daily Telegraph. He was a telegraphist air gunner. These were people who flew on a raid in January, when people in Sumatra were not expecting it, but they did not knock out all the oil refineries so they went back a few days later, when everyone was expecting them, and they did it again. They were shot down, but three quarters of Japan’s oil refining capability was lost to the Japanese war effort.
We remember them all.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and a particular pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis).
I represent a seat in the city of Hull, which has a strong, proud and long association with our armed forces. We were also among the hardest hit during the blitz. But today I want to speak as a commissioner of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I am very pleased indeed that the Minister, in his opening remarks, talked about the commission, which commemorates 1.7 million Commonwealth servicemen and women from the United Kingdom and all over the Commonwealth who died during the two world wars.
As hon. Members will know, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission was founded as the Imperial War Graves Commission by royal charter on 21 May 1917, and was renamed the Commonwealth War Graves Commission in March 1960. In March this year, the Duke of Kent celebrated 50 years of unstinting service as the commission’s president. I also pay tribute to our last director general, Victoria Wallace, who left the commission in the summer.
The commission cares for the graves and memorials at 23,000 locations in more than 150 countries and territories—on every continent except Antarctica. The commission also commemorates more than 68,000 civilians who died during the second world war, by maintaining and restoring sites such as the Tower Hill memorial. Funded by six partner Governments—the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India—the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is the largest gardening organisation in the world, with a total workforce of 1,300. The vast majority—more than 850—are gardeners, who between them look after the equivalent of almost 1,000 football pitches.
Our war dead deserve the highest standards, and hon. Members will know the quality of the Portland stone graves and the monuments that the commission oversees, as well as the beautifully tended cemeteries, such as the largest commission cemetery in the world at Tyne Cot in Belgium, with almost 12,000 graves, 8,300 of which are classed as “unknown”. I encourage all hon. Members, in their own constituencies and when travelling around the country or the world, to take the opportunity to visit commission sites. Encouraging the public to visit these graves also supplements the efforts of the excellent commission staff and the trained volunteers from the commission’s Eyes On, Hands On project, helping to report on and countering the effects of weather, wear and tear and, sadly, sometimes vandalism.
One restoration project I want to mention is at Runnymede. It is the Air Forces memorial, where the commission’s new charitable arm, the Commonwealth War Graves Foundation, marked International Women’s Day by launching a new interactive way to explore the story of the remarkable Noor Inayat Khan, a British woman spy whose code name was “Madeleine”. She was the first female wireless operator to be sent to occupied France in the second world war to aid the French resistance.
The commission also maintains an extensive and accessible archive of all the Commonwealth war dead on its website, and in recent years the commission has opened a new award-winning visitor centre as its French HQ near Arras. However, for this 11 November—an Armistice Day like no other, as many have said—the commission is urging the public to join with it in paying tribute to the 1.7 million Commonwealth war dead through a unique act of remembrance. We encourage everyone to take a moment at 7 pm tonight to step outside, look at the stars and remember the fallen. In a few key locations, such as Plymouth, Cardiff and Edinburgh, searchlights will beam light into the night sky.
I want to salute the work of many other organisations, including the Royal British Legion and Help for Heroes, in remembering our war dead and supporting veterans from many conflicts. Can I take a moment to express eternal gratitude to the veterans of all our allies across the Commonwealth and beyond, who ensured that we did not stand alone for long, particularly in 1940? They sacrificed so much, as together we liberated Europe and the world from what Prime Minister Churchill described as sinking
“into the abyss of a new dark age”.—[Official Report, 18 June 1940; Vol. 362, c. 60.]
The United States, too, was shoulder to shoulder with us on those Normandy beaches and through the decades since—the years of the cold war and the more recent challenges of terrorism, especially since 9/11—and leading by the “power of our example”, as President-elect Biden said just this week.
To conclude, remembrance is both deeply embedded in our national consciousness and personal to all of us who had parents or grandparents in the greatest generation. We remember those who did not come back. We also remember those who did come back and helped to win the peace. I remember my dad, Eric Johnson, who joined the Navy, and my mum, Ruth, who worked in a munitions factory during world war two. In my experience, they rarely talked about what they did and what they went through as young men and women, and in enjoying peace, freedom and progress, we will always owe them everything.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
After the next speaker, the limit will be reduced to five minutes, but with six minutes, I call Colonel Bob Stewart.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I start by quoting a poem by “Woodbine Willie”—Padre Geoffrey Studdert Kennedy:
“There are many kinds of sorrow
In this world of love and hate
But there is no keener sorrow
Than a soldier’s for his mate.”
That is very apposite for me today because I remember all the men who were killed under my command. In particular today, may I mention those killed at Ballykelly on 6 December 1982? Seventeen people were killed: six of them were civilians and 11 were soldiers. Six of the soldiers were from my own company, A Company of the Cheshires—Steven Bagshaw, Clinton Collins, Philip McDonough, David Stitt, Steven Smith and Shaw Williamson. They all died when I was present.
I was the incident commander. As I went into the wrecked building that was the Droppin Well, almost the first person I saw was a girl lying on the ground. I was horrified. Both her legs had gone, and an arm. I knelt down—horrified, again—and spoke to her: “Are you all right, darling?” She said, “I think so.” I said, “Are you hurting?” She said, “No.” I said to her, “How are you feeling?” She said, “I don’t know. What’s happened?” I said, “There’s been a bomb.” “Oh”, she said, “am I hurt?” I said, “You’re hurt.” She said, “Am I hurt very badly?” I said, “You’re hurt very badly.” She said, “Am I going to die?” Forgive me—I said, “Yes.” I could see no other way; there was blood everywhere. She said, “Am I going to die now?”, and I said, “I think you are.” She said, “Will you hold me?” I held her and she died within two minutes. I wept. She died in a state of grace. She was one of 17 killed that day.
It took me four hours to identify my six soldiers in the morgue of Altnagelvin Hospital. I went to their funerals in Cheshire—six funerals in five days, two on the Friday. At the second funeral, as I came out of St George’s church in Stockport, there was an old lady crying on the far side of the road. I crossed over. I was in uniform. I put my arm round her and I said to her, “Don’t worry—he’s out of his pain.” She said, “You don’t understand, young man.” I said, “I do understand”, because I felt inside my brain that I did understand— I was there when he died. But she read my brain—what I was thinking. She said, “No, you don’t understand. You see, I stood here when I was a little girl and watched 6th Cheshires”—I think it was 6th Cheshires; they were Cheshires—“march into that church, 900 of them. After the battle of the Somme they filled three pews. I am crying for them.” Then I understood.
One thousand, four hundred and forty-one soldiers, sailors and airmen—service personnel—died in Northern Ireland. That is more than in all the other conflicts together since, by 50%. You have to remember that.
I remember, too, my escort driver, Wayne Edwards, killed on 13 January 1993. I had given the order to escort four women to hospital through Gornji Vakuf, and he was shot through the head as he did so. I am responsible for his death.
When I came here in 2010, I went into the Tea Room and a guy comes up to me and he says, “Nice to see you, Colonel—we haven’t met since Turbe.” I said, “Why?” He said, “I was in the Bosnian Croat army. I was a sniper.” I said, “The snipers shot Staff Sergeant Steve Bristow in the head. You were a sniper.” He said, “Yes.” I said, “Well, that’s a turn-up for the books—you’re working in the House of Commons and I arrive here and you’re actually a sniper that’s shot one of my soldiers.” He said, “Yes.” But here is the point: he was a young man doing his duty, as he saw it. He was not a criminal; he was just doing what he thought was right.
When I think of Remembrance Day, I am not just thinking of the soldiers, sailors and airmen; I am thinking of the civilians. In my own constituency, 320 civilians were killed in the second world war—more than the servicemen from my own constituency. So I am thinking of them. I am particularly thinking of the civilians too. I am thinking of that girl—one of five killed on 6 December. It saddens me that they are not here, and that is what Remembrance Day is all about.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
May I say what an honour it is to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart)? I thank him for the way in which he served and protected the people of Northern Ireland.
At this time of national reflection, we remember all those who stood, who bravely volunteered, who served with valour, who fought bravely and heroically, and who died as heroes. They did that for all for us: for this land we call home and for the freedoms this nation has and I trust will always hold dear.
On the eleventh day of the eleventh month, we think particularly of the horrors of the first world war. My mind turns to the battlefields of France. As a daughter of Ulster, I pause to consider the sacrifice of those who left the factories and farmlands of my homeland, of Ulster soil, and who laid down their lives on the battlefields of the Somme. On 1 July morn, as the 36th (Ulster) Division went over the top, little did they know that 5,500 would be killed, wounded or missing within two days. Two thousand five hundred would lose their lives. In the words of Sir Wilfrid Spender:
“I am not an Ulsterman, but yesterday, the 1 July, as I followed their amazing attack I felt that I would rather be an Ulsterman than anything else in the world.”
Today, row after row of white headstones mark the sacrifice of these fathers, sons, husbands, brothers and friends. Many more headstones also stand in the Somme region and beyond Flanders fields. It is a solemn privilege to visit these bloodstained lands and to visit the iconic Ulster tower, which I might add is celebrating its 100th anniversary next year.
In today’s Northern Ireland, that sacrifice is still remembered. I have the privilege of working with a group called the Ancre Somme Association, a group of more dedicated people you will not find. Their aim locally is to ensure that our children and future generations are taught about the importance of remembrance. I think we can all take a lesson from that today.
I also want to commend the incredible work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. We heard much of it from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and we thank her for that. Its work in the building and upkeep of 23,000 cemeteries across the world ensures that 1.7 million men and women of the Commonwealth forces who died in the first and second world wars will not be forgotten. It is, quite simply, remarkable. When we visit the cemeteries, they are immaculate. That is a testament to the Commission, its staff and its amazing army of gardeners. They do amazing work.
At this time of remembrance, we do, of course, remember those who have laid down their lives in all conflicts. While my focus has been the great war, the sacrifice of those in world war two, the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Falklands and other conflicts is no less. Of course, as a representative of Northern Ireland, I also want to pay tribute to those who made the ultimate sacrifice in Operation Banner.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
Touching on Operation Banner, and recognising that it was the longest continuous deployment for the British Army, it is important to recognise that this debate arose from a petition. Of the top 10 constituencies across the country who supported this debate today, five were from Northern Ireland, including my own constituency, demonstrating the strength of feeling, regard, appreciation and admiration that people from Northern Ireland have for the service given to us.
Carla Lockhart
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for a point well made.
According to the Ministry of Defence, 1,441 serving members of the British armed forces died in Operation Banner, 722 of whom were killed in paramilitary attacks. One hundred and ninety-seven Ulster Defence Regiment officers and soldiers were killed between 1 April 1970 and 30 June 1992. A further 61 ex-soldiers were murdered after they had resigned from the regiment. Three hundred and two Royal Ulster Constabulary men and women were murdered during the troubles, all because they wore the badge of the RUC. Twenty-nine prison officers lost their lives. As recently as November 2012, prison officer David Black, in my own constituency, was murdered by the enemies of Ulster. We think of his family today as they continue to mourn his passing.
While many of those who were left behind to mourn the loss of loved ones in world wars are now gone too, the tears still flow in many homes of those taken too soon during service in Northern Ireland. My thoughts are with them today, and our gratitude is forever with those who stood as a human shield against the terrorists who, by bomb and bullet, sought to destroy my country and my community. I reiterate my call to the Government today to protect those Northern Ireland veterans from vexatious prosecutions.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Having served for many years in Her Majesty’s armed forces, it is an honour to have been selected to participate in this significant debate and to hear that powerful recollection from my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). This year more than ever, as we reflect on those who sacrificed their lives in service to our nation, we come to recognise a familiarity whereby the very best in our community has come to the fore, demonstrating that service to others underpins our society.
Service in our constituency of Broxtowe is no new thing. We are proud to offer a home to Chetwynd barracks, a site that has played its part over the last century. In world war one, it was the site of the national shell-filling factory, operated by civilians, providing munitions in support of the western front. In July 1918, the site was levelled by a devastating explosion in which 139 people lost their lives and 250 were injured. It was the biggest loss of life in a single explosion in world war one.
I also want to take this opportunity to welcome Colonel Gavin Hatcher OBE to his position as Commander 170 Engineer Group and the Station Commander at Chetwynd. The barracks is home to the Royal Engineers of 170 Engineer Group, the Mission Training and Mobilisation Centre, Nottingham Troop, 721 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Squadron Royal Logistic Corps, the Army and maritime reserves, 350 Squadron of 33 Engineer Regiment and HMS Sherwood.
170 Engineer Group provides technical infrastructure specialist support to defence both at home and abroad, including most recently on Op Rescript, with support to the construction of the Nightingale hospitals and the wider testing capacity. I wish those currently deployed success in their endeavours and a safe return home to their families and Chetwynd. The Mission Training and Mobilisation Centre has been responsible in the last 10 years for training those individual augmentees who have gone to Iraq or Afghanistan in a regular reserve and civilian capacity, some of whom have not returned. In this time of crisis, we have perhaps been granted a new perspective of the 75th anniversary of the second world war. To my eye, we have been awarded the opportunity to see precisely that the liberties for which they fought are more valuable than we may ordinarily appreciate and that the debt we owe them is even greater than we may have previously assumed.
These uncertain times are incredibly testing for us all and we have had to adapt quickly to ensure that we are able to continue our lives with some normality while keeping as safe as possible. It is services such as the armed forces that have been integral to allowing that to happen. So in this time of need we must show the armed forces community that we have their back, just as they have ours. I can sum it up no better than to say, “We will remember them.”
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
It is a privilege to have time in this debate and to follow so many powerful speeches. It is a very important time to pay tribute to the men and women who served our country past and present and to their very enormous sacrifices made in defence of the freedoms we all enjoy today. It is always humbling to attend Remembrance events; I did so this weekend in Newport and across my constituency. I thank all those involved in ensuring that events could go ahead this year safely in the unique and challenging circumstances of the pandemic. While services were different on this occasion, they were no less poignant, especially with this year marking the 80th anniversary of the evacuation of Dunkirk and the battle of Britain and the 75th anniversary of the end of the second world war. So I pay tribute to all those who have served and made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. We remember them today. I also thank the charities, Royal British Legion and Help for Heroes and, in Newport, Newport Veterans, for all that they do locally to support veterans.
I also pay tribute to and record our appreciation for another group that played a hugely important role in both world wars and subsequent conflicts: the merchant navy. The history of the city of Newport as a key south Wales port is intricately linked with seafaring, and the close ties with the merchant navy are part of that. Nationally, the Merchant Navy Association, led with enthusiasm and passion by its chair, John Sail, who is stepping back this year after years of service, and its president, Vivien Foster, has done tremendous work to raise awareness of the dedication of seafarers over the past century, and supports those who are still with us. Its annual commemoration, Merchant Navy Day on 3 September, is proudly observed in Newport every year. We have an active branch of the association in Newport, stemming directly from the dedication of stalwarts such as Alan Speight and the late Bert Bale, who headed the local branch with passion since its inception until his death in 2012. The Newport association’s work is helping to bring local veterans together and commemorate the sacrifices made by merchant seafarers in two world wars. On Saturday, we will meet at the merchant navy memorial to remember them.
The sacrifices were significant. At the outbreak of the first world war, 43% of the world’s merchant ships—some 20 million tonnes gross—was owned and operated by Britain. Those ships brought food and raw materials, and exported industries’ output to the world, including gold and steel from south Wales. Germany regarded the cutting-off of Britain’s trade routes as a vital means to victory, with the submarine becoming its principal weapon. The policy of unrestricted warfare meant that merchant navy ships were at constant risk of attack. The threat was not fully countered until the introduction of the convoy system in May 1917. None the less, German U-boats sank 6,924 allied ships—almost 13 million tonnes gross, with the loss of more than 14,600 merchant seafarers by the end of the war in 1918.
As we know, the role of the merchant navy was no less hazardous in the second world war, with convoys in the Atlantic, Mediterranean and elsewhere. Four thousand seven hundred British flagships were sunk, and more than 29,000 merchant seamen died, with a higher proportion of fatalities than all other services. Of those who perished, 442 were from Gwent and among them was 14-year-old Raymond Steed from Newport, who was killed onboard the SS Empire Morn when the ship was hit by a U-boat mine off the coast of Morocco. He was the youngest services recruit from Wales to die in the second world war, and the second youngest in Britain. There is no doubt that the efforts of the merchant navy in the second world war helped to keep the country going and enabled other services to operate. We should remember their bravery and importance. The hazards and risks that today’s merchant seamen and women face have changed, but they still exist.
It is important to emphasise that during times of past conflict, merchant sailors lived particularly harsh lives. They faced the terror of submarines every day, many lost close friends to torpedo attacks, and many were killed or wounded. The psychological trauma faced by merchant navy veterans cannot be understated. We have never had a full picture of the undiagnosed incidence of PTSD among merchant navy seafarers, and I hope that we can do more to look at this. I want to finish by saying how proud I am to represent a city with a rich seafaring tradition, and highlight the gratitude that we owe to them, alongside all those in our armed forces. It is a service that will remain a central part of our act of remembrance and debate.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Today, we remember all those who died in war. As we peer into the gaslit world of the great war or seek to look behind the blackout curtains of 1940s Britain, we realise that we follow two generations of giants. Many families have fathers and mothers, uncles and aunts, grandfathers and great grandfathers who died in battle that we might live in peace. They died in great fear of tyranny and their immediate circumstances that we might be free. They died for our country, so we can be proud of what they did. Some may seek to use powerful new search- lights of history to change the picture they want to see or to play this down, but nothing can change who they were, what they did, nor the principles they carried to victory.
Today is a day for patriotism: that quiet, confident patriotism that characterises our country at its best; the patriotism that comes from being at peace with what those generations did and with the causes they fought. Our country does not go in for brash, aggressive nationalism, asserting ourselves by doing down others.
The unknown soldier was rightly honoured by king and country all those years ago in recognition that the world war was an immense strain on all, at home or at the front. It required the most enormous super-human efforts of everyone. The whole country was at war, not just the armed forces and the politicians. The best way we can be true to their memory is to enjoy the freedoms they left us. We can best pursue the path of peace with vivid memories of how, after war ends, the talking begins to reconcile the differences. We must learn from the failure of the great war to end the European conflict. We can best uphold the sacred candle of free speech, turning conflicts into exchanges of passionate words, not bombs and bullets. We can best uphold the right of everyone to a vote and a voice in a democratic society and uphold the right of small as well as large states to self-determination.
So let us vow today that, in this precious debating Chamber we enjoy, we will work to ensure that we will seek to talk and vote our way through our differences. Let us pray our country is not called again to perform the heroic and brave tasks we remember today. Now that states have so much greater power to kill and harm people than they did even a century ago, let us trust in democracy and freedom.
We have had to fight far too many wars. Today, we need a strong defence to keep us safe and to increase the chances of peace. The great war did not turn out to be the war to end all wars, though that was the promise. That was the hope of many in our nation, so let us today vow to find a way to bring us nearer to that most crucial of ambitions.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
On this particularly solemn day, it is also important that we have in our thoughts and prayers the people affected by the terrible and cowardly bomb attack at a Remembrance Day service in Saudi Arabia this morning, including British diplomats there. It is a terrible and despicable act at a time of remembrance.
I attended the quieter than usual, but no less significant, remembrance service in Penarth at the weekend, when I thought not only of my constituents and my constituency’s connections to all branches of our armed forces—and indeed the merchant navy, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) spoke about—but about my own family, as many of us do at the time of remembrance.
I thought of my grandfather James, who served in the 1st Airborne Division. He was shot and wounded at Arnhem and taken prisoner of war. I thought of my great grandfather Peter, who was in the Somme with the King’s Own Scottish Borderers, and Ernest, who was in the Royal Field Artillery. I thought of my grandfather Harold, who served with the US army at the Bulge. It is particularly important that this week we recognise the connections between our countries at that time of war, how we fought tyranny in Europe and would do so again. I also thought of my father, who during the cold war served for 16 years with the Royal Signals in Germany, with so many others. They are a generation who perhaps we have not recognised in the way we should for their service and ultimately their willingness to put themselves on the line in what could have been a nuclear apocalypse. That is certainly what many who were serving on the frontlines in Germany during the cold war expected.
Over the past few years, I have visited the Somme, Normandy and many other locations, including some with my hon. Friend on the other side, the hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). It was so powerful to hear his words. He and I have spoken many times about his experiences. I have travelled to Bosnia and to battlefields with him, and they have been some of the most moving and affecting times that I have spent while a Member of this House.
I remember the work of those fantastic veterans’ charities in my constituency. I think of the work of the Royal British Legion. I have spent time with organisations such as Woody’s Lodge, which was set up in honour of Paul Woodland, a former member of the Royal Marines and the Special Boat Service who sadly lost his life on a training exercise in 2012 before he was due to be redeployed to Afghanistan. Woody’s was originally located in my constituency, but is now located in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns). It does remarkable work in our communities, as does the Welsh Veterans Partnership. David Price, a former Welsh Guard who served in the Falklands, leads the work there with other veterans to ensure pathways to housing and support in our communities. He rightly advocates powerfully on behalf of veterans, for example, on issues related to the transition from military to civilian life—he would argue that the MOD needs to look more at working with smaller veterans’ charities in that—but also the rules around housing benefit, universal credit and how our benefits and support systems often do not work for veterans. He also works on the need for more specialist attention for those who have been medically discharged and need support from the Department for Work and Pensions and others.
I think about the contribution of the armed forces overall to Wales. A number of us spoke in a debate specifically on that in February this year. I think of our Army connections through the Royal Welsh, the Queen’s Dragoon Guards, the Welsh Cavalry and the Welsh Guards and their locations locally. I think of the proud traditions they all have. It has been a privilege for me to spend time with them at commemorative and training occasions over the past few years.
I think of our Navy connections and our Royal Marines connections. HMS Cambria, our fantastic new facility located in Cardiff Bay, was previously in the constituency of the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan. I think of our strong connections with the Royal Air Force, particularly St Athan, just down the road, and Guy Gibson, formerly of the Dambusters, 617 Squadron, who spent time in Penarth in my constituency.
I think also of our merchant navy traditions, and someone like Harold Boudier, who served on their Arctic convoys. He is now 94, and he proudly told me how he remembers VE Day in Scapa Flow. He still has the pint glass that he drank from in celebration on that day. He takes it to the pub every Remembrance Sunday to remember those whom he served with in incredibly difficult circumstances.
Most importantly, I remember today our active armed forces personnel serving around the world, particularly those serving in the locations we often do not hear about, such as in Africa, including our service personnel in Mali, those who played a role in peacekeeping in South Sudan, those on training missions, those in Somalia and elsewhere, and those who responded to the Ebola outbreak so bravely and incredibly in Sierra Leone.
I think of those who, as has been spoken about, serve on the domestic front in our covid response. I had the honour of seeing our forces training as part of Operation Temperer a number of years ago for scenarios just like this. As was said earlier by the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood)—he is no longer in his place—they are some of the best planners, the best experts and some of the most dedicated people. They are exactly who we should have leading this response, particularly now as we roll out a vaccine. I pay tribute to all that they do.
We will remember. We will remember all those aspects of our armed forces, past and present.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
It is a privilege to pay tribute to all those who served and are serving in the armed forces, whether in conflicts or peacekeeping duties around the world. It is appropriate that I follow my neighbour, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), as we have many common interests because of the interconnectivity of our constituencies. All the individuals we have referred to are heroes to us all and deserve our respect and greatest support. I had the privilege of visiting the Welsh Guards in Afghanistan two years ago. It was humbling to see them in action and to see the risks they were exposed to on a daily basis and the conditions in which they lived to act in our interests.
Before I come to the main theme about the footprint of the armed forces across our Union, I want to recognise the charities that support service personnel and veterans in my constituency, whether the cadets and the leaders of those cadets associations who provide leadership and training to young people, or the mentoring charity Woody’s Lodge, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. It was started following the tragic death of Special Boat Serviceman Paul Woodland by his widow, Sian, and a team of supporters led by David Trotman.
Last Sunday, there were services throughout the many villages, towns and cities across the country, and my constituency was no different. More services will have taken place today. I pay tribute to those who organise events, raise money, fly standards and support veterans in so many ways throughout the year. They are all heroes—from the Royal British Legion, with Teresa Goodwin and Jimmy Green, who helped organise the service in Barry last Saturday, to Terry and Margaret McKeown and Howard Provis, who travel the country throughout the year to fly the Barry RAFA standard, and the late, great Bryan Foley, who was the cornerstone of such activities in the past, linking the Royal British Legion right through to scouting organisations. We salute them all for their service and for the work they always do and always have done.
My main theme relates to the footprint of the armed forces, their significance in defending, representing and sustaining the Union of the UK, and the link that they provide to our communities. When we think of symbols that reflect our Union, the armed forces are central. Through history, they have defended our liberty and maintained our freedom across all four nations, making the greatest of sacrifices in our interests. They play their full part in the fight against terrorism, wherever that may be, from cathedral cities such as Salisbury through to attacks and threats in all four nations of the UK, to combating the international terror threat, just as I saw in Afghanistan.
It is also relevant that, in the same way that they represent all four nations, the armed forces are made up from all communities and that their footprint reflects that. I am hugely proud that Wales, with 5% of the UK’s population, makes up 7% of the Army. Similarly, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland contribute with their garrisons, nuclear bases, RAF runways, training grounds and specialist centres. Communities play their part, too, often welcoming the disruption that it sometimes brings for them. Farmers in Wales make their land available for training, the Brecon Beacons are well known, and the mountains of Snowdonia are used for flying exercises.
I say gently to the Minister that those factors need to be remembered when reviewing basing is under consideration. Operational need must always come first, but decisions about basing cannot be made outside the context of the armed forces’ Union make-up and the communities that they support and recruit from. I am not asking for a quota; I simply ask that recognition of the armed forces’ geographical make-up is part of any base review. That would help them maintain a UK relevance with communities and would play a part in recruitment and retention, with people considering their sacrifices to be closer to the family.
St Athan in my constituency was designated as the primary Army site in Wales. The re-establishment of that Army site has not been as logical as I would have liked. There is a need for the Welsh Government and the MOD to come together to resolve the situation, reflecting the history but also looking forward to the challenges that we will have in the future.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Our annual remembrance services and traditions, from the laying of wreaths to the wearing of poppies, must be permanent in the life of our nation, even as those who lived through those wretched times leave us, for we must continue to remember—remember what prices were paid and remember what sacrifices we still demand of the men and women of our armed forces.
Like other Members, I see these moments through the stories of those from my constituency who died, including the 623 men of Kingston borough who died in the great war, the 6,000 officers and men of our former local regiment, the East Surrey Regiment, who were killed, and Squadron Leader Ian Bazalgette, a Canadian-British pilot who grew up in New Malden in my constituency. His Lancaster bomber was severely damaged by anti-aircraft flak prior to arrival at his target on 4 August 1944, but he nevertheless continued to the target and completed his task before ordering his crew to bale out. When he found that two of his crew were too injured to bale out, he attempted to land the burning plane to save the crew members rather than baling out himself. He died in the attempt and was awarded the Victoria Cross posthumously. So when I deliver my election leaflets in Bazalgette Gardens, New Malden, named after that brave pilot, I think of him and thank him for his sacrifice for democracy. I thank them all for their sacrifices for our freedoms.
There have been many wars in our country’s history, across many centuries, but the first and second world wars stand out for the dreadful death tolls and for what was at stake. They also stand out for another reason. Those wars touched the lives of every non-combatant: not only the families who were bereaved but the whole country, whose lives were on hold for the duration of the conflict. Whether or not they were directly involved in the war effort, they had to live with the restrictions, the rationing, the lights out and the wide-scale suspension of liberty as people collectively fought to preserve their freedoms.
It would be crass and wrong to draw direct parallels between the deprivations we are now suffering during this pandemic and the sacrifices and hardships that those millions suffered for years during those bloody wars, but we can learn lessons and perhaps draw some comfort, even inspiration, from them, not least because this pandemic is also affecting everyone. It has forced millions of people across our country and across our world to take a stand and do their bit, and while this pandemic is different in so many ways, we need that collective courage and discipline to beat the virus.
Today, we rely especially on people serving on the modern frontline: those working in our hospitals and the careworkers in our care homes. They are today’s civilian heroes. We also rely on some very clever people, such as our amazing scientists, to find a solution. They are part of the amazing international effort to find a vaccine to shorten the life of the pandemic, like some modern-day Alan Turing and the amazing people who served at Bletchley Park who shortened the second world war. Today’s enemy may be invisible, but it is deadly and it is impacting the everyday lives of millions.
Over the years when I have paid my respects at war memorials, my own personal thoughts have been influenced by my nana’s wartime stories. It was my granddad who went to fight in the Army, driving lorries in north Africa and Italy, but my nana, left at home to look after my mother, was also profoundly impacted by the war. It is her stories of looking after evacuees from London’s east end that have, for some reason, always stuck with me. She told stories of how she had to give up her own rations to feed and care for not only her own children—my mother—but the children of strangers, of how she took up smoking to calm her nerves and of her 10-mile cycle ride to the factory making radios for the submarines her younger brother, my Uncle Sam, was serving on. When my grandmother died, aged 90, I was so proud that in the congregation of 12 were two of her evacuees, who had come to say thank you. We are inspired by all their service.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and especially to follow the brilliant, eloquent speeches that we have had so far this afternoon. Over the years, I have been privileged to observe Armistice Day and the two-minute silence in some unique and special places. Twelve years ago, as part of the team that organised the 90th anniversary of the great war, I was at the Cenotaph with Harry Patch, Henry Allingham and Bill Stone, the three remaining veterans of that awful conflict. I defy anyone who was there that day or remembers watching it on TV not to have been moved by the sight of Henry Allingham, who was determined to lay his own wreath at the foot of the Cenotaph to pay tribute to his fallen comrades but was sadly unable to do so.
In 2015, I was with colleagues who worked with me at the European Parliament in Loos in northern France on a cold, grey northern French morning as the gloom lifted upon row upon row of British gravestones in the cemetery, many of which were marked “Known unto God”. We witnessed the residents of that town paying tribute to the British soldiers, 7,766 of whom gave their lives at that battle. Many of them were from the north-east of Scotland and Tayside. They fell in defence of that town for their country and for the freedom of France and its allies.
Of course, I think of my great-uncle Samuel Coyle who, at 19 years old, a young lad who had never left Greenock in his life, fell at Gallipoli and lies buried alongside 600 other British and Commonwealth soldiers at the Pink Farm cemetery in Turkey. We often focus very much on the sacrifices made by the generation of world war one and world war two, but this weekend I was struck that we should, of course, also be thinking of the guys and girls who served in our armed forces much more recently. It struck me that, barely six years after British troops withdrew from Helmand province in Afghanistan and the end of that operation, the sacrifices made by the men, women and service families much more recently are, if not being forgotten, already fading from public consciousness.
I will not forget, nearly every morning in those awful days of 2007-08, being at Dartmouth or Portsmouth, on deployment overseas or, indeed, here in London, opening a newspaper or turning on the news to read yet another name or hear about another cortège passing through Royal Wootton Bassett. I remember while based at RAF Uxbridge remarking to an oppo of mine as we watched the festival of Remembrance how sad it was that the war widows’ procession, which when I was much younger had been predominantly made up of widows from the world war two generation, was much more the families of young men and women of my age.
Although life in the rest of the country went on pretty much as normal, as we fretted about the financial crisis, the coalition Government or preparations for the Olympics, our young boys and girls were under fire and were prepared to give their lives for our country and for us in a foreign field. We should never forget them or those men and women who should still be here with us today, who might otherwise be standing in the House today or walking among us in the streets.
This debate is titled “Remembrance, UK Armed Forces and Society,” and one of my earliest and clearest memories is as a seven-year-old going out with all my primary school to watch the Gordon Highlanders parade through Inverurie, a town Madam Deputy Speaker knows well, to mark their disbandment and amalgamation with the Seaforth and Cameron Highlanders to form 1st Battalion, the Highlanders, which subsequently became the Highlanders, 4th Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Scotland—4 Scots. In this identity, they have seen tours of duty in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I remember so many people being sad about that 200-year-old local link ending—the link to the north-east of Scotland, the unique, beautiful and fiercely independent part of Scotland where the regiment was proud to come from. The finest regiment in the world, as Winston Churchill called it, had come to an end.
The north-east is not unique in feeling that. Every area feels an attachment to its local regiment, and every area feels a deep sense of loss when the British Army, as it has throughout its history, goes through a reorganisation and modernisation process and merges, disbands, renames or moves regiments. However, there is a danger in removing that local link and taking the Army, or the Navy or Air Force for that matter, out of a local community, shrinking the size and therefore the visibility of the defence footprint across the country for whatever economic, strategic or political reason, that we run the risk of removing our armed forces, the men and women, from public consciousness and their becoming out of sight and out of mind.
I represent one of the biggest constituencies in the country. It covers Aberdeenshire, the fourth largest county in Scotland. Between Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, we have a population of 490,000 people and cover an area of 6,498 square miles. We have not one regular Army, Navy or Air Force presence. It is incumbent on all of us, as we mark Remembrance Day today and go about our lives from now on, to remember the men and women of the armed forces serving today. Although they are not physically present in all the communities where they used to be, we should make sure they are ever present in our thoughts as we move forward throughout the rest of the year.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I begin by declaring an interest as a trustee of the Commonwealth War Graves Foundation and a former Commonwealth war graves commissioner. I also join other hon. and right hon. Members in their recognition of the sacrifice made by those who died in the service of their country, and I pay tribute to the members of our armed forces who serve us today.
I particularly thank the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) for his contribution to the debate. Although he sits on the Government Benches, I consider him a good friend. He did the House a service with his recollection, which must have been very difficult for him, so I thank him for that.
The annual act of remembrance is a relatively modern concept. It is only 100 years today that the first Armistice Day, with the interment of the Unknown Warrior and the two-minute silence, began. Next year will see 100 years of the poppy appeal. Prior to that, the involvement of this country in war was mainly recognised by the battles that we fought, and their names litter towns and villages across our nation. It was the first world war that galvanised the country in its remembrance, partly because it was the first war fought as a conscription nation. The public came together to start that act of annual remembrance, which I hope will go on for many centuries to come.
History is often written in terms of great events and the great men of history, but I think it should be about the individual, because—as the hon. Member for Beckenham eloquently said—these events are about individuals. It is important to remember those individuals, whether it is Will Lawson—the brother of one of my predecessors, Jack Lawson—who died at Ypres in 1915; or Sergeant Steven Campbell from Pelton in my constituency who was killed in Afghanistan in March 2010; or Nathan Cuthbertson, a 19-year-old who died in 2008 and whose parents I had the privilege of meeting when I was a Defence Minister. It is important to remember each and every one of them.
Remembrance is not about the glorification of war; it is about recognising the sacrifice and remembering, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said, the reasons we need peace. There is a challenge for us all—as the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) mentioned—because, as our armed forces have contracted and the second world war generation slowly pass away, our connections with the armed forces become more remote. That is why it is more important that we keep that link, and I pay tribute to the Royal British Legion and the service charities that not only make sure we remember but support those who have been affected by war.
Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), I thank the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I was a commissioner for eight years and it was a great privilege to work with those men and women who work tirelessly throughout the world to ensure that people who gave their lives in the service of this country are remembered. The foundation of which I have the privilege of being a trustee is trying to ensure that those memories continue for future generations. As I say, it is not about glorification but about making sure that we remember. As time goes by, we need to ensure that remembrance continues, not just from the first and second world wars but, as has been openly said in this debate, of all those who have lost their lives through conflict.
Stephen Doughty
I agree that it is very important to remember more recent conflicts, for example the Falklands. Will my right hon. Friend join me in recognising a very positive moment today? It is nearly 40 years since the Falklands conflict, and while we remember those who lost their lives in that conflict, we recognise the work of those who have been de-mining. Today, the Falkland Islands celebrates the fact that mines have been completely removed. The conflict lives on not only in those who suffered and died, but in its physical impact, and it is great that that has now been removed from the Falkland Islands.
Mr Jones
I agree with my hon. Friend. I have had the privilege of visiting the Falkland Islands on several occasions. We could ask anyone who goes to, for example, San Carlos and sits in the cemetery there. There is no more spiritual place in the world that I have been in terms of the honour and dedication given to those individuals for whom it is their last resting place.
Today is about reflection and keeping the memory of those individuals’ lives; it is about making sure we do not forget them. It is also important to remember what our servicemen and women are doing today on our behalf to preserve the way of life which we wake up every morning and take for granted, but we know is incredibly fragile in the very uncertain world of today.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones),who speaks tirelessly in support of our military. I am compelled to mention the moving speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). As he knows, I have an enduring connection with the 22nd Cheshire Regiment, and I particularly recall its peacekeeping role in the Balkans.
Remembrance Sunday in Wrexham was very different this year to any other, but we continued with a covid-safe service. I salute and commend the Royal British Legion, Wrexham County Borough Council and Wrexham.com for their can-do attitude in ensuring that this poignant event, held at the Royal Welch Fusiliers memorial, went ahead and was made accessible to as many people as possible through a live link. From this Wrexham veteran, I say thank you to them and to all the service charities that support Wrexham, including the veterans breakfast club, the Royal Artillery Association, Homes for Veterans Cymru and the Gresford British Legion, which provides a meeting place where veterans can have a pint, a chat, a game of dominoes and gain valuable peer support.
I was a solider back in the ’80s and ’90s when women joined a specific corps within the three services. I was in the Women’s Royal Army Corps and I am pleased to say that the military has moved on at pace. Today, around 13% of our reserve and regular armed forces are women—that is nearly 21,500 women in military uniform. Back in 1990, only 40% of jobs open to men were open to women, but now women can undertake any role in the armed forces, including that of fast jet pilots, submariners and special forces and frontline combat roles. Nothing is barred and we now have parity of the sexes. A great milestone has been reached. It is a success that we see parity and equality of opportunity for women in the military, and our veterans have been helped by the introduction of a covenant, the railcard and the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill to stop vexatious claims.
Despite the positive advancements for women in the military and for female veterans, there are still issues to address, ranging from obstacles to career progression to a lack of economic activity when back in civvy street. This is causing problems not only for the operational effectiveness of our military, but for female recruitment and retention.
It is an honour to sit on the Defence Committee with colleagues from across the House and we realise the great improvements that have been made for and by women in the armed forces. However, the fact remains that women continue to be over-represented in the service complaints system. While there are now great opportunities, the journey to success is often paved with discrimination, harassment and bullying. While the door to equality has been opened across the House, we must make sure that those doors are not shut by the ingrained laddish culture of the military. The words “laddish culture” are not mine; they were the words used by the Chief of the Defence Staff to acknowledge that there is a problem.
As a response, the Defence Committee has proposed to run a Sub-Committee, which I hope to chair, looking at the experiences of women in the military—those serving and veterans. This will provide a platform for women to talk about their experiences, including the positives, so that we can champion what a great career the military is, and the negatives, so we can rectify and ensure that future generations of women in uniform have total equality in practice, as well as in theory.
The problems faced by serving women and veterans have not happened on one Government’s watch. They have evolved over decades, from Aden to Afghanistan, and it is all our duty to acknowledge and support a cultural change as we go forward. Britain has a global reputation to uphold—a reputation for equality, fairness, honouring our troops and looking after our veterans. We can and should do something about the problems faced by women in the military and the culture that they are subjected to. I, and I know many of my colleagues, will do all we can to ensure that the voices of military women and veterans are heard.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), who clearly has so much knowledge about life in the services. Today is an important day to pay tribute to our armed forces for their service and ultimately their sacrifice, for the conflicts they have fought and for the work they have done throughout the world to preserve peace and to combat Ebola in Sierra Leone and other countries, and for the important civil work that they have done, not least on our islands with covid-19.
Sunday was not a normal Remembrance Sunday. It was important that we paid our respects, as always, to show our gratitude. Normally, it would be an opportunity to meet veterans such as Len, Stuart or Paul, as I would have done last year to talk about some of their experiences, or even Rusty, who is now getting very old but is one of our great, gallant airmen of yesteryear. In Warwick, we would normally see hundreds of people around the war memorial, honouring the 358 men and one woman from Warwick who died in the great war, and the subsequent 112 who lost their lives in world war two. We would see the march past the war memorial and hear the sound of the local bagpiper, Andy Wheeler, and the last post played by a bugler from Warwick School. In Leamington, there are 550 names on the war memorial from the first war, and many hundreds following from the second war and subsequent conflicts—all courageous, all gallant. Among those names, there are recipients of the Victoria Cross: Lance-Corporal William Amey, Captain Arthur Kilby, Lieutenant John Cridlan Barrett, and perhaps most significantly Private Henry Tandey, the most decorated British private soldier of the first war, who in the space of six weeks in the autumn of 1918 was awarded a Distinguished Conduct Medal, a Military Cross and the Victoria Cross.
However, I want to recognise his near neighbours, just down Kenilworth Street from where he grew up: the Tims brothers, Fred, William and Jack, all lost in the same conflict. I want to remember in particular their mother Esther and so many families who lost so many. The strength of feeling was best illustrated by Warwick Poppies in 2018—62,500 hand-knitted poppies decorated our church at St Mary’s in Warwick. The scale of loss is perhaps best illustrated by a map produced by the Leamington history group that showed every household across the town that had suffered a loss in the great war. It was virtually every house in those terraces in the centre of Leamington, and some of those houses had multiple stickers. That map showed how communities were literally decimated: so many towns, villages and cities, if they had maps, would show the same.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) was right to say that we should think about the individual. All of us will have lost family in those wars and in subsequent conflicts, perhaps relations in this country or from other Commonwealth nations. This is perhaps illustrated, if I may, by my own great-uncle Clarke Duff, who in 1915 left the farm in Ontario, Canada to fight in Flanders fields, but would sadly never till a field again.
We have much to be thankful for, and so many to thank, including those who served and made the ultimate sacrifice in subsequent conflicts. I thank the Royal British Legion for its work, and particularly Tony Glover and Pat Edgington for the extraordinary work they do in raising so much money locally. I also thank other charities for their work: Help for Heroes, and people like Michael Vallance and Charlie Sabin, and the Royal Air Forces Association, and people like Patrick Fitzgerald and Dave Brown.
Finally, can we remember and think of all those who were left behind and lost so much of their lives? I am thinking of the families and loved ones: people such as Esther Tims, who I mentioned, for whom life can barely have been worth living, and those friends of my parents—all women, who we referred to as aunts—whose boyfriends never returned and who would never marry, but would live with the loss all their life. These are the people I wish to remember and pay tribute to.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
When the guns stopped in 1918, at the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month, the curtain effectively fell on the most devastating world war we have ever seen. I have never understood why we call it the “great war”, because there is nothing great about warfare whatsoever, but it may just be that the greatness refers to those who fought in such appalling conditions and gave so much. Exactly 100 years ago today, the unknown warrior was interred at Westminster Abbey, and the poppy is still worn with pride by so many people today as a memory of the appalling circumstances of Flanders fields and elsewhere.
Today, many wars later, Armistice Day is commemorated by so many people, but for different reasons. For world leaders, politicians and dignitaries, it is about marking democracy—marking the freedoms we have, and the sacrifices that were made. For veterans groups, it is about coming back together in solidarity to mark their service and their comrades. For veterans like me, it is about thinking back on former colleagues, friends and soldiers, many of whom are no longer here with us today. For families, it is about handing medals down and wearing them with pride. For the rest of us, it is simply about saying thank you.
One of the most poignant experiences of my life took place last summer, in June, at the D-day 75 commemoration in Portsmouth. It was a spectacular, magnificent event that had everything: royalty, Presidents, Chancellors and Prime Ministers; fantastic fly-pasts; ships in the Solent; and brilliant stage shows. But for me it was all about those wonderful veterans, resplendent in their immaculate uniforms, polished boots, polished medals and shiny brass. The twinkle in their eye was matched only by the brilliance of the sunshine.
Talking to these heroes, these living legends in their 90s and 100s, two things really struck me. The first was a sense of fuss, as they wondered, “Why all the fuss? Why are the Government and all these nations going to so much trouble for us?” They had a sense of bewilderment, as they thought, “We were just doing our job.” Funny thing that, they did their job and fantastically so. Bizarrely, they also had a sense of shame. When I scratched the surface with many of these fantastic people, I found it was a sense of shame that they had lived long and fulfilling lives whereas so many of their friends and comrades never came home. That is exactly why we remember these important events on Armistice Day. We do so to pay homage to those who have gone before and to those whom we owe so much.
Before I finish, I wish to make some quick points that I believe are relevant to today. First, I was proud earlier this year to introduce the Desecration of War Memorials Bill to this House with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), a good friend of mine. It is absolutely right that we bring that legislation into law. Secondly, the Government, in their 2019 manifesto, were clear that they wanted to bring the armed forces covenant into statute. I absolutely endorse and support it, and look forward to the Bill coming to this House in January or February next year. I will be supporting it, as will the all-party groups, I am sure.
Lastly, I am clear in my mind that when someone serves as a soldier in this country—when they wear the uniform, bear arms, serve the Crown and go on operations—they are British, wherever they come from. I want to make the point right now: this nonsense about visa fees for Commonwealth soldiers must stop. I also hope that we can be magnanimous in giving an amnesty to our Fijian friends who still suffer today. I am grateful for the opportunity to be here, after many years of service, and I thank all of those who have gone before.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), and I join him in hoping that we can achieve an amnesty for the Fijian soldiers, who have suffered from bureaucracy and have lost out greatly as a result. It is also an honour to follow the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), whose contribution was moving indeed.
I joined the service in Roehampton on Sunday. It was small but moving service at the memorial on Putney heath, where we remembered the names of all those who had died during the wars. I also remembered the loss in my own family. There is a sadness at the heart of my family, which stems back to a moment in 1915, when a military wife, my great-grandmother, stepped off a boat. She was six months pregnant, she had a two-year-old and she was going home to Ireland to give birth to her child. As she stepped off that boat, she was given a telegram that told her that her husband had died. He had died in battle in Ahwaz, in modern-day Iran, in the Mesopotamian campaign. He was Major Reginald Bond, my great grandfather. So my grandmother never knew her father and my mother never knew her grandfather. She remains extremely sad and feels the loss of that to this day, because the effect of war carries on through generations.
It was my honour to be an aid worker in Bosnia during the war there and for many years afterwards. I saw the devastating impact of war both at the time and afterwards. I saw the importance of building peace and, in order to do that, of remembrance every day, every year. That is why it is so important that we have these moments of commemoration and remembrance across our country, and that is why it is so important that we are having this debate.
I am grateful for this opportunity to speak on remembrance and to celebrate and remember our armed forces in a year when we mark 75 years since victory was achieved. I would like to pay tribute to our armed forces, to the forces families and to veterans. We expect the highest standards and values of our armed forces, and in turn, they continuously display those values of courage, integrity, loyalty, discipline and selfless commitment to our country. That has been vividly highlighted recently by the covid-19 response. From the very beginning, the military stepped up and provided assistance to our frontline NHS services, and I thank them for that.
In my constituency of Putney, we are honoured to have an excellent Royal Marine Reserve unit based in Southfields. The Royal Marine Reserve is an integral part of the Royal Marines, with members of the reserve having served in recent operations in the middle east and been deployed on exercises that take them from the jungles of central America to the Arctic circle. I pay tribute to the bravery and dedication that those volunteers show for our country.
I also pay tribute to all those non-combatant civilians who have died in conflict. Warfare devastates all members of communities, including in my constituency during the second world war, when 81 people were killed and 248 people were injured when a bomb fell on a dance hall on Putney High Street. I am sure it was aimed at Putney bridge, but it killed so many people by mistake.
One hundred and two years ago, the armistice that ended the first world war and brought the devastation of that conflict to a close was signed. On this Armistice Day, we must remember the sacrifice of those who fought, and we must continue to strive for and redouble our efforts to work for a world that is free of conflict, free of violence and does not devastate families for generations to come.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), to take part in the debate and to listen to so many poignant and touching speeches with so many memories.
On Sunday, I attended the Remembrance Sunday parade at Nothe Fort in Weymouth in my constituency. During the two-minute silence, I found myself reflecting, as I do every year, on various military missions, jobs and roles. This year, it was the special forces that took my mind. I am sure that Members will recall the storming of the Iranian embassy back in 1980, when I was serving as a young soldier. Then, we held in awe the dash, daring and courage of the handful of our special forces who put all their training into practice, to devastating effect. As if we needed reminding, the remarkable Royal Marines from the Special Boat Service pulled off a similar coup off the Isle of Wight recently, roping down on to a tanker at night to rescue a crew threatened by violent stowaways.
What is so extraordinary is that we hardly, if ever, get to know the names of these brave men of our special forces, even if they fall in the course of their duty. They just do their job quietly and professionally, seeking no reward other than the unique bond that exists between those who serve. These men are drawn from the best who serve on land and sea and in the air in our country, all of whom are prepared to lay down their lives for our freedom, just like their predecessors in two world wars and countless other conflicts, including Northern Ireland and the Falklands.
On this Armistice Day, many fine words have been expressed in support of our armed forces, and rightly so, but it falls to us, the politicians, to ensure that words are supported by actions, for it is we who put our courageous men and women in harm’s way. “Judge a man by his actions,” my father used to say. In this instance, the action to which I refer is the action we must take to invest in our armed forces to ensure that they can fulfil their role and face future threats with confidence and the right equipment.
This is, rightly, a solemn occasion, but I would not be doing my duty if I did not impress on those on the Front Bench that spending 2%—or thereabouts—of GDP on defence is woefully inadequate. I hope that the hundreds of billions that we are spending on this pandemic will not affect the future funding of our armed forces. We live in a fast-changing and unstable world; who knows when we will have to react to another call to arms to meet our responsibilities?
On this special day, I pay tribute to all those who have served and made the final sacrifice. We are indebted to them and, as I have said, to those who serve today. We must never forget; neither must we in this House let them down.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). May I say how much I have enjoyed the contributions from all right hon. and hon. Members today? It has been one of those debates: I honestly believe—I know this will be your opinion as well, Madam Deputy Speaker —that this House shines when we speak about the things that bring us all together. It is always good to have an opportunity to do that.
I declare an interest as a former Ulster Defence Regiment soldier who served in the Province under Operation Banner when I was 18—I had a full head of hair then as well. I have fond memories of that, but that is another story for another day. It was my honour to put on the uniform and serve Queen and country in that way.
What a different Remembrance Sunday we had this year. I have never in my life encouraged people to stay home during the service, yet time and again in the run-up to Remembrance Sunday the girls in the office were saying, “I am sorry, but the British Legion is very clear this year: we can have only 15 people laying wreaths at the memorial and we cannot have big crowds.” It is hard to do that, because usually when we speak to people we tell them to get up, wrap up and stand up, and they always do in great numbers. But this year it was very different.
I was privileged, as the MP for Strangford, to be able to attend staggered services throughout the constituency. At each, the council and the Royal British Legion had ensured that no more than 15 invited guests were in attendance. We were well distanced, as elderly veterans stood in the vicinity with their backs as straight as age would allow and tears in their eyes as they cast their minds back to those they had loved and lost. It moves us greatly—we have all spoken of it and others will speak of it as well—when we look back on those veterans who gave their all and remember them.
Northern Ireland is a place of service, with so many having served in the armed forces—as many gallant and hon. Members have mentioned; in particular I mark out the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) as a dear, gallant friend and someone in the House whom I hold in high regard for his courage—the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Prison Service. There is no governmental estimate of the veteran population, but the Royal British Legion has estimated that it is roughly 115,000 people in Northern Ireland, in a population of 1.8 million—and we should take into account the fact that a fifth of the population is under 16. That means that 12.5% of our population has served our nation. I, my party—the Democratic Unionist party—and many Members from both sides of the Chamber wish to make sure that the veterans of Northern Ireland get equal recognition and help from the Government. We look forward to that happening.
I am very pleased to have had the opportunity, over the past few years since I became an MP, to run a coffee morning for the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association. We do it every year, but this year we could not do it because—let us be honest—we could not bring the people together. They are a vulnerable group of people, including the mothers of those who have served and some of those who served in the past. Ever mindful that we could not butter a scone, pour a cup of coffee or tea, or give out the Irish stew that we always give out as well, we wrote to all the groups and companies across the Strangford constituency, and this year we raised some £5,000—without even buttering a scone. It is tremendous. The people of Strangford have been continuously generous; I thank them and I thank in particular the organiser of SSAFA, Georgie Carlisle, and all those who have the good old-fashioned British values of service and duty. Their passion and dedication are truly an inspiration to me.
I am pleased to see that support that has been given to the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill for here on the mainland. I thank the Minister for his work and say that I supported the Bill when it came forward. I make a plea to him tonight. I have spoken to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I understand that there is a willingness to ensure that Northern Ireland follows suit, and that would be good news for me and good news for all of our veterans.
We cannot have a speech such as this and leave out the 36th Ulster Division and the Battle of the Somme. Their devotion to duty won admirers from across the whole world. We also fought alongside two Irish divisions at that time, which shows that, before partition, we were altogether. Were it that we were altogether now.
In conclusion, we will remember them. That is our promise to them. We will, as the nation of Northern Ireland, continue to serve our Queen and country with distinguished honour, and all the veterans deserve honour in response. I know the path that must be trod, but I am asking this Government to tread it with us and with those deserving veterans. The veterans of Northern Ireland deserve the same as the veterans here on the mainland. Let us make that happen and let us honour them.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and to hear the many contributions from right hon. and hon. Members from across this House. In particular, may I say how good it was to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart)?
The coronavirus pandemic has disrupted much of normal life, not least Remembrance, but while we cannot be together in the way that we would normally like to be together to reflect on those who have given so much for our country—our veterans and those serving in the military—we have done so in our own quiet way. This pandemic has highlighted to us the crucial role that our armed forces play not just in protecting our country on the frontline, but in many of our country’s biggest logistical challenges, too. Just last week, we saw the Army help roll out mass testing in Liverpool. Earlier this year, they played their part in establishing the new NHS Nightingale hospitals, including Harrogate serving my constituency. Before the pandemic, when we were threatened by flooding in Ilkley, the Yorkshire Black Cats Regiment helped establish temporary flood barriers.
The armed forces community is a crucial part of my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley. Keighley is, of course, the original home of Captain Sir Tom Moore. We are all so proud of Captain Tom’s service to our country and, of course, of his recent galvanising impact in bringing the country’s heart together in helping to fundraise for our beloved NHS.
Last year, I was delighted to meet the Keighley armed forces and veterans breakfast club, which is one of the growing network of clubs where veterans and those serving in the military can come together and share stories, and I have heard many of them from them. Earlier this year on Armed Forces Day, I met my constituent Luke Davison from the Third Battalion Yorkshire Regiment. Luke joined the armed forces at the age of 16. Having completed two tours of Afghanistan, he is now aged 31 and a veteran. Luke told me about the struggles that he faced after leaving the forces, settling into civilian life and finding a new purpose. I know that Luke has gone on to be heavily involved in bringing the people of Keighley together to celebrate Armed Forces Day. I am sure that all Members of the House will congratulate him on doing that.
Attitudes towards our veterans are changing. Veterans have a wealth of transferable skills and employers want to hire them, but it is incumbent on us all to do everything we can to defend, protect and support our armed forces veterans. I am proud to see the steps that the Government are taking. Those who served in our armed forces put their lives on the line to save and protect us, and we must do whatever we can to show them our gratitude. Let us take a moment today to remember those whom we have lost and thank our armed forces and veterans for their service.
A couple of years ago, I was honoured to visit Tyne Cot cemetery on the outskirts of Passchendaele in Belgium, where those from across the Commonwealth who fought together to protect our freedoms now lay in rest together. It was an incredibly moving experience. Let me quote the words that I saw on the grave of a young private who died in 1918 aged just 19, and was also from the West Yorkshire regiment: “Sunshine and shadows past, but loving memories ever last. We will remember them.”
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the moving and powerful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore).
I live in the town of Coldstream on the banks of the River Tweed. It was there in 1650 that General Monck formed a regiment to march south and restore Charles II to the thrones of Scotland and England. When Monck died in 1670, his regiment took as its name the Coldstream Regiment of Foot Guards. Today it is the oldest continuously serving regiment in the British Army.
Members will be accustomed to seeing the Coldstream Guards in their red coats and bearskins at trooping the colour, but that image is misleading. They are a true fighting force. They captured New York city during the American war of independence, fought Napoleon in Egypt and Portugal and were in the Crimea. They fought on the western front in the first world war. In the second world war, they fought in France, the middle east and north Africa. They were sent to Malaya, Aden, Northern Ireland, the Gulf, Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Their history is the history of British warfare.
People in the Scottish Borders are proud of our link to the Coldstream Guards. It is when we discover a link to past that the pages of history come alive. We all have war memorials in our constituencies. The cenotaph at Jedburgh Abbey, the statue of victory in Wilton Lodge Park in Hawick and the stone cross towering above Ettrick Terrace in Selkirk are just three of the scores to be found across the Scottish Borders. They are landmarks that we have known since childhood. But it is when we go up to them and read the names inscribed on them that the real significance hits us—when we see two or even three men with the same surname, and imagine what the impact of that loss must have been on that family.
The people who erected these memorials were not commemorating historical events; they were honouring their sons and grandsons, brothers and fathers, friends and neighbours. They were making the memory of their sacrifices permanent landmarks. In today’s debate, and in services and events held around the country, we are playing our part in keeping the memory of those sacrifices alive.
The pandemic has undoubtedly disrupted our acts of remembrance. It is harder to come together as we usually do, but in time we will be able to come together again and to enjoy our lives as before. We will be able to see our friends and families, and enjoy going to the pub, to a restaurant, on holiday or to the cinema. We have all taken these freedoms for granted all our lives. They are freedoms that were won for us in battles against tyranny by young men whose names are inscribed on war memorials, and they are freedoms and pleasures that those young men were never able to know again, after they left their homes and families behind to go to war. When we are once again able to go out, live our lives and enjoy our freedoms, it will be as appropriate a time as any to pause for a moment and to say with feeling, “We will remember them.”
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I join colleagues in thanking all those who currently serve and who have served previously, and, of course, those who served and gave their lives for our freedoms. Freedom is not free. There have been huge sacrifices by our armed forces in pretty much every decade for the last 150 years. Today, of course, we think of the two great wars, but there have been other conflicts in which people from my constituency have served, including Korea, operations in Sierra Leone and ongoing operations in the Sahel right now. Of course, there has also been the distinguished service of many hon. and gallant Members in Northern Ireland, not least my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and others.
If I may, I would like to go on a brief tour—not an operational tour, but a tour of thanks—of my constituency and talk about the huge contribution that Shropshire folk make to defence. First, MOD Donnington, which is a huge base, is the home of the 11th Signal Brigade, West Midlands, of the 15th Royal Logistic Corps and of other operations perhaps not so well known. There has been a huge investment in the Defence Fulfilment Centre in the last few years. Both uniformed and civilian personnel have made a huge contribution to the covid effort in making sure that kit and equipment was distributed around the country. I would like to pay tribute to all those who have played a part in that effort and continue to do so. I would also like to recognise the work of the Royal Military Police, and in particular 174 Provost Company, Royal Military Police. The company is not particularly well known in the county of Shropshire, but it does a huge amount of work across the county and beyond.
I hope those who are part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme RAF will take time at some point, post covid, to visit RAF Cosford. As many will know, it is the second largest operational RAF base in the world, with several thousand personnel and a range of activities contributing to UK defence and security, of which I will mention just a few now. We have the Defence School of Aeronautical Engineering, the Defence School of Photography, and we have an RAF band, which is good news. Of course, we—I say we, but I mean the UK—provide international personnel, not just UK personnel, with defence training, particularly in engineering. There is also the RAF School of Physical Training, perhaps somewhere I should visit more often, but I am none the less very proud to have it in my constituency. We have 605 Squadron, which many will know provides logistics and police personnel mobilisation in support of RAF commitments around the world. There is also No. 1 Radio School—without signals, where would we be? I would like to pay tribute to them.
While the Minister for Defence People and Veterans is on the Front Bench, I would like to pay tribute to him and to his personal service in the armed forces. I say to him that I am pretty sure the Government will be smart enough not to move him out of the Government, but I hope, very selfishly, they will not promote him—although perhaps he could be promoted to Minister of State within the Department—but let him keep his veterans hat on, because he is doing a fantastic job in that role. I pay tribute to him.
I would like to put on record my thanks to all those related to the men—and it was mostly men at the time of the first world war—of the King’s Shropshire Light Infantry. Over 5,000 fell in that awful war, and it then amalgamated into the Light Infantry and is now the Mercian Regiment. I pay tribute to the Mercian Regiment in Shropshire as well. In my final few seconds, I would like to pay tribute to all the women who serve in the armed forces. I am glad that we have had a particular highlight from my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) about her service and what she is going to do to ensure that we continue to expand the role of women in the armed forces. Freedom is not free, as I said when I started. We pay tribute to all of those who have fallen and we pay tribute to those who continue to serve.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) as he pays tribute to all those who we must remember today in this debate, which is an important opportunity to reflect and to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice. It is also an opportunity to highlight ongoing need and pay tribute to those who provide support. I echo the calls for funding for veterans’ charities, as raised by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood).
As a nation, when we came together in the shock and distress following the first world war and looked at the scale of loss, not a single family was left untouched by conflict. My own great-grandfather and his son, my great-uncle, served in the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders infantry. I cannot imagine what they went through, but I remember and feel for those they left behind whose lives were so impacted by their loss. The truth is that when men—men then, but men and women today—step up and make that commitment to serve, they take their families with them, wherever they go, in their hearts, but they also bind, in part, their families to their fate.
I was made incredibly aware of that when, in a past life before I came to this place, I worked as a teacher in a boarding school and was in loco parentis for teenage girls, the daughters of military families. I think everybody here will remember where they were when they heard the shock news on 9/11. I remember where I was. I was with them, and they felt it, in a way not experienced by other students. Calls home were made and anxious days followed. They were on alert as they connected with their homes and with their families across the world, wherever they might have been serving. I echo the petition made today by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) in his endorsement of the “Living in our Shoes” report regarding the important contribution that our military families make. It is so important that we support them.
Back in the day, there was little expectation of support and little understanding. In the late years of his life, a very well loved and remembered Eastbourne resident, Henry Allingham, who was the last surviving veteran of the great war and, for a short time, the world’s oldest man, shared his experiences. Without testimonies such as his, we could not begin to understand and comprehend the experience of that generation, but just talking—a simple thing, really—makes a world of difference.
I wear my poppy with pride. It is the symbol of our remembrance, but it is also a very important way in which we can help to provide for our veterans through the Royal British Legion’s poppy appeal. Eastbourne and Willingdon, my home constituency, is traditionally very generous. I hope that through that demonstration, our veterans see the great value that we place on their service and our serving personnel see the great value that we place on their contribution. I hope, too, that it inspires those who would apply for a military life. I say that with some feeling as a patron of the Military Preparation College in Eastbourne. It is mission critical for me to know that in inspiring a new generation to serve our country, and potentially to put their lives on the line, we stand behind them, and the poppy says that to me.
One organisation in Eastbourne that stands behind our veterans is Blue Van, a charity that provides support—physical, mental and financial—for veterans in my constituency. It has been able to support over 50 local veterans, some of whom have gone so far as to say that without that organisation they would not be here today. I am, unusually, here today—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am sorry but we have to leave it there—you have overrun the five minutes.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
This Armistice Day, as we have done for 100 years, we remember those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice and given their lives for their country, and this year we remember 100 years since the interment of the unknown soldier in Westminster Abbey, and 100 years since Sir Edwin Lutyens’ monumental Cenotaph was unveiled. Between 2014 and 2018 we marked the centenary of the first world war in so many extraordinary ways. I had the privilege to chair the first world war centenary committee, which put in place a programme of commemoration marking the start of the conflict at St Symphorien and then an extraordinary series of cultural events such as “Lights Out” and the iconic poppy sculptures. We often struggle as a country to commemorate war, conflict and death, and I would like to pay tribute to 14-18 NOW, the organisation that persuaded politicians that art could help a nation understand and connect emotionally and intellectually with an event that happened 100 years ago, and help, I think for the first time, engage the nation with how the first world war shaped a generation and generations to follow. Perhaps we should do that more often.
The format of remembrance this year may have changed, but the vast debt of gratitude we owe to those who serve and the families who support them does not, and I join those who have paid tribute to the Falkland Islanders and those who fought for their freedom, too. Members of organisations in my constituency, including the Royal British Legion, Basingstoke and Deane Veterans Club and many others, usually come together in an act of solemn worship in remembrance at our town memorial; this year we had to do things differently, but we still had acts of remembrance that were undiminished.
In today’s debate we are not just marking Armistice Day as part of that but are also considering the petition calling for a further strengthening of the armed forces covenant, signed by more than 150 of my constituents. The armed forces covenant was introduced in 2011 and was a real statement of the moral obligation that exists between the nation, the Government and the armed forces. That commitment was further reinforced in the commitments this Government made in last year’s election, including to acknowledge and commemorate the invaluable contribution of diaspora communities in the past and to recognise the contribution in the present day of so many from beyond our shores, such as the Gurkhas.
Indeed, we should remember the contribution of the Commonwealth members of the armed forces today. More than 4,000 personnel from Commonwealth countries serve in our armed forces, and in my constituency I am proud to have one of the largest veteran Gurkha communities in the country. Many Nepali veterans, and, indeed, other Commonwealth veterans, want, after they have served, to continue to live here, but too often the cost of that can be daunting and at odds with the commitment and loyalty they have shown to our country. I hope the Minister will look carefully at the Royal British Legion campaign on behalf of those people, so that as a nation we can respect those who have chosen to serve our country in this way.
Caring for the health of our armed forces and veterans is a matter this Government take very seriously, and the armed forces covenant annual report sets out the real progress made, particularly supporting veterans with mental health problems, with more than 17,000 veterans receiving specialist support and complex treatment. I know that the Minister is aware that serving personnel can use the facility in my constituency at Parklands hospital in Basingstoke, home to an MOD unit providing mental health services for serving personnel. I met medical staff there and people who were receiving treatment from across the south-east of England. I also had the privilege to be invited to the opening of a new therapeutic garden there, which I hope I can invite the Minister to visit when conditions allow, because facilities like that can make a real difference to people’s lives— hearing from medical professionals, such as Dr Karl Marlowe, and patients, the value of that facility is absolutely clear.
As well as remembering those who have fallen, we must remember those whom we continue to support. It is clear that this Government’s commitment to the armed forces covenant is undiminished, but it is also clear that there is much more to do.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
To resume his seat no later than 4.33 pm, and with apologies to the almost 30 Members who did not get in to make their contributions, I call Elliot Colburn.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and speak in such an important debate. I begin by thanking the armed services community in Carshalton and Wallington. We often speak in this place about the importance of and the debt of gratitude we owe to our armed forces as we honour the bravery and sacrifice of those men and women who fought for the peace and freedoms we enjoy today. I want to look at one of the areas where we can begin to repay that debt of gratitude: mental health support.
In doing so, I want to remember a very special man, my grandfather, Derek Haighton, who sadly is no longer with us and did not live to see me elected to this place. My grandad Derek was devoted to Queen and country and keen to sign up as a member of the armed forces. I will never forget the story used to tell my brothers and I when we were younger of the day he signed up to the Army. On arrival at the recruitment centre, he was asked a number of personal questions and, all of a sudden, told to take a walk, have a think about what he had said and come back. He did so. He thought about the question he had been answering when he was interrupted and asked to leave—it was about his age, and he was too young. Like so many others during that time, he went back and made himself a bit older so that he could join and serve the country that he loved. Indeed, he did so during the Korean War.
On leaving the Army, soon after the Korean war, my grandad Derek served out the rest of his working life in the Metropolitan police, but he never lost his passion for the armed forces. To his dying day, he spent his free time researching and taking part in anything to do with his favourite regiment, the historic Rifle Brigade. He always had stories to tell about the armed forces, but it was not until I was older that I realised that he rarely, if ever, spoke about his own time in the Army. Later, my mum explained why. My grandfather, like so many others—those of us who have never served can scarcely imagine this—experienced true horrors and saw such horrific scenes that he lived with the mental scars for the rest of his life. Of course, in those days there was little, if any, mental health support for our veterans.
That is why I am so proud that the Government stand firm by the armed forces covenant, because it states that priority treatment should be given to veterans. I am proud, as someone who used to work in the national health service, that in 2015 the NHS updated its constitution to ensure that it reflected that responsibility. Indeed, NHS expenditure on veterans’ mental health has nearly doubled in the last four years alone. In December 2018, NHS England announced an extra £10 million for a dedicated crisis service for veterans. That extra funding was also to enable the roll-out of the first ever veteran-friendly GP surgeries and hospitals. I welcome that, in the 2020 spring Budget, the Government announced a further £10 million for the armed forces covenant fund trust to support projects that support veterans’ mental health. We can never really express in words the debt of gratitude that we owe our veterans and people like my grandad Derek, but we can make up for it in the actions that we take and in making sure that we are there for them.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
Today has seen the House at its very best. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, the House has almost shone. Those who have served and continue to serve can rest assured that they have a powerful voice in this place. That voice was heard in the Minister’s poignant opening speech and in the moving speech by my friend, the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), when he bravely talked about his personal experiences of the horrors of war. It was in the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who reminded us of the innocent victims of war. It was there in the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who has made it his mission since he came to this place to speak up for our troops.
There was also hope in many of the contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) reminded us about clearing mines on the beaches of the Falkland Islands so that families can now play where once there were bullets and mines. Let us therefore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) asked, all come together tonight at 7 pm, look to the stars and remember our fallen.
On this day 100 years ago, the second anniversary of the armistice that ended world war one, the body of the unknown warrior was drawn in a procession to the Cenotaph. A new war memorial on Whitehall was then unveiled by King George V. At 11 o’clock, there was a two-minute silence, and the body was then taken to Westminster Abbey, where it was buried at the west end of the nave. The text inscribed on the tomb reads:
“They buried him among the kings because he had done good toward God and toward his house”.
Since that day, wreaths of poppies, the symbol of remembrance and hope for a peaceful future, have been laid at the foot of the Cenotaph. Even though we have lost the first world war generation and those who fought in the second world war are fewer in number with each passing year, still they come to pay tribute to their fallen comrades. The scene is repeated in countless ceremonies in villages, towns and cities, where people of all ages put their differences aside for two minutes to remember our war dead. Without them, we would not be the free and fair democracy we are. Indeed, we may not even be debating in this Chamber this afternoon. For that alone, they deserve our eternal gratitude.
Remembrance Day, along with the anniversaries of VE Day and VJ Day that we have seen this year, is a time when people are more aware of the presence of the armed forces in this country. However, as my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Defence said, fewer and fewer people have any idea what it is like to serve in the armed forces, because fewer people know someone who is serving or has had military experience. That makes people less aware of our forces—their needs, their challenges—but every family, in its past, will have a connection with the forces in some way, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) set out.
I remember the picture of the Royal Scots on my grandparents’ wall as I grew up. It was the regiment that my grandfather, a Welshman, served in during world war two. I was also pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) mentioned the merchant navy and its contribution. My father-in-law, Roy Ockenden, left a note for his mother at the age of 15 to say he was going to sea to join the merchant navy. I know he is missed every day.
Remembrance is also an opportunity for people to show their appreciation for the work of our forces. However, to truly pay tribute to our forces men and women and the sacrifices they have made and continue to make, we must demonstrate, in our words and our deeds, that we value them and their families. That includes our reserves, our cadets, their families and employers, as well as our veterans, their widows and their families. We must make a commitment today to do everything in our power to demonstrate that.
I would like to mention briefly the petition to enshrine the military covenant in law, which has gathered more than 67,000 signatures. The petition asks for a statutory requirement for the provision of services such as housing and mental health support for veterans. That shows an engagement with our armed forces and is a testament to how much our society values our service personnel. In 2010, the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, promised to enshrine the covenant in law. Unfortunately, that decision was reversed in 2011. I believe that was a real missed opportunity to protect the rights of our service personnel, and I hope it will be revisited, as I know the Minister cares deeply about our veterans.
Remembrance, like so many other things, has been different this year. As many Members have said, large remembrance services and the usual gatherings at war memorials up and down the country have either been cancelled or been subject to social distancing. Covid has not only affected the events that normally take place across the nation; there have been other visible and physical differences. The common sight of the Royal British Legion’s volunteers collecting donations for poppies at supermarkets and train stations and on high streets has been far less visible this year.
The poppy appeal is the largest fundraising campaign of the year for the Royal British Legion. Although it has adapted and raised more than a quarter of a million pounds through contactless donations, it has been difficult to fundraise during covid. This year, the Royal British Legion expects to see a fall in revenue. It will not be alone. It is estimated that one in 10 armed forces charities will be forced to close in the next 12 months. That comes at a time of increasing reliance on charitable aid. It is vital that we ensure that the forces charities are supported and that their loss of income is not felt by those who need their help.
We are remembering the past, but the armed forces can also be relied on to assist with modern issues. There is no better example than the covid test pilot in Liverpool. Some 2,000 troops have been sent to Liverpool to aid our civilian authorities there. Given the size of our armed forces, I echo calls for a promise from the Government that the covid deployment of our forces will not impact training, standing commitments or the forces’ capabilities to respond to threats. If our forces are strained more support must be given. I should be grateful if the Minister touched on what the Government are doing in his response. Covid has required the mobilisation of many of our reservists, as many hon. and right hon. Members have said. People have stepped in, in many different areas, proving how vital they are. They have helped, as we have heard, to transport PPE and to set up Nightingale hospitals. They have helped local authorities to set up and run Test and Trace centres. Three thousand reservists were called up in March, and the work that they do is vital. It is important that we remember them. We have many reasons to be proud of our reserve forces. I hope that the Minister can update the House on how many reservists have provided help during the pandemic and what is being done to help them move seamlessly from civilian life to service at such short notice.
Finally, I hope the Minister can touch on charity funding in his response. He recently called on the Treasury to find funding for visas for Commonwealth veterans, which we welcome. Would he put in a word with Treasury Ministers to increase funding for veterans and military charities? As we have heard today, there are concerns across the House about the drops in fundraising for these vital charities. We would all appreciate some information about how we will fill these gaps so that all those to whom we have paid tribute today can access the support that they need.
In debates of this nature there can be a tendency to focus on the problems that some veterans face, and it is right that we do so. However, we should never forget that, for most people, the forces experience is only positive. There are many veterans who make a huge contribution to their community in business and industry, and for that they should be celebrated by the entire House. This year, let us remember not only the armed forces personnel of the past but those of the present. Let us strive to support them so that they can continue to protect peace, our wellbeing and our society. Let us be there for them, as they have always been there for us.
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
I thank the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), in what I believe is his first appearance at the Dispatch Box, for a heartfelt summing-up of an interesting debate. For someone who came to the House to try to reset the relationship between this country, her military and her veterans, it has been an incredibly encouraging couple of hours. It is a privilege to close this debate on remembrance, to mark Armistice Day. Listening to some of the remarkable stories of service from colleagues reminds me, however, that war, however great, huge in scale, distant and complex, is fundamentally personal.
We are very good in this country at remembering. There are few places on earth more moving than a war memorial on Remembrance Sunday, but this year has been very different. Many veterans who would normally attend were self-isolating. I pay tribute to their efforts. I pay particular tribute to the Royal British Legion. A narrative has developed among some in my cohort of veterans against the larger charities in recent years. I must say that we would be in an incredibly dark place without the supreme commitment of charities such as the Royal British Legion over many, many years to those who have served this country. I pay tribute to their efforts, particularly at this time of year.
I want to respond to a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Islwyn and by hon. Members who made speeches today. I will write to the hon. Gentleman about the specific numbers of reservists, as I do not have that number to hand. Reserves are far more integrated into regular forces than ever before, but it is something that we can always do better. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will write to him about that. Charity funding is something that we have discussed a number of times. Charities clearly face a challenging time—there are no two ways about that—and the increase for services in charities is almost at the same rate. I am very clear that this nation has a duty to its service personnel and veterans. It is not a problem that should be farmed out to charities. This nation is doing more than it ever has done before on a statutory footing for those who serve, but I think the answer in the end is a blend between statutory and charity provision. That is more for another day.
If I may briefly talk about legislation that was raised by the hon. Member for Islwyn and a number of colleagues. I can confirm—there was a manifesto promise and I have campaigned for this for some years now—that unless the armed forces covenant means something to the people who need it and unless it is a tool in the hands of those who need it in this country, it is not really worth what we would like it to be. The truth is that some great work has been done, but it is clear that we need to legislate in the manner in which the hon. Gentleman speaks to. I can confirm that the Government will be bringing forward an armed forces Bill next year to legislate and further enshrine into law the armed forces covenant.
I want to get through a few of the contributions today that I thought were particularly telling. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) made really valid points about mental health support. He is right about mental health support and how much more money has gone into it now, but until every single serviceman and servicewomen leaves the military and knows where they can turn for mental support, knows that care pathway and that point of access, we still have some work to do and we will not stop until we get there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) talked about the huge part played by military families. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) talked again about covenant legislation and the issue around foreign and Commonwealth visa fees. My views on that are well known, however unpopular they may be within Government. I have had a personal view for some time, which has not changed since I became a Minister. I am confident that the Government will do their duty towards our foreign and Commonwealth brothers and sisters who served with us abroad over many years.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) talked about how life is never the same. It really is
“At the going down of the sun and in the morning”
every day for our veterans’ families. That is why remembrance is so important.
I pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) for her contribution on the female experience of the military. I reiterate that it is not where I want it to be, either in the military or in veteran circles. We have more work to do on that. I say to her that things are changing, but she has a very powerful and relevant voice and I urge her to keep going in her campaigning on that issue.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and his family history, and to the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), who talked about his grandmother.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) for her comments on Northern Ireland. I have repeatedly made it clear that my views and my commitment to this issue are completely unchanged from before I was a Minister. We heard today, and I will come on to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) in a moment, about how that conflict was painted very viscerally for individuals. There will be no resiling from the commitments that have been made. I have made that clear on a number of occasions. I am acutely aware that there comes a moment where that has to granulate into a reality for those who serve. We are fast approaching that moment. The Bill I brought forward last week had important commitments to that generation for the first time from a Government from this Dispatch Box, but there is more to do. The Prime Minister is crystal clear in his commitment on this issue and I am confident he will follow through.
Unfortunately, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and I have been friends for far too long. [Interruption.] He has finally woken up. As conflict has changed, with cameras and so on, it is easy for people to come home and think, “My generation did x, y and z in Afghanistan” or wherever it may be, but I would just say to him that all we ever did was try to stand on the shoulders of our predecessors who fought in incredibly difficult environments and incredibly difficult and complex situations.
There was the story about the little girl. There is something about little girls and conflicts. I was out with a friend last weekend and we talked about what remembrance means. I said, “Does anything stick with you from those days?” and he remembered a little girl who similarly lost both arms and both legs and was dying. Her father would not give the little girl to us because he wanted her to be a martyr and would not let us save her life. There is something about little girls in conflict that gets very difficult.
What is remembrance to me? I will be honest: some parts of remembrance I do find pretty difficult. When I first came back from some of the roughest tours in Afghanistan, I simply could not watch, because the discrepancy between what people said in this place and how it actually felt to serve, or to be a veteran or family of a veteran in this country was too great. However, we are getting better.
The creation of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs is a significant moment, but I say very gently to colleagues both inside and outside Government: do not underestimate what this means to people who are watching this debate. Do not underestimate the commitments we have made not only to the generation I was talking about from Northern Ireland, but to all those who have served. There is a community out there who are the best of us. They care so much about this country that they actually signed up to serve. Some of their experiences have been wholly unacceptable. We are changing that, but we must redouble our efforts because, if we get it wrong now, having given them hope, that feeling that I used to have will only become worse.
Ultimately, all these things are political. Enshrining the armed forces covenant into law is a political choice. Reconciliation in Northern Ireland is a political choice. So you can remember properly, not through Remembrance Day itself and photographs and all the rest of it, but by supporting those efforts, by parking selfish ambition or any personal agenda with one special interest and by taking difficult decisions for the greater good. That greater good was what those patriots fought for and died to protect. That is how you remember and truly honour their sacrifice—for it is actions, not words, that matter. We will remember them.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We will remember them and we will continue to remember them and be grateful for their service and sacrifice. This has been an absolutely superb debate. Without their service and sacrifice, this debate and our democracy could easily have been extinguished.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered remembrance, UK armed forces and society.
Mr Deputy Speaker
We will now suspend for full three minutes. Please leave with care.
Covid-19
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered covid-19.
Last Wednesday, this House came together to vote in favour of a new time-limited set of national restrictions across England—our strategy to suppress the virus, support the economy, education and our NHS until a vaccine can be deployed, and in doing so, to ensure that the NHS was not overwhelmed. It is clear that, in tackling this virus, there are no easy or simple choices for anyone. While Members may differ in the perspective they take on what is the right balance to strike, as we would expect in our open and vibrant democracy, it is important to say that it is clear that all Members of this House share a common objective, which is to beat this disease and see our country flourish once again. As Members will know, I entirely respect and recognise the sincerity and strength of feeling of all Members of this House on this most difficult issue, irrespective of the stance they take on it.
Difficult though they are, entailing further sacrifices, the steps that this Government and this House took last week were the right ones, because the alternative of not acting would have been far worse. Throughout this pandemic, we have always sought to base our decisions on evidence, data and scientific advice, but we must also recognise that this is a disease about which we have learnt more every day and about which we knew nothing a year or so ago. Throughout, we have always been willing, and we must remain willing, to reflect on and adapt to changing scientific evidence and scientific debate and to move with that debate.
The evidence we faced last week before the Prime Minister’s announcement was stark and changing rapidly: an R rate above 1 in every region and more than 100 cases per 100,000 of the population. The data indicated that the number of people in acute hospital beds in England was due to exceed NHS surge capacity in the forthcoming weeks and, in some hospitals, the number of patients was already higher than at the peak of the first wave. For me, one thing was abundantly clear: our NHS was at risk of seeing demand exceed capacity if nothing was done.
There was a sharp acceleration in infections in September and October, as was the case across Europe and, as we know, many of those infections lead to hospitalisation further down the line, with a roughly two-week lag. As Sir Simon Stevens, the chief executive of the NHS, recently set out, at the start of September, there were around 500 people hospitalised with covid. By the start of October, there were around 2,000 people hospitalised with covid and, by the start of November, that figure had sharply increased to around 11,000.
We were already at the point where hospitals were becoming very busy, and that was before the normal winter and flu-related demand. It appears that, with the new treatments that are being developed, more people are likely to walk out of hospital after treatment than sadly was the case during the first wave, and I am thankful for that, as I am sure the entire House is, but the fact remains that those people still need hospital treatment. Each day the R rate remains above 1 is another day that cases rise, with more hospital admissions, more patients deprived of other types of care and, tragically, more deaths.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very important point about the impact on hospitals. Does he agree that the knock-on impact on elective surgeries and care and treatment in our hospitals means that unless we keep the coronavirus rate under control, we could see other people with non-covid illnesses being adversely impacted in this wave of the pandemic as they were in the first wave? Indeed, in my constituency, we saw a 26% increase in deaths from non-covid illnesses in the first nine months of this year.
Edward Argar
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. In taking the action we are to protect the NHS, we are of course also seeking to suppress the number of people who need hospitalisations to maintain the availability of those hospital beds for other people in dire need, exactly as she alludes to. I have to say to those who question the impact of this disease or its seriousness when someone gets it that I am reminded—as I suspect other Members will be—of the extraordinary dignity and suffering of the Lewis family in the Rhondda, who were on “Channel 4 News” and various news outlets last week. Mr Lewis had lost his wife and his two sons in under a week to this disease. It was a truly dreadful story, and I have never seen a more dignified man than Mr Lewis when he was talking about it.
The latest R rate is between 1.1 and 1.3, so it was essential to take action to protect our NHS and to enable us, as my right hon. Friend said, to maintain vital services for those without covid that sadly had to be paused in the first wave. From the Dispatch Box, I would like to take the opportunity once again—every time we are here it is right we do it—to thank all our staff in the NHS and care sectors for the incredible work they have done and continue to do in the face of these unprecedented challenges.
As I have set out, the virus remains a serious threat. We recorded more than 20,000 positive cases yesterday. Average daily hospital admissions currently stand at 1,366 and, sadly, yesterday we recorded more than 500 deaths—the highest death toll since mid-May. It is a painful reminder that the real battles are not in fact fought here in this Chamber, but in our hospitals up and down the country and by those who are suffering from fighting this dreadful disease. But in this Chamber, there are steps we can take that I believe will help them in that battle, and I believe that we were therefore right to act as we did.
Despite the seriousness of our current situation, these measures are time-limited. They legally expire 28 days after they were passed by the House—on 2 December. At that point, we will look to return to the tiered system, using local and regional data and trends to determine our response and adapt to local needs.
The measures in place are also quite different from last time. Schools and universities rightly remain open to avoid further disruption to education. People can establish childcare bubbles, take unlimited exercise and meet one person from a different household outside. More than that, however difficult it has been, I believe that we as a nation have made huge strides to better overcome the challenges that these measures bring. However, I am acutely aware that for many people in our country any restrictions are still incredibly difficult, especially this second time around. They are difficult for our NHS and care home staff, who have shown such resilience but still face a difficult winter ahead; for the families who have not been able to see their loved ones and once again cannot meet them in the ways they would wish to; and for individuals who live alone and are still, despite support bubbles, having to cope with the challenges posed by these restrictions.
It has also, of course, been an especially tough time for the businesses that have had to close their doors just as they were coming back, and that is why we are providing an unprecedented package of economic measures, with more than £200 billion of financial support since March to protect lives and livelihoods in every region and nation of the United Kingdom. The package was recently described by the International Monetary Fund as
“one of the best examples of co-ordinated action globally”.
Of course I feel deeply for those businesses and individuals, and I appreciate the position they find themselves in, especially when they have done all they can to do the right thing. That was why it was important to extend the furlough scheme and to provide further support in extending the scheme for the self-employed.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Of course it is right that the furlough scheme and the support for the self-employed should be reinstated at the levels they were in March, but the Minister will know—everyone will know—that there are a great many people in our country who did not qualify for the furlough scheme or the self-employed scheme or whose businesses did not qualify for grants at the start and still do not. May I take this opportunity to remind him that a great many people in this country are still without financial support and will find it increasingly difficult to make it through the coming weeks and months? Will he take that message back to his colleagues across the Government?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he makes his points, which is, as ever, measured and reasonable. As I have said, I entirely understand—as anyone in this House will, from looking at their own casework and their constituents’ letters—the situations that some people still find themselves in, despite the unprecedented package of support that has been put in place. I know that he would not expect me to speak for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I know that my right hon. Friend will have heard the point that he has made. Indeed, other Members of this House have made it on other occasions on behalf of their constituents.
This tough emotional and economic toll is why we are determined to make every day count in our battle against the virus. Our NHS has been preparing for this second wave for months, and as we move into winter, it is better prepared than before, with 30,000 ventilators and billions of items of PPE, mostly made here at home. In that context, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), who has done so much, as the Minister with responsibility for this area, to ensure that we have the PPE that we need at this time. There are also over 13,000 more nurses and almost 8,000 more doctors, and £450 million is being spent as we speak to further upgrade accident and emergency departments. There is increased capacity in our hospitals, and the Nightingales are standing ready as an insurance policy.
What is more, we know more about the virus than before. We know how we can better stop it and how we can better treat it. We have therefore strengthened infection control procedures and, as a result, we are driving down hospital-acquired infections. We have also improved clinical techniques, and I pay tribute to the clinicians and scientists who have driven these developments. As a result, the number of people surviving covid in hospital is up, as I said earlier. But of course, an increase in survival rates means that the pressure on NHS beds remains high. Equally concerning to the House will be the toll this disease takes not just on immediate physical health but on mental health. Our medical community is also working hard to understand the impact of so-called long covid and the potential for long-term chronic conditions resulting from the illness, even when people may have felt they were unaffected when they had it.
In social care, too, we have rightly taken important steps to protect people in care and those who care for them. Our social care winter plan, led by my hon. Friend the Minister for Care, strengthens protections in social care, including on the provision of PPE, regular testing and updated systems for safe discharge. Those will be crucial in the months to come. She recently set out the latest guidance for care home visits, which sought to strike the incredibly difficult balance on providing vital protections for the health and wellbeing of our most vulnerable people, while protecting the people who work there and seeking to allow those vital family visits.
We have also built the largest testing capacity of any country in Europe. From an almost standing start in the spring, we have conducted some 34 million tests so far, and yesterday our polymerase chain reaction testing capacity stood at 504,491. More than 10 million people in the UK have been tested at least once through NHS Test and Trace, and our NHS covid-19 contact tracing app is approaching 20 million downloads. In Stoke-on-Trent and Liverpool, we are piloting cutting-edge lateral flow tests, which can deliver a result on infection in just 15 minutes. Starting yesterday, we are rolling out twice-weekly testing for all NHS staff, using a range of testing technologies so that we can better seek to keep both staff and patients safe. On Monday, the Secretary of State wrote to 67 directors of public health who had an expressed an interest to him to make 10,000 tests immediately available to other areas across the country and to make lateral flow tests available for local officials and devolved Administrations according to local needs, at a rate of 10% of their population per week.
Those bold new steps are a key weapon in our battle against the virus, but of course I know that the hopes of the nation are, understandably, pinned on the possibility of a safe and effective vaccine. That felt another step closer on Monday, as we all welcomed the announcement from Pfizer and BioNTech of a vaccine that they state is more than 90% effective. As an early mover, the UK has already secured 40 million doses of that vaccine. It is important to note that it is just one of many vaccines in development, and we have placed orders for 300 million further doses from five other vaccine candidates that are yet to report phase 3 results. I always seek to sound a note of caution at this Dispatch Box and in the media, and it is important that I echo the words of caution from the Secretary of State yesterday: the full safety data for the Pfizer and BioNTech vaccine is not yet available, and our regulator the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and the Secretary of State will not approve any vaccine until it is proven to be clinically safe. This is a promising step forward, but we must remain cautious. So until we can roll out a proven vaccine, we must continue to follow the existing rules of “hands, face, space” because this remains a deadly virus.
In closing, let me say that in recent months this country has faced some tough and challenging times. We continue to face tough and challenging times, and many up and down our country have made huge sacrifices and continue to do so, be they individuals, families or businesses. I pay tribute to them all. There are no easy solutions, but we have risen to and beaten such challenges in the past, although different ones, and we can do so again, through a unity of spirit, by coming together as a country and by our shared determination to do the right thing. The recent announcement of a potential vaccine offers hope for the future, and while we pursue that prospect at speed, our greatest strength lies in the common sense, determination and resilience of the people of our great country. I am convinced that, with that and together, we will beat this dreadful disease.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call Justin Madders, and to help Members plan a little better, let me say that the time limit will come in after Sir Desmond Swayne, who sits fifth on the call list. So Members who are between five and 10 on the list will have five minutes, and those after 10 will have four minutes. The time limit may be reduced later on, depending on what Dame Rosie Winterton wishes to do.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is now 293 days since the Secretary of State first came to this House and spoke about the emerging threat of covid-19. Since then, thousands of lives have been lost, both directly and indirectly, and billions of pounds have been spent. There has been great personal sacrifice, and we have all heard so many stories of individual courage and dedication that have been an inspiration, but there is no doubt that people are now weary. Not one corner of this isle or one aspect of our lives has been immune to the impact of this virus, so the news this week that there may be a way out of this nightmare has given people hope, and we all need hope at this difficult time.
However, that hope should not obscure the truth that we are in the midst of a second wave, so we must be sure to maintain vigilance. As we heard from the Minister, as of yesterday there were 20,000 new infections; more than 13,000 people are in hospital in England, with more patients in hospital in the north of England than there were at the peak of the first wave; and sadly, there were another 532 deaths yesterday, the highest number in one day for approximately six months. That is another 532 families who have lost a loved one, and among the huge numbers we talk about, we should never lose sight of the fact that each one of those numbers is a person. With the news today that we have now passed 50,000 deaths since the start of the pandemic, we know that the scale of human loss has been immense.
Those figures remind us that we still have a long way to go. Hope for the future is important, but it is not guaranteed, and neither is the end likely to be reached before we enter the difficult winter months, during which it is sadly likely that more people will catch the virus and more will die. It is right that plans are now being made for the roll-out of the vaccine, but that should not mean we take our eye off the ball when it comes to the immediate and pressing challenges that this virus presents. I know that time is at a premium today, so I will not detain the House for too long, but I want to say a few words about some of those immediate challenges.
Every challenge in the NHS is faced, first and foremost, by its workforce, so I will start by paying tribute—as the Minister did—to everyone in the NHS: the doctors, the nurses, the many allied health professionals, the porters, and everyone who has gone above and beyond over these past nine months to keep the NHS going. We know that working in the NHS is never easy, but the pressure, the workload and the trauma this year are of a scale and intensity we have never seen before. Not only must we show our gratitude to those who have given their all, we must demonstrate that we are listening to them by addressing their well-documented and legitimate concerns. That has to be more than a clap or a badge: there has to be tangible recognition that there are only so many times people can go to the well before they become physically and mentally exhausted. It is clear that burn-out is a real risk, as 14 health unions and royal colleges have warned in their letter to the Prime Minister earlier this week. They say that asking staff to carry on at this level of intensity is “increasingly unrealistic”. We have to listen to that warning.
Addressing workforce fatigue is not just the right thing to do: it is the only thing to do if we want the NHS to continue to be the jewel in this nation’s crown. I hope that the rumours of another two-year pay freeze for NHS staff are just that—rumours—because if that were true, it would send the most appalling message about the value this Government place on the NHS workforce. When the Minister winds up the debate, I will be delighted if she could put that particular rumour to bed.
Of course, NHS staff should be properly rewarded for the work they do, but they also need to be properly supported when doing the job. We cannot have a repeat of the obscenity of doctors and nurses bringing in home-made PPE while UK manufacturers are selling it overseas. I know that general practice is particularly concerned about the availability of PPE this coming winter, and while many of these debates have rightly focused on the hospital-based issues that covid presents, we should not underestimate the demand there has been on GPs this year. We know it is always the case that, when general practice struggles, the impact is felt elsewhere in the NHS. It is not yet clear what role GPs will play in the roll-out of any vaccine, but any additional demands placed on them in that respect must be matched by additional support.
We welcome the news that at last, many months after we first suggested it, there will be routine testing of frontline NHS staff. The Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch report on the transmission of covid in hospital settings, which came out last month, stressed the importance of increasing pillar 1 testing capacity, and it is a matter of deep regret that we are only just starting to see that now. Let us hope that that pledge does not face the same problems with availability that we had in the social care sector.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I had hoped to speak in this debate but, unfortunately, there are limited flights to Belfast. Does the hon. Member agree that there needs to be additional testing in the care home sector, particularly for family members who could be designated as care workers? I know that the Minister brought forward a pilot scheme. Does the shadow Minister agree that that should be rolled out right across the United Kingdom and that loved ones should get access to their family members in the care home setting?
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. The recent developments in rapid testing give us the ideal opportunity to allow relatives of those in care homes to get in and see them and give them the support that they have been so sadly lacking in recent months. None of us could fail to be moved by the many representations we have had from family members who have been unable to see their loved ones for many months.
On the health and social care workforce, we know, sadly, that over 600 staff have lost their lives so far to covid-19. They have paid the ultimate price just for doing their job. It is important that lessons are learnt about how we stop transmission, and it is right that the Government opened up their life assurance scheme to all health and social care staff, but over half of all families who have lost someone to the virus have still not received their payment, so we need the Government to be much more proactive in making sure that everyone who is entitled to that payment receives it.
Let us support the staff, but let us not forget the impact on patients as well. We know that the NHS could cope with the first wave only because so many planned operations were cancelled. We know that the need to operate in a covid-secure environment presents additional challenges to the NHS in reaching previous levels of activity. We know that before the pandemic started, waiting lists were already climbing to record levels. Covid-19 has accelerated that increase so that by August this year, over 100,000 patients were waiting over a year just to start treatment. Cancer Research UK estimates that around 3 million people are waiting for breast, bowel or cervical screening, and there were over 1.2 million patients waiting for a key diagnostic test at the end of August. We need to hear what the plans will be to address these spiralling waiting lists, and we need a cast-iron guarantee that no patient will be discharged from hospital into a care home if they have tested positive for covid-19.
I turn to what awaits us in a few weeks’ time, because we all hope that the current lockdown will end on 2 December as planned, and as promised, I believe, by the Prime Minister. If it does end on that date, it seems likely that we will still have some system of tiered restrictions moving forward. That is another area where we need to see improvements, because the Government’s approach to restrictions to date has at times been contradictory, muddled and rushed. I accept that the Government have had on occasions to move quickly, sometimes because of a rapidly changing picture—but sometimes, regrettably, because of leaks to the press too. Of course, we would not expect things in this kind of situation to be perfect, but they can be better than they have been.
The time that this lockdown buys us should be used not just to fix test and trace, to prepare for a roll-out of the vaccine and to fine-tune the mass testing pilots, but to set out a clear and consistent framework for determining and implementing future restrictions. The Minister and his colleagues have spent many Monday afternoons in Committee Rooms with me and others going through increasingly convoluted and amended statutory instruments dealing with each new restriction, often published only hours before they became law and always debated weeks after they came into force. We cannot go back to that style of governing. Public trust is eroded when decisions are not made in a transparent and timely manner, so when the Government decide what their exit strategy to the lockdown will be, they also need to consider what the process will be for making and communicating those decisions. It is critical that individuals and businesses get sufficient advance warning in future to enable them to prepare properly for whatever comes next. This point is as much about process as it is about substance, but the process matters, because restrictions need to be tested in this place; if they do not stand up to scrutiny here, we cannot expect them to stand up to scrutiny out there.
I want to say a few words about test, trace and isolate. The Serco side of the system is underperforming badly, and the decision to place responsibility for mass testing into the hands of local directors of public health is a welcome one. It recognises, perhaps belatedly, where the real expertise lies. The latest figures for the national test and trace system are frankly shocking, with 26% of test results received within 24 hours. We should not forget that the Prime Minister said we would have all results turned around in that timescale by the end of June, yet the figures have been getting worse in recent weeks, not better. We know how important it is for results to be turned around quickly if we are ever to get test and trace playing the part it was meant to play in controlling the spread of the virus. Ministers can boast about record capacity, but capacity is meaningless if the results are not coming back quickly enough to be effective.
Let me turn to the contact tracing system itself. In the most recent weeks for which figures are available, 40% of close contacts were not reached and asked to self-isolate, amounting to more than 130,000 people in one week. That is a failure. When every one of us in here has those difficult and distressing conversations with our constituents about the restrictions that we currently face, we need to reflect on that failure and question not only why these unproven private providers have been given the task in the first place, but why they continue to be responsible for a system that they are clearly not delivering on. Every scientific adviser said that relaxing lockdown measures would work only if we had an effective test and trace system in place, yet on just about every measure the system is going backwards. How much longer will Ministers tolerate this failure? However, whoever is doing the contact tracing, that is only half the story. Without people adhering to the rules of self-isolation thereafter, the success of the entire system is in doubt.
Yesterday Baroness Harding gave evidence to the joint inquiry of the Science and Technology Committee, and Health and Social Care Committee, where she made the important point that the reason that people were not self-isolating was that they could not afford the loss of income, not because of a refusal to comply. She also made the rather remarkable claim that the surge in cases that we have seen in the last couple of months was not anticipated, which I thought was an incredible admission.
The Committees also heard from Professor Sir John Bell, who said that the self-isolation system was “massively ineffective” and spoke about using the increased testing capacity perhaps to cut short the self-isolation period for negative cases. No doubt the Government are actively considering that, but we are still left with the need to do more to encourage people who test positive to self-isolate.
In September a report for the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies concluded that self-isolation rates would be improved if additional financial support were available, ensuring that those required to self-isolate—let us not forget that these are people who are doing the right thing—are not penalised and do not experience financial hardship when doing so. This survey found that only 18% of people with symptoms self-isolated, and that figure went down to just 11% of those told to self-isolate by Test and Trace after coming into contact with a confirmed case. I know that these are preliminary figures and that other studies have suggested slightly higher levels of compliance, but no study that I have seen has shown levels anywhere near close enough to where they need to be for us to have an effective system.
The entitlement to a self-isolation payment is tied to being in receipt of certain benefits, which means that a significant number of people do not qualify, although those not in receipt of those benefits and those who do not receive contractual sick pay can also receive statutory sick pay or employment and support allowance. But that is frankly not good enough. SSP is far below the rate set for a self-isolation payment. The Secretary of State famously said that he could not live on such an amount, so we should not be surprised when we see low rates of compliance, because asking those who are not eligible for a self-isolation payment to accept a significant drop in their pay for a fortnight inevitably causes hardship and discourages compliance. I urge the Government seriously to consider doing more to encourage people to self-isolate.
It is a massive oversight that those notified through the app are not entitled to the payment. I understand that the Government are actively looking at this, but given that it is over six months since we started hearing talk about the world-beating app, it is staggering that we are only now looking at how properly to tie it in with support for self-isolation. Action on that issue cannot come soon enough.
There has been newspaper speculation that the actual period of self-isolation might be cut, with a suggestion that it could end at 10 days following a negative test. A report in The Guardian on Monday says that a compromise was “cooked up” to placate Dominic Cummings. Frankly, he ought to be the last person in government to be determining the self-isolation rules, given that he has found it impossible to follow them himself. Any change to this period should be based on medical advice, so I do hope that we get clarity from the Government during the wind-ups that any decisions on shortening the self-isolation period will be based on advice from the chief medical officer, rather than any Dom, Dick or Harry who happens to be in the Prime Minister’s office.
I hope that those on the Government Benches have been listening today and considered the issues and the suggestions that I have made, as none of us wants to be back here in another month or two debating another lockdown because the time this lockdown has bought was wasted. We do not want to be here talking about how the second wave saw us with one of the highest death rates in the world again, and we do not want to be here in a few months’ time seeing cases rising again because demand was not anticipated. We all want to hear that cases are falling, that hospital admissions are reducing, and that other NHS patients are getting their treatments quicker. Human endeavour has given us the opportunity to get to that place. While reaching that destination is not entirely within the Government’s gift, it would be inexcusable if we failed to get there because of incompetence or neglect on the Government’s part. The people would never forgive that, and nor should they.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I pay tribute to all those in my own constituency who have helped our community through the pandemic—the medical and emergency staff, other key workers, our volunteers, and the neighbours who have made all the difference.
I want to say a few words about how we can ensure that public confidence in our policy remains high, but first I will make a few comments on the current lockdown. I reinforce my hon. Friend the Minister’s point that when we leave the national lockdown on 2 December, we are not going into a national free-for-all in the run-up to Christmas. Ministers must make it very clear that we are transitioning back to a regional tiered system, because over-optimism, just as if people believe that a vaccine coming means they do not have to obey the rules, would be very dangerous for public health.
But if we are going to move successfully back to the tiered system, we have to deal with some of the illogical rules that still exist despite the best efforts of Ministers. This is not frivolous—it is important in getting people to conform to the restrictions that are in place. For example, we want people to play sport, so do we really believe that a spaced round of golf is more dangerous to public health than people attending a supermarket? When it comes to religious observation, is it credible that people who go to church for private worship who are properly spaced are a greater danger than the same number with the same spacing who take part in a service? These issues are important to a lot of people out there. The Government need to deal with some of these illogicalities if we are to deal with conformity.
There is something that Ministers can do immediately, and that is about free testing for families of key workers. I have a constituent who is a key worker who has been sent home because her son has also been sent home from school to isolate. She cannot go back to work until her son has a negative test, but he does not qualify for free testing. In other words, she must pay to get her son tested before she can go back to a key occupation. That cannot be the right way to treat our key workers. I urge the Minister to look as quickly as possible at how we deal with these key members of our society.
May I ask the Minister to look again, through the Treasury, at those who were remunerated through dividends? Many of those people are hard-working and decent, not tax dodgers. They were able to get by for a short period of time, but as the lockdown goes on, it is becoming impossible for them and they are facing absolute undue hardship. I urge the Government to look again at them.
My main comments relate to our great maxim in medicine—do no harm. That means that the patient must not be worse off from the cure than they were from the original disease. This is a dilemma facing all Governments. How do we protect public health while ensuring the economic viability by which the funding for public services is generated? So far, the public remain very supportive of the Government’s position, but that cannot be guaranteed. Recent controversies over the use of data have made it more difficult for the Government simply to say that they are following the science. Sadly, there is growing resistance to the concept of lockdowns, which is inevitable as economic concerns rise to the fore. It is utterly irrational to say that one is against all lockdowns, because that needs to be a decision taken on the basis of the evidence at the time. However, we need to understand the anxieties and the frustrations if the Government want to keep their options open and retain credibility with the public.
So how can Parliament play its part in that process? Covid-19 is not just a health issue; it is also an economic issue, affecting welfare and employment and our personal and social wellbeing. And of course there is no such thing, actually, as “the science”; rather, there is a range of scientific views, and we need to understand what that range is and the weight given to the respective parts of it if we are to have faith in the outcome of the judgments that have been made.
Our current Select Committees are very good at looking at departmental functions and policy, but they are very vertical and do not look across the whole of Government. In 2012, after the banking scandal, David Cameron set up the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards; it was a full parliamentary Committee of inquiry involving both Houses. I believe we need the same now: senior but temporary, cross-party and with both Houses. Of course, the reaction from the Front Bench is likely to be, “No more scrutiny”—I have been there and done that; I have been on the Front Bench and know what all those arguments are—but I think it would be a mistake and something the Government would come to regret, because such a Commission would help show that across the whole of Government, advice and data had been properly scrutinised. It is an opportunity to reinforce public confidence as we face the covid pandemic into 2021.
Finally, there is another reason why we should have such a set-up. This will not be the last pandemic we face. In the era of globalisation, when in normal times, for example, we have 700,000 people in the air at any one time, we will face further pandemics, and although this has been a tragedy for every single case, it has not been a particularly lethal pandemic by historical standards. We must set up the structures that we will need to deal with future pandemics, and we need internationally to work out the protocols we will put in place when we have the emergence of new viruses and the metrics we will use to measure that, because we cannot have the disorganised and shambolic international response that we have had to this particular pandemic. Meanwhile, at home we need transparency, with all the evidence scrutinised, if we are to maintain public confidence and see off the political opportunists and the conspiracy theorists, and, with that transparency, we need that scrutiny in this House and we need it urgently.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Despite its dreadful impact, the coronavirus pandemic has brought out the very best in people, from Captain Sir Tom Moore’s inspiring fundraising efforts to volunteers in communities across my Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath constituency who have mobilised to ensure that the vulnerable among them receive food and medicine as they shield from this deadly virus. I would like to pay tribute to some of them today: Fife Voluntary Action, Benarty emergency response team and the many “Scotland Loves Local” high street heroes award winners to name but a few. But of course I would also add my thanks to all the key workers who kept us all going throughout lockdown.
The pandemic has also, however, laid bare the opportunism of some: a profiteering cronyism that runs through the heart of this Westminster Government—what Canadian author and social activist Naomi Klein calls “disaster capitalism”. In her award-winning book “The Shock Doctrine”, Klein presents a convincing narrative of a political strategy that exploits large-scale crises, such as this pandemic, to push through neo-liberal policy that systematically deepens inequality while simultaneously enriching the already wealthy with connections to those in power.
In the crisis we face today, ordinary people are focused on the daily challenge of survival, yet in parallel we have repeatedly witnessed new private companies springing up to profit directly, greatly assisted in those efforts by a political class prepared to make strenuous efforts to line the pockets of many with close links to the party of government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) incisively said of this phenomenon, people across these islands are in the grip of a cronyvirus at the heart of this Government that may be every bit as deadly as the coronavirus
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the private sector has played a role in helping tackle the virus, and specifically that Pfizer, as a private company, has only got the money to invest because of its profit and share nature?
Neale Hanvey
I do not dispute the role of private companies in meeting the challenge of the coronavirus. I will go on to discuss the transparency and the appropriateness of how contracts have been awarded by this Government during the pandemic.
We only have to look at the PPE fiasco to see how this has been brazenly put into action, with large contracts awarded to small firms with little to no experience in the relevant field but with numerous links to the Conservative party. How on earth did the Government find them? In what amounts to a covid bonanza for these tiny companies, Government contracts worth more than £10 billion have been awarded in this way since March. Under the cover of the pandemic, the standard rules have been put aside, enabling contracts to be issued in extreme urgency with little to no oversight; I refer to the comments made by the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) about scrutiny.
With the emergence of promising vaccine candidates, we collectively hope that there is light at the end of the tunnel. However, the darkness of our journey through this pandemic must not be allowed to obscure our important public duty to act in good faith and with financial probity. We simply cannot emerge from this experience with the dismissive “at any cost” excuse deployed from the top of this Government down. We must ensure that the burden is shared equally together.
Enormous amounts of public money have been dished out in the absence of any tendering process, value for money assessment or assessment of whether any of these companies have relevant experience. We have all heard stories of UK businesses with expertise whose offers of help went unanswered by this Government. Why? On PPE, £108 million went to a tiny pest control company with net assets of £18,000. Another £108 million went to a modestly sized confectioner in Northern Ireland, while a third contract worth £252 million was awarded to an opaque private fund owned through a tax haven. The more that Members and external interested parties scratch the surface of this Government’s contract profligacy, the more serious are the questions that arise.
It is not just PPE. Under the fast-track rules, private firms have been handed a total of 843 direct contracts, including those that administer covid-19 tests and provide food parcels and medical supplies. Then, of course, there is the disastrous £12 billion test and trace failure, led by Conservative peer Baroness Harding. In yesterday’s joint Select Committee hearing, a possible reason for that was revealed. In July, the CMO claimed in a Select Committee that the ability to ramp up testing was “significantly strained”. Yesterday, Professor Sir Chris Ham gave evidence that increasing capacity over the crucial summer months was too slow, yet Baroness Harding claimed that testing capacity was increasing throughout the summer. What is the truth of the matter? Unfortunately, that was not the only incongruity, as Baroness Harding did not show a clear command of her brief, failing to answer or, in some cases, understand what was being asked.
The global pandemic is an absolute disaster for so many, with an unimaginable loss of life, yet the brightest and best of humanity have been working tirelessly on effective treatments and a vaccine. Rightly or wrongly, the appointment of Kate Bingham has proven controversial. There are no doubt questions to be asked about the absence of any clear recruitment process, but when she appeared before the Health and Social Care Committee recently, she was impressive. She was clearly on top of and in command of her brief.
However, that does not vacate the responsibility of this Government and any appointees to act ethically and in good faith and, most importantly, to account transparently for their actions. There are concerns about Kate Bingham’s astronomical public relations bill and claims that she shared sensitive information with investors. Further concerns emerged in The Guardian yesterday—in simple terms, how can a job be considered unpaid when the postholder has a position of influence or control in the process of awarding a £49 million investment in a company in which they remain a managing partner and from which they will surely benefit? Whatever the Prime Minister’s bluster, these matters must be fully scrutinised.
Sad as the pandemic is, what saddens the most is that these conditions are seen by some as an opportunity for Governments and corporate interests to implement political agendas that would otherwise be met with great resistance and opposition. The Government are on notice that, despite the disorientation of the public health crisis we are living through, these matters are being pursued.
This chain of events is not unique to the current crisis; it is a blueprint that neo-liberal politicians and Governments have been following for decades. Many thought that the meltdown of the global financial system in 2008 would prompt a comprehensive rethink of the principles underlying global capitalism, but in reality it was exploited to implement austerity and defund public services and social welfare provision on a grand scale. Covid illustrated that no more keenly than in respect of social care.
The 2018 report on social care from the other place pointed to a gap in service for 1.4 million people. This year, the Independent Care Group suggested that 1.5 million people are already living without the care that they need. The number keeps growing. One and a half million vulnerable and elderly people throughout England—husbands, wives, parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters; each and every one deserves much better from their Government. The Government are presiding over a social care system that is close to collapse.
Sir Simon Stevens, chief executive of the national health service, told the BBC that the covid-19 crisis had shone “a very harsh spotlight” on the “resilience” of the care system. The truth is that it comes down to priorities and political choices. To reform social care to pre-austerity levels will now cost more than £14 billion. That is a large sum, but it is £9 billion less than the bank bail-outs of 2007-08, which cost the public purse £23 billion overall. The annual operating costs of Trident nuclear weapons come in at £2 billion—far short of the £14 billion we need to repair the economic vandalism of austerity but, according to the costs worked out by Skills for Care, enough to recruit and train almost 550,000 new social careworkers every single year.
According to Age UK, 167,000 older people and their families throughout England now have to fund their own care because of the means test for free or subsidised support. Older people who are obliged to buy their own care have spent more than £7 billion in the 12 months since the Prime Minister took office and promised to fix social care. Every single day in England, 14 people exhaust their assets paying for care.
The reality is that the social care system that entered the pandemic was underfunded, understaffed, undervalued and at risk of collapse. Any response to covid-19, however fast or comprehensive, would have needed to contend with this legacy of political neglect. Government policies to support social care have faced major and widespread problems, not least the PPE crisis, which has led to a lack of protection for some people using and providing adult social care. Local authorities report that additional Government funding has been insufficient to cover the additional costs.
As has become all too clear throughout the recent crisis in England, protecting social care has been given far too low a priority. When the Minister for Care appeared before front of the Health and Social Care Committee last month, despite admitting that
“the social care system needs fixing”
and making a commitment to do so, she was unwilling to give any date for when the disinvestment of austerity would be rectified. If not now, when?
The UK Government do not even need to look far for inspiration: although challenges remain, they could learn much from Scotland’s approach. The story north and south of the border is very different, as is evident in our approaches to social care post covid. The Scottish Government have established an independent review to look at the creation of a national care service for all. As the Nuffield Trust points out, Scotland’s reforms are
“the most advanced of the countries…having set out an ambitious and comprehensive vision for a social care service.”
Because free personal care has been in place in Scotland since 2002, two thirds of those receiving social care support in Scotland do so in their own homes.
A further lesson from Scotland is the introduction of Frank’s law in April 2019. Under this legislation, free personal care was extended to all adults. Despite all these significant advances being made in Scotland, the system continues to struggle because we are part of the UK. Let us take funding, for example. The simple truth is that, without independence, we are limited in our funding options. Hoping for Barnett consequentials anytime soon seems unlikely, given the UK Government’s timidity towards social care reform in England. Then there is Brexit. While the Government celebrate the end of freedom of movement, the loss of its opportunities is lamented in Scotland. The Migration Advisory Committee is entirely right that this poses a stark risk for social care, given that the services are dependent on EU nationals. UK policy delivers to Scotland a triple threat: a lack of reform to tackle the many pre-existing issues; the Government’s irrational and ideological approach to the EU; and an immigration policy that refuses to acknowledge, never mind accommodate, the specific needs of Scotland.
I had a fleeting hope in March that covid would raise this Government’s eyes to injustice and the value of those in healthcare. I felt sure that honouring all the heroes in our NHS and care sector would naturally follow, but no. With the weekly clapping now a distant memory, many do not feel valued or do not feel that their efforts are properly recognised. Campaigners are calling on Ministers to boost nurses’ pay without delay. The Scottish Government are currently delivering the highest pay award in the UK for NHS Agenda for Change staff of at least 9% over the three years from 2019. They also gave an immediate 3.3% pay rise to social care workers and have just announced £50 million for the social care staff support fund for those who contract covid-19.
This Government sprang into action to approve countless contracts for their wealthy friends at the start of the pandemic, but that sense of urgency is sadly lacking when it comes to taking action on nurses’ pay or addressing the poverty of carers. The Prime Minister demonstrated yet again today that his ears are made of cloth. He ignores repeated calls for the £20 uplift to universal credit to be made permanent and extended to legacy benefits, which is backed by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Save the Children, and he defended his Government’s refusal to feed children in poverty during the summer holidays, yet brags about Marcus Rashford’s campaign this winter. It was support grudgingly given through shame.
We are seeing a return to the lack of compassion of the 1980s, but what we are witnessing now casts minds back further still, not just to the Thatcher years but to Dickensian Britain where great wealth and extreme poverty existed cheek by jowl, conjuring images of barefoot children with empty bowls and a population without access to medical or social care. This is the stark reality of Tory Britain: poverty, a pay-to-access suboptimal social care system, an assault on employment and working conditions, and the exclusion of the self-employed. Coronavirus must not be allowed to cover for the crony virus at the heart of this Government. Some say that Scotland gets too generous a settlement, but that is a false narrative. These policies exist in Scotland because—
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This debate is about covid-19, the pandemic in our constituencies right now, but the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) is taking us back into the 1980s. Is that as it should be?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am not responsible for the hon. Gentleman’s speech, but I know that he will be conscious of the number of people who wish to contribute to this debate. I know him to be a fair man and we are coming now to exactly the same timings of the other Front-Bench contributions, so if he could come to a conclusion, that would be really useful.
Neale Hanvey
It may not be the perception of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) that this is important to covid, but it is in Scotland and I am speaking to the people in Scotland.
The policies that exist to support us exist in Scotland because people vote for parties that campaign for these political choices. Prior to the 2014 referendum, Business for Scotland analysis revealed that, in each of the 30 previous years, Scotland generated more tax revenue per head for the UK Treasury than the rest of the UK. The subsidy myth was well and truly busted. The Prime Minister or Conservative Members talk of the generous handout from this Government, but it is not a handout; it is our money. It is our money that they are giving back to us. Scotland’s economy, when benchmarked against similar-sized independent nations that, quite frankly, would love to have Scotland’s economic advantages and natural resources, illustrates vividly the dreadful impact of Westminster’s continued economic mismanagement.
In closing—[Hon. Members: “Hurrah!”] Conservative Members might not like it. Vice-President-elect Kamala Harris recently referenced the following quote:
“Democracy is not a state. It is an act”.
To those aspiring for statehood in Scotland, I say this: it is time for democracy and it is time to act like a state.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
We have made the case against the regulations in this House and we have lost all the votes, and that is democracy. However, liberal western democracy is more than rule by the majority. It certainly includes freedom of association, freedom of expression and freedom to worship. One of the most worrying aspects of our response to the coronavirus has been the way people have simply shrugged as these freedoms have been dispensed with. The Government have armed themselves with all the coercive powers of the state to tell us whom we may meet, when we may meet them, where we may meet them and what we must wear. Freedom of protest has been dispensed with, as has freedom of worship.
Is it not interesting the way that subsidiaries of the totalitarian state, in their eagerness, seek to exceed even what has been proscribed and prescribed? I have received representations from clinicians who have been threatened that their jobs will be taken from them because they have publicly expressed their doubts about the wisdom of the policy or, indeed, their doubts about the misuse or the concealment of data. We had the extraordinary scene of a nurse being charged with assault for seeking to liberate her mother from a care home. Could this have happened in our country? Then we saw those students seeking to effect a great escape from the Stalag Luft III that their university had imposed on them.
As these enormities occurred, instead of the expected rising chorus of protest, on the contrary we are told by the pollsters that actually the British people thirst for even greater restraints on their liberty. I am appalled—absolutely appalled. These liberties, as we heard in the debate earlier this afternoon, were bought at an extraordinarily high price. Now, as we move into the vaccinated sunny uplands of release and freedom, there is a danger that the state has learned a powerful lesson over the last few months—namely, that the British people do not worry too much about their liberties and that they can be dispensed with conveniently when need arises. I hope that this House will wake up to that danger and seek a remedy.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
In April, the Government asked businesses across our country to step up to help in the pandemic. I want to tell a story of two businesses that tried to help in that pandemic. It is a contrast between two PPE companies: Florence Roby, owned by constituents of mine in Formby; and PPE Medro, which was founded on 12 May this year. Seven weeks later, this company was given a contract for £122 million to provide medical robes. The contract was not advertised anywhere else, and presumably it was delivered, but we have no way of knowing because we have not had the outcomes yet.
How was Florence Roby doing by 12 May, having first approached the Government in March, before the big call for help came? It has been going for more than 50 years, and it is a specialist in the manufacture of uniforms. Working with local NHS providers, it designed medical robes that could be reused up to 100 times. It took two months for Florence Roby to get an answer, which took it past the 12 May date. Meanwhile, it developed the product and applied for the CE marks. In June, it was told that its product was not required. The Government’s email said that they had all the PPE they could possibly ever need. Florence Roby and dozens of other companies across the country were told the same thing: their services were no longer required.
Florence Roby had put weeks of effort and thousands of pounds of investment into developing a product, which, remember, was 100 times reusable; meanwhile, we were getting planeloads of plastic medical robes from Turkey that could not be used because the quality was not good enough. That is the reality of what my constituents faced. They still have not had a contract or a satisfactory answer from the Government. They were just given the runaround.
PPE Medpro is not the only company to have profited, having been started from scratch or having had very little footprint and no previous experience. We saw that, as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) mentioned, with PestFix and its £108 million contract. PPE Medpro had one advantage: it was assisted by its relationship with a Conservative Member of the House of Lords. Randox, similarly connected to Members of the ruling party, got a £347 million contract for covid tests that could not be used because of safety concerns. Ayanda Capital, which supplied unusable facemasks, is based in Mauritius, and we heard at Prime Minister’s questions from the Leader of the Opposition about £130 million for external PR. All the while, a £7,000 day rate is being paid to consultants more widely. Florence Roby employs local people and a contract would have added jobs in its factory; instead, it had to lay people off, while PPE Medpro shipped from overseas. That is the contrast.
Let us remember that we were told all the way through that there are unique circumstances about procurement during a crisis, and I do not deny that. On 11 April, there was a call to arms from the Health Secretary to any UK textile company that could assist. On 15 April, the Government’s website was calling for PPE manufacturers and home-grown industries. On 4 May, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster spoke of support for
“companies capable of contributing supplies.”—[Official Report, 4 May 2020; Vol. 675, c. 411.]
All of those requests were made and answered by Florence Roby and a list of other companies, including EcoLogix in my constituency, Imperial Polythene Products in Slough and Staeger Clear Packaging, which makes aprons and other PPE, but they were turned down despite offering to help. It was a chance for British companies to contribute to the crisis, and it was a chance for taxpayers’ money to support businesses through the pandemic to help with jobs and the economy, but they were turned down. That is why the National Audit Office report and investigation is so important.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
Amid all the damage caused by the coronavirus pandemic to public health, to the economy and to social wellbeing, arguably the biggest impact has been on residents of care homes and their families. Care home residents, among the most vulnerable members of our community, have been disproportionately impacted by covid-19. According to the Office for National Statistics, up to 30 October about 28% of covid-related deaths recorded in England and Wales were in care homes. It is therefore fully understandable that care home providers should be cautious about visits to their homes by family members. However, it should also be remembered that many care home residents are living with dementia. Being deprived of visits causes disorientation and distress to them and, equally, to their families.
My constituent Mrs Kathy Barham of Ruthin has described to me the impact that visiting restrictions are having on her family. Her mother, Mrs Mavis Addison, lives in a care home in Wallasey. She is a widow and has lived all her life in Wallasey. Until 2016, she lived independently, but she was then diagnosed with dementia and moved into a residential care home. That did not mean that she stopped enjoying life. Every weekend, Mrs Barham would travel from Ruthin to visit her, take her out for afternoon tea and meet friends and family. Mrs Addison’s life was good. She was happy, and she was living well with dementia.
Visits from family members are extremely important to those living with dementia. In fact, the Government’s own guidance acknowledges that. However, since the lockdown was imposed some eight months ago, Mrs Addison has not seen her daughter or any other member of her family. Distressingly, Mrs Barham now says that her mother is simply giving up because of the enforced lack of contact with her closest relatives, and that is surely the case for many thousands of other people who are living with dementia around our country. It is a sad, distressing and, I suggest, inhumane state of affairs.
The campaign group Rights for Residents, of which Mrs Barham is a member, is calling for an end to the current restrictions on visits to care home residents. Hospitals are managing to provide safe visits, and the Government could, frankly, do more to facilitate equally safe visits to care homes. But the sad truth is that, frequently, the families of care home residents are allowed to visit their loved ones only if they have become so ill that they are receiving end of life care. Indeed, after the easing of restrictions in early summer, care home residents became the only group in our society who continued to endure prolonged enforced separation from their families.
Rights for Residents is calling on the Government to pursue a more humane and nuanced approach to the treatment of care home residents. It asks for the Government to produce guidelines that encourage care providers to find safe ways to visit, rather than ones that in many cases are interpreted so as to impose blanket bans on contact with families. It suggests that key worker status should be granted to relatives, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), with access to the same testing regime as care home staff to facilitate the resumption of regular indoor visits. It also asks the Government to consider ways of developing an indemnity regime for care providers against legal action should the virus be brought into a care home—it is frequently the fear of litigation that inhibits visits to elderly people in care homes—and to develop updated comprehensive guidance that focuses on protecting vulnerable people against the appalling prospect of simply dying of loneliness.
Covid-19 is a dreadful disease, and it has inflicted illness and death on large numbers of our fellow citizens. It has, however, also brought mental anguish and distress to thousands of the most vulnerable and their families. With winter fast approaching, it is time for the Government to put in place a new visiting regime that gives proper consideration to the needs of care home residents and their families, and they could do worse than listen to the recommendations of Rights for Residents.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I want to start with a quote from the incomparable C. S. Lewis, who said:
“The duty of planning tomorrow’s work is today’s duty”.
That is what I want to talk about—our duty to get several steps ahead of this virus so that we are on the front foot in the future. There is no doubt that this pandemic has tested every aspect of government. Right around the world, leaders have had to react fast to the extreme challenges that have faced them.
I know how annoying it is when former Cabinet Ministers poke at Front-Bench colleagues, so I make my remarks today with full appreciation of how hard this is; it is much easier to give advice than to actually make it happen. I simply want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give the House an update on whether the Government are now fighting fit, whether we are now outpacing the virus, and whether we can now get several steps ahead and think about the future beyond the pandemic.
First, with the fantastic news of the possibility of a vaccine, can my hon. Friend tell us how the Government have combined the efforts of public and private sectors, to make sure that every aspect of the vaccine programme is scalable from day one across the UK? Secondly, the evidence of the testing programme in Liverpool shows yet again how fantastic our armed forces are at dealing with complex logistics, so can my hon. Friend confirm that their expertise will be used in every part of the country? Thirdly, can my hon. Friend confirm that all preparations are in place to distribute the first wave of vaccines, to determine precisely who will receive them and in what order of priority?
All those steps are vital in giving us an advantage on the path to a post-covid future. Only then can we really set our sights on our ambition for economic success as an independent, sovereign United Kingdom. With that in mind, first, can my hon. Friend provide reassurance that the Government are looking ahead at the potential for the UK to lead the world in tackling global climate change? That is not only the right thing to do but, for this generation, it provides massive potential for new jobs and growth, and will help us to build our global free-trade relationships as we seek to lead the world in decarbonisation.
Secondly, can my hon. Friend tell me how the Government are using the experience of lockdown to better understand how embracing flexible work as standard in all employment could enable the workforce of the future to enjoy a far better work-life balance and improve the quality of life for many people? Thirdly, can she confirm that the Government are looking at what more can be done for small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the lifeblood of our economy and the future job builders? Many business owners have seen their livelihoods destroyed by this unforgiving pandemic, and they will struggle to get back on their feet. We need a strategy to give entrepreneurs help and support, as well as confidence, to restart.
The pandemic has forced us to focus anew on those in society who need our help, including people who have suffered greatly. First, how do we ensure that never again will schoolchildren have to face teacher-assessed grades, with all the potential professional implications that that has for their lives? How will we make sure that younger children catch up so that we do not have a cohort who always struggle with literacy and numeracy? Secondly, how do the Government plan to help school leavers and university students who feel hopeless about their future job prospects? The Chancellor’s kickstart scheme is a great short-term fix, but it does not offer training or a long-term future path that many young people crave. Thirdly, what more can Government do for the most vulnerable in our society who have suffered serious harm and loneliness this year, including those who suffer from things such as Alzheimer’s or those with new babies who have been left isolated, with potential long-term harm for their families?
I believe that we have a bright future post the pandemic, but we must use the time that we have now to get ahead with our planning for the future. I began with a quote from C. S. Lewis, and I will close with another one:
“There are far, far better things ahead than any we leave behind.”
Let us make that true.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. After Nadia Whittome, who may speak for five minutes, we move to a time limit of up to four minutes.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
I would like to begin by thanking the many frontline workers in in my constituency in Nottingham—my friends, my neighbours and my constituents—for the hard work that they are doing to get us through this virus.
Like everyone here today, I was excited and hopeful to hear the news of Pfizer’s promising new vaccine. After months of painful sacrifices, there may finally be a way out of this crisis. It is early days, and we have to be cautious in our optimism, but we must do all that we can in the House to make sure that once a vaccine gets the go-ahead, we make its roll-out a success, and keep people safe in the meantime. That is why I am concerned about the rise of conspiracy theories. People across the country have had leaflets dropped through their doors warning against wearing masks. They have seen stickers saying that covid was a plot by a shadowy elite, or come across websites making false and disproven claims about vaccinations. Anti-lockdown protests have also been happening across the country, often featuring placards with known antisemitic tropes, or promoting the far-right conspiracy theory QAnon.
When I hear from people who become interested in these ideas, I get it. I do get it. I understand why people are scared and frustrated, and why they are looking for answers. It is hard being separated from your loved ones for months on end, worrying about how you are going to pay the rent and make ends meet and, in the meantime, watching the Government make a complete mess of the handling of the crisis. It is painful to know that, while we have had to sacrifice our friendships, passions and mental health, those in power have failed us over and again: from ignoring their own scientific advice, which made this lockdown longer and harder, to failing to protect jobs and livelihoods, failing to plan and leaving our frontline workers without PPE, and reportedly spending £12 billion on a privatised test and trace system that proved to be a shambles. It is hard to blame people for becoming suspicious when they see the Government awarding multi-million pound contracts to their friends and donors, often without even a competitive tendering process, or when they see the Prime Minister’s closest adviser flout lockdown rules without any consequences.
When we spend time home alone isolated, it is easy to fall down dangerous rabbit holes and to start believing that it is all a lie, that the virus is a conspiracy or that lockdowns are unnecessary and merely a tool to control people. But we know that that is not the answer. I think all of us, in our heart of hearts, know that, even the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), who has vacated his seat. It is our responsibility, as Members of this House, every single one of us, to fight this pandemic of misinformation, which is spreading like a virus and is sabotaging people’s efforts to save lives.
I am also concerned that some people are exploiting people’s pain to spread their hateful agendas, like the British National party, which, for the first time in my living memory, has been sending letters to small businesses in my constituency, or those ready to sacrifice human lives in order to stay relevant and boost their careers. I am referring here of course to, among many others, Nigel Farage, who in March was criticising the Government’s herd immunity approach and is now rebranding himself as the leader of the anti-lockdown movement.
My constituents have made it clear to me that they are not having any of it and that our city is not having any of it. I hope that everyone in this House can join me in condemning the cynical and ridiculous way that people, and the far right in particular, are exploiting people’s suffering to spread lies.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I was glad to hear the Minister, in his opening remarks, refer to the need to focus on data because I am going to use my limited time today to argue for more data analysis specifically on the effectiveness of lockdown restrictions, and to support the move towards an approach that Professor Sir John Bell calls enablement, which essentially means using testing to allow us to continue as normal a life as possible.
As with many across the House, I had hoped that we could continue the management of coronavirus through a system of regional alert levels. Sadly, it was clear that that was not the case. Although it controlled the virus, the virus was spreading faster than we could accommodate in the NHS. The key question we now need to ask ourselves is, why was that the case? Why did the regional approach not slow the spread of the virus fast enough? We need to establish why, so we can fix it and resume the regional system with renewed confidence that it will contain the virus without the need for further national lockdown.
One aspect that needs more analysis in particular, is compliance. It is possible, indeed probable, that a lack of compliance played a role in the regional tier approach insufficiently controlling the virus, but we do not have the data at the moment to fully establish that. Baroness Harding, the NHS’s test and trace head, appeared before a joint evidence session of the Health and Social Care and Science and Technology Committees yesterday. She gave preliminary data showing that 54% of people quarantine when asked, but also cautioned that the remaining 46% will include many people who have gone outside very briefly to get some fresh air or maybe to get some food that was completely necessary. It is clear that we need firmer data on this because, as we focus on driving up the number of contacts reached, it will ultimately not be effective if those people are not staying at home when they are asked to do so. We need a clear-eyed understanding of whether people are complying and a strategy for addressing it—whether we need to change the monetary incentives or the information we are giving people, or simply change the rules.
Professor Sir John Bell raised the point that we need buy-in for people to want to have a test and quarantine. He believes that many people are being put off having a test for fear of condemning their contacts to two weeks of quarantine without hope or reprieve. He suggested a system where the contacts of those infected are tested and released from quarantine if they test negative, and then rechecked every few days. I am really pleased that the Department has confirmed that it is pursuing that approach and trialling it in limited areas, and I hope it is something we can go forward with, because the data-led approach that accepts a level of risk in order to drive up compliance, with the aim of allowing people to return to normal as far as possible, is something that we should applaud.
I wholeheartedly echo the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) about testing in care homes and making sure that we get the relatives and friends of people in care homes tested so that they can visit, because it has been a devastating time for so many.
On the topic of evidence, please can we have the evidence base behind why golf, tennis and children’s sports have not been given an exemption from lockdown rules? If people can take a walk outside, they might as well be able to do it with some golf clubs.
Back on the theme of data, may we have a data-driven approach on whether we still need the curfew if we go back into a regional approach? While I completely understand why we introduced it, it had a devastating effect on hospitality across the country. If it works, we can understand why it is imposed, but if it does not work, we will all be better off without it.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I want to start in the only way possible, which is by thanking all those voluntary groups and individuals in my constituency for their immense work over the course of many months this year. That thanks of course extends to key workers and, indeed, to all NHS staff in Aberdeen. I want to pay particular thanks to those staff in Woodend Hospital in Aberdeen, who just eight weeks ago delivered me a new hip, despite all the restrictions that are in place. I am incredibly thankful to them for their diligence, good humour and skill. Hopefully in the weeks to come I will be able to get rid of my crutch and run around here a bit more freely.
I want to turn to the wider situation in Aberdeen at this time, because I believe the House needs to be firmly aware of quite how drastically difficult the situation is. We are all facing challenging circumstances, but Aberdeen is unique in many respects, given the fact that not only have we had the pandemic, but we have had the perfect storm caused by the complete collapse in the oil price. We have seen from data in recent weeks that in the six months following March universal credit claimants in the city have more than doubled from just under 8,000 to almost 17,000. Oil & Gas UK has indicated that almost 35,000 jobs may be on the line in that industry. In recent weeks, it has emerged into the public domain that there has been a 75% reduction in job vacancies in the city that I represent. Those figures are terrifying.
We are a robust city—we are used to difficult times given the fluctuation in the oil price—but I am concerned about what the future holds. Ultimately the levers of power that can elicit positive change rest in this place, and because they rest in this place, it is incumbent on this UK Government to step up to the plate and deliver for my constituency.
In terms of universal credit, it is straightforward. The first thing that could be done is to extend the £20 universal credit uplift beyond the spring and to backdate it to legacy benefits. The second thing that must be delivered is an oil and gas sector deal, not just to protect industry now but to protect jobs in the future as we move towards a renewable transition—a just transition that protects all our futures and livelihoods within the city that I represent. The third thing, and perhaps the most important thing that the Government could do at this moment in time, is to provide the Scottish Parliament with the borrowing powers it has repeatedly asked for. The Scottish Parliament has repeatedly asked the UK Government for borrowing powers to provide the additional support that businesses and workers in Scotland need. That has fallen on deaf ears up to now, and that is a damned disgrace.
I will conclude, as I am conscious of time. We have been shown contempt in Scotland in relation to the lack of borrowing powers and by the fact we still have absolutely no idea what the totality of the Scottish budget will be next year, and that contempt will be seen at the polls. After 12 consecutive polls showing support for Scottish independence well in excess of 50%, this Government should be on watch, because the people of Scotland will decide a different path. We will take our future into our own hands.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
First, I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), who is not in his place at this moment, for providing the House with what I can only describe as an energising tonic—perhaps an antidote—after what I can only describe as the soporific dirge that immediately preceded him.
The news that the first effective coronavirus vaccine could prevent 90% of people from catching covid-19 is incredibly reassuring. That success may well indicate the first steps towards returning to normal life and an end to the damage caused by lockdowns, a renewed focus on economic recovery and people regaining the freedoms and liberties curtailed during this crisis. Crucially, the efforts of BioNTech and Pfizer demonstrate the power of the private sector and of capitalism to benefit everyone.
In March this year, Pfizer and BioNTech announced details of their collaboration to develop a covid-19 vaccine. In doing so, there has been limited state involvement. Pfizer accepted advance purchases from a number of Governments, but did not accept conditional research and development funds, including funds from Operation Warp Speed in the United States. The millions spent and the resources diverted towards an uncertain innovation by these two firms have been at their own risk, with no guarantee of success.
Without the bureaucracy that state-run projects are burdened with, Pfizer and BioNTech have been able to focus solely on the scientific challenge that confronted them, whether that be research and development, the logistics of manufacturing or the operations of distribution. Dr Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer, rightly stated that he
“wanted to liberate our scientists from any bureaucracy.”
This extraordinary effort demonstrates that profit incentives and altruism are not diametrically opposed or in any way contradictory. The efforts of Pfizer and BioNTech will save countless lives and help forge a path of recovery, while both firms stand to make a profit. Her Majesty’s Government made the right decision to pre-purchase 10% of Pfizer’s global supply. Once again, it shows the vote of confidence we should all give to the private sector in tackling great challenges. When we emerge from this crisis—and we shall—we should unleash the full power of our private sector and unburden it from excessive regulations and high taxes. Only through doing so can we ensure a sustainable recovery.
Finally, I would like to thank the constituents of Wakefield and the wider Wakefield district, who in the first lockdown adhered to the rules, did exactly what they said, saved lives and protected the NHS. When we came out of that lockdown they, with gusto only known by Yorkshiremen, took the Chancellor’s offer of a bargain, with more than 130,000 people utilising eat out to help out. We had the biggest bounce back of anyone in the region, with a 27% increase in footfall in Wakefield. When we were put on the warning list for covid, people adhered to the rules, our rate came down and we were no longer on it; we had a lower covid rate than almost anyone else. Again, they have been put into these particular strictures, but there is light at the end of the tunnel and I have every confidence that yet again the people of Wakefield will do the right thing, and protect the NHS and each other.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The Minister may be aware that Hull has the highest rate of covid infections in the country; we have 161 patients in Hull Royal Infirmary, 16 of whom are in intensive care, and 265 have died since the pandemic began. The situation in Hull and the East Riding is a public health emergency, so where are these Nightingale hospitals to help? I have been told that they have been mothballed and will not be reopened. Our rate is double that of the average in England, and I am incredibly worried about the situation in schools. Despite the headlines saying that they remain open, year groups are being sent home, not to self-isolate, but because teachers are not available to teach in them. Where is the testing for staff, to keep these schools open? Where is this additional support? Why has Hull not had support from the armed forces as Liverpool has had when its rates became so high? We have been promised 10,000 tests, but that will not be enough. This is not a league table I want my city to top; we need that additional help from Government if we are going to move down it.
Losing someone hurts. On Monday, I lost my nan to covid-19. She did not die in Hull; she died somewhere else. I hope that if my mum is watching, she knows that I am sending her all my love from this place and that as soon as possible I will be round there to give her a hug and we can remember all the wonderful things my nan did. It was only last year when I stood up in this Chamber and told everyone what a remarkable woman she was. I urge people to take this situation seriously.
The northern powerhouse study shows that because we started from an uneven point in the north, covid has had a disproportional impact on the cities we represent. The report today says that we have had an extra 12.4 deaths per 100,000 in the northern powerhouse that in the rest of England put together, and an extra 57.7 deaths per 100,000 due to all causes during this pandemic. Things are not equal; this pandemic has not impacted all of us equally, and it has an economic cost. To all those who make the false divide between health and the economy, I say: think again. All those additional people who have died in the areas in the northern powerhouse have had an economic impact—it is not just the heartbreak of people who have lost loved ones. Some £6.86 billion has been lost in economic growth. There is no divide between health and economy; sort out the problem with health and then deal with the problem with the economy. They are not mutually exclusive.
Compliance is falling in my area, and there is mistrust of the Government. We need transparency, honesty and openness. We need a Government to admit it when they get things wrong. We need to explain why the rules are different for golf and for walking, for private worship and for visiting the supermarket, because people will then understand. The gap from Government in information, clarity and transparency is being filled with misinformation, lies and dangerous fake news on social media telling people that this is not real. Well it is real when you lose people. Some 50,000 lives have already been lost in this pandemic. That is 50,000 families who have been impacted. I do not want a Government who are focused on PR, bluster and incoherent metaphors. What I want is a Government just to give people honest and straightforward advice, so that together we can try to deal with this virus.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
May I offer my heartfelt condolences to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy)? There is nothing worse than losing a member of your family that you love, and the reason I am here today is to speak on behalf of a mother in my constituency who also lost someone very dear to her—her 21-year-old son, Jamie. Jamie represents a cohort that often falls through the cracks in care, not just during a pandemic but in everyday existence. It is the cohort of working-age disabled adults in long-term residential care.
Jamie’s mother battled for him from the day of his birth to ensure that he had the care and provision that he needed to succeed. She was a teacher, and she is a local community champion. During lockdown, she was denied access to her son. She was unable to visit him and watched in horror as his health and situation deteriorated day by day. He became catatonic, refused to eat, and developed open wounds and bed sores. It was not until lockdown ended that she was able to have access to her son, her only son, but by that point it was too late. Jamie had passed away the week before.
I had been unaware of the situation that Jamie was in, and I am speaking today to raise awareness so that other family members may have access and special visitation rights to a child who is in adult social care and who is struggling during the pandemic. I hope that my speaking about Jamie will help them to get that access and that we will remember to have humanity and compassion for those who are vulnerable and suffering during the pandemic. As a mother myself, I cannot imagine not being able to see my child. I know that many Members in this House have older children, and perhaps they will testify that parenting does not stop at 18 or at 21. You are a parent to your child forever, and to be unable to help and advocate for a child with complex disabilities who cannot speak for themselves is a tragedy. I am here to speak on Jamie’s behalf so that others will have a voice.
I am so grateful for the Government’s announcement that a vaccine is coming and that a mass roll-out of testing is being organised. That will go a long way to help the most vulnerable, but I want this very small cohort to be remembered. I want safeguarding measures to be put in place. As we go into the winter months, we must remember that this patient cohort needs additional support, care and patient advocacy, and that the parents need visitation rights so that they can speak on behalf of those who have no voice.
I would like to pay special tribute to the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), for her work behind the scenes on this issue. She has spent a great deal of time helping and assisting, and she does not get the credit she deserves for trying to advocate for this patient cohort and raising the need for additional support. I thank her, and I thank the Minister here today for answering our questions during this debate. I would also ask that perhaps in future Ministers from other Departments could come to the House to respond to the covid-19 general debates, so that we can ask specific questions and tailor our debate perhaps towards education or the Treasury—
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
Our thoughts are with everyone who has lost a family member or friend to this dreadful virus, and we thank people for speaking up on their behalf. I would like to take this opportunity to thank and pay tribute to all the emergency workers, NHS workers, teachers, school staff, local authority workers, volunteers and local charities who have done an amazing job of work over the past nine months across the country and particularly in my constituency. They face more months of having to deal with the reality of this virus. Mass testing and a vaccine provide notes of optimism, but they will not stop the spread of the infection here and now.
It is particularly difficult for us to debate this issue in this Chamber, because the rates of infection are so very different in different areas of the country. Indeed, I have been contacted by my own constituents, asking why the regional approach was set aside in favour of a lockdown: well, I am afraid that in my area, we are starting to see the reason why. Although the infection rates are now at 135 cases per 100,000—rates that are infinitesimally lower than some of the areas in Hull, as I know from speaking to colleagues—and we have just 23 people in our local hospital, we are starting to see those rates go up. Unless we follow with great fastidiousness the restrictions that are in place, I fear that we will see the sorts of rates that have been generated in other parts of the country—all the way across the country, indeed, down to the south-east.
I know that many people are concerned about the decision to reintroduce lockdown across the country, and the implications for businesses, individuals and families, but we cannot underestimate this virus or the exponential way in which it increases. The one thing that we did learn from the first wave is the importance of the NHS being able to continue to treat everybody who needs urgent care, not just those with coronavirus, which is a point I made to the Minister during his opening statement. It is tragic that so many people died in the first nine months of the year—far more than would normally have been the case. As I mentioned to the Minister, in my constituency we saw a death rate increase of 26% compared with the same period in the previous year. We have to make sure that people who are ill for other reasons continue to seek treatment, but they will not be able to do so if there is such a rapid rate of increase in the number of people who require hospitalisation or more intensive treatments. That is why we need to make sure that this lockdown works, and that is why the Government and the Minister are taking these very difficult decisions. I urge people who have contacted me and other Members about this issue to understand that that is why the lockdown is so crucial now.
My thoughts are with those who have lost members of their family, but also with those who face a huge job of work during the winter months in keeping our schools and hospitals open for the future. Now is the time that we can take action, and we need to do so.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The incredibly moving contributions from my colleagues, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), remind us that every death is a family member and a friend; this reaches every one of us. Today, we hear that the death toll from covid has hit 50,000, the fifth highest in the world, but the UK is only the 21st country by size of population: world-beating, but for all the wrong reasons.
Throughout the past few months, we have seen amazing acts of kindness in my constituency to keep everyone safe, to support those who are vulnerable and to protect those in need. Community groups staffed mainly by volunteers have stepped forward, from the hot meals being provided by the Open Kitchen, the gurdwara and the mosques, to the food parcels from the Hounslow Community FoodBox in Brentford and the Bridgelink food bank in Isleworth, and of course many individuals have stepped forward to help their neighbours—I thank them all. Hounslow council has also stepped up in response to the new needs by providing services to local residents, such as delivering 8,000 further food packages and making 20,000 calls to those who are shielding, while working to tackle long-term problems around unemployment and job reskilling—issues that are so important, as so many of my constituents work at Heathrow airport.
That is why the incompetent approach of our national Government to key issues has been beyond frustrating. Until the Government start delivering on the covid response, infection and death rates will stay high, which means that lockdowns will have to be extended, repeated, or both. We all know that this is a challenging time for the Government and for Governments across the world, but key issues have been known about for months, yet little or nothing from the UK Government seems to change.
It is a simple truth that to control disease and infection in a population, the more testing and contact tracing that can be done, the better. We saw the fiasco at the start of September when my constituents were being sent to Cardiff, Southampton and further to get tested. We have consistently faced delayed and lost tests. I submitted written questions to Ministers asking how many test results were not returned. Shockingly, I was told that that information was not collected. If the data is not being collected, the success of the contract cannot be measured, and if it cannot be measured, there are no penalties for non-delivery. What a waste of public money.
Furthermore, a high contact tracing rate is essential to control the spread of infection, yet week after week we have seen track and trace in England—a multimillion-pound private sector operation—perform appallingly compared with public sector-run programmes in places such as Wales, which is reaching 90% of close contacts, whereas in England the figure has plunged to below 60%. Is that another missed target, or was a target contact tracing rate not included in the test and trace contract?
Before entering this place, I served as a Hounslow councillor and an office holder at the Local Government Association. If we had seen the level of cronyism, gross incompetence, spending of millions of pounds—not even billions—and targets missed in a local authority in the way that the Government are behaving, Ministers at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government would have called in the inspectors. PPE contracts have gone to companies with no ability to deliver, while competent UK companies have been ignored. When entrusted with taxpayers’ money, the Government should first ask whether the public sector can do the job—GPs for testing, and public health directors for track and trace. If the public sector cannot do it, proper contracting—playing by the rules—should be essential.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I endorse the pleas of my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey). It has been nearly 10 months since the word “covid-19” became part of our everyday vocabulary. Since then, we have seen the infection spread and businesses required to close, with small independent shops in particular suffering in my beautiful constituency of Hastings and Rye. We have seen unemployment rise across our one nation and, sadly, many families stricken with grief at the loss of a loved one or not being able to visit them in their hour of need.
It has been a truly traumatic and harrowing year, but there have been rays of light and hope. We have seen communities rally round to support the vulnerable and individuals such as Captain Sir Tom Moore inspire us to pull together. The Government have shown true leadership by building Nightingale hospitals in record time, expanding our testing capacity to levels considered unimaginable and providing unprecedented financial support to businesses. We now see signs of a vaccine within our grasp.
I want to focus my remarks on a generation of young people who risk missing out on getting the best possible start in their careers—those who are just leaving college, have graduated this year or have completed an apprenticeship only to find that employers are not hiring, whole sectors are at risk of collapse, their futures are in limbo and their dreams of starting careers are becoming nightmares. Last week, I was contacted by a constituent in his mid-20s. He has recently trained as a pilot, having spent years studying, and is ready to embark on a fantastic career in the aviation sector. Only 10 months ago, all seemed fine, and he and his coursemates were on track to become the next generation of commercial airline pilots. Covid-19 has put a stop to that.
That constituent is not alone. My inbox has been filled with cases of youngsters starting out on their careers who are now having to move home to their parents, reskill and look for work elsewhere. Most have not yet found work at all. The kickstart scheme for 16 to 24-year-olds is very welcome, and it will go some way to helping this generation of young people, but we must think long term and prepare for life after covid-19. I urge the Government to focus on the economic recovery for sectors across the UK that have been severely hit, such as aviation, tourism and hospitality to name but a few.
We have a generation of highly skilled young professionals—from pilots to brewers, accountants to lawyers, engineers to musicians and IT developers—all of whom are trained and ready to work, but find themselves in this period of limbo as we continue to battle the virus. We have a vaccine in sight that could begin to end this nightmare. Now must be the time to set out the long-term plan to support these industries and get them back on their feet, so that this generation of highly skilled youngsters, who are desperate and eager to get on with their lives, are not wasted and are able to find work in the sectors that they have dreamed of joining.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I thank all those on the frontline at Warwick Hospital, University Hospital Coventry and Warwickshire and our care homes, as well as the police, our local council and those in our schools who have worked throughout this period. I thank all the volunteers for the extraordinary work that they have done in such extraordinary times. There has been such little respite for all of them; I commend and thank them all.
Regrettably, it is going to be impossible to address all the problems that we face in four minutes, but perhaps I could say that it would have helped greatly if the Government had been able to lead by example and been more consistent in some of their policies. For example—I have mentioned this previously—how was it that, for some reason, we could allow people to travel on an aeroplane for three and a half hours, sitting cheek by jowl, but we could not allow those same people to sit in a cinema or a theatre, on a train, a bus or elsewhere? How was it that garden centres were allowed to open, but car showrooms were not? Eventually that was agreed to, and I press again for it to be allowed now.
I will focus my comments on the impact of covid-19 on our social care sector. If I have time, I will also mention the self-employed and furlough. The public were forgiving at the outset for many months, but they are rapidly tiring, and the Government’s actions are having a profound impact on their tolerance of and compliance with the guidance. That guidance is not clear; it is inconsistent, and people are struggling to follow. We have tier for this and tiers for that—tiers for universities and tiers for different parts of the country. But it is as we enter winter with the prospect of not being able to visit loved ones in care homes that my constituents are desperate to see family members and demand urgent action.
In the first lockdown up to 12 June, almost 20,000 residents of care homes in England died with covid-19. In fact, 28,000 excess deaths were recorded in care homes in England during the same period. In Warwickshire, we saw more than 400 excess deaths, which is why I called for—and continue to call for—an inquiry. As Amnesty International concluded in its report in early October,
“a number of decisions and policies adopted by authorities at the national and local level in England increased care home residents’ risk of exposure to the virus…notably…Mass discharges from hospital into care homes of patients infected or possibly infected with Covid-19 and advice that ‘[n]egative tests are not required prior to transfers/admissions into the care home’.”
If Amnesty has time, I would very much welcome its representatives to Warwickshire in to help me get this inquiry, which is essential and should have been done through the summer to prepare us for this second wave.
The ongoing restrictions have meant that people continue to be unable to visit their loved ones. It is a fact that over half of care home residents die within 15 months of moving into a care home. Many residents have now spent more than eight months without any visits from family or friends, with huge consequences for their wellbeing. Many care homes in Warwick and Leamington have stopped all visits due to the second wave, so it is critical that the Government act urgently to enable family members to visit their loved ones.
A simple action would be to amend visitor status. Organisations such as the Alzheimer’s Society are urging for an acceleration of the pilot key worker status scheme to enable family members and carers with access to regular testing and PPE to visit safely and provide care that people with dementia so desperately need. After all, SAGE states that infection rates from visitors to care homes are very low, and if visitors had access to PPE, weekly testing and infection control training, the risk would be significantly lower still. We also need to be clear about discharges from hospitals into care homes—a process that led to a significant proportion of care home deaths in the first wave. If there is one thing that the Government could do, it would be to change the visitor status of family members so that they could see their loved ones over the coming months and allow them the dignity that they should be afforded.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I want to try to get everybody in, so I will reduce the time limit to three minutes after the next speaker.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
As we all know, on Friday 30 October, several Members of the Cabinet held a meeting to lock down the country for a second time—a decision that all participants knew would have huge consequences for the country, for the economy, for public health and for the nation’s morale. No one should be in any doubt about how difficult such a decision would have been to make. Since the beginning of this pandemic, the Government have come under criticism from many different sides. I believe that much of this has been unfair given these extraordinary circumstances. While hon. and right hon. Members have made valid points about what could have been done better, it is too easy for people to snipe from the sidelines after events have long since passed. It is far more challenging to lead.
The Government have also been accused of U-turns, but listening to MPs and the public to recognise where there have been policy mistakes and to act accordingly is an example of being a pragmatic Government. No doubt lessons have been learned, and I hope the Government are therefore developing ways in which they can deal with any future pandemic. By learning from our experience and from our partners across the world, we should be producing a “What to do in a pandemic” manual as we speak. That is what should be happening, and I do hope that it is.
I thank all who work in the NHS and social care sector, and all the key workers who have helped and continue to help us get through this period, but I also want to thank the Government. I thank them for protecting my constituents by providing the furlough scheme, the self-employed income support scheme, business grants, the uplift in universal credit, and the base floor rise. I thank the Health Secretary for all the work he has done to ensure that our hospitals remain open and covid patients receive the best possible care. Among the media flurry and the constant sniping, it is hard to remember the progress we have made since March, with the half a million tests that are being carried out daily, the thousands of ventilators that are now in operation, and the track and trace app, which has been downloaded by 20 million people. Meanwhile, while all this has been going on, Ministers have always taken the time to speak to me and to Members across the House about our concerns and those of our constituents.
I truly believe that it was courageous for the Prime Minister to inform me and fellow Conservative MPs of his regrets about the necessity to go into a second lockdown. He did this knowing that he would upset many on his own side and be harangued by some Members on the Opposition Benches. Yet he apologised and went through with what he thought was right. That is a true sign of leadership—going forward boldly for the good of the country, regardless of any potential political consequences.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I thank all those who are working at present to keep us safe and comfortable, offer my condolences to all who have lost loved ones, and echo everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) said about the looming economic threat that is facing the north-east of Scotland.
Over the course of the past few weeks, I have met a number of representatives of businesses in my constituency and further afield, particularly in the hospitality sector. Their frustration at the need for continued restrictions is entirely understandable and understood. Walking through the streets of London this week, I have been absolutely struck by the number of closed bars, restaurants and shops, serving as a stark warning of what we face when the response to rising infections from this virus is inadequate to the circumstances.
In many debates over the course of the past few months, I have highlighted the shortcomings of the UK’s fiscal framework with regard to the devolved Administrations—the lack of borrowing powers and the wait for Barnett figures to trickle through. Last week we also saw the fiasco of whether or not the furlough scheme would apply, with Government Ministers seeming to disagree with one another on that. The last-minute furlough extension by the Chancellor, while welcome, also created huge uncertainty and has led to many people losing their jobs who did not need to if only he had been more open about his intentions and not been left to be bounced into it at the last minute.
In terms of the response, particularly for the hospitality sector, we need the reduced VAT rate for tourism to continue, and non-domestic rates to continue at their current zero level. Through Barnett, we need to see that commitment in England so that it can be followed through elsewhere in the UK.
That still leaves 3 million excluded but in the final seconds that I have, I will focus not on those who are excluded, but on those who are conspicuously included—those appointed to positions without open recruitment processes and those who are awarded contracts without following open procurement processes. We are entitled to have assurances that the best people are shaping our responses—absolutely we do—but surely we are also entitled to the assurance that the decisions taken are justified for their impact, effectiveness and public health benefits to the many and not just for the financial benefit to the few. Throughout this crisis, under the cover of urgency, too many contracts have been awarded at too high a price that have run into too many problems and benefited too many people who are too close to the centre of power. That cannot and must not continue.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
My constituents are dutifully doing everything they can to halt this deadly disease during the second lockdown. As we commemorate today those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in previous wars, we are fighting a war ourselves against an invisible enemy, so it is a timely reminder that we should also think about all our key workers and constituents, some of whom are making significant sacrifices and some of whom have paid the ultimate sacrifice in fighting this terrible war. We have seen businesses battered, religious services banned and we have criminalised families meeting. We have seen some unprecedented restrictions imposed on our daily lives. I fully appreciate and respect that restrictions are vital in keeping the R rate low to protect our vulnerable constituents and to prevent our NHS from being overwhelmed, but we owe it to everybody to explain with robust and clear scientific evidence why we must intrude into people’s lives when we do so with such significance.
For the avoidance of doubt, I fully back the health team, the Prime Minister’s decisions and the Chancellor’s generosity. However, here comes the dreaded but: with Government relying on scientific advice to inform policy, as someone who is an engineer and who understands the statistical variability of forecasting, I have found it very difficult to accept how Government advisers can display a chart that shows a flat worst-case prediction curve with other curves modelling daily death rates between five and 10 times worse at their peak compared with the one they had originally modelled. I must question how we could reach such wildly different outcomes. Public compliance is key, especially while a vaccine is not yet available, but compliance will also be a function of the consistency and credibility of the information that we use to back up our decisions.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
I am taking a slightly more optimistic approach in this debate—some may say I am a rational optimist by nature—and I am going to use the limited time I have to focus on our local jobcentres, which have played a crucial role in our response to coronavirus, working in the trenches on the economic frontline.
Universal credit is standing up to the challenge of covid-19. The Department for Work and Pensions has injected £9.3 billion into the welfare safety net, so this is an opportunity for me to highlight the work of those at the Stourbridge jobcentre, led magnificently by their regional team. All have gone above and beyond. They have risen to the challenge, working around the clock to protect livelihoods. I have thanked the team privately, but it is fitting to publicly say thank you to those who are working on the economic frontline to get people back into work.
There is no doubt that the economic impact of covid-19 will see a pool of labour seeking new opportunities, but we will also have thousands of businesses requiring the skills to enable a new business agenda. Even before the pandemic, this was a time of changing technologies because of automation, artificial intelligence and digitalisation. The focus therefore must be on reskilling and upskilling to deliver new business models in a post- pandemic era. The world has transformed more in the last eight months than for decades, and, with it, so has the skillset required to deliver our regional and national economic agendas.
The pandemic has accelerated the pace of change, impacting on the world of work to a degree not seen before other than in the second world war, when 5 million women entered the workforce. The gap created by departing soldiers meant opportunities for women; it led to millions of women reskilling to take jobs, making the bombs and airplanes, fuelling the war effort, and we can do it again. Our best vaccine against the economic impacts of covid-19 is reskilling and retraining. We must change, adapt and be innovative. We all have our own motivation to retain our fiscal wellbeing. There is also the wider fiscal motivation to rebuild our country’s economic wellbeing. We need a skills revolution, with the unemployed retrained in new technologies, creating opportunities. Sector-based work academies will have a valuable role to play.
With the Government set to roll out mass testing, not forgetting the much welcomed prospect of a vaccine, we now have some certainty that we can start to rebuild our workplaces with the confidence of making them covid-secure. How we come out of the pandemic will be a defining moment, and I am thankful that this crucial moment will come under this Government. We will come through this if we were united as one nation.
Finally, covid has taken much from us, but it cannot take away our Remembrance. That leads me to conclude that we should not forget those who gave their today for our tomorrows, and we should also not forget those lives that have been tragically lost to the silent and ruthless killer that we know to be covid-19.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I agree with many other contributors today that we have to use mass testing and effective self-isolation to contain the pandemic to make our local tiered approach work, so our message in Gloucester and Gloucestershire can be, “Stick with the rules now so that we can get back to almost normal on 2 December.”
Today, however, I want to focus not so much on successful containment but more on the eventual exit strategy, and let me start, therefore, by paying tribute to the chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, for creating the vaccine taskforce led by Kate Bingham. First, I must make a declaration of no interest: I have never spoken to or met Kate Bingham, she has no idea who I am, and I have never been and am not an investor in any fund that she may have been responsible for. But I do know that the taskforce she leads has backed the BioNTech-Pfizer and AstraZeneca Oxford university vaccines and four others out of the 150 vaccines in development that it considered.
We now know that the Pfizer vaccine leads the scientific race and AstraZeneca may be close behind. Surely the fact that Kate Bingham secured for the UK 40 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine in June and 100 million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine is immensely reassuring, and we should recognise that this quality of research, analysis and procurement could not possibly have been done from the civil service, which is why the Government and Sir Patrick, with all his previous experience of vaccine research and development and manufacturing, chose the best person for the job and did so without paying her a penny.
If we want third party evidence for what has been achieved, Professor John Bell of Oxford university said:
“It’s not a given that the UK…would have ended up where it is now without her.”
So it is disappointing that The Sunday Times, the Leader of the Opposition and others criticised the appointment of Kate Bingham and those of her comms team who helped the Government recruit 305,000 volunteers to give the evidence that AstraZeneca and others need to produce a well-tested vaccine. For we need both the vaccine to be approved and the anti-vaxxers to be routed for our exit strategy to work and avoid the damage done, for example, by Dr Wakefield’s anti-MMR lies 20 years ago.
Let me make three quick observations. First, the private sector, academia and the Government must work together for a successful exit strategy. Secondly, Sir Patrick said in evidence to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, in answer to a question that I gave him, that such a vaccine would normally take 15 years to create. Let us all pay tribute to those who have come so far so fast, and those who take a political stance against our great multinational pharmaceuticals need to reconsider their prejudices. Lastly, these vaccines have been procured by the UK for the peoples of all four parts of the UK and if—it is not guaranteed yet—it turns out that the work of the vaccine taskforce can provide all of us with protection in our greatest hour of need, wherever is our home, we are indeed better together with one NHS, one vaccine taskforce and one United Kingdom.
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today.
It is incredible how quickly things change. The last time that I properly spoke in this Chamber about coronavirus was in September when virus rates were lower, restrictions were looser and hospitals were emptier. Covid continues to dominate us in a way that we never wanted it to do and our lives remain shaped by the battle against it. Throughout it all, however, there has been one constant: the continuing resolve of everyone to get through this.
I want to say thank you to everyone in North East Derbyshire. We know how difficult this is. We know that our ability to work, to love, to live, and to offer support are being affected every single day, and we are grateful for their forbearance at this difficult time. And in the past few days, the reason for that endurance is becoming clearer. Our job of suppressing the virus was never for nothing. All along, we have been building a bridge to a time when we have other weapons to fight this problem, and the announcements of this week may be showing that we are actually starting to get there. Light is on the horizon, yet we know that we will not get there immediately. Even if solutions are coming, we still face soul-searching questions.
The first big question remaining will be one of evidence. Every day, massive decisions are being made on our behalf and we are grappling with the foundations upon which these are made. In searching for evidence, we face a blizzard of data and hypotheses. Right now, within a few clicks, the web will tell us both that the case fatality rate is negligible and that it is substantial, that tests work and that they do not, that masks are life-savers and that they can be life-takers. Should we wish, we can literally choose our facts, even though only one set of those premises is actually true. It is no wonder that constituents are confused.
That goes to the second challenge that also bedevils us: uncertainty. Our natural instinct is to recoil from ambiguity, yet this virus forces us to deal with it. There is uncertainty about how it works and how it will act in the winter. The virus forces us to make decisions now on the basis of what might happen in 40 days’ time. It is a challenging mix, which, quite understandably, has worn people down. Yet our job is to deal with the world as it is, not how we wish it to be. For those residents who are frustrated or anxious, I say that I am, too. But if there were a quick answer, it would have been found already. If there were a single solution, it would have been used. We are here because, for now, we think that what we are doing is proportionate and the least worst option while we wait for the alternatives, and those alternatives are coming. This cannot, must not, will not last forever, but, for the first time in our history, we may actually be able to turn back a pandemic in mid-flow. If that happens, it will be the most remarkable test of our ingenuity, our resolve and our willingness to get there. I say hold on, we will get there.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Broadly speaking, I recognise the hard truth that lockdown 2 was necessary to keep our NHS and emergency services from being overrun. Although I would have wanted to see the tier system endure a bit longer, I recognise that it took strong leadership from the Government to make the strong calls that they have done, and I commend them for that. It is also hugely welcome to hear the news of the vaccine developments, and I recognise the huge human cost that has been spoken about a great deal this evening.
I want to focus if I may on the economy. We are now past the point of no return with regard to the economy. If we choose to go back to the tiered system, it cannot come soon enough, given the lives and livelihoods put at risk by the restrictions. We need to see the UK open for business. Yes, we must take the virus seriously, but we cannot let it prevent us from living our lives. Therefore, if a new normal is necessary, we need to learn to live alongside the virus, not to hide from it.
There are certain areas that the Government would wish to focus on right now and it is really important that we do that. First of all, aviation is a particular concern to me. It concerns 330,000 jobs worth more than £28 billion. It is a desperate position for aviation.
The leisure industry has also been hit harder than most. Despite reports of very low infection rates at fitness centres and outdoor sports providers, not to mention the ever-growing body of evidence of mental health benefits, they are yet to be recognised as part of the solution rather than part of the problem. We have 600,000 signatures on a petition against gym closures, and I urge the Government to please look very closely at that.
Turning now to entertainment, although it is great to see elite sport back on TV, we cannot forget those grassroots sports providers—league 1 and league 2 clubs for example—and also the Football Association redundancies, plus the whole raft of sports all across the UK. Exhibitions employ 600,000 people. The UK currently exports £2 billion-worth of exhibition services every year. We are a top 10 global exporter, so we must put that right as soon as we can.
Lastly, I have a few words to say on my constituency of Bracknell, if I may. These points have come directly from my constituents via correspondence over the last couple of weeks. First, the infringement of civil liberties needs to be balanced against the need to restrict the spread of the virus, so I urge the Government please to perhaps look at that balance more carefully. Some 100,000 people currently make up the cancer backlog, and we must do some work there as well. On flu jabs, I believe there is a shortage of flu jabs. People are asking locally about getting flu jabs at local pharmacies and surgeries, and I again urge the Government to look at that. Finally, I would like to see a permanent Test and Trace site in Berkshire.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
The thing is that if everybody took two minutes, instead of three minutes, everybody would get in. I am not going to reduce the time limit officially, but if colleagues want to be considerate to each other, that would be my advice.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I will try to be as brief as I can. I want to start by paying tribute to the people of South Cambridgeshire who have helped us all get through this pandemic—the care workers, the volunteers, the medical staff, the nurses and doctors, who have been working heroically, but also people from the private sector. I have found it very dismaying that the opposition parties have spent so long attacking the private sector. In my constituency, they have been developing the ventilators and doing genome decoding of coronavirus. They have developed the tests—a whole range of different tests—and they are producing the tests and delivering the tests for the Government. Most of the coronavirus tests are done in the private sector, not the public sector. They have developed rapid mass testing, but also the vaccine. We have heard a lot about this vaccine from Pfizer—and the whole country is hoping—but there is another vaccine from AstraZeneca, and its global headquarters are in South Cambridgeshire. We are all expecting results from that in a few weeks’ time, which will hopefully be as good as the Pfizer results. Again, that is a vaccine of which the Government in their wisdom, under Kate Bingham’s leadership, have bought a large stock.
In South Cambridgeshire, the balance that we have heard about from various Members—between lives and livelihoods, between lives and liberties—has been a particularly difficult decision. We have one of the lowest infection rates in the country, and we have had only one death from coronavirus in the last five months. A lot of companies have complained quite vociferously, and understandably, about the imposition of a national lockdown, but I have come to agree with the Government that it is actually needed, because cases have been taking off. We are now seeing that in South Cambridgeshire in recent days, and cases are now at a record level.
I want to make a few, very quick suggestions of what I think the Government could do or should think about doing to help reassure the public that they have got the right balance. One is that they could produce a cost-benefit analysis, with the quality-adjusted life years that they use in other areas; on the Treasury Committee, we have been looking at that. They could use the World Health Organisation definition of deaths, which is people who die from coronavirus, rather than with coronavirus, or if they have had it in the last 28 days. That is the standard international definition, and it is lower. They could provide an official estimate of the case fatality rate, which is the proportion of people who have the infection and die. That, by quite a few estimates, has dropped really quite sharply—by about two thirds—since the start. On 2 December, when the national lockdown ends, they could move to a more aggressive regional approach with a tier 4, which I know the Government are thinking about. With this, I think the Government will provide a lot more reassurance that they are getting the balance right, and it will help us get through this.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
I promise I will keep this brief. As is often the case in these debates, we come in having written one speech and end up giving another. I think we have heard some great contributions today. I want to start by paying tribute to the voluntary and community groups in my communities in Wednesbury, Oldbury and Tipton, who have absolutely risen to the challenge during these unprecedented times to support some of the most vulnerable in our community. Whether it has been delivering food, being on the end of the phone or just galvanising people together, they have been absolutely amazing. Let us face it: this is completely unprecedented. For many of us, if you had told us 12 months ago that this was going to happen, we would have looked at you with amazement. To be honest, if you had told me 12 months ago I was going to be here, I would have looked at you with amazement, but that is another story altogether.
The fact is that this is a difficult one. Last week was probably the first time in this House that I have been really torn, because we are having to find that balance with people’s liberties. Yes, the public health crisis is absolutely there; we can see it in the news and we can see it in the data. Every single person impacted by covid-19 is an individual and it is a tragedy when we see those deaths happen, but it is getting to a point where constituents come to me and say, “I haven’t seen my relatives in months,” “There is a choice as to whether I can go to my loved one’s funeral,” “I cannot go because the capacity is not there,” and “I cannot see my loved ones get married.” It is difficult. We have seen this technological renaissance through things like Zoom and Teams and people have been able to connect, but that does not replace physical human interaction at all.
The fact is that the Government’s economic response has been great, and that is what my constituents say to me. The Government have stepped up and given support to some of our most vulnerable communities through their economic response. I do not envy my colleagues on the Front Bench at all given the task ahead of them.
I am conscious of the need to keep my comments brief so that other colleagues can speak, so I shall just say this. Ultimately, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) said, we are going to have to get to a point at which we live through a new normal, because when it comes to life, we can exist or we can live. The fact is that at the moment many of my constituents feel like they are just existing, and they want to start living again.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
I wish to spend the short time that I have focusing on where restrictions on social contact have been the most damaging, which is for residents in care homes.
Last month, I was contacted by a constituent who since March has been unable to visit her 96-year-old aunt, who unfortunately suffers from dementia and Parkinson’s disease. Last week, a report from the medical journal The Lancet suggested that an estimated 70% of residents in UK care homes are living with dementia and memory problems. Replacing visits from recognisable loved ones with staff wearing unfamiliar and often frightening protective equipment can understandably leave residents extremely distressed. For care home residents with dementia, regular contact with friends and family is vital. The fear of many families is that when finally they are reunited with their loved ones, they will simply not remember them. That is a devastating thought.
This has been a great week for science—as the Prime Minister said, the “scientific cavalry” is on its way to help us through this pandemic—but we need to look at a more compassionate solution to protect vulnerable residents in care homes. The news that we are one step closer to an effective vaccine is fantastic and gives us cautious hope for a more normal 2021.
On testing, the scientific progress has been extraordinary. We need to see a clearer ramping up of testing in care homes. I urge those on the Front Bench to look into the testing of visitors who go to care homes. We should give them the ability to take a quick test and get the results coming in, even if it involves waiting for an hour, so that they can at least try to get that access and see their loved ones. I am sure that that would go a long way towards improving matters as we go forward to next year.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I warmly welcome the encouraging developments on the vaccine front, and I am glad that my local authority, Kensington and Chelsea, will be a beneficiary of the rapid-testing scheme.
I am also glad that case rates in my local authority are tailing off—in fact, in the past week they were down 28% and are now almost back down to 100 cases per 100,000, standing at 111 yesterday. Indeed, the data for London for the past week, released yesterday, shows that cases were down in 26 of the 33 boroughs and hospital admissions were also down on the week.
I strongly encourage those on the Front Bench to ensure that, when 2 December comes, we leave lockdown and review the tier that London comes out into. A case is beginning to develop that London—which is the powerhouse of our economy, accounting for 25% of our total tax revenue—should come out into tier 1. We still have a few weeks to go and I encourage Londoners to do everything that we can to get the R down and the number of cases per 100,000 down. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give proper focus to the tier into which London leaves lockdown.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
I am conscious of time, so despite wanting to make arguments on greater flexibility for worshippers, outdoor exercise, support for pubs—I could go on—I will not cover those things, as there have been excellent contributions on them already.
Today is a really important day of remembrance. As I have reflected on this debate, I have often considered the analogy that we are in an invisible war against the coronavirus—and this has been an invisible war. It is not a fight where we can see footage of battles won on beaches, air-raid sirens do not alert us to run for cover when the enemy is nearby, and this is not a battle where we can look our enemies in the eyes.
Nor, though, can we see the successes of our actions. We will never know the grandparent whose life we saved simply by wearing a mask. We will never know the father who avoided the devastating symptoms of long covid simply because we washed our hands. We will never know the mother who could go to work today simply because we chose to socially distance in a shop. And, God forbid, because we followed the Government guidance, we will never know the nurse who would have held our hand as we fought the virus from a hospital bed.
Our actions have consequences. Covid-19 has no conscience; it does not care who it infects or whose life it devastates. Coronavirus has a singular goal, and that is to multiply—to spread to us all—so it is on us all to stop it. No doubt in some laboratory there is a modern version of Alan Turing beating the code of covid, but until then it is on every single person in this nation to fight this virus. I want to say thank you to my constituents in Watford and to people across the country for following the Government guidance—for washing their hands, wearing a mask and socially distancing. Together we can win this war, and it is through that that we will succeed.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I will keep my comments as brief as I can. First, I welcome the excellent news this week on the vaccine. I know that we are not there yet and that “hands, face, space” is still really important, and I echo that to my constituents today. I also thank the Government for the rapid testing in County Durham.
Others have made this argument already, but the three g’s—gyms, God and golf—have filled my inbox, so if there is anything that can be done on that for 2 December or before, I would really appreciate it. My constituents really are looking forward to 2 December, so I hope we do not have to see anything further beyond that.
I had a call last week with care homes in my constituency, so I will rattle through some of the issues that they raised. First, there has been some difficulty accessing flu vaccines for staff in care homes. Obviously, that is a bit of an issue with respect to transmission when they are dealing with older people. Those working in domiciliary care and going out into the community have had trouble getting testing for covid in some cases, so if there is any way that we can, perhaps, move towards weekly testing for those people, that would be brilliant.
The portal is seen as good and improving, but although the quantities have improved over recent weeks, some care homes are still having trouble getting the total quantities that they need, so anything that could be done on that would be really helpful. Finally, if there is any way that the infection control fund could be made more flexible, particularly if it could be allowed to help some care homes create facilities for better visiting, that would be great.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden). He said so many of the things that I wanted to say, so I can cut my speech right down.
I start by paying tribute to those in Warrington South who are playing such a critical part in our battle against covid. Earlier this week, I was really pleased to hear from the Health Secretary that Warrington will receive 10,000 antigen lateral flow devices this week to start the process of mass testing. That allows the director of public health in Warrington to focus her team’s efforts and to start testing priority groups. It means we can start to tackle the challenges of children being sent home from school, and help students, teachers and parents to live their lives in a bit more of a normal fashion.
Having grown that capacity, we can also do regular tests in the NHS to try to tackle some of the transmission in hospitals. It is really important to keep people safe when they go there for regular testing. Over the last two weeks, Warrington Hospital has been piloting testing for all patient-facing staff. It has tested around 3,900 in total. It really surprised me that there were only 50 positive asymptomatic cases—less than 2%. That is a really worthwhile exercise.
The news that Pfizer’s vaccine has achieved a 90% success rate in more than six countries, with 43,500 volunteers, is very welcome, but I want to praise in particular and support the vaccine taskforce and its chair, Kate Bingham. We seem to have a bit of a problem that, when someone in the private sector gives up their time—unpaid—to work for the national interest, Opposition Members and parts of the media seem to go out of their way to bring them down. I was particularly interested in the comment by Sir John Bell, the professor of medicine at Oxford University, who was clear in saying that, if it were not for her, the 30 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine would not be arriving in this country. This lady deserve our grateful appreciation, not smears and division.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter). I agree that the work of the vaccine taskforce has been superb. It is one of the reasons why we are first in a lot of queues; we are ahead of EU states, for example. I thank all the careworkers and NHS staff on the Isle of Wight for the wonderful work they do. In the short time I have, I will make two brief points: on data and on strategy.
First, we all agree that, in a free state, rather than a police state, Government need to be respected and trusted and part of that trust surely rests on the use of data. We all remember how Labour was destroyed over what it said on the Gulf war and the dodgy dossiers. We cannot go down that route again with data. So does the Minister share my concern that so many people, including reputable scientists, have raised significant issues about how we are using data and the transparency of data? For me, the answer to that question is for the Government to become fully transparent with all the science and, in the spirit of the great national endeavour we are in, allow and encourage examination of that data by independent scientists, preferably prior to decision making, not commenting afterwards and finding significant flaws in the data. That data should include the full cost of lockdowns: medical, social and economic, and short and medium term.
Secondly, may we please have a strategic approach to this problem? It would be wonderful if a vaccine works perfectly, but that is unlikely and waiting for a magic bullet is not a strategy but the absence of one. If we have a clear strategy and clear use of data, it would be much easier for the Government to turn to Conservative Members and ask us for the support they will need in the weeks and months ahead.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
On this day of remembrance, I pay tribute to all those who made the ultimate sacrifice so that we can stand here today with the freedoms we hold dear. And I would like to formally put on the record my congratulations to President-elect Joe Biden and Vice-President-elect Kamala Harris. We look forward to working together to tackle this global pandemic.
We have heard today that the UK has tragically become the first country in Europe to pass 50,000 covid-19 deaths. It speaks to why we are all here today to discuss the greatest challenge of our time. We have heard some superb speeches in the debate. I pay a special tribute to Mary Hutchins, the nan of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), who does her community proud. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), who was incredibly powerful in speaking up for Jamie and his family.
My hon. Friends the Members for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) all rightly raised the murky world of procurement and the complete lack of transparency. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) spoke movingly about the need to do better for those in care homes.
There is a clear sense of hope about the prospect of a vaccine. It has come at the end of a particularly bleak year that has left none untouched by the effects of the virus, but we need to ensure that this is not false hope. There must be a clear plan for manufacture and distribution. With little time to get that right, can the Minister please outline how the Government will ensure that those deemed a priority to receive the initial dose will be able to access it?
On the topic of priority groups, in June, the Health and Social Care Secretary said that the Government would consider black, Asian and minority ethnic groups as a priority for a vaccine, but that does not seem to be the case now. Why? I have seen at first hand patients in intensive care fighting for their lives because of this virus. I was overwhelmed by how many of them were from our BAME communities. Is it not possible for the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation to consider multiple risk factors when rolling out the vaccine? What about all those adults who have been shielding for months? Throughout the summer they urged the Government not to forget them. What is the Government’s message for them today?
Finally on a potential vaccine, I sincerely hope that we are successful, but if there are setbacks that mean that the vaccine is not rolled out until later in 2021 the Government must have a plan in place that is communicated effectively to the public and which outlines what restrictions may look like. I hope to see the Government planning for that scenario, so that as a nation we are not caught off-guard again by the virus.
Sadly, people feel left behind. They need to feel that they have a Government on their side. The feeling of isolation and loneliness needs urgent attention from the Government this winter. The Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention tweeted only a couple of days ago that mental health services have never closed, and have continued throughout, but for many, especially those who rely on group therapies, that has not been the reality.
It is important that we do not forget those who need to access mental health services for the first time and simply do not know where to turn. Our wedding industry, talented people involved in the arts, musicians, photographers and small family-run businesses feel as if no one is listening to them. The Government did them a great disservice by describing their careers as unviable—that cut to the core of who they are, the talents that they have and the way in which they give back to our economy. I have heard from people in the industries that I have mentioned who felt that the Government were questioning their viability not just in the workplace but as husbands, wives and parents. That has affected their mental health greatly. When Ministers come to the House they must take responsibility for the language that they use and understand the detrimental knock-on effects that it can have on people’s mental health. Artists, creatives and entrepreneurs need a Government who are on their side, showing them that they care not only about their livelihood but about their mental health. How will they be supported through the winter?
As the days become shorter at a time when people are missing their families and way of life, what provisions are in place for anyone who needs help with their mental ill health? What support will be offered to organisations and communities across the country that are lifelines to people who rely on them for a bit of brightness in their day? On suicide, is there a plan for a comprehensive national real-time monitoring system for suspected suicides that will allow us to monitor and respond to new concerns among particular groups of people or in particular areas of the country? I am sure, whatever side of the House we are on, we agree that this is important.
What is the Government’s suicide prevention strategy in the light of covid-19? Many people with serious mental illnesses have been feeling left out of the Government’s strategy to tackle covid-19, with research finding that people with a pre-existing mental health diagnosis were 65% more likely to be diagnosed with covid-19 than those without such a diagnosis. Will the Minister outline any work that the Government are conducting to provide assistance for people with schizophrenia, psychosis or borderline personality disorder?
Members have raised many times in the Chamber the fact that expectant mothers are suffering immeasurably because they cannot bring a birthing partner with them into hospital, whether to accompany them to tests to check on their unborn baby, or when they are giving birth. What support has been offered to those suffering from post-natal depression? Some expectant mothers and fathers have had to endure the worst and find out that they are miscarrying. What support is available to mothers who have to be told that alone, and break down on the phone trying to tell their partner or a loved one? We have to do better for those people.
What support has been offered to mental health trusts for the winter? Are they able to access funding to support the safe discharge of patients from hospital in the light of the second spike? It is crucial that this is given the attention it deserves.
I welcome the announcement of routine testing for frontline NHS staff. We have been requesting that for months, and it is an important development for not only protecting staff but infection control in healthcare settings. There have been other changes to testing, and I would like to take this opportunity to pick up on plans for the mass distribution of lateral flow tests. What resources are being allocated to the local councils that are getting access to 10,000 lateral flow tests, including in my borough of Wandsworth, to make this a success? For areas with a disproportionately high number of vulnerable groups, how will the Government address any strain on council resources?
After weeks of unnecessary delay, the Government have now addressed the need to get students home safely over Christmas, and tests will be made available. Could the Government outline how they plan to work with universities and local councils to ensure that rapid and accurate testing is available for all students who need it? How will the tests be administered, and are the Government prepared to comment on what students should do in January?
We must understand that our students have endured a particularly difficult time, with the exams fiasco, being told it was safe to go to university, arriving at university only to be made to feel responsible for the second spike of covid-19 and then being trapped in dormitories with strangers, unable to leave to do their shopping or see their families. We have to get it right for our students, who we are allowing to go home over the Christmas holidays.
We have a long road ahead, and we cannot lose hope. The Government need to get their response to this crisis right, and they do not have to spend taxpayers’ money on PR consultants to do so. For many months, brave people across the country have played their part in fighting this virus. We cannot let them down now.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
I would like to thank everybody who has contributed to the debate and to the tone of it. I add my personal thanks to all those who are working on the frontline and in public services. This has been an incredibly difficult year for those individuals, and there is arguably still much work to be done.
I would also like to add my thanks to the armed forces. We heard powerful speeches earlier this afternoon on everything that our armed forces have done, but they have also contributed enormously to our ability to tackle the pandemic so far through the distribution of PPE, rolling out mobile testing centres, building Nightingale hospitals and being involved in the important planning for the roll-out of a vaccine when one is fully approved.
I would like to thank all those who brought to this place today stories of personal loss—in particular, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), who told us of the sad loss of her family member this week, and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), who told us so poignantly about Jamie.
From many of the contributions, it is clear that hopes for a vaccine are running high following the encouraging news of the phase 3 trial results from Pfizer and BioNTech on Monday, and I share that sense of optimism. Science, academia, life sciences and private and public institutions have worked together. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) said, we would not be here without such endeavours of the private sector working with us. It is a promising development, and the UK is ahead of the game in securing an order for 40 million doses.
I would like to thank the head of the vaccine taskforce. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) said that she is “impressive” and on top of her brief. I could not have put it better than my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and for Warrington South (Andy Carter). It is under her leadership that this is one of many vaccine candidates that we have secured.
There are six in total, two at phase 3. We have placed orders for a further 300 million doses from the five other candidates, which are yet to report. That also includes the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine; my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) highlighted the endeavours of AstraZeneca in Cambridge.
I share the sense of optimism, but I also want to associate myself with the words of caution that many Members have expressed, including my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox). It is worth reiterating that the MRHA will not approve a vaccine unless it is clinically safe. There are still many unknowns. Until a vaccine is rolled out, we will not know how long its effects will last or its impact on reducing transmissions, and there are no guarantees.
The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) articulated the importance of making sure that people have accurate information to ensure that they take up vaccines. I assure her that the Government are working hard to ensure that people feel confident in the vaccine roll-out. We are working with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, cross-Government and with technology companies to ensure that we limit misinformation and promote positive messages to get as much uptake of vaccination as we can. If this or any other vaccine is approved, we will be ready with a large-scale vaccination programme, which is being worked on at the moment.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher), for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb) and for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) for their optimism in outlining the progress that we have made so far and how hard people have worked.
One point in particular that I would like to pick up on is PPE. When the pandemic started, we produced 1% of our PPE needs in the UK. By December, we will be providing 70% of the amount that we expect to use at the rates anticipated in December for all items except gloves. That is enormous progress. It is an industry that has been built from scratch, and it has been replicated through testing and diagnostics across the country. I would like to thank everyone involved.
But it has been tough, and nowhere has it been tougher—we have heard about how difficult it is—than for families with members of their family in care homes. We heard about that from my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield, for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones). I pay tribute to the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), who has to perform an incredibly difficult balancing act. It is a terribly hard time for families and residents, but also for care home staff. Their first duty is to keep their residents safe.
Last Thursday, guidance was published to enable care home providers, families and local professionals to find the right balance between the benefits of visiting and the risk of transmission. Care home visits will be allowed to develop further via trials to allow more visits supported by testing. Care homes, like GPs, can access free PPE via the portal until March, so if people are not signed up, I would encourage them to do so.
On testing, the House should also be encouraged by the pilots, and I thank those hon. Members who were grateful for the roll-out of testing. I also thank all those hospitals, such as Warrington, who have run pilots for us. We cannot learn without developing these systems. We have the pilots in Stoke-on-Trent and Liverpool in whole-town and city testing, and we are now in a position to roll out twice-weekly testing for all NHS staff, something that I am grateful the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) mentioned. It is essential for the safety of patients and staff alike.
I will move on to international restrictions because, despite the positive developments, the national restrictions for England, which this House voted for last week, are as important as ever. Although I hear the calls of colleagues, we must remember that we are here to protect lives. However, I fully take on board that we are also here to protect livelihoods. I have heard those contributions on how the measures have impacted on businesses, and I recognise the strength of feeling on that.
Jo Churchill
I have only two minutes left. I would be happy to take the matter up with my hon. Friend afterwards.
I cannot speak for the Chancellor, but I know he will have heard the contributions by hon. and right hon. Friends, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset, to ask him to listen to those who pay themselves through dividends. However, we have had an unprecedented package of support, including some £200 billion since March and the furlough scheme, which has protected the jobs of some 9 million people. I am married to a small business owner. Some 99% of all businesses in this country are SMEs and 95% of them are micros. This is hard, and nobody is denying that.
On data, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), because it is important. I note the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), but the scientific picture last week was bleak and the consequences, as we have seen, come in the 10 days after, with rising numbers of admissions and, tragically, deaths. The R rate was above 1 in every single region of the country. The virus is growing more quickly in older populations, and the number of cases in the over-60s in England doubled between 14 October and 4 November. That is why it was imperative to take action. As we deliver the vaccination, it will be the JVCI that determines how we roll it out and the risk stratification on which we do it.
We must persevere. I understand the weariness of people, but I close by echoing the words of many—I am sure all of us—and pay tribute to the NHS and care staff, who I know are exhausted. They will be so important in helping us get through this winter and, we hope, in delivering a safe and effective vaccine. I pay special tribute not only to the general practice community pharmacies and community health teams, but all workers on the frontline. There are some unsung heroes of the pandemic, and I want them to know how much we value them. It is through incredible contributions that we will see this through to a brighter day.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered covid-19.
PETITION
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I rise to present a petition at the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) on behalf of his constituents, as he cannot be here to present it himself as he is shielding. His petition is about how we protect vulnerable horses who are mistreated by their owners, particularly those horses on the Embankment in Wellingborough. He has asked that the petition be read by the Clerk at the Table.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
The Clerk will now read the text of the petition, as allowed under Standing Orders.
The Clerk at the Table read the petition, which was as follows:
[The Humble Petition of the residents of Wellingborough, Northamptonshire and the surrounding areas,
Sheweth,
That the Petitioners believe that laws regarding the welfare of horses should be reformed and enforced to protect vulnerable horses who are mistreated by their owners on the grounds that the current laws leave the ‘codes of practice’ open to debate and opinion, resulting in horses being neglected by their owners as the law is open to interpretation. In particular, the horses who reside by the Embankment in Wellingborough are neglected food, water and shelter, resulting in these animals having a poor-quality life.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Secretary of State for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs to introduce reforms to laws regarding the welfare of horses and to work with The Borough Council of Wellingborough and the RSPCA to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to protect the welfare of the horses on the embankment in Wellingborough.
And your Petitioners, as duty bound, will ever pray, &c.]
[P002623]
Coventry Blitz: 80th Anniversary
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting me this Adjournment debate to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the November 1940 bombing of Coventry.
The Coventry blitz was, of course, a defining moment in the history of my city, bringing both great hardship and change to Coventry. It is also, I feel, an important event to recall during the current pandemic. In this year of great hardship, many have sought to look back at the blitz as a blueprint for how communities can come together and overcome the toughest of circumstances. I am sure that all would agree that Coventry, the phoenix city which rose from the rubble to post-war success, is an inspirational tale for this time.
As a key centre of wartime production, Coventry, a pioneering engineering and manufacturing city, was a prime target. Indeed, prior to the air raid on 14 November, Coventry had already been the victim of a number of smaller air raids. But the events of 14 November 1940 were different. Over 11 hours, nearly 500 bombers dropped over 500 tonnes of high explosives, 30,000 incendiaries, and 50 landmines on the city. The sheer scale of the destruction would lead to the Germans inventing a new word, Coventration or to Coventrate, to describe the level of devastation. In that one night, just over half the city’s housing stock, approximately 43,000 houses, were damaged or destroyed. There was also widespread damage to factories, shops, workplaces and, as it was in the centre of the city, civic buildings. Most famously, an incendiary device landed on Coventry’s cathedral, destroying the medieval church of St Michael’s. On a visit to the city following the bombing, King George VI is said to have wept as he surveyed the ruins.
There was also an incredibly high human cost. The official death toll from the night was 554 people. A further 865 people were seriously injured. Among the disruption and the building rubble, many more were never accounted for.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
I join my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour in Coventry in paying tribute to the brave people of Coventry’s home front who, on 14 November 1940, endured a blitz that destroyed 15 factories and 43,000 homes. I honour individuals’ quiet acts of courage and selflessness that enabled them to endure devastation, and to rebuild in a spirit of peace and reconciliation. As my hon. Friend has said, during this pandemic we are reminded of what it is to come together and to endure uncertain times. I honour the fortitude and sacrifices of our veterans and civilians, and reflect on how those qualities are still with us today. Will my hon. Friend join me in that reflection?
Colleen Fletcher
Of course I will join my hon. Friend in that and I will come on to those points, which are renowned in Coventry. People know about the communities in Coventry.
As I was saying, these people would be later commemorated in a number of mass funerals. Today, a monument still stands in the London Road cemetery. Almost every Coventry family who had members present in the city at the time have a story about the Coventry blitz. Those stories live on, often through children and grandchildren, and certainly through many publications. They include stories that range from the incredible to the tragic. There are stories about children and families who had spent 11 hours crouching in shelters. One man recalled being pursued down a street by a knee-high river of boiling butter from a nearby blazing dairy. An abandoned tram was blown clean over a house and into a garden—it landed with its windows still intact. There were reports the morning after of a lone fireman watching helplessly while the buildings were still burning. For one family, all that remained of their home was the washing line pole, which was found streets away in a school playground.
The story of the Coventry Blitz was also important in my family. My parents were both in Coventry on that night. They did not discuss the war very often with us when we were children, but from speaking to my siblings—I have two sisters and a brother—I know that we all had the same recollections of things that they had said about that night. My father was 15 years old in 1940, and he watched the devastation from Stoke Heath common, which is in my constituency. It is not far from where he lived and a couple of miles from the city centre. He always spoke about the sky over the city centre having an immense red glow. He later went on to join the Royal Navy when he was old enough to do so, and caught the last year of the war. My mother was just 12, and lived not far from the centre of Coventry, in Howard Street.
Mum spent that night under the stairs, as many did; that was where she spent the nights when there were bombing raids. Amazingly, when she emerged in the morning, she discovered that not one pane of glass had been broken in their house. Many other streets nearby were not so lucky, but this demonstrates just how much the bombing was concentrated in the city centre. My grandad was an ARP warden and was out on duty that night. We still have his white steel helmet with a “W” on it. It also has an “FW” on it, as he was a fire watcher. It is a stark reminder of the dangers faced that night.
The days and weeks after 14 November took a heavy toll on the people of Coventry. Visitors from Mass-Observation noted that the night
“had left people practically speechless”.
The day after the air raid, one observer, Tom Harrisson, noted that
“the size of the town meant nearly everyone knew someone who was killed or missing. The dislocation is so total that people easily feel that the town itself is killed. ‘Coventry is finished’ and Coventry is dead’ were the key phrases of Fridays talk. There were more open signs of hysteria, terror and neurosis observed in one evening than during the whole of the rest of the past two months in all areas.”
He went on to say:
“The overwhelmingly dominant feeling on Friday was the feeling of utter helplessness”—
and it
“had left people practically speechless in many cases.”
The reporting goes on to capture how many people felt powerless amid such widespread destruction. There were also practical issues with the gas, electric and water supply, which had been damaged in the bombing. Many woke up to find themselves unemployed, with their workplaces having been hit heavily in the air raid. For many, it might well have felt as though life would never be the same.
Yet, despite of all the challenges, the city was neither dead nor finished. The people of Coventry rose to the challenge of rebuilding the city, and what followed was a testament to the power of community and the courage of those who had seen such destruction. They came from all backgrounds and all walks of life. There were air raid wardens, auxiliary firemen and members of the home guard and the Women’s Voluntary Service. Help also came from churches and community organisations, and from extended families determined to help each other out. It will be surely lost on no one how these pillars of community continue to be vital, especially at times such as the present. To paraphrase one observer, acts of individual courage following the bombing could fill a book, and they have.
Following that night, 1,800 members of the armed forces were brought to Coventry to help with the repairs. Within the first few weeks, basic repairs had been carried out on 12,000 homes. Within a fortnight, many of the bombed factories had already started production. That meant that 80% of the workers who had been made unemployed after the bombing were back at work, a feat that was heralded by much of the national press at the time.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and I commend her for securing this Adjournment debate. She was speaking about the psychological trauma that so many Coventrians felt, and I sensed that when I arrived in the city in the early ’80s. She also described the utter devastation, and the obliteration of the city. The fact that the people of Coventry rebuilt their industries and their factories and switched them to munitions, and got aircraft back into manufacture, was an extraordinary feat. That is what says so much about the people of Coventry.
Colleen Fletcher
Indeed, and I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
It is for those reasons that the phoenix became a symbol of Coventry, symbolising Coventry’s rising from the ashes and renewing itself against the odds. It was this spirit that would be at the heart of Coventry’s post-war revival. Out of the rubble and the ashes of the second world war, Coventry’s industries would thrive. This in turn would drive the growth of the city. A wealth of jobs and opportunities brought many to Coventry, first from the rest of the UK and Ireland and later from the Commonwealth.
As I have already mentioned, the memory of the Coventry blitz lives on in the city. Some of the legacies are physical and tangible, and the most obvious are in the remains of the old cathedral, which stand as a solemn reminder of that night. Some of the names of those who gave so much to the city live on in city landmarks. Many of my constituents may well have been pupils at Sidney Stringer or Pearl Hyde schools, both of which were named after councillors who played a leading role during the war and in the reconstruction of the city that followed. The latter was a councillor for the then Walsgrave ward in my constituency, and she was the first female lord mayor of Coventry during the war. She led the Women’s Voluntary Service in the city and was awarded an MBE for her efforts during the blitz.
The blitz has been commemorated regularly in the city. A particular highlight was in 1990 on the 50th anniversary, when Coventry was visited by the Queen Mother. Of course, this year we will sadly not have the opportunity to commemorate and honour the memory of the Coventry blitz in a similar fashion. However, regardless of social distancing, we will be able to honour the spirit and the lessons of the event. It is worth recognising the powerful message of peace and reconciliation that has come from that night.
The experience of the blitz spurred Coventry to look outwards and offer support and solidarity to cities around the world facing tragedy. In 1942, the first twinning of cities happened when Coventry was twinned with Stalingrad in recognition of the plight of that city during the German invasion. Alongside aid, a tablecloth containing the embroidered names of 900 Coventry women was sent to the city of Stalingrad. The link between the two cities continues to this day, showing that out of the horror of war can come hope and friendship. Perhaps an even more powerful statement can be seen in Coventry’s twinning with the German cities of Kiel and Dresden, demonstrating clearly a desire to see peace and reconciliation triumph over the hatred of the war years.
Today, Coventry cathedral still does vital work across the world to foster peace and understanding between communities. The International Cross of Nails Schools network supports schools that seek to cross sectarian divides, in Northern Ireland, South Africa, Israel, Palestine and many more. All this is inspired by the strength of feeling that came from that night that there was a brighter and more peaceful future for both the city of Coventry and the wider world. It is this desire to look to the future as a community against all odds that is most important for us to remember and recognise. In the face of all the horror and fear, ordinary citizens did extraordinary things. Out of the ashes of that night, Coventry rose like a phoenix. In the years following the war, it thrived, becoming home to many more who have surely drawn on this historic spirit.
It goes without saying that the story of the Coventry blitz—a story of courage and community, of resilience and reconciliation—is worthy of recognition. I am grateful to be given the opportunity in this place to recall and commemorate the Coventry blitz: the most horrific event in my city’s history. I am grateful for this chance to applaud the courage, spirit and resilience of the people of Coventry, both for those who were there and those like me, who grew up with memories of the night. Finally, to hope—that, for the future, resources will always be available to keep reminding people of all these things. Lest we forget.
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher) for a very moving contribution. I welcome this important debate, and congratulate her on securing it.
Although almost 80 years have passed, as we reflect on what happened that night many people will have in mind the ruins of Coventry cathedral, which the hon. Member mentioned as a poignant reminder of the scars that those raids left on the city. As she will know, Coventry was a major manufacturing centre for the British aircraft industry. It built its reputation, and showed it time and again during the first world war and the second world war, but that manufacturing industry also made it a target. The Luftwaffe raid on the night of 14 November 1940 was designed to stifle that proud city’s history and innovation.
For the Nazi regime, the battle of Britain was not the end of the argument on air power, and, one step ahead of the allies, they had developed a new targeting system to get their bombers on target. Using this very system, on 14 November at just past 7 o’clock in the evening, the first aircraft—KG 100s—flew over Coventry, dropping flares to illuminate the city for the following waves of bombers. As the hon. Member said, for around 11 hours Coventry was shaken by bombs as they fell throughout the night. The last bombs fell at about 5.30 am the following morning of 15 November. The devastation left behind was absolutely unprecedented at the time. Firefighters from across the east midlands raced to Coventry to desperately battle the flames that roared across the city, but their bravery saw some three dozen of their own killed, proving fruitless against the reign of incendiaries. The ruins of the Cathedral Church of St Michael stands in mute testimony to the horrors of that evening.
In the aftermath of the raid, our military leaders’ thoughts turned to how the Germans had been able to operate with impunity to such tragic effect over Coventry. Although it is a persistent and widely published claim that Churchill sacrificed Coventry to keep British code-breaking a secret, this is a myth. Enigma and signals intelligence had some prior understanding that Moonlight Sonata—the general name that the Germans gave the raid—would target a midlands city, but they did not know which one. As the events that night showed, even knowing that crucial information would not have been enough to avoid the onslaught. Sadly, that night Coventry paid the price for defences that had proved to be entirely inadequate. Despite a raid lasting for 10 hours on one target, RAF night fighters did not shoot down a single bomber. This was undoubtedly a heartbreaking and frustrating experience for the Royal Air Force, whose heroics only a few months earlier had secured the daylight skies from German aggression in the battle of Britain.
In the skies at night, it was very different. This was not for lack of endeavour, for though the RAF night fighters had launched over 120 sorties, desperately searching the night skies for German bombers, this was a form of aerial defence very much in its infancy. Air crew were sorely lacking the training and tools for the task; furthermore, they faced an almost impossible task against an enemy that held all the cards, for the onus was on the RAF to find them and intercept them in darkness across the vastness of the night skies. The ground-based radar system was optimised to track bombers approaching the coast, but not inland, and was not accurate enough to allow the RAF fighters close enough for visual contact. Even if they had been able to see them, the night fighter aircraft were little faster than their adversaries—barely able to catch the lumbering German bombers, never mind shoot them down. Only one German bomber was lost that whole evening, and that fell victim to an anti-aircraft gun battery near Loughborough.
However, the tragic events that unfolded that night over Coventry are not the end of the story, for this was to be one of a number of catalysts to drive forward significant developments. Those early systems that had failed in terms of detection and training over Coventry would be refined, tried, tested and improved, over and over again, to provide the capabilities that the Royal Air Force employs today. The modern Royal Air Force systems can trace their roots right back to those years. Through the development of its integrated air surveillance and control system, the Royal Air Force has built on the principles founded by the Chain Home radar system to deliver it on a far grander and more comprehensive scale. Through a complex array of overlapping radar and information built up through military, civilian and our NATO partners’ networks, our air personnel are able to keep a watchful eye on the whole of the UK airspace and beyond.
Through that constant vigilance, threats are now identified and appropriate actions taken, scrambling Typhoon interceptor aircraft where necessary. These are a far cry from their sluggish night fighter forebears: the Typhoons can zero in on aircraft faster than the speed of sound, and are guided to their targets’ locations with unerring precision. These interceptors, which together with our comprehensive air and space surveillance system form part of the United Kingdom’s quick reaction alert, are on duty every hour of every day. They now keep our country safe and prevent unchallenged encroachment of our airspace. Against the backdrop of an uncertain world, we need these skills and this training as much as we ever have.
If the events of Coventry have taught us anything, it is that we cannot take the defence of the United Kingdom for granted. It is telling that what befell the city that night was not due to a lack of human spirit or effort, which the people of Great Britain have shown time and again—that night and since—but was the consequence of an enemy operating its technological advances. It is therefore right that we continue to support our armed forces: recognise their efforts, reward their bravery, and give them the tools and technologies to succeed. In doing so, we should continue to strive to ensure that we can defend them against the threats we face today, through our determination that we will never again see an attack like the blitz on Coventry 80 years ago. We learned the lessons, and as I said earlier today, if we are to truly honour and remember those who sacrificed, we have to learn and change what we do to make sure it can never happen again.
From a city that suffered a similar blitz—Plymouth—the city the I represent, I pay tribute to the hon. Lady. What is extraordinary about these cities is their ability to regenerate and to never give up, and that extraordinary spirit saw that generation through the war. I am sure that her relatives, whom she spoke of tonight, would be very proud of her for having secured this really important debate about a terrible tragedy that we must redouble our efforts to ensure never happens on this nation’s soil again.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Environment and Wildlife (Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, may I remind Members about the social distancing regulations? Thank you, everyone, for sticking with them. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if any speaking notes could be sent to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Environment and Wildlife (Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair bright and early this morning, Mr Davies.
The draft regulations were laid before the House on 12 October. They make operability changes to retained European Union law and implement the Northern Ireland protocol in the context of the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, or CITES. That will be done by making changes to the UK’s existing CITES regime, comprised primarily of retained EU law, in so far as it will operate in Great Britain, to ensure that the relevant EU regulations may continue to be properly implemented in Northern Ireland, as required by the protocol.
Additionally, the draft regulations will consolidate previous statutory instruments making operability fixes to retained EU law, so that the changes appear in one place. The regulations also make further operability fixes in respect of more recent EU legislation that will become retained EU law, and minor corrections to regulations that were not dealt with in earlier amendments. The draft instrument makes a number of amendments, but it makes no changes to policy, other than those necessitated by the Northern Ireland protocol—that is the important thing to note.
CITES provides protection to more than 35,000 different species of endangered animals and plants, the range of which is incredibly diverse, from lions and giraffes, and parrots and turtles, to corals, orchids and the rosewood commonly found in guitars. I believe that you are quite an animal lover, Mr Davies, so you will be familiar with a lot of those creatures. By regulating international trade in animals and plants and in their parts, CITES aims to reduce the threat to those species in the wild.
CITES is implemented throughout the EU by the EU wildlife trade regulations, known as EUWTR, which are applicable in the UK. Those regulations set out the controls for trade in endangered species of wild animals and plants to and from the EU, the UK and the rest of the world. Many UK businesses trade in CITES specimens, and the relevant sectors are varied, from musicians and fashion, to pharmaceuticals and zoos.
The UK is party to CITES in its own right and will continue to be bound by its obligations after the end of the transition, regardless of the outcome of the negotiations with the EU. The UK is committed to supporting the work of CITES now and in future. At the CITES conference of the parties in August 2019, the UK used its world-leading scientific and technical expertise to play a pivotal role in proceedings. As a result of that work, 93 new species, including mako sharks and several species of gecko and newt, now benefit from enhanced protection under the convention. We have that world-leading reputation for such work, which obviously we will continue.
The primary purpose of the draft instrument is to make operability fixes to retained EU law and to implement the Northern Ireland protocol with regard to CITES. In doing so, we are consolidating into one instrument amendments made by previous CITES EU exit SIs that have not yet come into force, to make regulations clearer and more accessible to users.
In implementing the protocol and our convention obligations, CITES documents and relevant checks will be required for CITES specimens travelling between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, in both directions. That will affect traders in Northern Ireland and traders in Great Britain who regularly move specimens in and out of Northern Ireland.
The instrument will also make operability fixes in respect of more recent EU legislation, which will become EU retained law, and minor corrections not included in the previous instruments. For example, the instrument deals with a new suspensions regulation of 2019, which replaces and updates an earlier regulation. The suspensions regulation provides for bans on imports of certain specimens from certain countries needing additional protection—for example, wild lions from Ethiopia, wild Dryas monkeys from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and African cherry wood from Equatorial Guinea.
Part 2 of the instrument amends domestic regulations that provide for, among other things, enforcement powers with regard to CITES. Part 3 amends retained EU regulations on CITES to ensure that the regime is operable in Great Britain after the end of the transition period. The instrument was sent to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for pre-scrutiny and was returned with minor comments relating primarily to minor drafting issues. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee asked the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs a number of questions, as outlined in its report. Those questions related to the practical implications of documentary checks for movement between Northern Ireland and Great Britain and examples of what types of species are commonly traded in the United Kingdom.
Traders moving CITES specimens between Northern Ireland and Great Britain will at the end of the transition period be required to obtain and present relevant CITES documentation. Interestingly, there is currently no data on movements of CITES species between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, as that trade does not yet require documentation. Members may be interested to hear that the most commonly traded species between the UK and the rest of the world are alligators and crocodiles, for their leather, and live falcons, I believe for falconry—they are pets, really—and potentially for pest control.
The changes made by the instrument will affect DEFRA and the Animal and Plant Health Agency, as documentation that was previously required at the EU border will now be required at the UK border—Great Britain or Northern Ireland, as the case may be. APHA has increased staff numbers in anticipation of that increased workload. As I said, the statutory instrument does not change policy other than as required by the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol, so no consultation was undertaken. Drafts of the instrument were, however, shared with the devolved Administrations during its development and drafting. In line with published guidance, there is no need to conduct an impact assessment of the instrument because there is no, or no significant, impact on the public, private or voluntary sectors. The territorial extent of the instrument is the United Kingdom.
As a result of the protocol, documentation will be required for the movement of CITES specimens between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That will require additional enforcement by Border Force at points of entry and exit between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Border Force has increased staff numbers and trained new staff in order to address that increase and is well prepared for those additional checks from the end of the transition period. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Davies, and to be back with the Minister. Yesterday we were on the Environment Bill Committee and we will be on it again tomorrow.
CITES is widely praised and supported and is very important. I first came across it in detail during the 2015 general election. The city of Cambridge has an extraordinary number of husting events—25 to 30 of them—and one was devoted entirely to CITES. That tells us something about Cambridge, as well as about the importance of CITES. One of the speakers on that occasion was none other than Tony Juniper, who now of course chairs Natural England. At the time he was a candidate for the Green party.
One of the pleasures of the statutory instrument process is that our debates are often prefigured by discussion in the other place, so it is possible to see what others have said. The introduction of my colleague Baroness Jones of Whitchurch was so good that I feel little need to change it. She said:
“The CITES international agreement is an absolutely vital protection for endangered wild animals and plants, as the Minister explained. We know that the trade across borders is worth billions of pounds. It covers exotic live animals as well as animal products and plants. Sadly, it attracts some of the most unscrupulous international gangs, which will readily flout the rules in pursuit of profit. So it is crucial that we have robust laws to ensure that the rules are properly enforced and that no loopholes can be exploited. So far, we on these Benches have supported the UK Government’s leadership on international co-operation with CITES, although we believe that they could have moved faster to enforce and expand UK laws to protect endangered species.
It is important that the regulations before us today are absolutely watertight. This is particularly important as the application of the Northern Ireland protocol opens up a new dynamic in border control. We do not want any minor discrepancies between the different regimes in Great Britain and Northern Ireland—and, by extension, in the single market—to unintentionally open loopholes that could be exploited by criminal gangs.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 2020; Vol. 807, c. GC261.]
In the Minister’s opening remarks, she cited the UK’s influence at the 2019 conference of the parties. She mentioned some of the 93 new species that are afforded protection, including—I picked similar examples—the swallowtail butterfly and several species of gecko and newt. Sadly, there is no additional protection for newt counters, nor indeed for Prime Ministers who think that concern for such creatures is to be derided. I suspect there are differences of opinion on the Government Benches on the policy on newts. The Minister will be delighted to know that this is a subject to which I will return in the coming days.
I also take issue with the statement in the explanatory memorandum that there is no impact. We need to think about the real-world consequences. There may be no change in legislation, but there certainly is a significant impact on the people who have to administer these systems. The Minister has talked about additional staffing. There was a time when Conservatives would instantly say to a Labour Government, “Where’s the money coming from?” It is coming from businesses, so there is impact out there.
I also note with joy the term “operability fix”. The Minister in the other place talked about “consolidating operability fixes”—a marvellous piece of jargon, which I think basically means pulling together a whole range of previous errors, mistakes, gaps and so on. However, it is a difficult process and I pay tribute to those who had to draft this stuff. Anyone who has read through it—I am sure people have read in detail the 25 pages of changes attached to the statutory instrument—will have seen how much work must be going into the process.
The Minister said that documentation will now be required at the UK border. I ask her to confirm where that border is. I suspect it is somewhere in the Irish sea—the place where the Prime Minister said no border should ever go. Perhaps she could also tell us where the border posts will be and tell us a little more about staffing. She says that APHA has increased its staff numbers. Of course, “increase” is a very vague term. By how much has it increased its staff numbers, and by how much does it need to increase them to make the system work?
ClientEarth raised detailed questions in its correspondence with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which were pursued by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I would like to go through those so that we have the answers on the record. It pointed out:
“Regulation 7(2)(a) and 7(2)(r) remove references to the ‘committee’ and the ‘scientific review group’. Other parts of the regulations, including Regulation 7(5)(b)(ii)(aa) and 7(5)(c)(ii)(aa), remove requirements to consider to consider the opinion of the scientific review group before the domestic scientific authority can advise on the import of wild species. Whilst the UK will no longer collaborate with other Member States in this way, the loss of this collaboration mechanism with other scientific bodies is disappointing. In addition, in certain instances references to the scientific review group are replaced with references to a ‘scientific authority’, but in other instances the role of the scientific review group is not replaced.”
We do have a reply from DEFRA, but I have to say that I found it slightly insulting. It basically makes the assertion that we are the best in the world and there is nothing to worry about—we could possibly be described as “world-beating”. I think a little more humility might be useful sometimes. It goes on to say that we are no longer “bound by EU structures”, which implies that those somehow weaken the process. It goes on to talk about our scientific authorities, which are of course very good:
“The Joint Nature Conservation Committee…for fauna and Royal Botanic Gardens Kew for flora”.
Of course those are good, but is it not always better to collaborate? I would be grateful for the Minister’s view on how we might better collaborate in future.
The second question, I am afraid, leads to another equally complacent answer, which led the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to say that although DEFRA may be confident about that, it is not convinced that the measures in place do not
“pose a risk of spreading disease.”
That is a serious concern about the holding of particular specimens.
The third question asks about collaboration and the enforcement group, currently at EU level, for which there is no apparent domestic equivalent. The responsibility would pass to the National Wildlife Crime Unit and Border Force. Can the Minister explain what that enforcement group did before and how it will be replicated? My guess is that it will be a question of oversight. If so, there may be an observation that the National Wildlife Crime Unit is very pressed. Some hon. Members will remember that, a few years ago, there were real questions about its future funding. In 2016, it was given a four-year funding settlement, which brings us to today. Anyone who has been involved with it knows what excellent work it does and how hard pressed it is to do it. That raises the question whether it will be able to take on extra responsibilities.
ClientEarth’s final question is about the removal of sanctions and seizures. DEFRA says in reply that that is already in the domestic enforcement legislation. Is it an exact equivalent or are there differences?
In general, can the Minister confirm how the UK will continue to collaborate internationally to prevent the unlawful import of wild species? Although she is likely to assert that the effect of the regulations will not be a weaker regime for the implementation and enforcement of CITES in the UK, can she provide any evidence of that? It is all very well to assert it, but what independent assessment has been done? I suspect that the answer is, “Truthfully, we don’t know. Only time will tell,” and that, as with all our other environmental protections, despite the bluster and spin, they will be weaker next month than they are today.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the shadow Minister for his comments and the raft of questions. He has obviously looked closely at what has happened in the other place and has put the measure under a great deal of scrutiny. I will set it in context quickly, then run through as many of the questions as I had time to note down, because they were coming thick and fast. If he feels that I do not cover something, I am happy to follow up afterwards, if that is acceptable.
To prepare for the end of the transition period, it is essential to have the right legislation in place to continue to protect our endangered species, in accordance with our international obligations, to ensure that trade does not threaten the survival of those species in the wild. The UK remains absolutely committed to supporting work on CITES. The hon. Gentleman was slightly derogatory about our global leadership, but we are recognised around the world for our scientific lead on this issue—that is genuinely true—and we will not lessen or weaken that in any way. Indeed, there might be opportunities to strengthen it, which I would be keen on.
As hon. Members know, I am a great supporter of our National Wildlife Crime Unit and, as a Back Bencher, I fought to get that money committed for it. I think the hon. Gentleman was involved in that as well, from the other side of the House: it was a joint initiative. I was interested to hear about the CITES hustings that he attended, which sound fascinating.
Daniel Zeichner
On the National Wildlife Crime Unit, is that funding secured for the future? I am not necessarily expecting the Minister to give an answer today, but it is an important point.
Rebecca Pow
It is an important point. I am really annoyed with myself, because I read about it last night and I cannot lay my hands on the actual details. May I write to the hon. Gentleman about that? Certainly, it is in there and it has been highlighted. I will give him chapter and verse in writing.
The instrument will achieve that protection by ensuring that relevant regulations can operate properly after the end of the transition period. It will make operability changes to retained EU law, ensure implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol with regard to CITES and consolidate amendments made by earlier instruments that have not yet come into force, to make regulation clearer and more accessible to all who use them. The important thing is that there will not be any changes to policy, other than those necessitated by the Northern Ireland protocol. That should give some assurances.
I will go through some of the comments. I hope I can give some more useful background. The hon. Gentleman referred to our scientific involvement. As we have left the EU, we will no longer participate in or be bound by the EU structures, including the EU scientific review group, under CITES regulations applicable to GB, but our scientific authorities, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee for fauna and the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, for flora—which is, of course, world-leading—will continue to provide advice on a range of CITES matters and to collaborate internationally with other CITES scientific authorities as appropriate. Our involvement in the convention to which I referred demonstrates that we will not be weakening in that respect.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that we might somehow weaken our combatting of the illegal wildlife trade. It is essential that we keep our eye on that. The draft SI will not weaken that. The UK is and will remain a world leader in the fight against the illegal wildlife trade. In 2018, the UK convened the largest ever global international wildlife trade conference, at which 65 countries signed up to the London declaration committing to take urgent and co-ordinated action against the illegal wildlife trade. That is not something we will suddenly drop. Through our internationally renowned IWT challenge fund, we have committed £26 million since 2014 to 85 projects around the world that directly counter the illegal wildlife trade, including projects to reduce demand, to strengthen enforcement, to ensure effective legal frameworks and to develop sustainable livelihoods.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Will the Minister explain exactly how the UK will continue that international collaboration to prevent the unlawful import of wildlife species?
Rebecca Pow
In the same ways as we have been doing it before, through our international connections. We have Lord Goldsmith in our Department, and he does a great deal of work on this agenda internationally—he is also the international environment Minister. We will keep all our links going.
The very fact that we are holding COP26—it is on climate change, environment and biodiversity, and we have nature and adaptation as part of that now—means that there are levers that link to this important issue. A lot of the illegal wildlife trade is linked to the devastation of our forests and the destruction of habitats. They are all closely interlinked, and that is something we intend to be leaders in, continuing our work.
At the United Nations General Assembly in September, the Prime Minister announced a scaling up of UK funding to tackle the illegal wildlife trade, as part of a £220 million international biodiversity fund. I hope that gives some reassurances that we are absolutely committed. It is something the Prime Minister is particularly interested in.
I want to be clear that several SIs were made in 2019 in order to make CITES operable in the UK. In view of further changes that we needed to make as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol, we considered that it would be preferable to put all the necessary changes into one piece of legislation, to make it more accessible, clearer for users and to increase transparency. Potentially, the draft regulations will help the whole issue of tackling the illegal wildlife trade.
I was asked about the impact on business. CITES checks are not particularly onerous. CITES requires 100% documentary checks, as opposed to physical checks on consignments—we do not expect our Border Force control to open the alligator cages. The documentary checks involve Border Force inspecting—I said that, but perhaps I should retract it—and endorsing and wet stamping relevant import and export permits and other documents. Physical checks take place only on a risk basis.
Costs for permits and certificates are set out in the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Fees) Regulations 2009. They would be incurred by traders wishing to obtain such documents. We have liaised regularly with Border Force colleagues on the need for those checks, and Border Force already carries out such checks on consignments from the rest of the world. It has increased its staff numbers to meet the additional requirements. DEFRA has been working closely with APHA, which has been involved in recruiting and training staff to deal with the project and the uplift in the volume of CITES movements and documentation anticipated. I think I have covered the scientific organisations.
The shadow Minister then touched on where the specimens or species would be imported through. CITES specimens must enter and exit Great Britain and Northern Ireland through points of entry and exit designed especially for that purpose. We are designating 29 UK sea and airports for use after the end of the transition period. There is a list of the ports on the Government website, gov.uk. In particular, I highlight that Belfast International airport and Belfast seaport will be among those designations at the end of the transition period.
I hope that covers the main points of the inquiries quite rightly raised by the shadow Minister, because it is important for us to get the legislation right. To close, as I have outlined, the draft instrument makes operability changes to EU-derived domestic regulations and retained direct EU legislation, and implements the Northern Ireland protocol with regard to CITES. It will ensure that appropriate protections for the trade in endangered specimens continue to be in place after the end of the transition.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Public Procurement (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I call the Minister to move the motion in what I believe is her debut Delegated Legislation Committee performance.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Public Procurement (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
It is an honour to make my first statutory instrument under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. It ensures that the UK meets the requirements of the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, and replaces earlier statutory instruments that did not reflect those circumstances.
The instrument is essential to ensure that there is legal clarity for public procurement at the end of the transition period, and certainty while wider procurement reforms are considered and introduced in domestic legislation. The majority of it is unchanged from the Public Procurement (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were debated in both Houses and made on 13 March 2019, and which addressed deficiencies in a no-deal scenario.
To provide legal clarity in public procurement, the instrument consolidates the 2019 regulations and incorporates changes in new provisions where relevant. As in the 2019 regulations, the amendments made by the instrument do not amount to a material change in procurement policy. They will ensure that the UK’s procurement system continues to function as intended at the end of the transition period and will grant certainty to UK contracting entities that they can continue to procure goods and services without substantial changes in the process. In that way, the Government are ensuring that those entities can continue to obtain value for money for UK taxpayers.
Principally, the instrument makes amendments to the three sets of regulations that implement EU directives on awarding contracts and concessions in the public and utilities sectors outside the field of defence and security. It seeks to provide a level of continuity for procurement procedures that began before the end of the transition period. Procurements that fall within that category, including orders from ongoing contracts such as framework agreements, will continue in substance to follow the unamended procurement regulations.
The instrument makes various amendments to the procurement regulations, to reflect recent amendments made to other domestic and retained direct EU legislation, for example in relation to the acceptable formats for advanced electronic signatures and the applicable rules for determining the origin of products. To enable the procurement regulations to reflect technological developments, and full and ongoing interoperability in electronic invoicing, a power has been conferred on the Minister for the Cabinet Office to make regulations to substitute a different e-invoicing standard or a different reference to the same standard, or to make changes to specific syntaxes for e-invoices.
The instruments disapplies, for the whole of the UK, the rights derived from article 18 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union and parallel provisions in other agreements. Retaining those rights would leave a lack of clarity as to whether EU parties were in the scope of article 18 of the TFEU and therefore had additional rights in the UK compared with non-EU countries—for example, suppliers from the EU may be provided with additional rights compared with third-country suppliers.
The UK has been invited to accede to the Agreement on Government Procurement in its own right. The instrument contains contingency arrangements in case we are unable to legislate for GPA accession due to a delay in the Trade Bill. It mitigates the risk of a short gap in GPA membership by facilitating continued market access.
I have picked out some of the key features of the draft statutory instrument, but it does a lot of technical work. The particularly full explanatory memorandum to the instrument contains a lot of detail on the technical matters that I very much do not wish to detain the Committee with.
Left unamended, the existing regulations would not work as intended and the EU exit regulations made last year in the context of a no-deal scenario would come into force. That would amount to a breach of our international obligations and would cause confusion and uncertainty among procurers and suppliers, which would hamper the public sector’s ability to obtain value for money from procurement. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
The Chair
Hon. Members will be pleased to know that the debate can last until 4 o’clock.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I will see what I can do, Mr Hollobone, to reflect the importance of the Minister’s debut—at least until about 3.55 pm.
As the Minister outlined, the regulations largely carry over the processes that we have had in place as EU members and put them in a new, UK-only framework. They are obviously necessary. They also lay the legal foundation for our individual membership of the Agreement on Government Procurement with the World Trade Organisation.
The Government recognise in the expansive explanatory memorandum to which the Minister referred that the regulations are a work in progress. As the memorandum highlights, it is “likely” that sections of the instrument that we are being asked to approve today will need to be “revoked and replaced” within the next few months—and not for the first time. Irrespective of the outcome of the negotiations on our future relationship, we have known for four years that we will be leaving the EU, and the withdrawal agreement was agreed more than 12 months ago. However, with less than two months before the end of the transition period, we are being presented with regulations that are not fully fit for purpose. Nevertheless, they are necessary regulations that sensibly provide for us to broadly continue the existing procedures, with which we agree. We clearly need a new framework and a smooth transition in the interests of fairness, effectiveness and transparency. Although we do not oppose this statutory instrument, we have some questions on points of detail.
In line with the approach of keeping things much as they are, these regulations contain certain steady state amendments, such as removing references to the Official Journal of the European Union, which is to be replaced by a new UK e-notification service. Public bodies will be required to submit notices to that service in place of the EU publications office, so will the Minister confirm that the new e-notification service will be up and running by the end of the transition period, as the Government have previously promised? Will she also outline what guidance and support has been prepared to assist those who will be required to use it?
The instrument transfers to the Minister for the Cabinet Office the European Commission’s function to revalue the main financial thresholds. It also replaces cross-references to thresholds in the relevant EU directive with sterling values contained within the regulations themselves, and it provides for the Commission’s biannual review of the thresholds to be undertaken by the Minister for the Cabinet Office. That is all quite straightforward, but we would like assurance from the Minister that none of those provisions will impact on existing rights. For example, regulation 7(4) revokes regulation 90 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, albeit allowing for a year before it does so.
In part 5 of the instrument, regulation 25 removes any prohibition on awarding contracts on the grounds of nationality, and regulation 26 removes the international obligations the UK entered into when it was part of the EU. Will the Minister explain the rationale for regulation 25 and, in the context of regulation 26, outline how the Government will ensure that standards are strengthened and not diminished?
Government procurement is clearly under the spotlight at the moment—the issue was raised at Prime Minister’s questions today—and so this is a good time to reflect on our procedures. In recent months, the Government have delayed publication of awarded contracts long after the required timescales. They have heavily redacted the details of those contracts, needlessly avoided competitive tendering, and used commercial sensitivity as an excuse not to provide basic information to reasonable questions, such as: what are the names of Serco’s 29 contact-tracing subcontractors? Even allowing for the challenges of the pandemic, that is simply not good enough. The Government must meet the minimum levels of transparency and the highest standards that we expect to underpin procurement rules.
We understand that the Government are planning to publish a Green Paper on procurement, which might mean that some of these regulations will work differently in future. Can the Minister provide any further information on how the regulations might be affected, and will she assure us that there will be meaningful consultation with the local representatives responsible for so much of the nation’s procurement? When we sought views on the regulations, the Local Government Association told us:
“Councils need a simple and efficient public procurement regime which ensures the best value for public money and respects local decision-making. Shorter timescales, lighter-touch advertising requirements and award procedures, a speedier way of dealing with legal challenges, greater negotiation with suppliers, and a new focus on SMEs and voluntary community and social enterprises (VCSEs) would also be of benefit.”
For too long, Ministers have hidden behind EU procurement laws as a reason not to do more, while other countries have used the same procurement framework to improve economic and social outcomes. We could, for example, apply the principles of the Welsh Government’s code of practice for ethical employment, which promotes decent jobs and the living wage, and protects against exploitative practices at work.
The Opposition’s ambition for procurement is not limited to price. We want more public bodies to be able to use procurement to strengthen employment standards, improve supply chains, tackle carbon emissions and support other policy objectives—using public money to give the broadest gain for the taxpayer, as part of joined-up government. In addition to answering my specific questions, I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us more about the Government’s plans to build on the regulations to achieve those broader objectives.
Julia Lopez
I appreciate the hon. Member’s scrutiny. It is very important that we build public confidence in everything that we are trying to do on procurement. Ultimately, this is a narrow piece of legislation. We need to ensure that the public procurement regulatory regime will function after the end of the transition period, and that we have continuity and legal certainty for procurers and suppliers. There are many moving parts to the negotiations, and this is a belt and braces approach to ensure that all the legal details are tied up in time for the end of the transition period.
We are doing such things as transferring powers from the EU to the Cabinet Office, which will obviously happen once we are no longer in the transition period. The hon. Member asked about our e-tender service. I have spoken to officials about it, and I am assured that the new system, moving away from the EU’s notification system, will be up and running by 11 o’clock on 31 December. He rightly touched on our wider ambitions for public procurement and the Green Paper, which is currently in draft form. Ministers are starting to look through it, ensuring that it fits with our own ambitions for the work that we want to do on this area, particularly on social value.
The hon. Member talked about the need to simplify procedures to ensure that local authorities and officials understand the rules. That means not only simplifying everything that we are doing and helping businesses to access exciting public procurement opportunities, but ensuring that we have training in place for officials, both in central Government agencies and in local authorities, to understand the new rules and articulate them to businesses so that the system functions as a whole.
The hon. Member talked about procurement during the pandemic. I want to ensure that we retain public confidence in everything that we do on contracts that have been let. We are working with the National Audit Office on those issues. I am sure that we will have further opportunities to debate them in the House, including during Cabinet Office oral questions tomorrow. Ultimately, this is a very narrow amendment that tries to ensure that we have covered all bases when it comes to leaving the transition period, and I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Organic Products (Production and Control) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Draft Genetically Modified Organisms (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind the Committee of the social distancing regulations. Spaces available to Members are clearly marked, and unmarked spaces must not be occupied. The usual convention of Government and Opposition sides is waived on this occasion, so Members may sit anywhere. Finally, Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members sent any speaking notes to the usual email address.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Organic Products (Production and Control) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the draft Genetically Modified Organisms (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Victoria Prentis
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.
I stress that the instruments before the Committee will make no changes to policy on either organic products or genetic modified organisms, which I will refer to as GMOs. The amendments are required primarily as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol and to ensure that existing legislation continues to operate as intended. As established in the protocol, European Union legislation will continue to apply to Northern Ireland after the end of this year. The existing EU exit legislation therefore needs very minor technical amendments to reflect the fact that retained EU law, whether on organics or GMOs, will be substantively applicable in Great Britain only. The changes do no more than is necessary to meet our legal obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol and will ensure that our legislation works smoothly.
The instrument on organic products will make minor amendments to our organics legislation, ensuring that it is operable at the end of this year by, for example, changing references from “UK” to “GB”. The instrument will also amend retained EU legislation to allow organic producers to continue to have a derogation to use 5% of non-organic protein feed for organic pork and poultry to the end of 2022. The EU has made the same decision to extend that derogation.
No new policy is introduced by the instrument, and our standards of organic production remain the same. The Government are strongly supportive of organic standards, many of which were developed in the UK. There is good news on organics: over the course of this year, purchasing of organics has risen by over 9%, probably as a result of people’s buying habits during the pandemic.
Under the protocol, EU law on organics will continue to have effect in Northern Ireland, so the retained EU law need apply only in GB. That means that the Northern Irish organics market will remain the same. We are working really closely with Northern Irish colleagues to prepare for the end of this year, including by setting up a Northern Ireland competent authority on organics. We remain committed to ensuring that trade between GB and NI will continue, and we will recognise the EU as having an equivalent organic regime to the UK until 2022, which should provide certainty on imports for the immediate future. We hope that the EU will reciprocate on that very shortly.
Failure to adopt the instrument would put 6,000 largely small UK organic operators at risk. The instrument relates to devolved matters and the devolved Administrations have consented.
The instrument on genetically modified organisms has the primary purpose of making technical amendments to existing EU exit legislation, which are required as a consequence of the Northern Ireland protocol. Again, there will be no changes to policy. Detailed EU legislation provides a robust framework for the approval of GMOs, in order to protect both the environment and human health. Our existing exit legislation is intended to maintain that regime at the end of the transition period.
The original statutory instrument was drafted on the basis that the arrangements would be needed throughout the UK. Now, of course, we do not need to apply them to Northern Ireland. The amendments we have made are to change references to the UK or institutions in the UK to references to GB or institutions in GB. We must also revoke amendments to Northern Irish legislation, which are no longer required because of the protocol.
In addition to the provisions already described, the instrument makes a further amendment to retained direct EU legislation relating to the traceability and labelling of GMOs. That additional amendment revokes the legislation-making power currently conferred on the Commission, as that will have no practical effect after the end of the transition period.
Failure to adopt the instrument would mean that the retained EU law would, by continuing to refer to the UK, not work smoothly in the GB space. It is also potentially confusing for Northern Ireland, as it would suggest that retained EU law applies there, when it will not.
GMO policy is devolved and will remain so. The devolved Administrations have been closely involved in the production of the instrument and gave consent. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd, and it is a pleasure to continue the conversation with the Minister. I note a sense of humour has been introduced to this place. Whoever thought we would link organic products with genetically modified organisms? If I brought those two groups together in my constituency, it would be a fiery exchange.
One of the benefits of the current process is that the discussions we have in this place are often mirrored in discussions elsewhere. This instrument was discussed at some length yesterday in the other place—longer than it will be here today, I suspect. The organic products SI also refers, of course, to a similarly named SI that was discussed back in March last year, in that extraordinary pre-no deal panic period. Many of the arguments are therefore very well rehearsed.
Looking back at that debate, it was quite fascinating. Some of the characters involved as Back Benchers now occupy very senior positions in the Department, including the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who I think managed to name check almost every organic producer in her constituency in her excellent speech on that occasion.
We can all be proud of the organic sector, with its 6,000 producers, at least. It is very important to customers and producers, and its potential was discussed at some length in debates on the Agriculture Bill. The European Union has recently made a major commitment to organics up to 2030, which could have significant consequences for our own producers.
While the SI is limited in policy terms, the threats—or challenges, depending on how we want to see it—are grave and should not be underestimated. Looking back at earlier debates, the same key themes keep emerging. Today’s SI deals with one extra complication, which is the Northern Ireland protocol.
I was very struck by two points in those previous debates. The first was the wise words of my predecessor, Dr David Drew, who drew attention to just how complicated some of the negotiations are, not just with the European Union. He mentioned the long time it had taken to get equivalence agreements with the United States, for instance. I gently suggest that there could be some work here for the Trade and Agriculture Commission to get its teeth into fairly early on, to make sure that we can make good progress on such things.
I was also struck by comments at a recent meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on dairy from Richard Hampton, chief executive of Omsco, which I think is the second largest organic co-op in the country, responsible for two thirds of our organic milk. He was very worried that our £280 million export market into Europe faces some jeopardy at the moment not only because the EU has yet to recognise our organic standard, but because shipments will require export health certificates and higher costs. That is a series of very pressing issues, which I hope the Minister will update us on.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
As chair of the dairy group, I appreciate the hon. Member’s membership. We had a very wide-ranging discussion around Operation Brock and some of the challenges in the dairy sector. Does he agree that expanding some of the very tight restraints within Operation Brock to incorporate organics, dairy and cheese would definitely be a help to much of the sector?
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful for the work that the hon. Gentleman does convening that group, which I have found fascinating on recent occasions when I have been able to join. I very much agree that there are important opportunities as well as challenges at the moment.
One issue that came up in yesterday’s debate in the other place, as well as in previous discussions, involves the IT systems that may or may not be in place. I wonder whether the Minister can help us on TRACES—the Trade Control and Expert System—which is used to monitor and track some of the organic produce coming in. In the debate in March last year, the now Secretary of State talked about a new IT system that would be ready in good time for our departure from the European Union. The then Minister, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), clarified that it was the TRACES New Technology import system that was being replaced
“with a manual system for an interim period for organics”.—[Official Report, 18 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 896.]
At the time, an autumn 2020 implementation was hoped for. I ask the Minister for an update on whether that has happened. It seems relevant, because new challenges are introduced by this SI on GB-NI movement. Yesterday, the Minister in the other place was able to say only that we
“continue to discuss access to the EU’s Trade Control and Expert System New Technology—TRACES NT—for imports into Northern Ireland”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 November 2020; Vol. 807, c. 992.]
That question is certainly worth pursuing.
I echo the question raised by Baroness Hayman of Ullock yesterday on the existing derogation for porcine and poultry feed into 2021 and 2022, which the Minister raised in her opening comments. Yesterday, the question was: what will happen after that period? How will that be resolved? Will it be rolled forward? Will there be a review? Will there be a consultation? I do not think that the answer yesterday was particularly clear.
My main contribution this afternoon will be to draw attention to a very important letter that was sent from a range of organisations in September to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The group included the organic control bodies, the National Farmers Union, the Soil Association, the Food and Drink Federation and many more. They raised a series of concerns about the issues touched on by today’s SI and more widely.
I will quote only the part that is relevant today. They said:
“We are writing to you as representatives of the UK organics sector with a deep concern about the future of trade in organic products between the UK and the EU…Unless equivalence is secured as part of the UK-EU negotiations, British organic food producers will not be legally allowed to sell their products in the EU or in Northern Ireland, due to its status as part of the EU’s regulatory regime.
Global sales of organic products are rapidly approaching £100 billion and the UK is the world’s 9th biggest organic market worth £2.6 billion in 2019. Consistently strong growth in global consumer demand represents a significant opportunity for UK producers.”
That is very much as the Minister laid out. They went on to say:
“The EU market alone has seen a doubling of per capita spending on organic food in the last decade with the new EU draft policy Farm to Fork highlighting the growth and opportunities across the organics market. With the right deal in place, there remains very strong growth potential for organic trade between the UK and EU after the transition period ends… UK Organic Control Bodies have applied for recognition under the EU Regulation (EC) 1235/2008. In the event of these applications being successful but without an equivalency agreement in place, then any product destined for the EU, or potentially destined for the EU, would need to comply with Regulation (EU) 2018/848 and its delegating and implementing acts. It is estimated that around 80 per cent of UK organic operators would need to be certified to both the UK regulation and the EU regulation.
From a certification perspective, the control bodies will face new lengthy processes, having to certify to two regulations (the UK organic regulation and the EU regulation), issue nonconformances relating to each and issue two separate certificates. This will lead to significantly more administration as there will need to be accreditation to both the EU regulation and UK regulation, adding cost and regulatory burden to UK business.
Unless equivalence is secured as part of the negotiations, it would bring significant practical and financial problems… Manufacturers in Northern Ireland are likely to lose access to some essential sources of organic ingredients or products produced in Great Britain in favour of products from EU member states which will be able to be imported without additional administration, or certification requirements.
When exporting not only would British producers have to create new packaging with any reference to ‘organic’ removed, potentially increasing food and packaging waste, they will also lose their premium status and will quickly become unviable in terms of recouping the cost of production.”
I could go on—there is plenty more—but that quotation shows that there is a real issue. I ask the Minister to explain what our organic producers are to do in the face of such chronic uncertainty.
Yesterday, the Minister in the Lords expressed “hope” that the EU will reciprocate our recognition. He confirmed that six UK control bodies have individually applied for recognition by the EU. But here we are, six weeks before the key date, and we have got ourselves into this extraordinary position. He also confirmed that these applications are independent of the Government’s negotiations and not covered by any potential deal—what a mess.
I turn briefly to the GMO statutory instrument. We appreciate that during the passage of the Agriculture Bill, there was a debate in the other place about technological developments in gene editing. We very much welcome the Government’s assurances that no change will be suggested without a full and proper review. These are complicated issues that merit wide and full public discussion and debate. However, for the purposes of this SI, the issue is only about ensuring that the legislation works within Great Britain; each Administration will continue to make their own decisions.
I again echo a question posed by Baroness Hayman yesterday:
“if the UK were to grant a GMO authorisation to a product that did not enjoy similar accreditation at the EU level,”
what would be the impact on movement within the UK—that is, between GB and NI?—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 November 2020; Vol. 807, c. 990.] She also asked whether the UK will maintain equivalence to the EU on GMOs, particularly in the context of the UK-US negotiations, and what potential impact that would have on our ability to export agricultural products to the EU.
I appreciate that these are major questions, and I wish the Minister well in attempting to answer them, but I do think they show the very difficult situation we are now in.
Victoria Prentis
I will attempt to answer some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions, but I must say that he has gone far wider than the scope of the SIs. As committed as we are to both the organic sector and to technological advances in agriculture, I do not think this is the proper forum for answering very broad, sectoral questions about our direction on either. Having said that, as he asked the questions, I will briefly touch on some of them.
We are working with stakeholders across the devolved Administrations to scope out the user needs for an electronic replacement for TRACES NT. From 1 January, while we develop the new import system, we will be using a manual system that mirrors the one recently replaced by the electronic TRACES NT system. We are continuing to communicate and issue guidance on the manual system to organic operators in the UK, and to those in third countries.
On the labelling issue, which is a wide question, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the vote on the control bodies recognition is likely to take place at the meeting at the end of November. We wish them well with that, but we also hope that trade between the EU and UK will continue in the long term. That is why, as I said earlier, we have decided to recognise the EU’s organic standards as equivalent until the end of 2021, while we make the long-term agreements with the EU, in order to allow producers in Great Britain the continued supply of organic products and ingredients that they currently enjoy.
The derogation about feed continues to the end of 2022, so we will let the hon. Gentleman know in due course what plans we have for the end of that period. I will not tie myself to anything at this point—we have many more pressing matters to decide on before then.
We intend to consult on GMOs, and we should start that consultation towards the end of this year. I anticipate that it will take 12 weeks and that it will be a very full review, and I look forward to engaging with the evidence that emerges.
If we make substantive changes to our policy on gene editing—there is some appetite in Government for doing that, as the Prime Minister himself has said—that would require legislative change. There would be a great deal of time to go over the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman in the course of passing that legislation.
I hope members of the Committee fully understand the need for the two sets of regulations, and the need to maintain operability and consistency of our legislation at the end of the transition period. The regulations help make the retained EU organic and GMO regimes operable, and ensure that the strict regulations that are currently in place will be maintained at the end of the transition period.
I therefore commend the two instruments to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS (AMENDMENT) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2020
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Genetically Modified Organisms (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.—(Victoria Prentis.)
Forensic Science Regulator and Biometrics Strategy Bill
Wednesday 11th November 2020
(4 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Forensic Science Regulator Bill 2019-21 View all Forensic Science Regulator Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 November 2020 - (11 Nov 2020)
The Chair
Welcome to this Public Bill Committee on the Forensic Science Regulator and Biometrics Strategy Bill. Before we begin scrutiny, I have a few preliminary announcements. You will all understand the need to respect social distancing guidelines; if necessary I will intervene to remind you. Note-passing should be electronic only—I see the Minster has his electronics all up and running. The Hansard reporters will be most grateful if hon. Members email them any electronic copies of their speaking notes.
As it is Remembrance Day, if our proceedings are still under way at 11 am we will observe the two-minute silence to remember those who lost their lives in conflict.
The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and online. This shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. In this case, I have grouped all the clauses and amendments together in one single debate. Formal decisions on clauses and amendments will be taken at the end, in the order they appear in the Bill, but there will be no further debate at that stage, by agreement of all parties. Now we move on to line-by-line consideration.
Clause 1
The Forensic Science Regulator
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 2 to 4 stand part.
Amendment 1, in clause 5, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
“(6A) A disclosure of information pursuant to a requirement under subsection (3) does not breach—
(a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person making the disclosure, or
(b) any other restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).
(6B) A person may not be required under subsection (3) to disclose information if to do so—
(a) would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether the disclosure would do so, the duty imposed by virtue of that subsection is to be taken into account), or
(b) would be prohibited by any of Parts 1 to 7 or Chapter 1 of Part 9 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.
(6C) In subsection (6B)(a) “the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3(9) of that Act).”
This amendment has the effect that a person who is required to provide information to the Forensic Science Regulator does not breach any restriction on disclosure in doing so, but may not be required to disclose information in breach of the data protection legislation or the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.
Clause 5 stand part.
Clauses 6 and 7 stand part.
Amendment 2, in clause 8, page 4, line 31, leave out paragraph (e).
This amendment removes the express power for the First-tier Tribunal to award costs on an appeal under clause 8(1) as the Tribunal’s power to do so is governed by existing legislation.
Amendment 3, in clause 8, page 4, line 31, at end insert—
“(3A) A person given notice under section 6(8) of the variation of a compliance notice may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against the decision to vary the compliance notice.
(3B) The grounds for an appeal under subsection (3A) are that—
(a) the decision was based on an error of fact;
(b) the decision was wrong in law;
(c) the decision was unreasonable;
(d) any step or prohibition specified in the compliance notice as a result of the variation is unreasonable.
(3C) On an appeal under subsection (3A) the First-tier Tribunal may—
(a) confirm the decision to vary the compliance notice, in whole or in part;
(b) quash that decision, in whole or in part;
(c) vary the compliance notice in a different way;
(d) remit to the Regulator the decision whether to vary the compliance notice.”
This amendment enables a person on whom a compliance notice is served by the Forensic Science Regulator to bring an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against a decision by the Regulator to vary the notice.
Amendment 4, in clause 8, page 4, line 41, leave out paragraph (d).
This amendment removes the express power for the First-tier Tribunal to award costs on an appeal under clause 8(4) as the Tribunal’s power to do so is governed by existing legislation.
Amendment 5, in clause 8, page 5, line 1, after “(1)” insert “, (3A)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 3.
Amendment 6, in clause 8, page 5, line 3, at end insert—
“(8) Where an appeal is or may be made to the Upper Tribunal in relation to a decision of the First-tier Tribunal under this section, the Upper Tribunal may suspend any requirement or prohibition specified in the compliance notice until the appeal is determined, withdrawn or abandoned.”
This amendment enables the Upper Tribunal to suspend a requirement or prohibition in a compliance notice where a person appeals against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal under clause 8.
Clause 8 stand part.
Amendment 7, in clause 9, page 5, line 7, after “advice” insert “or assistance”.
This amendment enables the Forensic Science Regulator to provide assistance relating to forensic science activities carried on in England and Wales to any person.
Clause 9 stand part.
Amendment 8, in clause 10, page 5, line 31, leave out from “functions” to end of line 33.
This amendment removes the ability of the Forensic Science Regulator to disclose information to another public authority merely because it is relevant to the other authority’s functions.
Clause 10 stand part.
Government amendment 9, in clause 11, page 6, line 29, at end insert—
“(4) Nothing in this Act affects the exercise by any person other than the Regulator of functions in relation to the regulation of forensic science activities.”
This amendment provides that the Bill does not affect the exercise by any person other than the Forensic Science Regulator of functions in relation to the regulation of forensic science activities.
Clause 11 stand part.
Clause 12 stand part.
Government amendment 10, in clause 13, page 7, line 22, leave out “and Biometrics Strategy”.
This amendment has the effect of modifying the short title of the Bill to reflect the fact that the Bill does not deal with biometrics strategies.
Clause 13 stand part.
That the schedule be the Schedule to the Bill.
Government amendment 11, in the title, line 2, leave out from “science;” to “and” in line 4.
This amendment modifies the long title of the Bill to reflect the fact that the Bill does not deal with biometrics strategies.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Eagle, and to be back debating this Bill just six weeks on from its Second Reading. Although it has felt like a pretty long month and a half—especially for those of us who have spent far too much time watching the CNN app—this is legislation a decade in the asking, so six weeks is dizzying progress. It is therefore hugely welcome that we are here, and there are a number of people whom I should thank before making substantive remarks.
First of all, I am hugely grateful to the outgoing Forensic Science Regulator, Dr Gillian Tully, who was rightly recognised with a CBE in the Queen’s Birthday Honours last month in appreciation of her work since being appointed in 2014, and over three decades in the Forensic Science Service before that. Dr Tully has been a constant advocate for the changes given force in this Bill, with her annual reports laying out in unanswerable detail the case for a regulator with the statutory powers to do its job. In her report, Dr Tully not only gives her views as the regulator, but brings to life the stories of many in the criminal justice system who have suffered wrongly from poor standards in forensic science in the past.
Although Dr Tully’s tenure will conclude before the office is able to wield those powers, it is in no small part testimony to her doggedness in making the argument that it will at least have statutory powers. Dr Tully has been enormously generous with her time as we have drafted this Bill, and previously during our inquiry on the Science and Technology Committee, and we are indebted to her. Two successive configurations of Science and Technology Committee, both in this House and in the other place, who have built an invaluable case for statutory powers for the regulator over many years.
More immediately, I would like to reiterate my thanks to the Government, in particular the Minister for Crime and Policing, for their support and willingness for this Bill to proceed, and for offering the amendments that we are debating today to fine-tune the Bill so that it is ready to become legislation. I thank also my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield Southgate and the Labour Front-Bench team for their continued support from the very beginning.
Last but by no means least, I thank all colleagues on the Committee today, and certainly those who helped to corral other colleagues to be here, for which I am very grateful. I am sure hon. Members will be agreeable to this being a short sitting, but I thank them for making the effort to be here.
The broad approval reflected across the debate today highlights the common-sense wisdom of the provisions being put forward. The Forensic Science Regulator has done indispensable work since its creation in 2008, but the market for forensic services in Britain is not working as it should, with shortfalls in capacity, skills and funding, a lack of real competition and an inconsistency in the application of required standards.
Victims of crime, as well as those accused of crimes, must be able to rely on a criminal justice system that can call on high-quality forensic science provided by experts able to demonstrate their competence, with agreed standards across providers. This perhaps small and technical change will make a real difference to people’s lives and their experience of the criminal justice system.
One amendment would change the title of the Bill to remove the suggestion of a biometrics strategy. That has of course been agreed with the Minister and the Government. It highlights the complex nature of biometrics regulation and indeed the scope that one can pursue in a private Member’s Bill. I understand that, as the Minister has suggested, there will be primary legislation on this subject before the House in due course.
In Britain and around the world, Governments need to do much more to regulate the ways in which biometric data is collected, stored and used. The technologies that enable these processes are evolving much more quickly than the oversight that is necessary to hold them accountable. Plugging that gap is crucial to serving the public and the national interest. In that context, although I am happy for the amendment to be made, I hope it does not come at the cost of too long a delay in legislation coming before the House.
In the round, the provisions build on broad, expert consensus, with cross-party support in Committees in this place and the other place, on giving the regulator statutory powers to compel compliance and enforce the outcomes of its investigations. It is a necessary first step in bringing about a better functioning market and raising standards for the long haul. It is a service not just to the criminal justice system, but to the victims of crime. I am sure of consensus across the House in bringing the measures forward, and I look forward to getting the Bill through Committee today and to its final stages.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure for me as well to serve under your chairship, Ms Eagle. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West on having progressed the Bill to Committee stage. I thank the Minister for his letter to me yesterday expressing the Government’s commitment to the Bill, taking the time to clarify their position on the issues raised on Second Reading, and explaining the amendments tabled by the Government.
The Opposition broadly support and welcome the Government amendments, which seek to strengthen the Bill by tackling the issue of the appeals process in clause 8, which goes hand in hand with the new regulatory powers granted to the regulator. We also support the tidying-up amendments to ensure that the clauses do not overlap with other measures that also clarify the scope of the new powers.
The Bill is long overdue. I am sure that all Members will agree that there is a need to put the regulator on a statutory footing to be able to ensure that the standards set by the regulator are met. If enforcement action were not available to the regulator, the standards could not be properly implemented, so we need provision for the regulator to enforce the standards. Forensic science has advanced so much in the last 40 years that it must surely be self-evident that where someone’s liberty is at stake and where the criminal standard is proved beyond reasonable doubt, we should expect high standards from those carrying out forensic science work, and those standards must be capable of being enforced. Voluntary compliance with standards will simply not do.
When we think about Rachel Nickell and Stephen Lawrence, for instance, and how we brought their cases to justice, and how the Birmingham Six were successful in their appeal following new forensic evidence, it is clear why what the Bill sets out to achieve is so important. The integrity of our criminal justice system is at stake; we must not get this wrong. Select Committees in the Commons and the other place have highlighted the pressing need to put the regulator on a statutory footing, and the Government have repeatedly said that they will do so, so I am pleased that they are finally taking steps to make sure that that happens.
In my experience of speaking to forensic scientists in the lead-up to this debate, it is clear that for many of them it is a vocation. In the traditional areas of forensic science there is wide compliance with standards, but that is not the case in other areas such as the newly emerging field of digital forensics, where the level of compliance with ISO standards is less than 30%. Because there is more reliance on digital evidence in criminal justice now, the level of non-compliance to a voluntary standard in that field is very worrying indeed. That is why the measures in the Bill are so important. The outgoing Forensic Science Regulator, Dr Gillian Tully, stated that she can get average compliance across all forensics up to 75% under the current system, but that the final 25% can be achieved only with enforcement powers. That is what the Bill sets out to achieve.
Clauses 2 to 4 establish the code of practice and set out a statutory footing for forensic science standards to be followed. Clauses 5 to 7 give the regulator enforcement powers to ensure that the code is complied with. The powers of investigation include the power to require production of documents and the provision of other information, with the sanction of legal measures in the High Court as an ultimate last resort for failure to comply. The Bill is exactly in line with the Government’s own forensic science strategy of 2016, which recommended giving the regulator statutory powers to identify and sanction forensic service providers who failed to maintain standards. It is long overdue. While I wish it was going further, I accept that the Bill is a welcome starting point.
I want to put on the record my thanks to Dr Gillian Tully for her years of service in the post, her dedication and commitment and the respect which she has commanded, and for leaving the post of regulator in good shape. I thank the Minister for indicating support from the Government and I look forward to the Bill passing on to its next stage-.
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
It is a pleasure to be here, Ms Eagle. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol North West on getting the Bill to this stage and on his constructive attitude throughout our discussions and discussions with officials about the amendments. I thank other hon. Members for attending today, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West, who previously made a brave attempt at a similar measure, which was sadly foiled by the parliamentary timetable. Nevertheless, here he is to join in the triumph of the hon. Member for Bristol North West.
I do not intend to rehearse the extensive arguments that were made on Second Reading on the Floor of the House. It was a very long debate with a surprising level of interest from Members across the House on a Friday; it was nevertheless helpful and included many tributes to Dr Tully, which I associate myself with again this morning. She has done a great job and her influence here in the Bill is strong. We wish her well for the future.
The Bill is a key part of our plan to ensure that police, prosecution and defence in criminal proceedings are adequately, sustainably and proportionately served by high-quality scientific analysis of the relevant evidence. The Bill will provide the Forensic Science Regulator with statutory powers, which will enable it to issue compliance notices against forensic providers who are failing to meet the required quality standards, and will protect the criminal justice system. Scientifically robust evidence is one of policing’s most important tools for investigating crime. These powers, to be used as a last resort, are necessary and will support the effective delivery of justice and help restore confidence in the criminal justice system.
By your leave, Ms Eagle, I will take the Committee through our amendments, not least because I am conscious we have an audience at home to whom we have a duty to outline what we are doing as we change the law of the land. I do not propose to go through the various clauses, which have been outlined. It is a relatively simple Bill, establishing a relatively simple principle, but there are some amendments to fine-tune the legislation.
Amendment 1 provides that any person who is required to provide information to the Forensic Science Regulator as part of the regulator’s investigations does not breach any obligation of confidence or any other restriction on the disclosure of data, howsoever imposed. Any person who is required to provide information to the regulator may not be required to disclose information in breach of data protection legislation or the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.
Amendment 2 removes the express power for the first tier tribunal to award costs on an appeal against a refusal to issue a completion certificate, as the tribunal’s power to do so is governed by existing legislation.
Amendment 3 enables the recipients of a compliance notice served by the Forensic Science Regulator to bring an appeal to the first tier tribunal against the decision of the regulator. The amendment also sets out the grounds under which a person may bring such an appeal and the remedies that the first tier tribunal may grant. Grounds for an appeal of a compliance notice are that the decision was based on error of fact, the decision was wrong in law, the decision was unreasonable or that any step or prohibition specified in the notice is unreasonable.
Amendments 4 and 5 remove the express power for the first tier tribunal to award costs on an appeal against the refusal to issue a completion certificate, as the tribunal’s power to do so is already governed by existing legislation. It also makes an amendment consequential to amendment 3. Amendment 6 enables the upper tribunal to suspend a compliance notice pending the conclusion of an appeal for the first tier tribunal to the upper tribunal. Amendment 7 enables the regulator to provide assistance relating to forensic science activities carried on in England and Wales to any person, and not just advice, as currently worded. We hope that amendment will remove ambiguity.
Amendment 8 removes the ability of the forensic science regulator to disclose information to another public authority merely because it is relevant to the other authority’s functions. That means that the regulator is empowered to disclose information only where doing so is necessary to enable or assist the other public authority to carry out its functions. This amendment ensures consistency with data protection legislation.
Amendment 9 amends clause 1 so that the Bill does not affect the exercise by any persons other than the regulator of functions in relation to the regulation of forensic science activities. This is to ensure that the duties and powers of other bodies or regulators who oversee scientific activities, such as in the area of forensic pathology, are not affected by any of the provisions of the Bill.
Amendments 10 and 11 modify the short title and long title of the Bill. to reflect the fact that there are no clauses related to biometrics or a biometric strategy within. This is because the Government could not support the biometrics elements that were initially proposed.
The hon. Member for Bristol North West made a good point about the future of police technology. As I think I outlined on Second Reading, the Government have a manifesto commitment to create a framework within which law enforcement can operate as it adopts new and evolving technology in this area, particularly in relation to technologies that could be deemed to be biometrics, data or forensics, for which we have a variety of regulatory regimes at the moment, and about which we need clarity.
In particular, technology that could be deemed by the public to be intrusive needs to have democratic consent. One of the issues that is raised, for example in clause 3, is that the code of practice that the Forensic Science Regulator will put in place has to come to the House and be laid before the House to get expressed consent by affirmative action, and indeed must be approved by the Secretary of State. We are very keen that people know that, where such technologies are used and are developing fast, we as democratically elected politicians have a say and have influence on an ongoing basis. Some of the legislation is about allowing forensics to have the agility to adopt new technology, but I hope and believe that we will be able to bring those measures forward, certainly before the next election, because it is in our manifesto. I hope that we can do so as soon as possible, because technology is racing away from us.
Scientifically robust evidence is one of policing’s most important tools in investigating crime. These powers to be used as a last resort are necessary, and they will support the effective delivery of justice and help to restore confidence in the criminal justice system.
On that note, I urge the Committee to accept amendments 1 to 11 and to agree that clauses 1 to 13 stand part of the Bill.
Darren Jones
I have nothing further to add, Ms Eagle.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
We now come to formal decisions on the remaining clauses and amendments, which have already been debated. I will still need the Minister to move the amendments formally when we get to them. With the leave of the Committee, I intend to put single questions on consecutive clauses and amendments where possible.
Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Investigations by the Regulator
Amendment made: 1, in clause 5, page 3, line 10, at end insert—
‘(6A) A disclosure of information pursuant to a requirement under subsection (3) does not breach—
(a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person making the disclosure, or
(b) any other restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).
(6B) A person may not be required under subsection (3) to disclose information if to do so—
(a) would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether the disclosure would do so, the duty imposed by virtue of that subsection is to be taken into account), or
(b) would be prohibited by any of Parts 1 to 7 or Chapter 1 of Part 9 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.
(6C) In subsection (6B)(a) “the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3(9) of that Act).”
This amendment has the effect that a person who is required to provide information to the Forensic Science Regulator does not breach any restriction on disclosure in doing so, but may not be required to disclose information in breach of the data protection legislation or the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.—(Kit Malthouse.)
Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Appeals
Amendments made: 2, in clause 8, page 4, line 31, leave out paragraph (e)
This amendment removes the express power for the First-tier Tribunal to award costs on an appeal under clause 8(1) as the Tribunal’s power to do so is governed by existing legislation.
Amendment 3, in clause 8, page 4, line 31, at end insert—
‘(3A) A person given notice under section 6(8) of the variation of a compliance notice may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against the decision to vary the compliance notice.
(3B) The grounds for an appeal under subsection (3A) are that—
(a) the decision was based on an error of fact;
(b) the decision was wrong in law;
(c) the decision was unreasonable;
(d) any step or prohibition specified in the compliance notice as a result of the variation is unreasonable.
(3C) On an appeal under subsection (3A) the First-tier Tribunal may—
(a) confirm the decision to vary the compliance notice, in whole or in part;
(b) quash that decision, in whole or in part;
(c) vary the compliance notice in a different way;
(d) remit to the Regulator the decision whether to vary the compliance notice.”
This amendment enables a person on whom a compliance notice is served by the Forensic Science Regulator to bring an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against a decision by the Regulator to vary the notice.
Amendment 4, in clause 8, page 4, line 41, leave out paragraph (d)
This amendment removes the express power for the First-tier Tribunal to award costs on an appeal under clause 8(4) as the Tribunal’s power to do so is governed by existing legislation.
Amendment 5, in clause 8, page 5, line 1, after “(1)” insert “, (3A)”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 3.
Amendment 6, in clause 8, page 5, line 3, at end insert—
‘(8) Where an appeal is or may be made to the Upper Tribunal in relation to a decision of the First-tier Tribunal under this section, the Upper Tribunal may suspend any requirement or prohibition specified in the compliance notice until the appeal is determined, withdrawn or abandoned.”—(Kit Malthouse.)
This amendment enables the Upper Tribunal to suspend a requirement or prohibition in a compliance notice where a person appeals against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal under clause 8.
Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Other functions of the Regulator
Amendment made: 7, in clause 9, page 5, line 7, after “advice” insert “or assistance”.—(Kit Malthouse.)
This amendment enables the Forensic Science Regulator to provide assistance relating to forensic science activities carried on in England and Wales to any person.
Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Disclosure by the Regulator
Amendment made: 8, in clause 10, page 5, line 31, leave out from “functions” to end of line 33.—(Kit Malthouse.)
This amendment removes the ability of the Forensic Science Regulator to disclose information to another public authority merely because it is relevant to the other authority’s functions.
Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Meaning of “forensic science activity”
Amendment made: 9, in clause 11, page 6, line 29, at end insert—
“(4) Nothing in this Act affects the exercise by any person other than the Regulator of functions in relation to the regulation of forensic science activities.”—(Kit Malthouse.)
This amendment provides that the Bill does not affect the exercise by any person other than the Forensic Science Regulator of functions in relation to the regulation of forensic science activities.
Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Extent, commencement and short title
Amendment made: 10, in clause 13, page 7, line 22, leave out “and Biometrics Strategy”.—(Kit Malthouse.)
This amendment has the effect of modifying the short title of the Bill to reflect the fact that the Bill does not deal with biometrics strategies.
Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule agreed to.
Title
Amendment made: 11, in title, line 2, leave out from “science;” to “and” in line 4.—(Kit Malthouse.)
This amendment modifies the long title of the Bill to reflect the fact that the Bill does not deal with biometrics strategies.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
North of England: Economic Support
(4 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
I am sure that hon. Members are familiar with the new rules regarding Westminster Hall debates, so please respect social distancing and clean your microphones before and after you use them. Only Members on the call list may be here. This is an over-subscribed debate, so will those due to speak in the latter stages please use the seats at the back?
Bear in mind that, if you are sitting at a microphone and you have spoken, you can move. You are not required to stay for the winding-up speeches, so you can leave if you wish; you do not have to come back for the winding-up speeches, but if there is space, you are welcome to do so.
The House will observe a two-minute silence at 11 am in remembrance of those killed in conflict. The beginning and end of the silence will be marked by the Division bells. I will suspend the sitting before 11 am so that Members can leave the Chamber to observe the silence.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for the economy in the north of England.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I declare an interest as a metro Mayor.
Today’s debate takes place amid an unprecedented economic crisis affecting the whole country, but covid has only reinforced an argument that was already undeniable. We need to level up the north—not by tinkering at the margins, but through a full-scale transformation; not just for the sake of the north, but for the sake of the whole country. The question is, of course, whether the Government will make it happen.
Covid has hit the north hard. We have a disproportionate number of cases and hospitalisations, and the pandemic has affected deprived areas more—and the north still has far too many deprived areas. Our economy has been equally exposed. In South Yorkshire, the level of people claiming unemployment-related benefits is now higher than at any time since the mid-1990s, when we were in the aftermath of the pit closures. We risk undoing a quarter of a century of painful progress. The brutal reality is that the north is now on course for levelling down, not levelling up.
Meanwhile, the issues that made the case for levelling up in the first place have not gone away. The UK has the worst regional inequality of any comparable nation. We have unacceptably unequal education and health outcomes. Many northern council areas are among the most left behind in the UK. In the five years following the launch of the northern powerhouse, the number of our children living in poverty went up by one third, to 800,000.
Policy choices have made, or threaten to make, the situation worse. Planned cuts to universal credit could leave one in three working-age households in the north £1,000 a year worse off. Under austerity, public spending fell by £3.6 billion in the north, even as it rose by £4.7 billion in the south-east and the south-west.
Therefore the need for levelling up is clear, but there is a flipside to all this—the great potential and the strengths that make the positive argument for levelling up. We are still the heartland of British industry. South Yorkshire, for example, has amazing companies such as ITM Power, helping to build a hydrogen-fuelled clean energy revolution, and Magtec, developing contactless magnetic gears for wind turbines. Those enterprises reflect the north’s storied history of manufacturing prowess, but we also have huge strengths in culture, sport and tourism; incredible natural beauty; and world-class universities with fantastic strengths in research and skills. Together, we really can create a better economy, not just for our regions but for the whole UK, and help to drive the transformations that we all badly want to see. It is estimated that if we do rebalance national investment, that could add £97 billion to our economy by 2050.
However, we have not just shown our potential; we have also shown that we can use it. We can do our bit if we are given the tools; as the only MP with the somewhat unusual privilege of also being a metro Mayor, I know that at first hand. Since I became the Mayor in 2018, we have created or protected 15,000 jobs in South Yorkshire; our pioneering Working Win programme has helped 6,000 people with health conditions who want to get back to work; we have leveraged £319 million of investment and awarded more than £100 million for regeneration and redevelopment; and we have just committed £5.5 million of our own funds to kickstart nine flood prevention projects. We are putting our skin in the game and laying down a challenge for the Government to do their part, rather than waiting for them to take the initiative. I can safely say that we stand ready to be levelled up, and I know that my counterparts across both sides of the political divide in the north would say the same.
We are not coming to this debate today with a begging bowl: we have the need and the potential, and we have shown that we are ready. The north, perhaps more than anywhere, is where we will do the job of building a better Britain for all of us. What we are asking for is the tools to get on with that job, but we have not received them yet.
We have been quite successful recently in attracting funds into South Yorkshire, but none of that money, apart from the £30 million of gainshare that we are getting following our devolution deal, represents new resources specifically targeted at South Yorkshire, the north or even disadvantaged areas more widely. These are existing funds that have come under our control, such as the adult education budget; or a share of national funds that we have been allocated or successfully bid for on the same basis as any other region, such as the Transforming Cities fund. Do not get me wrong—it is hugely important that that money is being spent under local control and we are grateful for it, but this is not levelling up.
There is a similar picture across the north. There are a few exceptions. The towns fund is perhaps the most obvious, but it leaves out hundreds of very deprived towns in favour of some wealthier areas, and it is only a one-off £3.6 billion fund spread across the whole country. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm today how much new money the Government have put into levelling up since they took office, because the overall picture is one of tinkering and not transforming.
An indication of what we need is the UK2070 Commission’s recommendation: to triple the new UK shared prosperity fund to £15 billion a year for 20 years, which would be a total of £200 billion of new funding. That is for all deprived areas, but it shows the scale that we should be talking about. The moment to do that was at the comprehensive spending review, but in the current crisis is understandable that the Government are carrying out a more modest one-year review instead. However, that must not become an excuse to delay the transformative investment we need if levelling up is really to mean something.
Already, over two thirds of northerners believe that the Government will not follow through on levelling up; that is a concern that the 55 Conservative MPs who wrote to the Prime Minister last month—we will hear from one of them in a moment—seem to share. We all have an interest in proving those fears wrong, and here is where I think we need to start.
In the short term, we need better covid emergency support, including adequate funding for hard-pressed local authorities, but the key issue is that the reduced spending review should retain real ambition. First, it must extend the local growth fund, which expires in March. The LGF has been absolutely critical in generating jobs, investment and regeneration, and it would be great to hear a commitment to extend it from the Minister today. However, LGF renewal is only enough for us to stand still. For transformation, we need something much more like a new deal for the north.
In my patch, we think that that would look like our renewal action plan, which calls for funding and powers to expand kickstart and apprenticeship schemes, begin a massive investment in infrastructure and decarbonisation, increase active travel and plant millions of trees. Will the Minister confirm today what plans the Government have for investment at this transformational scale across the north?
Transport will be especially key. Northern Powerhouse Rail is often presented as the infrastructure that will be at the heart of levelling up, but there are growing fears that critical parts of it could be delayed, along with the north-east leg of High Speed 2. It is hard to overstate how damaging that would be for the levelling-up agenda.
Lastly, the Government should make some critical structural changes, especially reforming the Green Book to reduce the in-built bias towards more affluent areas in Government investment decisions and following through on proposals to move significant parts of the civil service. Perhaps the Minister could update us on that today. Of course, beyond the spending review, the new shared prosperity fund must also embed the same ambitions. Like the European Union funds that it replaces, it must be based heavily on need. It should be as devolved as practically possible. All this is not just about making the northern economy bigger; it is about making it better—more high-tech and more high value, more sustainable and more equitable.
My ambition for the north is for it to be stronger, greener and fairer. That should be our aim for the whole United Kingdom. Covid is not an obstacle to that, but an opportunity: there is a near-consensus on the need for spending to protect our economy. The question is whether that spending will serve a greater purpose. Crucially, the issue is about not just money but power—to be legitimate and effective, levelling up must be done with and by us, not to us. We need much more flexibility over how we spend the funds allocated to us, but we also need a more fundamental doubling down on devolution.
We have done a lot in South Yorkshire, but we have done it with modest powers and resources. We are still the most centralised large developed country in the world. That must change, not just to unleash our potential but to help address the disillusionment and division that is growing across our country and that threatens to break it up. The polls showing a majority of Scots expressing support for leaving the Union are only the most alarming symptom of a wider crisis of faith also visible in the north. For all our sakes, we must make levelling up part of a more ambitious vision for reform—one that lets people feel that they are taking back control and that they have a country, a United Kingdom, that they can believe in.
We are now at a moment of crisis, but also a moment of opportunity. There is an overwhelming case for us to rise to this moment with ambition—not just to give the north the means and the powers to rejuvenate our economy and our society, but to do so as part of a wider vision for a more prosperous, more equitable, more democratic United Kingdom. In the process, perhaps we can make this a transformative moment not just for the north but for the whole country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Order. To allow everybody on the call list to speak, I am going to have to impose a three-minute limit on speeches.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
What a pleasure it is to follow the thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). He does a fantastic job as the Mayor of South Yorkshire. We have a bit of history of working together to make sure that the area had the powers he mentioned. I am sure that he would want me to say that when he talks about South Yorkshire, and Mayors more widely, having a deal and investing money, that is a partnership of significant Government money and money that he will have raised locally. Of course, there was no devolution in England except in London until a Conservative Government were elected in 2010 with the sole desire of delivering a northern powerhouse of which devolution is such an important part.
I do not intend to talk about the challenges facing the northern economy because they have been well set out by the hon. Gentleman, but I do want to talk about two things briefly. The first is the hit that northern culture has taken from the covid crisis. Opera and ballet will be at the heart of the culture of many people who live in London and the south of England, but for many of us in the north it is our local football club—our Glyndebourne, Royal Ballet, Royal Opera House or Royal Shakespeare Company will be Blackburn Rovers, Accrington Stanley, Barrow, Carlisle or Sunderland.
There is an argument going on between the EFL and the Premier League at the moment, and the time has come for the Government to intervene to seek to unblock it and save local football clubs across the north of England, many of which are the cornerstone of our communities and at the heart of our culture. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that during the debate.
A bright point for the north is that many of us in this room have the privilege of representing constituencies that have a significant manufacturing base. It was our constituents who, during the covid crisis, put their shoulders to the wheel—there was no furlough for them. They went into factories to do shift work. People at Bark Engineering in Bacup made ventilators; people at Perspex in Darwen made the screens that we see all over the country in retail and office space.
It is our constituents who have worked so hard for the economy, doing hard jobs to make sure that we can trade through covid. We can see that from the September purchasing managers index stats, which showed that the north of England—every part of the north—was growing faster than London. That is a testament to the strength of our manufacturing base and the huge amount of work that our constituents have done.
We formed the northern research group to pay tribute to our constituents and look at important issues such as the Green Book, which we are going to dissect in very short order. We will also press the Minister and the Government on this issue. We need a northern economic recovery plan and recovery fund so that we can ensure, as a praetorian guard for the Prime Minister, that we are levelling up our communities across the north.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for securing this important debate.
Last year, the Prime Minister fought and won an election on the promise of uniting our country and levelling up left-behind towns such as Birkenhead. As is often the case with this failing Government, the reality falls short of the rhetoric. When areas of northern England were placed under tier 3 local restrictions in October, the Chancellor imposed a cut-price furlough payment of just 67% on the thousands of people who were unable to work; only when the Tory heartlands entered lockdown did he agree to step up furlough to 80%. The message was clear in the eyes of the Government: workers in the north were simply worth less than those in the south. They remain left behind.
The UK remains one of the most regionally unbalanced economies in the developed world. It has nothing to do with accents or geography. There was a conscious policy over 10 years of Conservative Governments to channel wealth to the south-east and sit back while the traditional centres of industry and employment in the north became ghost towns at worst and tourist attractions at best.
Rotherham, once famous for its steel, is starved of hope as the mills close and the jobs disappear. St Helens, which used to be famous for making glass, now has a glass museum with too few visitors. My constituency of Birkenhead is at the sharp end of regional disparity. I represent two of the most deprived council wards in England. Unemployment is above the national average and my constituency can expect far worse outcomes in terms of job opportunities, income and even life expectancy than the people elsewhere in the country. Things do not need to be that way.
This week, the Labour party outlined our plans for the green economic recovery, which offers real hope to towns in the north of England. The proposals call for £30 billion in capital investment to create 400,000 high skilled, low-carbon jobs in just 18 months to provide vital support for UK manufacturing. The Trades Union Congress has estimated that £85 billion in capital spending on rail, social housing and green investment could create 1.2 million jobs in the next two years alone. The Chancellor should take note. To lead us out of the worst recession in living memory, the Government need to exploit historically low lending rates and invest in the high skill green jobs of the future.
Despite the Chancellor’s promise of a green jobs revolution, the UK has committed only £5 billion to green stimulus projects since the pandemic began. In contrast, France has committed to spending €27 billion and Germany more than €36 billion, with countries as diverse as Italy, South Korea and Colombia putting sustainable developments at the heart of their recovery. The UK risks falling far behind.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I commend the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for securing this debate. It is great to see the Minister in her place as well. This debate is important as we need to recognise that the pandemic is not only a health crisis, but an economic one. Nowhere has that been felt more than in the north. My constituency, like that of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), is also in the Liverpool city region and has felt the disruption of going into lockdown, then out of lockdown, then having additional restrictions—tier 3 with gyms, tier 3 without gyms—and now lockdown again. We need to get out of this lockdown and we need a tiering system that takes us out of it, but we need to know what the plan is.
There is no doubt that businesses in my constituency, and many others in the north, have suffered as a result of this disruption and uncertainty. They need our support now more than ever. That said, I wholeheartedly commend this Government for their world-beating furlough package, business grants and loans, reduced VAT, business rates relief and, of course, eat out to help out. That has been particularly important in my constituency, where one third of our businesses are in tourism and hospitality. That sector has probably had the most disruption, and the owners of these businesses just want to be able to trade again.
In Southport we have submitted a town deal. As with many other towns, particularly in the north, it is vital that we deliver on the £50 million proposed in that package to unleash £400 million for my constituency alone. Delivering on this would help other areas in the north, stimulating our economy and growing our businesses. That is only part of what is needed if all our constituencies are to prosper, because some do not have town deals. We need infrastructure projects to connect us better, to increase footfall and to increase business across our whole region. Better connected, we can work better together for a more prosperous future.
We want the north to be given support that truly levels up, which is why I wholeheartedly back my right hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) in his call for a northern economic recovery plan. We cannot just hope our way out of this crisis and towards a better economic future; we have to plan for that, and we want to be part of that plan.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I join all those who have thanked my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), and not just for securing the debate, but for the leadership he has shown on this agenda. We are all grateful to him for that.
Halifax was punching well above its weight as a northern Pennine town prior to the virus. We have aspiration by the bucketload in my home town. This is certainly a timely debate because, like other parts of the region represented here today, we were still recovering from the second devastating floods of the past five years when we had to immediately turn our attention to fighting the virus.
For some of us in this room, it seems like only yesterday we were here in Westminster Hall advocating on behalf of small and medium-sized enterprises in our constituencies. As I explained in that debate, Halifax has been in the equivalent to tier 2 restrictions since July—alongside our neighbours Batley and Spen and Bradford South, if I am not mistaken. We entered restrictions over 3 months ago, and we were about to enter tier 3 when the second national lockdown overtook us. I share that to make the point that although we have a great deal to offer, we have also faced a perfect storm of challenges, and we look to the Government to recognise that when considering devolution deals, economic support packages and their commitment to local authorities.
Turning to Calderdale Council, any levelling up in the north must start with properly funded services. The cost to the council of the pandemic and related lost income from closed facilities is expected to total around £37.2 million by year end. That has been partly offset by £22.2 million of additional Government funding, but that still leaves a potential deficit of £15 million for the council to deal with. Some of the losses associated with council tax and business rates can be carried forward, but we know that the cost will continue to rise as long as local and national restrictions are in effect.
Alongside investing in local authorities, sorting out rail in the north will be one of the best ways to connect, to stimulate our economies and to drive regeneration, and I have no doubt that others will say the same. We need it all: HS2, Northern Powerhouse Rail and the long overdue electrification of the Calder Valley line, which goes beyond these stations and connects Leeds and Manchester, two of the biggest cities in the north. In 2015, the north of England electrification taskforce recommended the full Calder Valley line as the top priority for economic and operational benefits, but we are still waiting for that to become a reality. I hope the Minister will pledge to work with colleagues to make that a focus of the Government’s levelling-up agenda.
Those of us in this room would argue that we are the north’s greatest advocates, but there is no greater advocate for levelling up the north than God’s own newspaper, The Yorkshire Post. It does not hold back on holding the Government to account, which comes from its unwavering commitment to doing the right thing by its readers. It does need a little help, however, and I hope the Minister will reflect on that.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, and I thank the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for securing the debate.
Walking around communities like ours, it is clear that businesses are struggling and are worried about the future where once, really not that long ago, they felt optimism. Furness’s economy has thrived in the past, almost in spite of its infrastructure—our roads are terrible; our rail network, although improving, is a branch line and not fast with it. People live in Furness for the amazing community, and businesses stay there because of its deep pool of skills and knowledge—from advanced manufacturing to life sciences and green energy—but it is not hard to think that we are running with our shoelaces tied together. We are achieving not because of our environment, but in spite of it; we are achieving because of those people.
In some areas we are not achieving. There are wide and deep economic and health disparities between wards that neighbour each other. We have excellent teachers, doctors, nurses and public servants, but our geography—it takes two hours to get from Barrow to Carlisle—means that those same public services are stretched, and covid has only made those challenges worse.
This Government were elected to level up, and there has never been a more pressing time to do it. Let us be clear that we are not asking for handouts; we are asking to be put on a level footing, and to be given the chance to stand on our own two feet. If we want to tackle some of those economic and health disparities in our communities, we need to trust those communities. We need to use covid as an opportunity to open up and empower civil society to step in, to start focusing on families now and not when they hit crisis points. We need to focus on prevention and not cure.
Some villages in my constituency do not have broadband of any type. They often cannot get phone signal, so let us level them up. Let us redouble efforts to get the infrastructure they need. Let us focus on the areas where we can meaningfully grow skills and recover. Cumbria is ideally placed to be the beating heart of a green industrial revolution. Let us think what an industrial strategy looks like and build on a base of offshore wind, nuclear and gas—and build towards hydrogen and tidal energy too. We have the skills, so enable us to do it. A northern economic recovery plan is what we need from the Government, for communities and constituencies across the north, so that we can build our way out of this pandemic.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank and pay tribute to my friend and neighbour, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), for securing this important debate. He has rightly made the case for better economic support for areas, such as ours, that have been hit hard by the covid-19 pandemic. Back in April, it was the former industrial towns that were predicted to be the most economically at risk. Indeed, Worsbrough in my constituency was given the unenviable title of tenth most at risk town in the country. The number of people claiming unemployment benefits in Barnsley East has doubled over the last six months and we need urgent help to get through the winter.
I will focus my remarks today on three simple asks. First, can the Minister outline the Government’s exit plan for the national lockdown? Last minute announcements by social media and the press have left too many businesses in limbo and unable to plan beyond the next week. We need clarity now more than ever. Secondly, will the Government us the national lockdown to fix the broken track and trace system and give control to local authorities? Test and trace should be run by people who know their areas best. The biggest threat to economies in the north is the spread of the virus and we need to get control of it now. Lastly, will the Government close the gaps in the economic support package and provide clarity on what support local areas should expect if they have to stay in lockdown for longer? Too many Barnsley businesses have gone to the wall and too many workers have been made redundant while the Chancellor has changed his plans from one week to the next.
Barnsley, like many areas across the north, was under strict tier 3 restrictions when the national lockdown was announced. During the negotiations, the Government said that workers in the north would receive only 67% of their pre-crisis income—80% was apparently impossible. Now, however, when restrictions are put in place in the south, the Government have again changed their mind. Clearly, there is one rule for the north and another for the leafy Tory shires. Last week, alongside fellow Labour MPs, Yorkshire Mayors and council leaders, I signed a letter to the Chancellor. We said:
“People in the north are not worth 13% less than those in the rest of the country.”
I ask the Minister to clarify the Government’s position.
The north of England is full of ex-industrial towns that have suffered, since pit closures, from a lack of investment, underemployment, a declining bus network and poor broadband performance. It is a simple fact that low-wage workers and those on insecure contracts are more at risk of becoming unemployed during recessions. The shutdown of pubs, restaurants and shops has had a devastating effect on the local economy in my area, where a large proportion of the population work in those sectors and rely on less secure and low-paid work. If levelling up is to become more than just a slogan, a genuine commitment will be required.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Order. You have been disciplined with your time, which has allowed me to relax the time for Back-Bench speeches to four minutes, for the time being.
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Let me first address the key and core issue of the debate: the economy in the north of England. With or without covid, we are discussing a curate’s egg of sorts. It is good and bad in parts, given “the north of England” describes an area that is both vast and varied, encompassing seats as different as Richmond in Yorkshire—the seat of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which is largely rural and wealthy—and my own seat of Leigh.
Although Leigh shares the designation of county constituency with the Chancellor’s seat, it is largely urban and poor. Indeed, measuring it by the yardstick of the super output area, it falls in the top 20% of most deprived constituencies in the country. We struggle with the legacy issues of the mining industry, in economic and health terms. Infrastructure in my constituency has suffered from under-investment for decades, and the town centres of its communities are in dire need of regeneration, although I am happy to report that recently the town of Tyldesley received a £1.5 million grant to begin the process of regeneration, so there is hope.
The other difference, of course, is that the Chancellor’s seat lies in historic Yorkshire, whereas Leigh lies in historic Lancashire, so we have one advantage at least. [Laughter.] All jokes aside, it is fair to say that in discussing the economy of the north of England we are discussing two economies—that of the wealthy part of the north of England, and that of the poor part. The contrast is often stark and visible. It is to the poor part of the north of England that we must devote our efforts, and in that I follow in the footsteps of my predecessor Richard Assheton Cross. He was the Member of Parliament for Leigh, and Home Secretary in the Government of Benjamin Disraeli, who first articulated the need to address these issues more than 170 years ago when he spoke of the country being divided into two nations.
Today I want to focus on infrastructure and the impact it has had on the economy of my constituency. Businesses are dissuaded from setting up in the town by a permanent snarl of heavy traffic. The associated economic and health costs resulting from poor air quality are significant. Air quality in some parts of the constituency is worse than that in central London. Since the mid-1960s, local residents and businesses have been campaigning for the completion of the Atherleigh Way bypass, to ease congestion, and for the reopening of the town’s rail links to Liverpool and Manchester, so that we will have access to jobs in the two major cities that our town lies halfway between. With that investment, Leigh could be transformed from a poor post-industrial community into a wealthy commuter community.
I have faith in the Government’s promise to invest in and level up the north, so that we can share in and help to build up the wealth of our nation. We must now deliver on the promises we made during the election.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you for calling me in this important debate, Mr Efford. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on successfully applying for the debate and on the work he does as an advocate for the north. He has shown in his role as Mayor that devolution can be a powerful engine for real change in the north.
The Government talk a lot about levelling up. As we move on from covid, there is an opportunity for them to show whether they mean it. For too long, the north has been left behind when it comes to investment. The figures speak for themselves. The Institute for Fiscal Studies recently examined the five most recent years of data and found that capital investment per person in London averaged £1,461 per year over the five-year period, compared with an average of £851 across the rest of the UK. Investment in transport in London was £688 per person per year, which is 2.8 times higher than the average of £247 across the rest of the UK. If the Government wanted to level up the north, then take, for example, research and development—to do that today, they would need to give us £500 million to make us equal with the south.
We know that economic hardship is on its way, and the impact on West Yorkshire could be severe. The worst-case scenario estimates 58,000 jobs lost in the next year, leading to an unemployment rate of 14% and £12 billion wiped from the value of the regional economy. As someone who grew up on a council estate in Batley and on free school meals, I know the crushing frustration and boredom of poverty, and I know that children will be hyper-exposed to this downturn.
It is time for big thinking and bold ideas. Using our local leaders and local levers, there is an opportunity to transform the economic imbalance of our country. West Yorkshire already has the vibrant cities of Bradford and Leeds. They are already economic powerhouses, but with fairer investment they could deliver so much more.
It is a lucky day for the Minister, because the West Yorkshire combined authority has an economic plan to support our area out of covid-19. Ahead of the spending review, I urge the Minister please to look closely at those proposals, which call for £2 billion over the next five years to support the region’s economic and transport recovery. This includes: a £194 million fund to support specific projects to tackle the climate emergency, fund new flood-alleviation schemes, create new jobs and help people gain the skills needed for those roles; £340 million to support aspiring entrepreneurs from all backgrounds to start their own businesses; funding to improve our transport network in an integrated plan for the north, as well as short and long-term funding for the region’s bus network; devolution of adult skills funding and £465 million to support the range of measures designed to lower unemployment and increase opportunities.
It is ideas such as these, and more in the plan, that will, if backed by Westminster, help West Yorkshire to build back better. The north has great plans and ambitions for its own future. I support the argument from my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central that the time for tinkering is over: extend the local growth fund, implement the UK2070 Commission’s recommendations, and invest in transport. We can level up—it is possible—we just need the Government to back us.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), also a metro Mayor, for securing such a vital debate.
The levelling up of regions of the UK is a stated focus of the current Government, as has been said across this Chamber today. Coronavirus has become the first—and, I would imagine, the largest— hurdle to this agenda for us all. At this first hurdle, the Government have fallen. They have given away the fact that, at their core, they do not value people and jobs equally.
In the spring, when the Government decided to lock down—lockdown 1—under pressure from the Opposition Benches, businesses and unions, they quickly drew up plans to provide 80% of wages through the furlough scheme for people who could no longer work. However, in October, when my constituents, and many others across the north, were plunged into tier 3, along with the Liverpool city region, it was decided that workers needed only 67% of their wages. The Chancellor told us that more money could not be found, but three weeks later—hey presto!—the Treasury suddenly uncovered more cash when we went into national lockdown. Now we are back to 80%, after a sustained campaign by many people—not only parliamentarians, but businesses and trade unions. What hope can we have of levelling up when, in the middle of an international crisis, the Government send the clear signal that northerners, northern livelihoods and northern businesses mean less?
As my Labour colleagues highlighted this week, we can harness the opportunities for green growth if the Government act urgently to deliver the economic recovery that the nation requires. That must include the plan that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central eloquently put forward for levelling up growth, skills and investment in the north through the UK prosperity fund. We must also look at the Green Book reforms that have been much peddled and promised in the media. In my constituency, we also need more investment in hydrogen, which hon. Members from across the House have mentioned, and investment in Sci-Tech Daresbury, with which the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), is very familiar—he was helpful with it in the past. We need more investment with a laser-like focus to drive up prosperity and economic recovery.
We have had enough of second-rate public transport and hand-me-down rolling stock, the talk of levelling up while levelling down to rubble a multimillion-pound college in the Northwich part of my constituency, and the spin of “build, build, build” while the Government’s housing algorithm means 28% fewer houses in the north and more than 160% more houses in London. Any investment in regional economies must be matched by investment in local decision making. We need to harness it is as much as we harness the economic power that the north is capable of. The levelling up agenda must include a radical transfer of fiscal and political power. We lack not just funding and investment in the north, but the ability to shape our fortunes and make change ourselves. We cannot continue to tolerate inequality of power, which drives inequalities of prosperity across the country and the north, so I ask the Minister to consider—
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
I thank my very near neighbour, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), for calling this important debate at a critical moment in our national story. The border between us is at one point marked by the River Dearne, where it swirls and pools into a beautiful lake in the grounds of the Yorkshire Sculpture Park. I suspect that fewer boundaries between two constituencies in this sceptred isle are more picturesque, although if you come to view it, Mr Efford, look from the south side towards the vista in the north, because the spires of Wakefield are a delight to behold.
In the 2019 general election campaign, the Conservative party pledged to level up parts of the United Kingdom that had long been left behind, such as Yorkshire. Disparities between the north and south have long been evident. In 2004, London’s economy was the same size as the north’s. This year, according to the think-tank Onward, London’s economy is a quarter larger. Certain forms of spending occur disproportionately in London and the south-east, in comparison with the rest of the United Kingdom. One glaring example is travel. It is believed that it would cost £2 billion to bring per-person transport spending across England in line with London’s. That highlights the shameful chasm that splits this country between the north and south.
In an excellent report, WPI Strategy’s levelling-up index ranked the Wakefield constituency as a priority and 126th most in need of levelling up. More than any other report that I have seen thus far, it showed the extent to which, through successive Governments and failed policies—national and local, of all stripes—the north has been failed. In my constituency, financial deprivation is 27% higher than the English and Welsh average, and deprivation is 21% higher than the English average. From a commercial perspective, there are 33% more empty properties in Wakefield than the national average—evidence of the disproportionate effect that London-centric policies have on the overall economic environment.
It is promising that Her Majesty’s Government have already pledged vast sums of money to tackle regional inequalities. A £5 billion package of new funding to overhaul bus and cycle links for every region outside London has been established. The pledge to create 10 new freeports is another key means to achieve the levelling-up agenda and provide a significant boost to the entire economy, with the first of the freeports expected to be opened in 2021.
The entire basis of Her Majesty’s Government’s approach to levelling up is through providing communities with the tools to achieve prosperity, not simply handouts. There is nothing more crucial to Conservatives than supporting people in achieving their ambitions. The investment that this Government have pledged to boost the number of viable apprenticeships is testimony to Conservative values.
I am greatly encouraged by the efforts of my parliamentary colleagues in helping to level up the north, and have been particularly heartened by the co-operation shown by neighbouring northern MPs from across the House. The hon. Member for Barnsley Central and I have been working together on opening a rail link between Barnsley and Wakefield, which will not only improve interconnectivity between northern hubs, but provide economic benefits for all of Yorkshire. I hope that more projects aimed at boosting the north will be championed and allowed to reach fruition.
Once we emerge from the coronavirus pandemic, it is vital that we utilise the opportunity of recovery to reset our economy. To achieve that, the Government need to ensure that their commitments to the levelling-up agenda are met, and that places such as my constituency are given the tools and the infrastructure to ensure their prosperity. I am confident that I and my fellow parliamentary colleagues will hold the Government to account and ensure that they deliver on their promise to our constituents.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Before I call Judith Cummins, we have been joined by Mr Fletcher, so I am going to have to reimpose a 3-minute time limit.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for securing this extremely timely and important debate.
Even before the covid-19 crisis, the UK economy was fundamentally unbalanced. As the Institute for Public Policy Research North put it:
“The UK is more regionally divided than any comparable advanced economy.”
I have spoken before about the issues with the Green Book, and I continue to believe that the method used to assess potential projects skews investment, and therefore growth, into where it already happens, rather than where it needs to happen. The Treasury is committed to reviewing the Green Book, but I know that hon. Members will be interested to hear from the Minister the progress that it has made on that, because covid-19 makes it more urgent, given the disproportionate economic hit that the north has taken and the heavy price that people in the north are paying.
The Government’s handling of the covid crisis, especially their approach to local restrictions and regional packages of financial support, has shown that the needs of the north are still too often an afterthought—or, worse, ignored altogether. Instead of establishing a clear, transparent framework of support, proportionate to need, the Government have employed a strategy of divide and rule. Local areas, most of them in the north, were forced into unfair negotiations on entering higher levels of restrictions, but were then told that there was no negotiating to be done on the level or share of the financial support offered.
Worse still, it appears that the substantial packages of support came only when restrictions were imposed on London. For example, on 22 October, the Chancellor announced new grants for businesses in tier 2. That came the day after London entered tier 2. Areas including Bradford had been under the equivalent of tier 2 for months and months. That is yet another example of the Government’s having a deaf ear for the people of the north.
We are now in a national lockdown and the furlough scheme has been extended until March, but the Government need to set out exactly what will happen at the end of that period. They have suggested that we will go back into the tiered system, but many businesses in places such as Bradford will simply not survive if we go straight back into tier 2 or tier 3, with the current level of support.
In the short term the Government must ensure that, wherever there are restrictions after 2 December, there is a fair set of financial support packages, which take into account how long an area has been in local restrictions already. For each measure, the Government should produce an impact assessment, region by region, which includes the impact on regional inequality and the regional economy.
In the longer term, we need a fundamental rebalancing of our economy. Levelling-up rhetoric and the odd project here and there will simply not be enough. Trust is in short supply and the people of the north will hold the Government to account for their promises and their actions.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on securing this important debate. So much has rightly been said about levelling up and the need to spread wealth and opportunity more fairly across the nation. Following the pandemic, during which the north has suffered disproportionately, there will be an even greater need to support our northern economy, so I welcome Sheffield city region’s renewal action plan.
The plan identifies three key areas where support should be targeted—our people, our employers and our places. Our people certainly need support, with unemployment rising and the future job market uncertain. The key to attracting productive, high-skilled jobs is surely to ensure that we have a productive, highly skilled workforce. That is why I welcome the Prime Minister’s lifetime skills guarantee. We also need to support our employers as they adapt to a new post-covid economy. I commend the Government for their ongoing support for businesses during the pandemic, and I welcome Sheffield city region’s plans to help our employers adapt to digitisation. Of course, we must support our places, particularly the infrastructure that connects us. That is why I have submitted a bid to restore the Stocksbridge to Sheffield railway line and am working with local groups to improve rural bus services. Perhaps the Minister could provide an update of what the Government are doing specifically about northern transport.
Our people, our employers and our places all need support, but when we are thinking about our northern economy it is tempting to focus on what we lack—the jobs, productivity and opportunities that we do not have. If we are talking about investment into the north, perhaps instead we should start with what we do have. Investment is about finding an opportunity, spotting potential and catalysing growth by building on existing strengths. We certainly have a lot of strengths in the north. We have strong communities with healthy intergenerational ties. People are proud of where they live and value their relationships with families, friends and neighbours. We even talk to each other on the bus. I tried it on the tube; that did not go down well.
We can build on that strength of community to unlock economic potential. We have a proud history of manufacturing, which is a strength we should build upon. Just as in the north we were at the forefront of the first industrial revolution, we have the potential to lead the fourth industrial revolution—if we focus on growing our own talent, enabling tech investment and engaging with even the youngest children to inspire them to take part in our northern industrial future.
We also have world-class universities, whose expertise we can harness to invest in our local economy. I welcome the work that Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam universities are already doing in that area, but we need to think more about how the universities can reach into our more rural areas to foster talent in our towns and villages.
Yes, we have been left behind in the north; yes, we need financial support to level up our economy and opportunities, but let us also acknowledge what we do have, our significant capabilities, and look to invest in our strengths.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on calling today’s debate and showing what a difference a Labour Mayor can make.
Once a powerhouse in rail and confectionery, York’s industrial past evolved into tourism, retail and hospitality—insecure, low-wage work with significant under-employment. Now our economy is in a perilous condition and is predicted to be the worst-hit place in the country. Already the high street has reached that place, with the loss of 55 retail outlets this year alone. The local enterprise partnership predicts that unemployment could rise to as much as 27% of the population.
The city itself, often mistaken as a place of affluence, has been identified as one of the most inequitable places in the country, with some of the poorest communities. When we hear the words “levelling up”, I have to say that after a decade I have not seen the evidence. If the Government believe that sites such York Central, in the heart of my constituency, are places where they can just layer on more and more luxury flats, which people in my city cannot afford, they are missing the economic opportunity for York, North Yorkshire and the whole of the north.
The devastating consequences of covid-19 have shown that the resilience is not there, which is why today’s debate is so important. There are five things and five demands: power, pounds, plans, places and people. For power, we need to see that shift in power, not just to devolved authorities. I call on the Mayor of South Yorkshire and the incoming Mayor of West Yorkshire to work with us in North Yorkshire, to ensure that Yorkshire has real power to lever in the change that we need to see. We need that power held in the north across Yorkshire, to make the difference.
With regard to pounds, we have already heard the call for money. We need real economic investment and clear, transparent data with a matrix to show how money is being invested and prioritised and bringing in the change that is needed. We need to ensure that when plans are laid, they are honoured. In the devolution plan for North Yorkshire, BioYorkshire is at the heart of the deal. We need to bring it forward now, and I ask the Minister to have words with the wider Treasury team and the Chancellor to ensure that we get that money now to invest in jobs.
When there is development, we need to prioritise places and spaces for our communities, and ultimately people. In Yorkshire, people are resourceful and resilient, but they are creative and aspirational, too. We need to ensure that when we put plans forward, they honour people’s future and give them the opportunities that others have enjoyed for so long.
Clive Efford (in the Chair)
Order. I will put the question at 10.59 am, to allow time for the moment of remembrance. If the Front-Bench spokespersons take 10 minutes each, it will leave a short period for Mr Jarvis to wind up, in accordance with the convention. Before that, I call Nick Fletcher.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for securing the debate. I have enjoyed working with him since becoming the MP for Don Valley, and I know how deeply he cares about ensuring that the north gets a good deal.
We have heard, and will continue to hear, Members discussing the need for the Government to offer sufficient support for the north as it is hit by the covid-19 pandemic. I wholeheartedly agree with that feeling, especially as I know full well the pain that businesses and individuals are going through in my constituency. However, I want to discuss the dire need for the Treasury to continue with its policy to reform the Green Book, as the Chancellor set out in March this year. The hon. Member for Barnsley Central has spoken at some length on that issue in the past. I believe there is scope for a true cross-party consensus on such a reform. After all, it is nothing short of a scandal that successive Governments’ failure to reform the Green Book has led to a lack of infrastructure investment in the north for decades. That needs to change, especially as the north has been hit particularly hard by the pandemic. I therefore welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to have the Green Book reviewed in March, although the pandemic and the pushing back of the Budget this autumn have inevitably delayed much-needed action in this area. However, I say to the Government: do not delay.
We are witnessing seismic shifts in our economy and its functions will be changed forever as a result of the pandemic. As such, the Government should be investigating ways in which they can create a more functional economy as part of their recovery plan, which has less of a focus on London and instead sees the potential of all regions in the UK. Areas such as Doncaster have considerable potential; the skills and workforce are all there. We now need ambitious infrastructure projects in order to truly level up the region.
Members will be aware that in March 2018, the then Government revised the Green Book to take greater consideration of environmental and distributional impacts of infrastructure funding. Of course, it was a step forward that had the potential to boost economic wellbeing in the north. However, I believe the Government should be even more ambitious. Treasury Ministers should now look at how they can completely rewrite the Green Book, so that the formula no longer rewards places that already enjoy good economic growth and high productivity with big investment projects.
The over-concentration on quick economic returns has only exacerbated the north/south divide and needs to be totally reworked; otherwise, the Green Book will continue to give the same answer to any infrastructure proposal in the north—“The computer says no.” Equally, the current data on regional economic progress is not sufficient. Infrastructure spending could be made fairer by integrating into a new Green Book formula, data that better shows regional capital investment—an improvement that hon. Members have called for in the past.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Congratulations to the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on securing the debate. I have listened closely, and there have been a lot of passionate voices for the north of England, which is utterly fantastic to hear. On this occasion, there is much more that unites the Members present than divides them. I certainly wish them well in trying to get the Government to keep the promises that they have made and to go further in some instances, as Members have requested.
My biggest take from the debate is that I need to get my hands on The Yorkshire Post to see what all the fuss is about.
Stephen Flynn
We do not have The Yorkshire Post in Aberdeen at the moment, but I will put a call in with a local corner shop to see whether I can get it.
This debate has been wide-ranging and has focused on people’s priorities: jobs, support and ensuring that they can live good lives. I will provide a little context as someone who also represents the north, but, as Member for Aberdeen South, it is the north-east of Scotland. The right hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) mentioned that many of his constituents have continued to work throughout the pandemic, which is also true of many of my constituents. As everyone will be aware, the oil and gas industry cannot stop. If it did, we would all be in a bit of trouble—that is for sure—so my constituents have been working incredibly hard throughout the pandemic.
When the oil price plummeted, however—it absolutely crashed in early March and into April—the Government did not lift a finger. Not a single penny of sector-specific support was put behind an industry that has given more than £350 billion to the Treasury over decades. That was a disappointment not just to me, but to each and every person in Aberdeen who has a friend or family member whose job is intrinsically linked to the success of that sector.
Beyond that, we have not seen any Government investment in what comes next. We all know that oil and gas are depleting resources, but as far as I can see, there has so far been no firm commitment to hydrogen, which has been mentioned by several Members, or to carbon capture and underground storage, which is also of keen interest to Members in the north of England. The Government have not made those commitments, whether for the north of England or the north-east of Scotland. Quite frankly, that is not good enough.
The issues do not stop there. Although we are in the midst of this pandemic, we cannot escape the fact that we are just weeks away from the end of the transition period and, potentially, from leaving the European Union without a deal. My city is projected to be the hardest hit in the UK as a result of Brexit. Where is the mitigation from the Conservative Government? There has been none to date.
Beyond that, in the last couple of weeks alone, my Aberdeen constituency has been the hardest hit in job vacancies—once again, across the entire UK—with a 75% decline. The issues in the north of England that have been spoken about are ones with which I sympathise, but they are not unique. Certainly, in the north-east of Scotland, we are bearing the brunt of the inaction of this Conservative Government, decades of inaction from UK Governments and insufficient investment in the future.
I am conscious of time, so I will bring my remarks to an end by reflecting on the wider situation in Scotland. As it stands, we have no clarity on the Scottish budget. Next year, we will have to rely on the UK Government telling us how much we will have before we can spend it on our vital public services. We have no clarity on what the shared prosperity fund will look like or whether Scotland will have additional borrowing powers.
On top of that complete and utter contempt for Scotland, the Internal Market Bill seeks to take back the devolved powers that we have. The hon. Member for Barnsley Central referred to the need for further devolution in the north of England. I commend him on those remarks and wish him good luck, but he needs to be wary of getting that devolution only for the UK Government to strip back the powers that they have given.
I appreciate that I have already said that I would make my final comment, but I have one more. [Laughter.] That is true of all of us in this House at times; repetition is something we are particularly good at. I will conclude by saying, once again, that I wish Members across the House well in their fight with the Government to get the investment that they need. Be mindful of the fact that Scotland also requires that investment, but where we differ is that we have a choice. We have another route to get what we want, which is for the people of Scotland to vote for independence.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you chair the debate, Mr Efford; I am not saying that for brownie points. This is my first time speaking as the Opposition spokesperson, and my first time speaking in a Westminster Hall debate; I am not saying that because I want extra speaking time.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for showing leadership in bringing forward the debate; this is a really important time to talk about the issues facing the north. My hon. Friend mentioned how covid has massively affected the north—the unemployment numbers are much higher, and much more support needs to be given. I share those concerns and commend him for his leadership in helping individuals locally.
I thank everyone who contributed to the debate. All Members have shown so much passion for their constituencies, and I can see at first hand the challenges that they face on such a huge scale. It is good that we have been able to have deep, meaningful conversations without getting into any political point scoring.
I will mention those Members whose comments particularly touched me, although I will not be able to mention everybody. The right hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) talked about football clubs in his constituency and the need for a northern economic recovery fund. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) talked about the £15 million deficit that her council has. I echo her calls for infrastructure investment in rail—a point also made by the hon. Member for Leigh (James Grundy). My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) spoke passionately about the challenges in her constituency and about extending the local growth fund, which is particularly important. My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) referred to the unemployment in his northern constituency and spoke powerfully about more investment in hydrogen. That point was echoed by a number of Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talked about the economic situation in York and called for transparent data, investment, modelling, infrastructure and a fresh economic plan. We need a shift towards economic investment. Rather than just maintaining current housing developments, we need to think about the future. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) made a really strong case for his constituency, which encouraged me to visit it again. I have been there once, and I will definitely go again. He talked about the disparity between the north and the south, and how he is working collaboratively to try to address the issues.
It is crucial that attention is brought to this issue, because covid-19 will affect not just London but the whole country. We have to acknowledge that some parts of the country are suffering a lot more than others. We have already seen businesses close. I have seen the impact in my constituency and know from conversations how it has affected so many people across the country. The Government are failing to plug the gaps and address those issues—a point that a number of colleagues have echoed.
Businesses that have survived so far will struggle without extra support pumped in, and we need to think about that. We need to think about protecting local and regional economies. We need there to be local jobs, local businesses and strong economies. We need there to be local jobs, local businesses and strong local economies. That is not just so that people can earn a living and survive, but so that the different regions of the UK can thrive.
This is not just a Treasury issue, but a health issue, a tourism issue, a Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport issue and an environmental issue; it goes across Departments. We are facing one of the biggest challenges of our time, and we need to ensure that the north of England and all other regions that continue to be affected by covid-19 are fully supported.
As some of my colleagues mentioned, local authorities have been forced to negotiate the financial support that they will receive in tier 3. An example is the negotiations last month with Greater Manchester, which continued for 10 days—10 days when the Mayor of Greater Manchester was fighting for sufficient financial support for his constituents. Initially, the Government said to workers in Manchester that they would get only 67% of their pre-crisis income—67%. They said that 80% was impossible. Then, when the restrictions in the south were introduced this month, they changed their mind. Why was that?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has yet to come clean on the phantom funding formula—I am still struggling to understand it—that he is using to determine funding for areas under tier 3 restrictions. What we really need is clear, consistent and fair funding for jobs and businesses, not to be playing poker with people’s livelihoods, because people are suffering. They are really suffering and are expecting to see leadership from us so they can address the barriers they face.
I want to echo calls from hon. Members in this Chamber, such as that from my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), who talked about an exit plan for the national lockdown. That was echoed by other Members. The Chancellor needs to end the last-minute scramble to announce economic support measures and set out a proper plan for the next six months.
The Government need to fix test, trace and isolate, so that different parts of the UK can understand their local covid risk and find a way to recover. We need clarity—this has been echoed by a number of colleagues, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins)—on the economic support for local areas and what they can expect once lockdown finishes. The Government need to set out what they plan to do with regard to recovery, jobs and rebuilding businesses.
So many people have fallen through the gaps. Now the Government must step up, working across all parties and with local leaders, to ensure that those affected are supported. A number of people have talked about a green economy—something I support. Can the Minister confirm that the upcoming spending review will secure a green recovery across the country? The Labour party really wants to see a safety net that includes scrapping the five-week wait for universal credit, the two-child limit, the savings cap and the overall benefits cap. That would help to alleviate the financial hardship faced by many of those on the lowest incomes during this pandemic.
We need to see the Government stepping up to provide support for those who have been excluded from the start. There is still nothing beyond social security for those who have been excluded, and many of the self-employed remain cut out from social security if they have amassed small amounts of savings.
The support must be long-term and help different regions, including the north, to respond to their individual needs and support local growth. The Government must put in place changes to enable people who are off work to use the time to gain valuable skills for the future. That needs to be done urgently; we do not have time to just sit and have conversations about it. Rapid work needs to be done.
I appreciate that it will take years to rebuild crucial industries and identities if this support is not secured. The Government must act now and treat every region of the UK with the same respect for local people and local pride.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) on her first appearance as shadow Exchequer Secretary. That is a very interesting role and I wish her all the best in it. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on securing the debate and thank Members for their insightful contributions, many of which were delivered with great passion.
As was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry), the north has been a hotbed of energy, ideas, innovation and creativity for centuries, and the region continues to power our economy. Global companies are taking advantage of the rich commercial opportunities in the north-west and the north-east is gaining a formidable reputation in areas such as advanced manufacturing, energy and the life sciences, while businesses in South Yorkshire, such as materials construction firm SIG and internet firm Plusnet, are generating jobs and growth. However, the Government are acutely aware that the past months have been incredibly difficult for people across the region, as they have been for the whole UK. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Damien Moore) said, the pandemic is more than a health crisis; it is an economic crisis.
We are committed to protecting the livelihoods of people throughout the country. To that end, we have provided an unprecedented package of funding worth over £200 billion. I will briefly remind everyone of its main elements before addressing other points that Members have raised. The coronavirus job retention scheme has protected the livelihoods of 9.6 million people, many of them in the north. We have boosted welfare payments for the lowest earners and paid more than £1 billion to hundreds of thousands of people in the north through the self-employment income support scheme. That includes 63,000 grants issued in the north-east, 213,000 in the north-west and 163,000 in Yorkshire and the Humber—all to the self-employed. While thousands of northern firms have so far received £10.5 billion from the bounce back and coronavirus interruption loan schemes, we have provided in addition billions of pounds to local authorities throughout the country, including the north, to protect vital services during the pandemic.
These vast sums show that that the Government are determined to help the whole country, including the north, through this difficult period. We will be using the forthcoming spending review to make sure we put the right financial support in place to continue the fight against covid. We will also be using the spending review to drive forward the vital infrastructure projects that will aid our economic recovery from the crisis and level up the whole UK.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (James Grundy) for giving me the opportunity to mention the towns fund. We are investing £3.6 billion in the towns fund to level up our regions and I am pleased that towns such as Tyldesley in his constituency are receiving this much-needed money.
The hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) asked about the local growth fund. She will be aware that this is a matter for the impending spending review, and it would not be appropriate for me to pre-empt the outcome of that process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) spoke about investment, and I would like to give a brief recap of our infrastructure investment so far. Over the next five years, we are going to plough more than £600 billion into capital spending. That means new roads, new railways, hospitals and schools. We have brought forward £8.6 billion of this to support activity in the near term—plans that the International Monetary Fund said will address productivity, climate goals and regional inequality, which my hon. Friend is rightly concerned about.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) referred to northern transport and asked what, specifically, the Government are doing about that. In the last Budget, we announced more than £27 billion—a record investment—for strategic roads over the next five years. That includes £18 million to upgrade the A61 Westwood roundabout at Tankersley in her constituency, dualling the A66 across the Pennines and the A1 from Morpeth to Ellingham in the north-east, and upgrading the M60 Simister Island in Greater Manchester. In the last Budget, we also provided a £4.2 billion investment to eight city regions across the north, including Sheffield city region, for local transport in the five-year funding settlement starting in 2022-23.
The Government remain committed to investing in improving rail connections across the north. The hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) will be pleased to know that we are developing an integrated rail plan so we can deliver High Speed 2 phase 2b and northern powerhouse rail more effectively alongside other transport schemes.
As well as such landmark projects, we need to improve infrastructure at a more local level, as the hon. Lady pointed out. To that end, this summer the Chancellor launched the £900 million Getting Building fund. The fund aims to boost jobs, upgrade infrastructure and support the recovery, and targets areas that are facing the biggest economic challenges because of the pandemic. I am pleased that combined authorities and local enterprise partnerships across the north of England have received more than £319 million.
As the hon. Member for Barnsley Central will know, Sheffield city region has already been awarded £33.6 million. That funding will create more than 1,000 jobs and unlock new housing, commercial and learning space. Projects include improvement work for schools and colleges, enterprise space for businesses and start-ups, new pedestrian and cycle bridges and junction improvement schemes, and new charge points for electric vehicles. That is far from an exhaustive list.
Our levelling-up agenda is not just about what or where we invest; it is about fundamentally shifting the way Government policy is formulated. The hon. Gentleman raised relocating civil servants to the north. As announced at Budget 2020, we are working with colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Department for International Trade and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to establish a new economic decision-making campus in the north of England to be operational by the end of this Parliament, with at least 750 roles at the new site.
We continue to build on our successful English devolution agenda. We intend to bring forward the devolution and local recovery White Paper, laying out our plans for partnering with places across the UK to build a sustainable economic recovery.
Rachael Maskell
I mentioned the BioYorkshire project in my speech; it will be transformative for my constituency. It will create 4,000 jobs and upskill 25,000 people. Will the Minister look at bringing that money forward? We need investment now because of the economic crisis we face, rather than waiting two and a half years for devolution.
Kemi Badenoch
That is something we can certainly review. I will write to the hon. Lady to explain our position exactly.
Many core city regions in the north now have a metro Mayor and a devolution deal. We have recently agreed one such deal with West Yorkshire. It includes £1 billion of new investment and a directly elected metro Mayor, in place from May 2021. We fully implemented the Sheffield city region deal, which includes £900 million of new funding, along with substantial new devolved powers.
Many Members have expressed a desire for a northern recovery plan. This Government accelerated £8.6 billion for capital priorities to drive recovery across the country, and the upcoming spending review will continue to support the economic recovery of the north and the whole country. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) raised the Green Book. We are planning to conclude the review and publish the updated Green Book at the spending review.
Several Opposition Members have insinuated that the south was given preferential treatment over the north. That is simply not true, as anyone can see, given the unprecedented support provided. They also completely ignore other measures, such as new testing technology being piloted in Liverpool city region, which could be a game changer in tackling both the health and economic impacts of the pandemic in that area.
We realise that these are profoundly challenging times for many people and many communities in the north. The Chancellor himself is a northern MP, who is very much aware and impacted by the issues raised today. I say to hon. Members and their constituents that he is very much on their side. As I have outlined, this Government are unwaveringly focused on ensuring that people and businesses in the region and throughout the country are not only able to weather the storm of covid-19, but also benefit from an even brighter future.
Dan Jarvis
I am acutely conscious that Members will want to observe the two-minute silence on Armistice Day, so I will be brief.
We have had a really constructive debate this morning. We have heard a range of articulate views from Members across the House. I think there is a clear consensus around the need to level up the north and to invest not just in our infrastructure, but in our people. I also think that there is a clear consensus that the time to do this is now.
The spending review in a couple of weeks’ time will be a major test of the Government’s commitment to level up the north. I hope that the Government take the opportunity to stop tinkering and start transforming. We in the north stand ready to be levelled up. Please do not let us down.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered support for the economy in the north of England.
Supported Accommodation: HMOs
(4 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the conversion of family homes to houses in multiple occupation for supported accommodation.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Efford.
I want to make it clear that I have no problem with permitted development when it comes to individual homeowners adding a conservatory, a granny flat or an extra bedroom for an unexpected addition to their family, but I cannot believe that it was ever intended to allow developers to destroy existing family homes and create unregulated hostels, solely for profit.
I represent an area that is already plagued by developers adding extra rooms to family homes left, right and centre. Their actions have lowered the number of homes available for young families in the Selly Oak area and created properties that—once the student population for whom they were originally conceived makes greater use of the rapidly expanding supply of customised accommodation—will have a value only as unregulated hostels, which are more commonly described as supported or exempt accommodation. That is a real problem in my part of Birmingham and many other towns and cities across the country.
That destruction of family homes through conversions under permitted development is bad enough, but what consideration have the Government given to how the problem is likely to be exacerbated by their latest proposals to allow the addition of up to two extra storeys on dwelling houses and purpose-built detached flats? It seems like the perfect recipe for a rash of jerry-building on a scale previously unimaginable.
When I recently consulted my constituents about the Government’s proposals for reforming our planning laws, 97% told me that they wanted more power to seek redress against developers who breach or ignore existing planning laws. They want a deterrent against rogue builders and developers who are destroying their communities. Some 93% also want a right of appeal against applications that have a significant impact on a local residential area and change of use applications that are likely to have a similar effect.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
This is a very important issue. For me, the big issues are vulnerable people and supported accommodation. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that for something to be classified as supported accommodation, the support workers must be on the ground? Therefore, the buildings must be suitable and accessible, not simply to the vulnerable individual, but to their family and indeed the families residing in the area. There must be a point of contact to protect the vulnerable tenant and the local neighbours.
Steve McCabe
I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman, and in fact I will touch on that point later in my speech.
My constituents say that because they are fed up with seeing perfectly good family homes destroyed by those who insist on converting them with the sole intention of turning huge areas of Selly Oak into little more than dormitories. The first target for that activity is students, who are a lucrative source of income as they are short-term tenants who are unlikely to make too many demands about repairs. As I said, students are increasingly being enticed to move to more modern, customised accommodation, leaving the owners saddled with large and unattractive houses in multiple occupation.
Unsurprisingly, those owners are looking for financial pickings elsewhere, and they have found them in what we tend to call support supported or exempt accommodation. My experience is that most of that non-commissioned accommodation is anything but supportive. It has become a gold mine, enabling Government money to roll in for houses in which vulnerable people from a variety of backgrounds are packed in like sardines.
In theory, supported housing refers to any scheme in which housing and support services are provided jointly to help people live as independently as possible. The sector covers a range of accommodation types, including group homes, hostels, refuges and sheltered housing. Much of that accommodation is excellent, and the providers should be applauded, but supported housing can be provided by a wide variety of bodies, and not all are as reputable as we might hope. Exempt accommodation, as the name implies, can be provided by non-metropolitan councils, housing associations, registered charities and other bodies, and it is exempt from normal licensing requirements and checks.
Research undertaken by the Spring Housing Association, the Housing and Communities Research Group and Commonweal Housing examined non-commissioned exempt accommodation in Birmingham. It concluded that there are many thousands of individuals living in non-commissioned exempt accommodation environments that are potentially unsafe, unsuitable and not conducive to progression or growth.
One problem with exempt accommodation is that there appear to be no standards beyond the most basic. They are supposed to be buildings fit for human habitation with no hazards, and to comply with the relevant legislation regarding building maintenance and conditions. That means they can accommodate an extraordinary mix of tenants, including youngsters from the care system, people with mental health difficulties, those released from prison, and victims of domestic abuse and their children. Such people often find themselves living together in the same house.
It is not unusual to find more than one exempt property or unregulated hostel in the same street. Local residents are frequently on the receiving end of problems emanating from those unregulated hostels. Regular complaints include noise, drug use, antisocial behaviour and other unacceptable activities. Local residents are verbally assaulted if they dare to complain. My constituent witnessed a person being chased down the street by her exempt accommodation neighbour, who was wielding an iron bar.
On occasions where a property has been reported to the police or local authority, its ownership has mysteriously changed hands. The tenants are given no say over their choice of residence and frequently cannot identify the landlord—these are often desperate and vulnerable people. I was contacted by a young woman who had been advised that the property to which she had been referred was not suitable for couples with children. She was several months pregnant at the time, but none the less found herself placed in a property in need of multiple repairs. When she complained to an employee of the supported housing group responsible for the property, she and her partner were threatened with a knife.
One establishment specialised in parties during the March lockdown. There was some difficulty in establishing who owned that property, but, again, it appeared that tenants had been placed there initially in the hands of one group, only for it to be replaced by another as the complaints mounted. In Gristhorpe Road, the landlords appealed against a notice for eviction by the local council because of repeated problems. The appeal was lost, but the notice has been ignored.
In another street, there are three properties side by side. Again, ownership is unclear, but there are reports of frequent drug dealing and antisocial behaviour. Just the other evening, I learned of a group of so-called paedophile hunters who turned up to deliver their vigilante justice at a property converted to bedsits for that purpose. The police are not consulted when a property is converted with the intention of providing exempt accommodation. They, like local residents, become aware of those residing there after problems emerge.
The research to which I referred earlier concluded that there is an accountability deficit with respect to this kind of accommodation and advised strengthening the criteria for housing benefit or universal credit rent paid to providers. It also suggests that new powers might be needed for the regulator of social housing to address some of the problems.
A key issue in my area and many other parts of the country is the shortage of family homes, but I submit that the relaxation of planning laws envisaged in the current White Paper is the wrong prescription when it comes to increasing their supply. The combination of existing permitted development rules, new flexibilities and the continued disregard for planning laws is likely to only increase the problems caused by unregulated hostels.
A prevalent view in Government circles seems to be that delays in house building are a problem with the planning process. When it comes to houses, nine out of 10 planning applications receive fairly prompt approval, but approval does not equate to building. Government figures show that 2,564,000 units have received planning permission from local councils since 2009-10, but only 1.5 million homes that have received permission have been built. How do the Government account for the shortfall? Proposed changes will tip the planning process in favour of developers but ignore the problems faced by local communities. In many cases, it will result in a reduction, rather than an expansion, of much-needed family homes.
We need better regulations. We need a clearer definition of what constitutes adequate support in supported accommodation, and we need increased transparency when it comes to identifying the providers. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government needs to consider mandating the regulator of social housing, in order to develop a stronger framework for consumers and better protections across the exempt accommodation sector. Providers should be monitored regularly, and close attention paid to client-tenant feedback. I would also advocate that any property intended for use as supported accommodation should be subject to a background planning check, to ensure that it is safe and suitable for such purposes and that there is no history of breaches of planning law or unapproved extensions or building work. We also need to be clear about who is responsible for managing and supervising such accommodation, and the owner should be subject to fit and proper person checks.
We need proposals to protect existing homes, not plans to ease their conversion to HMOs or unregulated hostels. We need permitted development to be used to help people with family homes, not developers who are determined to destroy them. We need policies to encourage more affordable housing, not policies likely to reduce the supply. We need planning powers designed to support local communities and vulnerable people in need of housing, not measures that will undermine them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Kelly Tolhurst)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for securing the debate; it has touched on issues that are of deep concern to me as a relatively new Minister in the post. I have taken a keen interest in how we can ensure that there is the right of supply of supported housing for people who need it, and that the right oversight arrangements are in place to ensure that it delivers the best outcomes for such individuals. Those are priorities for the Government.
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the concerns of his constituents around some of the challenges presented to them when faced with a large number of properties that they believe are managed incorrectly. It is shocking to hear the stories of some his constituents this year. As he touched on, supported housing is critical in providing vulnerable individuals with the support that they need to live as independently as possible. For some, it is a transitional arrangement whereby short-term accommodation provides them with support and equips with the tools and skills that they need to move on, to live independently and to thrive in the community.
The Government are committed to ensuring high standards across all provisions of supported housing. That means delivering high-quality accommodation and support for residents, but also value for money for the taxpayer. We know that insufficient support and poor-quality accommodation leads to poor outcomes for individuals. That is unacceptable, and it fits with what the hon. Gentleman said. Although the vast majority of the sectors deliver high-quality provision and positive outcomes for individuals, I am aware of the issues surrounding poor-quality supported housing in some areas. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern about supporting housing schemes in his constituency and others, where there are particular questions about the sufficiency and ownership of the support provided.
Such properties often house individuals with multiple complex needs who are extremely vulnerable. They may have experienced homelessness, rough sleeping, drug and alcohol dependency, involvement with the criminal justice system, poor mental health, or a combination of those factors. It is vital that they get the support they need to live and thrive independently.
The hon. Gentleman raised serious and valid issues—as did the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place—of which the Government are well aware. We are actively working to improve quality and oversight across the whole supported housing sector to ensure that all schemes meet the high standards set by most providers to improve the homes that people live in, so that the support those people receive is tailored to their needs and schemes provide good value.
Supported housing schemes should be appropriately planned and placed in the right locations within communities. That helps to foster good relationships between local residents and residents of the supported housing. I understand that lack of planning can cause issues that are detrimental to the cohesion of the community, such as antisocial behaviour. Social landlords are required by the Regulator of Social Housing to work in partnership with other agencies to prevent and tackle antisocial behaviour in neighbourhoods where they own homes. Collaboration between local partners and the relevant powers, including the council, police and landlords, is essential for tackling and solving the problem of antisocial behaviour, but it is right that decisions are taken locally.
The vast majority of supported housing providers are legitimate, ethical landlords who provide high-quality accommodation and support to vulnerable people. Most supported housing providers are registered providers, which means that they are registered with and subject to regulation by the Regulator of Social Housing, including on governance, financial viability, quality and value for money. The Government also have regulations in place to oversee the safety and management of HMOs and to monitor their proliferation in certain areas.
Local authorities already have powers, through the planning system, to limit the number of HMOs—Birmingham City Council has already used an article 4 order to restrict the development of new HMOs across the whole city—ensuring that all such properties will now be consulted on locally and that the view of neighbours and local communities are taken into account in the decision-making process.
HMO licensing was extended on 1 October 2008 alongside the minimum size for bedrooms, which, for a single adult, must be a space greater than 6.51 square metres. Through the Housing and Planning Act 2016, we are determined to crack down on rogue landlords who cause misery to their tenants and put their health and safety at risk. We have put measures in place to make it easier for local authorities to tackle rogue landlords effectively by introducing civil penalties of up to £30,000 and rent payment orders for a wide range of offences. Banning orders and the database of rogue landlords are an important part of the package to help local authorities to tackle the worst offenders.
Although the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak raised undoubtedly serious issues, I cannot stress enough that they relate to only a very small part of the sector. Introducing over-hasty regulations to control that very small part of the sector may have unintended consequences for the rest of it, particularly smaller providers. Being regulated by a national body and the local council could prove to be far too onerous, and there could be consequences for much-needed supply if good providers exit the market. The Government are committed to ending rough sleeping by the end of this Parliament. Penalising good-quality providers, who make up the vast majority of the sector, could damage critical progress towards that aim.
The Government already have a programme of work in train on the regulation and oversight of supported housing, and it is right that we pursue that to thoroughly test ideas. My Department, which has been working jointly with the Department for Work and Pensions to drive improvements in oversight and regulation of supported housing, recently made two announcements on the progress of that work. First, we have published a national statement of expectations for supported housing, setting out the Government’s vision for achieving the best quality accommodation to meet local needs. That emphasises the importance of strategic planning in understanding and managing local need for and supply of supported housing, and empowering local authorities to develop a sustainable longer term plan to meet the needs of residents. The national statement of expectations also mentions the need for community cohesion and proper engagement with residents. I strongly support that.
Steve McCabe
I understand the Minister’s point about being concerned about over-hasty regulation, but as she progresses this work, will she look at whether there is a role for the Regulator of Social Housing in relation to exempt accommodation, and at the easy access that landlords have to Government funds for exempt accommodation? Those seem to be two difficulties at the moment.
Kelly Tolhurst
Absolutely. I will be looking at all the options that are available. There is a fine balancing act when it comes to decisions or regulations that we make. However, the hon. Gentleman will know of one of the pieces of work that we have already initiated—the £3.1 million of funding for five local authority areas to test approaches to improving quality and oversight in the housing sector. That will enable us to get data, evidence and best practice to test some of the work. That is ongoing work but we hope that the pilots will influence some of it.
There are a number of objectives for the pilots. Undertaking inspection and enforcement work through a multidisciplinary team will drive up standards in accommodation and send a clear signal to providers about our intentions and expectations for supported housing schemes. Also, through a review of the care and support provided at the properties, again through the use of multidisciplinary teams, councils will ensure that people get the support that they need and is appropriate to them. I understand and take the hon. Gentleman’s point about oversight of support and its quality.
Finally, in relation to the delivery of a comprehensive assessment of local need for and supply of supported housing, improved oversight of local provision will empower local areas and enable them to plan strategically to meet current and projected demand. I am pleased to say that, as I have outlined, the hon. Gentleman already has one of the schemes within his local authority, Birmingham City Council. We hope that that will drive up the quality of support, in addition to a focus on managing the antisocial behaviour aspect of supported housing in Birmingham. My officials are working closely with the council to monitor progress and provide support.
I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about achieving the best outcomes for the individuals in question, and have taken on board issues that he has raised about the impact, particularly in his constituency. I thank him very much and look forward to engaging and working with him as we progress the measures within Government to improve quality and oversight. I am grateful to have had this debate today.
Question put and agreed to.
Family Visits in Health and Social Care Settings: Covid-19
(4 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Esther McVey (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 then place those materials in the bin. They should also respect the one-way system around the room. Members should speak only from the horseshoe, and they can speak 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 list. Members are not expected to remain for the wind-up speeches. I remind hon. Members that there is less of an expectation that they stay for the next two speeches once they have spoken—that is to help manage attendance in the room. Members may wish to stay beyond their speech, but they should be aware that if there are lots of speakers, doing so might prevent Members in the seats in the Public Gallery from moving to the horseshoe.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered family visit access in health and social care settings during the covid-19 outbreak.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. My main focus in speaking today is to highlight the need for improved patient advocacy and adult safeguarding via visitation rights for family members of working-age disabled adults in full-time residential care, including those admitted to hospital. Such patients often cannot speak for themselves and need additional access to family members who are able to advocate and communicate on their behalf.
I applied for the debate because of an awful situation of a mother in my constituency—a mother, much like me or any hon. Member present, who has had to endure a situation that I hope no mother has to face in the future. She is a teacher, a local community advocate, a single mother and someone who has tirelessly fought for her child’s care needs. She was prevented from caring for her son, Jamie, and forced to abandon him to a care home that did not live up to its name. At 21 years old and with no visitors, he was left isolated, bewildered and depressed, often calling out in anguish, “I want my mum. I want my mum.”
Jamie was a warm and affectionate young man who loved touch, kinaesthetic learning and being with people. His mother was denied access to her child, and I cannot begin to imagine what it must have felt like, knowing that her son was denied the care of his family for months—denied a hug, denied the comfort of a warm hand holding his, and denied dignity in his suffering. As a mother, my constituent felt powerless but sure that, had she been able to see him, she would have identified his decline and been able to intervene.
Underfed, Jamie wasted away, getting thinner and thinner in his confusion and isolation. Separated from those he loved and trusted, with multiple bedsores and open wounds left untreated, he began to withdraw within himself and into a catatonic state of unresponsiveness—a young adult with complex disabilities and care needs, left to suffer in silence. By the time his mother was able to see him, it was too late. She reflected on the lack of status that she felt as a mother, which she felt was shared by many family members. It felt to her as though families are often seen as a nuisance or even a threat, and they are sidelined and ignored by some in adult care homes. This mother also felt strongly that some adult care homes do not embrace the care of the whole person.
Jamie entered full-time care at age 13. As a child in a care setting, it was wonderful. The care was holistic and helped support Jamie in every aspect of his daily life and learning. He thrived in that environment, but the change came when he moved into adult social care. Many adult care homes are excellent and highly skilled in supporting adults with complex disabilities, but others—it might be a very small minority—seem reluctant to work with families or to provide adequate levels of transparency and care. It is an ongoing problem, which existed well before the covid pandemic; that has only highlighted these issues.
Disallowing visits or video links that allow families to see and interact with patients takes away a level of scrutiny that makes those already vulnerable chronically so. Depriving vulnerable working-age disabled adults who have complex disabilities and needs, especially those who already struggle with communication, of the love and support of their families is inhumane and cruel. As a society, we lessen our dignity and humanity when we allow our loved ones to perish alone and to wither away and give up on life. Jamie had no voice, so I am here today to speak on his behalf, and on behalf of his mother and grandmother, to make sure that his story is remembered and that other deaths can be prevented this winter.
I welcome the Government’s support for care homes and adult social care during the pandemic and I thank the Minister for reaching out to me the moment that I applied for this debate. She has been incredibly helpful and I thank her for her active participation in finding a solution and justice in Jamie’s case. I thank the Government for their care home support package in March that announced £1.6 billion funding for local government and £1.3 billion to go to the NHS and social care. In April, a further £1.6 billion was announced for local government and for the adult social care action plan and, in September 2020, the Government published “Adult social care: our COVID-19 winter plan 2020 to 2021”, which was shaped and recommended by the adult social care taskforce. The plan set out key elements of national support available for the social care sector for winter 2020; I welcome everything that was outlined in it.
Finally, I welcome the Government’s announcement on visiting guidelines from 5 November. Allowing visitation is so important for patient care, advocacy, safeguarding and mental wellbeing, particularly for disabled vulnerable patients who may not be able to advocate for their own care needs. Allowing family members to visit could save many lives during the winter months and prevent other vulnerable disabled patients from being neglected, abused and left to suffer and die in silence, while restoring a level of compassion, empathy and humanity to patient care both in hospital and in the care home setting.
Now that we are in the second lockdown I ask the Minister and others to consider what lessons we have learned from the excess deaths in care homes and from the adult safeguarding issues raised during the first lockdown. I understand that the main goal of the Department of Health and Social Care is to protect the NHS, particularly during the winter months, but we also need to save the lives of the vulnerable disabled by allowing each patient to have a family member with them as their advocate and carer. That would be aided by the improvement in mass testing in the coming months and the availability of personal protective equipment. This cohort needs a special exemption. A carer would allow for lives to be saved and, with mass testing and the arrival of a vaccine, that could help safeguard many other lives in the future.
If the NHS reaches capacity, as it often does in the peak winter months of January and February, another alternative would be for a family member or carer of the vulnerable patient to care for them directly in a home, a hospital or care home setting. A family member or loved one can also help with caring for the vulnerable person at home, further reducing the burden of care to the NHS. Many of these family members are able-bodied adults who are at a lower risk of developing serious health problems from covid-19 transmission. We also have to allow people to care for those they love.
I welcome the Government’s announcement in the winter care plan that local authorities should work with social care services to reopen safely, especially day services and respite services. Reopening such day centres would allow families to manage a disabled loved one’s care more effectively, while perhaps reducing the need for full-time residential care and lightening the burden on full-time carers who do not have access to vital daycare facilities. The Relatives and Residents Association, which is an advocacy group, reported that helpline callers had been concerned about the standard of care falling as already stretched services face staff shortages and burn-out. Stopping visits from family and friends restricts the ability for oversight and advocacy.
One of the callers to the association’s helpline said that his wife
“starved herself to death. Her death was due to the pandemic but she did not die from the virus itself. It wasn’t coronavirus—it was death due to a refusal to eat. She was isolated and alone.”
Perhaps the Minister could provide clarity as to whether families are now permitted to remove their loved ones from residential care home settings, and what the protocol for that would be, moving forward.
Jamie’s care home was in a neighbouring county, but his mother and grandmother lived in my constituency. Buckinghamshire County Council and the NHS are excellent and I worked extremely closely with them during the pandemic and the first lockdown to protect care homes and elderly residents, and to reduce the rate of transmission and death in care homes. I was proud of the work that we all did to protect the elderly in South Bucks.
However, the issue of working-age adults with complex disabilities in residential care facilities completely passed me by in the first lockdown, because many of my residents had additional needs and were at home. They were reliant on day centres and respite care. That was the issue I was seeing, not the issue of the long-term residential care crisis.
I did not learn about Jamie’s treatment during lockdown until the week before his death, when it was too late for me to help. That is why I am raising the matter now. This patient cohort cannot speak or advocate for their own care. They require extensive care and support from care home and hospital staff, and could run the greatest risk of being sidelined during a spike in hospital admissions, when staff resources are spread more thinly and they have to prioritise patient care.
Because these patients require the most care it is important that they have a family member who can be with them as their patient advocate and carer, to help ensure that they make it through these winter months. I welcome the Government’s announcement of a vaccine and I know that, with the highlighting of safeguarding, we can get through these winter months, and that Jamie’s memory will not be forgotten.
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
It might be helpful to colleagues to know that I intend to call the Front Benchers by 3.30 pm at the very latest. I would like to ensure that all colleagues get to speak today.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) for securing this debate on such a hugely important topic.
Throughout the pandemic I have received devastating correspondence from my constituents, as I imagine all Members have, regarding the inability to see their loved ones in care homes. Although the restrictions placed on care homes are for the protection of the most vulnerable and their carers, the loneliness and isolation that people feel, especially those with dementia, has increased due to covid-19 preventing them from seeing their family and friends.
Although more needs to be done for residents with dementia and other diseases, I welcome the guidance that was provided by the Government last week, which sets out plans on how our care home residents and their families can be reunited. For areas such as mine that have experienced heightened restrictions for more than three months, the measures will help tackle the mental health and wellbeing of care home residents and reunite families.
Prior to those tougher restrictions being imposed in July, the images of family members being able to see one another again were truly heartwarming. The joy in the faces of residents and their families will stay with me for a long time. To have that taken away seems not only heartbreaking but cruel. I truly sympathise with all families and care workers who have had to endure that hardship.
Some care homes in my constituency are extremely limited as to what contact between families they can provide, with either limited window space for window meetings or limited telephones to speak to family members. One care home, which I will not name, has only one phone for residents, and that frequently does not work or is not answered.
Along with all Members, I agree that we need to tackle this pandemic but we also need to be fair in tackling it. I fear that is one factor that we are forgetting. It is more important than ever to use technology to help mitigate some of those issues, but a lack of understanding of how to use technology, on the part of residents and even staff, has prevented it from being fully utilised. What is being done further to mitigate those issues?
There is no greater need than to spend time with one’s loved ones. That need is even stronger for our most vulnerable and we must go further in addressing that need. The Government’s announcement last week was a big step in the right direction, but we need to carry on our journey to tackle the issues of loneliness and mental health.
I will put on the record my thanks to all the care workers across Radcliffe, Prestwich and Whitefield for the immense work that they have undertaken during the pandemic, for the work that they continue to undertake, and for the hardship that they must endure in having to deal with the frustrations and heartbreak that they see on a daily basis.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) for securing the debate and I congratulate her on her moving speech on Jamie’s behalf. I lived in her constituency through my teens, and in fact I stood against her predecessor a long time ago. My mother is still one of her constituents. She is living very much independently, but maybe one day I will need to go to the hon. Member for help with my mother regarding the issue that we are debating today.
I will also place on the record my thanks to those working in the social care sector. Their courageous work during the pandemic, delivering quality care in horrendously difficult circumstances, has not gone unnoticed. The pandemic has been difficult for everyone, but for those residing in care homes, or for those with loved ones living in them, it has been nightmarish. Over 40% of covid-19 deaths have taken place in care homes—more than 26,000 deaths. The combination of fear and isolation, coupled with a dearth of familiar emotional support, is creating a mental health crisis in our care home settings.
Recently, I received this letter from a constituent:
“Dear Alex, my letter is concerning my bedbound 81-year-old mother. who is currently resident at a care home in Leeds North West. My mother, Patricia, has been a resident for many years. Along with many families, we had no contact with mum over the course of the pandemic, apart from a very short video, which lasted around a minute, sent when requested at desperation in the early months of the pandemic.
We requested that should a window room become available, could mum be moved, so we could at least visit her from a safe distance without entering the premises. Six weeks ago, a room did become available and we have been visiting mum at a window since. Today, however, I was contacted by the care home manager to inform me that we can no longer visit mum.
We are devastated that our family is being so cruelly torn apart. I thought that, as a strong woman, I would be able to deal with the mental impact, but it is destructive. Surely, there are humane options which can keep families together.”
I am thankful to the Minister and to the Government that guidance has now been released that says visiting through screens or windows is allowed, which is welcome news for my constituent. However, for many residents with dementia or other cognitive impairments, the distress that would cause makes it untenable. Similarly, the British winter makes outdoor visits impractical for older and vulnerable visitors.
In addition, the cost of implementing measures that have been suggested to create environments that are safe from covid-19 are to be met by care providers. There is no commitment of additional money, excluding the infection control fund, to cover the costs associated with purchasing screens or visiting pods. Government shortcomings will doubtless result in convenient finger-pointing at individual care homes, which are unable to front the additional costs for safe visiting.
We also need to give family members the same rights as key workers, who are afforded regular access to testing and trained to wear personal protective equipment. The Government must know that that is the best way forward, as they promised a pilot scheme on those lines, but that was nearly a month ago and no date for the pilot has been forthcoming. I look forward to hearing the Minister say when we can expect to see that pilot begin.
The wellbeing of residents must be placed at the forefront of the Government’s plans. That should include a recognition of the important role that social workers play in facilitating providers’ and residents’ decision making about visits. Social workers must be recognised as professional visitors, to ensure that residents’ views and wishes are central to decision making about visits, and to support care providers to explore thoroughly rights and risks alongside all the other factors that must be considered in making bespoke visiting arrangements.
Practice is different across the care sector. Hospices such as the Sue Ryder Wheatfields Hospice in my constituency have given social workers access, unlike many care homes, which have denied them access. Social workers are mentioned briefly in the guidance issued for lockdown, which states:
“Social workers can assist with individual risk assessments, for visits, and can advise on decision-making where the person in question lacks capacity to make the decision themselves.”
But social workers do so much more, and are pivotal in promoting strengths-based human rights models of good practice. Social workers undertake a variety of statutory and non-statutory functions on behalf of public bodies. Recognition of the importance of safe access to care and health settings for social workers as professional visitors is essential. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on this matter.
Residents, staff and the families of those in care homes have been failed by this Government since the beginning of the pandemic. From woefully inadequate PPE—I had to deliver PPE myself to care settings—to inadequate testing, I am afraid that the social care sector has been treated with contempt. On top of a decade of underfunding, that has created a crisis within a crisis that is entirely of the Government’s own making.
Beyond the pandemic, long-term reform of the social care system is urgently needed. But for now, at the very least families should be able to see their loved ones, so I urge the Minister for Care to press forward with the pilot, to ensure that it begins as quickly and safely as possible.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair in this important debate, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) for securing it and for sharing the harrowing story of Jamie from her constituency. It will stay with every single person who heard it.
I will begin my remarks, as others have done, by sharing a passage from a letter from a constituent called Penny Hutchinson. Her mother, Yvonne, is living with dementia in a care home in Halifax. She said: “Imagine that you had not seen your mum for eight months because she has been locked away in isolation with no meaningful family contact. Then imagine the huge feeling of relief and elation as restrictions are lifted and the vulnerable are told they no longer need to shield. Now imagine the feeling of complete desolation when you discover that those freedoms and privileges don’t apply to your mum and dad. Add to that the overwhelming feeling of guilt when you try to explain to your loved one why you can’t come in to see her, hold her hand or give her a hug, and that there is no end in sight.” I sent that letter on to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care because it said more than I could have done on her behalf.
Like Penny’s mum, more than 70% of people living in care homes have a form of dementia. Visits from family members have a really important part to play in the cognitive state of those residents, but instead of being able to be close to loved ones at this anxious time, the best they can hope for is a socially distanced meeting behind plexiglass or outside in this weather. Although that is well intentioned, it can often cause confusion and distress.
Efforts to protect those who are older and clinically vulnerable by managing contact diligently will still of course have to be a priority in the coming weeks as we strive to avoid outbreaks in care homes and manage them where they have occurred. The Alzheimer’s Society has been keen to make it clear that for those with dementia, limiting visits in that way can lead to their symptoms increasing and their condition deteriorating more rapidly, ultimately leading to premature death, so a rebalancing of those risks is required.
I want to put on the record my thanks to Calderdale’s director of public health, Debs Harkins, who has worked tirelessly throughout the pandemic alongside her colleagues, including the director of adult services and wellbeing, Iain Baines. They have both met Penny and others to try to make progress.
Before I move on to the solutions, I want to point out that when I received a response to Penny’s letter from the Minister’s civil servants, it said: “The Government’s guidance for visiting arrangements for care homes published on 22 July allows for local decision making based on the assessment of the director of public health and the care provider. Further details can be found at the gov.uk website by searching for ‘visiting care homes during coronavirus’.”
I followed that link, and at the time it stressed that:
“For local areas with a high local COVID alert level (high risk or very high risk)”—
Halifax has been in tier 2 equivalent restrictions since July—
“visiting should be limited to exceptional circumstances only”,
such as end-of-life care. That gives no discretion for directors of public health, and puts them in an impossible position with family members desperate to see loved ones. Some clarity on decision making for visits would be incredibly welcome.
I imagine that everybody in this debate feels that the situation is far from acceptable—we have heard from many hon. Members already—so what would make a difference? I have been pleased to see news this week of mass testing, rapid testing and vaccines being developed at pace. We must ensure that residents of care homes, those working in care homes and designated family members are the first in line to access them as they become available. Treating designated family members as key workers would be a logical step. It would not overwhelm the system and would ease the distress of so many care home residents and their families.
We all know that social care workers have been among the many heroes of this crisis. They have carried themselves with dignity, honour and respect in the face of unimaginable pressures. However, as they tell us, not even they can provide full care to their residents without the support of family members. For those with dementia, family visits are not privileges or luxuries but a vital part of their care and treatment. Therefore, it seems appropriate to consider measures such as this—the shadow Minister has also been calling for it—which would ease the considerable pressures that social care workers have been placed under and the mental anguish faced by separated families. We must work together to reach a better settlement for care home staff, residents and their family members.
When this is all over, we will bring the economy back from the brink, but there will be some opportunities that we will never get again. Let us not regret not doing everything possible when we had the chance.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I offer sincere thanks to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) for securing this vital debate.
It is clear that many MPs have been contacted by worried—often terrified—constituents whose parents, children, relatives or friends are in care homes. I for one have felt utterly heartbroken listening to some of them describing the fear and isolation that they know their loved ones are experiencing, and I, too, have an example—one of many. The mother of my constituent Steph is in a care home. Steph is one of five children and for a long time they have each spent hours on end with their mother. They lovingly held her hands, combed her hair, remembered stories together and reminisced about the past. They were not just visiting their mum; they were providing essential care.
Eight months on from the arrival of coronavirus, Steph still cannot touch her mum. People like her all over the country cannot hug their mothers or fathers, children, siblings or friends. They still cannot hold their hands to comfort or reassure them. All that they can do is watch their often rapid decline, for just half an hour at a time, from a distance—perhaps from a structure in a garden, or sometimes through a closed window, or maybe a screen if they are lucky. Like Steph’s mum those vulnerable people are struggling to understand why their children and families cannot be with them. An entire lifetime of love and closeness is ripped away from them and torn apart. For every person affected, every single passing day is a precious day lost.
Now, as winter approaches and, predictably, we are in the second wave, there are still no guidelines in place to protect loved ones from dying not only in loneliness and isolation, but from it. The Government like to talk up their ambition in many other areas. We have all heard of Operation Moonshot, Nightingale hospitals and world-beating apps, but there has been barely a whisper about allowing family carers to be with their loved ones. The announcement of a trial period was welcome, but for many people it created an even greater desperation, because they could not see any end in sight for the enforced separation.
Last week I co-ordinated a group of 40 MPs from across the House who wrote to the Secretary of State with a real plan. It would allow a designated family or friend carer to have the same key worker status as someone paid to work in a care home. They would have the same access to tests and PPE, and the same access to their loved ones. A number of groups have been calling for various measures of that kind for some time. They include the National Care Forum, Age UK, One Dementia Voice and the British Association of Social Workers. We are pleased to give them and the people they represent our full backing and a strong voice today.
I want to be clear: care workers have been magnificent throughout the pandemic, but the care that our families give is no less important for health and wellbeing. The cruel 30-minute time limit on visits must be scrapped, and care homes must have protection from legal action if covid is introduced to a home by a designated visitor. Those are the same protections that have been agreed for the NHS. Time is running out. With every day that passes, isolation, loneliness and deterioration grow for many of the most vulnerable in society, and friends and family carers experience more anguish. They pass another day of separation from their loved ones as they slip away faster, and more painfully, than they should.
It is often said that the true test of a country is how it treats its most vulnerable. For as long as the Government hold out and do not implement the plan I have described, they are failing that test, and failing the thousands of families who experience anguish every single precious day.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) for securing this vital debate and opening it so well. I also want to join in with the calls of thanks to the staff across the social care sector who have worked so hard for residents across the country. I send my thoughts and best wishes to all the residents, and their families and friends.
East Sussex has the highest proportion of care homes in the south-east, and yet our county has the lowest covid rate. That suggests that our care homes have stood up to the challenge and done a great job, despite the enormous task that was in front of them.
The challenge before us now is as follows: keeping vulnerable people safe without taking away their right to live their years in dignity, and in the company of family and friends. I have been helped by many residents across my constituency to put that dilemma into words. A contribution from Heathfield sums it up:
“In the care home where my partner resides, they allow two half-hour visiting slots a day. There are forty residents, that will give each resident one half-hour visit every ten days, even so it is still not enough. On each visit the loved one sits at one end of a room, the visitor at the opposite end and the carer in between…My partner’s mental health has remarkably deteriorated in the last few months, apathy and depression are more dominant on each visit. Every time we visit she seems more and more withdrawn and most likely feels abandoned by her loved ones because of the limited visiting.”
Last week, the Government issued revised guidance for visiting arrangements in care homes, to ensure safe access and visits by families and loved ones. The guidance proposed a range of options to create covid-19-secure care home environments and visits, including visits taking place outside and the installation of wall-to-ceiling screens.
I recognise that we have now liberated care home visits, compared with the last lockdown. I also recognise the dilemma for the Minister, because she has been a target for some. We try to do the right thing by residents, and yet here we are saying, “Open up!” If we do so, we need to protect the Minister—the onus, if we take more risk, is based on a cross-party decision.
I hope I am not overdramatising, but some of the measures read to me as more akin to a prison visit than a care home visit. They are also costly, in a system that is already financially constrained. Furthermore, the measures could be avoided with the introduction of testing for designated family and friends.
I want the Government to consider the following seven measures: regular testing for at least one designated family member and all visiting health professionals; the vaccine—when ready, as we hope it will be—to be prioritised for care home residents, and given to the designated family member and the staff of the care setting when given to the resident; a recognition that with testing and PPE, safe and closer contact can be permitted, and that we have learned from the devastating impact of the first lockdown; additional funding to support care providers to create covid-19-secure environments to enable members of the wider family to visit; national and local monitoring, and a reporting process for any blanket decision to ban visits; an acceptance that virtual technology, as good as it is, cannot replace human in-person interaction; and, finally, for providers at a local level actively to promote the safe visits.
This Friday, I will partake in my regular care home quiz with the residents at Ardath in Bexhill. Sadly, we cannot be physically together, but will join on Zoom. Our quiz master, the remarkable resident Georgie Farrow, always sets a tough challenge for me and brings laughter to the room. That residential care setting, like many others I visit, demonstrates the love, fun and spirit that can exist. It is vital that we do not lose that ethos while rightly seeking to keep residents safe.
We should not shy away from the real danger. In seeking to protect vulnerable residents, we might not only diminish their quality of life, but end up prematurely ending it altogether. The ingredients of love, care and protection, which loved ones deliver, are vital to keep vulnerable people alive and with a life. On that note, I very much hope that the Government and all of us, across parties, will work together as one to give more life into our care homes.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) for securing this important debate.
One of the harshest features of the restrictions that we introduced many months ago to stop the spread of covid has been for our constituents not to be able to visit their loved ones in care homes. I have received—as I am sure has every colleague in this place—many letters expressing the real frustration and angst that they feel because of the restrictions that we have introduced. The updated guidance released last week is welcome, and it attempts to address some of the concerns, but we need to bring an element of humanity and empathy to the guidance. I know that many in this room, and our constituents, will feel that something has gone wrong over the last few months.
I want to talk briefly about a family in my constituency whose situation is very similar to those already raised by other Members. There is a young man whose family live in my Warrington South constituency, but his care home is in Greater Manchester. While we did not have any restrictions in Warrington, he was existing under restrictions in Greater Manchester, and different approaches were being taken. I tried many, many times to speak to the director of public health in Greater Manchester about the issues facing this family. I must say, it was a real nightmare to communicate across different county boundaries and to try to have a one-to-one conversation with someone from the care home and with the people regulating that care home.
The young man did not get to see his parents for about five months in total. That is simply wrong. Not only did the young man not get to see his mum and dad, but mum and dad did not get to see their son. I can only imagine how awful it would be, as a dad, not to see my son for that length of time. I think we do need to think again about the way we have interpreted some of these rules.
I want to recognise—we cannot forget it—how badly the first wave hit care homes. Therefore, everything I have just said is tempered against the fact that far too many elderly residents passed away as a result of covid-19. Some of the most awful conversations I have had in the past 12 months were with family members—daughters, sons, wives and husbands—who had lost a loved one in a care home.
At the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, there were around 66,000 deaths of care home residents, and around 19,500 were covid-related. That means around 30% of all deaths in care homes were related to covid-19. Therefore, it is no surprise that we have had to put measures into place to try to protect residents in care homes, but they are not prisons; they are care homes—the clue is in the word “care”. Care is not just about protecting someone from a virus, but about ensuring that their mental health is maintained.
At the same time, we all know that being able to offer more visits will help everyone’s mental health and wellbeing. That is why we need to look further than the visits that are being carried out today. We need to be able to define the importance of the therapeutic impact that visits can have or, equally, how the suspension of visiting can damage the mental health of individuals and their families.
Dementia or Alzheimer’s disease was the most common pre-existing condition found among those people who sadly died as a result of covid-19 within care homes—around 50% of all deaths. For people who suffer with dementia, a lack of social contact not only is bad for their mental health, but has a significant impact on the progression of that dementia. This is a real priority for those who care for people suffering with dementia. Family and friends must play a significant role in the care of those people. Interpreting their needs and providing that personal care is incredibly important, but also very challenging in very difficult circumstances.
I welcome the announcement of a pilot scheme to enable informal carers to be given key worker status, and I am looking forward to the Minister giving us more details on that. The introduction of the lateral flow rapid tests for Warrington—10,000 being given to Warrington this week—is very welcome. I am encouraging the director of public health in Warrington to make sure that she is in touch with care homes, to ensure that those family members who need to get into care homes can get those frequent tests.
I will finish with a brief mention of a constituent who wrote to me earlier this week—a gentleman who, I think it is fair to say, is in his mature stage of life—to say that he had purchased a piece of technology and had installed it in a window in his wife’s care home. He told me that it was similar to the system used in a post office, with a microphone and a speaker, and it made a world of difference to him and his wife. He could now do a visit in complete safety, with no risk whatsoever. The window remains sealed, but he does not have to shout or practise sign language. He has been able to share his ideas with other people in the care home, and other visitors and relatives have taken on board his ideas and introduced them in other care homes.
I finish by paying tribute, and recording my thanks, to those who work in care homes in Warrington South. They have done an incredible job over the last 12 months. I also thank the members of the social care team in Warrington who look after elderly residents in their own homes by going into a home every day to ensure that they are well cared for.
There are many issues that we need to tackle for families and people in care, and I hope the Minister can take back to the Department some of the things that we have talked about today, so that it can come forward with some more ideas.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I should say to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) that I was really moved by the way she opened the debate, particularly the way she described Jamie’s story. It will be imprinted on my mind and, I am sure, on the minds of all hon. Members present.
When things do not add up, I ask questions. During the first lockdown, I had to jump through hoops just to obtain data to find out what was actually happening in our care homes. I spoke to managers, the local authority, relatives, staff and whistleblowers, then I put the jigsaw together. In the vast majority of care homes, residents were kept safe, and I thank the staff for their extraordinary work and for the ends that they went to in order to care for the residents. However, some care homes stood out. In the first period, around half of covid-related deaths in York were in care homes. Discharging patients into care homes—something I pleaded with the local authority not to do—seeded the infection. It then spread with the lack of PPE and no training in barrier nursing.
However, there was another conclusion to my inquiry: care homes became closed environments. One thing that we know about closed environments is that they are also unsafe. We have heard so many times in this place about the bitter experience of that. The plethora of informal inspectors were not there—GPs, community pharmacists and other professionals. They did not go in and see for themselves. Families did not go in either.
Families notice things. They notice if mum cannot reach a cup of tea, is looking unwell, has not eaten or is confused, and they notice if dad is slightly more unsteady on his feet, upset or withdrawn. But they were not there do that. However, one family noticed the eerie silence at one care home. Having been told that everything was fine, they learned that 15 people had died over a fortnight. They were not informed of the risk, only that the deaths had occurred. By the time it came to their deathbed visits, of course, it was all too late. During a deathbed visit to their mum, who had been fine, they found her emaciated, as if she had not eaten since their last visit in previous weeks. On another visit, they noticed that mum’s mobile was uncharged. On another, she had a fractured pelvis on discharge. That is why visits must occur; if they do not, these things go unnoticed.
It was whistleblowers who informed me that, at one care home, people contracted covid but their death certificates with marked with their underlying health condition. Covid was not put on the death certificate, because there were fears of reputational damage to the care home. The staff’s concerns were dismissed, and they were bullied. Even when the CQC came at my calling, they were shifted out of sight or moved to other shifts. Families would have noticed such issues.
Families must be proactively communicated with at all times and supplied with the information that they need to make care choices. As one relative said,
“We would have brought mum home had I known there was covid. It took her life.”
I am sure we were all distressed to see a nurse who went to take her 97-year-old mum home being arrested for doing what any of us would do in those circumstances. Families must visit and must have the choice where care is provided.
A constituent wrote to me this week, having celebrated his 60th wedding anniversary in September. He and his wife are both in their 80s and were told they could not visit. He said:
“When your whole existence is dedicated to the love you have for one another, it tells you something is very wrong.”
A distressed daughter told me this week that her father “couldn’t visit mum”. What are we doing to people? This is just so wrong. People are separated because our care system does not allow spouses to join their life partners unless they pay extortionate fees that they cannot afford.
I urge the Minister to look at that issue in the care sector. Not only must we give choice around visiting, but it must become a human right for older people. Visits can be facilitated with dedication and focus, PPE supply, and lateral flow testing to open up more opportunities and create safe spaces. We need to ensure that indemnity insurance does not prohibit the care home sector from pursuing that.
On the vaccine, the most vulnerable and those wishing to visit them must be prioritised. We must also ensure that there are clear and easy routes for staff, residents and relatives to raise any concerns they may have. We all know that we need to look into the eyes of those we love—hold them, and know that they are safe.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. This debate matters so much to so many people. Like colleagues, I have been touched by correspondence and have taken to heart so many of the difficult personal circumstances that my constituents have been through in recent months. I congratulate the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) on securing the debate, because I do not think that the issue has had enough attention in the House, especially with so much changing guidance over recent months.
We know the headline coronavirus figures because they are so stark: we are reaching 50,000 deaths in this country. Families are grieving loved ones, and people across the country are losing their livelihoods and facing hardship through no fault of their own. Let us remember that almost 30,000 of those deaths were excess care home deaths in the first wave of the pandemic, when residents of care homes were so tragically failed.
Behind the numbers, there are countless personal stories: families forced apart; special moments with loved ones missed; and the grief of losing family members. Visits to care homes and to health settings are just one of those sacrifices. Visits play a vital role—not just for families, but for ensuring the proper running of care homes and the protection of their residents. The first set of guidance, published on 2 April 2020, stated:
“Family and friends should be advised not to visit care homes, except next of kin in exceptional situations such as end of life”.
In the summer, when restrictions were eased slightly, further guidance was issued for limited visits. The most recent and up-to-date guidance puts the ball in the court of care homes providers, families and local professionals to work together to ensure that visits are covid secure.
In reality, care home visits are a lottery. Relatives tell me that it is still proving difficult for them to secure consistent visits. That lottery means that one home in my constituency facilitates window and garden visits and arranges Facetime and Zoom calls. Another home had facilitated window visits when they were allowed, but found that residents were left upset and agitated as they did not understand why they could not see their family as normal, and Facetime and Zoom calls often led to more confusion and upset. That home now has a designated area so family members can visit during the winter, and has created an action plan to put that in place.
I want to share the words of one constituent, who has kept in touch with me throughout recent months as she has tried to visit her mother in a care home. She wrote to me this week to say:
“I was allowed in the care home on Thursday to see her, poor mum, its heartbreaking see her wither away to nothing. I was not allowed to hug or touch her, she kept getting up from the chair to come to me and I had to walk away and around the table, she was following me. Gut wrenching, all she wanted was her daughter, to feel safe, feel reassured and be with me.”
Of course, people have so many questions that need answering to ensure safe visits. As it stands, some visits are happening, but the practicalities and ability of some care homes means that visits are just not possible and too many families are still being left out. As colleagues will know, Liverpool is now piloting mass testing and I welcome the fact that Liverpool City Council is exploring how we can use the Mast lateral flow testing to support more direct visiting. I encourage the Minister to touch on that point.
Nothing can replace being able to visit a loved one in person, and nothing is more important to the people suffering the heartache of being separated from them week after week, month after month. I implore the Minister to do everything possible—I am sure she will—to ease that pain for my constituents and the millions across the country who have been affected for too long. There is no excuse for the inhumane treatment of care home residents in this country. Care homes need funding, PPE, testing and expert advice to set up safe visiting.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am very glad to participate in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), who set out the importance of social and family contact for older and vulnerable adults. She made specific reference, in disturbing detail, to her own constituent in a way that sums up the difficulties that we face.
I have found this debate difficult. The issue before us, and certainly before the Minister, is very fraught—every choice in this situation brings its own serious challenges. I am conscious that these matters are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, but I speak in the spirit of common areas of concern about the issue. Specifically, how do we support the emotional and social needs of our older people while taking due cognisance of our need also to keep them safe? We have shared that goal today across the Chamber. I put on the record that those working in our care sector, I think we can all agree, do sterling work and deserve our thanks and recognition. I declare an interest: my sister Kathleen and my niece Chloe both work in the care sector.
Keeping older people safe and allowing them access to loved ones is something that every participant has highlighted. The balance is very difficult to strike, I think; we have heard about the tensions as we try to work through how we strike that balance correctly. I speak as one with some personal insight into the issue: my mother-in-law is in a care home in Saltcoats. She has dementia and lockdown has caused a dramatic and shocking decline in her condition. She has simply stopped eating. Her decline has been so great that I do not, in all honesty, believe that it can be reversed, or perhaps even halted, in her case; I accept that that may not apply to many people in her position, of whom I know there are many.
I have also heard from staff in several care homes that older people are suffering very badly from their lack of social interaction with other residents, their lack of contact with family and their missing out on the kinds of exchanges and conversations that could once have been taken for granted as a normal part of their day.
The lack of stimulation for many older people—it is horrible to say it—is akin to a slow death and is very upsetting. It is upsetting for the families of those who live in care homes and for the staff who work in them, who, throughout the pandemic, have coped with enormous challenges in a way that I hope they know we are very grateful for and of which they can be proud. Care home residents with dementia do not really know or understand why they cannot see their loved ones, which only adds to their distress and that of their relatives, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) illustrated for us.
Conversely, many people who have elderly parents in care homes are very keen and anxious that their elderly relatives should be kept as safe as is possible at this time, until there is a vaccine for the virus or it subsides. We need to be mindful that the average age of those dying from covid is 83 years old. That stark statistic reminds us of the kinds of choices that we are trying to balance.
We are now in a position whereby visits to care homes to see elderly relatives can resume—obviously, with strict measures in place to ensure that they are as safe as they can be. Residential care homes have made use of screens and windows, and outdoor and virtual visits. However, there is some concern among care home owners —we have heard a bit about this today—that they will face litigation over covid deaths as their insurance premiums soar in the midst of this pandemic. I think that, just as the NHS has some protection in that regard, so too must care homes.
We have all heard of the distress and loneliness, the destructive sense of isolation, that older people have felt, particularly but not exclusively in care homes, as they miss that very important contact with loved ones. A phone call or a Zoom connection is a substitute, but it is much less satisfactory in terms of emotional connection. There is no substitute for an isolated older person having a cup of tea while sitting in their favourite chair just across from a loved one, having a hug and seeing the smiling faces of their grandchildren. A virtual substitute can never replace that.
As our older people wait in a limbo of loneliness, missing loved ones, they do not know—we do not know —how long this limbo will last. That uncertainty is very distressing, because if someone is at the very advanced stages of life, their fear is that they will never again have close contact with their family. That awful prospect must leave people despairing.
In all this, we must not forget the staff in care homes. They dedicate their days to looking after our elderly relatives. They see every day how some of our older people are simply not coping with the restrictions, and it is very distressing for them; I am sure that it takes an emotional toll on them as well. They feel very keenly their duty to keep their charges safe and they, too, often feel torn and helpless, as so many of us feel in the face of this cruel pandemic.
The biggest fear as the pandemic rumbles on—turning our lives, as we knew them, upside down—is that we save our older people from covid only to lose them to despair. Most residents in care homes have dementia, and I fear that they are utterly bewildered and confused by the current situation. They cannot understand why they cannot mix freely with others, as they used to.
Expanding testing to include designated visitors to care homes—we have heard a bit about this today—as soon as capacity allows will, of course, be part of the solution as we try to make inroads into this difficult situation. We also have the prospect of a vaccine, which we all hope will be available before too much longer. However, we need to continue to look for creative ways, such as that pointed out to us by the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), to navigate the road ahead. For as long as restrictions are in place, we need to find ways to combat the despair, distress and isolation of our older people, who feel very keenly this separation from loved ones.
Last week, Scotland’s Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport met again with families of people in care homes. Like all of us, she is acutely aware of the importance of visits for the health and wellbeing of care home residents and their families. Indeed, leaders of all parts of the UK are grappling with these very human issues in which lives are at stake and every choice they make needs to be very finely balanced and is fraught with potential danger. I am sure that these matters give those leaders and the Minister sleepless nights. I do not envy them their task. During these terrible times, a stark and difficult set of choices and decisions have to be made which could literally mean the difference between life and death. Across the UK, guidance for social care settings continues to be under review so all that can be done, will be done, to support safe visiting.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views on these important matters and how she thinks we can better support our older people in care homes. Theirs is a generation whose lives were blighted by war in their youth and are now blighted by this cruel virus in their old age. Of course, we need to protect them and look after them, but for many the cost of isolation from loved ones and of restrictions on stimulation, is very high, as they lose their sense of who they are and their dementia takes greater hold of their lives.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) on securing this important debate and on her brilliantly powerful speech. I am particularly grateful that she focused on working-age adults with disabilities who have all too often been ignored in this debate so far.
Since mid-June, I have been calling for a way forward that will keep residents safe and get family visits going again. I will come on to that later, but I start by paying tribute to all those who have been working so hard to bring families back together: the local authorities that have championed face-to-face visits throughout lockdown, including Leeds, Sheffield and my own Leicester City Council, and the organisations that have campaigned on the issue, such as Age UK, the Alzheimer’s Society, the National Care Forum, the Care and Support Alliance and the National Care Association.
In particular, I thank and pay tribute to Jenny Morrison and Diane Mayhew from Rights for Residents. After their own terrible experiences, they started their campaign to give a voice to all the other care home residents and families who have been prevented from seeing their loved ones since the first lockdown started more than eight months ago. They have had a phenomenal reaction to their campaign, and rightly so, because the issue really matters. It matters because of the anguish it causes families to be separated from the people they love most and because of the increasing evidence that the physical and mental isolation that results from restricting family visits is causing serious harm to a large number of care home residents. In a recent survey by the Alzheimer’s Society, 80% of care home managers said that lack of social contact is causing deterioration in the physical and mental health of residents with dementia. That is unacceptable.
All hon. Members present have spoken on behalf of constituents who have contacted them about the desperate agony they are going through and their real fears for their mums, dads, husbands and wives. I have also been contacted. A woman called Trudy got in touch to say,
“Today I’ve had to try to comfort my terminally ill mum in a video call, she’s scared and she needs us. Not on a screen or behind a screen—but with us stroking her hand. It is destroying us that the end of her life is like this. It’s destroying my family. I feel I am breaking every promise we ever made on looking after her.”
My constituent John rightly asked me,
“What quality of life do residents have if they can’t go anywhere, see any of their family and friends or have meaningful relationships? My family are absolutely distraught by the fact that we are not being allowed to see our family member but are having to hear them sobbing on the telephone and being told by staff how agitated they are and how ‘lockdown’ is affecting them and causing their condition to deteriorate. We can’t get this time back with our family member and time is precious”.
That point is really important, because the average length of stay in a care home for an older person is two years. After eight months of visitor restrictions and lockdown, there is simply not enough time for many of those living in care homes to wait and watch for a pilot scheme or another set of guidelines.
We need action now, because husbands, wives, sons and daughters are not just making social calls to their loved ones in care homes; they are playing a fundamental role in the everyday care of the person they love. Residents and their loved ones have human rights, both as individuals and as a community, and a ban on visiting arguably denies them those rights, as the Minister will know.
What should the Government do? I always hope to be practical in putting forward solutions. I and the 60 organisations that recently wrote an open letter to the Minister and the Secretary of State about this issue understand why the Government are so worried about the risk of covid-19 in care homes, given the catastrophic suffering and loss of life during the first wave of the pandemic, but the Minister will know that the Government’s own independent scientific advisers, the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, and its working group on social care said in evidence published on 21 September that the risk of family transmitting the virus from visitors to residents was low. Those 60 organisations, which include the Royal Society for Public Health, the British Geriatrics Society and the Social Care Institute for Excellence, which is responsible for promoting good-quality care, say that
“there is no evidence that a blanket ban on visiting, or near ban, is the right response. It is also the case that homes are much better equipped now to manage any risk. There is much greater knowledge of transmission and infection prevention and control practices than there was in March. Homes should be fully supported to enable visiting.”
Opposition Members—indeed, Members on both sides of the House—agree, which is why Labour has been calling for families to get the regular testing and PPE that they need since 17 June, when I first wrote to the Health Secretary warning about the impact of isolation on care home residents. I wrote again to the Health Secretary on 14 September, specifically calling for families to be designated as key workers, so that they can get the regular testing that they need to safely visit, alongside the regular testing of care home staff. That, as the Minister will know, is precisely the approach advocated by the 60 organisations that recently wrote the open letter.
The Government still have not really listened. Their latest guidance says that indoor care home visits will need floor-to-ceiling screens, which will keep residents and their families separated throughout. Alternatively, families can meet outside a care home window. I am afraid that that guidance fails on many levels. It fails to understand that it will not be possible for many care homes to put such screens in place. Even if they could, having a screen will not work for many residents, especially if they have Alzheimer’s or dementia. That is before making the frankly obvious point that the winter weather and dark afternoons make outdoor visits very difficult indeed.
It is little wonder that the Alzheimer’s Society says it is “devastated” by the new guidance. Its chief executive officer says that
“this attempt to protect people will kill them… The prison style screens the government proposes—with people speaking through phones—are frankly ridiculous when you consider someone with advanced dementia can often be bed-bound and struggling to speak.”
Age UK agrees, saying:
“In practice we fear it will result in many care homes halting meaningful visiting altogether, because they will be unable to comply with the requirements laid down.”
I know that the Minister will say that we are going to have a pilot to test families, but when will that pilot start and how long will it take? It has been eight months since lockdown began. Why has this not been a greater priority and why has more progress not been made? The bottom line is that a pilot is not good enough or quick enough. We need those visits now. Will the Minister finally agree to prioritise family members for testing, including with the new lateral flow tests that are being used to mass test people in Liverpool and students across the country?
I understand that those tests have low numbers of false negatives and can be turned around in 20 or 30 minutes, making them a good option for testing families with loved ones in care homes, as my director of social care in Leicester is calling for. I know that families, including my own, are desperate to get their children back from university for Christmas, but what about families who have not seen their loved ones for eight months? They want to know where they are in all the extra testing that is going on.
We all know this pandemic has had unimaginable consequences for care workers and for families and their loved ones. Care workers have made immense sacrifices to look after our loved ones, and they deserve not just our praise and admiration, but to be properly valued and paid. However, we have to understand that families are an integral part of the care system too. I believe you cannot have good-quality social care without the real involvement and active participation of families. People who have dementia lose their memory; their families are their memory, and the best possible quality help and support cannot be given without families. I hope the Minister will listen to the concerns that I and other hon. Members have raised and I look forward to her response.
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate and sincerely thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) for securing this debate. My thanks also go to all those who have come here today and made such powerful speeches, talking about the really difficult situation of visiting restrictions in care homes. My hon. Friend spoke extremely powerfully on behalf of Jamie, acting as his advocate in this tragic situation. I thank her for discussing this with me in advance of the debate; I am looking into that case.
As many hon. Members have said this afternoon, and as Minister for Care I strongly agree, visiting is incredibly important for those living in care homes. It is hard to put into words how paramount, how crucial, contact with their loved ones is for residents in care homes, but let me offer three reasons. First, for the individual in residential care, it can be what makes life worth living. The chance to see a loved one—a husband, wife, son, daughter, grandchildren or oldest friend—these visits are things to look forward to.
Secondly, visits to see their loved ones are important for family members. I have recently heard about a couple, both in their 90s; the wife is living in a care home and her husband always used to go to see her, but he has not been able to do so for months. This is actually affecting him more than it is his wife, who sadly has much less awareness of the situation due to her advanced dementia. It is affecting him because he is not able to see her. So the visits are important for the family who want to visit as well.
The third reason is the role that families and visitors play in making sure their loved one living in the care home is safe and well—the role they play in their care, in fact. Hon. Members have spoken today about the problem of residents, especially those with dementia, who are deteriorating without the visits they are used to. The advocacy role is also important, as my hon. Friend mentioned.
To step back a moment, the Government’s overall aim is to keep people in care homes safe and well—as safe and well as possible in the extremely difficult circumstances of a pandemic of a virus that is so cruel in in how it affects the old and most vulnerable. As the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) said, it is an incredibly hard balance to strike, and I appreciate the way she spoke about that. On the one hand we want to enable visits to care homes, to enable people to have the things that make life worth living, but on the other hand, we know that when covid has got into care homes, when there have been outbreaks, it has been extremely hard for care homes to control it. That we have seen so many deaths of people in care homes is tragic. The hon. Lady is absolutely right; it is a cause of sleepless nights for me and others who are trying to make the right decisions.
In my remarks, I intend to speak first about what has happened, then say where we are now, and finally look ahead. I will do my best to pick up some of the questions and comments from colleagues.
When the pandemic hit us, it is true to say that visits were stopped, other than in exceptional circumstances such as end of life. The problem was so bad and there seemed to be such a risk for care homes that visits were stopped. During that period, I spoke to care workers who really went the extra mile to support care home residents through that time—to try to make their lives still worth living and to have positive moments, and to use technology to keep people in touch.
I am not naïve—I know that having a screen is not the answer to the problem of visiting, but for some people in some circumstances it has enabled more contact between those living in residential care and their families. It certainly does not work for everybody. It is not the whole answer.
That is one reason why, as covid rates came down during the summer, new guidance was published on 22 July to encourage the opening up of care homes and to enable more visiting. It supported local discretion; the director of public health and the local authority would work with care homes to agree a reasonable level of safe visiting, using PPE and social distancing and so on. I was very keen to see care homes opening again. Many people did have the chance to see their family members in care homes during that period. Unfortunately, not every care home managed to open its doors at that point and, as the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) mentioned, those in tier 2 or tier 3 high-risk areas still maintained strict restrictions on visiting.
As the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) mentioned, there is a real problem of closed environments. One of the things that visitors do is raise a concern if there is a situation in a care home. She and I have spoken about an issue in her constituency a while ago, which was of great concern. That is why, when we went into the current lockdown, I was determined that we should not return to the situation of the first lockdown, where care homes were closed. I was determined that we should continue what visiting we could safely allow, and continue to have the Care Quality Commission crossing the threshold of care homes to identify and investigate where concerns had been raised. That is why the current visiting guidance is to encourage care homes to enable covid-secure visits, using screens, windows, visiting pods and so on.
Some care homes have been incredibly creative and innovative. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) had a great example of a care home in his constituency. The guidance draws on methods that we have seen care homes using over the last few months, with the aim of getting others to follow suit. It is supported by being able to draw on the infection control fund. We have put £1.1 billion into funding to support care homes with the extra costs of providing covid-secure care.
I absolutely hear the message. This is not where we want to be. I want people to be able to hold hands again, hug again and have the physical contact we all need, which is particularly important for those with dementia and those for whom this whole situation is confusing or frightening. We know it has been bad for their health and wellbeing. Right now, however, to allow such contact goes strongly against the clinical advice I have received.
I have been advised that every single additional person going into a care home takes with them the risk of taking covid into that setting. In some parts of the country, one in 40 people have covid. If there is a care home with 40 beds and each person has a visitor, one of those visitors may well be carrying covid into that care home, unbeknownst to them, because they may well have no symptoms. When it gets in, it can be extremely hard to control. That is why we have taken a cautious approach, but I absolutely want to open up care homes to allow for the kind of visiting that people want. I am looking ahead.
Hon. Members have asked about testing, which will be so helpful in reducing the risk that someone going into a care home is taking covid with them. We have a huge testing programme in place in care homes for staff and residents. Staff are tested weekly, and the vast majority of staff are now undergoing that. That is really valuable in catching covid outbreaks early. Residents are tested every 28 days, and the next step is testing for visitors. A trial will be launched this month in four local authorities in areas of lower prevalence, where the risk is lower. That will launch on 16 November in a range of 30 different care homes both to assess the practicalities of testing and to make sure that we are confident in its safety. That will trial both the polymerase chain reaction—PCR—test that has been used for some time and the newly introduced lateral flow test that can be turned around quickly.
Trialling both will enable us to see which is the best to enable visiting, and we then plan to roll that out more widely across the country in December to see how many visits testing will enable. I am optimistic that that, combined with the lower covid rates that our national self-discipline during the lockdown should achieve, will make it much more feasible to enable more testing. Looking ahead, the prospect of a vaccine that may be effective against covid, alongside testing and a supply of PPE, should put us in a much better position to achieve the level of visiting that we all want.
Dan Carden
Mass testing is taking place in Liverpool and many people are hopeful that that will allow for more visits to care homes in the weeks ahead. Will the Minister comment on what talks she has had with Liverpool about that?
Helen Whately
I am happy to do that, because I have been looking into that issue as well. The guidance I have been given is that Public Health England and those running the trial want it to take place first in the 30 care homes, which I mentioned. That will enable us to have confidence that those who have had a lateral flow test will be able to visit. There is sequencing to be done, but the issue is at the top of my mind. Lateral flows tests are already being used, and we should make the most of that to enable visiting. I hope to be able to put that more formally in writing in due course.
In the time available, I wish to pick up on a few of the other points that were made in the debate. The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) referred to the 30-minute time limit. I believe that that must be something that the care home in question has chosen to put in place. Our guidance advises that one should book a visit with a care home, but does not stipulate a 30-minute limit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) set out an excellent list of things for me to take forward. Many of them are indeed in train, such as testing and work on the vaccine. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has proposed that care home staff and residents should be at the top of the list for that. He mentioned a reporting mechanism, which I am also taking forward.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) referred to the lottery of visits. On the one hand, we responded to local authorities and care homes when they asked for more discretion and a local say in how we respond to the pandemic; on the other, we can find that in one area there is far more access than in another, so we need to combine allowing local discretion with being able to investigate whether somewhere is not being so supportive of visits. We need to ask what is going on and how can we bring this about.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield focused on the situation of those of working age living in a residential care home. As she said, they have been talked about less during the pandemic than those of an older age, but the people of working age living in residential care are absolutely at the top my mind. As we have seen during the pandemic, those with learning disabilities might be at greater risk if they catch covid, and, like those of an older age with dementia, they need family visits and the support, love and advocacy of a family member.
As my hon. Friend also said, the pandemic has shone a light on some of the problems that existed in our social care system before the pandemic. Yes, the pandemic has been hard for social care, but there were problems before. Although the vast majority of care homes have provided wonderful supportive care—indeed, loving care—for those who live in their buildings, some have sadly let down those they care for. We must continue to identify, intervene and prevent cases where there is neglect or, worse, the abuse of those living in residential care.
We are in the thick of a pandemic that has made life so hard for those living and working in the social care sector. We have to step forward, get on the front foot and really achieve the social care reform that everyone has been crying out for, for so long. This is an, “If not now, when?” moment. We will seize this moment not only to support social care through the pandemic, but to bring about a system of social care where we can hold our heads up high and be happy for the care of our loved ones, our friends and family, or indeed for ourselves, should the time come when we need it.
Joy Morrissey
I thank the Minister for her kindness and humanity, and for how she and her Department reached out to me personally. That demonstrates her care and her compassion both for this subject and for those working age adults with complex needs and disabilities whose voices might not have been heard over the years. I appreciate her one-on-one attention and the engagement she has dedicated to the topic. I am incredibly grateful.
I want to highlight the excellent contributions of all hon. Members today. Although we come from different parties, we are united in wanting to highlight the needs of the most vulnerable and wanting to thank our care workers.
I also thank the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), for her incredible weighing up of the impossible situation that every Government, every Member of Parliament and every public health official finds themselves in. We did not even know what the devastating effects of the virus would be. It attacks the elderly and those who are already in care. We have the impossible situation of their mental wellbeing versus the actual preserving of life. No matter what party we are from and no matter our background, this is one of the most difficult challenges that any generation of politicians has ever had to face. I thank her for reminding us of the humanity involved.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Future of the National Trust
(4 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)
I would like to make Members aware that this is my first time chairing Westminster Hall. I am sure we will all get along well.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of the National Trust.
Congratulations on your appointment, Ms Bardell; I am sure that we will give you no trouble.
This year is the National Trust’s 125th anniversary year. I start by paying tribute to the founding visionaries, benefactors, members, volunteers and staff who have made it the great mediating institution that it certainly is.
For the entire eight years of planning and execution, I was the Prime Minister’s point man for the United Kingdom’s commemoration of the centenary of the great war. I was immersed in the sensitive handling and portrayal of history and narrative. I think we did well, and I take particular satisfaction in helping to shed light on the part played by people whose contributions had been overlooked for 100 years.
Today is Armistice Day, so I shall recall particularly a truly remarkable exemplar whom we ensured played a big part in the commemorations: Lieutenant Walter Tull. As it happens, his likely last resting place in a plot near Arras has recently been discovered. I mention him in the context of some of the difficult things that I want to touch upon in this short debate. I do not want to be either misconstrued or misrepresented.
In my constituency, we have one of the trust’s principal possessions. Stourhead is about a mile from my home and we are frequent visitors, alongside tens of thousands, every normal year. Indeed, pre-covid, the trust had a membership that was gusting 6 million. It has eye-watering financial resources that would be the envy of most charities at this difficult time. It has international standing and an international reputation, and several countries actively seek to emulate it. So what is the problem?
The trust mission is clearly laid out in statute: to be clerk of works to a large wedge of our national treasures. There is evidence, however, that in recent years the trust—frustrated no doubt with that simple custodial function—has been interpreting its remit much more broadly. I submit that that requires scrutiny.
The key to the unhappiness expressed in recent times is contained within a collection of documents of varying status, some leaked, some published. The material, entitled “Towards a 10-year vision for place and experience”, is a blueprint for a different National Trust from that envisaged in statute in 1907 and in subsequent National Trust Acts.
That document might have been convincingly dismissed as a think piece had it not been followed by a series of supporting “Reset” documents. Taken together with the recently announced round of redundancies and reduction in access to small sites, it amounts to a dramatic change in direction—one that has alarmed the trust’s members, volunteers and workforce, and provoked a storm in the media.
Of particular concern is the proposed closure of smaller houses, I would say under the cover of covid-19. Those rather crudely referred to by the trust as treasure houses, including Stourhead, have always cross-subsidised those smaller properties. That has been the business model, which is commendable. We now find the properties that have been sustained by that model—for example, George Stephenson’s house in Northumberland—are being closed. It could be that they are closed permanently.
We also find that it is not receipts, per se, that are the problem, because the outdoorsy attractions appear not to be in the crosshairs. Rather, the issue is with buildings, particularly what are referred to as mansions. The trust says it does not want to close or repurpose its sites, but has to cut its cloth because of covid-19. But look at its reserves, as well as its access to a huge volunteer workforce, together with furlough and other assistance given by Government during this crisis, and ask whether the trust, faced with the inflexibility of covenants and reserves, has approached either the Charity Commission or the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to see what statutory or non-statutory mechanisms there might be to assist in freeing up funds in these difficult times, in order to support its charitable purposes.
On top of that, we have a hobnailed boot of a document called, “Addressing our histories of colonialism and historic slavery”, which is considered sufficiently off-piste to attract the interest of the Charity Commission as regulator.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and congratulate him on securing this important debate on the National Trust. On his point about the report, what is wrong with the National Trust researching the history of the buildings it looks after? Historic Royal Palaces has just advertised for a curator to uncover its links to the slave trade. Is he suggesting that that organisation should also be subject to this kind of witch hunt by the Charity Commission?
Dr Murrison
The hon. Gentleman ought also to look at English Heritage’s 2013 publication on broadly the same subject. He may wish to compare the quality of that report with the National Trust’s report and form his view as to whether it is appropriate to associate some of our national figures with slavery, as the title of this particular contribution does.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is legitimate for organisations to explore history and present material in a balanced, measured and considered way. The judgment we all have to make is whether the National Trust has achieved that. I suggest to him that, against the standards of other organisations, such as English Heritage, the National Trust in that respect has fallen well short. Indeed, any reasonable appraisal of the material would suggest to me and many others a corporate culture at odds with its membership. I would argue that it is also at odds in important respects with statute that underpins the National Trust.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this very important debate; I also join him in offering congratulations to our new Chair.
The National Trust obviously employs a vast number of people in the Lake district; the jobs of many of them are now at risk, which is deeply concerning. It also owns a huge amount of land and acts as landlord to dozens and dozens of important hill farmers, who are essential in maintaining the heritage of our landscape. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the National Trust should do everything it can to act as a landlord that encourages succession on those farms, rather than turning the buildings into second homes or holiday lets? Likewise, does he agree that it should encourage the Government to make sure that, in transitional terms, the payments coming into the farming industry from January onwards encourage the maintenance of the family farm and not a move to ranch-style farming?
Dr Murrison
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point; I feel sure that he is more expert on upland farming than I am. I would always encourage a landlord to be responsible, especially a big one, and in particular a massive one such as the National Trust. I would be distressed if it was tempted to sell off properties for them to be turned into second homes or holiday homes. That seems entirely the wrong thing for the National Trust to do, and I would argue that it is probably contrary to the 1907 legislation that founded it. The idea behind the National Trust is conservation, and it is difficult to see how selling off property in the way that he has just described would service that end.
Much of what we have had from the National Trust in recent times is entirely commensurate with the fears expressed by many that what it is doing, in its own terms and the terms of the leaked documents we have seen, is to “dial down” its role as what it calls a “major national cultural institution”. We see the corporate upper lip curling at an “outdated mansion experience” that is of interest only to what it calls a “niche audience”, which is apparently “dwindling”. It is a “niche audience” that was on the rise before lockdown and that is bigger even now than the population of the Republic of Ireland, but it is one that the trust’s clairvoyants anticipate will have moved on, as the trust seeks to
“flex its mansion offer to create more active, fun and useful experiences that our audiences will be looking for in the future.”
I have “fun” every time I go to a National Trust property —that is the whole point of going—and it is not clear to me what “useful” means, but we do learn that
“Everywhere…we will move away from a narrow focus on family and art history.”
This has been pejoratively described as the triumph of the “trendies” over the “tweedies”. What it means in practice is that professional curator posts will fall from 111 to 80. There will be a new curator and it will not surprise right hon. and hon. Members to learn that that curator will be called
“curator of repurposing historic houses”.
But out will go actual curators—those internationally renowned experts and scholars, who are specialists in one of the world’s greatest collections.
I suspect that most of the membership, like me and my family, flock to National Trust properties to admire an elegant pile of bricks or a beautiful landscape before going for a nice cup of tea and a slice of cake—job done, and happy days. It is leisure, it is breathing space, it is succour for the soul and a welcome break from the remorseless hectoring about this and that, to which, as citizens, we are subjected day in, day out.
There are those, particularly on the hard left and perhaps within the trust’s hierarchy, who will say that an organisation makes a political statement every time that it does not advance an opinion—that silence is violence. But the National Trust needs to be a politics-free space, a great mediating institution, and not an organ for promulgating a particular world view, whether one sympathises with that view or not. That, surely, is the service that it renders to civil society.
My parents liked to drag me and my brother around National Trust properties when we were younger. Fifty years on, they all merge into a perpetual search for ice cream, but I do have one abiding recollection, and it is not some politically correct right-on narrative, misspelt on a piece of slate. It is inequality. Those great houses stand as silent witness to an unequal past. We do not need to be force-fed that by the trust’s high command; it is there and it is in your face. It is also plain to most visitors that the wealth required to throw up those mini-palaces did not often come from a post office savings account. Some of that money was highly questionable—some of it very dirty indeed by today’s standards and even by the standards of the day. But here we are in 2020, with the public—on whose backs, to a greater or lesser degree, those palaces were built—possessing them. That is a triumph and a restitution.
I mentioned that I did not want to be misconstrued or misunderstood, and it is therefore with trepidation and in anticipation of a wall of hate mail and trolling that I come to the document—the trust’s slavery and colonialism report. It is a catalogue of its properties that have some links to those subjects, but much of it is flimsy and tendentious. In 2013, English Heritage published “Slavery and the British country house”, which is a serious, thoughtful, measured contribution to a subject of significant public interest, in contrast with the National Trust’s colonialism and slavery report, whose title, which conflates two things as a common evil, gives the game away. The conflation gets worse because, wittingly or not, it by association diminishes towering figures in British history, notably Winston Churchill. The trust speaks of context, but where is the context for a man who, more than any other, stood against fascism, racism and antisemitism? The best that could be said of that piece of work is that it is plain shoddy. Otherwise, we are left to conclude that it is indicative of the trust’s corporate mindset.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my confusion and that of lots of National Trust members about the fact that, only recently, the chair of the National Trust said that BLM is a
“human rights movement with no party political affiliations”,
when last month one of the leading lights in BLM, Lemara Francis, said that
“BLM is proud to be a political organisation”?
Dr Murrison
I think those words and facts speak for themselves. It is very important that those who associate themselves with a great institution such as the National Trust are very careful about what they say and the way they project themselves. They must not make themselves hostages to fortune, as I fear has happened in this case.
However, there is always hope. Faced with a wall of unhappiness, trust bosses have been back-pedalling, at least rhetorically, and that is very much to their credit. We are told that the leaked “Towards a Ten-Year Vision” was an initial draft, despite no such caveat being present in the original. The director general was at pains to reassure me about that when she spoke to me yesterday, and I note that her op-ed in The Daily Telegraph today uses similar terms.
We have to take the trust’s leadership at its word. It seeks a “reset”—its word, unambiguously stated. We have a good idea now of what is in its mind and where it is taking us. Given the trust’s statutory underpinning, that is not to be undertaken lightly or without wider public cognisance, so let us commission an independent review like the recent Glover deep-dive into national parks. Thus fortified with a refreshed set of marching orders, the trust that we all love can then chart a course for the next 125 years.
Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)
I remind Members that there have had to be quite quick changeovers between debates. You have antibacterial wipes on your desks, so I ask that you do your best to clean the microphones in your areas before you leave and when you arrive as we fight covid-19. I would like to call the Minister by 4.22 pm.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Thank you, Ms Bardell, for allowing me to contribute to this debate, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) for bringing it to the House.
The National Trust has done immense work over 125 years. In its own words, its mission is to cherish the
“nation’s most significant cultural collection”.
It is, however, struggling. Covid has made that task harder, with falling membership and fewer visitors. Frankly, the membership has declining faith in the trust’s leadership, as evidenced at the recent virtual annual general meeting.
I wish the National Trust well. Its work is vital, but it really is not appropriate for a charitable organisation to become involved in politics. The chairman, in a recent letter to a member, chose to defend Black Lives Matter, describing it as a human rights organisation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) said. That is not a fair reflection of that organisation in its own words or by any routine or reasonable assessment. It is very dangerous for the National Trust to stray into that territory. It is not in line with its charitable purpose, as the Charity Commission made clear.
To remind hon. Members, the trust’s charitable purpose is
“to look after places of beauty”.
Beauty, because it is the exemplification of truth, is the most important thing to which we should all aspire. In beauty, we begin to have sight of the Lord. The National Trust is beginning to lose credibility, frankly, both with its membership and the public, because of misunderstandings about its purpose.
It is hard to know whether it was malign, naive, malevolent or just ignorant, but the defence by the trust’s chairman, Mr Tim Parker, was essentially that Black Lives Matter is not a party political movement and has no affiliations. That is a pretty thin defence if he is merely naive; surely he must know that political organisations are not all linked to parties.
Octavia Hill, who founded the trust and who came from Wisbech near my constituency in the Fens, said:
“We all want beauty... We all need space. Unless we have it, we cannot reach that sense of quiet in which whispers of better things come to us gently.”
The National Trust, whether gently or more loudly, needs to disassociate itself from some of the rather foolish things that some of its leading members have said. I hope that the Minister will tell us how much the review into colonial links cost, how many staff were involved, how much was budgeted, and how much public money was spent on it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
It is a genuine honour to serve under your maiden chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) on securing the debate, and thank all those who have participated. No debate is complete without a quote from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), so it was a pleasure to hear from him today.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire acknowledged, the National Trust is one of the largest and most respected heritage membership organisations in the world. It has more than 5.5 million members, welcomes nearly 27 million visitors to its sites each year, has around 9,500 staff and is supported by 65,000 volunteers. The trust’s first property was acquired in 1895 for £10 and is still open today, and from that, the trust has steadily grown. Today, it has 250,000 hectares of land, 780 miles of coastline and more than 300 historic houses and gardens.
Some 125 years later, the National Trust is still helping people to enjoy the country’s enormous wealth of heritage sites. The trust is, in so many ways, a hugely successful heritage organisation, but that does not mean that we should not ask serious questions about it or how it should be held accountable. As I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware, the National Trust is a creature of statute: it was formally created by the National Trust Act 1907, which has been amended several times since, and the organisation has evolved since Royal Assent.
The organisation’s vision is to preserve,
“protect and care for places so people and nature can thrive.”
To deliver on that ambition, the trust is governed by a board of independent trustees. The chair is supported by a team of trustees who bring expertise to the running of the trust. It is also a registered charity and is therefore regulated by the Charity Commission, which is itself answerable to Parliament. The board must therefore ensure that its activities do not contravene or compromise the trust’s charitable objectives.
I set out those governance arrangements to make one point: the National Trust is an independent body. It is independent of the Government and does not receive any ongoing public funding for its work, and its activities are overseen by its board and the regulatory Charity Commission. Of course, as I have said, the trust is a creature of statute, so although the Government could, in theory, instigate a review into the trust’s operations, for which some have argued, we would not be able to implement changes in the way that some have suggested. If the trust is found to have breached its charitable objectives, the Charity Commission, as the trust’s regulator, would be a more effective body to implement that.
That does not mean that the Government are not actively interested in what the trust does or how it goes about its business. I gently suggest, however, that tasking a Government commission to look into the trust to solve its complex problems is not a realistic idea. If there were an appetite for it—both in Parliament and in Government—the statute could be reviewed to consider whether it continues to provide a suitable legislative framework. I am sure right hon. and hon. Members will agree that that should be done only as a last resort, but it is an option. There are many other avenues of influence to effect change, including debates such as this one.
Parliamentary interest can be extremely influential, and I am sure the National Trust will be listening closely to the views expressed today, as I am sure are members of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, who will also reflect on what has been said.
Sir John Hayes
I understand the Minister’s remarks about the Government’s position, but surely asking the National Trust—at a time when it is laying off something like 1,300 staff—how much it has spent on the review, how many staff have been involved and what it has budgeted for a review of the link between 93 properties, including Chartwell, and colonialism is not an unreasonable question for a culture Minister to ask.
Nigel Huddleston
I do not think my right hon. Friend is understanding what I am saying. We do need to hold the trust to account and to ask it questions, but it is, after all, an independent body. We have many mechanism to do so—of course, we are doing so today. I assure right hon. and hon. Members that I will write to the National Trust. I will send it a transcript of the debate so that it can hear the strength of feeling expressed today and answer some of the questions raised. I repeat: it is an independent body, and we need to respect that.
Reports of the events at the National Trust’s annual general meeting suggest that some of its members are not impressed with some of the trust’s activities and direction. It was reported as being bombarded with complaints, with its members wanting it to focus on managing the beautiful houses and gardens, and not on the historical links to slavery and empire in its collection. The chief executive was reported as saying that the National Trust was still deciding how it will use information in the recent slavery report, and the Government will continue to take an interest in that.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has also made his views clear about the trust’s review of the links to slavery and empire in its collection. On 22 September, he stated firmly that the National Trust should focus first and foremost on protecting and preserving our heritage. He was right to highlight that as the trust’s chief concern, and he rightly pointed out that neglecting it will understandably surprise and disappoint people.
I hear the calls for a review or commission on the National Trust. As I set out earlier, however, I am not convinced that a commission is the most effective way to bring about the sort of change that right hon. and hon. Members would like to see. Given the current state of play, I believe that the best approach is to rely on the good sense of the board and its executives to heed and respond to the voices of its members, its army of volunteers, the general public, the media, the Charity Commission as its regulator, and of course Parliament.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire is aware, the trust is losing approximately £200 million of its budgeted revenues for this year as a consequence of coronavirus. It is having to draw on its reserves, though it is also making use of Government assistance, such as the furlough scheme. However, it is important for us to bear in mind that 80% of the National Trust’s funds are legally restricted, meaning they are not available to the trust to spend on running costs or redundancy.
The loss of funding has meant that, sadly, the National Trust has made 513 compulsory redundancies and 782 redundancies. As I understand it, the redundancies protect as far as possible the conservation and curatorial functions of the trust, and it has stressed that the changes do not alter its mission. I also understand that there are no plans to permanently close any of its properties. My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire mentioned that he has heard otherwise, so I will seek clarity on that point.
For the reasons that I have set out, I believe the National Trust is a success story. One hundred and twenty-five years on from its foundation, it continues to serve the country by preserving the United Kingdom’s rich tapestry of heritage sites and buildings for the public to enjoy. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire has argued, however, its future must be a focus, and it must focus on its core functions: to curate and preserve historic houses, gardens and landscapes for everyone to enjoy.
Although I completely understand the intent behind the National Trust’s decision to undertake a review of its historic houses, especially in this time of heightened awareness of discrimination, I think the National Trust will feel that the way that it was done was unfortunate. I accept that the trust did not intend to cause offence, but we must acknowledge that, for many people, it did cause offence. The trust must reflect on that and learn from it.
For over a century, the trust has focused on preserving and curating our great historic houses, gardens and landscapes for the nation. That is what it should focus on during the next century, too.
Question put and agreed to.
Pat Finucane
(4 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)
Order. I draw Members’ attention to the antibacterial wipes on their desk and ask that they clean their microphones and work area as they arrive and leave and dispose of those wipes in the bin on their way out. Our cleaners do an excellent job, but let us make it as easy as possible for them.
I would also like to read a statement before we begin the debate. Before I call the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), I should advise hon. Members that the judicial review currently before the High Court is not sub judice, because it relates to a ministerial decision. There are several other historical Northern Ireland cases which have active legal proceedings and are, therefore, sub judice. Reference should not be made to those proceedings in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Foyle for his courtesy in consulting the Table Office in advance of his debate, and I remind any other Member participating in this debate to be equally mindful of the sub judice resolution in matters still before the courts.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of a public inquiry into the death of Pat Finucane.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell.
I want at the outset to recognise Geraldine Finucane and her family. I also want to recognise John Finucane, who is a Member of this House. That family have been put through the wringer for decades. They make it clear that they do not believe that this murder is any more special or deserving of truth and justice than another, but there is a particular point about Pat Finucane’s murder that goes right to the heart of the British involvement in Northern Ireland. Let us just take a moment to remember, in all the conversation, debate and politics around the issue, what actually happened to Pat Finucane, a human rights solicitor from Belfast.
On 12 February 1989 Pat was with his wife and three children having dinner one Sunday afternoon. Loyalist paramilitaries used a sledgehammer to beat his front door in. They went to the kitchen and they murdered him. They shot him with 14 bullets, in front of his children. Mr Finucane’s now adult son Michael said that the image of the attack is
“seared into my mind. The thing I remember most vividly is the noise; the reports of each bullet reverberating in the kitchen, how my grip on my younger brother and sister tightened with every shot.”
What happened on that night? Here is what we know. Brian Nelson was a force research unit agent linked to the Ulster Defence Association—an agent of an organ of the British Army, which, of course, told John Stevens when he investigated this case and others that it never had any agents in Northern Ireland. We now know irrefutably that that was total and utter balderdash.
We know that two gunmen entered that house and murdered Pat Finucane. We know that one of them, Ken Barrett, was a Royal Ulster Constabulary agent, and that William Stobie, who supplied the gun, was also an RUC agent. So three agents of the British state were involved in the fingering of Pat Finucane, the planning of his murder, the supplying of the gun and the pulling of the trigger.
We also know that David Cameron, the former British Prime Minister, said that there were “shocking levels of…collusion” involved in what happened to Pat Finucane. We know that the offices of Lord Stevens, an eminent former police officer in this country, were firebombed when he investigated the case—I wonder who did that. He also said as recently as last year that the state held back oceans of information on Pat Finucane’s case.
A few weeks before Pat’s murder, Minister Douglas Hogg stated in the House of Commons that a number of lawyers in Northern Ireland were
“unduly sympathetic to the IRA”.
What did they expect to happen after that statement?
We know that in 2001, at the Weston Park negotiations, the two Governments—the Irish and British Governments —and all the political parties in Northern Ireland agreed to set up a number of public inquiries. The British Government prevaricated. In 2004, Judge Cory recommended that there was sufficient evidence in the case of Pat Finucane to allow a public inquiry, because of the “sufficient evidence of collusion” that he found. All the other inquiries that he recommended have happened and have reported, apart from this one; this is the only one outstanding.
Over an 18-month period in 2010-11, the family were in long conversation with the British Government and Downing Street. The conversation was not about whether there should be a public inquiry, but about the nature of that public inquiry. We then had the de Silva review and, more recently, the Supreme Court ruling that the British Government had not delivered their international obligation to have an article 2 compliant investigation.
There is absolute clarity that there were “shocking levels” of collusion, in David Cameron’s words. Let us think for a second about what that means. It means that a previous British Government murdered a human rights lawyer in Belfast in front of his family and that they have denied every single opportunity to give the family what they absolutely deserve, which is the full truth in the matter.
It would take a long time for anybody in this Chamber to convince me of the righteousness of the British Government, the British state or the British Army. But British MPs should ask themselves a simple question: “What would you do?” What would the Minister do if he had a family in his constituency whose father was murdered in front of their eyes for no crime other than being a human rights lawyer?
I believe in a different kind of constitutional settlement for Northern Ireland, but I recognise the reality that the British Government have jurisdiction in Northern Ireland as it stands. The British Government have a responsibility to the citizens of Northern Ireland. They have a responsibility not to murder them. They have a responsibility not to cover up their murder and they have a responsibility to do everything in their power to get to the truth of what happens when something like that is done.
I have very little faith that this British Government will do the right thing in this case. They absolutely should, but this is the same British Government, of course, that put out a statement on 18 March, moving themselves as far away as possible from the Stormont House agreement—another international agreement that they are prepared to break, it seems. They are seemingly prepared to sacrifice victims at the altar of political expediency, to throw some red meat to the Back Benches of the Tory party, and to abandon the opportunity for all of the victims of our terrible conflict to have the full truth of what happened.
In my view, there is no chance whatsoever for my community to move forward in the spirit of reconciliation unless we get to the full truth of what happened during the conflict. I implore the Government, once and for all, to live up to their commitments in Weston Park, to live up to the promises that were made to Pat Finucane’s family and to live up to the needs of the community of Northern Ireland, who need to be able to move forward.
We do not want to live in the past anymore. We want to move forward, but we have to do that on the basis of truth, justice and democracy. It cannot be held back any longer.
Several hon. Members rose—
Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)
Order. A number of people wish to speak. If Members keep their contributions to five minutes, I will be able to bring in the shadow Minister at 5.15 pm and the Minister at 5.20 pm, with —I hope—time for Mr Eastwood to sum up at the end.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
It is an unusually great pleasure to be able to serve under your chairship, in your first outing as Chair here in Westminster Hall, Ms Bardell. It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and to belatedly welcome him and his party back to the House of Commons. In the last Parliament, there was a missing piece in the parliamentary puzzle, which meant we did not see the whole picture when it came to Northern Ireland politics. It is very important that the nationalist viewpoint in Northern Ireland is represented here in this House.
Given my own family background, I have taken an interest over many years in the politics of Ireland and Northern Ireland. I have visited Belfast on many occasions during my parliamentary career. When I went there, I was always struck by the similarity between the cities of Belfast and Cardiff, which I represent—in their architecture, in their size and in the warm welcome of the citizens of those two cities.
In drawing on that comparison, I have to ask whether it would be acceptable in my city, and to my constituents, if the state were involved in hampering the discovery of the truth about the murder of one of its citizens. The answer to that question has to be an emphatic no. If that is the case for Cardiff, or for Leeds, Barnsley, St Helens, Sheffield, Worcester or any of the other constituencies that elect Members to this House, it is equally unacceptable for Belfast.
The troubles were a dark and violent time in the history of these islands. Thousands of civilians and soldiers—we remember our armed forces on this Armistice Day—lost their lives as a result of calculated brutality, which still echoes darkly down the generations. In that awful period, the appalling murder of Patrick Finucane in February 1989 was one of the darkest moments. Thirty-one years on, it remains a source of grave public concern, not just in Northern Ireland and Ireland, but across the United Kingdom and anywhere in the world where people seek and care about justice.
Both Lord Stevens and Judge Cory were clear that there was state collusion in the murder of Mr Finucane. As my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle said, the then Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, described the outcome of the separate de Silva review as revealing
“shocking levels of state collusion.”—[Official Report, 12 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 296.]
It is now 20 months since the Supreme Court found that inquiries into Mr Finucane’s murder had been unlawful under article 2 of the European convention on human rights. Investigations that have taken place have had profound shortcomings, and those shortcomings, in the words of Lord Kerr,
“have hampered, if not indeed prevented, the uncovering of the truth about this murder.”
That this crime could happen at all in our country is in itself a shocking stain on the fabric of our recent history. That it has never been investigated to a lawful standard is a tear in that same fabric that needs to be repaired.
The issues at stake could scarcely be more important. The European convention on human rights is the foundation that underpins the Good Friday agreement and is the fundamental safeguard on which citizens rely. Those rights are not trivial. Compliance with them is non-negotiable.
As my hon. Friend has said, the family of Pat Finucane have had to wait too long for the adequate and effective investigation into his murder that is their right and the right of all citizens whom we represent in this place. Last month, as we have heard, Patrick Finucane’s widow, Geraldine, was forced to take action in the High Court to seek a resolution from the Government. Mr Justice McAlinden, overseeing the case, described his deep unease at the approach of the current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. This delay has added insult to injury. Mrs Finucane has received unequivocal undertakings from the British Government that such an inquiry will be held, and that should now be honoured.
The administrative burden in establishing an inquiry is simply not a justification to prevent the truth from emerging. The long years that have passed since the ceasefire and the Good Friday agreement have served to demonstrate that unless justice is done and seen to be done, the wounds of the past simply will not be allowed to heal, so I say to the Minister: the time has come to right past wrongs and allow this public inquiry to proceed.
Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)
The next speaker on the call list has given notice that he will be late, so I now call Stephanie Peacock.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell, and, indeed, to see you in the Chair.
I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) on securing this incredibly important debate. The troubles were a violent and appalling time in our history. Veterans in my constituency served in Northern Ireland, and some lost colleagues who were murdered while on duty. Those whom I have had the privilege to meet since being elected value, as all of us do, the rule of law in this country. Upholding the rule of law is, and must be, one of our fundamental values.
Pat Finucane was going about his professional duties, in a professional manner, when he was murdered, in a cowardly and horrifying act, in his home in Belfast. For the Finucane family, like hundreds of other families of people who lost their lives during the troubles, the adequate and effective investigation into the murder of their loved one that is their right and our obligation has never taken place. Thirty-one years on from his murder, his family are still waiting. That is not a view or an opinion. The institution that has determined that an effective investigation has never taken place is UK judges in the highest court of the United Kingdom, on the basis of British law.
I therefore profoundly believe that the right thing for the Finucane family, for Northern Ireland and for everyone in the United Kingdom is for the commitments made by the British Government to hold a full public inquiry to be honoured. Why? It is important to remember why Judge Cory felt that a public inquiry was so important in this case—as he did with five of the six cases he identified for review at Weston Park. He said that a public inquiry must proceed in order
“to achieve the benefits of determining the flaws in the system and suggesting the required remedy”
and to address public concern. That is why it must be delivered and why commitments made to the Finucane family and the wider community must be kept. But it is also impossible not to think of the hundreds of families whose loved ones were murdered in the course of the troubles and who are still waiting for the truth about what happened to them.
The murders of more than 170 British soldiers are unsolved, as are the murders of hundreds of civilians at the hands of republican and loyalist terrorists. That is why it is more important than ever that a comprehensive solution to the legacy of the past is delivered. That means one that can deliver the truth and that has the confidence of those who are all too often forgotten—victims and their families.
The extraordinary work of Operation Kenova, led by the former Bedfordshire chief constable, Jon Boutcher, is demonstrating that even many years on, important evidential opportunities can still be uncovered. As he told the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, families want investigations to be robust in search of the truth. That is why the recent statement from the Secretary of State, which seemed determined to draw a veil over legacy cases, would have been profoundly unsettling for many families of people who lost their lives at the hands of terrorists. As Jon Boutcher said, that would be
“a legal novelty in the United Kingdom for serious crimes such as murder”.
The whole basis of the Stormont House agreement, which I fully accept was not perfect, was an effort to build a broad-based consensus on establishing and investigating the truth about unsolved murders. I therefore strongly urge the Minister not to resile from those commitments, and to remember the deep responsibility that he and the Northern Ireland Office have to deliver the truth to all victims and, from that, to build reconciliation.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) for bringing before us this important debate. It is crucial that we get a public inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane after all these years, and that we discuss the wider issues of the troubles in Northern Ireland, and Army, police and secret service collusion in particular.
Those are difficult, painful issues, but sweeping them under the carpet serves our society badly. If we want to live in safe, stable and hopeful communities, we cannot ignore our troubled past. If we want to create a future where violence and terrorism are a thing of the past, we have to start with an honest and truthful assessment of what led us to that dark place.
Clearly, it is important to remember the circumstances of Pat Finucane’s murder in 1989, painful as that may be, and the wider circumstances that led to this atrocity, but there is no need for the campaign for a public inquiry to persuade anyone of the facts, which have been conceded by Government. It has already been found that Pat Finucane’s shooting by loyalists involved state agents. That collusion has already been established.
Not only that, but in February last year the Supreme Court held that previous inquiries into the murder did not meet human rights standards. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has given a commitment in a court of law that a decision will be made by the end of the month on whether to order a public inquiry. I plead with him to do so, not just for the Finucane family but for the thousands of victims of the troubles.
The reality is that the family of Pat Finucane represent so many other victims of the troubles, families whose lives have been shattered not just by the tragic events that deprived them of their loved ones, but the secrecy, delay and cover-ups that have stood in the way of justice and truth. Since joining the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in June this year, I have sat in a number of hearings in which victims groups have described the distress of waiting for justice—sometimes not even justice, but only information—to understand the truth of what happened to their family members.
In the eyes of the people who matter most of all in this, the victims of the troubles, the Government have failed on the legacy issue. I have heard from all communities about a lack of confidence among the victims’ families that justice will be done, facts established and lessons learned. The Government now have a serious responsibility to repair some of the damage and to give people some sense of closure and peace, no matter how hard that is.
For Pat Finucane and his family—as the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), said—we need the full truth. The family and the many victims of the troubles need that, but also Northern Ireland needs that. The people of Northern Ireland, from all communities, have to be sure that the lessons of those terrible acts are learned, so that they will never happen again.
To get to that point, the Prime Minister, the Northern Ireland Office and the Government should act now, without any more delay. That starts with ordering a public inquiry into the full circumstances of Pat Finucane’s murder, and it must continue by re-establishing some confidence in the legacy process. Finally, we must all learn the lessons of those terrible tragedies and Northern Ireland’s traumatic past, not in order to dwell on the past or to reopen old rifts, but to look forward.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
It is a particular pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I endorse what hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), have already said. I congratulate him on securing the debate.
In supporting the need for a full public inquiry into Pat Finucane’s murder, I want to make it clear that that is not because I or the Finucane family believe in a hierarchy of victims or that the grief and pain of some is greater than that of others. It is the merits of this case and the appalling vista of state involvement and its planning of murder that mark it out as totemic in getting to the truth of exactly what went on during the troubles. Geraldine Finucane’s dignity and dedication to her husband and her pursuit of justice, not only for him but for many other victims, is inspirational. She was left to be her children’s mammy and daddy—to be the breadwinner—and to do it all while suffering the unbearable grief of losing her beloved partner. She is a remarkable woman and I am proud to know her.
My friend Phyllis Carrothers is another such woman. Her husband Douglas—or Dougie, as he was known to family and friends—was murdered by the IRA in County Fermanagh in 1991. He was an RUC reserve constable and Phyllis went on to chair the Royal Ulster Constabulary George Cross Widows Association. She and her children have never had the truth, nor has she ever had an apology. The unanswered questions about the who, the what and, fundamentally, the why still remain. She deserves justice too. We must remember that the cases of Pat Finucane and all others is about people, and not just about process—their lived experiences and the impact it had on them and subsequent generations. Time is not always enough to heal.
January will be the 45th anniversary of a period of days in 1976 that saw some of the worst incidents of the troubles take place in the part of the world that I come from. On 3 January 1976, a bomb was left outside my grandmother’s pub, the Lough Inn in Camlough. A great deal of damage was caused to the village and my Aunt Ann, who was 12 years old at the time and saw the bombers, was injured. It is widely believed that members of what had become known as the Glenanne gang were involved.
The next evening, on 4 January, elements of the same gang, which included members of the security forces, murdered three members of the Reavey family a few miles away in Whitecross and three members of the O’Dowd family—they, like my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle, were members of the Social Democratic and Labour party—in Ballydougan. They were targeted and killed in their home simply because they were Catholics. No one has ever been brought to justice. The following day, 5 January, 10 Protestant workmen from Bessbrook were taken off a minibus and murdered at Kingsmill. Like those the night before, their religion was the only basis on which their lives were so cruelly taken. All those dead left behind loved ones.
Eugene Reavey lost his three brothers. The unimaginable impact that must have had on him and his family was exacerbated when, just over 20 years ago, it was said in this House that he had had some involvement in Kingsmill. Whatever the motivation behind that allegation, it caused incredible pain. It was and is completely and utterly false. The police, including the then chief constable, and the Historical Enquiries Team’s investigation are very clear that Eugene Reavey had no involvement whatsoever in Kingsmill. It is right that the record is corrected here today.
There were two survivors of Kingsmill. The first was Richard Hughes, the only Catholic on the bus. When it was stopped by masked men, he was singled out and at first believed that he was going to be killed, only to be told to run and not to look back. He never spoke about it or the trauma and aching pain he must have felt. My memory of Mr Hughes — as the paperboy who delivered his Belfast Telegraph every evening — is of a kind, quiet gentleman. He was a victim too. Although he passed away some years ago, I hope his daughter Bernadette has some comfort that what he and his family have endured is recognised in the House.
The second survivor was Alan Black, a Protestant, who was shot 18 times and lay in the rain while the dead bodies of his friends lay on him and around him. I urge hon. Members to read about Alan’s experience and his words. His dignity, loss, compassion and grief are simultaneously inspirational and crushing. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. He deserves justice too. Alan, along with Brian Sloan and others, set up a cross- community football club in Bessbrook, Brookvale FC. Many years ago, they developed a link with a Merseyside schools football association official, the wonderful and recently sadly deceased Terry Duffy, whose local club Rainford Rangers is, in a pretty remarkable twist of fate, based in my constituency. It was a special and incredible honour for me to welcome Brookvale to Rainford as the MP from Bessbrook for St Helens North.
None of this is easy. The answer is not in the wishy-washy, “Why can’t we get along?” whataboutery. I know that these are deeply divisive hugely emotive and seemingly intractable matters, but I do believe that in unlocking the case of Pat Finucane, we can go to the heart of providing a way forward. The Government have a duty to keep their word and ensure a full public inquiry. Then we must all dedicate ourselves to that inclusive, comprehensive approach to dealing with the past; one that puts victims and survivors, truth, justice and remembrance at its core.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I first congratulate you, Ms Bardell, on being elevated to your new position? I wish you well and know that you will do the job extremely well. I thank the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) for raising the issue. I spoke to him beforehand, so he knows where I am coming from. I just want to put some things on the record. On the facts of the case that he has so meticulously outlined—I say this for the record—my heart goes out to the family members who have been left with an empty chair that will never be filled. They have my sincere condolences. No one should ever lose a loved one in such circumstances. That is where I am coming from. That is my standpoint.
Unfortunately, it is the history of Northern Ireland that too many families have been left feeling this endless grief. The hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) just referred to that. Too many daughters have walked down the aisle alone, too many sons have graduated without their proud parent watching on, and too many mothers have wept over the clothes of their sons whose scent has long faded away. The devastation is clear in so many households in the Province to this day, and their loss must be acknowledged. I want to put that on the record.
I wish that that were not the case. I wish that my cousin Shelley did not have memories of that first Christmas without my cousin Kenneth Smyth after he was ruthlessly murdered 49 years ago, on 10 December 1971, by the IRA. I wish that his companion, friend and fellow worker, Daniel McCormick, had not been murdered. He happened to be a Roman Catholic, by the way, and the IRA murdered both of them on a road outside Castlederg 49 years ago. When Shelley came to me with Kenneth’s file clutched in her hands and tears in her eyes, I wish that I could have given her the justice she sought—I and everyone else here has equally sought justice—but I could not do that because it was not in my power.
This is not about tit for tat. I do not seek in any way to take away from the pain that the Finucane family felt and feel today. I, too, have had my debate in this House calling for the murder of Kenneth Smyth to be reopened, as well as that of Lexie Cummings, who was murdered by the IRA in Strabane. I have called for their murderers and the collaborators to be brought to justice, but nothing has been achieved, not because they did not deserve it—they did—but because they did not get their justice.
Kenneth Smyth’s sister and family, including my side of the family, long to see justice, yet we must trust in the most righteous judge of all. I am a Christian and I believe that you might escape justice in this world, but you will not escape it in the next. I believe that in my heart. I am sure that others here would concur with my sentiments. The righteous judge will mete out the appropriate justice to all those evil men and women who killed and have not been made accountable.
This debate was titled well: that consideration be given to the potential merits of an inquiry. I do see a family devastated and I want justice for them. At the same time, I see Kenneth Smyth’s family and Lexie Cummings’ family. I have a meeting coming up on a case that has come to me in the last few weeks. Private John Birch was one of the four Ulster Defence Regiment men murdered at Ballydugan, which I have spoken about in this House—two or three Members here will remember that debate. Of the four UDR men murdered, I knew three of them personally. I know where they come from. Corporal John Birch’s son seeks answers to assuage his perpetual grief. He wants an explanation. He has told me in an email that he needs to talk to me about it. I said I will do that.
In any consideration of any public inquiry, the consideration of the third of cases that remain unsolved must be enshrined within. Do the families that I have spoken about, my constituents, not deserve the same treatment? They do. With all due respect, who will meet my cousin Shelley and tell her why the disgraceful murder of Pat Finucane deserves a level of justice that Kenneth Smyth is unworthy of? Who will explain why her pain and quest for answers should not merit a public inquiry, but Pat Finucane’s does?
I wish—I mean this with all my heart—for every grieving person in the Province to have the closure that we all need and we all wish to have. I wish for every child to feel that the loss of their father or mother has not slipped by. I want to fight for Jonathon Birch to have the full story of the murder of his father at Ballydugan 30 years ago to be heard, just as it is being done on behalf of the Finucane family today. I will not say that one person must simply accept a life of pain and questions while someone else deserves attention from the Government— I say that very respectfully.
Unless someone will attend the homes of any of the 211 widows of RUC officers and tell them that the slaughter of their loved ones is acceptable but that of others is not, I will not be able to accept this call. Unless someone will tell a child whose father was taken away so early that he has no memories of him, that his pain is not deserving of a high-level intervention, I will not be able to accept this call. I say again that this is not tit for tat, or saying that my pain is worse that your pain—it is not that. It is acknowledging that the Government should not create levels of mourning.
I want peace. I want peace for the Finucanes, just as I want it for every family who still grieves, but public inquiries cannot be the solution. Pat Finucane’s death mattered, and it still does, but so did the killing of Kenneth Smyth and Lexie Cummings. The same is true of John Birch, Steven Smart, John Bradley and Michael Adams—the four UDR men killed at Ballydugan—and of Stuart Montgomery, an 18-year-old police officer who was murdered in Pomeroy. It is also true of the other 3,200 murders in the Province. Their loss is felt today, and the pain of the innocent matters. So does the call for equal justice and, indeed, for this nation collectively to move forward.
Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)
Unfortunately, we are missing a Member, so we will now move to the shadow Minister and then the Minister. Even though we have gained a bit of time, I ask that we make time for Colum Eastwood, given the importance of the debate, so that he has an opportunity to wind up at the end.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell—that rather exposes the idea that we are not being quite so genuine when other Members occupy the Chair.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) on securing the debate and on his extremely powerful contribution about the merits of a public inquiry into the killing of Pat Finucane. We have heard from Members with real lived experience of Northern Ireland about the merits of such an inquiry, and we have heard powerful, heartbreaking testimony about that murder and about many more from the troubles that remain unsolved and were never fully investigated.
Let me respond first to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), because he makes a powerful case. He and my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) are right to say that none of us is arguing for a hierarchy of victims. All of us want to see truth and justice delivered for the families of victims of the troubles, just as they would have received had their loved ones lost their lives anywhere else in the UK.
One of the tragedies of the troubles is that the killing of Pat Finucane was not distinctive enough to merit a public inquiry. Such brutal murders—many of which have never received even the pretence of an investigation, let alone one that is fully compliant with article 2 —numbered in their thousands, as the hon. Member for Strangford said. That remains one of the most significant and enduring elements of the Good Friday agreement that we have yet to deliver on in Westminster.
It is therefore reasonable to ask why the killing of Pat Finucane merits a public inquiry and more attention than any other murder during the troubles, not least the killing of police officers, veterans and civilians. As has been spelled out, however, the answer dates back to the Weston Park accord and the findings of Judge Cory, who recommended public inquiries into a number of murders. As we have heard, of the four inquiries that he recommended, only the killing of Pat Finucane remains outstanding. None of the subsequent investigations has met the legal standards that are held by the British Government. All have fallen short of the public inquiry that for too long the Finucane family have been campaigning for. Disgracefully, they have been forced yet again to take the Government to the highest court in the country in order to be told that the Government remain in breach of article 2 of the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998.
As we know, the Court stopped short of directing the Government to set up an independent inquiry, but the Labour party is clear, as indeed are the Finucane family, that it is the only legal way forward for the Government to proceed. If the Minister considers that they can meet their obligations in another way, we believe it is incumbent on him to lay out what options he considers are available to the Government.
Northern Ireland is a society that has made so much progress towards reconciliation in the past two decades, but the intervening years have served to demonstrate that families, communities and society as a whole will struggle to take the difficult remaining steps towards reconciliation until a solution is found to deal with the legacy of the past. It is dangerously naive to think that a veil can simply be drawn over so many atrocities and outrages that occurred over so many years.
We have an opportunity now for Northern Ireland to escape the grip of the past with a mechanism that delivers the truth about what took place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) said, Operation Kenova and the outstanding work of Jon Boucher demonstrate that that is still possible, that there is a way forward and that a victim-centred approach can deliver the truth. That is what the majority of the victims, including the Finucanes, have been fighting for all these years. They have been fighting for a truth process that acknowledges the injustice of the past, clears their loved ones’ names and enables reconciliation. That was the essence of the Stormont House agreement and the basis on which consensus was reached. I say to the Minister, achieving that will be impossible without building that consensus.
Everything that has been achieved in Northern Ireland has been achieved on the basis of consensus. The Belfast, St Andrews, Hillsborough Castle, Stormont House and the New Decade, New Approach agreements were all made possible by painstakingly building consensus across communities and parties, and in partnership with the Irish Government. It would be foolish to think that that legacy should or could be any different.
Ministers committed 10 months ago to find that broad- based consensus on legacy, underpinned by the Stormont House mechanisms, so the departure from that approach in March this year caused enormous anger and shock from victims and people across Northern Ireland society. Trust in the Government’s approach has been understandably fractured in Northern Ireland. We are desperate for the Government to get this right.
I will repeat in public what I have said to the Secretary of State in private. We will work with the Government and help them to achieve consensus on this issue in a way that respects the Stormont House agreement and delivers on legacy. There must be no party politics for Labour and the Conservatives on this. As co-signatories to the Good Friday agreement, we deeply feel the duty for Westminster to get this right, whichever party is in power. It falls to our generation of politicians to take grave decisions and finally deliver on legacy.
I say to the Minister, it is time for the Northern Ireland Office to start engaging. I urge the Government to think carefully about their next steps, to work to build that broad-based consensus. Families have had to campaign for too long for the basics that would have been afforded them, had their loved-ones been murdered anywhere else in the United Kingdom. If we do not resolve this now, victims and survivors will be here in another 10 years’ time having the same debates, and the people of Northern Ireland will continue to suffer for our collective failure.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)
I am grateful for your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. Congratulations on taking the Chair. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in this powerful debate. I see that the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) has just joined us and was unable to speak, but I am sure he would have made similarly powerful points.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) spoke passionately and poignantly on behalf of his constituents. I absolutely recognise the force and importance of his contribution. The murder of Patrick Finucane on 12 February 1989 in front of his family is one of the highest-profile cases from the troubles. As the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) said, it is a shocking case in any situation. It was an appalling crime and it caused tremendous suffering. I acknowledge the tributes paid to Mr Finucane’s family and their quest for justice in this respect.
Previous investigations have made it clear that there was collusion in this case. That was totally unacceptable and the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, apologised publicly for what he described as the “shocking levels of collusion” that took place. I want to reiterate that apology today. This case is, sadly, but one example, as the hon. Members for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, of the violence and tragedy experienced by far too many individuals and families across Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom during the troubles.
Members have referred to a number of tragic cases affecting far too many families, including the case of the Reavey brothers in 1976. I thank the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) for the important intervention he has made on that matter, and I note that the Police Service of Northern Ireland Historical Enquiries Team found no wrongdoing whatsoever by Eugene Reavey in the incident that he raised.
Over 3,500 people were killed during the troubles, the vast majority at the hands of republican or loyalist terrorists. Many of those murdered were members of the police and security services, and it is only due to the courageous efforts of our police and security services that we have the peace and relative stability that Northern Ireland enjoys today. This Government are sincere and unstinting in their gratitude to those who served throughout the long years of the troubles to uphold the rule of law and democracy. Many hundreds of them, as we have heard, paid the ultimate price for doing so.
As the Government of the United Kingdom, we must be equally clear when the high standards to which we rightly hold ourselves and our service personnel have not been met. As hon. Members will be aware, the murder of Patrick Finucane has been the subject of a number of different investigations, some of which I will set out briefly. A major investigation into his death was launched immediately after the murder by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Responsibility for his murder was claimed by the proscribed loyalist paramilitary group the Ulster Freedom Fighters the day after the murder.
An inquest into the cause and immediate circumstances of the death was held on 6 September 1990. Between September 1989 and April 2003, Lord Stevens, the former chief constable of the Metropolitan Police, carried out three separate investigations into allegations of collusion between the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries, the third of which—Stevens 3—was specifically into Mr Finucane’s murder.
As a result of the Stevens 3 investigation Ken Barrett, a loyalist terrorist, was charged with the murder of Mr Finucane. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced in September 2004. William Stobie, a former RUC agent, was also charged with aiding and abetting the murder of Patrick Finucane, but the Director of Public Prosecutions discontinued the prosecution in the light of concerns about the mental state of a key prosecution witness.
As part of the investigation, the Stevens 3 team also investigated allegations that RUC officers had encouraged the murder by providing information about Patrick Finucane, that they assisted in the aftermath by removing a roadblock, and that they failed to act on intelligence in the aftermath of the murder in relation to the movement of weapons. The investigation also included the operational activity of the Army’s force research unit, reviewing and analysing all material relating to the FRU’s operational activity. The findings and recommendations from the investigation were submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and in June 2007 the DPP directed that the test for prosecution had not been met.
A further independent review conducted by Sir Desmond de Silva, QC was announced on 12 October 2011. His terms of reference were to produce a full public account of any involvement by the Army, the RUC, the Security Service or any other Government body in the murder of Patrick Finucane. Sir Desmond had access to approximately 12,000 witness statements, 32,000 documents and more than 1 million pages of material produced as part of the three investigations led by Lord Stevens. He also sought and published a significant amount of additional material, including original intelligence documents, alongside his report. All relevant Government Departments and agencies co-operated fully and openly with his review.
The Historical Enquiries Team within the PSNI subsequently reviewed the content of the de Silva report to determine whether it provided any opportunities to progress the investigation into Mr Finucane’s murder. The investigating officer appointed to carry out the review concluded that there was no reason to review the decision of the Public Prosecution Service in 2007.
As we have heard, following judicial review proceedings the Supreme Court made a declaration that the state had not discharged its obligation to conduct an article 2 compliant investigation into the death of Mr Finucane; however, the court stopped short of ordering a full public inquiry, stating:
“It is for the state to decide, in light of the incapacity of Sir Desmond de Silva’s review and the inquiries which preceded it to meet the procedural requirement of article 2, what form of investigation, if indeed any is now feasible, is required in order to meet that requirement.”
Following the Supreme Court judgment, an independent review of previous investigations was commissioned by the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), to help establish what steps should be taken to address the issues identified by the judgment. The current Secretary of State also met the Finucane family shortly after his appointment in February 2020.
The Secretary of State recognises the importance of reaching a properly informed decision on this matter and is committed to making that decision by the end of the month. That involves many complex issues, and it is right that he considers them all carefully. As the process remains ongoing, it is not appropriate for me to make further comment at this time. Although I am therefore not in a position to respond to all the specific points and requests made by Members, please be assured that I have listened carefully to them and they now form part of the public record.
Kevin Brennan
I am genuinely very grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can he tell the House how the Secretary of State will make that decision public when he takes it by the end of the month? Will it be in the form of a statement to the House, for example?
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I assure him that we will seek to update the House as appropriate. Clearly, the first response should be made to the court and to the family, but I will pass on that point to the Secretary of State and urge him to make the decision clear to the House at the first opportunity.
A number of Members raised concerns about progress on wider legacy reform. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to addressing the legacy of the troubles in a way that focuses on reconciliation, delivers for victims and ends the cycle of reinvestigations that has failed victims and veterans alike. As with other priorities, progress on that has been affected by the circumstances of the past few months, but we are moving forward as quickly as we can.
The Government understand just how complex legacy issues are—that is why they remain unresolved, more than 20 years after the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. However, we are determined to get it right, and we remain committed to working with all parts of the community in Northern Ireland, including victims’ groups and families, to do so. I recognise the challenge to engage in that respect from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), and I can assure her that that engagement will be taking place.
It is vital that we now find a way forward that helps society in Northern Ireland to look forward together, rather than looking back to a divisive past. As the hon. Member for City of Durham said, we must ensure that, as we move this process forward, people can look forward to the future.
Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)
I thank Members for their co-operation on timing, and I now call Colum Eastwood to wind up.
Colum Eastwood
I thank all hon. Members who took part in the debate, and I particularly thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his words and for his attitude. Seamus Mallon once told me that every single death diminishes us all, and I stand by that principle today. I want truth for everybody: no matter where you came from, no matter who murdered you, you and your family deserve truth. I believe that our society deserves truth, and needs truth, because we cannot move forward in a spirit of reconciliation and partnership unless we take away the dark clouds and dark corners where this information is held.
I am also very grateful to the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) for righting a wrong today. A former Member for North Antrim made a scurrilous accusation in this place about Eugene Reavey. Eugene Reavey is one of the most decent, upstanding people I know, and what was said about him was absolutely wrong and totally hurtful. Why anybody would think that piling more pain on to a family—one of many such families—would have some sort of value, I just do not understand.
This is about all of us. Pat Finucane’s family are not trying to tell anybody that their pain is worse than anybody else’s or that their truth is more deserving than anybody else’s, but this case, as I and others have already said, goes right to the heart of the British Government’s involvement in Northern Ireland. The act of the murder, the cover-up of how it occurred and the denial of truth tell us a very clear story about the UK’s intervention in Northern Ireland.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman; I had shadow Front-Bench duties, which meant I could not take part in this debate earlier. I thank him for allowing me to make an intervention. I was a witness to the Macpherson inquiry on Stephen Lawrence. That single murder and that inquiry shone such a light on police practice in the UK that they fundamentally changed it. The hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent winding-up speech. The same light, shone on the case of Pat Finucane, in terms of the police and Northern Ireland security services and their practices, such as the wiping of hard drives, could transform things in the way they were transformed post Stephen Lawrence. That is why I think this is such an important case, and the hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent case for it.
Colum Eastwood
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; that gets to the core of it. I just do not believe that our society will properly move forward unless we know the truth of what happened. I know the Minister says that legacy issues are complex—well, they are difficult, they are painful, but they are pretty straightforward. What people want is the truth. What is complex about that? We know how hard this is—we live it every single day. Pat Finucane’s family live it, the O’Dowds live it, the Reaveys live it and all the victims of our terrible, terrible conflict are living it still today, and our society is sick because of it.
The Minister has an opportunity to take some of that pain away, to shine some light into dark corners. The Government made this promise—20 years ago, a promise was made to a family and it has not been kept, and this Government have a responsibility to keep that promise. A full, public, independent judicial inquiry is all now that will suffice. The case has been made. The promises have been made. It is time now to deliver.
If we want to deliver on all of the truth and if we want to get right to the heart of it, to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford, there is a process. It is agreed. It is another international agreement. It is called the Stormont House agreement. If we want to sort all these issues out, we must implement that, bring the victims in from the cold and deliver the truth that they require. That is what we need to move forward as a society, and I fundamentally believe that we will not do so unless this issue is dealt with.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential merits of a public inquiry into the death of Pat Finucane.
4.25 pm
Sitting adjourned.
Written Statements
National Security and Investment Bill and White Paper
(4 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)
I am today introducing the National Security and Investment Bill to update the Government’s investment screening powers and strike the right balance between maintaining an open economy and giving us the tools we need to intervene in cases of serious concern. I am also publishing the Government’s response to the public consultation on the “National Security and Investment” White Paper, an impact assessment for the Bill and a revised draft statement of policy. In addition, I am launching a consultation on secondary legislation to define the sectors subject to mandatory notification.
This Government are a champion for free trade, recognising that inward investment is economically highly beneficial. Investment in UK plc boosts productivity by backing businesses to create good jobs and develop skills, and will help support our economic recovery from covid-19. Since 2010-11, over 600,000 new jobs have been created in our economy thanks to over 16,000 FDI projects. During that decade, over $750 billion has flowed into the UK as a result of FDI. Investors value our legal system, our highly competitive tax regime, and a stable regulatory approach that cannot be replicated anywhere else in the world. The recently announced Office for Investment will build on the Government’s proud record and ensure that the UK remains a premier investment destination as we take advantage of our new status outside the European Union as an independent country.
An open approach to international investment must, however, also include appropriate safeguards to protect our national security and the safety of our citizens. The UK and our allies face continued and broad-ranging hostile activity from foreign intelligence agencies and others, who seek to compromise our national security. When it comes to investment, we are seeing novel means to undermine the UK’s national security that go beyond traditional mergers and acquisitions and also go beyond the reach of our current powers; such as structuring deals to obscure who is behind them. Such behaviour, left unchecked, can leave sensitive UK businesses vulnerable to disruption and espionage. It is crucial that the Government are able to fully combat these threats.
Our current powers to prevent hostile foreign investment in our businesses are set out in the Enterprise Act 2002. Technological, economic, and geopolitical changes across the globe over the last 20 years mean that reforms to the Government’s powers to scrutinise transactions on national security grounds are required. Currently, subject to minor exceptions, target businesses must have a UK turnover of over £70 million or meet a combined share of supply test before Government can intervene on national security grounds. This means that businesses below the £70 million threshold, including those at the very forefront of technological breakthroughs and national security-sensitive innovation, are too often beyond the scope of the present legislation. The Government are also unable to intervene in acquisitions of sensitive assets whose transfer might have national security implications.
The Government are therefore legislating to update their powers to respond to these changing threats and to bring our regime in line with that of our Five Eyes allies and other security partners.
More security for British businesses and people
The National Security and Investment Bill will require notification and clearance of investments in businesses in key sectors, such as defence and artificial intelligence, to our new Investment Security Unit. A full list is provided at the end of this statement and today we are publishing a consultation paper on the definition of these sectors. This consultation will be used to refine the definitions so that they are clear, allow parties to self-assess whether they need to notify, and are narrowly focused on the specific parts of sectors where risks are most likely to arise. This approach will ensure that the regime is targeted and proportionate, and keeps Britain firmly open for business. The Bill will bring us into line with other countries, such as the USA, whose Committee on Foreign Investment also operates a mandatory notification model that investors will be familiar with.
Other investments can also be notified to the Investment Security Unit or proactively “called in” by the Government for national security assessments. This maintains the current flexibility under the Enterprise Act 2002 so that the Government can address national security risks wherever they arise in the economy. The Bill will cover acquisitions of assets, including intellectual property such as trade secrets and software, so that the risks of such transactions can also be fully scrutinised. This combined approach will provide a proportionate defence against hostile actors targeting sensitive sectors in ever more novel and complex ways.
Transactions subject to mandatory notification will not be allowed to proceed without Government approval and any deal that is completed without approval will be automatically void in law. This approach is in line with powers under the French and Italian regimes.
The regime will be underpinned by both civil and criminal sanctions, creating effective deterrents for non-compliance with statutory obligations, in line with many of our allies’ screening regimes, including France and Germany.
The new powers are not limited by turnover or share of supply thresholds, meaning acquisitions of companies of any size, in any sector, can be examined, providing the Secretary of State reasonably suspects that the transaction has given, or may give rise to, a national security risk.
We have increased the period for “calling in” non-notified transactions which the Secretary of State reasonably suspects may raise national security concerns, to up to five years after they take place—and only those which take place from the point of Bill introduction onwards. Again, this is similar to the French, German and Italian regimes and will help to ensure that the risks posed by hostile actors seeking to complete deals in secret can be addressed. As outlined above, by notifying transactions—including after they take place—which are not covered by mandatory notification but may none the less be of potential national security interest, businesses and investors will be able to get a decision and achieve deal certainty.
Once a transaction has been called in and a full assessment process has been carried out, where the clear legal test is met, the Government will be able to impose remedies on transactions. This includes, in the small minority of cases where it is the only appropriate way to address the risks posed by the transaction, blocking or unwinding a deal. For the avoidance of doubt, the Government expect that the vast majority of transactions will be cleared outright, that only a small minority are likely to require conditions, and that only those transactions that present the most serious risks are likely to be blocked. None the less, it is vital we have all the necessary tools available to keep this country safe and such remedies are consistent with the approach under our existing legislation.
The Business Secretary will be the single decision maker for the new regime and will act with advice from the Investment Security Unit, policy experts in Government and with full information from the interested parties, including the ability to hear evidence from the parties in person. This will ensure consistency of decisions across all sectors, that there is a single avenue of approach for business and investors through the Business Department, and that a pro-business outlook underpins the very heart of our investment screening process.
Slicker investment routes and more certainty for businesses
We will make any interactions with Government simpler and quicker by providing clearance to most transactions within 30 working days, with notifiable investments submitted through a new digital portal. Timelines for assessments will be set out in law and not set by the Government on a case-by-case basis as at present under the Enterprise Act 2002, which can take many months to receive clearance.
The digital portal will be available upon commencement of the new regime. In the meantime, businesses and investors can contact the Government to discuss potential transactions of interest by email at: investment.screening @beis.gov.uk
The National Security and Investment Bill requires notified transactions to be either cleared or “called in” within 30 working days of the notification being given and accepted. If a transaction is cleared, then there is no further opportunity after this point for the Government to intervene—unless false or misleading information was provided—so businesses and investors can achieve maximum certainty.
Once a transaction has been “called in”, the Government will then have 30 working days, extendable—in cases where the specific legal test is met—by a further 45 working days, to carry out a full assessment of the transaction. That may include gathering further information about the deal, identifying the nature and extent of the risks it may pose, and working with the parties to explore potential remedies.
These statutory timescales will enable business and investors to plan their affairs with clarity about when they can expect decisions and give them the confidence they need to do business in the UK. Again, any transaction cleared following such an assessment cannot be re-examined by the Government at a later date—unless false or misleading information was provided—and the outcome of all cases requiring the imposition of final remedies must be published by the Business Secretary.
This, alongside the publication of an annual report as required by the Bill, reflects the Government’s commitment to providing the greatest level of transparency possible within the confines of a national security regime. Businesses, investors and their advisers will be able to use this information to attain greater certainty about their own activities and the types of prospective transactions which should be notified.
A regime in line with our allies
We are not acting in isolation. Many of our closest allies, including our Five Eyes partners and France, Germany, and Japan, have similarly reformed their powers in this area over the last few years.
Like us, the United States has also recently introduced mandatory notification requirements in specific parts of the economy to respond to the changing threats. In July, the Australian Government also released draft legislation requiring foreign investors to seek approval to acquire a direct interest in sensitive national security businesses. We will continue to work with like-minded countries to address the shared risks that we face, including through the vector of investment.
The UK’s proportionate updates build on the best practice established around the world by like-minded countries and deliver a balanced regime that provides the Government with the flexible powers they need while keeping our country firmly open to investment.
The Government have been clear for a number of years about their intention to introduce legislation in the area of national security and investment. As we re-build from covid-19 where sensitive British businesses may be vulnerable, we must go further and ensure that the Government can intervene in any deal across the economy that raises risks.
In summary, the Government believe that the final package of reforms introduced to Parliament in the National Security and Investment Bill today strikes the right balance between maintaining the openness and attractiveness of the UK as a destination for inward investment, while also providing the Government with the appropriate powers they need to protect the country.
I will lay both the Government response to the White Paper consultation and the accompanying Bill before Parliament. I will place copies of the impact assessment, the draft statement of policy, and the consultation on secondary legislation to define the sectors subject to mandatory notification, in the Libraries of the both House.
List of sectors with activities to be covered by mandatory notification
Advanced Materials
Advanced Robotics
Artificial Intelligence
Civil Nuclear
Communications
Computing Hardware
Critical Suppliers to Government
Critical Suppliers to the Emergency Services
Cryptographic Authentication
Data Infrastructure
Defence
Energy
Engineering Biology
Military and Dual Use
Quantum Technologies
Satellite and Space Technologies
Transport
[HCWS568]
Economic Crime Plan: Action 19
(4 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
As part of the Government’s July 2019 Economic Crime Plan[1], the Treasury undertook to consider the case for a Government power to block listings[2] on UK financial markets on the grounds of national security. This work has concluded and indicates that there are possible scenarios in which a proposed listing may potentially give rise to national security concerns. Therefore, alongside today’s introduction of the National Security and Investment (NS&I) Bill, the Government are announcing their intention to bring forward a precautionary power to block listings on national security grounds.
In designing this power, the Government will take full account of the fact that companies from all over the world come to the UK, as a world-leading financial centre, in order to raise capital. They are attracted by the depth, breadth and openness of our markets as well as London’s reputation for clean and transparent markets. This power will reinforce that reputation and help us maintain London’s status as a world-class listings destination. The Treasury will publish a full consultation to inform the design of the power, which we expect to launch in early 2021. Further information will be set out in the consultation document.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/economic-crime-plan-2019-to-2022/economiccrime-plan-2019-to-2022-accessible-version.
[2] When a company wants to raise capital, it can do this through “listing” its securities on a public market, such as the London Stock Exchange (LSE).
[HCWS570]
Notification of Contingent Liability
(4 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
The Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) of the Bank of England decided at its meeting ending on 4 November to ask for an expansion in the maximum limit of purchases that may be undertaken by the Asset Purchase Facility (APF). This will encompass up to £150 billion of further purchases of gilts to support the economy.
In light of the recent economic conditions, the MPC judged further asset purchases financed by the issuance of central bank reserves should be undertaken to enable the MPC to meet its statutory objectives, and thereby support the economy. I have therefore authorised an increase in the total size of the APF of £150 billion. This will bring the maximum total size of the APF from £745 to £895 billion.
In line with the requirements in the MPC remit, the amendments to the APF that could affect the allocation of credit and pose risks to the Exchequer have been discussed with Treasury officials. The risk control framework previously agreed with the Treasury will remain in place, and HM Treasury will keep monitoring risks to public funds from the facility through regular risk oversight meetings and enhanced information sharing with the Bank.
There will continue to be an opportunity for the Treasury to provide views to the MPC on the design of the schemes within the APF, as they affect the Government’s broader economic objectives and may pose risks to the Exchequer.
The Government will continue to indemnify the Bank and the APF from any losses arising out of, or in connection with, the facility. If the liability is called, provision for any payment will be sought through the normal supply procedure.
A full departmental minute has been laid in the House of Commons providing more detail on this contingent liability.
[HCWS569]
Covid-19: Students Returning Home
(4 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
As a Government we have made a commitment to ensure students living at university will be able to go home at the end of term, if they choose to do so. Today, I am announcing the measures that we are putting in place to enable students to return home as safely as possible.
The national restrictions are set in law to finish on 2 December and the Government are committed to this date. In order to ensure that students can return home at the end of the autumn term but also reduce any transmission risk, the Government are asking that students return home once the national restrictions have been lifted, in a “student travel window” lasting from 3 to 9 December. This excludes students who have tested positive or been notified by the NHS Test and Trace system.
Universities should stagger departure dates across faculties and with other institutions in the region to manage pressure on transport infrastructure. In order to ensure that students can travel home during this window, higher education providers should cease in-person teaching no later than 9 December. Moving to online learning by 9 December will allow students to start to return home, and any students who have tested positive to complete their period of self-isolation and return home before Christmas.
As the Prime Minister announced this week, we are also working closely with universities to roll out mass testing for students. We have made huge strides in our testing capability in recent weeks, and we will offer this to as many students as possible before they travel home, targeting this in areas of high prevalence. This will help to provide further confidence that students can leave safely if they test negative. If a student tests positive or they are told to self-isolate by NHS Test and Trace before their departure, they will need to remain in self-isolation, following the relevant guidance. Moving all learning online by 9 December allows enough time for students to complete this isolation period, where required, before returning home for Christmas.
Under the current national restrictions students will have completed a four-week period of national restriction by 2 December, limiting the risk of them contracting and transmitting coronavirus (covid-19). As this is a key measure to reduce the risk of transmission to their families and friends at home, it is very important that students comply with the measures for the duration of the period of national restrictions and manage social interactions safely between 3 December and the point of travel. I ask students to work with us to keep themselves and their families safe, while allowing them to return home at the end of term if they choose to do so.
We are working with the devolved Administrations to ensure that all students, no matter where they live or study, are treated fairly and can travel home as safely as possible to keep all our communities safe.
English students at universities in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland should follow the guidance relevant to where they are living before returning home. When they return to England, they should follow their local guidance for their home area. Students returning to their home in England who have not completed the four weeks of national restrictions should undertake at least 14 days of restricted contact either before or after return home to minimise their risk of transmission.
We know that not all students will be able to go home, or may choose not to do so. It is vital that support continues for those who choose to stay at university over Christmas, including our international students, care leavers and those who may be estranged from their families. We have asked universities to ensure they have plans for those students who remain on campus and this includes ensuring that support continues over winter break.
Finally, I want to assure parents, students and staff that their welfare is our priority. The hard work of university staff has meant we are able to keep students and staff as safe as possible during term, and I am very grateful for their efforts to deliver an appropriate balance of online and in-person teaching, as agreed with public health teams. We are pleased we can now announce how students can travel home at the end of term, while keeping themselves, their families, and their communities, as safe as possible.
[HCWS571]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use.
The microphone system for physical participants has changed. Your microphones will no longer be turned on at all times, in order to reduce the noise for remote participants. When it is your turn to speak, please press the button on the base of your microphone stand. Once you have done that, wait for the green flashing light to turn red before you begin speaking. The process for unmuting and muting for remote participants remains the same. If the capacity of the Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
Medicines and Medical Devices Bill
Wednesday 11th November 2020
(4 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 View all Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 116-V Fifth marshalled list for Grand Committee - (6 Nov 2020)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
A participants’ list for today’s proceedings has been published by the Government Whips’ Office, as have lists of Members who have put their names to the amendments or expressed an interest in speaking on each group. I will call Members to speak in the order that they are listed. Members are not permitted to intervene spontaneously; the Chair calls each speaker. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted.
During the debate on each group I will invite Members, including Members in the Grand Committee Room, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister, using the Grand Committee address. I will call Members to speak in order of request and will invite the Minister to respond each time. The groupings are binding and it will not be possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to move formally an amendment already debated should have given notice in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments.
When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Grand Committee Room only. I remind Members that Divisions cannot take place in Grand Committee. It takes unanimity to amend the Bill, so if a single voice says “Not content”, an amendment is negatived and if a single voice says “Content”, a clause stands part. If a Member taking part remotely intends to oppose an amendment expected to be agreed to, they should make this clear when speaking on the group.
Amendment 49
Baroness Thornton
“Extending prescribing rights
The Secretary of State must, within three months of this Act being passed, lay before each House of Parliament proposals and a timetable for extending prescribing rights to additional healthcare professionals under section 2(1)(n).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause requires the Secretary of State to publish proposals and a timetable for additional healthcare professionals to be given appropriately restricted prescribing rights.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I said at Second Reading that we on these Benches are supportive of the extension of prescribing rights to additional health- care professionals, including radiographers, dietitians, orthoptists and speech and language therapists. It is time that this issue was resolved and that is our intention in tabling this amendment. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish proposals and a timetable for additional healthcare professionals to be given appropriately restricted prescribing rights. I thank my noble friends Lord Bradley and Lord Hunt, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for their support and I look forward to hearing their remarks.
The background to this issue is that, in February 2020, in response to a Parliamentary Question tabled by my honourable friend Geraint Davies MP, the Government said:
“Subject to Parliamentary approval, the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill currently before Parliament will give the Government powers to extend prescribing responsibilities to new professional groups where it is safe and appropriate to do so.”
We support that extension and our proposed amendment to the Bill will expedite that, resulting in better outcomes for patients and the system as we face a surge in demand on health services both now and in the future due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
The extension will build on the groundwork already undertaken by the NHS England scoping exercise over the past few years on extending prescribing rights to members and professionals. Extending prescribing rights would help to deliver better support and more timely care for patients. It would improve patient safety, as allied health professionals with appropriate expertise would be able to make decisions rather than relying on junior clinicians signing off clinical management plans. It would decrease the number of patient group directions needed, thus reducing the time spent on development, use and training, and it would bring prescribing expertise closer to the patient. It would reduce the pressure on other stretched professionals, including GPs, and it would improve system efficiency by reducing the duplication of work among health professionals, with a potential result of significant time and resource savings. The extension of prescribing rights to these professionals and others would make a significant and positive difference to those professionals and to the ability of the wider health system to respond as swiftly and efficiently as possible to the post-Covid-19 surge in demand on health services, including the rehabilitation and recovery of post-Covid-19 patients.
It is important to recognise the impact of Covid-19 and how it has emphasised the urgency of taking action. When we discussed these issues before the Bill came before the House, representatives expressed their frustration at how long it seemed to be taking to get approvals to work their way through the system. Given that we have managed to shortcut various systems because it has been necessary to do so with Covid-19, it seems that this is one that presents itself and needs a positive response. It will benefit the NHS, patients and expert health groups. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment and the potential for increasing prescribing responsibilities. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, was a huge champion of prescribing rights for nurses. I was able to extend that to community pharmacists and I want to see us now build on that by extending it to other professions in healthcare. Dietitians, occupational health therapists, orthoptists, radiographers and speech and language therapists all have a hugely important role to play and giving them prescribing responsibilities would help to deliver safer, better and timelier patient care.
We have seen already how dietitians have hugely expanded their role in the treatment of diabetes, gastroenterology, bariatrics, metabolic conditions and oncology. Orthoptics has seen its roles expand in stroke management and neuro-rehabilitation and neuro-ophthalmology, in particular among children with SEN and for paediatric ophthalmology. Diagnostic radiographers are increasingly performing routine interventional procedures under imaging control, while speech and language therapist roles have developed in respiratory care, ear, nose and throat services, critical care and end-of-life care. Occupational therapists have increased their advanced practitioner roles and are demonstrating a hugely beneficial impact across all areas of the NHS.
There is a problem. It has been reported that the current ability of these professions to administer medicines to support patients through patient group directions and/or patient-specific directions is apparently becoming increasingly difficult. They are either taking longer to secure or they are being more restrictive, to the detriment of patient care and safety. I ask the Minister why this is. I refer to his interesting comment on Second Reading, when he said:
“NHS England and NHS Improvement are considering across all non-medical groups, influenced by learning from the Covid-19 pandemic, where there is a need to consider undertaking formal consultation on potential amendments to prescribing responsibilities for several professional groups.”—[Official Report, 2/9/20; col. 432.]
This is very welcome—and, of course, implied in that statement is a recognition that during the past six months we have had to rely on professional and other staff adding to their responsibilities and going beyond the extra mile. By extending prescribing rights, we would be recognising that fact and recognising that many of our professionals can do more, if they are given the ability to do it.
Provided that this happens within safe bounds—and so far, prescribing for non-medics seems to have worked very successfully—we have a total win-win situation, in which patients will benefit and the professional development and satisfaction of many of our staff groups will increase. I believe that my noble friend’s intention is to give the Minister all support for charging on with the extension of prescribing rights, and I hope that she will embrace that support and get a move on.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, I must declare two interests in explaining why I have put my name to the amendment—first, as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Speech and Language Difficulties, and secondly, as an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. As always, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, both of whom know a great deal more about this subject than I do.
As I reported on Second Reading, on 12 August the Minister in the other place wrote that the Bill would allow the Government to update those professional organisations that can prescribe medicines when it was safe and appropriate to do so. This is in line with what the Minister said on Second Reading, which was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. If the experience of dieticians, orthoptists, diagnostic radiographers and speech and language therapists is anything to go by, the role of such people has expanded considerably during the pandemic, during which there has been ever-increasing pressure on health professionals.
Prescribing responsibilities would enable allied professions to share the burden with their NHS colleagues and avoid unnecessary delay and duplication for patients. Their call for increased prescribing responsibilities is backed up by hard-pressed NHS trusts, which have identified a means of increasing their capacity. Therefore I hope that, on the basis of experience during the pandemic, the Minister will be able to announce proposals and a timetable for extending prescribing rights for certain carefully chosen health professional organisations within three months of the Bill being passed, as part of the NHS long-term improvement plan.
Lord Bradley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to support this timely amendment, which, as we have heard, would introduce a new clause to the Bill to extend prescribing rights to additional healthcare professionals. It is a consequence of the debate on Second Reading, which clearly laid out the benefits of extending prescribing rights to such allied health professionals as dieticians, orthoptists, diagnostic radiographers and speech and language therapists. I will not repeat all the advantages this would bring, because that argument has already been well made, both on Second Reading and in the speeches we have already heard this afternoon. In summary, I believe that it would help to deliver better support and more timely care for patients, reduce pressure on other health professionals, increase system efficiency and maximise the ability to respond to the Covid-19 pandemic, both now and in the predicted post-pandemic surge in the pressure on services.
Lord Balfe (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the four noble Lords who tabled this amendment, all of whom are working from exactly the same brief as I am—I can tell that from the quotes. First, I should declare an interest: I have not been present in Committee before, but am here as a former president of the British Dietetic Association, a TUC-affiliated union. The Bill was published during the dying days of my presidency and I undertook to speak in support of the proposed new clause.
I have nothing substantial to add to what has been already been so ably said by colleagues. I will just point out that dieticians are one of the groups seeking to extend this, and people often misunderstand what dieticians are for. The number of times I have been asked whether I am associated with Weight Watchers has rather driven me insane, but dieticians are actually more involved with undernutrition than overnutrition. Although people think of obesity and what are now the more popular things, the biggest challenge facing the average dietician is a person probably over 80 years old, almost certainly living alone and generally not caring for themselves. So the role of a dietician is often to get people to eat a balanced diet. They work in hospitals and in the community, and with other health professionals, particularly in developing clinical management plans. That effort would be reduced if this proposed clause were accepted.
Points about dieticians and others have been extensively made. I understand that
“within three months of this Act being passed”
is a big ask, but also that, unless we ask for something, we will probably not get anything at all. The noble Lord, Lord Bradley, has already quoted the Minister at Second Reading saying that they were
“considering across all non-medical groups … where there is a need to consider undertaking formal consultation on potential amendments to prescribing responsibilities”.—[Official Report, 2/9/20; col. 432.]
I realise that, at the time of Covid, there is a huge number of demands on the Minister’s department and the staff therein but, overall, if this can be made to work, it will benefit and increase the productivity of health professionals. So, in associating myself with the previous speeches, I also encourage the Minister to give as positive a response as he is able to. I am sure that, if we extend prescribing rights, we will be benefiting many patients and the medical profession. We will also be enabling many health workers to play a more effective role in the care of their patients.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 49 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Bradley. It mandates the Secretary of State to publish proposals and a timetable for additional healthcare professionals to be given appropriately restricted prescribing rights. As other noble Lords have said, for well over 20 years, some appropriately trained nurses have been prescribing from a restricted list. I see no reason why, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, described, appropriately trained allied health professionals and others, working from a list of approved medicines commensurate with their profession, should not do the same.
This is entirely appropriate at the moment, when it is not always easy to access a GP. We have seen how successful giving prescribing rights to both community and practice nurses has proven to be. Patients are becoming more willing to have appointments with AHPs and nurses, rather than GPs, which frees doctors to concentrate on patients requiring more experience, such as those with unusual or complex conditions. This is a win-win amendment and I heartily commend it.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I recognise that there is keen interest in how we may use powers in Clause 2(1)(n) of the Bill, relying on Clause 1(1), to continue to update the prescribing and supply responsibilities of healthcare professionals. However, I hope to persuade noble Lords that Amendment 49, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is unnecessary.
I am very pleased to say to noble Lords that NHS England and NHS Improvement are already leading work to scope the current and potential future use of medicines supply, administration and prescribing mechanisms by a range of non-medical healthcare professionals. On 15 October, they started consulting on a range of proposals to extend medicines administration and supply responsibilities, and to update the medicines that some existing independent prescribers may prescribe.
The consultations cover the use of patient group directions by biomedical and clinical scientists and operating department practitioners, exemptions enabling dental therapists and hygienists to supply some medicines, and changes to the controlled drugs that can be prescribed by physiotherapists, podiatrists and paramedic independent prescribers. If progressed, these proposals would allow patients to get timely and safe access to medicines from the most appropriate healthcare professionals, without the need for extra appointments from other prescribers, such as a GP. The current consultation will run until 10 December and is of course a public consultation. It will be informed by the views of key patient and professional groups, with engagement starting shortly through a series of online events.
I reassure noble Lords that we are committed to updating the prescribing and supply responsibilities of professional groups, where it is safe and appropriate to do so. In keeping with the rest of the Bill, any such changes will be made in a way that serves the best interests of patients. The powers allow us to ensure that professional responsibilities can be updated to reflect developments in professional practice, new approaches to care, changing scientific understanding and growing technical abilities. This ensures that we can continue to make full use of the skills available to us among NHS professionals, and support patients to receive the best possible care and support from NHS staff.
I know that a number of NHS professional groups are keen to see their members taking on responsibility for supplying or prescribing medicines. We have recently seen papers put forward by the British Dietetic Association, the Royal College of Occupational Therapists, the British and Irish Orthoptic Society, the Society of Radiographers and the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. I am very grateful to the professional groups for the careful consideration that they have given to these issues.
I reassure noble Lords that NHSE/I already has extensive joint working and engagement under way with these and other professional groups to consider whether any other changes would help keep patients safe and well. This will build on the historic work with various professional bodies and the devolved Administrations, over the last few years, which resulted in a number of changes, including allowing paramedics and therapeutic radiographers to be independent prescribers. As well as this, a wider scoping project is being led by NHS England and NHS Improvement, with the devolved Administrations and professional bodies, on the current and potential future use of medicines supply, administration and prescribing mechanisms by a range of non-medical healthcare professionals.
I also reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and other noble Lords who raised this that NHS England and NHS Improvement’s work on prescribing and supply will of course account for lessons learned from the Covid-19 response. For instance, NHSE/I wishes to learn from professional bodies and, in its scoping work, is asking them how the use of medicines mechanisms contributed and how they can play a role in increasing capacity to respond to future challenges. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, feels able to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
I have received no requests to speak after—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
Oh, right. I have received one request to speak after the Minister. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I am sorry; it was possibly delayed. It was really just to ask the noble Baroness: when is the earliest she thinks there will be change? Are we looking at three months, six months or a year?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I might need to pick this up with the noble Baroness in writing afterwards. The consultation will close in December and, obviously, work has to be done after that—but it is probably safest to write, if that is okay.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
If these were normal times, I would have just popped up and asked that question.
I thank my colleagues—my noble friends Lord Hunt and Lord Bradley. My noble friend Lord Bradley is one of my roommates here. I have not seen him since March and I am missing him very much. So it is very nice to see him, even on the screen, and he made a very powerful case. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who has enormous expertise in the very important areas of speech and language therapies. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly.
Given the promise that we might actually, at some point, have a date, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bethell
“(1A) The appropriate authority may only make regulations under subsection (1) if satisfied that they would promote one or more of the following—(a) the health and welfare of animals;(b) the health and safety of the public;(c) the protection of the environment.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the appropriate authority may only make regulations under subsection (1) of Clause 8 if satisfied that they would promote the health or welfare of animals, the health and safety of the public or the protection of the environment.
Lord Bethell
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the appropriate authority to have regard to the factors mentioned in subsection (2)(a), (b) and (c) of Clause 8 in considering whether regulations under subsection (1) would promote the health or welfare of animals, the health and safety of the public or the protection of the environment.
Lord Bethell
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the Minister’s name inserting a new subsection after subsection (1) of Clause 8.
“(c) the likelihood of the relevant part of the United Kingdom being seen as an attractive or favourable place in which to develop or supply veterinary medicines.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies what was meant by the version of Clause 8(2)(c) in the Bill as brought from the House of Commons.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 62. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Clause 9: Manufacture, marketing, supply and field trials
Amendment 62
Baroness Wheeler
“(1A) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about the use of the Cascade.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Secretary of State the responsibility to make provisions regarding the Cascade, a risk-based decision process where veterinarians can dispense different medicines to animals beyond the terms of authorisation.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to move Amendment 62 in the name of my noble friend Lady Thornton. It amends Clause 9 of the Bill dealing with manufacture, marketing, supply and field trials. This is a probing amendment. It would give the Secretary of State the responsibility to make provisions, in respect of the cascade, risk-based decision-making process, allowing vets to prescribe unauthorised medicines when they are unable to get hold of suitable authorised medicines.
The cascade provision for the medical treatment of animals will be vitally important if there are problems with the supply of veterinary medicines in the event of no deal. The British Veterinary Association has underlined the importance of maintaining the cascade, and of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate reviewing the cascade to consider whether it would be possible to allow greater flexibility on the use of medicinal products licensed elsewhere in the EU and those of other partners within the International Cooperation on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Veterinary Medicine Products, known as VICH.
I am always struck by how much one learns during the course of working on legislation in the House of Lords, and how much is new that one was previously unaware of but should have been. The cascade system for prescribing unauthorised medicines is a good example for me. It is a vitally important procedure, underpinned by 2019 guidance from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, whereby vets are permitted to use their clinical judgment where there is no suitable veterinary medicine authorised in the UK for the specific condition in the animal being treated. Cascade gives vets access to a wider range of medicines to treat animals within their care and to prevent unavoidable suffering that could happen were a vet unable to prescribe a suitable alternative.
The cascade goes through the various stages of decision-making in the treatment of animals in descending order of suitability, commencing with the desired outcome of using an available authorised UK veterinary medicine and going through other stages, including the use of clinically suitable alternatives of, for example, human medicines authorised in the UK or in another member state for use in animals. The final provision is for the use of a medicine prescribed by the vet responsible for treating the animal and prepared specially on the occasion of the treatment being required—known as “extemporaneous preparation”. This has to be prepared by a vet or a pharmacist or a person holding an appropriate manufacturer’s authorisation.
In exceptional circumstances, where no suitable veterinary medicine is available either as an authorised product or under the cascade, a vet may treat an animal with a medicine authorised in a country outside the EU via the Special Imports Scheme. Clearly, the guidelines and appropriate primary legislation will need to be amended in the light of our forthcoming exit from the EU—or if there is no deal. So can the Minister tell the Committee what preparations are being made in respect of this very important matter?
Prescribing decisions under the cascade are made on a case-by-case basis. The prescribing vet is personally responsible for the choice of product, is subject to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons’ code of professional conduct and must always obtain the owner’s consent for their animal to be treated under the cascade. Accurate record keeping is also required under the guidelines. Supplies of products used under the cascade and associated records can be examined during inspections of vets’ premises by the VMD and the RCVS. Under the last tier of the cascade, extemporaneous preparations —also known as veterinary specials—can legally be prescribed, supplied and used, recognising that they carry a higher risk than authorised medicines.
So this is an important scheme and the maintenance of the veterinary medicines cascade is a vital issue in the medical treatment of animals post Brexit, particularly in the event of no deal, as I said. I look forward to the Minister’s explanation of the action being taken to ensure that the cascade is maintained, continued and, if possible, simplified in line with the BVA’s recommendations. We need assurance that the Government will not use the powers in this Bill to diverge from the cascade after it is passed.
Finally, the BVA has underlined that, if it is to remain as one of the leading agencies in Europe and beyond, the Bill must be used to establish a national authorisation procedure for veterinary medicines, on the same scientific and evidence-based technical requirements as adopted by the EU, firmly rooted in the established standards set for quality, safety and effectiveness. The association has emphasised that, to have an influential voice in global veterinary regulatory affairs, it is vitally important for the UK to seek full membership of the international technical requirements registration body, the VICH, to which I referred earlier. I look forward to the Minister’s response on this vital issue.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, has given a really good description of the cascade and the way in which it works. It is a risk- based decision process whereby vets can dispense different medicines to animals beyond the term of authorisation. The BVA supports maintaining the cascade. Can the Minister confirm the arrangements if no suitable UK drugs are available? Can she also confirm that veterinary drugs will be part of trade deals with both the EU and the US?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for raising the important issue of the prescribing cascade, as put forward in Amendment 62. I recognise the desire to ensure that the use of the cascade continues to be regulated. It is an important tool for veterinary surgeons, as they can access a wider range of medicines to treat animals under their care and avoid unacceptable suffering. However, I reassure the noble Baroness that this amendment is not necessary. The Bill already confers discretionary powers that will allow the appropriate authority to decide, following public consultation, if and how the existing cascade provisions in the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013 should be amended.
The existing provisions for the prescribing cascade are well used and well understood by veterinary surgeons who are responsible for their prescribing decisions. The provisions were so well described by the noble Baroness that I shall not repeat them here.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, is right that the second option under the cascade is the use of human medicine authorisation in the UK or a veterinary medicine authorised in an EU member state. She and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, asked what will happen after the end of the transition period. On 1 January, the second option will be extended to encompass the importing of veterinary medicines from any other country, rather than only EU member states. This is being provided for through secondary legislation taken through last year, I believe.
The Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013 also set out additional conditions that need to be met when a product is prescribed under the cascade for use in food-producing species. These conditions help protect the safety of consumers of produce from treated animals. The conditions state that the pharmacologically active substances contained in the medicines must have a maximum residue limit, an appropriate withdrawal period must be specified, and specified records must be kept. These conditions help protect the safety of consumers of produce from treated animals. We do not plan to significantly diverge from the current prescribing cascade for veterinary medicines.
The new EU regulation 2019/6 on veterinary medicinal products will apply in the EU from January 2022. This regulation introduces changes to the cascade, such as separate cascade structures for food producing and non-food producing animals. It includes provisions on the use of antimicrobial medicines under the cascade. For example, the European Commission may, by means of implementing Acts yet to be adopted by the EU, establish a list of antimicrobials which shall not be used under the cascade and a list of antimicrobials which shall be used, subject to certain conditions for cascade use. If it is in the best interests of the UK, we can make provision corresponding or similar to those in EU regulation under the powers in the Bill.
The UK Government and animal sectors have already shown their commitment to tackling antimicrobial resistance and the sectors have substantially reduced their use of antimicrobials in food-producing species—a 53% reduction in sales between 2014 and 2018. The Government will consult on proposed changes to the VMR, including changes implementing our priorities on antimicrobial resistance.
The amendment that the noble Baroness has proposed would obligate the Secretary of State to make changes to the regulations on the use of the cascade. I hope I have reassured her that the cascade remains of vital importance, and it is right that we have the option to amend the regulations when it is appropriate and necessary, subject to consultation, rather than being obliged to do so.
I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, on her question about trade deals.
In the light of that response, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for her support and the Minister for her response. As I said, I have learned a great deal about this valuable procedure. I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurance on the Government’s continued support for and commitment to the cascade. I will certainly read her comments carefully. I did not hear any reference to the VICH, but if she would write to me on that that would be very helpful. With that, I withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bethell
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the Minister’s name inserting new subsection (1A) into Clause 10.
“(1A) Regulations under section 8(1) may not provide for an offence to be punishable with a sentence of imprisonment of more than two years.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and the other amendment to clause 10 in the Minister’s name, ensures that regulations under Clause 8(1) may not provide for any offence to be punishable with a sentence of imprisonment of more than two years.
Lord Bethell
“Disclosure of information in accordance with international agreements
(1) This section applies to information which a relevant authority holds in connection with veterinary medicines.(2) The relevant authority may disclose information to a person outside the United Kingdom where required for the purpose of giving effect to an international agreement or arrangement concerning the regulation of veterinary medicines.(3) The relevant authority may not disclose commercially sensitive information in reliance on subsection (2) unless the relevant authority— (a) considers that it is necessary to do so for the purpose mentioned in that subsection, and(b) is satisfied that the making of the disclosure is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by it.(4) Except as provided by subsection (5), the disclosure of information in accordance with this section does not breach—(a) an obligation of confidence owed by the person making the disclosure, or(b) any other restriction on the disclosure of the information (however imposed).(5) Nothing in this section authorises a disclosure of information which—(a) contravenes the data protection legislation (but in determining whether a disclosure would do so, take into account the powers conferred by this section), or(b) is prohibited by any of Parts 1 to 7 or Chapter 1 of Part 9 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.(6) In this section—“commercially sensitive information” means commercial information whose disclosure the relevant authority thinks might significantly harm the legitimate business interests of the undertaking to which it relates;“relevant authority” means—(a) the Secretary of State, or(b) the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland;“data protection legislation” has the meaning given by section 3(9) of the Data Protection Act 2018.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause makes clear that information held by the Secretary of State or the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland in connection with veterinary medicines can be disclosed, subject to certain restrictions, to persons outside the United Kingdom in order to give effect to a relevant international agreement or arrangement.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 67A. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the course of the debate.
Baroness Jolly
“Veterinary devices
(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must set up a working group to conduct a review of the regulation of veterinary devices.(2) The review under subjection (1) must make reference to the impact of the current system of regulation on—(a) animal welfare;(b) human safety; and(c) the environment.(3) The working group must consult bodies or individuals who are subject to regulation concerning veterinary devices during the course of the review. (4) The review under subsection (1) must make a recommendation as to whether further regulation should be introduced in light of its findings.(5) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the review before both Houses of Parliament.”
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, this Bill is about medicines and medical devices, and also includes veterinary medicines, which I understand the profession welcomes. I support government Amendment 131.
I confess, I wondered whether the veterinary part of the Bill was a bit of an afterthought, as although veterinary medicines are covered, I was somewhat bemused that there was no mention of veterinary devices. Modern vets make much use of veterinary and medical devices. Many pet owners expect their pets to be treated as well as they are by the NHS, and they are ready to pay. Many large animals, particularly stud animals, are of considerable value to their owners, who also expect modern treatment.
With a growing market for veterinary devices there are areas in which the absence of these devices often involves medical devices, but the profession anticipates that the veterinary device market will only increase and specialise. The Committee will appreciate that size is an issue. At present, many vets manage by using human medical devices, but I am sure the Committee will understand that vets treat animals of all sizes, from a hamster to a chihuahua, to a prize bull. I tabled these amendments in anticipation of a vibrant veterinary device market. To use devices designed for a human body weight is not always appropriate.
My amendment calls for the Secretary of State to set up a working group to conduct a review into the regulation of veterinary devices, referencing animal welfare, human safety and the environment, and make appropriate consultations before laying a copy of the review before both Houses. Amendment 67B is also in my name and calls for a review of the impact of the Bill on veterinary medicines.
We are in a transition, and by the end of 2021 or thereabouts there will be a clearer picture about veterinary medicines, a year after leaving the EU. The Secretary of State should consult relevant bodies, such as the BVA, the NFU and animal welfare groups such as the PDSA and the RSPCA, but I think noble Lords should agree that there is a case for veterinary devices in the Bill.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to speak to government Amendment 131, merely to ask a question. The amendment will require reporting, which is positive and is to be welcomed. However, it leaves the matter of who is to be consulted to the discretion of the Secretary of State, because proposed new subsection (2) refers to
“such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”,
while proposed new subsection (3)(a) requires the Secretary of State to take account of
“concerns raised, or proposals for change”,
but only those made by a person in accordance with subsection (2). Those persons are left to the discretion of the Secretary of State. It is not only the people who are consulted who are chosen; the list is produced by the Secretary of State.
To have any substance to it, the proposed new clause ought not to leave it to the whims of the individual Secretary of State to decide who ought to be consulted. There should be some minimal statutory list, or principles that can guide a list in practice, to give transparency and confidence. My question is quite simple: is it likely that the Government will produce a list of who they will consult?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I put my name down to speak on this group primarily to speak to Amendment 106 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, but I will comment briefly on the excellent Amendment 67A from the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly. It seems to address an obvious lacuna in the Bill and I hope that the addition of veterinary devices would be a really simple procedure that the Government could take on board. I also commend Amendment 67B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and associate myself with the remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on the concerns about the apparent weakness of government Amendment 131.
I wanted to speak to Amendment 106 because many of us who have been in different roles in politics over many years are used to receiving cries for help from people who feel as if medical systems have made them more ill, treated them badly and failed to live up to the oath of “first do no harm”. It is very hard for a person in your Lordships’ House or in politics to make a judgment call on what can be done and how people can be helped—on how systematic the issue really is and where this should be going. What we really need is a place where records are kept overall; it does not feel as if that is happening at the moment. The amendment lays down a way to address that. Of course, we have not heard yet from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, so I am interpreting what her amendment says.
There is also a broader point here, which we need to address throughout the Bill, and which I have been thinking about in the context of Covid-19. We really have a huge problem of trust, given the concern among significant parts of the public about how systems are working and whether decisions are being made in the right interests. One thing we need to do is to make sure that the whole system is transparent and open, and that records are there and accessible. We know of so many cases—the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, set out some—where there tends to be a particular issue with the way that medicine has treated women.
There is also an issue in that the people who come to us and are able to make a fuss are often those who, in one way or another, have some form of social capital in their education, knowledge and ability to reach out and seek help. If we do not have regular systems of keeping records to see problems arising, it may be the most vulnerable who suffer without really knowing how to speak out and initiate action. I commend Amendment 106 to the Committee and look forward to hearing further discussion on it.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, our Amendment 106, which I am speaking to on behalf of my noble friend Lady Thornton, is in this group on reporting requirements under the Bill. Specifically, it would add a new clause providing for an annual report to Parliament on medical devices information systems established by NHS Digital under the powers conferred by Clause 16. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for her support for this amendment.
Clause 16(1) gives the Secretary of State the power by regulations to make provision for NHS Digital to establish and operate
“one or more information systems”
for medical devices. Under the Bill, these relate to the safety, performance and
“clinical effectiveness, of medical devices … placed on the market; … the safety of individuals who receive or are treated with a medical device”,
or who have one implanted in them, and
“the improvement of medical device safety and performance through advances in technology”.
The annual report proposed in our amendment would provide for the operation of these information systems to include information on the overall data in relation to
“the number of patients who receive or are treated with a medical device, or into whom a medical device is implanted; … any safety concerns received; and … any regulatory action taken.”
Finally, the amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State provided a copy of the report from the information centre on these related areas to the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Government’s own Amendment 131, providing a new clause after Clause 41 on consultation provisions and requirements, limits itself to the provision of a biennial report to Parliament starting:
“As soon as reasonably practicable after”
the Bill has passed on the operation of regulations laid on human medicines, veterinary devices and medical devices. The amendment is part of the Government’s response to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It also provides for regulations to be subject to public consultation before they can be made and requires the Secretary of State to include in the biennial report, as part of a consultation process, a summary of the concerns expressed or proposals put forward and, in consulting, to set out how the key issues of safety, availability and attractiveness have been taken into account.
The Minister’s letter to Peers of 13 October, which, as my noble friend Lady Thornton has already pointed out, we did not receive until after the amendments had been laid, underlines the importance of the Government’s amendments in providing a reporting obligation on the Secretary of State which
“will inform Parliament of the outcome of consultations on regulation made under Clauses 1, 8 and 12 during the two-year period under consideration, and provide a look ahead to expected regulatory change in the future”.
While consultation before the preparation of the report and information on the consultation, concerns and proposals are welcome, we do not accept that Amendment 131 fully meets the concerns of the DPRRC. We consider that an annual report to Parliament is essential, given the vital importance of the scrutiny and accountability that Parliament must be able to exercise.
We also consider that the government amendment should make a specific commitment to consultation with the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and not just to the Secretary of State consulting such persons as he/she considers appropriate. We will take up the key issue of consultation with the devolved Administrations in our later amendment and I look forward to the Minister’s response to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on these areas.
Finally, I strongly support Amendments 67A and 67B from the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, which call for reviews to be laid before Parliament of the regulation of veterinary devices and the Bill’s impact on veterinary medicines after the Act is passed. The noble Baroness made a pretty convincing case for these amendments. The delegated powers in Part 2 of the Bill to amend the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013 are wide-ranging. Close scrutiny of the impact on animal welfare, human safety and the environment, together with full consultation with key stakeholders and recommendations on the need for further regulation, will be crucial. Similarly, the review of the Act’s impact on veterinary medicines, to be published one year after it is passed; on safety in relation to animals, humans and the environment; on availability in the UK; and on the UK’s participation in the development and supply of veterinary medicines would ensure full scrutiny of how the provisions in Clauses 9 and 10 were working in respect of these key issues.
I have two further points. During the Commons Committee on the Bill, we raised the importance of the availability of veterinary medicine services, as well as medicines across the country, and of ensuring that they are available in rural and urban settings. This would ensure that we do not have a two-tier system whereby there is better access to veterinary medicines and services in certain communities. We also called for a full assessment of the capacity of the veterinary industry to meet the regulatory and other requirements set out in the Bill. These are key issues which the review process set out in the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, would address. Can the Minister tell the Committee what work is being undertaken with veterinary sector stake- holders, including the British Veterinary Association and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, on these issues —particularly to ensure that, post Brexit, we have the sustainable, diverse and modernised UK veterinary infrastructure and skilled workforce that we need to ensure a safe environment for humans and animals?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 67A, put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, relates to veterinary devices. This is a proposed new clause seeking to ensure that the Secretary of State sets up a working group to review the regulation of veterinary devices within six months of this Act passing.
There is currently no specific legislation for veterinary medical devices. The market is small and manufacturers may choose to market their products for dual use—for humans and animals. The medical devices regulations are intended only for human devices. However, we consider that the regulatory framework is also suitable for ensuring the quality and safety of equipment for veterinary use. The Bill allows us only to amend or supplement the existing veterinary regulations in the manner described in Clauses 9 and 10. Those clauses do not provide authority for regulations to introduce substantial new standalone requirements for veterinary medical devices. If a medical device is packaged with a veterinary medicine, the marketing authorisation application would need to set out relevant information on that device. The device would therefore be assessed together with the veterinary medicine before a marketing authorisation is granted. Therefore, this type of medical device falls under the regulation of veterinary medicines.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
I have received one request to speak after the Minister. I call the noble Lord, Lord Patel.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
I merely wish to ask the Minister about the consolidation legislation, to which he referred. Am I to understand that the Minister is saying that the Secretary of State will respond to Parliament, and that the matter will be available for debate?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I will get to back to the noble Lord with the specific answer to that question, if I may.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, I shall not detain the Committee for very long. I thank the Minister for his comments. I feel inclined at the moment not to withdraw my amendment, but I would like to read Hansard, consult and decide whether to return with these amendments, or something like them, on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bethell
“(1A) The Secretary of State may only make regulations under subsection (1) if satisfied that they would promote the health and safety of the public.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the Secretary of State may only make regulations under subsection (1) of Clause 12 if satisfied that they would promote the health and safety of the public.
Lord Bethell
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the factors mentioned in subsection (2)(a), (b) and (c) of Clause 12 in considering whether regulations under subsection (1) would promote the health and safety of the public.
Lord Bethell
“(c) the likelihood of the United Kingdom being seen as an attractive or favourable place in which to develop or supply medical devices.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies what was meant by the version of Clause 12(2)(c) in the Bill as brought from the House of Commons.
Lord Freyberg
“(3) Within 12 months of this section coming into force, the Secretary of State must initiate a comprehensive technical review of the definition of “medical device” under the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 with a view to addressing the inclusion of artificial intelligence software and algorithms including methodologies for the interpretation of data and associated technical architecture in medical devices.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to improve how the Bill addresses new technologies which have significant potential for harm, aligning with and improving on the EU and US equivalents.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the opportunity to speak today about medical devices that make use of data-processing methodologies, algorithms, artificial intelligence and other technical architecture. In moving Amendment 83, I shall speak also to Amendments 112 and 113.
I am a long-standing advocate of the use of patient data to provide better healthcare. Noble Lords can therefore rest assured that I by no means seek to introduce obstacles to the vital research and innovation that I know the Government wish to encourage and facilitate to improve the nation’s health. However, I seek to guarantee patient safety in our increasingly data-driven health service and to ensure that the UK is well placed to become a rule-maker and world leader post Brexit.
Others in this place have spoken eloquently about the need to prioritise consideration of patient safety in the Bill. In particular, I was moved by the expert and passionate speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, at Second Reading. I hope and anticipate that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, will remind us of the social and environmental consequences we should pay heed to in encouraging innovation in medicines and medical device development, which, I believe, should result in closer consideration of the implications of the growth in digital healthcare for the climate as the Government prepare to host COP 26. However, it was the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who helpfully reminded us of the importance of precision in the definitions and wording we agree in this place, and it is my intention here to do the same.
In speaking to Amendments 112 and 113, I am recommending specific protections in the form of an up-to-date definition of a medical device, because the Bill currently relies on a definition from the Medical Devices Regulations 2002, which were updated to include the term “software” in 2007 and therefore do not safeguard individuals from the potentially harmful effects of the full range of contemporary medical devices. The effect of my amendment would be to update the definition of a “medical device” and bring it in line with regulatory provisions in the EU and the US. The use of technology has advanced significantly since 2007 and I can see no good reason why the UK should be a laggard at this time.
In moving Amendment 83, I recognise that we are always, in some senses, on the cusp of new developments or breakthroughs in science and technology that have the potential to transform healthcare services as well as outcomes for individuals. I can therefore understand the Government’s desire for flexibility in presenting this Bill as they have done. However, I am certain that the Minister will agree that we find ourselves on the cusp where growth in the use of artificial intelligence in healthcare is concerned, not least because the Department of Health and Social Care has invested more than £250 million in establishing an AI lab this year and is preparing to publish the first national health and care data strategy this autumn, which is expected to state that the Government will prioritise the
“safe, effective and ethical use of data-driven technologies, such as artificial intelligence, to deliver fairer health outcomes”.
As such, I very much hope that the Government will, at the very least, support Amendment 83, the effect of which would be to require the Secretary of State to initiate a comprehensive technical review of the definition of a “medical device” under the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 within 12 months of this Bill coming into force, with a view to addressing the inclusion of artificial intelligence, software and algorithms, including methodologies for the interpretation of data and associated technical architecture, in the legal definition of a “medical device”.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]
My Lords, I want to strongly support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and myself, and to commend him on an extraordinarily well-informed speech in support of them. I absolutely support the amendments, in particular Amendment 83, which calls for the comprehensive technical review.
The noble Lord made all the points about dynamic algorithms, deep neural networks, the whole question of self-alteration by algorithm and the absolute need to avoid black-box AI, which chime strongly with everything that I know about artificial intelligence. I welcome, right at the beginning, the Minister’s agreement to meet the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and me to discuss these issues further. So I am taking this debate not as the end of the road but as the beginning of a dialogue on these issues.
The big question is: does the Minister really believe that we should be reviewing the definition of “medical device”? Does he believe that it is out of date but is simply reluctant to enshrine it in legislation? All Ministers hate their legislation being tampered with, but I am afraid that I am quite sure that this Bill will suffer some treatment on Report.
Even more important than the definitions is the question of how regulation takes effect on these medical devices, in particular on the new medical devices that incorporate algorithms in this way, and whether the regulation is fit for purpose. Without going into the paper at too great a length, I commend to the Minister the discussion paper from the US Food and Drug Administration, Proposed Regulatory Framework for Modifications to Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning-Based Software as a Medical Device. I have searched but I could not find that the MHRA had done anything of an equivalent quality. I will take a few quotes from the document that illustrate that this is exactly the kind of work that our own regulator needs to do.
The document states:
“Artificial intelligence- and machine-learning-based technologies have the potential to transform healthcare by deriving new and important insights from the vast amount of data generated during the delivery of healthcare every day … The traditional paradigm of medical device regulation was not designed for adaptive AI/ML technologies, which have the potential to adapt and optimize device performance in real-time to continuously improve healthcare for patients.”
That is positive, but it also puts on regulators a particular duty to continuously assess and monitor, as the nature of the medical device and the algorithm within it changes.
The paper sensibly goes on to suggest a completely different way of regulating this kind of dynamic algorithm and type of artificial intelligence incorporated in medical devices. It distinguishes between locked—static—algorithms and dynamic algorithms and states:
“In contrast to a locked algorithm, an adaptive algorithm (e.g., a continuous learning algorithm) changes its behavior using a defined learning process. The algorithm adaptation or changes are implemented such that for a given set of inputs, the output may be different before and after the changes are implemented.”
Those are exactly the points that the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, made.
The FDA, of course, is one of the great regulators globally. In a sense, it carries on regardless of whatever Administration are in place. So it has a very high reputation. I hope that we are heeding the wise words of the FDA and I very much hope that we are taking on board all the suggestions that the FDA has made for better regulation of algorithms. They are different. I hope that the Minister is not being Canute-like in holding back the thought that new technologies need new treatments in regulatory terms and I am looking forward to what he has to say.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow two such wonderfully informed and informative speeches and I thank the noble Lords for tabling this amendment. So that the Committee can understand my position in this, I will say that I wrote part of a master’s thesis 20 years ago on artificial intelligence. That of course is an age in terms of these things, but I had cause to engage with the issues of medicine and artificial intelligence just last year when I was asked to take part in a debate on the subject. One of the things that I found was that a lot of the language has not changed. Twenty years ago, AI was almost there and now, while we have a great deal of big data, how much closer we are to actual artificial intelligence is another question. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to what happened this year with the exam results fiasco, which was very much a cautionary tale about the use of this.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to technologies. Amendment 83, from the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, to which I have added my name, seeks to improve how the Bill addresses new technologies which have significant potential for harm, and it aligns with and improves on the EU and US equivalents. The critical issue is: what is a medical device? Amendment 113, also from the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, updates the definition of a medical device to bring it in line with the EU and US regulation, acknowledging the progress of technology beyond the Medical Devices Regulations 2002, which, in the world of programming, is very nearly the dark ages. I wonder if noble Lords remember ALGOL, FORTRAN and BASIC.
I support Amendment 83, to which I have added my name, and received a very helpful letter about Amendments 112 and 113 from the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. I listened very carefully to both him and, of course, my noble friend. I am happy to support their arguments and their amendments.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Clement-Jones, have done the Committee a great service today. I was fascinated by the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, which set the tone for this discussion. I welcome his main points and his knowledge. He knows that I am a supporter of his work in this area, particularly on the protection of patient data.
It is a constant source of concern that either through carelessness, lack of expertise, unscrupulousness or policy fragmentation, our NHS will not benefit from AI and the use of patient data. I see this amendment as part of that discussion and that effort to decide what happens. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, has asked some very pertinent questions about algorithms, how they change and how they develop. Our job, surely, during the course of this Bill, is to find legislation that is ahead of the technology for once, not behind it. I was particularly struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, has to say about GOQii and the MHRA, and the definition for medical devices and algorithms. The use of AI and algorithms is not impartial. We know that, particularly given our recent experience with A-levels, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
The Minister has to find a way of ensuring that this Bill reflects the modern situation and does not stop innovation. I really hope that she is not going to say that those of us who are asking these questions are opposed to innovation, because that is absolutely not the case. These are very important questions indeed for the future, as we find ourselves between the FDA and the European Union, and we make our way in this particular world.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, all the amendments in this group deal with the important matter of forward-thinking regulation—regulation that evolves as technology evolves. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that all the questions raised in this debate are very pertinent and are pro-innovation, not anti-innovation questions, concerned with ensuring that we can regulate this area properly.
As my noble friend the Minister said in previous communication to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, artificial intelligence is already in use in medical device technology and is already regulated—for example, Babylon’s mobile application Healthcheck is software that provides a general health assessment to users. That application is registered as class 1 medical device by the MHRA. We are also working on equipping our regulator for these products. The MHRA secured £740,000 from the Regulators’ Pioneer Fund to work with NHS Digital on developing a pilot in order to test and validate algorithms and other AI used in medical devices. There are other works in train to get the benefit of artificial intelligence in the health service. The Artificial Intelligence Award is run by the Accelerated Access Collaborative in partnership with NHSX and the National Institute for Health Research. It is making £140 million available to accelerate the testing and evaluation of the most promising AI technologies that meet the strategic aims set out in the NHS Long Term Plan.
I recognise that the intention of Amendments 83, 112 and 113 is to address the potential to cause harm to patients without appropriate regulation of these technologies. I can reassure noble Lords that software used for the application of medical devices falls within the definition of a medical device under the EU medical device directive, transposed into UK law through the Medical Devices Regulations 2002. Artificial intelligence and algorithms are encompassed within the term “software” where they have a medical purpose, and I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, that this covers static and dynamic algorithms.
In addition, within 12 months of this Bill gaining Royal Assent, we will start to develop new medical device regulations. The development of these regulations will include a full consultation on any changes proposed. I can commit here that the consultation will conclude within 12 months and will include the definition of a medical device, with particular reference to algorithms and methodologies used for the interpretation of data and associated technical architecture used within medical devices. This process will allow members of the public, patients and industry bodies—as well as perhaps noble Lords in this Committee—to help shape the future of regulation in the UK and the terminology that we use to describe what is captured by those regulations.
The amendments are accordingly unnecessary, as the outcome sought will be achieved under the umbrella of the wider-scale review of medical devices regulation in the UK, which will take place during a similar window as that sought by the amendment and will address the specific questions that it raises. So I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, that the existing definition covering both dynamic and static algorithms is sufficient and, if I have not, that he will take satisfaction from the Government’s commitment that, within 12 months, we will have concluded a consultation—to which I hope the noble Lord will contribute—that will include the definition of a medical device and specific reference to algorithms and methodologies used for interpretation of data.
This is an incredibly important debate. This is an emerging area of technology and, while we are reassured that the current regulations capture what they need to, we also need to look to the future, which is what the consultation can do. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. I now call the noble Baroness.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness the Minister. This is such an important issue, with the potential for huge benefits and huge harms. I regard it slightly like the sort of issues we dealt with in relation to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Human Tissue Authority—this is very important and runs very deep into our humanity. So the question I need to ask the Minister is: when the consultation is over, will we be looking at primary legislation, because I am not sure that regulation will quite do?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the consultation will look at the specific issue of medical device regulation that takes place through secondary legislation. However, the noble Baroness is right in that this is not the only aspect of this issue that we are looking at and working on. There is work across government on a number of areas where this technology comes up, and we have established a number of bodies to help us in our work, such as the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation. So, although the specific issue about the definition of a medical device and medical device regulations will take place under this Bill—subject to public consultation —there is a broader landscape that we will also address across the board and across government.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I first thank the Minister for her attentiveness during my very long and quite tortuous speech, and for the very detailed responses I have had, back and forth, from the Minister’s officials, which have been exceptionally helpful. They have been doing that over many days and many weeks. I also thank the other noble Lords who supported my amendment: the noble Baronesses, Lady Jolly and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. It was hugely welcome and I thank them for the contributions that they made.
I was fascinated by the fact that the Minister thought that it was both dynamic and static. That is not what I had understood from the letters, but I would like to look at that again. I will obviously follow her remarks in Hansard quite closely. Perhaps I could have further dialogue with her or the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, about that, because I am not entirely sure that that is how I have interpreted it—so I would like to come back on that, if I may.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, I recall what the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said about the ongoing situation that faces those affected by sodium valproate and mesh. We do not want to be in a situation in years to come of not having something that adequately protects the public, and I worry that we are not getting to the root of this. So, while I am happy that the Minister has offered this review in 12 months’ time, I would like more information about that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
We come now to the group beginning with Amendment 86. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Amendment 86
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to raise the issue of tracking of medical devices. Coupled with amendments by Baroness Finlay to page 8, line 17 and page 10, line 20, it would allow regulations to provide for the tracking of all devices via a Unique Device Identifier, as they are used, with the information recorded either in registries or through hospital episode statistics data.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 86, 88 and 102, standing in my name, and in support of Amendment 103 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege.
My purpose in this group is to underscore the critical importance of unique device identifiers in maintaining patient safety. Fundamentally, I ask your Lordships to reflect on the systems we have in this country more broadly, say in retail, for product recall where a safety issue arises. Let us say that a tumble dryer is found to be a fire risk, or a washing machine is liable to flood people’s homes: it is dealt with by a media campaign urging people who have the product, with the relevant model number and bought at the relevant time, to contact their retailer and the manufacturer directly. We may examine, as the Fire Safety Bill presently before the House illustrates, whether this system is adequate for domestic electrical products, but that is for another day.
This afternoon, I hope that we can agree that devices left inside human beings and used in their medical treatment should be subject to a more rigorous and effective product recall system than tumble dryers. Tracking is absolutely essential in order to ensure that, if a product is discovered to be faulty or to have adverse effects of some kind, others who have had that device used in their treatment can be contacted and, if necessary, examined.
What is more, we already have the technology in place to make this a reality. In July this year, Scan4Safety published an evaluation of six pilot sites where a system of scanning and tracking was used. At these Scan4Safety sites, all patients have a unique GS1 barcode on their wristband, which is scanned before a procedure. The system also involves scanning all equipment used for the procedure, including implantable medical devices, and the location in which the procedure takes place. At some trusts, staff have barcodes on their badges that they can scan prior to a procedure. The result is full visibility of what has been done to which patient, when and where. To quote the noble Lord, Lord Prior, who as chair of NHS England wrote a foreword to the report, this system means:
“The time taken to recall products falls to hours from days or weeks, clinical time is freed up—significant as the NHS continues to face workforce challenges—and effective stock management becomes straightforward.”
The system is good both for patient safety—providing complete traceability, speed and accurate recall, alongside reductions in drug errors and those terrible “never events”—and for cost and efficacy. It leads to cost-effective product ordering, more efficient staff with better staff well-being, the creation of accurate patient-level costings, and reductions in unwarranted variation. Across the six trusts, the pilot produced £5 million in recurrent savings and £9 million in non-recurrent ones. Perhaps more importantly, the system is said to have released 140,000 hours of clinical time back to patient care.
The purpose of my amendments is to adduce from the Minister—who I hope will be willing to help—an absolute commitment that the Government see rolling out Scan4Safety as the future of medical device use in this country, and that we will not have devices put inside people without a clear record, including of which surgeon put in the device, when, where and so on. We will come back in the group starting with Amendment 87 and Amendment 95 to talk about registries that track outcomes. They are an absolutely essential part of this picture. However, the bare minimum for registries to function is to have a full and accurate database of what devices have been used in procedures, and on which patients.
Amendment 86 addresses this issue directly by stipulating that the provision about unique device identifiers—barcodes—must be included in regulations on medical devices made under Clause 12 of the Bill and should be part of the thinking when it comes to packaging and labelling. Amendment 102 seeks to strengthen the later Clause 16 by making the regulations about unique device identifiers mandatory.
I will briefly address Amendment 103 on patient consent. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and I are broadly aligned on this. Her report recognises the GDPR issues around recording data on patients and storing it in a database. She distinguishes between database, the subject of this group, and the registry, which is more complex and useful, and which we will discuss in a later group. There is an issue as to whether the database we are discussing here is subject to the same level of patient consent as a registry. In a registry, patient outcome data will be recorded, in addition to the simple fact of a device having been used. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s position on that, and I strongly support the idea in Amendment 103 that any distinction should be set out clearly in the regulations under this Bill.
For my own part, I would hope that the consent process and shared decision-making that are used between surgeons, radiologists and so on and their patients in deciding to go ahead with a procedure, could be used both to set out a routine action to make an entry in a database and to participate in more complex registries. We will examine the purpose of registries more thoroughly in subsequent groups. For this group, I hope that the Minister will respond by confirming a shared belief in Scan4Safety and set out a timetable for an equivalent scheme to be rolled out across the NHS. It is an approach which has the strong support of the Royal College of Surgeons and whose broad use around the country is long overdue.
I hope that the Minister will also ensure full consultation with the devolved Administrations to ensure that a system of coding is compatible with all systems across the UK. I beg to move.
Lord Ribeiro (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who made a powerful case for knowing what happens to medical devices once they have been inserted. This was at the very centre of the Cumberlege review and to which I am sure my noble friend will draw our attention again, as well as to the key findings in this respect. Amendment 86 draws attention to the need for unique device identification information to be added to all packaging of medical devices, while Amendment 88 deals with the tracking of devices once inserted, as Clause 13(1)(h)(ii) requires information relating to the use of medical devices in individual procedures to be tracked and entered in a register or within hospital episode statistics data.
In my speech at Second Reading, I referred to Scan4Safety, which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has just noted. In 2016, the Department for Health and Social Care awarded a total of £12 million to six hospital trusts in England for Scan4Safety demonstrator sites to investigate how the consistent use of point-of-care barcode scanning might improve efficiency and safety within the NHS. The noble Baroness also outlined the benefits of the GS1 barcodes. The result of the GS1 is a comprehensive, real-time view of stock, including that which is about to expire, as well as a complete audit trail. An audit trail is key to identifying problems with devices when they occur and to keep track of them in the future, as it may be many years before complications occur. Total hip replacements are one example. I have two of them, so I have a vested interest in knowing about the long-term future of those prostheses.
In June 2020, Scan4Safety published a report entitled A Scan of the Benefits. It gave two examples that are worthy of note and of repeating. In the North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust hospital orthopaedic department, barcodes helped to ensure that the correct patient is listed for the correct operation on the correct side. All items and implants are scanned before use. If the incorrect prosthesis is selected, for example a right knee implant for a patient who is supposed to be having an operation on the left knee, the barcode scanner buzzes and flashes, immediately notifying the potential error. At Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, following the introduction of Scan4Safety, the average time taken to recall a product has fallen from 8.33 days to less than 35 minutes. The organisation reported £84,411-worth of staff efficiency savings on recall between January 2016 to December 2017 alone.
In Clause 16 on information systems, while I welcome the provisions, surely they are worthy of being strengthened by not using “may” so often. We need to move away from “may”, and its implied “perhaps”, to “must” and the implication that it will actually happen.
I shall end by restating my comments at Second Reading. The Government must undertake to mandate the tracking of all medical devices that are used in the UK, rather than a select few. I hope that these amendments will provide a means to do so. The Cumberlege review rightly recommended that a central patient identifiable database should be created, collecting key details of the implantation of all devices at the time of the operation. In the light of this, we strongly urge the Government to apply the powers provided for in Clause 16 as well and as widely as possible.
To give assurances in the context of this amendment, the Royal College of Surgeons believes that the Government should publish their intended regulations under Clause 16 in draft before Report, as they have for the various regulations on medicines. Early sight of the regulations would establish whether the Government intend to apply the powers covered by Clause 16 widely enough to satisfy the recommendations of the Royal College of Surgeons and those of the Cumberlege review.
In closing, perhaps the Minister would update us on the future of the medical devices information system and its application to the private sector.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con) [V]
My Lords, I very much appreciate the support that I have already received today from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and my noble friend Lord Ribeiro. I am going to go into a bit of detail on what we found during the review, but I want to say to both noble Lords that I strongly support their views on Scan4Safety. Indeed, I spent a day in Derby going through the whole process with the clinicians, support staff and policymakers, and it was very impressive.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is absolutely right to say that we should look at more than just one example. Her research, which she has told us all about today, took on the six different areas, which is excellent. However, I agree with her that we should think seriously about introducing this system across the country.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I add my voice to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, on their Amendments 86, 88 and 102, about having unique identifiers for medical devices. In these days of barcodes, this should not be too difficult nor add much, if any, cost for the manufacturers. Indeed, it has been proved to work with medical devices, as the noble Baroness explained.
It is important that products found to be faulty are speedily traced. If my digital radio can be recalled speedily because it might burst into flames, surely a medical device implanted in someone’s body must also be able to be recalled speedily. Recall could also be useful when something better comes along; it could be vital for the future treatment of the patient.
There are occasions when an individual product develops a fault, although the majority of products of that model are perfectly okay. If we are to learn lessons and improve products, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has just pointed out, it would be essential to know where they are and how the receiving patient has reacted to them. A unique identifier could facilitate that, and also provide some protection for the patient concerned, especially in the case of a recall.
I look forward to the Minister’s answers to the questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, asked about patient consent. It is vital that patients have confidence in the system. Confidence in their own privacy is part of that, and patients can have that confidence only if they know what is being shared, and by whom.
Baroness Redfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to speak to this group of amendments, and to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, who has been so diligent in her review in proposing such needed changes, and making good for the recipient and building user confidence in the devices offered. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro—as well, of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege.
I spoke on Second Reading in support of an extensive programme for medical devices, to provide for high standards of safety and to share vital information, with data central to effectiveness. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, in her review, regarded being able to track which treatments and implants people have had as being of particular importance. A barcoded wristband, with equipment used in treatment, including implantable medical devices, being scanned and tracked to a patient’s record, would save much precious time for product recalls, and reduce drug errors.
This means knowing who has had a device used in their treatment, so that they can be swiftly notified if there is a problem. Having unique device identification is therefore very important. The noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, said—and I agree—that we must consider tracking all medical devices used in the UK, rather than a select few.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, we support the amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, and Amendment 103 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. Registers are a tool that helps clinicians to track devices and those who have the devices fitted or implanted, and to use the data for research and to aid patients to seek redress.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, explained clearly how the amendment would work to help to change a medical device that no longer functions. By citing the recall mechanism for a faulty domestic product, she illustrated what is required of a device register.
The amendments in this group relate to the tracking of medical devices, and the information stored. Amendments 86, 88 and 102 would allow regulations to provide for the tracking of all devices, as they are used, via a unique device identifier, with the information recorded either in registries or through hospital episode statistics data.
Amendment 103 is an important amendment, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that seeks to clarify which information held by the healthcare system requires the consent of the relevant patient. Data is powerful, and should be kept appropriately. The governance of data has been a key issue in the NHS for more than 20 years.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I have greatly appreciated this debate, the expertise, and the explanations we have been given as to why the amendments are important. I particularly enjoyed the remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, about his hips: very important they are indeed.
Perhaps we should remind ourselves that Clause 16 was inserted in the Bill during the Commons stages after a cross-party effort involving the Labour Front Bench working with the Government. It provides for a data system to be set up by regulations to assist in tracking devices once they are implanted, so that safety performance and clinical effectiveness can be better monitored. The intention is that in the long term, that would support future device registries, allowing problems to be spotted earlier and patient harm to be prevented.
The amendments would tighten up that clause. The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, are concerned with the operation of the tracker, using the devices’ unique identification. Currently, Clause 16 provides that unique device identifiers “may” be recorded as part of the data system. Quite rightly, the amendment would change that “may” to a “must”. So much of our work revolves around changing “may” to “must”.
Amendments 86 and 88 would amend Clause 13. Amendment 86 would require that UDIs should be considered as part of the packaging information on medical devices, and Amendment 88 would require that tracking devices used in individual procedures should be part of the Government’s consideration when regulating device registries. These amendments raise questions about the detail of device tracking. How will the unique identifiers be recorded and used? Those questions were raised by both the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Cumberlege. Will it be mandatory to record the unique device identifier in every procedure, and feed that into the data system? How can we ensure that that data is secure, and that it is recorded in the appropriate place? The Minister has those questions to answer at the end of the debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, rightly addressed the issue of patient consent. She also underlined the fact that there is an opportunity in the Bill to get the law and the framework right. Amendment 103 would add to Clause 16 a requirement that the regulations must specify what information held by a data system is subject to a patient’s consent. The intention is that data held under the system should be used and shared to identify trends and trigger regulatory and clinical action where it is needed.
In her report, the noble Baroness cites the difference between a database and a registry. She is right to do so. The amendments explore the importance of the registry and the database, and the importance of patient consent —and whether we return to the subject at a later stage will depend on what the Minister now has to say.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful for that really important discussion of these critical amendments and provisions. I will take a moment to run through them in some detail. Device safety is absolutely critical to patient safety, and that is why the Government amended the Bill to include Clause 16. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, whose team helped inspire that amendment, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who has participated in discussions on this clause. We have the benefit of her insight now.
Amendment 86 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, would add the unique device identifier number to the provisions in Clause 13(1)(g). These provisions currently allow the Secretary of State to make regulations about package labelling, provision of information and instructions for medical devices. UDIs would be one of the matters included within regulations made in reliance on Clause 13(1)(g), as drafted. It is therefore our belief that the amendment is not necessary.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and my noble friend Lord Ribeiro made important and fascinating remarks on Scan4Safety. I will limit my comments, which could be extensive, to the importance and value of that scheme. We are extremely supportive of the principle of fast and accurate traceability. Scan4Safety is not the only scheme of its kind, but it is a particularly good one. It is the hope that any UDI created by these regulations will empower these valuable services. We have a session on medical device information systems coming up in the diary, when I hope very much that we can discuss how that might work. If the concern of the noble Baroness is whether we intend to make provision to require manufacturers to provide a UDI, I reassure her that that would be a condition for being placed in the UK market.
Amendment 88 to Clause 13, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has indicated, is intended to support the tracking of devices used in medical procedures by recording the UDI in a register provided for in Clause 13 or within hospital episode statistics. I completely acknowledge the noble Baroness’s intent, but there is a difference between a register at Clause 13 and a database at Clause 16, or a registry. Clause 13 provides for a register or a number of registers. The register or registers we intend to create under Clause 13 will be a list of medical devices for sale on the UK market, held by the MHRA. It will not include the individual product identifier part of the UDIs and it will not contain data or monitoring information related to individual devices. The register forms part of wider market surveillance and vigilance activity. Regulations will be able to make provision requiring information to be entered into a register, such as the unique device identifier, which all manufacturers will be required to put on their devices. Amendment 88 is therefore unnecessary.
While the registers will enable some device identification to track individual devices, it is the information system, created under regulations made under Clause 16, which will ensure that devices and procedures are tracked in the event of a concern being identified, through which patients can be contacted and appropriate action taken in each case. The use of MDIS, which I will come on to, could prompt the MHRA to use the information in the register established under Clause 13 to identify the manufacturer and take action.
Amendment 102 would add information to be recorded in any information systems established under Clause 16. All the information set out in Amendment 102 can already be required under regulations made under Clause 16, but the regulations do not have to set out all those matters and can set out other descriptions of information.
A UDI may not always be available, such as for a custom-made device, so it may not always be possible for the providers to capture this. Amendment 102 would also require the recording of every procedure that related to a medical device. I have spoken before about the number of different medical devices on the market and that they vary greatly in risk profile. It would not be necessary or cost-effective to record every procedure related to a medical device, but they could be recorded in one of the registers provided for by regulations under Clause 12, as being on the UK market.
Amendment 103 in the name of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege deals with the important issue of patient consent. It would introduce an obligation that regulations made under Clause 16 would require the Secretary of State to set out the categories or types of information that are subject to patient consent that are held by the Health and Social Care Information Centre, otherwise known as NHS Digital, or by other persons.
My noble friend has raised this with me and with officials, and she is a tireless champion of patients. I am moved and affected by the accounts she has heard. As the testimony in her review shows, the absence of data in the healthcare system is absolutely medieval, and it is exactly the purpose of the Bill to fix that. Before any data can be collected relying on the provisions at Clause 16, regulations must be made. Those regulations are subject to consultation, as at Clause 41. It is absolutely right that the system is informed by patient views, and that the process is one where it is easy to engage, to understand what we want to do and to build consensus that it is the right thing.
My noble friend Lady Cumberlege has views on what data should be subject to opt-out versus opt-in. Privacy is a higher-order value that we should protect. The question of patient consent is really important. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, campaigned on the importance of opt-out organ donation and I congratulate her on her contribution to the recent change to organ donation privacy protocols, which are widely supported by the public and will save thousands of lives. She knows as well as I do that choosing to opt into measures is not as comprehensive as choosing to opt out. It is important to have enough data to draw conclusions.
Consent will not be required to input information about the surgical procedure and the UDI of the implanted device, linked to the patient, into the information system. The medical device information system is about protecting all patients who have had similar procedures, not just a particular patient. The detail of the specific device inserted, the procedure information and, if necessary, the effect that device has caused is what will be necessary for the information system to work. If there is no adverse report made by the clinician on behalf of that patient, that data acts as a control sample. It allows for other patients’ reports, where there have also been adverse reactions, to be understood as part of a wider data picture.
In her report, my noble friend raised the recommendation that detailed data should require consent in order that the data collected is necessary and proportionate. I reassure her that all data collected for the system will be necessary and proportionate. Data held by clinicians should be shared only under those circumstances, and data shared by the information system with, for example, a clinical registry for clinical assessment of whether there is an issue, should be only that which is necessary.
The intention is, that in the event there is a reported adverse reaction with a device, the medical device information system would send a report to a clinical registry. That report, suitably anonymised and stripped of patient-identifiable information but including the device UDI, would have the detail of all procedures, not just those involving adverse reactions, to further anonymise the incident. A clinical assessment would be conducted and, if it is concluded that the device is the issue, only relevant and necessary information would be sent to the MHRA to conduct its own tests.
This is a very important paragraph and one that I will emphasise. We do not need patient-identifiable information to determine whether compliance or enforcement action needs to be taken, but device information. There are routes to identifying that there are issues with adverse reactions when a clinical registry is not present, such as manufacturers’ reports or Yellow Card reports.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on whom I now call.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Can the Minister run it by me again how this will protect patients? I heard a lot being said about physicians and their reporting. I am not sure that I understand how this will avoid the problems with valproate and all the other situations with mesh unless “must” is used rather than “may”.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I can give a couple of illustrative examples if that would be helpful, but to run through the whole philosophy and system is probably beyond my ability or the time afforded by this Committee. In essence, the challenge identified by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege is that individual reports of adverse signals are not easily connected, unless those reports are somehow sent to a central registry and analysed by the kinds of experts who can spot mistakes and the connections made between those signals. This is how any problem identification system works. To do that process, you do not have to share personal details. You do not need the telephone numbers or personal identities of those concerned, but you need the clinical details and the full context in which signals have occurred. This pattern identification is often missing in the instances on which my noble friend reported. Having this information system, and analysis connected to it, will enable us to spot problems at a much earlier stage. Necessary interventions based on analysis and understanding will be much prompter and the connections made much more emphatic.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)[V]
I am incredibly grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It has been very important and illuminating. We will all need to read the Minister’s words with care because there was an awful lot in them. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, for asking about the private sector, because if procedures are done in the private sector for patients who pay for themselves and those procedures are outsourced more and more, it will be important to make sure that this safety data is collected.
I am surprised that the word “must” is not being picked up. A supermarket will know how many tubs of mayonnaise it has ordered and which factory they came from. If there is glass in jam, a supermarket can track it back to the factory where the glass was. If we do not have complete data collection systems, we will find that all the places that are functioning above average will do really well. They will collect the data properly, and so on. But 50% of places are below the average line—that is the nature of an average. All patients need to be protected and standards need to be driven up. I was grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley, Lady Redfern and Lady Jolly, for elaborating on aspects of points that I have made, and particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for giving us the history of the amendment and asking again how this would work in practice.
Consent is critical. Patients going into a hospital expect all the equipment to be safe and to be known about. They expect the fire alarms to work and that the oxygen pipes to anaesthetic machines are correctly positioned and known about, and that full servicing data is available. It is important. Here I should declare that I was a very junior doctor in a hospital, but on the periphery, when an anaesthetic accident happened many years ago. It was critical that things could be traced back urgently. Unfortunately, there are tragedies, even when it is possible to do that.
We need to be able to look right across the whole system. There is the safety aspect—the tracking and quality control—that goes along with all the routine procedures. If something faulty is used in 15 hospitals around the country, that needs to be known rapidly and safely. I, too, worry about relying on clinicians to report if there is a problem, and I rather felt that the Minister’s answer underlined the call for a distinct commissioner for safety. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has been calling for that because we need somebody who can interrogate and analyse the data, and look at it carefully. She explained consent for patient details extremely well. The Montgomery test of consent is that you should be given the information that other reasonable people would expect. It is almost the Clapham omnibus test of what patients should be told.
This is not about what the clinicians want or do not want to tell patients. They might feel it unnecessary to tell them something, but most patients would want to know about it and therefore it should be disclosed to patients. A doctor might say, “This can happen, but it has never happened to me”, but they still have a duty to disclose. Linked to that consent, I would like us to have routine processes in clinical practice for consent data to be entered into a registry. Patients could opt out and say that they did not want it to be entered, so that box would not be ticked; their scanned-in data would then not be sent on with the additional information.
This debate has been incredibly important. It gets right to the nub of patient safety. I hope that the Minister will meet me and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. I have to say to the Committee that I am pretty convinced that we will return to this on Report because there is a lot more to do. However, we have another group of amendments to move on to, and that debate will be interesting and informative, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
We now come to Amendment 91A. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I beg the indulgence of the Committee for just a moment because I have a horrible feeling that I have lost my place. I had thought that we were moving to Amendment 95. Perhaps the chair would be kind enough to set me right on that.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I propose that we adjourn for five minutes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the Committee will now resume and I call again on the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, to move her Amendment 91A.
Amendment 91A
“Innovative Medical Devices Fund
In section 261 of the National Health Service Act 2006, after subsection (9) insert—“(9A) The Secretary of State must make a scheme to promote the availability of innovative medical devices for human use within the National Health Service and must provide monies paid to the Secretary of State under subsection (9) for the benefit of that scheme to be known as the “Innovative Medical Devices Fund”.”
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am most grateful for the kindness of all your Lordships. Lacking having all those wonderful papers in front of me really showed. It is the first time that I have missed walking into the Chamber with a large stack of papers.
Amendment 91A builds on the concept that we had in the previous debates of an innovative medicines fund, which had been carefully thought through, including how it was to be financed. It struck me then that we have fantastic potential in medical engineering in this country to develop new and innovative medical devices. I should declare an interest because my son is involved in developing devices for use in cardiology, for oblation procedures and so on.
The real issue, as the Minister pointed out in the previous debate, is about developing a piece of equipment which is a custom-made device, for one reason or another. When that happens it can turn out to be, serendipitously, something that solves a problem for clinicians in undertaking a procedure of some sort. However, when that happens, if it is a small clinical team in a district general hospital, it will not be linked into a commercial enterprise and funding its ongoing development is extremely difficult.
In previous debates, I referred to the investment that went on in Ireland—in Galway—to create an innovation hub and ensure that there is investment in innovation. This amendment would allow the Government to explore having a medical devices fund similar to an innovative medicines fund, and would allow that fund to be used to develop a device and test and trial it within the NHS, with it being available to NHS patients and clinicians much more rapidly than the current procedures require. It does not in any way suggest that the usual ethical approval processes and all the checks that go with it should be curtailed; it would simply be a way of making sure that, where a custom-made device that solves a major problem could be rolled out widely, it can be used for the benefit of UK plc, if you like to call it that. It would make sure that we have that investment, and that the clinicians do not have to give it away for the whole thing to be developed commercially elsewhere and then sold back to the NHS at huge cost. I again express my gratitude to the Committee and I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for tabling and moving this amendment for a number of reasons, the first of which is that it allows me to express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for moving Amendment 28, in his name and mine, last week on the innovative medicines fund and to say how much I welcomed the debate on it, which I have read, and the Minister’s response.
I am also grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his subsequent letter about the innovative medicines fund. There is of course a direct parallel in that Amendment 91A would look for the innovative medical devices fund to be funded in a similar way. I just gently dispute one proposition with my noble friend: he said that the use of the rebate on the voluntary pharmaceuticals access scheme would not be appropriate for the innovative medicines fund because the amounts could vary sharply from one year to the next. This would be a problem only if there were a direct hypothecation for the amount, and that is not necessarily implied. The amount of the innovative medicines fund could be established as a fixed amount that would then be funded by the rebate or, in the absence of a rebate, by the Exchequer or though NHS England’s total budget. It would not necessarily rise or fall with the rebate. The same would of course be true for the innovative medical devices fund.
There is a central proposition that supports both an innovative medicines fund and a medical devices fund; it is not that we in the United Kingdom lack innovation, it is that we lack the adoption of innovation in the National Health Service. That was the starting point for the Cancer Drugs Fund, on which this proposition is based. The Cancer Drugs Fund arose, in policy terms, from an analysis by Professor Mike Richards, who was then the cancer tsar under the last Labour Government, that there was a significant lack of availability of the latest cancer medicines for cancer patients, compared with other, principally European, countries. At the time that was not true for some other disease groups and medicine available for other diseases. It was a problem particular to cancer.
Why does this happen? It is not simply about funding; there is a systematic issue here, separate from the amount of resource, which is that the United Kingdom has a single-payer system. A single-payer system necessarily makes decisions about the availability of medicines on the basis of the whole system moving together. I suspect the same is true for devices. Pretty much all of the other European systems are not single-payer systems, but insurance-based systems, where, essentially, clinicians advise, patients choose and insurers pay. That brings innovations into use much more rapidly. There is potentially a problem with the diffusion of innovation in the NHS, which we have seen before and we have to continually guard against.
I put this question to the Minister for when he responds to this debate: are patients in the NHS getting access to new, effective medical devices as quickly as patients in other countries? I do not know the answer to that. I am absolutely clear that there was a good case for the Cancer Drugs Fund. I am clear that there is a continuing need for the innovative medicines fund, because there is sometimes a continuing gap between the availability of the most effective new medicines here and in other countries. I do not know about devices.
To this extent I offer an apology to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, because a medical devices fund might be premature, in the sense that we do not know to what extent there is a gap in the adoption or diffusion of innovation where medical devices are concerned. We identified real potential in the previous debate on Amendment 85 about the funding mandate for medical devices. If that is rolled out, as I think is the intention, and extended to a faster and larger pipeline of medical devices going through the NICE evaluation process, then we may find there is not too much of a problem. There may well be a case for understanding to what extent medical devices are being adopted by the NHS, relative to other health economies. I hope the Minister will agree that is worth looking at.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. Because this is about devices, I should remind the Committee that I am president of GS1 UK, the barcoding association, and chair of the advisory board of TenX Health.
I thought the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, posed a very interesting question about whether NHS patients have less access to innovative new medical devices than those in other European countries. My gut feeling is that they do, but I agree that the more information we can obtain the better so that we can debate whether the fund that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, proposed is a good way forward. On the face of it, I think it is. We have a situation in this country that is rather the case for medicines, where we have a very important health technology and medical devices sector. The ABHI informed me recently that the health technology industry employs over 127,000 people, generating a turnover of £24 billion. That is very substantial.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, would require the Secretary of State to introduce a scheme to promote the availability of innovative medical devices for human use within the NHS. The scheme would be known as the NHS innovative medical devices fund.
The Secretary of State is charged with providing the funding and I welcome that approach. She has explained that custom-made devices are both difficult and expensive to fund, especially for the subsequent development of innovative devices with repeated trials. It can also be frustrating. A medical devices fund could take an innovation from concept through its development to production and then be rolled out widely, with any gains being returned to the fund or to the NHS organisation hosting the work. Clearly, flesh needs to be put on to those bones, but as I explained in an earlier Committee session, there is a fund that is particular to orthopaedics which is managed by a charity. In effect, every year it calls for bids, often from start-ups. It supports a certain number of the bids and any profits come back to the charity, which can also choose to be a partner in the venture. Some of the bids come from academia and others from within the NHS, but it works.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
This amendment is interesting and certainly worthy of consideration. The innovative medical devices fund would insert a new subsection into the National Health Service Act 2006. Section 261 provides powers for the Secretary of State in relation to voluntary schemes to control the cost of medicines. The section describes these as schemes that are joined voluntarily and limit the price that may be charged on the profits that may accrue from the manufacture and supply of health service medicines. The scheme also provides for manufacturers and suppliers to pay the Secretary of State an amount of money if the agreed limits are breached. Amendment 91A would create a voluntary scheme under Section 261 which would be specifically for medical devices to give them equal treatment as innovative medicines. The Minister will have to explain why that would not be a good idea.
In her speech at Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, talked about making the UK a medical devices development and production hub. Too often the UK effort has been bought out by overseas manufacturers who then market the devices back to the NHS at great profit.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 91A seeks to replicate the innovative medicines fund with a comparable fund for medical devices called the innovative medical devices fund. We have had a terrific debate on this. The ideas and insights shared by noble Lords have been extremely powerful, but perhaps I may address the points in turn.
The goal that is shared wholeheartedly by the Government is that we recognise the huge benefits that medical devices can deliver. My noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, put that particularly well. We recognise the astonishing pace of innovation and development that is creating new healthcare options for patients across the UK. In fact, that is one of the reasons we are considering this Bill. We are extremely ambitious and are determined to capitalise on the opportunities presented by new medical technologies to ensure that the best innovations are adopted and spread across the NHS.
Devices, like medicines, are key to ensuring patient health, but they are different and it is not necessarily helpful to use a system that was developed for medicines to be used for devices. For example, the primary purpose of the innovative medicines fund is to cover the cost of managed access agreements where NICE feels that there is insufficient evidence to give a positive opinion and asks for further evidence to be collected before the product is re-evaluated.
Devices are not assessed by NICE in the same way and we do not consider that mirroring the provisions for medicines would necessarily be beneficial. In particular, unlike medicines where, once licensed, they do not change, medical devices are constantly evolving. New iterations of medical devices are developed quickly, their impact on patients changes, often rendering earlier iterations completely obsolete within relatively short periods of time. That gives rise to the potential for funding mandates to be in place for devices that are no longer the best or most cost-effective in their category. Requiring the mandatory purchase of all but the most innovative devices by commissioners would not be a sensible use of NHS funds. We therefore need to find different systems of process to ensure that innovative and effective devices, along with other medical technologies such as digital, find their way to the NHS and to patients.
That is why we have boosted the remit of the Accelerated Access Collaborative. It will bring together leaders from across Government, the NHS, regulators and industry to address the underlying challenges that delay patient access and uptake.
As chairman of the AAC, the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, has been able to bring his world-leading expertise to bear to deliver a host of successes in recent years. Indeed, almost 750,000 patients have benefited from access to AAC-supported innovations in recent years, including more than 315,000 patients who have accessed new technologies supported through the innovative technology payment programme. The AAC is going further to deliver the commitment in the NHS Long Term Plan to accelerate the uptake of proven, affordable innovations with the introduction of a new medtech funding mandate. The mandate will ensure that all patients have faster access to selected cost-saving devices, diagnostics and digital products approved by NICE, via medical technologies guidance and, when available, NICE diagnostic guidance for innovations.
The final criteria to be used in the mandate will be announced in the consultation response to be published in December this year, and the mandate will take effect from April 2021. Additional steps are being taken to ensure that the mandate translates to front-line improvements in patient access. The NHS standard contract has already been updated to state that the relevant parties must comply with their obligations under the mandate guidance, and technologies receiving the mandate will benefit from dedicated support via the regional academic health sciences network to help drive local adoption and spread.
NICE also recognises the need to ensure its methods for assessing innovative medical technologies continue to support our ambition for the NHS to provide world-leading care that delivers value to patients and the NHS. The NICE methods review is therefore under way, with extensive input from industry and patient representative groups. The consultation on the case for change to existing NICE methodology is open until 18 December, and I encourage all those interested to submit their views.
Finally, it is also important to note that in her amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, stated that moneys should be paid to the Secretary of State under Section 261(9) of the National Health Service Act 2006 in order to support an innovative medical devices fund scheme. However, Section 261 of the National Health Service Act relates only to voluntary schemes agreed with pharmaceutical manufacturers which control the prices charged, or profits accrued, by manufacturers and suppliers of health service medicines. The vast majority of medical devices would not therefore be within the scope of such a scheme.
I trust that I have been able to reassure the noble Baroness that the funding of medical device technology in the NHS in England is of great importance to the Government and that we are actively putting in place mechanisms to support it. On this basis, I hope very much that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for contributing to this debate. There were a couple of comments that I would like to come back on.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, asked whether there was evidence of the slow adoption of innovation. I have a series of different case studies that I will happily share with him. I shall highlight one. Cytosponge had a 19-year journey from when it was thought of to when it was adopted. It is estimated that it saves 7,190 QALYs having now gone through NICE. Companies do not feel incentivised to develop low-cost devices in this country.
Another example is the CoMICs study on conventional versus minimally invasive extra-corporeal circulation in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, which compared two types of bypass machines. The difficulties there resulted in most of the study going abroad and being conducted elsewhere. Our development of robotics has been impressive, but we have huge competition from the US market, in particular in device development.
So I suggest that we need to look at a way of making sure that we can develop devices. I accept that this amendment as worded may not be right for this Bill at this time, but I hope that we will not lose sight of the need to innovate. I would like to come back on Report to the concept of provisional licensing as a way of getting new and innovative devices through the system rapidly, possibly without burdening the NHS with the financial bureaucracy that this amendment might cause. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 94A. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Amendment 94A
Lord Field of Birkenhead
“Requirement to make regulations concerning medicinal cannabis and associated devices
(1) The appropriate authority must by regulations amend the law relating to medicinal cannabis and devices used to administer medicinal cannabis.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must establish criteria for the licensing of cannabis medicines and medical devices.(3) In making regulations under subsection (1), the appropriate authority must have regard to—(a) the safety of medicinal cannabis;(b) the availability of medicinal cannabis;(c) international evidence of the efficacy of cannabis medicines.”
Lord Field of Birkenhead (CB)
My Lords, I wish, with a straight bat, to move this amendment standing in my name and in the names of my noble friends. Looking at the names of those who will be contributing to this debate, I willingly admit that I probably know least about this subject—although, in declaring an interest, I probably bring a knowledge which most of your Lordships do not have. I use cannabis. My spine is breaking up. I have tried all the traditional painkillers, but they were worse than what they were actually trying to deal with. So I am not somebody who embraced cannabis as a first option; I was driven to it because no other traditional painkillers helped.
It is important to say what I am not asking for. I am not asking for a free-for-all for people who wish to use cannabis for recreational purposes. I understand their case, although I do not share it. Others may wish to use other opportunities to move that interest. I do not. Nor am I—or the other noble Lords who have signed this amendment—asking for a random control trial. We are asking for something much subtler. This medicine helps people and relieves pain, and it is the relief of pain that I wish this debate to concentrate on.
I am no snake oil salesman. I am not here to claim—on behalf of my fellow citizens who suffer, for example, from Parkinson’s or cancer—that this is a miracle cure. I am not arguing that. I know a number of people with Parkinson’s or cancer who have been helped by this, and their lives possibly extended. But in this amendment I am concentrating merely on how to relieve pain. In proposing the new clause, I am really making a plea to the Government to renew past conversations about how we might equalise access to cannabis in this country where people are totally concerned with controlling pain. Clearly—and rather appropriately, given the previous set of amendments—the new clause concerns itself with the devices by which cannabis can be delivered to a patient. Above all, it is a plea to change the schedule within which the drug sits, so that—if they so wish—GPs can prescribe this painkilling drug.
I do not know how many times others have been able to speak in a cannabis debate with your Lordships knowing that the person speaking is actually using that drug. My plea is, very simply, that there are pains that traditional painkillers cannot reach and there is considerable evidence that in those circumstances, when all the traditional painkillers have been tried, cannabis can sometimes work.
What is so unfair is that under the present arrangements, I can pay for my cannabis. There are huge numbers of other people, probably in greater pain than I, who cannot buy cannabis, as I do, within the law as a painkiller. I am therefore moving the amendment with its proposed new clause as a plea to the Government, on behalf of all of us who suffer pain in varying degrees and have tried the traditional methods of pain relief. Where that has failed—it often makes one even more ill than when one started to take those painkillers— we have found some redress in cannabis.
As a user and beneficiary, I hope that I therefore speak on behalf of many of my fellow citizens who get relief for their pain from cannabis. I wish to equalise access to cannabis in the way that I have benefited, so that others might too. I beg to move.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Field, who has knowledge that I do not have. I have never used cannabis, but he has made a powerful statement as a user.
The regulations affecting the production of prescription and medical cannabis are incredibly unhelpful. They result in about 1 million people—very sick, disabled people—accessing medical cannabis illegally, usually from the criminal market, although some go to Europe to access medicine for either themselves or their children. Although cannabis medicines have been legalised, most such people simply cannot get access to them. It just is not there for them at all.
Under the regulations in place at present, cannabis medicines are unlicensed—they are known as specials. This means that only consultants can prescribe them, on the basis that if there is a problem—it is extremely unlikely that there would be any problem with medical cannabis—the consultant has to take personal responsibility for having prescribed that medicine. The trouble is that doctors have not been trained in this complex group of medicines. The cannabis plant contains about 540 phytochemicals: 144 known as cannabinoids, 200 terpenes and 20 flavonoids have been identified so far. Maybe there will be more; I do not know.
Different mixes of these phytochemicals alleviate the symptoms for patients with a wide range of conditions. The noble Lord, Lord Field, concentrated on pain, and fibromyalgia is a particular type of pain, which apparently responds well to this. But there is also Crohn’s disease, treatment-resistant epilepsies, PTSD, Parkinson’s and an incredible number of others. I think that Germany approves medical cannabis for something like 40 conditions, which is extraordinary.
Not surprisingly, consultants have been very reluctant to prescribe medical cannabis. Only 204 prescriptions have been written in the two years since medical cannabis has been legalised, and only 10 within the NHS. It is pretty disastrous in terms of the regulations and it is essential that a way is found to license high-quality medical cannabis for the alleviation of symptoms for a specified list of conditions.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency generally insists on random controlled double-blind trials, and I very much support that gold standard for the great majority of medicines. However, medical cannabis medicines are different from almost anything else I can think of, in part because in general—certainly until now—they claim only to alleviate symptoms. At this point they do not claim to be a cure, although there is some interesting current research on the curative potential of cannabis. But we will not talk about that now. Also, cannabis has been used as a medicine for thousands of years; I do not think there is any other medicine quite like it. A million patients use it today, and can provide evidence of its efficacy, minimal side effects and safety. Many patients have used it over many years, so I argue strongly that cannabis medicines are in a really different position from other medicines.
There are a considerable number of studies across the world that clearly show the efficacy and safety of medical cannabis. In 2017 the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine published a great volume called The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids, a review of global research into the efficacy of cannabis medicines. It concluded:
“There is substantial evidence that cannabis is an effective treatment for chronic pain in adults.”
Why is this not taken seriously?
Until now the MHRA has been unwilling to consider that and much more international research. Bedrocan products have been widely used in Europe for more than 20 years, greatly benefiting patients. If the Government did nothing else but allow Bedrocan products to be approved in this country, that would be of enormous benefit to a huge number of patients. High-quality products are now available in the US, Latin America, Canada and many other countries across the world. Outcome data is available from Columbia Care, for example, but also from many other organisations, universities and so on.
Not only do the regulations place medical cannabis in the “specials” category, they also complicate the import and production processes, adding considerable costs to the medicines. The situation cannot, in my view, be justified. It creates criminals out of completely law-abiding incredibly sick and disabled people. It wastes police, court and prison time, and considerable sums of taxpayers’ money—and, indeed, NHS resources. Most important of all, it is ruining the lives of many of our most vulnerable citizens.
I am in touch with GW, the pharmaceutical company that has produced the only cannabis medicines licensed in this country. I hope to work with GW, and I have a meeting with its representatives—next week, I think. They understand the problem. Epidyolex, trialled by GW, is a single cannabinoid medicine. GW spent many years and hundreds of millions of pounds undertaking the double-blind trials of Epidyolex and, understandably, wants a return on its investment. I have huge sympathy with it.
Since that work started, research in other countries has shown that a single cannabinoid medicine is suboptimal for many treatment-resistant epileptic children. The evidence tells us that it helps 43% of children with two particular variants of epilepsy, and the reduction in symptoms is only 50%. I sincerely want Epidyolex to succeed. It may be the right drug for some children. However, more recent research internationally has shown that some children given whole plant products can achieve up to 100% improvement, with minimal side-effects .The evidence available justifies regulation changes to enable very sick patients to benefit from cannabis medicines, which patients say alleviate their symptoms more effectively and with substantially fewer side-effects, than prescribed medications, as the noble Lord, Lord Field, has told us from personal experience.
We genuinely wish GW well, and we are privileged to be in discussions with it to try to find a way forward that will benefit patients and work for pharmaceutical companies, while upholding the high standards of safety and efficacy for which this country is renowned. At a recent virtual meeting with our highly valued Minister and the CEO of the MHRA, I was encouraged to see that the CEO also recognised the need to discuss a possible way to increase access to cannabis medicines for patients who benefit significantly from them.
The aim of the amendment is to initiate a discussion with Ministers, alongside discussions with officials and experts, about how to remove the umpteen hurdles within the regulations which prevent patient access to cannabis medicines. We hope through these discussions to find a way forward, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I heartily support the noble Lord, Lord Field, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. I thank the noble Lord for his important evidence, and congratulate the noble Baroness on her many years of energetic campaigning on this matter. Noble Lords may know that I too have campaigned long and hard for medicinal cannabis projects, that have been proved to be safe and effective, to be prescribed on the NHS for UK patients. When the Home Office changed the status of medicinal cannabis two years ago, many of us thought that, given the mass of evidence that there are many such safe and effective products in widespread use abroad, such medicines would become available free to UK patients. That has turned out not to be so. Although some expert clinicians are prescribing them for appropriate patients—including the noble Lord, Lord Field—in a private capacity at high cost, very few patients have received their medicine free on the NHS. Why is this? It seems that it is because NICE has not approved them because there have not been any random controlled double-blind trials. Therefore, several health trusts are forbidding consultants who want to prescribe these medicines to do so, on pain of losing their jobs.
There are children with intractable epilepsy in this country whose lives have been saved by the medicines, for which their parents have had to fundraise. The lives of some of those children have been put at risk because the coronavirus has prevented that fundraising, and they suffered serious preventable fits. Many of these children have been treated with approved pharmaceutical medicines that have never been approved for use with children and have serious side effects. That is why we need a proper regulatory framework based on the full cadre of available evidence, which this amendment proposes. It will not be difficult to establish the safety of these medicines, as required by subsection 3(a). If those making the regulations are allowed to take into account the health records of people who have already been taking these medicines, and also the vast amount of evidence from other developed countries which the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has listed, that will subsection 3(c). Subsection 3(b) requires that availability be considered when making the regulations. These medicines are readily available. Indeed, a lot of them are being made in this country and exported because they cannot be sold here. How mad is that? Nor are they expensive as medicines go, and the NHS can bulk buy at a discount anyway.
In order to satisfy those who do not trust evidence from other countries—although why is beyond me—we also need to collect data from UK patients who are managing to get cannabis medicines in order to provide the information required by NICE, but there is no system in place to do that. Will the Minister say why the NHS Commissioning through Evaluation system is not being used? It is a well-established and approved system that collects patient data and clinician observation on the use of novel medicines and treatments. It strikes me that, given that cannabis medicine’s illegal status made it impossible to collect much UK data before 2018, it would be an ideal candidate for this trusted method of evaluation. Finally, I would welcome the Minister’s response to this suggestion.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. Lord Norton? We will move to call the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and come back to the noble Lord, Lord Norton if we have time. I call the noble Lord, Lord Patel.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will need to speak only very briefly because the noble Lord, Lord Field of Birkenhead, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Walmsley, have covered the ground extensively, fully and informatively. It is a privilege to be involved in an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Field of Birkenhead. We have been friends, discussing such issues for very many years, although he was in a different House, so it is a pleasure to see him and support his amendment.
My noble friend Lord Field spoke from personal experience, and my noble friend Lady Meacher spoke extensively about the information available. In 1998, the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Lords recommended that there should be a programme to assess the medicinal use of cannabis and that ways should be found to use it. NICE has recommended one or two areas where it can be used, as has already been said. Very few NHS prescriptions have been given out, but more than 1 million people use cannabis preparations bought privately at huge cost. They use them because they find benefit from them. The report suggests that the people who benefit from it mostly suffer from chronic pain. Despite that, reports have been published where people with Alzheimer’s, cancer, chronic pain, Crohn’s disease and multiple sclerosis, to name but a few, found benefits from it. More than 20,000 publications on PubMed, not of clinical trials, but of people’s experience and data collected from patients, show that they have found it to be beneficial.
When recommending and assessing medicinal products using cannabis, NICE suggested that research should be carried out in six or seven areas. I do not know what research has been carried out. The problem with such a recommendation is that it does not recommend who should do the research. So I ask the question: who should be doing this research to explore the benefits that patients find in medicinal cannabis?
Private clinics prescribe more and more cannabis on a daily basis, and more and more clinics are opening in cities in England where cannabis is available. My noble friend Lady Meacher and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, alluded to two important issues. One is that a way needs to be found to collect information on patients’ experiences and data to show why so many patients go to private clinics to get cannabis products and what benefits they derive from them.
I look forward to the Minister’s response, but I hope she may agree, as it would not require legislation or an amendment to the Bill, that the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care through the NIHR should establish a forum of specialists, including patients, to find a way forward to collect information on a more formal basis. I hope the Minister will respond positively to that. It has been a pleasure to take part in this debate.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, the amendment signed by my noble friend Lady Walmsley and others would require the Secretary of State to make regulations concerning medicinal cannabis and associated devices. The noble Lord, Lord Field of Birkenhead, made his case clearly and strongly. I have a family member who used cannabis as a painkiller towards the end of their life when pharmaceuticals failed. Given the huge relief it can bring to patients with conditions such as epilepsy, it is vital that barriers to access are removed. We have heard that since the law was changed in November 2018, only a very small number of prescriptions have been written for medical cannabis.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, my noble friend Lady Walmsley and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, have for many years supported the use of medical cannabis for a small number of conditions. Very few patients have received their medicine on the NHS because NICE has yet to approve the use of cannabis in any context. Evidence is available, so why are the Government fighting shy of using cannabis or its derivatives, thus forcing individuals to become criminals by having to go abroad to countries where cannabis is legally available, but at a huge cost, and then smuggle it home? It does not make sense. We support the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
We do not seem to be able to contact the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lord Field—he may not technically be my noble friend, but he is really—for bringing this issue to the Committee at this stage. He probably knows that he is not the only parliamentarian who has been driven to cannabis products for similar reasons, but my lips are sealed about who the others might be.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, is absolutely correct. She and I have form. I have been supporting her from the Front Bench on this issue for quite a long time. While the debate was going on, I looked to see what Hansard had to say about this. The last time, I think, that we discussed this was in March 2019. At that time, the framework and law had been changed the previous November, so that is two years ago. At that point four people had managed to get cannabis products prescribed. When the noble Baroness put the question to the House, it was answered by the Minister’s predecessor. Will the Minister say how many more people there are now? I think it is probably not that many more, and I see this amendment as a scream of frustration about this issue. There is justifiable frustration that we have not managed to regulate this product in a way that makes it accessible to people who need it most. It also exacerbates the inequalities in our health system because, as the noble Lord, Lord Field, said, he can afford to buy it, but there are thousands of people who need it and cannot afford to buy it. I support this amendment, but I am really much more interested to see what on earth the Government are going to do to make progress with this.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I am now able to call the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate and I apologise for not being able to contribute in my allocated slot.
I was very keen to add my name to the amendment to support the noble Lord, Lord Field of Birkenhead. I do not want to repeat the points that have already been made, but I draw attention to the fact that a few years ago I initiated a debate in the House on drugs policy. My point was to argue the case not for a change in policy but that policy must be—or should be—evidence-based. At the time, the Minister who replied said that opinion on this is divided. Someone afterwards pointed out that only the Minister disagreed with me because everyone else who spoke in the debate supported the case I was making that the Government were resisting going on the basis of evidence. For whatever reason, they were sticking their heels in.
As we have heard, the evidence really supports the case for change. The APPG for Drug Policy Reform showed the case and that there is evidence for the value of medicinal cannabis in relieving pain. There is a very strong argument on the basis of evidence and a moral case as well, given the sheer number of people who are forced, at great expense and possibly some danger, to find alternative ways of getting hold of cannabis for medicinal purposes, so I very much support what has been said by preceding speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Field. I think the amendment is a step in the right direction in what it seeks to achieve. It is targeted and proportionate. It is designed to help to expand access to safe and regulated medicinal cannabis products in the United Kingdom. There were other points I was going to make in support, but I do not want to repeat points that we have already heard. I just wanted my name to be on the record as supporting the very powerful cases that have been made for the amendment.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 94A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Field of Birkenhead, deals with a topic of great difficulty. As the noble Lord has personally testified, patients and families deal courageously with challenging conditions, and I know that the issue of medicinal cannabis is one that has had much debate.
As other noble Lords have pointed out, it is almost two years to the day that the Government changed the law to allow the supply of medicinal cannabis under misuse of drugs legislation. These regulations provide that medicinal products containing cannabis can be prescribed or supplied when certain conditions are met. These conditions are that the relevant cannabis product is a special medicinal product, an investigational medicinal product for use in a clinical trial or a medicinal product with a marketing authorisation.
I do not have specific figures for the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on the number of people who may have accessed cannabis drugs since then. I understand that the collection of data on certain private prescriptions was suspended because of Covid-19, but we can go away and look for the latest data and, when it becomes available, update the House. I believe I heard the noble Lord, Lord Field, say that there may have been 204 prescriptions. While I cannot endorse that figure, and noble Lords may feel it is low, it is considerably higher than the figure that the noble Baroness quoted for one year after the approval of medicinal cannabis. Therefore, if it is correct, progress is being made in the right direction.
Noble Lords are right that cannabis remains a controlled drug. I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, already expressed views on this in our discussions with the MHRA on whether it ought to be a controlled drug at all. The noble Lord, Lord Field, also made that point. However, the changes to its restrictions are set out in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, for England, Scotland and Wales, and the Misuse of Drugs Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002. Those regulations are not within the scope of the Bill.
What is within scope is when those medicinal products are regulated as a human medicine. The noble Lord is asking for regulations to provide for a specific licensing regime for medicinal cannabis. However, I stress that medicinal cannabis products already have a route to market. They fall within the scope of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004. It is entirely appropriate that they are subject to the same standards and requirements of evidence as any other medicine. The MHRA’s licensing process takes into account evidence of clinical efficacy. This includes consideration of all evidence supplied by the manufacturer. The regulators also inspect the factory where the medicine is to be made to make sure that supplies will be of a uniformly and consistently high standard. Companies can and do submit evidence of use from other countries, so there is no need to set an explicit requirement to consider efficacy internationally. If a company wishes to make a product available, it can within this regime.
Medicinal devices that administer medicinal products, including medicinal products containing cannabis, would also need to comply with the relevant provisions of the Medical Devices Regulations 2002. But a medicinal product in the UK must be safe. We have talked throughout the Committee about the critical importance of safety and the need to uphold standards. There is a paucity of evidence to support the quality, safety and efficacy of these products, meaning that very few hold marketing authorisations. To address this, the industry needs to further the evidence base and support the use of their products. Government is supporting this with a programme of two randomised control trials commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research. I hope that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Patel, as the National Institute for Health Research is engaged in assessing the evidence in this matter. These trials will be critical in ensuring that evidence for cannabis-based medicinal products can be developed to plan future NHS commissioning decisions for the many patients who may benefit from these innovative medicines.
Just to pick up on the question of how many drugs may already hold licensing, I can say that there are three such licensed products, including Sativex for MS and Epidyolex for rare epilepsies. These drugs are proof that cannabis-based products can meet the high standards of quality, safety and efficacy that we rightly expect in the UK. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, that the drugs that have been licensed by the MHRA also have NICE approval for use in the NHS in certain appropriate conditions. As we heard in our meeting with the MHRA on Monday, it is able and willing to provide advice to researchers and companies that wish to conduct clinical trials and go through the licensing process for their products.
Cannabis-based products for medicinal use can also be supplied as unlicensed “special” medicines, as noble Lords have noted. A special medicinal product is a product that is manufactured or assembled according to the specifications of a specialist medical practitioner to meet the needs of a specific patient, in accordance with the stringent “specials” regime provided for in the Human Medicines Regulations 2012. Those unlicensed products have not been assessed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for clinical or cost effectiveness. These are the foundations of NHS decisions about routine funding for medicines.
I appreciate that families with ill children, or patients themselves, would dearly love to have greater products available to them for more purposes, but this is not about creating new licensing routes. It is about companies coming forward and undertaking clinical trials and tests and it is about having the appropriate level of assessment and understanding of the impact. We are taking steps to improve the body of evidence available. When marketing authorisations are sought, they will be dealt with by the regulator, as they would for any other medicine. That may not be as quickly as some would like, but it is necessary to protect patients. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Field, is content to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I have received requests from three noble Lords to speak: the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay, Lady Walmsley and Lady Thornton. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am most grateful to be able to come in at the end of this important short debate. I particularly commend the noble Lord, Lord Field of Birkenhead, for his outstanding and long history as a parliamentarian and, yet again, for his clarity and ethical approach to every subject that he addresses.
I am glad that the Minister has referred to the two studies from the NIHR and simply support the idea that we need to wait for those, although I draw attention to the fact that, in 2018, there was a Cochrane database review, which looked at the 16 double-blind randomised control trials that it could find. It found some support, but it was not terribly strong. One of the difficulties here is that pain is a symptom that occurs in an enormous range of disorders, but the fundamental cause of the pain will be very different in different people. To get a matched population where you can compare one with another is extremely difficult. I hope that the change that NICE is looking to in the evidence that it seeks, where it will also look at evidence in practice, will support the evidence coming through from large patient cohorts who can then be put into broader groups.
The other point about pain is that, as people get multiple pathologies, they often take several other medications as well, which can interfere with the ability to assess them. They are also often elderly. The evidence certainly needs to be accrued. I would say as a clinician that one worry was always whether there would be a leak of cannabis on to the streets. However, in practice, I think that the leakage has gone other way so that it comes from the streets into people’s homes. Clinicians have had to look at this with Nelson’s eye because they do not want to support clinical activity. In a study that I did, while we did not ask patients to tell us specifically where they were getting some things from, when we put together all the different types of alternative therapies being used by a group of people who were cancer patients, the numbers were huge. This supports many of the comments that have already been made. I am glad that the Government are looking at it and I expect that it will not be too long before we find that the ability to get the medication that is needed is made easier. I worry that it may be too late for some patients, but we are getting there.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her comments about the importance of evidence. The Government and the MHRA recognise some of the difficulties around these trials. That is part of the reason that NIHR is supporting two trials and is asking people to come forward. The MHRA has also indicated that it is willing to work with those who have these products in order to support them in the process for licensing.
That has reminded me of one other point. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked me about the NHS commissioning through evaluation programme. I undertake to write to her with a response, perhaps when I update the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on prescription numbers.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. With regard to her earlier response, if it were as easy as that, there would have been tens of thousands of NHS prescriptions in the past two years, but clearly that has not been the case. The noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Meacher, have both made it clear why it is very difficult to conduct randomised double-blind clinical trials for these products. That is why I have suggested that, while we wait for many more than two trials, the commissioning through evaluation system could be used. I am grateful to the Minister for promising to write to me about that.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. I emphasise that there has been a great deal of discussion in the debate about the use of evidence. That is what will guide the Government and the MHRA in this, and that is why we are supportive of these RCTs taking place.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I have two brief questions. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in what she said about 200 being two a week. That is really pathetic in terms of what the need is likely to be. I wondered if the problem was because early on, there was a certain nervousness among GPs and clinicians in terms of the legal issues as regards prescribing cannabis products. Is that still an issue? The other thing I want to ask the Minister about is whether the MHRA is drawing on international experience because some countries are much further ahead on these issues than we are.
Baroness Penn (Con)
The MHRA is very clear about its desire to be an international regulator and engage with other regulators across the world on all issues regarding the regulation of medicines and medical devices, so I am sure that it is working in this area. On the point the noble Baroness has made about the nervousness of clinicians on the legal status, this is not something that I am aware is still an issue, but I am happy to take the point away and look at it again.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I wish to concur with some of the points made; I do not speak against anything said by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. We are in complete agreement and I do not counteract anything that she says anyway. Having said that, most people look at medicines as things that cure disease. Most medicines do not cure disease. Symptoms are what patients experience, and we have to treat those symptoms. As an obstetrician, I have spent most of my life treating the symptoms of pain, prescribing morphine and heroin as painkillers to mothers who are suffering from labour pains. I could not measure their pain in any way except by what they told me about it.
The problem with database evaluation is that it looks for the size of the randomised trials. I suggest that observational studies that look at the experience of patients are a good enough database to evaluate whether the substance used is effective in alleviating their suffering. That is the sort of evidence that I hope NIHR will seek to establish a proper database. I am pleased to hear the Minister say that NIHR is looking at ways of dealing with this.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the only thing that I will add is that the noble Lord, Lord Field of Birkenhead, said that this was about equality. My point is that MHRA’s approach to medicinal cannabis is the approach it takes to licensing all other medicines. So whatever approach we take to evidence, or how we look at the appropriate gathering of that evidence, will be based on the approach we take to all medicines. The way in which cannabis is treated is not as a different or exceptional case, and we will want to ensure that that is the case going forwards.
Lord Field of Birkenhead (CB)
My Lords, it may be because I am a new Member that I do not quite understand the nuances of language in the House of Lords. I thank most sincerely my fellow Peers who have participated in the debate, and I agree with the Minister’s wish that at this stage I should withdraw the amendment, but in doing so, I would like to say that we will return to this issue. I would particularly like to return to the issue that my noble friend Lady Thornton raised, about equal access.
Only 10 NHS prescriptions have been offered under the new provisions that Parliament made. When I got what had to be a private prescription and took it to Boots, the pharmacist came back with it as though I had left some terrible mess, dropped the prescription back on the counter and said, “We do not dispense that drug.” So all the talk that somehow, if only we could get a prescription, we would get a supply, is also a myth.
I am disappointed with the Minister’s reply. I thought it was pretty thin gruel to offer us. Although I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, I hope that those of us who are interested in this topic will return to it at the most suitable date.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
Royal Assent
Wednesday 11th November 2020
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 149-I Marshalled list of motions for Consideration of Commons disagreement and amendments in lieu - (6 Nov 2020)
Arrangement of Business
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points. I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Rural Bus Services
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they plan to take to improve rural bus services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are developing a national bus strategy to set out how national and local government and the private sector will come together to meet the needs of local communities, including those in rural areas. The Government have established a £20 million rural mobility fund to support demand-responsive services.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, over the last 10 years, around half of council-supported bus services have been lost. This has hit rural areas particularly badly. I am glad to hear from the Minister that the Government are taking some action on this, but do they accept that it is time to ensure that rural bus services do not disappear altogether and to look again at the deregulation arrangements introduced in 1986?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, we believe that local authorities have a significant role to play in ensuring that we protect rural bus services. To that extent, local authorities receive £43 million from BSOG, and in September 2019 we announced a further £30 million of local authority funding. Now we need to ensure that local authorities step up and support the more vulnerable services.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in April last year the Lords Select Committee on the Rural Economy was told about the spiral of decline in both the funding and provision of rural public transport. It recommended that the Government should review the different funding schemes, aiming to put them together in a single investment pot in each area, and then let local people develop integrated, demand-led, case-based systems. Has anything been done?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As I mentioned, the Government are working extremely hard on the national bus strategy. The sort of proposals that the noble Baroness outlined are the sort of things that we are looking at. It is very much time for local accountability for local bus services, taking into account the needs of the local community.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is good to hear that the Government are doing some planning on the issue of rural bus services, but it is not enough to keep pushing responsibility back to local councils when they simply do not have enough money to take forward anything like the amount of services necessary. In view of the fact that we need a national strategy to reduce all our carbon emissions, encourage people out of their cars and generally become better functioning members globally on the issue of climate change, surely the Government can see that funding councils so that they can do their job properly is the right way forward.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
It was a little hard to hear the noble Baroness’s question but I believe it was about funding local councils. These considerations are of course being had as we think about the national bus strategy. However, I say to the noble Baroness that it is not just about money; it is also about skills and capacity. We need local authorities to boost their local transport teams so that they have the skills and capacity to plan the sort of improvements that we need in bus services.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the NFU. Does the Minister agree that rural bus services play a vital role in the well-being of communities, especially in less favoured areas such as the Staffordshire moorlands and the Peak District? Does she further agree that these services must be encouraged, assisted, promoted and funded in all such areas in every way possible?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble friend is quite right. I assure him that the national bus strategy will include measures suitable for all parts of the country, whether dense urban settings, market towns, sprawling suburbs or the most rural areas. We will need to work with local authorities; this is not something that can be dictated by national government. We will work with local authorities, particularly those in rural places, to ensure that they have appropriate plans in place.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, the most successful rural bus operations are those direct, regular inter-urban services that form a network over much of the country. If the Government intend the national bus strategy to be interested in developing truly rural services, are not further improvements to the existing network that I have described more likely to create a framework that could be built on by local authorities in developing their own truly rural services?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I partially agree with the noble Lord in that it is key for all local services, wherever they are, to be integrated with other modes, be they long-distance coach-type journeys or rail services provided between cities or over shorter distances. Integration is important, so to a certain extent it needs a guiding mind. We will be looking to local authorities to pick up the pen on that and take it forward.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, we all agree that public transport is essential for those who live in rural areas and do not have access to a car. However, does it all have to be provided by buses, which often do not run at the times when people want them, do not go from home to destination and back, and frequently lead to narrow country lanes being blocked by large vehicles? Can the Minister do more to promote demand-responsive, community-based services to complement those provided by the bus?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble friend is right: an empty double-decker bus careening through narrow country lanes simply will not do. One of the solutions that may be appropriate for rural areas is demand-responsive transport. That is why in September 2019 we launched the £20 million Rural Mobility Fund. We asked for expressions of interest and have had 53. I take great heart from that and at the moment we are reviewing those. We probably do not want to launch them now, in the middle of the pandemic, but we hope that will go on to prove what kind of demand-responsive transport works and what does not, and then we will be able to roll it out more broadly.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Half of households on low incomes and two-thirds of jobseekers do not have access to a car. Bus services are also crucial to rural economies and small local businesses. However, a study by Warwick University in 2019 found that over a decade the price of travelling by bus has risen by 39%, way above the level of inflation. Does the Minister accept that this has contributed to the decline in bus passengers and that it has been and is damaging, both socially and economically?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
What the Minister accepts is that we must always strive to improve our bus services. In February 2020 the Prime Minister talked about his view for the bus network, with more high-frequency services and better bus prioritisation. With those two things, one automatically gets lower fares. If we can put all those services on cleaner, greener buses, that will be all to the good.
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
My Lords, an overreliance on short-term competition funding for the long-term task of transforming transport networks is inefficient and costly. What assessment has the Minister made of the Local Government Association’s call for capital expenditure to be funded through long-term secure grants to councils to plan a comprehensive pipeline of infrastructure and capacity improvements focused on the needs of local networks as a whole?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I have some sympathy with my noble friend in that longer-term funding can sometimes indeed be more efficient. However, it should be said that short-term funding and competitions for larger amounts of funding play an important role in how we fund transport infrastructure. In the case of bus infrastructure specifically, we will be looking to local authorities to plan bus priority measures and then we will outline how we can help and encourage them to put those in place.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]
My Lords, what keeps many buses, especially on rural routes, going is elderly people’s travelcards. Often, if I am on a bus, I know that most of the people going to the remote villages are travelcard holders. It is better now that it has been extended in Wales to other age groups. So I ask that, in the coming demand on council budgets, we safeguard these travelcards because without them we will not have the passengers or the routes.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, the Government support local authority spending by around £1 billion a year so that older and disabled people can travel on buses; £877 million of that is on statutory schemes, while £230 million is used on discretionary schemes, whereby local authorities decide to extend the scheme to other people. We are well aware of the importance of these concessionary payments to the bus operators, such that they continue services, and we support them.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Covid-19: Foreign Aid
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, what assessment they have made of (1) their foreign aid, and (2) their development spending, commitments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Sugg) (Con) [V]
My Lords, like nations around the world, the UK is experiencing a severe economic downturn due to the pandemic, which will affect the amount we spend on overseas development assistance this year and in future years. In light of this, we have prioritised our aid spending to respond to Covid-19, focus on poverty reduction, tackle climate change and champion girls’ education.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
I thank the Minister for her reply. Integrating development and diplomacy is a major challenge, so how long will it take to achieve that and enable us to build back better post Covid-19? Since poverty is rising, as the Minister acknowledged, the impact of climate change is increasing and we have had cuts to date of £2.9 billion, will the Government publish a strategy for the new department to provide clarity for development partners, some of which are fighting for survival and all of which face an uncertain future? Will that strategy and the Government’s official development assistance be subject to scrutiny by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, working with a dedicated parliamentary committee to ensure that we maintain the UK’s global leadership in international development?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, we plan to set out a strategy in the near future as part of the integrated review. The aim of the new department is to bring the weight of our diplomatic network to support our development expertise and our development programming dealing with the rise in poverty and the climate change that the noble Lord points to. We are committed to working with our partners as we move through the merger, and I assure him that we are indeed committed to independent scrutiny and confirm that we will be keeping to ICAI.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester [V]
My Lords, protecting freedom of religion or belief remains a pertinent issue in the developing world when more than 80% of the world’s population identify with a religion or belief system. My diocese has historic links with the Church of the Province of Myanmar, and during the pandemic many of its clergy have been providing volunteer support in understaffed hospitals. Can the Minister assure the House that, despite the almost £3 billion cut in the UK’s foreign aid budget, Her Majesty’s Government will continue to prioritise international freedom of religion and belief and recognise the contribution of religious groups in the development and support of their communities, particularly in times of crisis?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, I assure the right reverend Prelate that we are indeed committed to continuing to support the freedom of religion and belief around the world. We will also continue to work with and alongside faith groups. I agree with him that they have been incredible in their response to Covid-19. They are among the first to respond and can play an effective role in bringing about the behaviour change essential to slowing the spread of Covid and reducing infection and illness.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con) [V]
My Lords, the pandemic has had a devastating health and economic impact around the world. Women and girls have been disproportionately affected. Rates of gender-based violence have soared, in many places girls’ education has been disrupted, and they suffer from acute food insecurity. They have also had to take on additional caring duties for the sick. As my noble friend the Minister acknowledged, there will be less spent on ODA this year. Can she give assurances that the FCDO will continue to be a global leader in advancing gender equality, as well as promoting girls’ education?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
I am grateful to my noble friend for highlighting the disproportionate impact of Covid-19 that we are seeing on women and girls. Advancing gender equality and women’s rights will remain a core part of our mission across government and within the new department. Since 2015 we have supported more than 8 million girls to get an education. Last year alone we provided 25 million women with life-saving contraception, and we will continue this work within the new department.
Baroness D'Souza (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Government have many times reiterated their support for deploying development assistance to further education, especially of girls. This is to be applauded, because we all know that educating girls is a powerful development tool. However, with the limits on school attendance for reasons of poverty, violence or indeed the spread of Covid-19, and with a reduced budget, will the Government now give priority to investing significantly in online programmes and distance learning in the most severely educationally deprived countries, such as Afghanistan?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, we are continuing to prioritise girls’ education, particularly during this pandemic; as the noble Baroness says, many children are out of school at the moment. We are investing in remote learning but we need to make sure that we do so appropriately, given the difference in digital access around the world. We have adapted our programmes within Afghanistan through our Girls’ Education Challenge to make sure that we are reaching girls who are out of school, so that they can continue to learn and return to school when schools reopen.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, since the Foreign Secretary announced in July that there would be cuts of £2.9 billion in-year, there have been very few further details. Can the Minister rectify that? First, why are the cuts 19% when the anticipated fall in our gross national income is only between 10% and 14%? Secondly, where will the cuts fall by department, what is the value of these cuts, and when will details be forthcoming?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, as the noble Lord said, we are still waiting to see the impact of Covid-19 on the economy here in the UK, and therefore the related impact on 0.7%. We have maintained our flexibility to manage our overspend against an uncertain gross national income figure, and we will continue to do so as we approach the end of the year. We are committed to full transparency, and the statistics on international development will provide a detailed breakdown of our overspend across departments. We will also continue to update the development tracker online to show the latest on programmes and projects.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, African countries have been very hard-hit economically by the pandemic, and health spending clearly must be a priority. But will the Government work with others to make sure that cash transfers, which are so vital for those in the informal economies, especially women and girls, continue to be provided?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness is right that Africa has been incredibly hard-hit. We absolutely continue to support cash transfers and indeed the wider social protection net. That is one of the best ways to get support directly to the people who so need it.
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
My Lords, sexual and gender-based violence is an epidemic affecting one in three women worldwide, but it receives only a miniscule proportion of global humanitarian spending—0.12% between 2016 and 2018. Will Her Majesty’s Government commit to working with the incoming US Administration and other donor countries to increase funding for prevention, and will they lead the way by pledging at least 1% of the UK’s aid spending to programmes combating sexual and gender-based violence?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My noble friend highlights the disturbing increase in gender-based violence that we have seen throughout Covid-19. The UK spends more than average on preventing gender-based violence, but I agree that there is more that we can do. I can commit to working with the US to increase our funding. We have a great opportunity in co-hosting the Action Coalition on Gender-based Violence this year, and I would very much welcome a meeting with her to discuss this further.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, last week I met representatives of the British Overseas Territories, who acknowledged that the funding that they had received since March to deal with the pandemic. But, regarding the second wave, they have had only the statement from September saying that
“in addition to the urgent assistance already delivered, we will support the territories as they deal with the medium and longer-term economic, public health and other impacts of the pandemic.”
Can the Minister assure the territories that these words will be backed up with financial support?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very proud of the extensive support that we have given the overseas territories on Covid-19, from testing to the provision of kit and expert advice from PHE, as well as financial help. I speak with leaders of the overseas territories very regularly. Just last week I spoke to all the premiers to discuss what further support we will be offering them, and I look forward to our joint ministerial council with all the leaders of the overseas territories in two weeks’ time.
Baroness Coussins (CB) [V]
My Lords, the NGO Translators without Borders is working to provide information on Covid-19 in Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh, where women in particular say they would be reluctant to accept a vaccine without more information in a language they speak and understand. The UK’s funding for TWB through the H2H Network ended recently, so I ask the Minister to look urgently at reinstating the necessary funds to encourage acceptance by the refugees of a vaccine when it is available.
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, I agree that we must ensure that, when a vaccine is available, people have the appropriate information. We are supporting H2H through our funding, but I shall take that back to the department and come back to the noble Baroness.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I will build on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Collins. The 2012 overseas territories White Paper commits the Government
“to meeting the reasonable assistance needs of Territories where financial self-sufficiency is not possible, as a first call on the aid budget.”
In light of the financial impact of Covid-19, can my noble friend confirm that this very specific commitment to our overseas territories remains government policy?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, I can commit to our financial support for the overseas territories. They have seen a variation in the cases of Covid—only nine territories have had cases—but most are heavily reliant on tourism and have seen their local economies collapse overnight. We have committed to sharing the vaccine with the overseas territories and we will continue with our health support and our financial support.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Domestic Abuse
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bertin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what long-term funding plans they have put in place to address domestic abuse.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, since 2010, this Government have provided more than £100 million to tackle violence against women and girls. This year, £35 million has been provided to combat domestic abuse. An additional £76 million was announced by the Government to support victims of hidden harms in response to Covid-19, including victims of domestic abuse. Funding beyond this financial year is a matter for the spending review but, in May this year, the Government committed to developing a victim funding strategy to place this sector on a more sustainable footing.
Baroness Bertin (Con) [V]
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer. While the first round of emergency funding was welcome—the Government certainly deserve credit for acting so quickly—many specialist domestic abuse services now face a cliff edge because they have no set budgets for the forthcoming financial year due to delays in both the spending review and the Domestic Abuse Bill reaching this House. For this reason, there are many problems with commissioning on the ground. Therefore, can the Government confirm that an urgent assessment will be made to establish what further resources are needed between now and the end of March to meet the increased demand? Secondly, can the Government confirm that, through the forthcoming spending review, they will address the instability that these services face by guaranteeing longer-term funding of at least a year from March 2021-22? It feels unreasonable to expect these life-saving organisations to do so much more heavy lifting without budget certainty.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
In answer to my noble friend’s first question, we continue to work closely with domestic abuse organisations to assess these ongoing trends and needs, and help to support them through the period of new measures, building on the work that we have done to date. We are proud that, since 2010, the Government have provided more than £100 million to tackle violence against women and girls. We recognise the absolutely vital role that tailored support services play in supporting victims of domestic abuse, both within safe accommodation and, of course, in the community. On the second question, the Government recognise the need for sustainable funding, which is why the core grants, such as the £1.1 million Home Office fund for seven specialist support helplines for victims of domestic and sexual abuse, run over a four-year period from April 2018 to March 2022.
Baroness Gale (Lab) [V]
Following on from the previous question, does the Minister agree that an increase in core funding, which she mentioned, for women’s refuges is needed because of the sharp increase in domestic abuse since the pandemic? There are insufficient women’s refuges: one in six have closed in the last eight years owing to a lack of funding. Will the Minister do all she can to ensure that long-term core funding is guaranteed, rather than funding special projects, to prevent further closures in this time of crisis for victims of domestic abuse?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, since 2014, MHCLG has invested £80 million in accommodation-based services, including refuges, to support victims of domestic abuse. There were 3,898 bed spaces in refuges in England in 2018. That is a 12%increase from 2010, but additional Covid funding has reopened, creating up to 1,546 additional refuge bed spaces and enabling a further 344 bed spaces that were closed due to Covid-19 to reopen. As announced in the other place during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill, which I hope will be in your Lordships’ House soon, we will provide £1.5 million to fund the Support for Migrant Victims scheme, which is due to be launched this autumn.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD) [V]
In its report, Safe and Well: Mental Health and Domestic Abuse, Safelives states:
“Despite the strong association, domestic abuse often goes undetected within mental health services and domestic abuse services are not always equipped to support mental health problems.”
According to this organisation, there has been limited progress by government agencies and
“NHS leaders to drive integration of domestic abuse into the health sector”.
This is particularly true of mental health services; it is often
“prolonging the period in which victims have no support”.
Will the Government undertake to provide more targeted resources than those already mentioned by the Minister so that more is done to ensure greater awareness of the relationship between domestic abuse and mental health within all organisations? This will help people to get the support they need faster.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
You cannot decouple domestic abuse from mental health trauma. Surely the two go hand in hand, not only for the woman—it is usually a women—who is suffering abuse at the hands of an abusive partner but also, usually, for her children, who feel those effects and the trauma for a very long time, if not the rest of their lives.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
I ask my noble friend the Minister when she thinks the Domestic Abuse Bill will come to this House? She said “soon”; does that mean “soon, soon” or “soon, soon, soon, soon”? When it does come, can she make sure that children, from birth to the age of 18, are seen as victims and not witnesses so that they can get the support that they need for the trauma that they have experienced?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My noble friend will know that I would introduce the Domestic Abuse Bill into this House tomorrow if I could, but a number of pieces of legislation need to get through this House. It will probably be early in the new year but I will press—the Leader of the House is sitting there—for that Bill to come to this House as soon as is practicably possible. On the question of children, my noble friend will know that children will benefit from a number of measures in the Domestic Abuse Bill, including—I note what I said in the last answer—the fact that it ensures that they are now recognised as victims in their own right. The Designate Domestic Abuse Commissioner has been appointed to encourage good practice in, among other things, the provision of protection and support for children affected by domestic abuse.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, I chair the National Commission on Forced Marriage. When the Government look at funding, will they take into account the special needs of victims of forced marriage, some of whom suffer domestic abuse from their families rather than their partners?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I am very happy to take back that suggestion from the noble and learned Baroness as we move forward with this.
Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister will know that, when women leave women’s refuges, they are often at greater risk of harm. What additional protection have the Government put in place to prevent those who have left abusive partners from continued coercive control and financial abuse?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Baroness asks a very pertinent question in this field. The Government have put in place several forms of protection for victims to prevent continued coercive control, which so often goes on after the event, and economic abuse, including accommodation, community-based services and counselling. The Domestic Abuse Bill and wider action plan will help to ensure that victims have the confidence to come forward and report their experiences, safe in the knowledge that the justice system and other agencies will do everything they can to protect and support them and their children and pursue their abuser.
Baroness Benjamin (LD) [V]
My Lords, recent shocking evidence showed a 20% rise in babies being killed or harmed at home during the first lockdown. In normal times, 50% of children in need of support from local authorities come from homes with domestic abuse. The Domestic Abuse Bill promises additional support for victims and children in safe accommodation, but this will not help those who do not or cannot flee their own homes. Will the Minister tell us how the Bill will improve support for victims and their children while they live in an abusive family home?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I hope that I have outlined some of the measures that we intend to put in place. The noble Baroness will recall, some time ago when we discussed this, I explained how we will support people through local authorities in their own homes who need to be kept safe for a short period of time through safe rooms, et cetera. However, the whole point of the provisions of the Domestic Abuse Bill is to deal with all the things that she outlines, including supporting women who have suffered abuse and their children, and establishing perpetrator programmes, which are so often overlooked but are at the heart of us tackling this awful crime.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the fourth Oral Question.
Fireworks: Damage
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they plan to take to prevent damage being caused by fireworks set off other than at organised events.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
I call the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Old Trafford.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford)
Well, I am young Trafford, actually, compared to the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, but we often get the two mixed up. One is old and one is young.
The Government remain committed to promoting the safe and considerate use of fireworks through an effective legislative framework and through non-legislative measures. We launched a public awareness campaign this October with the aim of educating people on how to buy, use, store and dispose of fireworks safely and considerately, and ensuring that retailers know and understand their responsibilities when selling fireworks.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I put this Question down because there seemed to be a spate of fireworks causing damage to buildings that they had hit, including one just down the valley from us at Brierfield, but is it not the case that the indiscriminate and uncontrolled use of fireworks is one of the major causes of anti-social behaviour now in this country? Is it not time that there was a ban on the purchase and use of fireworks except by appropriate bodies on special commemorative occasions and in a controlled and organised way?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, it is true to say that fireworks injuries have actually gone down since 2016. I cannot comment on the assertions made by the noble Lord in his questions, because I do not know whether that is the case or not. The Government are most certainly not thinking of a ban. It might help him to know that the Petitions Committee conducted an extensive inquiry into fireworks in 2019, and concluded that it could not support a ban on the sale or use of them. Funnily enough, the National Fire Chiefs Council agrees, as do the Government.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the Minister that we should not ban fireworks, but do the police have powers should they find people letting fireworks off in public places where they could pose danger? For example, there were two fires in the Bournemouth area over the weekend for fireworks night. Has there been an increase in the number of children who were admitted to A&E this year as a result of the lack of public fireworks displays and more private fireworks?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. I cannot yet say what the numbers are for this year because they have not been collated, but, as I said in a previous answer, fire injuries have gone down quite dramatically since 2016. On police powers, Section 80 of the Explosives Act 1875 prohibits setting off fireworks in a public place, or throwing them into a public place or on to a public road, and the police have powers to enforce it. Breaches can be subject to a fine scale. They can also issue on-the-spot fixed penalty notices, including fines of £90, to persons age 18 or over who are found to be committing this offence.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I understand the desire not to restrict civil liberties if at all possible, but the fact is that fireworks lead to some terrible injuries. My information, despite what the Minister said, is that 2,000 people were brought into A&E in 2018. I, in fact, was injured when I was a child and still bear the scars from a wayward firework. I really feel that we should try to move firework sales to people who are experts and know how to put on a public display. Will the Minister think in terms of trying to move the law in that direction?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The number of 2,000 that the noble Lord quotes is actually not far off the figure that I have, which is 1,936. On the point about the numbers declining, if I go through them he will see just how much they have declined—notwithstanding the fact that he was injured by a firework, for which I am terribly sorry. There were 1,936 injuries in 2018-19; 4,436 in 2017-18 and 5,340 in 2016-17. That is a very marked decrease in injuries from fireworks.
Lord Clark of Windermere [V] (Lab)
My Lords, over the past weekend, to see firemen and police being attacked by yobs with fireworks as they attended emergency call-outs saddened me. Then, to hear the police describe fireworks as the hooligans’ weapons of choice persuaded me that only fireworks in organised displays should be permitted. I am disappointed with the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, police being attacked by fireworks might be police being attacked by something else on a different night. There are restrictions on anti-social and nuisance behaviour through the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and the police and local authorities of course have powers under that Act to tackle anti-social and nuisance behaviour. Of course, the noble Lord points out something that is extremely dangerous if people decide that they will behave in this way.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, I live at the end of the Yorkshire Dales, and while the irresponsible use of fireworks is reprehensible, sky lanterns there are causing incredible damage to animals ingesting wires and are starting fires in the countryside. Richmondshire District Council is considering banning the use of these flares, which have as much destructive ability as fireworks. Will the Government consider doing the same for these sky lanterns?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I have to confess to the noble Baroness that my knowledge of sky lanterns is very limited. However, under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, it is an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to any captive or domestic animal. That does not quite answer her point, but where there is evidence that an animal is suffering because of such things as sky lanterns, then local authorities will have the powers to enforce on this.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, last year the London fire brigade attended over 2,000 incidents over the Halloween and bonfire night period. Over the last five years, 45% of the fires ignited by fireworks in London during the bonfire night period occurred at residential properties. I support the call from the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for fireworks only to be in the hands of professionals, who can deliver an exciting, memorable display safely, for the enjoyment of everyone and minimising the risk to people and property. The Minister’s response to previous questions is disappointing; can she at least say that the Government will keep this under review?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I can, of course, say to the noble Lord that all legislation is kept under review. If there was evidence of increasing injuries or misuse of fireworks, we would look at it. The Petitions Committee had a good look at this last year and concluded that it could not support a ban on the sale or use of fireworks. However, the noble Lord makes an appropriate point about the responsible use of fireworks. It is very sad that firework displays have not been able to take place this year. It is true that we need to be responsible in using things which are potentially very dangerous.
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House if there will be any New Year’s Eve firework display during this pandemic year, as there has been in previous years?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The lockdown restrictions will certainly be reviewed on 2 December. I would love to see a New Year’s Eve firework display, but my noble friend the Leader of the House is not sure whether it will go ahead. Because the Government have to review some of the Covid measures on a regular basis, it is probably too early to say.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Covid-19: Vaccine
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jolly
To ask Her Majesty's Government, following the recent analysis of the effectiveness of the Pfizer and BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine, what arrangements they have put in place to distribute approved Covid-19 vaccines (1) in the United Kingdom, and (2) internationally; and who determines the protocol for priority of access to any such vaccines.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, the NHS is preparing to be ready to deploy a Covid-19 vaccine as soon as one is safe and effective. Distribution arrangements remain flexible and include the make-up of the workforce needed to rapidly deliver a vaccination programme, training requirements, consumables and supporting infrastructure. The UK continues to work through multilaterals, such as the G7 and the G20, and with the WHO to agree collaborative approaches to supporting global vaccine development and distribution.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
The Government anticipate that the vaccination programme will start with the most vulnerable and those living and working in care homes. Vaccination into muscle does not need to be administered by a clinician; any of us could be trained to do it. Which organisations are the Government working with to make this happen? Can the Minister confirm that there will be no need to take out contracts with the private sector, but that the Government will use the military, local resources—such as public health, fire and ambulance services—and trained volunteers?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is entirely right that the range of people who can administer this vaccine is extremely wide. The challenge of administering so many vaccines in such a short amount of time will indeed require the involvement of a large range of people. We are putting in the recruitment and training necessary for that to happen. I am particularly grateful to all healthcare workers, particularly those from professions such as the pharmacy industry, who are stepping forward to meet this challenge. We are not allergic, though, to using the private sector in this matter, and we will be explaining the detailed terms of our arrangements at a later date.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
I plead with the Minister to ensure that whatever arrangements are being made for rapid result testing and vaccination, absolute priority is given to the vulnerable, itinerant, homeless and occupants of night shelters, for the earliest possible access to testing, when the new rapid testing regime is introduced, and for vaccination. They are very vulnerable people, and that is the least we can do for those in need.
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord makes a persuasive case for those who are most vulnerable, including the itinerant and the homeless. We have seen for ourselves the impact of the disease on those who live in close quarters with each other, have health vulnerabilities or are exposed to the disease due to the nature of their circumstances. Those who are most vulnerable should surely be at the top of the list. I do not know the precise arrangements for the homeless and itinerant, but he makes an extremely good point, and I would be glad to get back to him with details.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, as is the case with the ordering of home testing kits, in order to prove one’s identity and access the vaccine, will UK citizens be required to share their credit rating history with US data-mining companies with which the Government have signed contracts?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, what are the arrangements in Scotland as far as the Minister knows?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we are taking a four nations approach to the deployment of the vaccine. The Scottish NHS has been involved in all the arrangements we have been putting together and in both the Vaccine Taskforce, to procure the vaccines, and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, which has been discussing prioritisation. Furthermore, it has a voice at the DHSC, which is responsible for deployment.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, the announcement of the effectiveness of the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine being not only the first vaccine against Covid-19 but the world’s first vaccine against infection developed using messenger RNA is a huge scientific advance. There are challenges in delivering an effective national vaccination programme. As Professor Melinda Mills, in a report from the Royal Society and British Academy, pointed out, not the least is honest, transparent public communication free from hyperbole. Does the Minister agree? If so, who does he think would be best placed to lead the public communication of the programme?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord is entirely right that we have to approach the prospect of a vaccine in a measured way. There remain considerable imponderables about the effectiveness, longevity, impact and side-effects of a vaccine. These are things that we do not know yet, and we have to keep our eyes open to the limits of what the vaccine may or may not be able to do. That said, the initial data from Pfizer is incredibly encouraging. We have taken a measured approach in our communications to date. Jonathan Van-Tam, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, is the face of the vaccine, as it were; he is the member of the Vaccine Taskforce who has brought the clinical perspective to its work, and he will remain an important voice in all this.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
It is good news indeed. I would like the Minister to share how the Government are preparing to build public confidence in the vaccine and counter the anti-vax campaigns. Following my noble friend’s question earlier, I would be grateful if the Minister could share with the House the plans for reaching harder-to-reach communities, so they can get the information they need and access to the vaccine when the rollout starts.
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness is right that we face a challenge. While there will be millions of people who will come forward emphatically to have the vaccine, there will be some who are either disengaged with the British Government or actively hostile to the thought of a vaccine, and we take seriously the disruption caused by those who seek to profit either financially or politically from the confusion and distress caused by anti-vax campaigns. It is not appropriate for me to discuss at the Dispatch Box the detailed measures we are putting in place to deal with the anti-vax message, but I can reassure the noble Baroness that they are focused, energetic and proving to be effective.
We also take seriously our efforts to reach hard-to-reach communities—those who might not have confidence in the Government or we might not have the right connection with. Those communities are exactly the ones we need to vaccinate, and we are making them an enormous priority in our efforts.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
Will my noble friend the Minister ensure that among the priority groups for vaccination will be the sportsmen, sportswomen and their entourages who are seeking to represent GB in international events during 2021, in particular the Olympic and Paralympic athletes who aim to qualify for and participate in the Olympic Games in Tokyo? Will the Government urgently consult with the World Anti-Doping Agency to ensure that all approved vaccines are exempt from any possible breach of the current regulations on doping?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for that question, which is incredibly important because we all take our preparation for the Olympics extremely seriously. I am also grateful to him for giving me advance notice of it. There is a desire for all the UK population to be vaccinated, including those who represent the UK. Prioritisation decisions will be based on vaccine availability and scientific clinical evidence on the safety and efficacy within different population groups. The JVCI is the independent expert on this and will make the decision he refers to. The World Anti-Doping Agency is actively responding to the coronavirus outbreak as it relates to the global anti-doping programme and the regulations are evolving rapidly.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]
Acknowledging the possibility of a vaccine being made available before Christmas, can the Minister assure me that a Northern Ireland supply is part of the UK’s order, and will the Northern Ireland Executive be involved in discussions over its distribution? Can the Minister also tell us when he expects news concerning the vaccine being developed by Oxford University?
Lord Bethell (Con)
We are working extremely closely with the Northern Ireland Administration to ensure deployment of the vaccine; as I said earlier, this will be done on a four-nations approach. The Oxford vaccine is going through the final stages of phase 3. We are very much looking forward to hearing how it is going but I am afraid to say that I do not have a precise date for when that will be.
Lord Scriven (LD) [V]
My Lords, what specific arrangements have the Government put in place at our borders to ensure that the vaccine can pass speedily, without hindrance, from Belgium after 31 December?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we have extremely detailed and thorough arrangements for our borders on 31 December. No problems are envisaged with regard to the vaccine.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to the bit of the Question that says:
“distribute approved coronavirus vaccines in the UK and internationally”.
There is a great danger in the international distribution that corruption will creep into the system. Can the Minister assure me that the Government will co-ordinate with the EU and like-minded international aid agencies to ensure that corruption is avoided and the vaccine that we donate is delivered for free to vulnerable groups in countries overseas?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend makes a very reasonable point. The marketplace for vaccines is extremely competitive. The British Government have been emphatic in our commitment to CEPI, Gavi and the other vaccine organisations. The COVAX advance market commitment aims to produce 1 billion doses for high-risk populations in 92 developing countries in 2021. We support that initiative enormously and work with other partners to ensure the fair and equitable distribution of vaccines around the world.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
[Inaudible]—about the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine and full credit to the vaccine taskforce. Given that other vaccines, such as the Oxford AstraZeneca one, will, I hope, be available soon, what will the Government do to ensure the rapid rollout of the inoculations of these vaccines? Can business help in any way? As president of the CBI, we stand by to help in any way we can. Secondly, I offer my congratulations on the rapid mass-testing pilot starting in Liverpool. Can the Minister confirm that these pilots will now be rolled out to another 67 regions, and how soon will that happen?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am grateful for the noble Lord’s remarks. Business can play an important role. Distribution of the vaccine will employ a large workforce and the supply chain is incredibly important. There will be a dimension for business to provide thought leadership and behavioural leadership to encourage and make space for employees and to be advocates for the principle of vaccination in every way. In terms of mass testing, we have sent lateral flow devices to 67 directors of public health and we will be learning from the Liverpool experiment to see whether we can apply citywide mass testing of the kind he describes to other cities in the future.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I commend the Government on the leadership they have shown in committing £548 million to the COVAX advance market commitment to which my noble friend referred a few moments ago. That is essential if we are to ensure that poorer countries are to get access to these vaccines. However, with some $2 billion of seed corn funding required by the end of this year, what are the Government doing to ensure that other first-world countries follow our lead in this area?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for the question on international vaccines. He is right that no single country holds the keys to victory against this invisible enemy and we must work together. I point out in particular the work of the ACT Accelerator, which estimates that $38 billion is needed by the end of next year for equitable access to vaccines. This will be an important part of our chairmanship of the G7, which starts at the beginning of next year, and which will be a helpful platform for Britain’s advocacy of fair and equitable distribution of vaccines.
Lord Flight (Con) [V]
I thank all involved for the achievement of a successful vaccine. What, if any, is the effect of the vaccine if taken when the recipient is already testing positive for coronavirus?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, my understanding at the moment is that it is not necessary to take a coronavirus test before having the vaccine. This has been one of the subjects of the trials that have taken place so far. I do not believe that there is any effect at all but I am happy to check that, seeing as it is a detailed clinical point that is beyond my personal experience, and revert to my noble friend with confirmation of it.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
House of Lords Commission
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the Report from the House of Lords Commission Rules relating to Parliamentary passes for Members’ Staff: follow-up report be agreed to. (1st Report, HL Paper 160)
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the House may recall that this is the second report from the commission on the subject of passes for Members’ staff. The first report was published in May 2019 and was prompted by the former Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct, which advised us to take steps to ensure that all Members’ staff passes, of which there are more than 500, are being used for the purpose for which they are intended: namely, to assist Members directly with their parliamentary work.
A number of Members had concerns about our initial proposals, and we have listened. The feedback from two well-attended consultation meetings and various written submissions was invaluable. Unfortunately, the disrupted sitting patterns last autumn and the pandemic mean that it has taken until now to bring revised proposals before the House. We now recognise that rather than restricting passes to staff who “regularly and frequently” provide the Member with parliamentary support, we should employ a more qualitative approach.
Accordingly, we propose the following new rules:
“Members may only sponsor a pass for an individual if the absence of such a pass would make it impossible for the individual to support the member effectively.”
We have also underscored the existing rule that Member’s staff may not use their pass,
“to further the interests of an outside person or body from whom they have received or expect to receive payment or other incentive or reward.”
If the House agrees the report today, the administration will write to all Members who sponsor staff passes to set out the amended rules and ask them to confirm their compliance. In recognition of the fact that some Members may need time to adjust their existing arrangements, there will be a one-off grace period lasting until 31 March 2021. While the revised rules will have immediate effect, the commissioner will have regard to that grace period in considering any relevant complaints against Members of the House.
Much of the feedback we received during the consultation related to something that was not the focus of our first report: the issue of passes for staff of all-party parliamentary groups. We understand how much Members value the work of APPGs, and we strongly encourage noble Lords and others to make submissions to the House of Commons Standards Committee, which is conducting an inquiry into APPGs, including the issue of passes. As my recent global email pointed out to Members, the deadline for written submissions is 20 November, so noble Lords have nine days to put in such submissions.
The evidence received by the committee will help to inform the final scope and terms of reference of its inquiry, which will continue into next year. In the meantime, the rules remain as they have been in both Houses since 2013. People whose primary or only role in Parliament is to support an APPG are not entitled to have a parliamentary pass. This report simply restates the existing situation while allowing Members’ staff to help APPGs in addition to the core role of assisting their sponsoring Member. If Members have any questions about the interpretation of these rules, the Registrar of Lords’ Interests will be happy to advise, and I am happy to receive any further comments from Members.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I am not criticising the report, but I am a bit puzzled by a couple of things. The first concerns the word “primary”. Presumably, that means that someone is here just to look after an all-party group. However, a lot of people seem to be around Parliament working for MPs and also staffing all-party parliamentary groups. I frequently go to APPGs and find that the assistant, generally of an MP—the MP for somewhere or other— is also acting as secretary to this group. This appears to be okay, but I would like confirmation of that, because I am a bit unclear what “primary” means.
The second point is that there are people here who, I will not say represent outside groups, but are paid by outside groups, such as a trade union. I declare an interest in that I had an assistant for a time who was advising me but was actually paid by a TUC-affiliated trade union. I am not quite clear where these people fit in. It applies not only to them; there are a number of hybrid organisations. For instance, the Catholic Union has a person who works within Parliament, for a Member of Parliament, for two days a week, who obviously has a pass which enables them to come and see people within Parliament. So, it seems there is a sort of hybrid group in the middle of people who are not part of all-party groups but are, none the less, and I would say, quite legitimately, within Parliament, because they do an extremely good job in keeping us informed of things that matter. I am just wondering where such people fit in to this kaleidoscope of different jobs of people who work here.
I think it would be a great mistake if we tightened the rules to a point where, say, a legitimate trade union representative could not also brief other Members about issues. They might work for one Member but nonetheless send out briefings on a quite wide basis. I think, for instance, of the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group, which is serviced by someone who works within Parliament for a Member but works part-time to service that all-party group. Will the Senior Deputy Speaker clarify, if he can, where these rules begin and end, and assure us that legitimate interests from outside Parliament will still be able to make representations to us?
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I ask the Senior Deputy Speaker a very simple question: who will interpret the word “impossible”? It is certainly true that without my own assistant it would be impossible for me to continue in this House and do my duties—there is no question about that—but there will be grey areas in relation to Members. Is it going to be decided by officials of this House, by the House of Lords Commission or by the Procedure Committee?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank the Senior Deputy Speaker. I raised concerns about the earlier draft, and he has listened to those and come back with what I think is a very workable and proper report. I wonder sometimes whether the term “staff passes” is quite as accurate for Peers as it is for Members of the House of Commons. I assume that “staff passes” is used for continuity and clarity about access because, for most Peers who have a staff pass, it will be not for a member of staff but for an assistant, and quite often a volunteer. However, I think the proposal we have here is the right way forward.
On what my noble friend Lord Blunkett said about what is “impossible”, I think it will be for the Peer to make a judgment on that but, if there were any question about it and if it were refused, there would be a right of appeal. I think most Peers will know what is meant by “impossible” and why they need someone to support them.
I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, is making rather heavy weather of this. My understanding, based on our ongoing discussions, is that if somebody has a pass as a member of an outside organisation, whether a trade union, a campaigning organisation or whatever, and advises a range of Members as part of their work, that would not entitle them to a pass. If, of course, they are primarily supporting a Member of the House of Lords, that work would entitle them to a pass. But the primary reason they have a pass must not be because they want access for the other organisation they work for. I think that should be clear, and I suspect it is what the Senior Deputy Speaker will address. He gave examples of both. If somebody has a pass because they are working for a Peer, whether in a voluntary or a paid capacity, that does not preclude them from doing other work, but the primary purpose cannot be for their role in a campaigning organisation. I hope that is helpful to the House.
I am grateful to the Senior Deputy Speaker. There has been some concern and we have to be mindful of security. There have been a lot of passes. I think all Members are very grateful for the support and advice we get from outside organisations that assist us in doing our work. In most cases, they do not have a pass to do that, but we are quite happy to meet them and have a cup of tea—or, occasionally, something stronger—when circumstances allow. There is a bit of an irony in discussing passes now, when those who hold staff passes are not permitted on to the estate, other than in exceptional circumstances, because of the pandemic. We look forward to when that changes and we are able to have those advisers, with or without passes, back on the estate so that we can discuss issues with them.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
Since nobody else in the Chamber wishes to speak, I call the Senior Deputy Speaker to reply.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
I thank noble Lords for their very legitimate points. If I may reinforce the issue, the primary, core work is for the Member. If, for example, a Member is part of an APPG, their assistant can help with that, but they should be mindful that he or she is there to ensure that the Member of the House of Lords can do their work effectively. Hopefully that makes that plain.
The issue of passes and 500 has been a matter of concern to the House of Lords Commission, particularly in terms of media stories and whatever else. However, it has also been of concern to the House of Commons. On behalf of the House of Lords Commission, I was asked to engage with the Speaker of the House of Commons on this; we produced a way forward but were then informed that the Commons Standards Committee have undertaken this issue. The Speaker of the House of Commons and the chair of the Standards Committee are encouraging Members from the House of Lords to input their views. They will also ensure that, when this report is out, there is a place for the House of Lords to engage on this. The bicameral element here must be underlined.
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, asked who makes the decision. I am delighted to say that the noble Lord engages with me quite regularly via email on particular issues; I encourage him to continue with that. To get an issue such as this sorted out, my first port of call would be the Register of Members’ Interests; this element is important. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, mentioned, it is for the Member to judge themselves on the work they do and whether that work has been carried out according to the rules.
In terms of us listening, the definition of “regular and frequent” came up. I had quite a number of discussions here, not least with a Labour Front-Bencher, on what that definition meant. As a result of interpreting that, we moved to a more qualitative approach, which satisfied Members. Most of the Members I have engaged with have been satisfied with that. If there are still outstanding issues, I would be delighted to receive any comments. I emphasise that as many Members as possible should write to the standards body in the House of Commons so that our views are well articulated there when it comes to take the final decision.
Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill
Wednesday 11th November 2020
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021 View all Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 15 October 2020 - (15 Oct 2020)
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this debate. I am struck by the importance of the legislation on which I will make my first contribution to the House.
Before commencing, I wish to express my thanks to the House for the warm welcome I have received since taking up my appointment. I owe particular debts to my supporters, my noble friends Lady Goldie and Lord McInnes, for their good humour and encouragement; to Black Rod, Garter and the clerks of Parliament for their patience and tolerance; and to my noble friend Lord Courtown for his wise guidance in the customs and practices of this place. Your Lordships will, I hope, realise that, should I offend against these, the cause lies in my obtuseness rather than in my noble friend’s instruction.
I recognise that I am filling the place of my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie. I am too new in this place to speak of his reputation here, but I can say that his high standing in our profession is a consequence not only of his matchless forensic skills but of the kindness and courtesy that he shows to all and the care with which he led the Scottish Bar as Dean of the Faculty of Advocates.
I hope I will not trespass further on the patience of the House if I take the opportunity given by my maiden speech to make some reference to myself and to the place from which I have taken my title: the village of Dirleton, in East Lothian. It is a place of great beauty. Moreover, there are aspects of its history and geography which may provide your Lordships with matter for reflection.
I know that many of your Lordships are familiar with the area. Some of your Lordships may have tested your skills against the famous golf courses which lie round about. There are other diversions too: yachting and skiff rowing from North Berwick around the islands just off the coast, which fired the imagination of the young Robert Louis Stevenson. The islands may be viewed from the fine beaches, looking across to the Kingdom of Fife at magnificent and ever-changing vistas of sea and sky.
All sorts of sporting clubs and associations of other sorts flourish. At the recreation ground and elsewhere in North Berwick, I played bowls, hockey, football, rugby, highland games, tennis and, not least, cricket—a sport which suffers in East Lothian not so much from want of enthusiasm among its players but from the shortness of the season and the unpredictability of the weather.
Dirleton lies in an area of rich, fertile soil, and we can anticipate that our farmers may soon be able to take advantage of new opportunities arising out of the implementation by this Government of their popular mandate. We can anticipate, too, that more boats may set out along the waters of the Firth of Forth to work fisheries which will be richer, better managed and replenished by the more directed and more sustainable management policies which the policy of this Government will allow to be established.
The village of Dirleton features the castle—set in beautifully landscaped grounds—a village green, a primary school and two hotels, where visitors may regain their strength ahead of more sightseeing. The parish church in Dirleton dates from the 17th century. Inside is a list of the names of those of the parish who fell in two world wars. The church is set in surroundings of especial beauty, north of the village green and north of another smaller green, on which stands the war memorial where, again, the names of those who fell are inscribed.
This 11th day of the 11th month brings to mind those names on the war memorial, so familiar to me from their being called over at Remembrance Sundays. Some are the names of families who flourish in East Lothian to this day. But today calls to mind also those others who lie in the churchyard and the cemetery on the way out of the village—names from the rest of the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth and allied countries. Those graves remind us of service and sacrifice in a common cause to preserve our institutions and to keep alive our common hope for a brighter future. We will remember that the sacrifice in that common cause continued after those great wars were brought to an end, and continues today—sacrifice of life, of mental health and of emotional well-being.
Watching the business of the House and the range of expertise and experience your Lordships bring to the scrutiny of that business, I am conscious of the honour done to me by admission to your number. I am conscious, too, that I have no family history of service in this place, as do some of your Lordships, and that I have been appointed to my place, whereas many of your Lordships come here after having sought and won popular mandates from electors, whether in local or devolved government or in the other place. But I seek to assure your Lordships that in my role as law officer, I will seek not only to uphold the law but to try to maintain the spirit and traditions of your Lordships’ House.
The legislation we bring forward is a necessary piece of legislation; it will ensure that our intelligence agencies, law enforcement bodies and those public authorities that also have vital investigative functions are able to continue to deploy tools they need to keep us safe from harm and to prevent serious crime. The recent incidents in Nice and Vienna, and the increase in the threat level here in the UK, show that the need for robust tools with which to tackle terrorism remains as important as ever.
Covert human intelligence sources—I will use the convenient, if inelegant, acronym, CHIS—are agents: undercover officers who help to secure prosecutions by infiltrating criminal and terrorist groups. This technique has been used to disrupt terrorist plots, including one by Zakariyah Rahman against the then Prime Minister in 2017; drugs offences, including enabling the largest ever seizure of heroin destined for the United Kingdom in 2019; and child sexual exploitation and abuse, including attempts by individuals to take indecent images of children.
It is appropriate to reflect today on the role that our intelligence agencies play in war and conflict. A notable success of the intelligence agencies was the discovery and arrest of German spies in the United Kingdom at the outbreak of hostilities in 1914—a success built on the effective use of what we now call CHIS, alongside other techniques. The courage and ingenuity of the double-cross network, a CHIS network which did much to protect allied lives in the Second World War, often at grave cost, comes to mind also as we pause to remember today.
In order to build credibility and the trust of those under investigation, there are occasions where CHIS may need to participate in criminality themselves. This is an inescapable feature of CHIS use. Without this, it would not be possible to utilise CHIS as an intelligence tactic. The Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill seeks to ensure that there is a clear and consistent statutory basis to authorise participation in conduct which could otherwise be criminal, where this is necessary and proportionate to what is sought to be achieved. Let me say at the outset that the purpose of this Bill is not to extend the range of activity which public authorities are able to authorise—the Bill does not do this.
The Bill amends the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 to provide an express power to authorise CHIS to participate in conduct that, but for the authorisation, could be criminal. This is known as a criminal conduct authorisation. The effect of an authorisation is to make the conduct lawful for all purposes. I recognise that this is a departure from the existing approach, whereby authorised criminality can still be considered for prosecution by the prosecution services. This approach is a deliberate policy decision. It aligns with other investigatory powers and the approach taken elsewhere in RIPA, including other CHIS authorisations. It also provides greater certainty for CHIS that they will not be prosecuted for activity the state has asked them to commit. We think it is right and fair to provide this certainty, and it may also help to recruit and retain CHIS in the future and maximise the intelligence we can gather through this technique.
Of course, this is not a blanket immunity from any criminal prosecution. Criminal conduct authorisations are tightly bound with strict parameters which are clearly communicated to the CHIS. A CHIS will never be given authority to participate in all or any criminality and were they to engage in criminality beyond their authorisation they could be prosecuted in the usual way.
While it is right to provide this certainty to CHIS and to their handlers, it is of course important—vital—that this is subject to robust and independent safeguards. Let me briefly set out how the Bill ensures this.
All authorisations are granted by an experienced and highly trained authorising officer, who will ensure that the authorisation has strict parameters and is clearly communicated to the CHIS. Authorising officers have clear and detailed guidance that they must follow in deciding whether to grant an authorisation. We have published draft updates to the code of practice alongside this Bill that sets out some of that detail. I encourage all noble Lords to read that. The updates to the code will be subject to a full consultation and debate in both Houses in due course.
Authorisations are then subject to robust, independent oversight by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner—the IPC—who conducts regular and thorough inspections of all public authorities and published an annual report of his findings. The IPC sets the frequency of these inspections himself, and public authorities must provide unfettered access to documents and information. The IPC will report on the use of criminal conduct authorisations in his annual report, and this will identify any errors, provide statistics on the use of the tactic and may identify whether there are any training needs. Public authorities must take steps to implement recommendations given by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office—IPCO—with progress assessed at the next inspection. The IPC also has powers to provide independent remedy; for instance, to inform a person if they have been the subject of a serious error, or to refer a matter to the independent Investigatory Powers Tribunal.
I know that some will think that we need to enhance the role of the IPC in this process. The Government are committed to ensuring that there is robust oversight of criminal conduct authorisations, but that this is not at the expense of ensuring that the tactic remains operationally workable and reflects the live and complex human elements of CHIS, which we do not see in our other investigatory powers. For this reason, we do not think that prior judicial approval is appropriate for this tactic and believe that the authorising role best sits with the highly trained authorising officer within the public authority, as it does at present. The authorising officer will be able to consider the necessity and proportionality of the conduct, but will also consider the safety of the CHIS and the human element of the specific situation. The IPC then provides an important retrospective oversight function, which I have set out.
I want also to draw attention to the additional safeguards in place for vulnerable individuals and juveniles. These safeguards are clearly set out in the CHIS code of practice. It makes clear, for example, that juveniles or those who are vulnerable are authorised as CHIS only in exceptional circumstances. However, there may be occasions when these individuals are able to provide intelligence to disrupt criminal groups. I know that might sound uncomfortable, but it might be necessary to stop criminal groups continuing to exploit those individuals and prevent anyone else being drawn into them. In these instances, significant additional safeguards are in place to ensure that the best interests of the juvenile are a primary consideration in all operations. Those are set out in detail in the code of practice, which has legal force and includes a requirement for an appropriate adult to be present at all meetings where a CHIS is under the age of 16 and to be considered for 16 and 17 year-olds, and the rationale documented if an appropriate adult is not present.
I turn briefly to the upper limits of conduct that can be authorised. These are contained in the Human Rights Act 1998. It is unlawful for any public authority to act in a way incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, and the legislation makes clear that nothing in the Bill detracts from a public authority’s obligations under the Human Rights Act. We have not drawn up a list of specific crimes that may be authorised or prohibited as to do so would place into the hands of criminals, terrorists and hostile states a means of identifying a CHIS, creating a checklist for suspected CHIS to be tested against. That would threaten the future of CHIS capability and result in an increased threat to the public. We have taken this approach in response to a detailed assessment of the specific threats we face in this country. No two countries face the same threat picture or, indeed, have identical legal systems. In particular, we must consider the specific counterterrorist effort in Northern Ireland. However, through the safeguards and the independent oversight that sits alongside an authorisation, there are checks in place to ensure that no activity is authorised that is in breach of human rights obligations or, indeed, activity that is not necessary or proportionate.
Let me, finally, just pause on the list public authorities that can authorise this activity. The number of public authorities able to authorise this conduct has been restricted from those that can authorise the use and conduct of CHIS generally. We expect wider public authorities to be low-volume users of this power because an authorisation can be granted only where it is necessary and proportionate to what is sought to be achieved. However, there will be occasions where CHIS play a critical role in providing the intelligence needed for these wider public authorities to identify and prevent criminal activity. These authorisations will be subject to the same safeguards and independent oversight I have already outlined, including by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. We have published case studies that give examples of the use of this tactic by wider public authorities. I give the example of where the Food Standards Agency may authorise a CHIS to participate in criminal conduct. This may relate to the relabelling of produce to misrepresent its quality and fitness for consumption. Those are criminal offences, but by authorising a CHIS to participate in this activity the Food Standards Agency might be able to gather intelligence to seize unfit produce and identify those responsible for the fraudulent activity.
It has been a pleasure to make my maiden remarks on this issue. I am of the strong view that this Bill is both necessary to ensure that our operational agencies are able to keep us safe, and welcome in that it provides legal clarity through an express power and sets out the robust safeguards to ensure that an authorisation is tightly bound, necessary and proportionate. CHIS do a difficult and important job in providing intelligence that other investigatory tools cannot access. This Bill provides certainty that operational agencies can continue to utilise this tactic and that they are able to best ensure that they keep us all safe. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, for his clear explanation of the content and purpose of the Bill. I congratulate him on this, in his fine maiden speech, which I know the House will have appreciated and enjoyed. The noble and learned Lord specialises in criminal law and has already had a distinguished legal career, being called to the Bar in 1993, appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2011 and, last month, being appointed Advocate-General for Scotland, succeeding the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie.
The noble and learned Lord’s title is, as I said, Lord Stewart of Dirleton. Dirleton, near North Berwick, is, as he said, in one of the many beautiful and scenic parts of Scotland, by the coast and adjacent to one of the best-known golf courses in the world: Muirfield. I found his references to the village of Dirleton both interesting and moving.
The noble and learned Lord has joined the relatively small group who have made their maiden speech as a Minister at the Dispatch Box. We welcome him most warmly to this House and look forward to what I am sure will be many further thoughtful and compelling contributions from the Dispatch Box.
Security is a top priority for us. Our first responsibility is to keep this country and our citizens safe. We recognise the importance of our police and security services, including the National Crime Agency, and thank them for the vital work they undertake on our behalf. We also recognise the importance of covert human intelligence sources and the results they achieve. The director-general of MI5 has said:
“Since March 2017, MI5 and Counter-Terrorism Police have together thwarted 27 terror attacks. Without the contribution of human agents, be in no doubt, many of these attacks would not have been prevented”.
In other words, this kind of activity and operation is saving lives by stopping terrorist attacks on our citizens.
The data available also indicates that in 2018, for example, covert human intelligence operations disrupted threats to life, led to the seizure of thousands of kilograms of class A drugs, safeguarded more than 200 vulnerable people, and took firearms and rounds of ammunition off the streets. Covert human intelligence operations also play a significant role in stemming and preventing vile crimes such as child sexual exploitation, and organised black markets in, for example, vital medicine.
The activity the Bill deals with is not new: it has been taking place under existing practices for years. The Bill provides the statutory footing and increased oversight that have so far been missing.
It is well understood that in order to achieve their objective of protecting our citizens from acts of terrorism and vulnerable people from other awful crimes, covert human intelligence sources may need to commit criminal conduct. Being embedded in a proscribed organisation is, of course, an offence in itself. Such activity must be tightly controlled, but it is necessary to achieve the successful infiltration of the activities of criminal and terrorist organisations and networks to gather intelligence and to thwart or bring an end to their activities.
This vital and necessary activity cannot continue in the shadows without boundaries and safeguards. We acknowledge the importance and necessity of putting covert human intelligence sources activity on a proper statutory footing, and we strongly support that aim. This is not the first piece of legislation that brings activities that have been going on in the shadows into a statutory and regulated framework. The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 had a similar purpose in relation to surveillance and phone tapping, and the Bribery Act 2010 also provided for the authorisation of criminal acts in pursuit of those involved in crimes covered by the terms of that Act.
The crucial issues for this Bill are those of safeguards and oversight. We will be pushing to introduce proper oversight, increased scrutiny and further legal protections into the Bill. The question of safeguards and checks on activity of this kind is a serious issue for any democratic society. It is vital, too, that there is public confidence in how our security services and other agencies that use covert human intelligence sources are exercising the power of authorised criminal conduct.
We also have to be clear about what we expect of those engaged in covert human intelligence activity, the standards we should set and how we expect them to be implemented. We recognise that the Human Rights Act is mentioned on the face of the Bill, and that no authorisation should be made in contravention of the European Convention on Human Rights. The accompanying memorandum to the Bill states:
“Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 makes it unlawful for public authorities to act in a way which is incompatible with Convention rights. Nothing in this Bill detracts from that fundamental position. Authorising authorities are not permitted by this Bill to authorise conduct which would constitute or entail a breach of those rights.”
We will, however, be pressing the Government to go further and will be tabling an amendment, based on the Canada model, to put explicit limits on what can be authorised by placing protections against the most serious crimes, including murder, torture, and sexual violence, in the Bill.
The Government need to make it clear beyond any doubt that the activities of covert human intelligence sources under this Bill are not, and will not ever be, free from Human Rights Act considerations and that there will not be any deliberate attempts to prevent the Human Rights Act from coming into play.
We will be seeking to strengthen both prior and post-authorisation oversight. As it stands, the Bill provides for self-authorisation by an agency of criminal conduct. There is no need to obtain a warrant, for example, beforehand. I am conscious of what the noble and learned Lord said, but we have areas of law at present where judges are available 24 hours a day, and we will pursue the issue of prior judicial oversight in respect of this Bill.
As drafted, the Bill requires the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to include information about public authorities’ use of criminal conduct authorisations in the annual report, including statistics on the use of the power, the operation of safeguards and errors.
It is not sufficient for this somewhat vague requirement to be on an annual basis. Every authorisation should be notified to the commissioner within a few days, and the Intelligence and Security Committee should have more detail about the use of the powers under the Bill, and in what context, if there is to be meaningful reassurance to the public on the operation of safeguards and the use of the powers. We will be tabling amendments on these issues.
The Bill provides that authorisations for participation in criminal conduct may be granted only if it is necessary in the interests of national security; for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder; or in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. We need to have clarity about what is within the scope of that framework of the necessity criteria, which cannot and should not encompass any lawful activity, including legitimate trade union activity. We will be pursuing this issue in Committee.
There is also a proportionality test in respect of authorisations for participation in criminal conduct. What must be considered before deciding if an authorisation would be proportionate is covered in the code of practice. There is a question, however, of whether those required considerations should not be strengthened by being written into the Bill—a point that might be relevant to other parts of the code of practice.
On the impact of the Bill on those affected by it, we will be pursuing the issue of the safety of juveniles and vulnerable people acting as covert human intelligence sources. We will also want to be satisfied that there are measures in place to prevent a disproportionate gendered impact, or impact on black, Asian and ethnic-minority communities, of the use of the powers under the Bill.
The issue of a route for redress and civil claims for wholly innocent victims is one we will also be raising in Committee. While those most likely to be affected by the criminal conduct of a covert human intelligence source are those with whom an agent is engaging in order to thwart criminality, there will inevitably be occasions when a wholly innocent person ends up with a material loss as a consequence of the actions of a covert human intelligence source. In addition, we will also want to be satisfied of the necessity for the non-security agencies covered by the Bill to have the power to authorise criminal conduct by covert human intelligence sources.
This is not a retrospective Bill but it has to be made clear that those seeking justice for what has happened in the past can still do so. There is an ongoing inquiry into undercover policing chaired by Sir John Mitting. Its recommendations should be implemented and victims should not be denied access to justice. Likewise, we are committed to a full independent public inquiry into the events at the Orgreave coking plant in June 1984. There are also outstanding issues in relation to the unlawful blacklisting scandal and the finding of the Metropolitan Police’s internal investigation that,
“on the balance of probabilities, the allegation that the police or special branches supplied information is ‘proven’.”
The kind of powers that the Bill covers and their use need to be on the statute book and not, as now, be powers in the shadows.
We are committed to keeping our people and our country safe. To deliver that, law enforcement bodies and our security services have to be able to carry out their vital and necessary work, which includes the activities of covert human intelligence sources and the authorisation of criminal conduct to which the Bill relates. We are mindful that public confidence in our law enforcement and security agencies is dependent on their proven ability to protect us from acts of terrorism and other vile crimes
We will be seeking to improve the Bill, particularly on the vital issue of strengthening safeguards and oversight so that the public can also have full confidence in the covert human intelligence process and how it is being implemented, including the manner and purpose for which the powers are being used on behalf of all of us.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I too welcome the noble and learned Lord to this House and congratulate him on his maiden speech and appointment as Advocate-General for Scotland. If noble Lords think that he has been put into bat a little early, I can reassure him that I made my maiden speech the day after my introduction; needs must when the devil drives.
First, I should perhaps explain my experience on these issues. When I was in the police, we used to call most covert human intelligence sources “informants”, who were mainly criminals recruited and run by “handlers”. The way in which handlers used, rewarded and authorised informants to participate in crime was controlled by “controllers”. I used to be a controller. I also had the enormous privilege of visiting MI6 and GCHQ to be briefed on the work of all the security services as part of this House’s consideration of the then Investigatory Powers Bill, including examples of who their CHIS were and how they were recruited and used.
Secondly, I came to my own conclusions about this Bill, having read the Investigatory Powers Tribunal judgment dated 20 December 2019 that prompted it. I am grateful for the briefings from Justice, Reprieve and the NUJ, among others, some of which I agree with and other aspects I do not.
There are two fundamental issues in the Bill on which the Government have, to date, not been as clear as they could be. The first is that it is not just about one issue, and it certainly does not simply maintain the status quo, as the Government have suggested. The reason for the Bill is to give absolute legal clarity that handlers can authorise their covert human intelligence sources to participate in crime. They have been doing that with little difficulty for decades but the Investigatory Powers Tribunal’s split decision called into question whether there was any legal authority for the police and the security services to authorise CHIS to commit crime. If providing that legal authority was all that the Bill did, it would maintain the status quo and I would have no argument with it.
Of course there are peripheral issues that the Bill provides an opportunity for us to address, but on providing legal authority for participating informants, as we used to call them, or criminal conduct authorities as they are now called, there is no argument and I will support the Bill in that respect.
The Bill, however, goes much further—unacceptably far—and makes everything that the covert human intelligence source is authorised to do by the criminal conduct authority “lawful for all purposes”, including immunity from civil liability, and including any conduct that is incidental to what CHIS are authorised to do. For example, had the Bill been in force at the time, the undercover police officer who was authorised to form a relationship with an environmental activist could have argued that sleeping with her was “incidental to” what he had been authorised to do, and that he therefore could not be sued.
The status quo is the following: the Crown Prosecution Service examines what happens in such cases after the event, and independently decides whether a crime has been committed, whether there is a 51% or more chance of conviction, and whether prosecution is in the public interest. Rarely—the Government’s position is never—does the Director of Public Prosecutions grant immunity to a CHIS prior to the event. To date, the status quo has rarely, if ever, caused any problems. It has been put to me that the status quo does cause problems, in that sometimes, when a handler asks an informant to participate in crime, the criminal concerned backs away because they want a promise of immunity in writing, and the handler cannot give it. We need to examine carefully and in detail whether such a cast-iron guarantee is necessary or desirable.
This Bill as drafted would allow a police officer or member of the security services, with no independent judicial oversight, to grant total immunity to a criminal to participate in an armed robbery, for example. Rarely, if ever, would immunity not be given prior to the CHIS being asked to participate in crime—a complete reversal of the status quo. At the moment, the CPS almost always decides that it is not in the public interest to prosecute in such cases, but the Bill makes anything done in accordance with a criminal conduct authority not a crime. What is in law a criminal act becomes a lawful act for the person authorised that would no longer rest on the public interest test. This is not preserving the status quo by any stretch of the imagination.
The Government will tell us that that is akin to granting immunity to those involved in the interception of communications and, indeed, immunity is to be provided by the same section of the same Act that makes properly authorised communications interception “legal for all purposes”. However, interception of communications has to be authorised by a Minister of State in advance, having already been approved by an Investigatory Powers Commissioner against someone suspected of the most serious criminality.
However, under this Act, authorising a criminal to take part in an armed robbery, in which innocent people could be seriously injured, will not be done in advance by anyone outside the police. Even officials in the Home Office, potentially on instruction from government Ministers, could otherwise grant immunity to someone to commit crime, with no prior judicial oversight and little post-event scrutiny. Is that what we want?
The second major issue about which the Government have not been clear is who these covert human intelligence sources are. In their briefings, the Government have placed the emphasis on CHIS being undercover police officers or officers of the security services working undercover. The majority of covert human intelligence sources are criminals, members of terrorist organisations and drug gangs, or those inside other organisations that the police or security services have a legitimate interest in. This legislation, as drafted, will predominantly protect criminals, not undercover cops.
Other safeguards are needed, such as to prevent CHIS from acting as agent provocateurs and to protect child CHIS. We must carefully scrutinise which authorities can grant immunity. Other matters, considered in the other place and recommended by NGOs, such as prior authorisation and limitations on what crimes can be authorised, would be necessary only if the immunity provision remains part of the Bill. It should not remain part of the Bill. This is not a party-political issue; this is a rule of law issue. We have a lot of work to do.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for his thought-provoking speech. I welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, and look forward to many contributions from him in the future. I particularly welcome a fellow criminal lawyer to a senior role here. His maiden speech was both elegant and bucolic.
The proportionate use of CHIS is a necessary component of the fight against terrorism and other serious crimes, including people trafficking and modern slavery. A group of operational case studies has been tabled by the Home Office to accompany this Bill. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for the part that she has played in ensuring that those case studies appeared and for providing as much openness as possible for our debates on the Bill, consistent with legitimate national security considerations.
As we heard, a major inquiry is currently investigating undercover policing. It enjoys the wise leadership of Sir John Mitting. Under examination of the activities of individual police officers and professional managers, this Bill provides a framework—a rulebook—that makes it clear that participating informants of and in crime, including those committing some crime, must be subject to full and rigorous control in the future, and that the use of CHIS is controlled in all circumstances.
No more can there be room for sometimes extraordinarily casual and inexcusably pragmatic decisions which allow vulnerable people to continue to be involved in, and at the same time be victims of, serious crime. The CHIS draft revised code of practice, published in September, is a model of its kind, and I hope your Lordships have read it. It is essential reading for this debate.
Subject to two reservations, the Bill, the code and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office should provide a clear foundation for the proper use of CHIS in the future. I urge your Lordships not to be confused about IPCO’s role. It should be a prompt and rigorous regulator. It should not be transposed to a real-time, operational approval agency. That is not its intended role and, frankly, not its expertise. The Bar Council says that, in respect of criminal contact with the security and intelligence services,
“this Bill is a welcome regularisation of activity which was previously lawful but for which the power and mode of authorisation was opaque and outside the system of quasi-judicial scrutiny which otherwise oversees all intelligence and surveillance activities of agents of the state. It serves to reinforce the rule of law.”
I agree.
I have two reservations, which Her Majesty’s Government must address. First, amendments to the Bill can ensure that IPCO’s scrutiny role will be accelerated, so that any breaches of the Act and code are negated within the minimum practical full-time period, and it certainly does not have to wait for an annual report. Secondly, in relation to CHIS aged under 18, of which there have been very few, the youngest being 15 years old, I agree with the organisation Justice that authority to commit criminal conduct should be limited to truly exceptional and necessary circumstances, with clear and proactive measures to protect the child’s welfare. All that must be achieved within the provisions and correct interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights.
I look forward to Committee, which promises improvement of an already very welcome Bill.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I warmly welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, to his office and to his place in this House. We are both members of the Faculty of Advocates, and I am delighted by his present appointment. I am unable to comment on the full state of his speech because I gather that some parts of it were constrained, but I congratulate him warmly on that passage which was his own, and which, as has been said, contained some very moving matters relating to the village of Dirleton, which I know well. I look forward to many contributions from him in this House, and hope and pray that he enjoys his tenure here.
It is with a certain amount of nostalgia that I take part in this Second Reading. In 1992, I was responsible for the first reference in Parliament to a Bill concerning the security and intelligence services, on the invitation of my good friend Lord Hurd of Westwell. I am very sorry that for a long time he has been unable to participate in the business of this House.
I have tried to look at this matter in a somewhat theoretical way, and I entirely accept that much must be discussed in Committee, but it is clear that criminal organisations depend for their success on elaborate machinations, which they strongly endeavour to keep secret. To overcome this secrecy, the forces of law and order have found it necessary to enable covert human representatives to infiltrate these machinations, or to participate in them, thus appearing to breach criminal law.
Apart from a few statutory offences, our criminal law requires, as an essential to conviction, that the accused is motivated by a criminal intention. It is clear that a covert representative of law and order has no such motivation and, therefore, is not guilty of a criminal offence when he or she infiltrates or participates in a criminal operation for the pure purpose of investigating or bringing it to conclusion. Again, it is clear that such an activity may involve danger, and it is obviously right that he or she should not face, as an additional danger, a risk of prosecution. This Bill is a clear and systematic way of obviating that risk—even in a case where the statute which is relevant to the operation does not require a criminal intention for its breach. I support this Bill wholeheartedly, subject to the many detailed considerations already mentioned by your Lordships, which I certainly agree should be thoroughly considered. My point is that, if the real intention of the convert human intelligence is for the purpose of investigating and stopping the criminal activity concerned, they do not have a criminal intention.
The Lord Bishop of Durham [V]
My Lords, I too would like to welcome the noble and learned Minister to the House and to his new role. Not many find their maiden speech to be that of introducing a Bill to the House, and I congratulate him on the necessarily blended speech.
I welcome the Government’s move to provide a statutory basis for covert human intelligence sources to participate in criminal conduct, where it is necessary and proportionate to do so for a limited set of specified purposes. We recognise the heavy duty placed on government to protect its citizens, and this Bill is a necessary step so that those undertaking these activities with a view to protecting the public can be clear in their status and duties.
However, while welcoming the intent behind this Bill, I am concerned that safeguards should be properly scrutinised, in particular when they concern the treatment of children. Sadly, we know that children are used and abused in evils such as county lines, child sexual abuse and other serious crimes. In facing these, there is an understandable temptation, however small, to make use of children as assets for the forces of law and order. We should never lose sight of the fact this places and keeps children in situations of harm and of increased risk. The primary concern must always be that, when children find themselves in vulnerable situations, we look after them as children first and foremost rather than assets for fighting organised crime. We must guard against the temptation to undermine that essential principle in the pursuit of security. Regardless of the children’s age—I note that they are usually 15, 16 and 17 and few in number—we must still treat them as legally children. They are not to be used and must be protected.
Therefore, how can using a child as a CHIS and in doing so placing them at greater risk of harm ever be in their best interest? Allowing these children to act illegally only worsens this. It is preferable for children never to be used. I am confident that the majority of noble Lords would agree, including the Minister. However, I recognise that there may be rare instances in which children are being used. If this is to be the case, then fixed protections need to be put in place. Although there are guidelines in the code of practice for children used as CHIS, this requirement should be made statutory so that there is sufficient legal weight. Vague phrases like “exceptional circumstances” must be met with explanation and guidance rather than leaving it open for interpretation and even manipulation.
We trust our law enforcement agencies to act within the law, but we must protect them from themselves when the temptation arises to use children for what appears a greater good. It is unfair on those agencies not to provide clear legal parameters by which they must operate. Let us not settle for compromising the safety of children for the pursuit of a safer nation, for is it not for those very vulnerable children for whom we seek to create this safer nation? If on rare occasions children are to be used as covert human intelligence sources, there must be clear and meaningful safeguards set out in statute. I will be looking in Committee to support amendments in this space.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I too welcome the Minister to this House. To declare an interest, I am what is described as a “non-police, non-state core participant” in the Undercover Policing Inquiry, and I am due to give evidence early next year. I was targeted by undercover officers for some 30 years, including when I was an MP. But what troubles me most are the clear abuses practised by undercover officers involving people I know well.
Ecological activist Kate Wilson is not a criminal. She is a principled radical activist. She was at primary school in London with my two sons. Our families shared holidays and often visited each other’s homes. She was targeted by undercover officer Mark Kennedy, who formed an intimate and what she described afterwards as abusive relationship with her over seven years. He even reported back to his superiors on contacts with my family when I was a Cabinet Minister. Why were police targeting Kate instead of drug barons, human traffickers, criminals and terrorists?
Doreen Lawrence, now my noble friend Lady Lawrence, was a law-abiding citizen when her family’s campaign to discover the truth about her son Stephen’s brutal racist murder was infiltrated by undercover officers. Why were they not targeting the racist criminals responsible for Stephen’s murder?
Undercover officers attended anti-apartheid meetings in my parents’ living room from 1969 through the early 1970s and reported back that I was a speaker at anti-racist meetings when I was an MP in the early 1990s. Why were they not targeting those responsible for, among other things, crimes in London of fire bombing and murder by the oppressive actions of the apartheid state? Why did they show no interest whatsoever in discovering who in South Africa’s Bureau of State Security was responsible for sending me a letter bomb in June 1972 capable of blowing my family and our south-west London home to smithereens were it not for a technical fault in the trigger mechanism?
In each of these cases, the police were on the wrong side of justice, on the wrong side of the law and on the wrong side of history: infiltrating the family of a climate change activist instead of helping combat climate change; covering up for a racist murder instead of catching the murderers; harassing anti-apartheid activists campaigning for Nelson Mandela’s freedom instead of pursuing crimes by the apartheid state.
Fortunately, Kate Wilson’s early eco-activism helped make climate change an international treaty. We stopped the 1970 all-white South African cricket tour; we helped bring down apartheid; and Nelson Mandela went on to be elected President. The Anti-Nazi League, of which I was a founding national officer, succeeded in destroying the fascist, racist National Front. But why were undercover police officers trying to disrupt us, diverting precious police resources away from catching real criminals?
However, perhaps I differ from other core participants in the inquiry because I do believe there can be a need for undercover officers. When I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland from 2005 to 2007, I met undercover officers doing brave work trying to prevent dissident IRA splinter groups from killing and bombing. I also signed surveillance warrants to prevent Islamist terrorists bombing London and was aware of vital undercover work around their cells.
But where to draw the line—if indeed, it is possible to do so? How do you stop that sort of legitimate undercover police or intelligence work sliding over into the illegitimate? Counterterrorism police recently putting non-violent Extinction Rebellion on their list of terrorist groups hardly inspires confidence. Why does this Bill not even begin to answer any of these key questions?
Lord Beith (LD) [V]
My Lords, speaking from Berwick-upon-Tweed, it is a pleasure to welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, from just up the road in Dirleton. I wish him well in the House.
My interest in this Bill is as a former member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I am in no doubt at all that human intelligence continues to be essential in preventing terrorist attacks, disrupting violent criminal gangs and tracking down prolific sex offenders. I also accept that law-breaking is inevitably a feature of some of those from whom we get human intelligence. In my mind, there is a distinction to be drawn—the noble Lord, Lord Hain, touched on this—between two different kinds of sources. One is described by intelligence services as an “agent” but, as my noble friend pointed out, by police as an “informant”. This is usually a person already involved in a terrorist, criminal or hostile state activity who has turned, induced to give information that may save lives, but they cannot retain their cover among people involved in that activity if they refuse to participate in anything that is against the law.
The other scenario is the undercover police officer who is sent to infiltrate an organisation but is still accountable to the police force for his or her actions. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, pointed to some of the dangers that arise from the misuse of that sometimes necessary process. However, all these activities require some legislative basis. A nod and a wink that, if the intelligence is good, they might not be prosecuted is not adequate, but a general immunity also presents problems, as my noble friend Lord Paddick made clear. Therefore, the Bill is necessary, but it requires further scrutiny and amendment to deal with some of the issues in it, and I want to pick out some of the main concerns.
First, there is a strong case for prior authorisation by a judge of all but the most urgent cases. If it is needed for interception or for a simple search warrant, how much more is it needed for a criminal act—perhaps a serious criminal act?
Secondly, I am unhappy with the range of organisations in the list. If we have to include bodies such as the Food Standards Agency, which sometimes has a need for human intelligence, then ought they not to have to refer to the police and get authorisation from them or from some other external body? The authorising process is so far from the central nature of their activities that it does not seem to me a satisfactory basis for their inclusion.
Thirdly, I have long had concerns about the term “economic well-being”, which features in the Bill. It is very familiar in intelligence legislation but I do not know of a case in which a court has had to define it. It could include so many things: it can include a systemic threat to our banking and financial system but it can also include a major industrial contract that could account for a lot of jobs in Britain, even perhaps a bid for a major international event to be held here. Where do we draw the line? There is too much uncertainty around that.
My fourth point is that, as well as the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, I would want the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament to review on a continuing basis the ways in which these powers are used. It should not be prevented from doing so by an insistence that the issues raised by this work are strictly operational. They are not; they include moral and ethical issues that require parliamentary scrutiny in a secure form, which is what the ISC is for.
I have one final plea. This Bill is a rewrite of RIPA 2000 and the Scottish equivalent legislation. You cannot understand it without a copy of RIPA beside you, so it makes an obvious claim for consolidation as soon as possible. The law really has to be readable and intelligible to those who have to enforce and live by it.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I join others in welcoming the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, and congratulating him on an excellent maiden speech. In a crystal clear exposition of the Bill, he reminded us that the use in exceptional circumstances of children as covert sources, including those as young as 15, is already covered by law. This Bill would allow for them to be authorised, in exceptional circumstances that continue to be undefined, to commit criminal offences in order to integrate themselves into groups under investigation and provide intelligence that would not otherwise be available.
I am not the first today, nor will I be the last, to express concerns about the use of children as mechanisms for intelligence gathering, however valuable that intelligence might be. It stands in direct contradiction to what should always be our intention, which is to remove children from situations and relationships that promote criminality, and it almost certainly involves children from already disadvantaged backgrounds, further widening the inequalities between the lives and long-term outcomes of those who have and those who have not. We know that criminals prey upon vulnerable individuals, including children, using their vulnerability as a shield against law enforcement. It seems extraordinary that, rather than ending this exploitation, the law itself would become the next perpetrator of continued abuse through the recruitment of children and vulnerable individuals as CHIS. I argue that they should never be used in this way but, if they are, as the law already allows, every possible safeguard needs to be in place.
The revised code of practice includes several welcome improvements, but there are areas that still need to be strengthened. Clarity is needed on what constitutes an “exceptional circumstance”, and the code should be clear that the protection of an appropriate adult must be available to all children under 18, rather than on a case-by-case basis, as is proposed. This appropriate adult provision is standard practice for police interviews, even for the most minor transgressions. It cannot be right to fail to provide this support when children are taking the serious decision on whether to place themselves in harm’s way.
The revisions to the code add considerably to the section on juvenile sources but not to that relating to vulnerable individuals. The definition of a vulnerable adult fails to include victims of slavery or trafficking. Although paragraph 4.6 of the code stipulates that there must be an assessment of the juvenile’s ability to give informed consent, there is no such stipulation when it comes to vulnerable adults. Anti-Slavery International has questioned the extent to which someone who has been trafficked or exploited is able to give this informed consent, given their traumatic experiences of manipulation and control, and the long-term impact that this can have on their ability to make independent decisions.
There is also no reference in the code of practice to mental capacity and the ability of someone with impaired mental capacity to consent to acting as a CHIS. As mental capacity is not universal but specific to a given decision, and as it can change over time, it presents particular challenges and needs to be specifically covered. This omission is yet another example of legislation and statutory guidance failing to make provision in relation to mental capacity. I would be grateful if, in responding, the Minister could confirm that this omission will be reviewed.
I know that there will be some who argue that these safeguards are best placed in the code of practice rather than on the face of the Bill, but putting them on a statutory footing would send out a clear and unequivocal message about the importance that we place on our responsibility to protect children and the most vulnerable in our society. They are already a target for exploitation by criminals and they should be able to rely on the state, not only for protection but to help break a cycle of abuse that will otherwise echo on through the course of their lives.
Lord McLoughlin (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, first, I too congratulate my noble and learned friend the Minister on his maiden speech and welcome him to the House and, indeed, to the Dispatch Box.
It is just over a year since I made my valedictory speech in the House of Commons, on 5 November. I was first elected to the House of Commons in 1986 with a majority of 100. I particularly want to bring that out today because, of course, it is 100 years ago today that the Cenotaph was unveiled and King George V was present in the laying to rest at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Westminster Abbey. We must always think of the sacrifices that those people made to enable us to be here today—to debate in this Chamber and in the other place.
I say a very special thanks to all those who have welcomed me to the House of Lords and made my transition here so very easy. I particularly thank Black Rod, the doorkeepers and all the staff of the House in what are very difficult times.
I thank my two sponsors as well; it is easy for me to do so. I first came across my noble friend Lord Cormack some 50 years ago. He had the biggest swing in the country and won a seat called Cannock, where I was at Cardinal Griffin school. He visited all the schools and invited them to the Houses of Parliament. It was on that trip that I thought to myself, “One day, I’d really like to come back as a Member of Parliament”, never expecting really to be able to do so. I am grateful to him for that. It was not something I thought I would achieve. My father died the day after my seventh birthday, on 1 December 1964, and my mother worked in a factory in Wolverhampton and brought the family up as a single mother from then on. I went to work at Littleton colliery, where my father and grandfather had worked before me. Becoming an MP was a dream that I did not expect I would be able to fulfil.
I very much regret the current situation we find ourselves in. One thing I really miss is seeing people visiting both Houses of Parliament and I look forward to the time when that can be restored.
My other sponsor was my noble friend Lord Randall. We do not go back quite so far as those 50 years, but we have been working in Parliament for more than 20 years from when he first joined the Whips’ Office. He eventually became Deputy Chief Whip when I was Chief Whip in the coalition. He would always speak very truthfully to me about what he thought we should be doing. It was a great pleasure for me to ask him to be one of my sponsors when I came into the House. We worked consistently together during that period, although he was for a short time not in the Whips’ Office having voted against the Iraq war.
I loved my time in the Whips’ Office; it was a great pleasure to be there. I did it for some 17 years. David Cameron then asked me to go back to the Department for Transport, in which I started as a junior Minister in 1989. To go back there as the Secretary of State in 2012 was a great honour. I had four years there and it was a tremendous privilege. When I first got there, I was in favour of HS2; I became more strongly in favour of it the more I went into the detail about the need to increase capacity in this country.
In January this year, I applied to become chairman of the British Tourist Authority; it was an appointment I took up. The scene was very different then. Tourism is a very important industry in our country. I look forward to us being able to restore it to its rightful place with the very difficult challenges that it has to face.
I will deal with the Bill. One body I met when I was Secretary of State for Transport was the armed unit of the British Transport Police. The pressure that we put on our police services and our officers in the front line is immense. It is our duty to do everything we can to help them. I too have some slight concerns about the number of bodies covered by the Bill, which seem to go a bit wider, but I am sure that will be addressed in Committee.
For somebody from my background to join your Lordships’ House is an immense privilege. I look at the House, listen to the wide variety of views and see the diversity of where its Members come from. I realise that the experience and knowledge in the House add greatly to our national debate. I hope that in the years to come I can continue adding to that debate as well, always appreciating that we are an appointed House and that the House of Commons is an elected one.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to be the first to commend my noble friend on his maiden speech. For much of his parliamentary career in the other place, he was in the Whips’ Office, notching up a record 17 Trappist years. That meant that we were deprived of his views in the Chamber on public affairs, although he could be more forthcoming in private. Happily, he faces no similar vow of silence in your Lordships’ House, and we look forward to him catching up on those lost 17 years. How appropriate that, as a former Government Chief Whip and master of the dark arts, he should make his maiden speech on a Bill dealing with covert intelligence and the infiltration by agents of the Executive of political activists seeking to do harm to the Government—though I doubt whether in furtherance of that cause he entered into any long-term relationships with Christopher Chope or Philip Davies.
My noble friend was Chief Whip during the coalition, which was probably at its strongest in the Whips’ Office, due not least to his capacity to develop good relationships with those from other parties, a talent particularly welcome in the less partisan atmosphere of your Lordships’ House. He brings to the House a deep affection for Parliament, as we have just heard. He is also chairman of the British Tourist Authority and a former Transport Secretary and will bring an informed view to our debates on those matters, among many others. We look forward to his future contributions.
I do not have any fundamental objections to the Bill but, along with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, I have reservations about its impact on children. Along with other noble Lords, I am grateful to Jennifer Twite and Just for Kids Law for their briefing on the Bill last Friday. I was struck particularly by the evidence of Neil Woods, a former undercover police officer with experience of being a CHIS and handling them. He made two points: first, that 95% of the use of CHIS in his experience was targeted on the drugs trade and, secondly, because county lines were using children as a means of distribution, there was growing pressure to use children to infiltrate the gangs and bring those responsible to justice. I note that none of the case studies which the Minister gave us yesterday involved children. However, as gangs use younger and younger children in county lines so there is a risk of a race to the bottom if younger and younger CHIS are then used to inform on them.
That brings me to the only point I want to make in this debate. We need to get the balance right between, on the one hand, the imperatives of enforcing the law and, on the other, protecting children from danger. I am not sure that the Bill and the undefined “exceptional circumstances” in the code take the trick. We heard for example from Neil Woods about the strain on an adult of maintaining deception. What must it be like for a child? Chapter 4 of the draft code is certainly an improvement, but there is no lower limit on the use of children for entrapment. I wonder whether either the Bill or the code will make it clear that there is a lower age limit beyond which children should never be used for CHIS. For example, I find it indefensible that the social worker of a child in care is not told when that child is recruited. How can a local authority discharge its responsibility to a child already failed by its parents if it does not know that the child has been recruited for dangerous activities? I therefore join other noble Lords in hoping that during Committee we can rebalance the Bill and build in better protection for the country’s children.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab) [V]
I join others in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, to this House and commend them on their maiden speeches. I want to say particularly to the noble and learned Lord, who like me is a Scot but also a criminal lawyer, that I hope he will bring his experience of human rights and civil liberties to bear on his work in this House, because we confront that regularly as criminal lawyers and know the importance of those aspects of our work.
I accept that the practice of our intelligence services and police in covert intelligence gathering has to be placed on a clear and consistent statutory footing. Covert agents may need to commit crimes in the course of what they do—I know that from my own work—but I want to reinforce what was said by my noble friend Lord Hain: the agencies involved should stop this business of spying on legitimate protest and lawful political activity, the stuff of which is so vital to a vibrant democracy. It is not the right use of our policing or of our security services.
As I said, agents may need to commit crime, but it cannot be acceptable or right to authorise the gravest of crimes—murder, torture, sexual transgression. Our security partners in the United States and Canada already place limits on the nature of the crimes that agents can commit. Canada recently passed legislation in this area which is worth looking at because it prohibits those serious offences quite clearly. It looked at what had been happening recently here in Britain with the “spy cops” case, which has been referred to a number of times. Women were lured into relationships in order to provide cover for agents joining political movements. Those women were involved in serious relationships over years and then felt abandoned, abused and ill-used because they loved the men who lived with them; one had fathered a woman’s child. This conduct has long-term, damaging effects on people and should be absolutely impermissible. The FBI in the United States learned from bitter experience that being involved in serious criminality had a cost, and it too has introduced clear guidelines.
The Government argue that there is no need for the Bill to include explicit limits on crimes, set out in any sort of list, because the Human Rights Act is a sufficient safeguard. This argument is a bit rich when Her Majesty’s Government have separately stated, in legal court arguments, and to Parliament, that they do not accept that the Human Rights Act applies to abuses committed by their agents.
The Government should not authorise grave crime. Without limits, the Bill may damage the integrity of the criminal law and suggest to the public that the state may tolerate or encourage such abuse. I am afraid that I see this as another display of the Government’s rather casual and light-touch commitment to the rule of law. We should be setting the gold standard for oversight and accountability and I hope that we do. There have to be clear limits on the permissible crimes, a right to redress for those who are abused or harmed in the course of crimes, and real-time oversight by a judicial commissioner or judge. This is serious, it matters, and I hope that the Government will listen.
Baroness Doocey (LD) [V]
My Lords, there are times when breaches of the law by agents of the state should be allowed, in order to avoid some horrific harm to society as a whole, but there are some lines which should never be crossed. One such line is the assumption that children, who are often extremely vulnerable, can be used as agents of the state. Children are not pawns on a chessboard to be sacrificed for the greater good of some checkmate against organised criminals.
This country has a shameful record on vulnerable children. I witnessed this at first hand when I spent eight years as a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority. It is shameful that, in 2020, children in care are six times more likely to be sexually exploited, and 12 times more likely to be victims of trafficking, than other children. During the passage of the Modern Slavery Act, I sought a separate section specifically to protect children. The committee on the draft Bill had recommended a specific offence that it be illegal to exploit a child, or to obtain benefit from the use of a child for the purpose of exploitation. For reasons which I still fail to comprehend, the Government disagreed. I will, therefore, be seeking to secure specific protections for children on the face of the Bill. As Just for Kids Law, an excellent charity, puts it,
“it is deeply worrying that children are being asked to participate in covert activity associated with serious criminals without fully considering their welfare and best interests. Not only are the authorities using children—some of them under the age of 16—in covert investigations, but oversight in this area is so inadequate that the government isn’t even aware how many children are affected.”
That is, frankly, shocking.
There are girls left in gangs to act as informants who could be subject to all sorts of abuse, and boys left in drug rings who may be compelled to commit crimes which will haunt them for years to come, if not for the rest of their lives. There is also the temptation for police to avoid doing a trafficking referral if they think that the child is of more use as an informant in a gang or extremist environment. The Government say that children are used only if they are already involved in criminal activity. However, this is a classic two-wrongs-make-a-right argument and completely misses the point that many of these children have not chosen a lifestyle of criminality but have been trafficked into the gangs or will have found security in a gang that their home situation does not provide.
The fact that children are already involved in criminal activity is not, and never can be, an excuse for putting them in a position where they may be the victims of violence or asked to engage in it. This House should make that clear. In addition, where children have any involvement in undercover operations, they must benefit from representation by an appropriate adult, right up to the age of 18. It is quite incomprehensible that a 16 or 17 year-old is entitled to have an appropriate adult with them if they are arrested for some relatively minor crime, but not entitled to the same support if they are helping the state in an investigation. This should be guaranteed.
The way we treat children defines us as a society. This Bill can and must be amended to give them better protection.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
I join other noble Lords in welcoming the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, to their place. I do so with open arms, if the Minister will forgive a reference to that delightful Dirleton hostelry.
The Bill, like the litigation which forced it into being, is welcome. I have a wish list, but time requires me to come straight to the nub: the linked questions of immunity, authorisation and oversight. The Bill would give power to police superintendents to confer immunity on members of the public, and of their own organisations, for the commission of crimes. That proposition is startling, and the potential for abuse obvious. There are three central ways in which that potential might be mitigated. The first way is to remove the immunity and retain the existing discretion of the CPS to prosecute for a criminal offence within the scope of the authorisation. I have two questions for those who promote this option. Is it fair for a CHIS who does no more than he is asked by the police to be at risk of prosecution? With that in mind, how often has the CPS considered it to be in the public interest to prosecute a CHIS who has not exceeded his authority? The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, with all his experience, suggested seldom or never. I keep an open mind but wonder whether removing immunity would be a safeguard more apparent than real.
The second way is to provide for prior approval of authorisations by the judicial commissioners of IPCO. I recommended this approach for some other covert powers in my report A Question of Trust, and was glad to see it followed in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. However, context is everything and I will make three comments. Deciding how to task a CHIS, against a nuanced and rapidly changing background of personal relationships and group dynamics, is less obviously within the competence of a judge, or indeed any external person, than a decision to intercept a line or hack a device. Internal, not external, authorisation is provided for by Section 20.1(12) of Canada’s CSIS Act, of which the House has heard mention today, although it is fair to say that some form of external approval for CHIS criminality, whether by judges or lawyers, is required in some circumstances in Australia and the US. Finally, and without being defeatist, it is right to acknowledge that an amendment to require prior judicial approval was heavily defeated in the other place.
That leaves the third way: beefing up oversight by requiring a judicial commissioner to be informed every time a CCA is issued. That solution was adopted in SI 2013/2788, when the spycops revelations first surfaced, to deal with undercover police deployments of less than 12 months.
Having worked intensively with IPCO’s chief inspector for CHIS in the Channel Islands, where I was Investigatory Powers Commissioner until this summer, I have the highest praise for IPCO’s inspection work. Much of it is below the waterline in the form of inspections, oral feedback, classified detailed reports, observations and recommendations requiring speedy action. A sense of it is given publicly at paragraph 5.19 and onwards of IPCO’s March 2020 annual report.
The real-time notification of CCAs to a judicial commissioner would have three further advantages. First, the knowledge that their decision would go straight to the desk of a High Court judge or equivalent would concentrate the minds of authorising officers. Secondly, it would eliminate the gap of up to a year between authorisation and annual inspection, potentially assisting in the termination of any ill-advised authorisations, difficult though that will always be. Thirdly, it would help to promote a culture in which informal advice is sought before an authorisation was issued—something that happens a good deal in practice and is particularly valuable for authorities that do not make much use of CHIS. This third approach is no panacea and will not be strong enough for some, but it deserves at least to be debated and I will table an amendment for that purpose.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, there are few moments of unalloyed joy in politics but being able to endorse the splendid remarks of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham in congratulating my noble friend Lord McLoughlin is one of them. I, too, remember that visit to Cardinal Griffin school in May 1970, over 50 years ago. I, too, remember the schoolboy coming to the Palace of Westminster. I remember him becoming a splendid local Conservative, having a poster with a miner’s hat when he fought his first constituency. I am always amazed that, when I left the House of Commons 10 years ago, he was my Chief Whip. I bid him welcome with all the warmth at my disposal.
It was very splendid also to have a maiden speech from the Front Bench. My noble and learned friend Lord Stewart of Dirleton spoke with an elegiac love of his constituency. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay indicated, the rest of the speech was not entirely at his disposal; nevertheless, he delivered it with a calm rationality that made me feel that we have a true learned friend in our midst.
Having said all that, while putting on record that I believe that the Bill is necessary and support it, I am troubled. We have to look at this in the context of the times. We are, through no desire of anyone, living at the moment in a benign police state. I cannot go out this evening with my son for dinner; I cannot ask him round to my flat nor go to his home with his wife and children. We are in a very difficult situation. We have the Law Commission proposing that remarks made at the dinner table should perhaps be admissible in a court of law in the prosecution of a hate crime. We therefore have to be careful how far we go. That is why I am troubled, as others have said, about the number of agencies that are allowed to have, as it were, crimes committed in their name. I shall want to look at that very carefully in Committee.
I share the concerns of many colleagues about the position of children. Although it may be tempting to use children in dealing with ghastly county lines, we have to be careful about our overall responsibility for our children.
As we go through the Bill, which lends itself to the forensic examination that it needs and deserves in your Lordships’ House, we must be extremely careful. First, how many agencies can take advantage of it? I think that it is too many. Secondly, how is the regulation on the use of children controlled? Thirdly, we have to look carefully at whether there should be specific limits—as there are in Canada, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws—on the type of crimes that we can see committed in the interests of the greater good. That we need to protect our people from terrorism and terrible crimes is self-evident, but we have to be careful how we go.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young, makes it easy for me to refer to his protégé, the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin. I welcome him to this House and welcome his maiden speech.
I also welcome the Minister. I listened carefully to his speech, and indeed to the speech from my own Front Bench, on why the Bill is needed. I am afraid that I am not as yet convinced. On Monday, this House overwhelmingly expressed its outrage at the Government trying to give themselves statutory immunity from breaching international and national law in, as they call it, a limited and specific sense. Today, the Government now propose giving equivalent protection in criminal law to our own security services and a dozen other state agencies to commit unspecified criminal acts.
Obviously, I appreciate that this is not a new issue; I was a member of the Government when the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 was passed. I remember feeling uneasy about it at the time—I generally did with Home Office initiatives in that era—but I recognised the need for an authorisation framework. Still, this Bill goes much further than that. My noble friend Lord Rosser proposes significant amendments that might make it more palatable to me, but even then I am not yet convinced.
I am not an automatic knee-jerk opponent of the security services and state agencies. I recall many occasions in my life when I have told keen young political activists who complain that the deep state is monitoring them, “Of course they are! That is their job.” I have always felt that society is safer as a result of those agencies; I am glad that they are there. However, the Bill goes beyond the monitoring, surveillance and simple embedding in, and infiltration of, dangerous organisations.
There are issues with the authorisation process itself but I have two main objections. First, the Bill renders such criminal acts legal for all purposes. That appears to mean that victims could not claim compensation in any respect. If, in order to gain trust in an organised crime syndicate by proving himself, a CHIS undertakes a robbery, does that mean that the victim of that robbery is denied not only a criminal process but any compensation or recourse to the criminal compensation scheme because, under this Bill, the action was deemed not criminal? At a minimum, we need to retain or at least describe the right to compensation for victims.
My second main objection relates to the infiltration into political campaigns, particularly trade union ones. As my noble friend Lord Hain said, we know from very recent history that phrases such as “danger to the economic well-being of the UK” or “preventing disorder” can be used to target otherwise legitimate trade union industrial action or political or environmental campaign demonstrations. Such infiltration by police agents has been identified in the past. On occasion, it has been aggravated by agents of the state authorities acting in effect as agents provocateurs—that is, a supposed member persuading his colleagues in the organisation to go further than they would have done previously. Here, we are treating political campaigns on anti-racism, the environment and trade unions in an equivalent way to terrorist organisations. There must be some distinction and some limit to the degree to which we can grant immunity under the Bill.
Unless there are drastic, explicit changes on access to the civil courts, compensation and agents provocateurs, I will not support the Bill.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, on his excellent maiden speech. He referred to many sports in Dirleton, and I was hoping that he might mention the excellent North Berwick Rowing Club. I think he should have a word with his noble friend— I refer to the noble Earl, Lord Courtown—or with my noble friend Lord Paddick, who spoke third in the debate. I promise that, if he joins us in the House of Lords eight, we will overlook his youth. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, to the House, but he should be aware that the West Derbyshire by-election of 1986, where he narrowly but fairly defeated that outstanding Liberal Chris Walmsley, has not faded from memory in some quarters.
This Bill has some extraordinary features. Suppose an official from the Gambling Commission believes, quite unreasonably and without any basis, that, in his view, it is necessary, in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, to infiltrate a perfectly lawful organisation—say, a trade association or, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, mentioned a moment ago, a trade union. Under this Bill, he may authorise a 16 year-old to commit a criminal act and give him full immunity against criminal prosecution or civil liability, removing any consideration as to whether, even in part, he himself had a criminal intent or was incited to the sort of abuses to which the noble Lord, Lord Hain, referred.
It is obviously right that there should be a framework that is open and transparent to control the exercise of state power to authorise the commission of criminal offences, but it must be a tight framework. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, referred to authorisations that will have strict parameters and be tightly bound—but only by the word of the authoriser of the CHIS, his immediate controller.
I will analyse the scenario I set out. What is the rationale for putting into the hands of an official of the Food Standards Agency, or similar organisations, the extraordinary power to authorise criminal acts? Is it for labelling or pursuing dodgy hamburger vendors? This power should be used in the public interest and only in the pursuit of serious crime by professional criminal investigation agencies.
As for immunities, should not the decision as to what is in the public interest remain with the CPS or the Director of Public Prosecutions and not with the initial authoriser? Why should that official, unchecked, exercise this power on his own subjective belief as to its necessity and proportionality? Surely his belief should be, and be seen to be, reasonable? I agree with my noble friend Lord Beith that, as with ordinary warrants, he should be required to obtain the prior consent of a judge or, as in other covert operations, judicial commissioners. A judge would have the power to interrogate the authoriser to establish that he has a rational base in law for issuing an authorisation. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, pointed out, there is a duty High Court judge on hand 24 hours a day.
The Bill permits the commission of crime by an agent or CHIS infiltrating a perfectly lawful organisation —for example, a protest group. If such lawful groups need to be infiltrated to ensure public order, it is curious that this Bill should permit the infiltrator to commit crime. I would like to know from the Minister whether an authorisation issued under the Bill could permit a CHIS to act as an agent provocateur, stirring up crime where none exists. This Bill should be limited to national security and the detection and prevention of crime.
However, the most glaring anomaly is that the Bill would permit authorising the CHIS to commit murder, rape or robbery anywhere in the world without any of the limitations set out in other similar jurisdictions—Canada, the US or Australia—and with immunity from prosecution or civil liability, rather than prosecutorial discretion. Is the European Convention on Human Rights a sufficient safeguard? The Minister will find that his colleagues want to scrap it.
This is a very specific question and I would like the Minister to answer it: do the Government concede at last that convention rights bind an agent of the Crown acting outside the jurisdiction in, for example, Europe, the USA or the Republic of Ireland? The Bill should be clear as to what is or is not within its scope, territorially and in substance. In Committee, I hope to pursue safeguards for children, which other noble Lords have addressed, and redress for victims. I am sure there will be many other issues.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble and learned friend Lord Garnier will speak next, but this pause gives me the opportunity to remind noble Lords about the advisory four-minute time limit for Back-Bench contributions. This is only advisory, but it would be a courtesy to the large number of Peers who want to contribute. I hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier will set a fine example.
Lord Garnier (Con) [V]
My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart has made both his first appearance at the Dispatch Box and his maiden speech. He spoke kindly and accurately of our noble and learned friend Lord Keen and modestly of himself, but we have already benefited from his being here with us. He is most welcome, and I look forward to meeting him in person before too long. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord McLoughlin on his maiden speech. His work in the other place in government and in opposition over many years, the way he performed it and the content and manner of his speech today suggest to me that we will have much to gain from his arrival here.
This Bill is being debated after the decision of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal last December in the third direction case but before its consideration by the Court of Appeal. Although it has no retrospective effect, it will clear up some of the questions left hanging by that case, which concerned the lawfulness of a secret national security policy apparently authorising Security Service agents to engage in criminal activity, including, according to the claimants, torture and murder.
The facts of any particular operation involving the use of covert human intelligence sources are necessarily kept from the public and even from Parliament. That mystery creates mystique for some and suspicion in others. While the security services can cope with the mystique, some suspicions are better allayed than fomented. I used to think that there was an advantage in keeping things vague so that the Foreign Secretary or Home Secretary and their security advisers could pragmatically, but legitimately, apply their discretion and common sense to the difficult legal and operational problems that come with deploying agents at home or abroad.
In my experience of the senior officers of the security and armed services when I was Solicitor-General, they never wanted to bend or break the law, be it the criminal law, the law governing military action or the laws concerning surveillance and counterterrorism. Indeed, they were meticulous about staying within it, and I really do not think they were just telling me things they thought I wanted or ought to hear. Putting the law into statute would, I once believed, inhibit their ability to take quick decisions and create sclerosis within the chain of command. No one needed reminding not to murder or torture people because it would be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Intercepting suspected terrorists’ electronic communications was clearly a proportionate interference with their convention rights.
Part of me still thinks that keeping things pragmatically vague is sensible, but I am now persuaded that, even if the operations themselves and the identities of those providing vital information to the security or other services may often have to remain confidential for ever, the law governing their work should not be hidden, largely within the common law, to be revealed only when a judge’s interpretation of the law, often arrived at by necessary implication, is made public, as in the third direction case. It is also right that the government agencies to be covered by this Bill, and some other important questions, are thoroughly scrutinised in Committee.
The security services were put on a statutory footing in the 1990s, and other statutes have followed, but we now need to know what the rules are and to be able to say whether, in a democratic society, we approve of them. Some things must be kept secret, so we need to have confidence in the people who do this work in order that we can trust them, even if we do not know exactly what they are doing. Knowing what is permitted by statute, even if distasteful to some, helps to enhance that confidence. There are some things that, when known to the public, remove suspicion, even if they do not always lead to universal approval, but, in saying that, I do not expect the state to be absolved of all responsibility for its actions. The innocent bystander and his dependants, whose life, limb or livelihood are taken or damaged by someone whom this Bill absolves of particular criminal conduct, should not be left helpless and without remedy.
The preservation of our national well-being sometimes requires us to permit good people to do bad things. Today, especially, we remember that, in war, we justify the doing of terrible things by and to our Armed Forces to protect our freedoms and recognise that, in other fields of national conflict, we must permit that which, on other occasions, we would abhor.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the noble and learned Lord the Minister and congratulate him on his new role, and indeed I welcome the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin.
Many things are said about your Lordships’ House and about what it is to be a patriot today of all days. I cannot imagine the purpose of either if not to defend the rule of law. It is not a question of left-wing or right-wing, or leave or remain. There can be no freedom, security or even democracy without it, and one of its most fundamental principles is that the law of the land must apply to everyone equally.
If we were to introduce one law for agents of the state and another for everyone else, surely lawlessness and tyranny would not be far behind, and I know that no one in your Lordships’ House would wish for that outcome. Yet the gravest dangers to the rule of law do not politely announce themselves. More often than not, they come under cover and with the best of intentions, not least preserving security and even the law itself.
It is said that this Bill seeks to put criminal conduct by covert human intelligence sources on a statutory footing, but in truth—and as the Minister has today acknowledged—it goes a great deal further than that. It replaces our legal status quo, whereby criminal acts in the course of undercover intelligence work are nearly always and rightly forgiven in the public interest, with a complete and advance immunity or licence or golden ticket for a raft of agents against prosecution and civil suit, regardless of the harm caused to our people—including completely innocent people—in the process.
It is important to remember that the overwhelming majority of these agents are not trained officers of our security agencies or police. They necessarily come from the community, including the criminal community. They include extremely troubled, volatile and vulnerable people, including, as we have heard so many times, even children. A public inquiry that has only just begun is hearing how the agents are capable of abuse and even of inciting crime, rather than preventing and detecting it, even under the present arrangements.
We are told not to worry because those issuing these criminal conduct licences, from inside the relevant agencies themselves, must take into account the requirements of the Human Rights Act. I must point out that such an obligation is weaker than the normal obligation on public authorities to comply with them. Further, while human rights bind states and public bodies, they are no substitute for effective criminal law in both protecting and binding individual people by deterring violence—and sexual violence in particular. There is a wealth of case law to that effect.
Some argue that the great dangers in this legislation might be remedied by external or judicial authorisation of criminal conduct, or by limiting the list of agencies or types of crimes. I am far from convinced that anything other than removing the immunity from these authorisations and restoring them to the appropriate position of public interest guidance to agents, prosecutors and courts will suffice. Once more, in the words of former officer Neil Woods:
“As a former ruthless undercover cop, I see many possibilities of this going wrong. This immunity truly changes everything. It invites criminality into a realm uniquely susceptible to it. Once we go down this route, it will be very difficult ever to return.”
I urge your Lordships to heed that stark warning.
Baroness Young of Hornsey (CB) [V]
My Lords, I, too, welcome--albeit remotely—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, and wish him luck in his new role, and I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin.
I am sure that many people accept that the police and security services need to deploy undercover operatives to disrupt terrorist and criminal activity, and we recognise that difficult decisions have to be made regarding operational effectiveness. There is no need for me to elaborate on the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, except to say that the subject matter and nature of the Undercover Policing Inquiry is relevant not least because it reminds us of some of the critical issues raised by the scope, character and potential for harm of inappropriate and inadequately regulated undercover operations.
In the Bill, one area that causes me and many other noble Lords the most concern is the deployment of those under 18 years old—children of 15, 16 or 17—with no stated lower age limit. As the Minister will be aware from the Young review, which I chaired, from the Lammy review, led by the honourable Member for Tottenham, and from all the reports that preceded them, young black men are overrepresented in the criminal justice system and experience disproportionately poor outcomes throughout the system. I fear that racial disparities elsewhere in the CJS will be amplified in respect of the use of covert operatives. Will the noble Baroness the Minister, when she comes to respond to this debate, inform the House of the Home Office’s assessment of the equality impact reviews of the proposed legislation?
As has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Young, and others, drugs shifted around the country via county lines wreak havoc and violence in our communities. Younger and younger children are recruited and of course we long for effective strategies to mitigate the impact of these activities. Gangs groom young children into becoming drug mules, terrifying and traumatising them in the process, turning often vulnerable young people into criminals. Determined youth and social workers do their best, but it is incredibly hard and getting increasingly so to help out here. It appears that the juveniles recruited as intelligence sources are most often 16 or 17, but we have been informed of at least one 15 year-old being used in this way. I find this shocking. Will the Minister accept that not to have a lower age limit for recruiting children carries substantial risks to those already in harmful situations? In any other circumstances, we would be taking steps to protect such children and remove them from such harms.
My own view is similar to that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and of my noble friend Lady Bull: under-18s should never be used as undercover operatives. I find the whole idea absolutely repugnant rather than uncomfortable. I cannot see how it is legitimate to recruit juveniles as informers and spies in dangerous, violent situations but not to allow 16 year-olds to vote.
Ideally, CCAs for children should be prohibited altogether to limit the risk of serious violations of the rights of the child. At the very least, the Bill should contain an explanation of the exceptional circumstances where it would be appropriate for a child to be given a CCA and of how their welfare would be protected. Appropriate adults should be mandatory, rather than discretionary, for 16 year-olds and 17 year-olds, and a lower age limit should be set.
I have many concerns similar to those of many colleagues who spoke earlier in this debate. Two further concerns are that of immunity from prosecution for those perpetrating criminal acts and the lack of explicit limits on the nature of any criminal act committed; those two are linked, I think. As others have noted, the USA, Canada and Australia place limits on the acts that agents can commit.
The case studies circulated by the Minister yesterday have been referred to. It is interesting that they fall into two categories: hypothetical and real-life. The hypothetical ones are all about the public bodies and do not reveal the extent to which CHIS work with police and are trained. The real-life cases seem straightforward, but can the Minister tell us how the results of those significant prosecutions would be undermined in some way by current legislation and how they would be improved by this piece of legislation? I look forward to debates in Committee.
Lord Walney (Non-Afl) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is an incredible honour to address your Lordships’ House for the first time. I have been touched by the kindness and support of the many dedicated staff in this place: Black Rod, the amazing doorkeepers and Garter, not least for his agreement to my title. I am deeply indebted to my two supporters, the noble Lords, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen and Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, one a former NATO Secretary-General and esteemed former Labour Defence Secretary in the other place, the other the fabled analyst and chronicler of the inner workings of the British state. They were always so generous with their wisdom on the UK’s nuclear deterrent when I was the MP for Barrow-in-Furness. Today, I am honoured and still a little starstruck to count them as my friends.
I also want to mention two friends from opposite sides of the House with overlapping territorial designations to mine. The noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness, was my predecessor as MP for Barrow and my former boss in Whitehall. The noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness, has shown me such kindness since I became a Member of Parliament. They are both beacons to me and many others in different ways. The noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, will be greatly missed by this House as he announces his retirement.
To my neighbours on Walney Island, which I am proud to take as my territorial designation, I just say this: you kindly took in this off-comer; you elected me three times, and now I will give you a lifetime of service, raising the particular concerns of the island and the wider area. I will remain a firm advocate of the submarines constructed with your expertise, and I hope to make a contribution in due course on the issue of coastal erosion, which could literally split our wonderful island in two in future decades if left unchecked. That would be unconscionable to the near-11,000 residents of the island and would decimate its unique, cherished natural resources.
I have been determined to use my maiden speech to highlight the need for the UK to do more in defending the rules-based order that underpins the freedoms and values embodied in this Chamber and the other place. Much has already been said on that subject this week, but the threat is far deeper than a particular part of a particular Bill. Our international adversaries are intent, with a whole spectrum of means, on unravelling the system of international order that protects our liberty and our interests abroad. As we remember today the struggle and sacrifice of previous generations so that we can live free, let us recognise that this battle will be our generation’s struggle.
I therefore wondered whether it was right to make my maiden speech in this debate on a Bill whose purposes, as we have heard, are to sanction certain individuals to commit what would otherwise be criminal acts. However, the fact that this process of scrutiny is happening at all, and that a legal framework is being constructed, should be seen as demonstrating the strength of Britain’s commitment to the rule of law as a means of upholding our security.
I was pleased to be asked by the Prime Minister, on standing down from the House of Commons, to advise the Government on aspects of counterterrorism. I listened carefully today to the excellent maiden speech by the Minister, whom I congratulate, and to many others. I have seen the strong backing that this Bill has received from the security services and from the Intelligence and Security Minister. I am happy, therefore, to vote to support it tonight in the knowledge that the many pressing issues that have been raised will see further scrutiny in Committee.
I end by briefly addressing the political journey that has brought me to this place, in this House on these non-affiliated Benches. I am proud of the small contribution that I made to stopping what would otherwise have been inflicted on the British people had the general election last year gone the other way. That has strained some lifelong friendships; indeed, it has led to one or two frosty encounters in the corridors of this place. I am happy now, however, to be given the opportunity to put party politics behind me and start a new chapter. Much of the past few years has been difficult, but it has underlined a central tenet of my faith: no one party and no one group within a party holds a monopoly of wisdom. We are all flawed human beings mostly trying to do our best in a complex and conflicted world. I will always endeavour to do my best in this place and it is deeply humbling to be given that chance.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I am honoured to follow that excellent and very moving maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Walney. He talked of Walney Island, and I know that area. What he did not mention was that it has an airport built at right angles to the prevailing wind and about as long as this Chamber, so if any noble Lords are thinking of visiting there, they will have a very fun arrival if they go by air.
I have known John, the noble Lord, Lord Walney, for more than 10 years. He is a highly principled man, and I was particularly impressed, first, by his confrontation of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party, which he drove through with great vigour; and secondly by his passionate support for an issue very close to my heart and those of his ex-constituents, which noble Lords heard him mention—the UK’s independent deterrent and nuclear submarines. Neither issue made him popular with the last leader of the Labour Party, but he refused to compromise his beliefs. Rather like his namesake in the 17th century, he was martyred, although I doubt that—unlike his predecessor—he will be beatified by the Pope. The noble Lord, Lord Walney, will be of great value to this House. We already got that from what he said, and I look forward very much to working with him.
The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, of which I am currently a member, welcomes this Bill. Agents provide invaluable information and play a vital role in identifying and disrupting terrorist plots. Basically, they save the lives of our people. However, can the Minister assure the House that, in putting the existing powers on a statutory basis—which needs to be done because of the legal shenanigans going on at the moment—the Bill does not extend them in any way at all? It is essential that these powers are properly circumscribed and used only where necessary: they have to be proportionate. They should be compatible with the Human Rights Act—let us face it, we are all responsible for ensuring that—and subject to proper oversight.
The Minister will be aware that the Intelligence and Security Committee proposed an amendment to the Bill in the other place relating to parliamentary oversight. I have lost sight of where that has gone; perhaps the Minister will let us know where that proposal stands. The committee clearly knows the agencies very well, but it has also taken evidence—very sensitive evidence—from the police in a number of its inquiries, and from that knowledge would support their use of these powers. I would, however, need convincing that a number of the other authorities really do need these powers.
The Intelligence and Security Committee strongly supports the Government’s decision not to place limits on criminal conduct in the Bill itself. My own operational experience would reinforce that because of the risks it would place on our agents. Clearly, that means even greater emphasis on the need for robust safeguards. I can offer reassurance to the House that the Intelligence and Security Committee has had comprehensive briefings on how these authorisations are used, and we are reassured and satisfied that they are used appropriately by MI5. Will the Minister say, however, what percentage of criminal conduct authorisations—they have been mentioned already—the Investigatory Powers Commissioner will actually examine?
I reiterate that I strongly support this Bill, subject to the caveats I touched on. I have not had time to go into other areas, such as the use of children, but I hope that these things will be investigated in Committee. There is no doubt that these agents save lives and are at great risk themselves. We must be careful not to pass legislation that, with amendments, leads to agents being killed.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate all three noble Lords who made their maiden speeches earlier. We will benefit greatly from their experience and expertise. My noble and learned friend Lord Stewart of Dirleton made a dignified and personal speech as well as an accomplished Front-Bench contribution. We are fortunate indeed to have him here; his probity will be an asset, not least in the Bill we are discussing today. His opening speech exemplified that.
I know the noble Lord, Lord Walney, from his time in the House of Commons, where he showed himself to be principled and courageous while serving his constituents well. We saw that in his speech just now. Anyone who takes a geographical designation of a place so ornithologically blessed as Walney Island is off to a good start with me; I know that he and his partner greatly appreciate the benefits of nature there.
I was honoured to be a supporter of my noble friend Lord McLoughlin on his introduction to this place. I can honestly say that it was very much a privilege and a pleasure to act as his deputy in the Chief Whip’s Office in the other place. I endorse entirely the words of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who is another of the best people in this House. My noble friend Lord McLoughlin made a moving speech; one of the few advantages for speaking remotely, for me, is that no one saw me wipe away a tear at his speech. His sage advice and knowledge of parliamentary procedures are exceeded only by his all-round modesty, affability and decency. He was, and is still, held in high regard by all who know him. If some of his advice had been taken by some whom he offered it to, I am sure that recent history might have taken a slightly different course.
My only regret is that I have never succeeded in persuading him about the joys of cricket. I remember him asking me, early on the first day of a five-day test match, who was winning. His response to my reply that it was far too early to know should not be repeated before the watershed, but his love for Derby County Football Club shows that he has a love of sport. I am sure that he will become as popular in your Lordships’ House as he was down the other end of the building.
This Bill is something that we would perhaps rather not have in law, but the world we live in today sadly necessitates these measures. I pay tribute to the courageous men and women who served this country in an unspoken, unseen way in the intelligence services. We owe it to them to give them the necessary powers to undertake that dangerous work. I share concerns about some of the agencies that have been given these powers, although my noble friend’s opening remarks gave me some confidence in those measures—but that is for the other stages of the Bill.
The strength of this Chamber is that it can be relied on ensure that we will give appropriate and proportional authorisation only to those who need it. Therefore, I am happy to allow this Bill to advance in its parliamentary journey and I look forward to further debate on this important measure.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
My Lords, I, too, warmly welcome the Lord Advocate and congratulate him on his first speech. It is good to have another Lord Advocate from Scotland, with its own distinct legal system. I also congratulate the other two noble Lords on their excellent speeches.
I warmly support the idea of putting the power of these matters on a statutory basis. I wish to raise three points: first, the role of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner; secondly, the process for immunity; thirdly, the position of bodies other than the security services and the police. The observations that I wish to make on those three points have been drawn from my own experience of sitting on a large number of cases involving CHIS, the setting up of what is now the Mitting inquiry—formerly conducted by Sir Christopher Pitchford—and the setting up of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office. One of the difficulties in making observations is that, in all the hearings on which I sat and when setting up the Mitting inquiry, either the information provided to me was in circumstances of the strictest confidence or the hearings were closed.
It seems to me that three issues require further detailed consideration by this House. First, I would like to understand the reasons why we cannot follow the interception regime, with the IPC having a clear role in approving in advance except when urgency prevents. Obviously, it would have been of great advantage to know what had happened in the many years being investigated by the Mitting inquiry, but I can bring some of my own experience to bear and say that there are strong reasons for a very tight regime, particularly where the authorisation would go hand in hand with immunity. A regime for reporting a few days thereafter, put forward in the excellent speech by my noble friend Lord Anderson, would obviously need detailed consideration but, before we get to that stage, it is necessary to see whether there is justification for moving from a pre-authorisation system. There are real difficulties if the IPC says that the authorisation was wrong.
The second point can be put more briefly: I would like to see the justification for the change from the position where the CPS makes its decision on immunity. There are strong constitutional reasons for the CPS, an entirely independent prosecutor, making decisions on whether someone should be prosecuted. That is the proper constitutional route and entirely consistent with the rule of law. It would be inimical to the rule of law for immunity to be granted by an agency of the Executive, and it would be a bad example to other states.
Finally, if powers are to be granted in broad terms to the police and security services, I would like to understand the justification for granting these powers to the other bodies. It is important that these issues are examined carefully to protect confidence in the security services. We too easily forget the damage that can be done when officers, even fairly senior ones, do not do things properly. The damage, from my own experience in such cases, can be considerable indeed.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the three noble Lords who made excellent, eloquent maiden speeches today in the House. I look forward to working with them in the period ahead. I pay tribute to the security forces, members of the Security Service and all those involved in counterterrorism for the great sacrifices that they make in defence of our country—acts of heroism that will never be told and suffering for the greater good of society that will never see the light of day. I am grateful for the briefing that I received in the other place in the run-up to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal case, which brought home to me just how important their work is.
As has been said, this Bill is about keeping the country secure and saving lives. It puts on to the statute book what already happens and has been happening for a long time. Lest anyone should doubt the need for CHIS—or agents, as they are better known—we only have to look at some of the statistics outlined by the Minister in the other place about the number of arrests, of firearms, class A drugs and illicit cash recovered, and of potential terrorist attacks thwarted by MI5 and counterterrorism in recent years—27 between March 2017 and today, which is nine each year. Those are staggering figures.
While there have been incredible advances in electronic and digital surveillance, we know that in many cases, such methods of intelligence-gathering are simply not enough in themselves. The Bill addresses participation in criminal activity of agents and legislates for robust, independent safeguards and oversight. The Government have set out clearly why this legislation is necessary to lift and remove any legal uncertainty. There must be no doubt in the mind of a handler, the agent themselves or the organisation responsible about the legal status of what an agent has been ordered to do.
Being from Northern Ireland, my experience as a Member of Parliament for Belfast North for more than 18 years has brought home to me the importance of the proper use of agents in combating terrorism. The recent report of the Intelligence and Security Committee illustrates the very serious threat of terrorism that still pertains in Northern Ireland, where the threat level is set at “severe”. Without covert agents, the safety and security of citizens in that part of the United Kingdom, as well as elsewhere, would be gravely impaired. Often agents in Northern Ireland have had to join an illegal paramilitary organisation, or people within those organisations have had to undertake, at great risk, activities which have been of enormous benefit to the state. These acts are, of course, illegal under normal circumstances, but it is a clear example of what would warrant a criminal conduct authorisation.
Of course, such authorisations must always be for precise and specific purposes, and the Bill sets out very clearly three such purposes. I welcome the fact that the Bill states that at all times there must be compliance with the Human Rights Act. The role of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner is also set out. Robust oversight is crucial, and I welcome the unfettered access that is permitted under the Bill to all documents and information. However, we need to examine carefully in Committee the organisations that are covered in the Bill, and I look forward to discussion in Committee on that. This is about saving lives. It is a sad fact of life that agents are necessary, and I fully support the Government at Second Reading.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the three maiden speeches. In particular, as a fellow member of the club of those who made their maiden speech at the Dispatch Box, I can imagine what the Minister was feeling when he made his maiden speech. I wish him well. The noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, a friend from the Commons, treated me really well when he was the most junior of Ministers in the 1990s and I went to him with constituency cases. As for my noble friend Lord Walney, I sat out the last election—I was on the dark side, in hospital—but I understand he performed a national service, and I welcome him to the Lords.
I am neither a lawyer nor a crime expert: I leave that to others. During my time as a Minister at MAFF and Defra, and as chair of the Food Standards Agency, I was from time to time informed of criminal issues relating to activity undermining food supply and food safety. One thing I can say for certain is that the police were never interested. Yet food is our largest manufacturing sector, we import 50% of what we eat and we have large exporting companies. The scope for criminal activity is very substantial. In a multi-billion-pound food industry, the risk of damage, serious illness and death is very clear. The simplistic view that economic well-being is not connected to serious crime or protection of national security is not one I accept. I therefore do not support the view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights in this respect; so, in general, I support the Bill.
I do not think I was aware of the term “CHIS” until I served on a RUSI panel in 2014-15, the Panel of the Independent Surveillance Review. I have now read several briefings and, in the main, think of a CHIS as someone who is not an employee of the police or security services, but an outside, undercover informer or agent. They may be motivated by a mixture of reasons, not all of which show them to be the nicest of people, but they offer a service that can be valuable and impossible to obtain elsewhere. I sat in on a briefing a few days ago, and I can see there are differences between those who seek prior judicial approval of actions authorised under the Bill and others, “the CHIS runners”, who see very practical issues, including issues of timing, as a key element in ruling this out. I shall be very keen to see the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich.
I do not see the benefit, by the way, of listing crimes which should not be authorised; in fact, I see it as quite negative. It would, of course, help the Government’s case if it were made crystal clear that the UK Government are not abolishing our Human Rights Act, nor leaving the European Convention on Human Rights. The Minister needs to address this, as it will influence decisions on amendments, and nobody trusts the Government at the present time. Our position on the Human Rights Act and the Convention has to be made absolutely clear.
The letter from the Minister on 27 October and the Explanatory Notes say and imply that the Bill simply puts onto a statutory basis that which happens now, and no more. The message is that this is not new activity but a continuation of existing practice, but is that correct? The note from the Bar Council questions that claim, as have some speeches this afternoon. Is there a widening of the separation of powers that exists at present with regard to prosecutions? We need answers to these points in Committee.
I started by saying that I support the wide view of potential damage to the nation. This means that I can support the list of relevant authorities set out in Clause 2. I believe that those people who, for some decades now, have operated a system on the dark side of openness, will see the Bill as a better way of operating in the 21st century. It is our role to see that Parliament likewise sees it as a better system that remains workable and keeps the public safe.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con) [V]
We have had three distinguished maiden speeches this afternoon. First, I welcome my noble friend Lord McLoughlin. The Cardinal Griffin School in Cannock has had a lot of airtime today, but I can tell him that when I visited the school as part of the Peers in Schools programme, there was a large photograph—one might almost say a dominating photograph—in the entrance hall of the school, a fitting tribute to his long and distinguished career in public life. I also congratulate my noble and learned friend on his distinguished opening speech. He reminded us that the underlying purpose of the Bill is to assist in maintaining and building the safety of the citizens of this country: as such, it has my in-principle support. However, it is a support that comes not without limitation: the use of the words “necessary and proportionate” remind us of those limitations.
What are my concerns, which I hope we can explore in Committee? The first is the list of relevant authorities. I share the remarks of several noble Lords about this. I would only add to what has already been said by saying that the greater the number of authorised bodies, some of which may use these powers only rarely, the greater the risk must be of misuse. The second is the extent to which the provisions of the Bill extend outside the United Kingdom. Geographical distance carries its own temptations and dangers, not least in the inevitable limitations on the ability to investigate and follow up fully where matters may have gone astray. My third point concerns what I can best describe as mission creep. I currently chair the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House. Our committee has been increasingly concerned about the use of skeleton Bills, where most of the legislative impact will be achieved through regulation. This is undesirable on many levels, not least because regulations have a lower level of scrutiny because, as is well known in the House, they are unamendable. Parliament is left with the nuclear option of complete rejection, a course which the House is often, understandably, reluctant to take.
As I read the Bill, there are at least three areas where mission creep could take place, but there may well be others. However, as I see it, by regulation the Secretary of State, first, may change the list of the bodies that can give CCAs; secondly, change the basis on which those authorisations can be granted; and, thirdly, change the individuals within the relevant authorities that can give CCAs. All of that is done by regulation. It seems that, taken together, these powers could quite radically shift the basis on which the Bill is constructed and on which it will operate.
My final point concerns the investigation of cases where matters have not developed as hoped and expected, and here I take up the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Carlile of Berriew and Lord Anderson. I note the additional remit of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, and of course those powers are welcome, but I see nothing about urgency. Speed of innovation is critical to achieving a proper outcome before waters, which may well sometimes be deliberately muddied, close over the case. I have been an officer of the All-Party Group on Extraordinary Rendition for many years, and the group has watched as successive Governments—no party has clean hands on this—have ducked and dived. We have to make sure that these sorts of cases cannot arise with this Bill, although it has my in-principle support.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a governor of Coram, part of which includes the Coram Children’s Legal Centre. When I saw that there were going to be three maiden speeches today, my thoughts wandered to whether there is a collective noun for maidens, and the answer is yes: it is a rage of maidens. I am glad to say that we saw none of that today. I think that everyone is saving it for the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill.
My remarks will concentrate on the use of children and vulnerable juveniles under the age of 18 as CHIS—a subject that many other noble Lords have referred to. Understandably, this is a highly sensitive area. I suspect the Government may say that since the number of children and young people used for this purpose is extremely small, since existing safeguards are being reinforced in this Bill and in the revised code of practice, which is going through a consultation process, and since the level of criminal activity in areas such as child sexual exploitation and county lines drug activities continues to rise, the use of juvenile CHIS must be a necessary evil and is, in fact, a public duty. However, if one follows that line of argument, one can see that the temptation for legal authorities to expand their use would be quite strong.
As I considered what I was going to say today, I was struck by an uncomfortable parallel as I thought of the faded black-and-white photographs and flickering cine film of German boys in 1945 being pressed into military service as a hopeless last attempt to resist the allied forces. The use of juvenile CHIS could be seen as evidence of the failure of our state to prevent the criminal activities into which they have been drawn. The evidence strongly suggests that those individuals who are candidates to be juvenile CHIS are often vulnerable, traumatised and acclimatised to a world in which their own freedom of choice and inability to tell right from wrong leave them open to influencing and manipulation. If we reluctantly accept that using a small number of these children in this way is a necessary evil, what can we do to put in the most comprehensive safeguards possible?
First, we are dealing, and will continue to deal, with a very small number of cases. This would make treating them in a particularly comprehensive way much more achievable than with a larger number. Secondly, please could the Government consider very seriously the eminently sensible suggestion of the noble and learned lord, Lord Judge—who, unfortunately, is not able to speak today—for a dual-lock approach such that in addition to the assistant chief constable who must currently authorise a deployment, we add a judicial commissioner with specialist knowledge and training who must also always be involved? Thirdly, could we in addition mandate a procedure such that, at the end of each deployment, the assistant chief constable and judicial commissioner undertake a comprehensive audit to assess the history of the deployment, its outcomes in all areas with a particular focus on the juvenile involved, and an assessment of any and all the lessons learned?
The Minister will be aware that she may be faced with a range of amendments in Committee dealing with child and juvenile CHIS deployments. With her usual courtesy and patience, I know she will be open to working with your Lordships to try to see how we can authorise such deployments with forensic care and an overriding focus on the best interests of the child.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in the short time available I will concentrate on Clause 2, which details the authorities able to authorise criminal conduct. The list of bodies included will probably surprise many people, as the justification for the Bill is usually given in terms of serious organised crime and terrorism, and the reason given for why there is no prior authorisation is the imminent danger and urgency of the potential crime. As we have heard, however, the Bill will apply to many bodies. I shall refer to just two of those agencies—the Food Standards Agency and the Environment Agency—and ask whether they need the power to authorise CHIS activity without prior judicial approval and why they need the level of immunity for their actions granted in the Bill.
The Food Crime Strategic Assessment 2020 states:
“There is minimal evidence of any significant involvement of more broadly active Organised Crime Groups … being involved in food crime taking place in the UK”.
The agency’s Manual for Official Controls on enforcement states that authorised officers,
“must not try to get someone to act as an informer or obtain information in an undercover way”.
It therefore seems that the FSA does not want or need these powers.
The Environment Agency says that it would authorise the use of the powers in the Bill only,
“when it is absolutely necessary, proportionate and with great care and scrutiny”.
That surely would give time for judicial approval. However, what the waste disposal industry in general wants is for the agency’s current powers to be used effectively. A lawyer in the field said that the Environment Agency already has the legislative arsenal to hit these criminals, it just needs to use them.
Can the Minister justify why the agencies should be able to grant immunity to members of the public to act illegally without any judicial oversight, but merely on the subjective assertion that they believe it to be necessary? Can she give an example of when a CHIS has been prosecuted after being authorised by one of these agencies? My understanding is that the current test of public interest has protected such activity. So why do they need specific immunity?
Secondly, will the Minister clarify whether members of the public who are damaged during the course of activities covered by immunity will be entitled to compensation? There is genuine concern that immunity will prevent citizens from holding these agencies to account, not because they are fighting terrorism or serious organised crime, but because they have unnecessarily been included in the Bill.
When civil liberties are put in jeopardy there must be a very clear case for it. Many other speakers have expressed their doubts that the Bill can be accepted as its stands. Certainly, the inclusion of the long list of agencies is an additional cause for concern which must be addressed in Committee.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, for his presentation of the Bill this afternoon, while being in at the deep end, as it were, at the Dispatch Box. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord McLoughlin, who I have worked with outside of Westminster on other issues and for whom I have great respect. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Walney, for a very passionate speech—as passionate a speech as we will probably ever hear in this House.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak at the Second Reading of the Bill, which I strongly support. I am afraid that we live in a very real world of terrorism and organised crime. It is, sadly, omnipresent. Criminals deal in any commodity that will give them a financial return. It can be fraud, drugs, people trafficking—whatever. They have no qualms as to where they make their money so we need to be ahead of the game. It is therefore the duty of Parliament to give our security services and law enforcement agencies as many tools as we can to counter terrorism and organised crime.
I believe that this Bill, which provides an express power to authorise covert human intelligence sources to participate in conduct that would otherwise constitute a criminal offence, is long overdue. I say this as someone who has been a member of the Counter Terrorism Command at the Metropolitan Police. I was also a member of the National Crime Squad, the forerunner of today’s National Crime Agency, where I ran a number of such operations. Some aspects of the Bill are clearly unpalatable to Members of your Lordships’ House but it is a Bill that, at long last, recognises the need to provide a statutory power to authorise CHIS to participate in criminal conduct when it is deemed necessary and proportionate to do so.
Although I support the Bill, I want to highlight a couple of issues that are clearly of concern. Human rights issues are paramount but so is our duty of care to all the actors in any CHIS operation. Any authority in its breadth needs to take notice of the practical issues in order to protect the agent. During an operation, a suggestion by the targets to the operative to commit an offence will come in real time and, in all probability, when he or she is out of contact with their handler. The operative needs to know exactly what the limitations of his or her criminal conduct are. There is no provision for retrospective authority, and that creates real difficulty in that the type of conduct suggested may differ from or exceed what has been authorised. For the operative to maintain his or her cover, authority may therefore need couching in terms that allow some discretion as to the precise scope of the remit. This is not to say that an agent has carte blanche to do whatever he or she wishes but there must, for practical reasons, be a level of flexibility built into the system. At present, I am unable to detect that in the Bill or, indeed, the codes of practice. Any illegal conduct will, of course, require justification at a later criminal trial, and it goes without saying that any breach of the absolute rights contained in the ECHR can never be permitted.
The use of children has been much exercised today. It is unpleasant—there is no doubt about that—but at times, in this very real world, I contend that it is necessary, particularly with issues that have been mentioned, such as county lines, paedophilia and child trafficking. If it has a long-term benefit to other children, I consider that that makes it necessary. Also much exercised today is the level of authority and why members of the judiciary should not be involved in the process. Some might say that it introduces a new level of unwanted bureaucracy. I agree with that. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office provides comprehensive independent oversight of the use of investigatory powers as outlined in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. That oversight includes the inspection and authorisation of the use of these powers.
In conclusion, I have some reservations on the public bodies issue. I agree that police could fulfil some of those actions when required. I very much look forward to Committee and further consideration of the Bill.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, and the noble Lords, Lord McLoughlin and Lord Walney, on their excellent maiden speeches. I had the pleasure of welcoming the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, in my capacity as lord president on the very threshold of his career at the Scottish Bar when he was admitted to the Faculty of Advocates in 1993. He has come a long way since then, further than we would have dared to contemplate on that day. It is a real pleasure for me to welcome him once again and to wish him well now that he takes on his new responsibilities as Advocate-General for Scotland.
It has occurred to me, as I have been reading and thinking about the Bill and the dangerous nature of the activities that it refers to, that I have led a very sheltered life. I have not been involved in any way with supervision of the work of the intelligence services, but I have had something to do with torture. When I was working here as a Law Lord, I was a member of the Appellate Committee in two cases that raised issues about it. One was the Pinochet case, in which we had to consider the reach of the UN Convention against Torture. The other was under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The question was whether our courts could rely in terrorism cases on information provided to us by agents from overseas that might have been obtained by torture.
As Lord Bingham said in the latter case, the fundamental nature of the prohibition against torture requires member states to do more than avoid the practice. It is not enough to say that I did not do it, I was not there, I did not see it happening or even that for some very good reason resort to it was necessary. It requires member states to do everything in their power to prevent and avoid it. The torture convention, we must remember, is breached by any act by which severe pain or suffering is inflicted to obtain information or as punishment by or at the instigation or with the consent or acquiescence of a person acting in an official capacity. Article 3 of the ECHR is at least as wide as that.
The reference in new Section 29B to the authorisation of criminal conduct by persons designated for the purposes of that section, and thus acting in an official capacity, seems to fall within the ambit of these provisions. The conditions mentioned in Section 29B(4) and the obligation merely to take account of the Human Rights Act in Section 29B(7) do not go nearly far enough with regard to this particular crime. We need to be very careful—ought it not to be made clear somewhere and somehow that participation in any way whatever in acts of torture will never be authorised? I am not suggesting this should expressly be mentioned as an exception in the statute but somehow, somewhere, a solution to this problem needs to be found.
Of course, to raise that question begs the question of whether we should go further. The right to life in Article 2 of the ECHR is also unqualified. At the very least, clear guidance needs to be read into the code as to when, if ever and for what purposes, participation in murder could be authorised. I also find the idea that children might be authorised to participate in torture or crimes of such gravity—by no means unimaginable given the way county lines operate—deeply disturbing for all the reasons mentioned a moment ago by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. I am sure the Minister will take his comments and his suggestions very seriously.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I very much agree with the comments about torture that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, just made. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has just published its report on the Bill, and my comments are based largely on the evidence sessions and the final report.
I say at the outset that it is clearly welcome that the authorisation of criminal conduct by covert human intelligence sources should be put on a statutory footing. The justification is that through covert sources terrorist attempts have been prevented and lives have been saved, class A drugs, firearms and ammunition have been seized, and child sexual exploitation has been thwarted. All that is important, and that is the benefit of this Bill.
On the other hand, there have been some shocking instances of undercover activity in the past which should never be allowed to happen again. For example, there was the murder of Pat Finucane in Northern Ireland with the apparent complicity of undercover agents and, more recently, the surveillance of the Lawrence family after the racist murder of their son Stephen. It is quite unacceptable that a family such as that, victims of a most horrible crime, should be put under police surveillance. There are other incidents in the past, such as during the miners’ strike at the Orgreave coking plant.
As it stands, the Bill leaves open the possibility of serious crimes being committed through the granting of powers to authorise crimes more widely. That risks violating human rights, which surely means we have a responsibility to add many safeguards to the Bill. It should indicate a list of certain types of offences that should simply not be authorised. I am told that, if we had that list—as the Minister said at the outset—it would alert criminals to the way in which they can identify whether there is an undercover person working in their organisation. I think the safeguards can be built in; it has been done elsewhere, such as in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. If it can be done there, we can surely adopt it as well.
I share the concerns about children. Children must surely be part of this covert process only in exceptional circumstances.
Extending authorisations to situations where there are no criminal threats risks unjustified interference in the activities of trade unions and other legitimate activists, and can affect the right to free expression and free assembly. In passing, I mention the criticism that senior members of the Government have made of “activist lawyers”; are they to be put under this sort of surveillance? I hope not.
The Bill will go way beyond the authorisation of criminal conduct by the security and intelligence services and the police. The power to authorise conduct should be restricted to public authorities whose core function is protecting national security and fighting serious crime. That should not include the Environment Agency, HMRC, the DHSC, the FSA, the Gambling Commission and others. It is also unacceptable for the Bill to provide authorisation of crime with fewer safeguards than exist at the moment for phone-tapping or the authorisation of search warrants. Those require a preliminary process, which is surely a safeguard which should be applied to the authorisation of crime. There should be prior judicial approval, except for urgent cases.
Finally, I am concerned about the victims and civil liability. I appreciate why this is a difficult area, but we should at least include provision for the indemnification of victims, who should be able to obtain compensation for losses suffered as a result of authorised crime.
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate my noble and learned friend on his clear and comprehensive maiden speech. He opened today’s debate on a crucial issue of national interest, but also gave the first of three excellent maiden speeches. The others were from my noble friend Lord McLoughlin, who, like me, had the pleasure of serving as chairman of the Conservative Party, and the noble Lord, Lord Walney, whose moving and emotional speech I fully understand and resonate with. It is not easy taking on your own party, colleagues and friends on an issue of principle.
Turning to the Bill, no one can reject the importance of CHIS or the need to protect them. No one can doubt the importance of putting existing practices, the status quo, on a statutory footing. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, based on his real experience in this area, the status quo has rarely caused issues. I therefore support this Bill in principle, to the extent that we have a statutory basis for the current position.
I agree that we need to place a shield in front of CHIS, but we must be careful not to place a sword of blanket immunity in their hands or the hands of those who authorise, especially when the scope of those who can authorise is so widely drafted in this Bill. I ask my noble and learned friend to hear and heed the very personal and powerful contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hain. Accountability tempers excess, and in this case appropriate authorisation and oversight provide the necessary accountability.
I note what the Bill—and my noble and learned friend in opening the debate—said about our commitment to the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights, but I am sure that he too, in the back of his mind, has concerns about much of the political debate around the Government’s commitment to both. We heard today from noble Lords on torture, murder and sexual offences. If we are clear which activities cannot and must not in any circumstances be authorised because doing so would put us in breach of convention obligations and rights, surely that must be in the Bill. I cannot accept that to do so would simply tip off criminals, terrorists or others, as my noble and learned friend said; as he and other noble Lords will know, those who operate in these gangs and terrorist organisations are far more sophisticated and already prepared for what they may see as potential CHIS activity. To this end I endorse the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws.
I look forward to supporting the principle of this Bill and the Government, but will make sure that I work with noble Lords across the House to ensure that this Bill protects covert human intelligence sources in a manner consistent with hard-fought human rights and the rule of law.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the three new Peers and congratulate them on their maiden speeches. I look forward to meeting them in future, perhaps bumping into them in corridors some time and setting them straight on a few of the issues in this Bill. The Bill is about granting immunity for crimes to criminals whom the Government employ. I will raise five issues today, though I am sure there will be more in future.
I start by highlighting that many victims of undercover policing are currently, finally, giving evidence to the Undercover Policing Inquiry, which is exploring systematic abuses by undercover policing units over a period of 40 years. It is therefore regrettable that the Government are bringing this piece of legislation forward before any lessons have been learned. More can be learned from the public inquiry, so will the Minister undertake to bring forward further legislation in future to deal with any recommendations coming out of it?
Secondly, I want to dispel any notion that this legislation is simply regularising and codifying the status quo. This is simply not true. Most significantly, there is currently no blanket immunity granted to undercover state operatives. There are legal defences which can be relied on, and prosecutors can and do decide that it is not in the public interest to prosecute undercover operatives. However, this legislation seeks to replace that with a blanket system of legal immunity which would be self-administered by the agencies themselves. This undermines victims’ rights and gives them no legal redress when they are harmed by undercover operatives.
Thirdly, there are no limits in the Bill to the criminality that can be authorised. The Government’s response is that the Human Rights Act would prevent these types of crime; even if that is true, it remains this Government’s stated intention to repeal the Human Rights Act. Can the Minister make very clear what the Government’s proposals to change the Human Rights Act are and how they will interact with the Bill? The Bill allows the Secretary of State to place limits, by regulation, on what conduct can be authorised, so the Government have already explicitly conceded in the drafting of this legislation that there is a need for restrictions on what can be authorised. The Joint Committee on Human Rights said it best in paragraph 42 of its report on this Bill:
“The Government should not introduce unclear and ambiguous laws that would, on their face, purport to authorise state-sanctioned criminality that would lead to serious human rights violations such as murder, sexual offences and serious bodily harm.”
Noble Lords can see that we have a problem here.
One does not have to be a human rights lawyer to realise that the Government are not allowed to authorise people to commit such grievous crimes. Parliament should place limits on the face of the Bill. In particular, we must prohibit the use of government agents as agents provocateurs who infiltrate legitimate political campaigns or trade union groups and disrupt their activities or cause them to commit criminal acts.
Fourthly, on the issue of child spies, which I have spoken on many times, I think it is dangerous, unethical and cruel, and I would prohibit it.
Fifthly, I am very concerned about the overlaps of this Bill with already existing legal processes: for example, the risk that authorisation under this Bill could bypass some of the legal safeguards, like search warrants or phone-tapping authorisation, or authorise conduct that interferes with legal processes, such as tampering with evidence, contempt of court or perjury, which could all be argued to be necessary and proportionate.
I look forward to working with other noble Lords across the House to significantly amend this legislation. I believe that if we cannot amend it significantly, then it must be voted against in its entirety.
Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Bill before your Lordships today has a great many flaws. A case could be made that the Government should simply look at it again and think again. It has been said that the Bill is merely, but importantly, to put on a statutory footing practice which has hitherto operated in the shadows. Alas, as currently framed, the Bill does not fulfil that function, as the Minister himself said. Rather, it seeks to confer immunity from prosecution for criminal conduct. Other noble Lords have argued this point with distinction, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti.
I preface my remarks today by stating that I do, of course, wish to live in a well-regulated society. I therefore accept the need for elements of covert activity in some well-defined circumstances. However, I also want to live in a society in which a high priority is placed on concern for people who are vulnerable, possibly due to a range of circumstances, one of which is the simple fact of being a child.
The UK Government signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in April 1990, and it came into force in January 1992. In 2010, the then Government published a report on how legislation underpins the implementation of the UN convention, given that all policy and practice must comply with it.
Children are not the only vulnerable people who may become CHIS, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. However, I propose to confine myself simply to remarks about children. Such children as are recruited will have engaged in risky and quite possibly illegal behaviours, and will therefore be in need of help, support and protection. On this, I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. I am aware that the High Court has determined that it may be appropriate to use children where the welfare of the child could be protected, though it is hard for me to see how putting children in harm’s way could be considered to comply with Article 3 of the UNCRC, which provides that
“In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private … welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”
It is indeed extremely difficult to see how authorities as listed would be able to fulfil the obvious duty of care owed to children if authorities themselves are authorising, or perhaps thereby encouraging, children to commit criminal offences, notwithstanding the reference by the Minister to the safeguards in the uprated guidance. I concur entirely with the briefing from Justice in the view that CCAs for children should be explicitly and expressly excluded. Unless such exclusions are in place, there is the risk of violating both domestic and international law.
CHIS will continue to be necessary in well-defined circumstances. However, this Bill does not put on a statutory footing existing practice, and it does allow for the continuing use of children. The Bill is in serious need of amendment. It should also be the opportunity to put beyond doubt that children should not be used as CHIS, and in this I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has withdrawn from this debate, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I would like to add my congratulations to our three new noble Lords who have made their maiden speeches. I warmly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Walney, to the House and congratulate him on his maiden speech today, which was very heartfelt and personal. He will be a very welcome addition, having served with such distinction in the other place. My noble friend Lord McLoughlin will remember that he was my first Whip when I was first elected to the other place in 1997. I set particular challenges, as I think I was the last MP to serve as a dual mandate MEP at the same time, so I am grateful to him for his kindnesses to me at that time.
I would like to pay a particular welcome to—
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but we are struggling to hear her in the Chamber. If she could perhaps speak a bit closer to the microphone, that might help.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
Thank you.
I would like to pay a particular warm welcome to my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart of Dirleton, and say what a lovely part of the world he lives in. My father partly grew up in North Berwick, and my grandfather had a pharmacy there, so it is an area with which I am extremely familiar. I would like to join him in paying tribute to his predecessor. I am sure he will serve the House with distinction in his new office, and I look forward to working with him on this Bill.
I have a number of questions that I would like to explore both today and, more particularly, in Committee. In particular, I would like to explore a point raised by my right honourable friend Dr Julian Lewis, who of course is chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee at the moment. He said:
“What we are now saying is that they are not breaking the law, rather than, as in the past, that they were breaking the law, but that it was against the public interest to prosecute.”
And, he asks:
“Why the reason for that change?”—[Official Report, Commons, 5/10/20; col. 655.]
I would like to preface all my remarks with that question, because it would help me understand, in particular, the need for the Bill and why the Bill is coming forward at this time.
I would also like to particularly press my noble friend the Minister, when she sums up the debate, on the inclusion of new agencies. I have some sympathy with the background to this: I served as chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in 2012-13, at the time of the “horsegate” scandal. This was a fraud, passing off horsemeat as beef; it was a multi-million pound criminal scam. So I can understand why the Government are seeking to empower the Food Standards Agency to do more investigations than previously, as it really was better done by the FSA than perhaps the City of London Police at that time.
Equally, the Environment Agency has been given a further power, and I would like to understand, in particular, how that will be used and to ensure that it will not be used beyond the remit set out in the Bill today, particularly for the purposes for which it is necessary. Fly-tipping and other offences are obviously on the increase, and we perhaps do need these powers, but I would like to understand them.
I would also like to understand what the role of the local authorities will be, presumably in working closely with the Food Standards Agency and the Environment Agency and their CHIS agents in performance of the duties under this Bill, and to what extent they might be covered by the Bill.
I also share the concern expressed by others on the better protection for children acting as CHIS under the Bill, and I look forward to exploring these issues during the passage of the Bill.
Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the three noble Lords who made their maiden Speeches today and add my welcome to them. I cannot agree to a Bill which authorises the state to grant unlimited immunity for future crimes yet to be committed by its agents. That is not consistent with the rule of law. I have no problem with the CPS discretion to excuse crimes after the event, subject to clear criteria, but today I wish to make four other points.
I begin by declaring an interest. I represent a number of trade unions in the undercover police inquiry. Evidence began yesterday. The inquiry will investigate the practice of undercover policing since 1968. My first point is to ask why the Government cannot wait even for the evidence to be given, let alone for the inquiry to report its conclusions, before introducing this Bill. By failing to wait, they choose to dismiss the obvious contribution the inquiry could make to shaping the Bill.
Secondly, under proposed new subsection (5)(c), a crime can be authorised by a CHIS if it is deemed necessary
“in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.”
As my noble friends Lord Rosser and Lord Whitty have observed, this undefined and ominous phrase is clearly capable of being interpreted as encompassing lawful industrial action which, as most industrial action does, has adverse economic consequences. Agents can be authorised to commit crimes to “prevent, minimise or disrupt” legitimate trade union activity. That is totally unacceptable. Trade unions and industrial action ceased to be criminal in this country 150 years ago. Trade unions and their activities are also protected by international law, not least by Article 11 of the European convention.
Thirdly, one justification for the Bill is said to be that it will only regularise present practice. If so, the material so far made public by the inquiry provides no comfort as to such practices. I say no more of the practice by which 30—yes, 30—women were groomed into largely long-term, intimate relationships with undercover police for the purposes of providing them with cover than that those who have so far sued have obtained the admission from the Metropolitan Police that those relationships were
“abusive, deceitful, manipulative and wrong”.
In relation to trade unions, we have learned that Special Branch had an industrial intelligence unit which maintained, for no apparent lawful purpose, files which contained information gathered by undercover officers with the special demonstration squad who penetrated both unions and rank and file campaigners. Some of the information in the unit’s files was then supplied by police to the blacklist maintained by the Economic League, so barring trade unionists from obtaining jobs.
My final point is that, currently, an undercover officer could not be instructed by superiors to commit a crime. If the Bill becomes law, an officer will be refusing to obey a lawful instruction if she or he refuses to commit a crime when instructed to do so by a superior who has obtained authorisation. That will be a disciplinary offence, potentially justifying dismissal. That is a powerful argument against prior authorisation.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB) [V]
Let me start by congratulating our three maiden speakers on their excellent speeches. Like others who have spoken today, I welcome the intention behind the Bill. Putting on to a statutory basis the authorisation of otherwise criminal acts committed by covert human intelligence sources is now clearly necessary. It is in the interests of both the agents themselves and of those authorising them to engage in what would otherwise be criminal conduct. However, as the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights says, it is essential that such authorisation is
“subjected to careful constraints, exacting scrutiny and effective oversight”,
and those are the areas on which I wish to focus today.
First, there is the scope of the criminal conduct authorisation. Authorising a CHIS to commit murder, torture or sexual violence is pretty hard to swallow. I recognise the difficulties and potential dangers in trying to draw the line between, as it were, crime and abhorrent crime, and I recognise that in difficult and dangerous circumstances, lines can be crossed, but I remain to be convinced that drawing such a line and excluding the gravest crimes from blanket authorisation cannot and should not be attempted. The arguments of my noble and learned friend Lord Hope were highly relevant here.
I raise one specific point. The Government have argued that there is no need to include explicit limits on, for example, murder and torture, because these are prohibited anyway under the Human Rights Act. As I understand it, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, has argued—perhaps I am wrong here—the Government have argued separately that the Human Rights Act should not apply to abuses committed by their agents. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on that point.
I make one final point. If I were an authorising officer, however highly I had been trained and however carefully I had absorbed the code of conduct—which I have indeed read—I would want as much cover and protection as I could get. The arguments for and against prior authorisation clearly need to be examined in Committee, and I certainly see merit in the proposal of my noble friend Lord Anderson of Ipswich that an authorisation should be reported in real time to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.
Lord Haskel (Lab) [V]
My Lords, just over two years ago, it fell to me to voice the concerns of your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee about extending the authorised time for which juveniles—young people—could be used for covert human intelligence work. Yes, this extension had been authorised in the form of an SI. Fortunately, your Lordships’ committee picked it up and the outcome was that the Minister provided a number of additional safeguards relating to the welfare, well-being and protection of those young people. Here we go again.
I congratulate the Minister on his maiden Speech and the other main speakers. As the Minister said, the Bill will allow young people to conduct criminal activity in pursuit of their intelligence work. As many noble Lords have said, once again, there is a need for better protection. I am grateful to Just For Kids Law, a charity that campaigns strongly for the rights of juveniles caught up in covert activities. It fought for amendments to the code of practice and is active again in preparing amendments to the Bill. Those amendments would ensure that better protection, such as providing for an independent individual who will ensure that the safeguards in the Bill work in practice, and seeking to address the inevitable power imbalance that exists between a juvenile and the police, and the 13—yes, 13—other public authorities who have demonstrated an operational need for this activity.
In her letters of 27 October and 11 November, the Minister justifies this criminal conduct in carefully managed circumstances. She says that the Bill provides additional safeguards for juveniles and strengthens the code of practice. However, it is a code. Does it really have the force of law? She says that juveniles will be authorised to act in only the most exceptional circumstances, with their consent. Is it really informed consent, not just pressure? She assures us that safeguards are in place to promote the best interests of the juvenile. I put it to her that the best interests of the juvenile is not to be involved in criminal activities in the first place. Other noble Lords have reminded us that Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which we are a signatory, states that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. It seems to me that the primary consideration here is security and catching the criminal, even if the child risks being corrupted.
Therefore, before we start debating amendments in Committee, I ask the Minister, do we really want juveniles to be authorised to carry out this criminal activity, even under the strictest supervision? As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and others have suggested, are we not making a victim of the juvenile, bearing in mind the risk of violence and sexual assault, the emotional and associated mental, physical and psychological damage, and the risk of corruption, which will damage them well into their adult lives. To some, it would appear that these young people are being exploited by our public authorities, leaving it to the rest of us to clear up the mess.
This is not a party-political matter. As many noble Lords have said, it is a human rights matter and a rights of the child issue. In view of all those concerns and in spite of the need, will the Minister consider stopping the use of children in this criminal activity? Then we will not have to argue over safeguards for them.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I join the welcome and congratulations to the Lord Advocate for Scotland and the noble Lords, Lord McLoughlin and Lord Walney. I thank the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, for the way in which he gave me and others support when we were under pressure at the height of the issues of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. I acknowledge that what he said in private was far more significant than what he said in public. The noble Lord, Lord Walney, stood on the right side when he did not have to, and took a brave stance. He supported Jewish members of the Parliamentary Labour Party and Jewish Members of the Labour Party. That will not be forgotten, and I thank him.
There have been a number of changes since the 1970s and 1980s. We are no longer fighting countries and armies under rules of engagement in war. We have human rights legislation that we did not have before. Those are significant changes. Since 1997, the strongest trade union organisation in the country is at GCHQ. Being a trade unionist and being loyal to one’s country are not contradictions. The density of membership there is a sign of that. It is part of the checks and balances in the system that makes it work.
We are now in a digital era, which changes many things. In many of the issues that we are talking about today, we are missing the mundanity of the actions that will be required outside the law. Some of the models are rather old-fashioned in terms of approach to what is going on. The mundanity is important to the effectiveness of the powers required.
I particularly want to talk about what happens if we do not do this, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, eloquently pointed out. We go back to the grey area that existed in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s —the shadows, as it was described. What characterised that more than anything was the incompetence of the actions taking place. Nothing could illustrate that better than putting people inside the International Marxist Group or, as we used to call them, the sons and daughters of the bourgeoisie. The only revolutionary thing that that organisation ever did was when some of its members accepted a peerage to come into this place.
The incompetence of the grey area was not in the national interest. There is a worse example. The Economic League sums up the grey area, the shadows and the incompetence. I should know: I was on the Economic League blacklist. When I went to work for the Ciba-Geigy chemical company in Manchester, I got given a job that was then withdrawn because I was on the list. I managed to get hold of the list and found my name on it. That is what happens with a grey area.
The Bill does more than codify; it allows accountability. It does not mean that things will not go wrong and there will not be big issues—there could well be—but it gives us, the people and the victims, the power to do something about it. The grey area is not an option. I want to see the Bill go through.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, will not be speaking in the debate so we will move straight on to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I concur that the Bill is necessary, but it is too loose—[Inaudible.]
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but we are struggling to hear her. Is it possible for her to speak closer to the microphone?
Baroness Whitaker (Lab) [V]
Is that better? I concur that the Bill is necessary, but it is too loose. It is apparently compatible with the Human Rights Act but— [Inaudible.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I am afraid we still cannot hear the noble Baroness. I suggest that we come back to her because we are not able to pick up her words. If she has a chat with the people on the other end of the line, we will come back after the next speaker, hopefully when her microphone is functional. I am sorry, but I am going to move directly on to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. We will return to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, next.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I offer my congratulations to the three noble Lords, including the Minister, on making their maiden speeches today.
I am afraid I cannot give the Bill approval because it provides people employed by the Government with immunity for carrying out murder and heinous crimes. In fact, it would give statutory effect to legalised criminal offences committed by informants, provided that MI5, the Police Service of Northern Ireland or other UK law enforcement bodies have authorised the informant to commit the crime in advance. I understand that this is known as criminal conduct authorisation.
There are also no express limits set out in the Bill to prohibit informants’ participation in particular crimes that would constitute human rights violations such as murder, torture including punishment beatings, punishment shootings and kidnapping, or acting as agents provocateurs. I think back to the use of agents in paramilitary murders in Northern Ireland. This goes to the very heart of the legacy issues that the Government are currently considering and their very unhelpful Statement of 18 March.
There is a concern that, in addition to criminal conduct authorisations making criminal acts by informants “lawful for all purposes”, the extraterritorial provisions of Section 27(3) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 could also apply, namely that:
“The conduct that may be authorised under this Part includes conduct outside the United Kingdom.”
This would mean, for example, that MI5 could authorise from its Belfast base a serious criminal offence to be conducted by a paramilitary informant in the Republic of Ireland. That offence would be unlawful under UK law but, clearly, this would not change an act being a criminal offence—[Inaudible.] The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred to the murder of Mr Finucane in all these regards. I must ask the Minister some questions. Were the Irish Government consulted on the content of this legislation and on the fact that this proposed activity could take place in their jurisdiction? Were they asked if this would impact on their own police service—the Garda Síochána? Did the Prime Minister discuss this with An Taoiseach when he met him in Hillsborough earlier this year?
It is important that significant amendments are made to this Bill to ensure that the UK’s prosecuting authorities can independently review crimes—[Inaudible.] —and remove the power for MI5 and other public authorities to brand crime “lawful for all purposes”. I cannot accept the extraterritorial nature of this because it places an impact on the bipartisan rule of Britain and Ireland in terms of Northern Ireland.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I understand that we are still not able to return to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker; once her microphone is corrected, we will attempt to do so. We will move straight on to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, and the noble Lords, Lord McLoughlin and Lord Walney, to the House. I look forward to meeting them face to face in the not too distant future and working with them.
I have a number of questions. First, the Minister and the Government have told us that we can rely on the Human Rights Act as a way of curbing any excesses of the CHIS Bill, but the difficulty is that the Government have already committed to repealing and revising that Act. We do not know what will be taken out or left in. Surely it would be more prudent for the Government to introduce the revised human rights legislation first and bring the CHIS Bill later? But that is not what they are doing.
Subsection (5)(c) of new Clause 29B, as proposed by Clause 1(5), permits authorised criminal acts
“in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.”
As the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, indicated, the Bill does not say what that actually means. How do we know what is in the long-term economic interest of the United Kingdom? Was deregulation of the financial sector really in the economic interest of the UK? Is anybody calling for deregulation now because it clashes with the government ideology of the day, perhaps? Are they really to be infiltrated by undercover agents and the organisation subverted? It is hard to know.
Some in authority will have argued—they certainly did in their day—that the general march against unemployment and poverty, the miners’ strike, the Dagenham women’s quest for equal pay or the Grunwick workers’ quest for better pay and working conditions were somehow a threat to the economic well-being of the UK. However, with hindsight, we know that they enabled many people to live a fulfilling life. They brought in an era of possible gender equality, at least over pay. Much of our social awareness is due to social organisations such as environmental activists, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, anti-apartheid movements and Extinction Rebellion, which may well operate in the margins of the law from time to time. However, these organisations can easily be classified by the Government as damaging the economic interests of society and thereby perhaps become subject to infiltration by undercover agents.
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher referred to the African National Congress as a “typical terrorist organisation”; by definition, she labelled Nelson Mandela a terrorist. Whether the Government sent in any undercover agents to undermine the ANC, we do not know. Nevertheless, the idea that somehow you are going to safeguard national security and economic interests poses particular problems, because the issues tend to be seen through the lenses of the ideology of the Government of the day.
The Bill defines “relevant authorities” but omits an important fact: all the relevant authorities have been outsourcing some of their activities to private corporations. That means that other corporations would also be authorised to commit criminal acts. Where does that leave us in terms of corporate responsibility and the responsibility of corporations under international law to uphold human rights? Who will oversee these corporations? In this country, we do not even have a central regulator to oversee the enforcement of the Companies Act. What happens to the employees of these organisations if they say that they cannot go along with instructions from their employers? What happens to those conscientious objectors? The Bill provides absolutely no guide whatever.
For those reasons, it is impossible for me to support the Bill. I look forward to a number of amendments and a further debate.
Baroness O’Loan (CB) [V]
The processes through which CHIS are authorised to engage in crime are, at the moment, unsatisfactory. There is a mischief here that requires to be remedied. However, the Bill does not provide a remedy to the mischief; rather, it exacerbates it. It enables the granting of immunity for serious crime to a CHIS by a member of a range of authorities in undefined circumstances. It requires the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, in the exercise of his regulatory powers, to
“pay … attention to public authorities’… power to grant … authorisations.”
It does not provide proper authorisation or audit.
The three grounds on which criminal conduct authorisations will be permitted are defined as national security, preventing or detecting crime or preventing disorder, and the economic well-being of the country. These are very wide-ranging circumstances. National security must include the protection of life, yet the need to prevent crime can leave CHIS in place with authorisations that might lead to deaths because a decision can be made that the need to prevent a greater number of deaths is greater than the need to protect one life. It has happened. Crime and terrorism can be very fast moving. That is why we need to ensure proper authorisation processes, just as we have for the granting of search warrants and other activities under RIPA. Yesterday, the JCHR said:
“This raises the abhorrent possibility of serious crimes such as rape, murder or torture being carried out under an authorisation … There appears to be no good reason why the Bill cannot state clearly that certain offences or categories of offences are incapable of authorisation.”
I have had experience of CHIS activity over some 24 years as a member of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland; as Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland; more recently, as a member of the international steering group for Operation Kenova, which is looking at the agent known as Stakeknife; and in my current work for the Home Secretary. I have seen the good that CHIS can do and the havoc that they can wreak when not properly regulated. The death of Patrick Finucane’s solicitor is a very real example, as are the activities of the IRA agent Stakeknife. I have seen it in other countries too.
The activities of CHIS as a source of information and intelligence are essential in the fight against crime—I fully accept that. The Government are right: their activities require to be regulated. In order to search a property, there is a requirement to get a search warrant and provide information to support the application, swearing to the truth of that information. A person’s right to privacy requires that. Surely a person’s right to life requires more than the distant authorisation of criminal activity by agents of the state, as proposed by this Bill.
As we contemplate the fight against terrorism, which is so real today, we need to learn from our previous experiences, not just in handling CHIS but in the consequences of the actions of the state for respect for the rule of law. When solicitor Patrick Finucane was murdered by state agents in 1989, the people of Northern Ireland recognised what had happened; indeed, David Cameron apologised for the shocking levels of state collusion in his murder. People very quickly lose respect for the law; that is what happened in Northern Ireland. Such criminal activity by agents of the state, and the failure by the state to prevent and investigate crime impartially and effectively, is very damaging to the whole criminal justice system and to community acceptance of policing, which is vital in the fight against terrorism.
The Bill came to this House from the Commons unaltered, but there were serious challenges to it in the other place. As I listened to the Minister, I considered the extent to which criminals recognise the opportunity to exploit lacunae in the law. If the Bill were passed, it would create terrible lacunae. The Minister has said that there will be no authorisation of serious crimes such as murder, but particular crimes in respect of which there is immunity cannot be identified because that would enable criminals to identify the CHIS. If the offences which cannot be authorised are to be identified by reference to human rights law, then if a CHIS refused to participate in a serious criminal act, the criminals would be able to identify them anyway. If it became known that immunity could be secured by a CHIS for a serious crime, this process might well be utilised by the very criminal groups which the state seeks to infiltrate, effectively resulting once again in state-sanctioned crime. Criminals are always on the lookout for opportunities. They are usually very intelligent and use the same countersurveillance strategies and techniques as the state.
As other noble Lords have said, we need better protection for children. We know that criminals do not hesitate to kill, torture and seriously injure young people who get caught up in crime. The Bill provides no real protection for such children. The ex post facto examination of authorisations by the IPT does not prevent or control the inappropriate authorisation of serious crime; it is not enough. Humankind is frail and sometimes decisions are made in the absence of law. That is why the Bill is unsatisfactory.
Finally, the Bill appears to provide power to authorise CHIS to commit crime outside the UK.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness has gone well over the advisory limit of four minutes. Perhaps she will conclude her remarks there.
Baroness O’Loan (CB) [V]
The Minister stated that this is needed for the MoD and, no doubt, for the security service. It raises problems for our relations with other states. We need processes to ensure the constant flow of information. To do that, we must amend the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
We have ironed out the gremlins with the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, so we will return live to her.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I concur that the Bill is necessary, but it is too loose. It is apparently compatible with the Human Rights Act, but there are other rights which could be breached as the Bill stands. There are considerations relating to public morality and the exercise of democracy—[Inaudible.]
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am very sorry, but I am afraid that the gremlins seem to have succeeded in this instance. We may have to leave it there.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I am sorry, Lady Whitaker. We will try and return to you if we can find a microphone that works. We will go straight on to the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I do hope that we will hear from my noble friend Lady Whitaker; she always has highly relevant things to say. We have heard interesting maiden speeches today. The Minister combined, in a rather attractive way, heart, soul and pretty businesslike and effective professionalism. It will be interesting to see him playing his part in our proceedings.
We need security services and I join with noble Lords who pay tribute to what they do on our behalf. However, we are in a world in which there is a battle for hearts and minds. We must not lose sight of this when considering this legislation. We talk about British values and what matters to the British way of life. We must make this Bill clearly consistent with that. That is why it is so important to get certain principles on the face of the Bill.
We should be strengthening those within the security services, who are determined to operate by the highest standards and who very much have a conviction about what British values are. We must be very careful not to inadvertently play into the hands of the manipulators, who prey on people and build up an area of ambivalence and greyness around what is being done. There must be demonstrable, maximum united public support for what is being done. That is why what is on the face of the Bill is so important. Murder, torture, sexual violence and manipulation are simply not consistent with what we like to proclaim are British values. It is inconceivable not to somehow put on the face of the Bill our total unacceptance of these in any circumstances whatever. Canada has done so; why can we not follow its lead?
My other area of concern is the extent of the agencies covered by the Bill. It is ugly to see vital parts of the social well-being of our society—the Department of Health and Social Care, the Food Standards Agency and others—which are nothing to do with this Bill, being drawn into its orbit. The Minister must give more convincing arguments for why, when this is about national security. We must also hear more convincing arguments about how we can avoid agents provocateurs. My noble friend Lord Hendy spoke very convincingly indeed about the dangers to the trade union movement. Regarding children, where is our imagination and our heart? Most of the children to whom we are referring are deeply troubled, having been through difficult circumstances. We would be very unwise to compound their mental anguish, their difficulties or their instability for the future at goodness knows what social cost.
Justice has put its case very well. We should have prior judicial authorisation. The judicial commissioners are well practiced in making complex assessments of sensitive material in an independent, detached manner, and, where necessary, at speed. Why on earth can we not have prior judicial authorisation, with a role for the judicial commissioners?
Lord Janvrin (CB) [V]
I too congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, and the noble Lords, Lord McLoughlin and Lord Walney, for three memorable maiden speeches, and welcome them to this House.
I join this debate having served in the last two parliamentary Sessions on the Intelligence and Security Committee. I welcome this Bill, and the need to give a legal basis to an activity which, as I frequently heard in evidence to the ISC, plays a key role in many operations of the intelligence services and the police.
As with other legislation putting the secret activities of the agencies on a statutory basis, there is a balance to be struck between, on the one hand, constructing a clear and robust statutory framework with effective oversight and, on the other, giving the agencies the ability and flexibility to act very quickly, if necessary, and in difficult and changing circumstances to achieve their objectives.
I will confine my comments to three areas: the gravity of the crimes to be authorised, the public bodies and oversight. On the first point, I certainly understand the argument against spelling out a carefully defined list of serious crimes, but, as others have mentioned—most recently, the noble Lord, Lord Judd—some of our Five Eyes partners apparently do have explicit limits. Do they not have the same concerns about the risks of a checklist? To say that they are not subject to the European Convention on Human Rights does not really answer that question. Like others, I am troubled by the Five Eyes comparison.
Secondly, I join with others to question the public authorities able to grant authorisations. I know that a wide range of public authorities carry out criminal investigations but, if they are running an investigation of sufficient gravity to consider the use of a CHIS with authority to commit crime, surely, the police ought to be aware? If they are, is there not a strong case for them to be responsible for authorising the criminal activity?
Thirdly, I support the view that these criminal activity authorisations should be effectively scrutinised not only by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and IPCO but also by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. It is for the IPCO to examine the detail of individual authorisations, and I look forward to examining what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said about oversight on a more immediate basis. In addition, surely, it is right in principle that the ISC, on behalf of Parliament, should have wider oversight of the use of these authorisations now that they are the subject of legislation? I look forward to a full discussion of these and the many other issues raised in Committee. I take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and her department for the excellent briefings we have had on this Bill. I look forward to her reply.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
I take this opportunity to welcome the Minister and congratulate him on his thoughtful contribution and a loving tribute to Dirleton. I also extend my warm welcome to the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, and my noble friend Lord Walney. I was deeply moved by his plain speaking, share his pain at the hands of the party we love and assure him that there are merits in being able to reach out to create new political alliances in this House.
The Bill proposes statutory protection for public institutions to authorise informants and undercover officers to engage in criminal conduct. It does not specify limits or types of crime that may be authorised. I come to this Bill as a rights activist and would like government assurance that obstructing civil disobedience will be excluded. New clauses would enable RIPA power necessary and proportionate for criminal conduct authorisation subject to meeting three tests on grounds of “national security”, “preventing or detecting … disorder” and
“the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.”
It is worth reminding ourselves that RIPA came into being in order to improve oversight of intelligence work, and this Bill must not assume implicit immunity, breaking laws that all other citizens are expected to comply with.
Like many noble Lords, I acknowledge with thanks briefings from rights organisations, which have grave concerns. I am grateful to Reprieve, Just for Kids Law, the Pat Finucane Centre, Justice and WAR. While I do not agree with every single aspect of their views, there is consensus among them that the Bill is regressively flawed. Some go further to suggest that it is a state licence for agents and informants on the public payroll to commit crimes, which may include murder, sexual violence and torture, with impunity and without adequate redress for the victims—the core principle of our criminal justice system. I fear we may be sleepwalking once again into what the former Prime Minister, the right honourable David Cameron, referred to as the unacceptable extent of state collusion in the case of Patrick Finucane. I am troubled by the idea of the state allowing individuals to partake in criminal acts and providing them with immunity from the due process of law. By passing this Bill, I fear that we would be approving serious violations of international human rights norms and obligations. No matter how limited my voice or reach in this Chamber or beyond, I stand against everything that the Bill proposes.
We cannot overlook the lessons of survivors of sexual transgressions by officers, or so-called spy cops, currently subject of the undercover policing inquiry. Paid officers entrusted to uphold laws transcended all moral decency, shattering the lives of their victims. It is a prevalent reminder, if any were needed, of the potential consequences of unregulated individuals interpreting for themselves what their institutions required of them. This Bill seeks merely to legitimise more such acts. Regrettably, we cannot lose sight of the unlawful attempt to discredit my noble friend Lady Lawrence’s family and the families of Hillsborough victims, infiltrated in their campaign for justice for their loved ones.
My most grievous concerns are about the potential use of CCAs for children. While I note cautiously the Minister’s assurances, as a child protection officer of long standing I find objectionable the notion of legally sanctioning the exploitation of children, inciting them to commit criminal offences and placing them in harm’s way for potential abuse and long-term harm to their mental well-being. I seriously question “informed consent” in these contexts, even in exceptional circumstances.
Noble Lords will be aware that Just for Kids Law has issued legal proceedings against the Home Office concerning the use of children as spies by the police and other investigative agencies. Justice and other NGOs are asking for CCAs for children to be prohibited. Will the Government listen to their call and exclude children from the purview of the Bill?
My final point is about the potential influence of the embedded disparities of structural racism, sexism and Islamophobia—
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Baroness is already over her four minutes.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
I am finishing, my Lords.
My final point is about the potential influence of the embedded disparities of structural racism, sexism and Islamophobia when CCAs are issued with a view to targeting specific communities and groups in the shadow or clandestine decision-making. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, whose excellent analysis highlighted these sentiments. Given the countless individual experiences of discrimination beyond management’s eyes, there remains a lack of trust and confidence among black and minority communities in the police and intelligence services. Therefore, I do not support any government measures which infringe civil liberties, citizen rights and public trust at the peril of our democratic values and justice. I thank noble Lords for their lenience.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I apologise to the House for having to be absent for much of the debate due to a clash with a meeting of our Joint Committee on Human Rights. I regret missing the maiden speeches apart from that of the Minister, whom I congratulate on his aplomb during it.
I shall therefore be brief. I am sure that noble Lords will have covered wisely and in detail the points of contention. I want to state what the chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Harriet Harman MP, said in a press release to its recent report:
“This Bill raises major human rights concerns … There should be added to the Bill clear limits on the scale and type of criminality which can be authorised. We cannot pass a law that leaves open the possibility of state-sanctioned rape, murder or torture … The power to authorise crime should be restricted to the public authorities whose role it is to combat serious crime and protect national security and not include bodies such as the Food Standards Agency or the Gambling Commission.”
I just want to emphasise a few points that concern me. First, the Joint Committee on Human Rights report points out that the authorised criminal offences have the potential to interfere with several qualified and absolute rights, including those guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. Secondly, the Bill contains no specific limits on the criminal conduct that can be authorised. Thirdly, and very importantly, no distinction is made between adults and children for the purposes of CCAs within the revised CHIS code of practice. This would be a serious breach of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, an international treaty and therefore legally binding on ratifying countries—the UK ratified the UNCRC in 1990. My noble friend Lord Haskel and others have spoken about this intolerable situation. The rights of the child are paramount, as reflected in the UNCRC. There must be no compromise on this, and the age of a child is 18 and under, not 16 as the Government seem to think.
The Bill does not include provisions for victims of authorised criminal conduct. The Bill needs additional safeguards to ensure that there can be no authorisation for serious criminality. Many agencies, including Reprieve and Justice, and the Bar Council have suggested changes that could be introduced to the Bill. They and the Joint Committee on Human Rights have similar concerns. I therefore hope the Government will take note. I look forward to hearing the Minister.
Baroness D’Souza (CB) [V]
Most of what I wanted to say has been said, and eloquently said. I will merely emphasise two points before I metaphorically sit down. The Government justify the absence of limits on the potential criminal activity that the Bill enables by saying that to do so might serve to expose active agents. Furthermore, HMG argue that there is no need to include such limitations in the Bill, as has been the case in similar legislation in Canada and the USA, on the basis that the UK is party to the European Convention on Human Rights, which is incorporated in the Human Rights Act 1998, and is therefore bound by the terms of the convention. However, at the same time and in almost the same breath, the Government said, in legal filings, that they do not believe that covert agents should be bound by the terms of the Human Rights Act. Additionally, since the Human Rights Act specifically precludes murder, torture or other degrading behaviour, which surely covers sexual violence, the argument that naming limits might endanger agents rather falls to the ground. Will the Minister clear up these ambiguities?
Secondly, the Bill relies heavily on oversight by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, the right to lodge any complaint with the tribunal and additional oversight —oh, I fear I have lost my text. Forgive me. What I was going to say is basically that dependence on the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, when there are no fewer than 14 authorising authorities bound to ensure that any criminal activity undertaken must be proportionate, necessary and at the lowest level possible to achieve the aims of the particular operation, is surely too much to ask. One could rely on the ISC, but we all know that too often the ISC has not received full or timely information to fulfil its function, and the tribunal itself will obviously take place after the criminal act has been committed. For that reason, I ask the Minister to clear up what seem to me to be ambiguities.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
We are going to make a final attempt to return to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. We hope that, on this occasion, the gremlins have finally been removed from the system.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab) [V]
Thank you. As I am on the phone, it probably will work.
My Lords, I concur that the Bill is necessary, but it is too loose. It is apparently compatible with the Human Rights Act, but other rights could be breached as the Bill stands, and there are considerations relating to public morality and the exercise of democracy that lie behind the Human Rights Act which need addressing. It is not satisfactory that the crimes that may be committed are not specified, as they are in Canada and the USA. We need an assurance that the Government will retain the Human Rights Act. Will the Minister please provide that? Following the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, can she confirm that the UN convention against torture could be engaged when any authorisation is made? How will crimes not specified in the Human Rights Act, such as rape or sexual exploitation, be prohibited? This is particularly disturbing when those making the authorisations will be not independent or judicial but members of the very organisation which wants the authorisation.
I will make four specific points. First, allowing any crime in the interests of economic well-being and preventing disorder allows for undemocratic and oppressive activities. How will the cited brake of the Human Rights Act constrain these? Secondly, why is it appropriate for the Competition and Markets Authority to commit crimes? This is intrusive. How will it be accountable? Thirdly, leave to compel access to journalistic sources is a very serious step and should be granted by a judicial figure, not the recipient authority. Fourthly—here I echo very many other noble Lords—is the very disturbing element, not new to this Bill, that children can be invited to cultivate deception and entrapment. How does that accord with the rights of the child and the paramount importance of their welfare, as my noble friend Lady Massey asked? The draft code helpfully provided by the noble Baroness is explicit about the use of so-called juveniles—that is, children—as covert sources. Surely this is justified only when their own safety is at risk from the activities that they are asked to spy on. The draft code says that such authorisations must be given taking account of the best interests of the child. Does fostering morality have no place in welfare or in best interests?
In her helpful meeting on the Bill, the Minister said that we must live in the real world. I hope that one of the differences between these Benches and those of the Government is not trying to make a better world rather than accepting a world where crime reduction depends on the exploitation and debasement of children. I look forward to the noble Baroness’s answers.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I join others in welcoming the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, and I say to him that every follower of Lancashire knows the joys of the damp cricket match. I also welcome the noble Lords, Lord McLoughlin and Lord Walney, who bring valuable—if very different—experience to this House.
The Bill is short but raises big issues. Some of them are not new, and we will use the opportunity of the next stage to address whether we are in danger of consolidating provisions that should be reviewed. Some of the issues are new, and my noble friend Lord Paddick has carefully and thoughtfully unpacked the status quo. It has been quite some years since the de Silva review, itself many years after Pat Finucane’s death. Since the announcement of the judge-led inquiry, the Bill is concurrent with the hearings of evidence of that inquiry. I do not need to stress our concern for the rule of law, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has put it so clearly, and seeking to outflank a forthcoming judgment is, in my view, at best unseemly.
A statutory framework is welcome, but we already have a framework—more than a framework—in prosecutorial independence and the discretion applied. The public interest test serves us well, as noble Lords have said. The Minister said that “lawful for all purposes” is deliberate, and the House will note the authority with which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, speaks.
I assume that the test will be used in the case of the handlers of CHIS and their controllers. Or does the immunity extend to inciting crime or being an accessory? Presumably, one cannot authorise oneself.
Perhaps, this is the point at which to ask about territoriality. The Armed Forces are mentioned. Inevitably, I started to think about how one would police, and indeed define, criminal conduct overseas. I thought about rendition, but I assume that this legislation does not, and cannot, authorise criminal conduct outside the UK.
Oversight and independent scrutiny are needed, and investigation and accountability before and after—everything that adds up to transparency to the greatest possible extent. I am tempted to say, “so far as is proportionate and necessary,” but like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, we regard the greatest possible transparency as necessary. These will clearly feature at later stages, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has promised us amendments on this. I dare say he will not be alone. This is all part of the nub mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and I look forward to the amendments he will present to the House.
We must not lose sight of reviews and renewals of authorisations—I am not sure I have heard anyone mention them—or the governance, if you like, of the process. My noble friend Lord Beith made the point about the moral dimension.
Of course, we will consider who are the relevant authorities. My noble friends and I have often made the point about police officers having immigration enforcement added to their role. Today, I say we regard it as the police’s role to enforce the law, whether it is about gambling, food standards or whatever. My noble friend Lord Thomas was clear about that and much else. We are particularly interested in how it is envisaged that a government department should act as a relevant authority. Who within the Home Office will give authorisations? What position does this put the Home Secretary in?
The what as well as the who will certainly feature. On the issue of not providing criminal with a checklist against which a suspected CHIS can be tested, I today ask the Minister: what is envisaged by enabling the Home Secretary, by order, to prohibit the authorisation of, and impose requirements in connection with, conduct? That order will be a public document publicly debated, so its contents will be public. In any event, surely the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act provide a checklist. Like the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, I am troubled by some of the Government’s comments.
It would be helpful if the Minister could explain the Government’s view of the application of the Human Rights Act, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, has asked. Are CHIS agents of the state, or are they independent of the state? Like the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, I find it difficult to reconcile some of the Government’s statements.
As the JCHR points out, authorising criminal conduct has clear potential for engaging human rights, so the Bill must contain effective protections against their violations, including stringent safeguards against unnecessary or abusive authorisations. I look forward to hearing further ideas from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who rightly raised the issue of torture.
Many noble Lords, including from our Benches my noble friend Lady Doocey, have spoken forcefully of the use or, as the right reverend Prelate said, the abuse, of children—because juveniles are children—and vulnerable adults as CHIS. What does it say about us, as a society, that we contemplate exploiting children—often, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, says, disadvantaged children—in this way?
In a debate a few years ago, I recounted an example of the abuse of a child, and I have periodically been asked for more details. Let me say now that I have no more details, so could journalists please stop asking me. Whether that is out of abhorrence or concern or through some enjoyment of sensationalism, I do not know, but I have been asking myself whether recruiting and directing a child as a covert intelligence source is not itself a type of grooming, with all its predictable outcomes for mental health, development and life choices. I think that the same thought has occurred to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. She and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, made very powerful points, and I look forward to working with all noble Lords who share these concerns.
How can acting as a spy, let alone undertaking criminal conduct, ever be in a child’s best interests? I appreciate that the code deals with appropriate adults in some cases, but can a child give informed consent to these activities? Every child is by definition vulnerable, and a child who is in a position to be used and targeted in this way is by definition very vulnerable. We have progressed in our thinking and views on other vulnerabilities, and we will be discussing the issue of mental capacity and the position of, among others, the victims of trafficking, modern slavery and exploitation whom we should primarily protect.
We recognise—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, pointed out—that in many contexts, perpetrators are victims too. There are also victims who are not perpetrators. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, among the many issues it has raised, has reported its concerns about conduct being “lawful for all purposes” and victims being deprived of civil remedies. In its report, it referred to the Minister for Security, who said that any authorisation found to have been made in breach of Section 6 of the Human Rights Act, which requires public authorities to act compatibly with convention rights,
“would be invalid and the conduct of the CHIS would not be rendered lawful.”
However, the report goes on to say,
“it is not plain on the face of the Bill that this would be the consequence of an authorisation that was inconsistent with human rights. Nor is it clear what would be the consequence of a CHIS carrying out a validly authorised offence in an excessive or disproportionate manner.”
We are grateful to the Minister for circulating the revised code of practice, but—and she will know that this is not a reflection on her personally—how far should we rely on a code? It is not legislation. We have had 54 speakers today and a thoughtful debate on the Bill’s seven pages and two schedules and considerable back- ground. I do not expect subsequent stages to be brief.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, from the Opposition Front Bench I put on record my thanks to the police, the security services, the National Crime Agency and the wider law enforcement agencies for the work they do to keep us safe. They often put themselves in harm’s way and at real risk. It is important that they know they have our support and our thanks for the work they do every day to protect us and to prevent crime and loss of life.
The work of covert human intelligence sources is vital to fighting crime and thwarting acts of terrorism. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, referred to the necessity of having CHIS operatives to fight crime. However, the existence of such operatives is not on a statutory footing, but it should be. By putting this work on a statutory basis, we will provide for the necessarily robust safeguards and proper protections to be put in place. Both I and my noble friend Lord Rosser will argue those points consistently from the Opposition Front Bench as the Bill progresses through your Lordships’ House.
As my noble friend said, the activity that the Bill deals with is not new but has been going on for many years. My noble friend Lord West of Spithead made the important point that we need to be careful in the legislation we pass and should never pass anything that puts an agent’s life at risk.
This is a relatively short Bill, with seven clauses and two schedules, but it is of the utmost importance. It is a Bill where the House of Lords has an important role in providing the scrutiny enabling the Government to provide the necessary assurances. Where they are unable to do so to our satisfaction, we will seek to amend the Bill, return it to the other place in a much-improved state and ask them to think again.
There is considerable interest in the Bill. Over 50 noble Lords have spoken in this Second Reading debate. I congratulate the three noble Lords who have given their maiden speeches today. The noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, had an impressive career in the other place, holding senior positions in both government and opposition, and representing the beautiful constituencies of West Derbyshire and Derbyshire Dales. I had the pleasure of spending much time there and regularly drove through to get to County Hall at Matlock to attend a meeting of the Derbyshire County Council Labour group, which was always a great pleasure. He must be the only member of the National Union of Mineworkers to have served in a Conservative Government and Cabinet.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, has had an impressive legal career to date and takes on the position of Advocate-General for Scotland. I wish him well in his new responsibilities. I have not had a chance yet to speak to him outside the House and I look forward to doing that. He will be fully aware that there are many impressive legal minds on all Benches, and his skill as an advocate will be much in use in this House to support the Government. I can advise him that that is not an easy job at the moment with some of the legislation coming forward.
I have known my noble friend Lord Walney for many years. I think it is nearly a quarter of a century, which makes me feel very old. We were both working to elect and support the Labour Governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. He was subsequently elected the Member for Barrow and Furness in 2010, the same time I was nominated to serve in this House. He was much more successful than me outside Parliament: he got to work in No. 10 Downing Street, while I never got out of Labour Party headquarters. I am conscious that I have never been to Walney Island. I am sure it is a beautiful place—nearly as beautiful as the London Borough of Southwark that I take my title from. The noble Lord is my noble friend and always will be. He is also a dear friend and I look forward to working with him many times in this House.
All three speeches were excellent. I look forward to hearing many more contributions from each of the noble Lords, as they will undoubtedly bring knowledge, skill and experience that will be of much benefit to us all.
I return to the Bill before the House today. It is right that we are very clear on what is and is not authorised by this legislation—what is legitimate, lawful activity, such as the activity of trade unions. They play an important role in the United Kingdom, standing up for people’s rights, campaigning for changes to legislation and changes in working practices and playing their rightful role in our democratic, free society. I have been a member of a trade union since I was 16—first USDAW and, for the last 31 years, the GMB.
My noble friend Lord Whitty raised a number of concerns about the Bill such as compensation for victims of crime and the issue of the legitimate activities of trade unions and other campaigning organisations. We will want to probe these fully in Committee. My noble friends Lord Rosser and Lord Dubs raised the important issue of the call for an inquiry into what happened at Orgreave on 18 June 1984. This again is something I am sure we will come back to during the course of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Hendy raised the issues of the undercover police inquiry and trade union activity. It needs to be clear that nothing in the Bill puts the lawful needs of unions into question. My noble friend Lord Mann made the important point about the restoration of trade union rights in 1997 at GCHQ. People there do work of the utmost importance to the security of our country. You can be both a proud, loyal trade union member and a proud citizen of your country and do work of the utmost importance to national security. There is nothing contradictory there whatever.
It is also important for the House to probe the number and range of organisations that are covered by this legislation and which would take powers from it. A number of noble Lords raised the issue of the Food Standards Agency and other bodies; I am sure that we will come back to that many times during consideration of the Bill.
Human rights protections have always been made; the Government are relying on the Human Rights Act, which is printed on the front page of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, uses Section 19(1)(a) and says that the Bill is compatible with the convention rights, which is very important. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, raised that issue in his contribution to the debate. It is also clear, however, that many in the Minister’s party have voiced opposition to the Human Rights Act and to the convention itself. I would therefore appreciate a clear and unambiguous statement from the Government on where they stand on this. Many senior members of the Government, such as Mr Gove and perhaps even the Prime Minister himself, have raised concerns about this Act, so we need to be clear what we are doing if the Government are relying on this at the moment.
We also need to be absolutely clear that the most heinous crimes cannot ever be carried out or authorised in the name of the Government. As my noble friend Lord Rosser said, we will table an amendment seeking changes similar to those of the Canada model. The Government need to be clear on the limits of criminal activity to be authorised. The Ministers leading on this Bill will have heard the concern expressed across the House, and we will come back to that in the course of our debates.
What we have been talking about here is the type of crime that the police and other agencies are seeking to disrupt. It could indeed involve, as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, said, outlining what needs to be done for organisations such as the Food Standards Agency. Crimes such as murder, rape and sexual violence are commonplace in the organisations they would be seeking to disrupt, and we have to have in place appropriate legal safeguards to get closer to what offences would and would not be allowed under this legislation. I know that the area where CHIS work is very difficult, but these are important points.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, my noble friend Lord Haskel, the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and many others raised the question of child CHIS. The important thing to recognise is that they are children—just that. On the rare occasions that they have to be used to combat crime—if there is no alternative—we have to be absolutely clear that proper and meaningful safeguards are in place. Every possible safeguard must be there, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said. I pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lord Haskel for first raising this issue in the previous Parliament.
The Bill strengthens the current legal position by putting the power to authorise criminal conduct by a CHIS on an explicit statutory footing. However, my noble friend Lord Hain highlighted serious matters—serious breaches—that should concern all noble Lords in this House. He also outlined the authorisations that he approved as a Minister to use CHIS and said that we need to debate and explore carefully where we draw the line on this issue. Security is absolutely right, and we all support that, but we do not support the abuse of power, and getting the balance right is, of course, a matter that we will come back to again and again. We need clear accountability—the issue of self-authorisation in the Bill needs to be discussed—and we will press the issue of prior judicial oversight, because it is vital that we get the safeguards, processes and structures right. As my noble friend Lord Rosser said, there are procedures for judicial approval 24 hours a day. I listened carefully to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. I agreed that his points and suggested solutions to the concerns need to be debated fully by the House, so I look forward to those amendments being tabled and to debating those issues. We believe in accountability, and authorisation needs to be in as real time as is possible and notified to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner on an ongoing basis.
My noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick raised points about the activities of paramilitaries and agencies of the state and raised the issue of the murder of Pat Finucane. My friends in the other place—the Members for Sheffield Heeley and St Helens North—have spoken about that and called on the Government to hold an inquiry into his murder in 1989, and I fully support that.
In conclusion, the Opposition understands the importance of the Bill; we have set out the areas on which we have concerns and we will seek to make improvements to the Bill in those areas. We will work constructively with the Government, making our points clearly, and if we think it necessary, we will divide the House on issues to enable the other place to think again. However, we remain hopeful that if we consider these things carefully, considerable progress and improvements can be made by agreement with the Government as the Bill makes its progress through the House.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords not only for speaking in this debate but for some of the discussions that we had prior to the debate. They were very thoughtful and constructive. I look forward to exploring some of the issues that were raised today in further detail in Committee.
I have the very nice job of starting by thanking all three speakers who made their maiden speeches today. They were all excellent and quite different. All three noble Lords will be a great asset to this House. I start with my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart of Dirleton. It was an absolutely superb speech—almost poetic. It transported us for a brief moment into the beautiful area where he lives, and I am sure that in future he will regale us further with some of his words. He has clearly had a glittering career and it seems that he has another one to come. If he is from the same faculty of advocates as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, I know that he will be an excellent asset to your Lordships’ House.
My noble friend Lord McLoughlin has spent 33 years in Parliament, 30 of which have been on the Front Bench. I must confess that he looks very good on it. If I had to do another 23 years, I think that I would have to be carried out. He has had a great career, having spent 17 years as a Whip, and also as Transport Secretary and chairman of the Conservative Party. One of my favourite things that I have at home is a little postcard of his election where he is wearing his miner’s hat. I know that he will be a great contributor to your Lordships’ House. I am delighted to hear that he is a fan of HS2; he knows my views as a fellow fan.
Finally, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, was absolutely wonderful. I want to put on the record that I think he is a brave and principled man. As the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said, he stood up for his colleagues when others did not, and that is a great accolade. He has shown independence of character, spirit and strength through what he has suffered for probably far too long, but I think that he knows that in this House he is surrounded by friends on all sides. I look forward to hearing some of his views on nuclear submarines, coastal erosion and other things.
I thank all three noble Lords, who made great speeches today. They have set the tone for the debate in many ways.
I think that we are all in agreement—bar perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, who I do not think will support anything that we put forward—that we need to ensure that our intelligence agencies, police and public authorities have access to the correct tools to allow them successfully to safeguard the public from criminal and terrorist groups that would seek to do us harm and undermine our way of life here in the United Kingdom. The raising of the UK’s threat level to severe last week reminds us all of the threats that we continue to face as a nation. I give my thanks to those in the public authorities, who work so hard and often put their lives on the line on behalf of us all to keep us all safe.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, started his speech by outlining the number of terrorist attacks that have been thwarted since 2017. As he said, there have been 27, nine every year. This activity saves lives. He also pointed out CHIS activity in the NCA disruptions that we have seen in the last year, as well as proscribed organisation infiltration—as he said, the Bill brings into law things that have been going on for years—and we thank all those concerned.
One of the major topics of discussion has been on safeguards and oversight of activity. They have rightly been a recurring topic. I pay tribute to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and his team of judicial commissioners. They provide rigorous oversight of all our investigatory powers, including covert human intelligence sources, and will continue to play an important role under the Bill. On the percentage of authorisations currently overseen by the IPC—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead—the IPC is able to examine any authorisation, and he sets the frequency of those inspections.
There have been calls for prior judicial approval by commissioners, including from the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Beith. The Bill currently replicates the existing model, whereby any criminal activity undertaken by a CHIS, as I will now call them, is signed off by an authorising officer, who is highly trained and experienced. They will know the CHIS, not just as anonymous assets but human beings with unique strengths and, of course, weaknesses. The officer will know the context in which the CHIS are operating, including the risk to the CHIS themselves and the public. Authorising officers are best placed to make that judgment on whether the proposed criminality will meet the necessity and proportionality threshold, while considering the specific duty of care for the CHIS and the specific live environment. However, we have been clear that if there are ways in which to provide greater reassurance on the safeguards and independent oversight of the regime, while ensuring that it does not affect the operational workability of the tactic, the Government are willing to consider that issue. I listened very carefully to the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Carlile, and would welcome a further opportunity to discuss the matter with them.
The noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, also asked about oversight by the Intelligence and Security Committee. It might be helpful for me to repeat the commitment made by the Security Minister in the other place in a letter lodged in the Library, which he stated that, in line with its remit and the provisions of the Justice and Security Act, such information as is requested in order for the ISC to provide effective oversight of these policies shall be provided to the committee.
Virtually every noble Lord who spoke raised the subject of the use of children and vulnerable people as CHIS. It is an uncomfortable area, and I agree that it is imperative that we ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place for the rare occasions—I repeat they are rare—where there is a need to authorise young or vulnerable people to participate in criminality. This may be necessary to stop criminal gangs from continuing to exploit those individuals and prevent others from being drawn into them. Noble Lords mentioned county lines gangs.
The then Investigatory Powers Commissioner previously confirmed that, in practice, juveniles are not tasked to participate in criminality in which they are not already involved, and that decisions to authorise are made only where that is the best option for breaking the cycle of crime and the danger for the young person.
The use of juvenile CHIS and additional safeguards have been debated previously in this House and the courts. We will extend those safeguards to ensure that they also apply in any proposed authorisation of criminal conduct. Juveniles and vulnerable individuals will be authorised to act as CHIS only in exceptional circumstances. This is emphasised in changes to the CHIS code of practice, a draft of which has been published alongside the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, please read it because not only is it a good document but it will be subject to full consultation and debate in both Houses. The safeguards are also set out in statute in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Juveniles) Order 2000, which was debated by this House in 2018 and subsequently updated.
Let me be clear in response to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel: the code has legal force, so any authorisation must legally comply with the safeguards in it. The circumstances under which juveniles and vulnerable persons are asked to undertake criminal activity will be tightly controlled and subject to stringent risk assessments that will account for and seek to mitigate the risks of physical and psychological harm to them. All individuals will be risk-assessed, and their individual circumstances considered, before being tasked as a CHIS. Victims of crime will never be coerced into becoming a CHIS, but in some cases they may decide that they wish to play a role in bringing perpetrators to justice.
Any authorisation of juveniles requires a more senior level of authorising officer and a shorter authorising period, with reviews of the authorisation taking place at least monthly. For any juvenile CHIS under the age of 16, an appropriate adult must attend all meetings with the handlers. These safeguards seek to ensure that juveniles are appropriately protected when they play a vital role in undermining and disrupting the criminal or terrorist groups that seek to exploit them. I recognise that it is very important that noble Lords and the wider public have confidence that we have the right safeguards in place. I am very happy to discuss this further.
Many noble Lords talked about the limits. An authorisation will be tightly bound and specific. In response to the noble Lord, Lord West, I can confirm that this Bill will not widen the scope of activity which can be authorised. However, I appreciate why some noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Rosser, question why we cannot clearly write in the Bill the crimes that CHIS will never be authorised to commit, as is the case in Canada.
Every country has its own unique circumstances, be they in legal systems, public bodies or threat picture. The United Kingdom is the only Five Eyes country that is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. We also have our own threat picture; the unique challenges we face in Northern Ireland in particular mean that our operational partners advise that CHIS testing is a very real possibility. However, there are limits to the conduct which can be authorised under this Bill, and they can be found in the Human Rights Act. This is set out explicitly in the Bill.
The requirement for conduct to be necessary and proportionate also places limits on what can be authorised. I emphasise the point on necessity and proportionality: an authorisation can be granted only if it is considered necessary for one of three statutory purposes and proportionate to prevent more serious criminality. Within this framework, I assure noble Lords—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Hain—that nothing in the Bill will prevent or limit legitimate and lawful activity, including activity by political groups or trade unions. The noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Mann, pointed that out very well.
I also stress that our operational partners have publicly stated—I reiterated this the other day—that it is never acceptable for an undercover operative to form an intimate sexual relationship with anyone they are tasked to investigate or may encounter during their deployment. The conduct will never be authorised; nor must it ever be used as a tactic of deployment.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts that while the activity that will be authorised under the Bill is UK-focused, the same safeguards will apply for authorisations for both UK and overseas activity. A CHIS will never be given authority to commit any and all crimes. The UK complies with all obligations under the Human Rights Act and is also bound by obligations under international human rights law.
I turn briefly to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about the potential for the Bill to have a disproportionate impact on women or members of BME communities. These characteristics will never be a consideration in why a person is under investigation.
I turn to the issue of redress. Authorisations are very tightly bound and, as part of the necessity and proportionality test, collateral damage will be considered. This minimises the risk of those who are not the intended subject of the operation being impacted. In the rare case that an individual is unintentionally impacted, there are number of routes for redress available to them to challenge the validity or lawfulness of the authorisation and seek appropriate remedy. An affected person could seek a judicial review of a public authority’s decision to authorise criminal conduct. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal also has jurisdiction to investigate and determine complaints against a public authority’s use of this power, and any person or organisation is able to make a complaint to the IPT. The Investigatory Powers Commission also has an obligation to inform a person of a serious error that relates to them, where it is in the public interest. This would include situations where the commissioner considers that the error has caused significant prejudice or harm to the person concerned.
Moving to the range of public authorities, there were diametrically opposed views—that there were too many and not enough—but all those included in the Bill already have the power to authorise the use and conduct of CHIS, and we have restricted the number of public authorities able to then authorise participation in criminal conduct based on operational need. I welcome, in particular, the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on this issue. I urge noble Lords to read the case studies that I think I provided yesterday to explain why these public authorities require the use of this power. All public authorities will receive appropriate training to ensure that authorising officers understand the strict necessity and proportionality parameters that must be met before authorising a CCA, and will be subject to independent oversight provided by IPCO.
On immunity, and the point raised by several noble Lords that we should simply continue to leave decisions on the prosecution of CHIS to the CPS or other prosecuting bodies, it seems unfair and unreasonable for the state to ask an individual to engage in difficult and potentially dangerous work while leaving open the possibility of the state prosecuting them for the exact same conduct. That tension has existed for many years and it is right that we use the Bill to resolve it. It is also undesirable to create an express power for public authorities to authorise activity that remains criminal. I refer noble Lords to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, on this point, but I reassure noble Lords that if a CHIS were to undertake criminal activity that fell outside the strict parameters of a CCA, that will have been clearly explained to the CHIS by their handlers. The prosecuting authorities are in a position to consider whether to bring a prosecution. This has been done before and will be done again if required.
I am committed to ensure that Members of this House and the wider public can have confidence that there is not an unfettered and unlimited power for public authorities to authorise criminality. The legislation certainly does not do that, but it is right that we debate and consider the safeguards and the oversight in place. We must ensure that we do not pass legislation that unnecessarily restricts our operational agencies from utilising the tactics they need to keep us safe. That is the balance that this Bill seeks to strike, and the key principle that we should be operating to. This is important and necessary legislation and I look forward to debating and considering it further.
Future of Financial Services
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for dealing with the second Treasury Statement in as many days. This Statement is billed as a prelude to the Financial Services Bill, which we will be able to scrutinise following its Commons stages. The process promises to be an interesting one, and I hope the Minister will avail himself of the expertise that exists across your Lordships’ House.
The Chancellor was correct to outline the importance to our economy of the financial services sector. It is a huge employer, generates a significant amount of economic activity and makes a large contribution to the Exchequer. It is vital that we harness the potential of financial services to grow our economy, particularly in terms of green growth.
It is a shame that this Statement has come only now. As it stands, we are weeks away from leaving the transition period without an agreement giving UK firms preferential access to the EU markets that are so important to their day-to-day operations. The Government have unilaterally published equivalence decisions for EU and European Economic Area member states, but the Minister will concede that that gets us only so far.
In his Statement, the Chancellor reiterated the Government’s position that an equivalence determination for UK firms should be simple and swift as we start from a point of regulatory alignment. If that were true, why were the Government not able to secure equivalence determinations by the deadline set out in the political declaration? The Chancellor has sought to blame the EU, but when the Government were asked to complete various questionnaires to aid that process they managed just four out of 28 by the June deadline.
While we may start at a point of alignment, decision-makers in the European Commission will no doubt be studying the Financial Services Bill in detail. Equivalence may not require total alignment, but it seems odd for the Government to amend UK regulations at the same time as demanding that our EU colleagues take a snapshot of them. Does the Minister believe that the contents of the Financial Services Bill are likely to have any bearing on the ongoing discussions? Is it possible that the EU will delay a ruling until that Bill is on the statute book? We will scrutinise the Bill closely, not only in the context of equivalence but to ensure that the reforms do not lead to a deregulatory race to the bottom that puts investors and financial stability at risk.
I turn to the green components of the Statement. The Government would have us believe that their commitment to tackling climate change is second to none, but those of us who share an interest in recent legislation will be sceptical, to say the least. We are told that everything done by Ministers is with a net-zero future in mind, but time after time they oppose sensible climate amendments, most recently on the Agriculture Bill. While the various green finance initiatives announced in recent days represent a degree of progress, the Treasury has not gone as far as many would like. It is certainly not the comprehensive green agenda that is needed to make swift and decisive progress towards the 2050 net-zero target and our wider international obligations. As the shadow Chancellor observed in her response in the Commons,
“Over the last decade, the UK has pumped £6 billion into overseas fossil fuel projects via UK Export Finance”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/11/20; col. 621.]
There is no indication that this behaviour will be banned, undermining any meaningful action taken in the UK.
The Financial Conduct Authority has signalled a change in approach to firms’ disclosure of climate-related information, which we support. However, mandatory reporting will not be implemented until 2025. Why are the Government not being more ambitious? Green gilts are another case in point. How can we be sure that the money will represent genuinely new investment? Why have the Government waited until 16 other countries have introduced their own schemes, rather than taking the lead on the issue of green financing?
I wish I could be more optimistic, but, sadly, I remember the story of the Green Investment Bank. The institution, proposed in the last Labour Government’s final Budget, should have been key to improving the UK’s environmental record. Instead, just years into its existence, it was sold off by the former Business Secretary Sajid Javid. Earlier this year, a government Minister suggested at a roundtable event that the “Green Investment Bank 2.0” could materialise in the future. Can the Minister confirm whether this is being looked at and, if so, when we can expect news?
Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as listed in the register. I agree with the Chancellor that financial services are fundamental to Britain’s economic strength. However, I recommend that anyone looking to assess their future ignore the hype in the Chancellor’s statement—he seems to have drunk the moonshot Kool-Aid—and look at reality. Our failure to negotiate mutual recognition, or at least equivalence-plus, with the EU is a serious problem. If only the Government had taken as much interest in this area as they do in fishing or, as Catherine McGuinness of the City of London Corporation is quoted as saying in today’s Times, finance risks being
“the neglected child of an acrimonious divorce”.
Over £1 trillion in assets have already transferred from the UK to the EU. Last year, Ministers seemed to think that half the financial services business with EU clients, which is about 15% of total UK financial services, had left or was in the process of leaving, including swathes of insurance and asset management. Is 15% still the number, I ask the Minister? The size of these asset transfers suggests that the actuality is well above those expectations. Job transfers are unclear because of Covid, but we do know that, even in 2019, the recruitment of graduates who do not have EU passports had pretty much collapsed for anything except retail banking.
The EU, which I once thought had a 10-year strategy to remove, slice by slice, most EU and euro-related financial services back to the 27, seems to have accelerated that programme. For example, Mr Dombrovskis has cautioned EU businesses to shift a significant portion of their clearing activity out of the UK in the next 18 months. Without dominance in clearing euro-denominated derivatives, the UK’s global role is seriously at risk. Does the Minister agree?
On fintech, many firms have made it clear that they will have to move EU business if we cannot agree on the rules that govern data. Where are negotiations on this, because at the last look they were pretty dire, with the UK determined to please the United States by watering down data protection?
I am delighted that we are finally going to issue a green sovereign. We may be a leader in green finance now, but every single significant financial centre is committed to the green agenda. I note that the EU is expected to issue €200 billion in green bonds as part of its Covid recovery fund, none of which will be issued through London. But will the Government replace the Green Investment Bank? The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, mentioned it; it was sold off in part because, along with the British Business Bank, it was associated with Vince Cable, but that was also a deliberate act of environmental vandalism. Will it be replaced?
We are entering a period of regional economic blocs. The United States has actively repatriated a great deal of dollar financial services. China and Asia generally, contrary to the expectations of George Osborne, are using Hong Kong and Singapore rather than London, even with all the disruption in Hong Kong. India is developing Mumbai, so I caution the Government not to misread the potential of dialogue with India. We are now outside all the regional blocs. We have capacity and skills in financial services, but everyone else has the clients and issues the major currencies. You can move capacity and skills, but you cannot move the clients. London will remain a global centre but, I fear, one of gradually less significance. Will the Government give us a reality check on the future of this crucial industry and a proper assessment of the damage that their hard-line Brexit is delivering?
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office and the Treasury (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for their thoughtful contributions. I will try to answer the questions as fully as I can.
Unlike the EU, the UK’s equivalence assessment of the EU’s regime was conducted on a proportionate basis, recognising that the UK and EU have the same rulebook. The EU sent us over 1,000 pages of questionnaires—not in a timely manner, with the last 248 pages arriving by 25 May, which is why we were not able to return them within a week, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, mentioned. We responded to the questions fully and comprehensively, with over 2,500 pages of response going back at the beginning of July. The EU has not come back with any questions on these responses.
In the absence of clarity from the EU, the Chancellor announced the package of decisions on Monday, which are in the UK’s interest and seek to support UK firms and ongoing cross-border activity with the EU. I assure both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that we remain open and committed to a continuing dialogue with the EU about their intentions. The Government have taken all reasonable steps to co-operate in good faith with the EU throughout the equivalence process.
The noble Lord asks whether we feel that the EU is holding back, pending the progress of the Financial Services Bill. The measures in the Bill are consistent with a mutual equivalence outcome, and a number of cases actively support it. The UK played an instrumental role in the introduction of a lot of the EU’s regulation, particularly the investment firm regulation and directive, for example, so it is very supportive of the intended outcomes.
The noble Lord asked about TCFD. The UK is the first major country to go beyond comply or explain, or as far as able requirements, and our proposals contain a requisite level of prescription, supervision and enforcement mechanisms to mandate meaningful disclosure. The approach confirms the UK’s position as a global leader on robust climate-related financial disclosures that help investors to make informed decisions. We believe that the timelines set out in the road map provide the right balance between showing ambition and allowing businesses, investors and asset owners enough time to prepare to disclose meaningful information. Initial steps towards introducing TCFD-aligned disclosures have already been taken in respect of certain listed companies, banks and building societies. The FCA consulted in March on comply or explain rules for premium listed companies.
The noble Lord asked about green gilts. The UK’s sovereign green bond will identify specific government green projects that its proceeds will be used to finance, as per the International Capital Market Association green bond principles. These proceeds will then be tracked and reported in a regular and transparent manner to provide clarity to the public and investors.
The UK Government have always remained open to the introduction of new debt-financing instruments but needed to be satisfied that any new instrument would represent good value for money to the taxpayer. We have been regularly reviewing the case for introducing a sovereign green bond, as well as closely monitoring how the green and other ESG bond markets have developed over recent years. The noble Lord asked why we were slow. We have been watching the evolution of this market; indeed, Germany issued its first equivalent only in September this year.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked about a Green Investment Bank mark 2. The Government are committed to ensuring that businesses and infrastructure projects continue to have access to the finance that they need. The UK has a number of existing tools available and we committed, in March last year, to an infrastructure finance review. We still intend to respond to that within the next few weeks.
The noble Baroness asked about asset transfers and the future role of the City. One of the advantages of leaving the EU’s regulation is that it gives us the opportunity to launch a number of initiatives. For example, we will review Solvency II. We will have a call for evidence on the overseas regime, some parts of which have not been reviewed since 1986. We are carrying out a task force on future listings given that there is, for example, quite a big discrepancy between the minimum size of a prospectus in this country and in the US. We are carrying out a consultation on the UK funds review to look at ways of making this country more attractive for international funds.
I remain more optimistic than the noble Baroness that there is a good future. She also asked about fintech and its role. We are a major player in the fintech market. We are developing an ecosystem that supports fintech firms to grow and reach scale. We are fostering partnerships between fintechs and incumbents to enable mainstream adoption of innovation. Being a large economy, we provide the opportunity for high levels of domestic demand; the British public tend to be early adopters of the opportunities that fintech throws up. We have the third-largest number of tech unicorns in the world, with 77 companies valued at over $1 billion. We are absolutely committed to supporting the growth of that market.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers. The first speaker is the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.
Baroness Hayman (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of Peers for the Planet. I very much welcome the emphasis in the Statement on green recovery and the ambition to lead the world in green finance. I have a couple of questions on TCFD and the decision to mandate climate disclosures. Could the Government not be a little bit more ambitious on the 2025 deadline, given the number of companies that are already taking on these responsibilities and have acted on disclosure? In the run-up to COP 26, will the Government take this as an exemplar and persuade other countries to act in a similar fashion so that we can have an even playing field across countries?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
The noble Baroness asks important questions. I certainly take on board her desire to try to accelerate the mandatory implementation date. I will feed that back to the Chancellor and see if it can be done. It is always a matter of balance between doing these things too quickly and being slow-footed. The TCFD is a key component of our international efforts at the G7, which we are hosting, the G20, COP 26, which the noble Baroness mentioned, and the Coalition of Finance Ministers for Climate Action. Making this announcement will mean that we can set this as an example for other countries to emulate and harmonise approaches on disclosure.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I, too, declare my interests as set out in the register and welcome the launch of green gilts and the aim of a green recovery.
I shall ask my noble friend two questions. First, I welcome the equivalence decision that the Government have taken unilaterally, but which areas in particular will we have equivalence for, and will there be the same sort of short-notice withdrawal for equivalence as exists in the EU?
Secondly, could my noble friend clarify the welcome statement in the document released by the Chancellor about UK pension funds directing more of their capital towards our economic recovery and setting up a long-term asset fund? Utilising the money in long-term pension schemes to boost recovery directly is an excellent idea, but could we have a little more detail on the plans?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. In relation to the equivalence announcement, we are taking on board 17 equivalence rules. In the interests of brevity, I shall not go through all of them, but I shall ask that they are entered into Hansard. The point the noble Baroness makes about the early or perfunctory removal of equivalence is something we have taken on board. Indeed, other countries have expressed this as one of the EU’s problems, and it will be our intention to have a more transparent process that gives those countries the ability to respond to issues and have a more iterative dialogue.
In relation to the noble Baroness’s points on pension fund assets allocation, I touched on this yesterday in the Statement in relation to local government pension funds, and it is certainly a priority for us to try and steer some of these assets, on a low-risk basis, into infrastructure development.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the finance industry has been engaged in bribery, corruption, money laundering, tax avoidance and mis-selling of numerous products. The victims of RBS and HBOS frauds are still awaiting compensation. In July this year, the Intelligence and Security Committee said some aspects of the finance industry were also a threat to national security. I ask the Minister and urge the Government to appoint an independent inquiry into the finance industry, as that would be a good way of promoting public confidence in the industry.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I do not accept the noble Lord’s harsh criticisms of the sector. As in any sector, one gets miscreants, but is important to remind the noble Lord that this industry employs over 1 million people in this country and contributes £130 billion to our national economy and some £75 billion in tax receipts.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register.
A lot of time was used up seeking equivalence, and now it is right to move on with reforms and new matters. But what is the overall timeline, and will there be more democratic oversight than mere devolving of power? I welcome the unilateral equivalence decisions the UK has made. Many of them show that equivalence can benefit the granter; it is not all about benefits to those receiving equivalence.
I would also like to pursue the matter of pension funds investing in infrastructure. It is something we have envied in Australia and Canada for a long time. Has the Treasury considered how much more could be unleashed if there were not a systemic obsession of regulators with risk-free, liquid investment in government bonds? Post-Covid, is that not an even more outdated comfort blanket, which robs both public and pensioners?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
To reassure the noble Baroness, full disclosure will be made on any further progress with equivalence. The new Finance Bill, just starting its progress through both Chambers, will give opportunities to noble Lords to contribute.
On the issue of pension fund asset allocation, I agree that we have been too focused on pushing too many assets into government gilts or equivalent instruments and that enormous opportunity exists for investment in UK infrastructure.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I take this opportunity to welcome the Statement from my noble friend today, in particular the part relating to the issuing of the green sovereign bond. Among my interests on the register, I am vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities. I urge him to consider that a fundamental shift of thinking is required on environment issues at the heart of the Treasury, relating to spending on environmental projects and more especially flood defences, which will increasingly become a challenge given the threat of climate change. Will the Government ensure that revenue and maintenance activities receive a greater balance of spending than those on capital work? So often when flood defences fail, it is due to the lack of maintenance. Given the pressure of climate change, I hope that my noble friend will agree to review this urgently.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I take on board my noble friend’s comments. In relation to flood defences, I must declare an interest: my farm runs down to the sea and I have some three miles of coast, which is under continual attack by the elements. But we have increased the commitment of funding for flood defences; I think it was in the Budget in March, and it certainly recognised that this is a major element of our national infrastructure. In terms of seeing an allocation into these kind of assets, this falls partly into the previous question about ensuring that we get a wider allocation into infrastructure and of course into sea defence and indeed flood defence.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, if fluency in fintech will define the future prosperity of the UK, policy alignment and regulatory equivalence are essential with the EU and global counterparties. Does the Minister agree that a key goal is to encourage digital trade, and then to help our SMEs access global markets? I refer to my declaration in the register. The range of financial interventions from Governments and regulators has expanded in an unco-ordinated fashion, underlining the need to strengthen regulatory co-operation. What incentives and assistance will be available to promote standardisation, reusability and rationalisation of technology to standardise taxonomies, document digitalisation, implementation of distributed ledger technology and artificial intelligence?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, we absolutely acknowledge the role of fintech in the economy. It generated some £11 billion in 2019 and employed more than 76,000 people. The 2020 report has highlighted the UK as a global leader. Likewise, in the payments landscape, we are also highly innovative because we again are a large economy. In 2018, more than 230,000 faster payments were sent every hour, compared to fewer than 3,000 10 years earlier. The noble Viscount is concerned about regulation. The financial regulators continue to provide a platform that facilitates innovation in this space. For example, the Financial Conduct Authority has accepted a significant number of DLT-based projects into its regulatory sandbox to enable the adoption of this technology to deliver better financial services with appropriate consumer safeguards.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I refer to my interests in the register. Unlike some others, I congratulate the Chancellor and my noble friend on getting ahead and providing as much certainty as possible in financial services, despite the ongoing difficulties with the EU. We need this innovative £130 billion industry, especially as we start to pay for Covid. How does my noble friend think that this package will help the large number of smaller financial services providers—and indeed the businesses they serve—outside London and outside the leading-edge areas of fintech and green finance, which will of course take time to grow?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, we absolutely accept that small businesses are the backbone of the wealth-creating part of our economy. One of the answers I gave earlier was looking at the listing rules in this country to see whether we can make it more accessible for smaller firms. I mentioned that I think that you have to issue a full prospectus for anything in excess of €8 million, whereas in the US it is $50 million, so we certainly will be looking at that.
On a slightly unrelated element, but connected to SMEs, the rules reform that we are working on now, post transition, on procurement opens up an enormous opportunity for SMEs, because it will allow us to set our own rules and not be controlled by the EU regime. That covers some £290 billion-worth of government expenditure each year, and we will be making sure that SMEs get a good slice of that.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
You are on mute. Please unmute. No, you are still on mute. We will move on to the next speaker and come back to the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, if we have time. I call the next speaker.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interests as listed in the register. The Treasury papers say that it will give audit equivalence to the EEA states and approve as adequate their competent authorities. It is important that investors should be able to have confidence in audits provided by EEA auditors for overseas operations of UK businesses. However, does this also mean that EEA auditors will be able to continue practising in the UK after the end of the transition period, while UK auditors will be excluded from EEA markets? If this is the case, can the Minister say what the cost will be of this lack of reciprocity?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I am not able to give specific answers to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, on those subjects at the moment. They will, no doubt, be included in the ongoing negotiations. If we receive clarity on that in the next few weeks, I will happily write to her.
Lord Flight (Con) [V]
My Lords, I apologise that my screen has gone wrong while waiting. I first declare my interest. [Inaudible.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
Lord Flight, could you come closer to your microphone? Do not worry about your screen.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
No. Let us try again: one more time, Lord Flight.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
No, you are cutting in and out.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
Let us move to the next speaker and we will come back. Apologies, Lord Flight, but you were breaking in and out.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, we look forward to the Ron Kalifa report on fintech. The trade credit insurance guarantees making a real difference. Would the Government agree it should be extended until June 2021? Will the Government consider instituting a new 3i-type funding to help provide equity finance for funding, recovery and scale-up? Will the Minister clarify if the Government will consider reinstituting a Green Investment Bank—a question that has been asked before? Finally, will the Minister agree that getting an EU deal with make equivalence much easier to resolve?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
The noble Lord asks a lot of questions: I will take the last one first. Of course, getting a deal will make the whole relationship far more constructive. We remain cautiously optimistic that this can be achieved. I think the Government are broadly sceptical about creating an equity distribution fund or a fund that makes equity available. As I am sure the noble Lord will know, the private equity industry has some $1.5 trillion-worth of dry powder available for investment around the world, including this country. I believe that we should be accessing that rather than using taxpayers’ money.
Lord Gadhia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the content of this Statement and the recognition of the significant contribution of financial services to our economy. However, could I press my noble friend on equivalence? For those following the trajectory of our approach to securing continuing market access, we have been on a ski slope for mutual recognition to enhanced equivalence to equivalence and now to unilateral equivalence—which, by definition, involves no reciprocity. Does this Statement effectively signal we have abandoned hope for a substantive financial services chapter in the UK-EU trade deal? How does that reconcile with the ambitions set out in paragraphs 35 to 37 of the political declaration?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, we have certainly not abandoned any aspirations of mutual equivalence. As I said earlier, we cannot start from a position of almost perfect equivalence, and it is disappointing that the EU has not seen it appropriate, at this stage, to engage on a more collaborative basis. We had to provide clarity to UK-based firms and show that we were ready for business on 1 January, whatever the EU’s attitude. We continue to engage with the EU proactively.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Chancellor’s Statement. It quite rightly emphasises the high regard that the United Kingdom is held in throughout the world for its financial services, which, as he said, bring £130 billion to the Exchequer. We are also renowned for our gold standard legal system, which, again, attracts many high-value disputes in our courts, and we rightly take pride in our word being our bond. Therefore, does the Minister agree that, as we leave the European Union, our enviable reputation is tarnished by an open admission by a Minister of the Crown in another place that we will place on the statute book an Act which, on his own admission, will breach international law?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, the UKIM Bill is there as a precautionary instrument in the event that we do not achieve a deal at the end of this year, to protect the interests of this country.
Lord Jopling (Con) [V]
My Lords, some years ago, when the European Union was trying to negotiate the TTIP agreement with the United States, one of the United Kingdom’s principal aims was to include financial services in that deal. But when we went to Washington on a Select Committee visit, the United States Treasury was totally—even aggressively—opposed, saying that it was totally unacceptable to include financial services in a trade agreement. Does the Minister agree that there has been no change in the American attitude, and that it will be almost impossible to get a satisfactory and acceptable new trade agreement with the United States in the short term? To suggest that it will be simple and swift is some way from the truth.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I am not involved in the intricacies of the trade discussions between the US and ourselves. There is a very simple principle with any trade agreement: the more you try to agree in one go, the harder it is. If you include something as complex as financial services, then it will be very difficult. I am sure that that is why the EU has still not been able to negotiate its own deal with the US. However, we will continue to engage with it as practically as we can.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, that is all we have time for in the 20 minutes.