House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The most recent statistics, released last week, show that 140,000 households with children have had their benefit capped. The proportion capped remains low by comparison with the overall universal credit case load. New and existing claimants can benefit from a nine-month grace period when their benefit will not be capped if they have a sustained work history, and exemptions of course also remain in place for vulnerable claimants. Since the introduction of the cap, 190,000 households are no longer capped under such benefits and nearly 80,000 are no longer capped under UC.
Mohammad Yasin [V]
The number of households with children receiving universal credit who are subject to the benefit cap in my Bedford and Kempston constituency rose by a staggering 186% between January and May this year, so will the Minister guarantee that the £20 UC uplift will reach the families who need it?
Dr Coffey
My understanding is that 460 households with children were subject to the UC cap in the Bedford local authority area. I am conscious that that is a higher number than the hon. Gentleman may wish, but I point out to him that we can also make the effort to encourage people to go for vacancies, so that they can start to earn more money, which at some point triggers a removal of the benefit cap.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The number of households affected by the cap has more than doubled since the start of the pandemic, to 170,000. In addition, 160,000 households will come to the end of their nine-month benefit cap grace period in the coming month. So will the Secretary of State consider extending the grace period, to avoid cutting the benefits of hard-pressed families in the run-up to Christmas?
Dr Coffey
The statistics indicate that 140,000 households with children have their benefit capped; my understanding is that overall it is about 3.1% of the UC case load. I am conscious of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman wrote to me last week, in his role as Chairman of the Select Committee, with a variety of questions on the benefit cap. I will respond to him shortly, and I believe that is one of the questions he has asked me to address.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Some 85% of capped households have families with children, and the Minister revealed last week that more than 160,000 households on UC could see their benefits capped in December, when their grace period comes to an end. Does she feel no shame in plunging families and children into hardship right before Christmas? Children are paying the price for their parents losing their jobs. This is a ticking time bomb and she can stop it—it is her choice: will she scrap the cap?
Dr Coffey
The cap has been in an important part of policy in trying to stimulate entrance into work. I am conscious that there are still only about half a million vacancies, compared with a significant number of people unemployed. However, I am sure the hon. Lady will welcome, with me, some of the actions that are possible for some of the most disadvantaged families, particularly those supported by the £170 million covid winter grant, from which I understand her local council will benefit to the tune of about £823,000.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
Local authorities apply the minimal test for determining housing benefit for supported housing accommodation. No assessment has been made of the effectiveness of the more than minimal test for housing benefit. However, we are reviewing the guidance to help improve consistency in decision making.
Shabana Mahmood
The annual housing benefit bill in Birmingham for supported exempt accommodation is now a massive £200 million. Too many housing providers are exploiting the extremely weak regulations that govern the payment of enhanced housing benefit; all they have to do is show that the support they provide is more than minimal, and this is causing misery for vulnerable tenants and the communities they live in. So will the Minister meet me to discuss the situation in Birmingham, and will he bring forward urgent proposals to change the situation and get a grip of this growing national scandal?
Will Quince
Although we recognise there are problem areas, it is worth noting that the majority of supported housing is provided by well-run registered social landlords with a strong social mission. These are regulated by the Regulator of Social Housing, for registered charities, or by the Charity Commission. But I do recognise that there is a problem, and I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
We are working with employers at a local, national and regional level, and we continue to have wide-ranging engagement to promote the scheme. Department for Work and Pensions officials are supporting applications through existing and growing partnerships. From day one, we have engaged with more than 300 stakeholders to ensure that the design of the kickstart scheme delivers for our young people and employers alike. We continue to work with those in growing sectors to boost further opportunities, so far creating more than 4,000 applications and more than 20,000 approved kickstart roles—these numbers are growing daily.
Mark Menzies [V]
Last week, I met with Ameon, a building services company based in Fylde that is looking to grow its team due to the recent construction boom in the north-west. In construction, qualifications are vital to building a career. Will my hon. Friend outline how the kickstart scheme interacts with sixth-form and further education colleges to help enrolees to get valuable experience of work and certified lifetime skills?
Mims Davies
Businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency are coming forward daily, and DWP employer advisers are running daily sessions to get young people ready to be matched with placements. In addition, we have created new youth hubs and are working with local partners to assist young people in removing any barriers. Alongside that, we have allocated every kickstarter an additional £1,500 of employability support to ensure that they are ready to take up future work opportunities.
Alan Mak
Small and medium-sized enterprises in my Havant constituency are major local employers and already support apprenticeships in large numbers. What steps is my hon. Friend’s Department taking to help kickstart gateway providers, particularly local authorities, to help SMEs to benefit from the scheme?
Mims Davies
We are determined that SMEs can take part in kickstart. We are actively working with a range of gateway organisations, including chambers of commerce, local authorities and charities, so that they can support smaller employers to offer kickstart roles. Guidance is regularly updated through the kickstart portal on gov.uk to clarify the process and highlight changes, and SMEs can access local employer contracts through those pages.
Dr Mullan
More than a dozen local businesses and charities have put forward applications, working with myself and the South Cheshire chamber of commerce. They are keen to get going and want to give young people opportunities. When might they be able to start deploying the roles?
Mims Davies
We are encouraging employers to create a range of opportunities through the kickstart scheme for all young people aged 16 to 24 who are at risk of long-term unemployment, including those who have disabilities. Our work coaches will help to identify those young people in need of any extra support available through the kickstart scheme and any other suitable provision to support them. Meanwhile, my hon. Friend will be interested to know that the wide-ranging opportunities in his constituency go to the approval board this week for consideration.
Felicity Buchan
The kickstart scheme is proving to be a great success in my North Kensington jobcentre, with many placements already made and a number—for instance, in gyms—awaiting the end of lockdown. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is critical that we get young people into work, especially in London, where the cost of living is so high?
Mims Davies
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend: it is vital that we support young people into employment. As we know, they are often the most affected in these times of economic uncertainty. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that in addition to kickstart, the DWP Kensington youth team is actively working with local partners, such as the Rugby Portobello Trust, to help young people in her constituency back into work.
Mrs Latham [V]
Young people are particularly at risk of being left behind as a result of this pandemic. Will my hon. Friend assure me that as we get our economy moving again, she will ensure that younger people have the chance to develop the skills that they need for future employment?
Mims Davies
The Secretary of State and I are determined that the kickstart scheme will provide for young people a vital springboard to gain vital skills and experience in fully subsidised six-month roles, which will help to build their networks and their future opportunities before they move into long-term employment, apprenticeships, traineeships or further training. I was delighted to be in Derbyshire earlier this year to see exactly how the scheme will work on the ground.
Catherine West
In the previous Parliament, Members will recall that the apprenticeship levy scheme was a bit of a flop. It let down businesses, young people, local authorities and colleges. With my local area seeing a 182% increase in unemployment, youngsters are having their lives blighted by joblessness now. What urgent action is being taken to work with local authorities, with employers and, of course, with colleges to promote apprenticeships as a viable future option?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for that question. It is very important that kickstart works with all the opportunities that are available for young people, and my Department is working across Government to achieve that. The Haringey youth team is made up of 10 work coaches focused on 18 to 24-year-olds and, absolutely, they are already working directly on this in her Wood Green jobcentre, and I encourage her to go to see it if she has not already done so.
Andrew Gwynne [V]
Partnership will be crucial to drive down youth unemployment. I know that areas such as Greater Manchester are keen to understand how kickstart performs locally to assist in making the initiative a success. Can the Minister give clarity as to whether all the information relating to kickstart participation, which now comes in terms of gateway organisations, number of job placements applied for, sector information and so on, will be shared with mayoral combined authorities such as the Greater Manchester Combined Authority so that they are able to identify gaps that may then require more local partnership intervention?
Mims Davies
I am meeting with the M9 Group of Mayors once again and they have been absolutely crucial in terms of local design, local mayors, local enterprise partnerships, and our local chambers of commerce. The scheme has been designed with local authorities and local labour markets in mind. The hon. Member will be pleased to know that we are working closely with Stockport local authority, particularly with its job match service around kickstart.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]
I am sure that, like me, the Minister wants to ensure that kickstart works for disabled people. I would like to know whether the Government have carried out an equality impact assessment of this scheme, and whether they will publish it. Will they also commit to the following: support from Access to Work from day one of employment; access to kickstart for recipients of employment and support allowance; and disability awareness training for all employment advisers? These small changes could help to ensure that every young person is able to benefit from kickstart.
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I know that she is focused on young people, as am I. She may have heard from the Secretary of State that we are absolutely determined about this and that that work is already embedded; it is part of kickstart. This placement is treated like regular work, so all existing schemes such as Access to Work can be used, and our young people in jobcentres will be able to discuss all the options via the work coach.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Earlier this month, I announced the £170 million covid winter grant scheme to help disadvantaged people, particularly children, through the challenging winter months ahead, with food and essential utility bills over Christmas through to the end of March. The first half of funding for the scheme will reach local authorities in England this week. I am delighted to say that Nottinghamshire has been allocated £2.3 million and South Gloucestershire £569,000.
Ben Bradley [V]
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is hugely important for the most vulnerable children—those whose welfare we know is a source of worry for their teachers when they do not see them for weeks—that we can offer the best possible help in the holidays, with proper structured and face-to-face support for those children and their families such as that offered through our holiday activity clubs?
Dr Coffey
I agree with my hon. Friend and he looks ready and dressed to support a holiday activity fund when the opportunity comes along. Maintaining that important link over the longer holidays can be transformative for children’s health and educational prospects, which is why I was proud to announce earlier this month the £220 million expansion of the programme for the longer school holidays right throughout 2021. This will offer enriching activities such as arts and sports, which will help them to perform better in school, as well as a free nutritious meal while they are there.
Jack Lopresti
I welcome the announcement of the additional winter support funding across South Gloucestershire, which will benefit lots of my constituents, but can my right hon. Friend assure me that this additional funding will be spent efficiently by the councils and go to the people who need it?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress that point. As I have already indicated, his council will receive just over half a million pounds. The grant has come with conditions to ensure that the money is targeted towards the most disadvantaged people, and councils will be expected to report on that. They have a wide range of information to help them, including access to who is on benefits and other elements, to ensure that they reach people who really are disadvantaged at this time of year.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The further funding for our plan for jobs—particularly the £2.9 billion for the restart programme that is focusing on those at risk of long-term unemployment —as well as ongoing support for our other schemes and work coaches shows our focus on helping people to get back into work. Through Barnett consequentials, £36 million of funding will be available for equivalent measures in Scotland next year. Other elements, such as the record increase in defence spending and the 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution, will help to create new jobs that will positively impact Scotland and the wider UK.
Patrick Grady
That will be news to my constituents in Glasgow North, who have had to cope with the closure of their jobcentre. That decision, along with the closure of 200 other jobcentres since 2010, is starting to look a little bit short-sighted. The Chancellor says that he will do everything it takes to support the estimated 2.6 million people who will be unemployed next year, so where exactly are these job coaches going to be based, and will the Government prioritise the places that have already suffered from the closure of local jobcentres?
Dr Coffey
I think it is the situation in Glasgow that a number of jobcentres were consolidated into one area. I am a great believer that, instead of necessarily investing money in bricks and mortar, we should invest in the people who will provide that support. In Scotland more broadly, we are aiming to hire over 800 new work coaches; 400 have already been recruited to date, and I know that some of those are in Glasgow.
Patricia Gibson
The Chancellor could have made the £20 uplift to universal credit permanent, but instead he has left households deeply concerned as they face the prospect of a cut to this vital lifeline in spring. We in the Scottish National party have pressed UK Ministers on this matter countless times. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether she discussed extending the universal credit uplift with the Chancellor prior to the spending review, and whether she believes that this extension should have been included?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Lady will be aware that the temporary extension of the £20 universal credit uplift was made in line with the fiscal measures made earlier this year. With regard to the benefit uprating, I put that through as that is the normal process that we go through, but, as has been indicated, we will continue to look at this matter again in the new year.
Allan Dorans [V]
For the last eight months, around 2 million disabled people and others on legacy benefits have been discriminated against through being excluded from the £20 uplift granted to those receiving universal credit. The Chancellor’s failure to extend the £20 uplift to them is another humiliating insult to the most disadvantaged and vulnerable in our society, and only granting them an additional 37p a week from next April is nothing short of abhorrent. Does the Secretary of State think it is acceptable that people on legacy benefits are now facing a second year without sufficient financial support from this Government?
Dr Coffey
Last year we actually increased benefits by inflation, and we have made sure that that has happened again so that there are no cuts in that regard. I am keen to continue to do what we can to encourage people to move across to universal credit. There is only one group of claimants who are effectively barred from doing that, and that will change in January next year. I genuinely want to put across how important it is; by using things such as Help to Claim and getting support directly, people can often see that they will be considerably better off under universal credit.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State announced that the local housing allowance would again be frozen in cash terms in 2021, having only moved out of the previous freeze in March. That means, as the Office for Budget Responsibility has pointed out, that LHA rates will fall back below the 30th percentile. The Government have cut local housing allowance consistently since 2010-11, including freezing it from 2016 to this year. Will the Secretary of State tell us what estimate the Department has made of the effect on children in poverty of pushing the LHA back below the 30th percentile?
Dr Coffey
The decision made last year was to increase to the 30th percentile in cash terms—that is around £1 billion of welfare support that has been added. On consideration, we felt it was right to continue the cash freeze as we recognise that around the country we are seeing rents potentially going down, although I recognise that in some places they may continue to rise. Overall, people have certainty in the amount of cash that they have. It is certainly not going back but about making sure that this is a permanent change and was not just a temporary one.
Ms Buck
The fact is that the number of children in poverty in the private rented sector rose by half a million between 2010 and 2019, so whatever uplift has been put in over the past year is in that context and we will see more children plunged into poverty as a result. Will the Secretary of State tell us exactly what steps she will take to ensure that more children do not fall into poverty as a result of the re-freezing of housing allowances?
Dr Coffey
I think I have already answered the hon. Lady. We have not reduced the LHA back to pre-covid arrangements; we decided to make that change a permanent fixture but to freeze it at cash levels, recognising that, as I said, nearly £1 billion had been injected into welfare support. We will continue to work on this issue throughout the country and I am keen to see what we can do on aspects of housing, which is why I am in regular conversation with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about how we do things such as bring empty homes back into use as accommodation. I want to make sure that people have as much affordable housing as possible, and the increase to LHA of nearly £1 billion is one way to achieve that.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) [V]
Shortly, Nicola Sturgeon will outline in her conference speech plans to pay families who receive free school meals a £100 grant to help them through winter till the new, game-changing Scottish child payment starts in the new year. The Secretary of State’s Government could have matched the Scottish Government’s anti-poverty ambition at the spending review, but they failed even to make the UC uplift permanent or extend it to legacy benefits. Can she point to anything in the spending review that is there to address poverty?
Dr Coffey
The best way to get out of poverty is to get into work. I am very conscious that there are real challenges right now, as we see an increasing number of unemployed people. There are vacancies, but part of the Government’s job is to stimulate interest, which we are doing with a multibillion-pound investment in a variety of schemes, not only to create jobs, with kickstart, but to make sure that people are ready to get back into work. The idea is that we need to try to create confidence within business, and that will be a key part of that. I am sure the hon. Gentleman welcomed the money that came through the Barnett consequentials that will support initiatives that the Scottish Government might wish to undertake.
Neil Gray
The Secretary of State talks about jobs, yet just as employment is expected to reach 2.6 million, she plans, shamefully, to cut universal credit. Ahead of the spending review, a petition organised by the Disability Benefits Consortium and signed by 119,000 people was handed in to the Government, calling for the UC uplift to be extended to legacy benefits. Given that living costs have increased dramatically for disabled people during the pandemic, why have the Government not acted? Does that not just summarise perfectly the tale of two Governments: a Scottish Government extending support to those who need it while the UK Government increases disability benefits by a derisory 37p?
Dr Coffey
Last week I published the benefit uprating statement, which indicated the inflation rise for benefits, as well as the 2.5% for state pensions. I am conscious that a number of different things are going on with benefit spending—my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work just reminded me that benefit spending on people with disabilities is up 5%. I think there is a lack of understanding of what the spending review is: it is not about budgetary measures, which tend to come with major fiscal events. As has been indicated before, the decision to consider the temporary uplift to universal credit will be made in the new year.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
Statutory sick pay provides a minimum level of income for employees who are unable to work. We have made temporary changes to support people to follow public health advice on coronavirus.
Margaret Greenwood [V]
At £95.85 a week, the level of statutory sick pay is just too low, and it excludes 2 million of those on the lowest pay. To qualify for the Government’s test and trace support payment, people need to be receiving social security payments like universal credit; according to the Resolution Foundation, seven out of eight workers will not qualify for it. What assessment have the Government made of the number of people who are ineligible for either statutory sick pay or the test and trace support payment? Will they commit to increasing the level of statutory sick pay and extend it to everyone, including the low-paid and the self-employed?
Justin Tomlinson
Those required to stay at home by NHS Test and Trace could be eligible for the additional £500 of financial support if they are on UC, working tax credits, employment and support allowance, jobseeker’s allowance, income support, housing benefit or pension credit, and that is just part of our wider targeted welfare safety net.
Gerald Jones [V]
For testing and tracing to work effectively, people need the reassurance that they will be able to feed their families. Statutory sick pay is not adequate to support people who need to self-isolate, so will the Minister give us hope that the Government will provide the necessary support to allow people not to have to choose between their health and their livelihoods?
Justin Tomlinson
The hon. Member is right to highlight the importance of this matter, and that is why statutory sick pay is part of the wider targeted financial support that we offer. Depending on eligibility for individual households, they could also get support through universal credit, new-style ESA or the self-employed income support scheme.
Emma Hardy [V]
I have been inundated with constituents contacting me about low statutory sick pay and problems claiming the isolation benefit. One said:
“I work as an agency nurse. If I don’t work I don’t get paid. My husband tested positive who works and so I had to self-isolate. I fulfilled 3 of the 4 isolation criteria so I didn’t get a penny. As a result I have lost 2 weeks wages. I am NOT happy. I can very easily see why people don’t bother to get tested and go into work even if they have symptoms or have been in contact. Simply lack of income.”
What will the Minister do to stop people on low incomes being financially punished when they are trying to do the right thing?
Justin Tomlinson
Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy rightly have been introducing stronger and clearer guidance for employers. Employees who are not able to get reasonable adjustments put in place should either speak to their union representatives or can go through ACAS to seek resolution. Nobody should be going into work when they are meant to be self-isolating or are sick through covid.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
Throughout the pandemic, our covid-secure jobcentres have remained open to the most vulnerable in society who require face-to-face support. We have also introduced new processes to cut telephony waiting times and enhanced our digital platforms. That empowers our work coaches to engage with customers through appropriate channels, based on their knowledge of the customer and the local situation.
Andrew Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but in some parts of our country, including parts of Harrogate and Knaresborough, access to broadband or even a mobile phone signal can be quite limited. How is he helping the excellent team at Harrogate jobcentre help those who cannot have a face-to-face appointment, yet struggle to gain access to the internet?
Will Quince
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he is a huge advocate and supporter of his local jobcentre. We have made all our jobcentres covid-secure, including Harrogate, by introducing a range of safety measures, including screened desks, social distancing signage, mandatory face covering for claimants, the provision of hand sanitiser and regular touch-point cleaning, but for those who are unable to attend a jobcentre, and depending on their individual circumstances, alternative arrangements can of course be put in place.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
My hon. Friend will be aware that we have committed to recruit an additional 13,500 work coaches by March 2021, and we are on track to meet that. Since July, 5,468 have been recruited, and I had the pleasure of meeting some of our new London recruits at the Department for Work and Pensions’ Caxton House. I was delighted by the additional positivity, diversity of skills and fresh knowledge they bring to the DWP family.
Craig Tracey
It is great to hear that progress is being made on that, and I am sure the Minister would agree that its success depends not just on quantity, but quality. Can she confirm what measures are being taken to ensure that these coaches have the right experience and training to ensure that they provide real value? In recognising that people will have vastly different needs, what will be done to ensure that they are connected with the right coach, rather than just a coach?
Mims Davies
All our new work coaches receive six weeks’ up-front training. That includes a week’s induction, followed by an initial 25 days’ intensive training, 20 days’ facilitated learning and five days’ consolidation. Their ongoing learning continues with access to action learning sets, bite-sized products and a learning hub to help build their confidence and skills as they continue to grow in their role. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that a second round of recruitment will kick off in his region in the run-up to Christmas, looking for almost 200 more work coaches.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
The new enhanced DWP youth offer commenced in September. That is in addition to kickstart. We are increasing the support offered via a 13-week youth employment programme to help young people gain the skills and experience that employers are looking for. We are also working with our network of external partners to deliver 100 new youth hubs, co-located and co-delivered locally, alongside expanding the number of our youth employability work coaches.
Danny Kruger
I am encouraged to hear about the progress being made on the kickstart scheme. Does my hon. Friend agree that schemes that provide young people with not only a job placement and coaching but wider personal skills training and even opportunities for social action are more likely to be successful in equipping young people for their careers and incentivising employers to keep them on?
Mims Davies
I absolutely agree, and I thank my hon. Friend for his work and interest in supporting young people and focusing on their progression. I remind all Members that, outside the 25 hours that a kickstart work placement provides, jobseekers are encouraged by their work coaches to undertake other activities to help them progress towards long-term employment.
Mark Jenkinson
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and appreciate the work that the Department is doing in this important area. Youth unemployment remains a challenge in Workington. Can she outline the steps that her Department is taking to assist my young constituents at a local level?
Mims Davies
My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that his excellent Workington jobcentre has developed five mentoring circles for young people, covering topics such as first impressions, transferable skills, interview skills and CVs. There has been much interest by local employers in Workington to become part of kickstart, with new job opportunities available across many sectors, including roles in adult social care and additional placements working with businesses such as Tesco.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
The minimum income floor —the MIF—was first suspended in March this year, and we have now extended the suspension until the end of April 2021. This provides vital support for self-employed claimants by ensuring that they receive a full UC award during these uncertain times.
Steve Double
There is no doubt that the universal credit system has stood up well to the unprecedented increase in demand placed on it this year, including by being flexible and responsive in the way that the Minister described. Will she join me in thanking the staff at the UC service centre in St Austell, which I believe is the busiest and best performing service centre in the country, for their excellent hard work and dedication this year? Does she share my concern that all we hear from the Opposition is dragging down the system, which is working so much better than the legacy system we inherited, and while they call for it to be scrapped, they never say what they would replace it with?
Mims Davies
I would be delighted to extend my thanks to the dedicated and hard-working team at the St Austell service centre and their colleagues across the rest of the DWP, who have played their part in processing a 90% national increase in UC claims since March. I agree with my hon. Friend’s point about the Opposition. Without the agile, digital universal credit system, we simply would not have been able to quickly and safely process millions of additional claims and get money and support to the people who needed it most in this health emergency.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
We are committed to ensuring that people with disabilities and long-term health conditions get the vital support that Access to Work provides. That includes working with more than 19,000 Disability Confident employers to enable them to promote access to work through their networks.
Wera Hobhouse
According to recent research, 42% of employers feel discouraged from hiring people with a disability because they are not confident about how to support their needs through the pandemic. Will the Government consider fast-tracking Access to Work applications for disabled people through the kickstart scheme, as recommended by the charity Leonard Cheshire?
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for that question. I know I am meeting the hon. Member on 14 December to discuss this in more detail. I am also meeting the new chief executive of Leonard Cheshire, so I will discuss that report in detail. I am very proud, as a Government, that we have delivered record disability employment, and last year 43,000 people benefited from Access to Work—up 20%. Through schemes such as Access to Work and Disability Confident, and our highly trained and skilful work coaches, we will continue to engage with employers of all sizes to give them the confidence to take advantage of the huge wealth of talent that is available with a diverse workforce.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Our plan for jobs includes a range of targeted measures to help claimants of all ages. Our job entry targeted support scheme—JETS—will help over 250,000 people of all ages who are unemployed for three months to re-engage with the labour market. Young people at Bury jobcentre are currently receiving support from a specialist work coach, offering tailored support, and linking with local authorities to establish a virtual youth hub, Bury works.
Christian Wakeford
Mr Speaker, I hope you were able to enjoy a happy Lancashire Day, although in a covid-secure manner.
Can I thank my right hon. Friend for the work she is doing on getting young people back into work with programmes such as kickstart, and can I ask my right hon. Friend to advise what work is being done to help get those over 50 back into work also?
Dr Coffey
There is a wide range of programmes where people can consider potential changes of career. That could be through SWAPs—sector-based work academy programmes, JETS, which is specifically targeted at older people, or kickstart, which tends to be focused on younger people. It is important to recognise that there is a wide range of opportunities with which our work coaches will be trying to help people at this difficult time in their lives, but there are wider schemes that people can consider. I am particularly excited by the Department for Education proposals on things such as Teach Last, because I think there is a lot of talent that could be used to help the next generation too.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
The latest Office for National Statistics labour market figures show a level of unemployment of 1.6 million. This has increased by around 260,000 since the start of the pandemic. As part of our plan for jobs package, the DWP has launched new programmes, including kickstart, JETS and the job finding support service to help people who have been impacted by the pandemic to find new employment.
Robert Halfon [V]
My hon. Friend will be aware that since March, because of covid, youth unemployment in my constituency of Harlow has, sadly, risen by 134%. Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the extraordinary work of the Harlow jobcentre, and to the education, skills and training provided by Harlow further education college, which will be at the forefront of creating jobs? Can she set out how Harlow businesses can access the kickstart scheme and the apprentice funding announced by the Chancellor?
Mims Davies
I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to the hard work and commitment of the Harlow jobcentre staff throughout these difficult times. We are in active discussions on a new DWP youth hub in Harlow. Those at Harlow jobcentre, alongside our 600-plus other jobcentres, do an immense job daily, encouraging and helping our most vulnerable claimants and supporting all individuals based on their circumstances, and that is where kickstart and other programmes will come in. Jobcentres do work locally with external partners—with charities, local employers and key organisations across Harlow and elsewhere—on local recovery plans and local needs.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
The latest ONS labour market unemployment level in the east of England is 137,000, and the national rate now stands at 4.8%. In addition to other measures, the DWP has established “job help” and “employer help” websites to provide jobseekers locally and employers the opportunity to get guidance and tools to help people find new roles.
Rachel Hopkins
Nearly 15,000 people are relying on the inadequate support provided by universal credit. So, to get a grip of the jobs crisis, what discussions is the Minister having with the Chancellor regarding reasons for using the furlough scheme to keep people in work and to incentivise employers to use it as flexibly as possible—for example, to allow workers at risk of redundancy a trial period in a new role, rather than proceeding to make them redundant?
Mims Davies
That is absolutely the reason we have the job help website and at DWP our rapid response service. That is why we have our £30 billion plan for jobs, which includes the JETS—job entry targeted support—scheme, the “find a job” support service and the new employer help and job help websites.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
Analysis from Her Majesty’s Treasury shows that the Government’s interventions have supported the poorest working households the most, with those in the bottom 10% of the income distribution seeing no reduction in income. As the Government have done throughout this crisis, they will continue to assess how best to support low-income families, which is why we will look at the economic and health context in the new year.
Lilian Greenwood
In 2018-19, 34.8% of children in my constituency were living in poverty when housing costs were taken into account, and from January to August this year there was a 68% increase in the number of families claiming universal credit. Last week the Chancellor told us that the
“economic emergency has only just begun”—[Official Report, 25 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 827.]
and that unemployment is set to rise for months to come. When the Minister knows that more and more families in Nottingham are going to face wage cuts and job losses, how can he argue that universal credit should be cut in just a few months’ time?
Will Quince
First, I do not recognise those figures and certainly nobody is making that case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has confirmed the universal credit uplift until March 2021, and it is right that we wait for more clarity on the national economic and social picture before assessing the best way to support low-income families moving forward. I would just gently say to the hon. Lady that the uplift is just one part of a comprehensive package that we have put in place to support people through this most difficult of periods.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Last week I announced the outcome of my annual uprating review. It delivers on our manifesto commitment for the pensions triple lock, thus providing financial peace of mind for pensioners across the UK. The basic and new state pension will be increased by 2.5% as that is the highest of the increases—inflation, earnings or 2.5%—and it means that from April 2021 the yearly basic state pension will be worth around £2,050 more in cash terms than in 2010.
Steve McCabe
With Birmingham set for an extended period in tier 3, does the Secretary of State have any plans to revisit the plight of pregnant mothers who are eligible for universal credit but ineligible for statutory maternity pay and therefore at a considerable financial disadvantage?
Dr Coffey
Of course, being in tier 3 has been put forward by the Government, and I am very conscious of the efforts that were being made right across Birmingham and other areas of the west midlands to get out of that tier. As regards matters such as statutory maternity pay, a lot of these things continue to be under consideration, but I will consider the points the hon. Gentleman has made.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to this important point. As a result of actions by this Government the UK is the first major economy to put climate risk and disclosure into statute for pension schemes, leading the way on this issue, having already legislated for net zero by 2050 and introduced ESG—environment, social and governance—legislation through 2018 amendments to the occupational pension schemes investment regulations. I genuinely look forward to when we manage to complete the Pension Schemes Bill to bring all that into effect.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week the Chancellor described the scale of the unemployment crisis in the UK when he said that we could be facing 2.6 million people out of work next year. The Government’s major announcement to tackle that was the restart programme, but analysis of the spending review document shows that restart will not get up to scale until 2022, a full year after unemployment has peaked, so what will the Government be doing next year, as unemployment peaks, to help people get through the crisis?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to our plan for jobs. He will be aware that there are a number of schemes already under way, including kickstart, JETS and the sector-based work academy programme. It will take a little time to contract for the long-term unemployment programme, but I assure him that, compared with the last financial crisis just over a decade ago under the Labour Government, we have acted far more quickly in getting these employment contracts in place, because we need to make sure that people do what they can to try to remain connected to the labour market.
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, but last week the Chancellor said that this is the biggest economic crisis for 300 years, and he is right, so I cannot understand how those same spending review documents show the Government cutting universal credit next April—a £1,000-a-year cut, taken from 6 million families just when they need it most. No Government since the great depression have cut unemployment benefits during a crisis, so how can the biggest economic crisis for 300 years be the time to do so?
Dr Coffey
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government introduced a raft of temporary measures to support those hardest hit, including the furlough scheme, the self-employment income support scheme and the £20 UC uplift. The Chancellor has confirmed the UC uplift until March ’21, and it is right that we wait for more clarity on the national economic and social picture before assessing the best way to support low-income families moving forward. That is exactly what I put in the written ministerial statement last week.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
Work coaches are vital in delivering our £30 billion plan for jobs. They have done an amazing job already this year, with an additional almost 5,000 work coaches already recruited, another 1,700 agreed starts in the pipeline and recruitment open again. We will be advertising for 3,000 more posts between now and the end of January, in addition to the posts currently advertised. Search “work coach” on gov.uk to apply.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Dr Coffey
We want to make sure that all eligible pensioners claim the pension credit to which they are rightly entitled, and we want to encourage people to either call the free claim line—0800 999 1234—or go online to gov.uk/pension-credit. We did a considerable amount of advertising earlier in the year to encourage that, and of course the BBC has, in effect, done some free advertising, recognising that those people who have pension credit will also get a free TV licence.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) [V]
Mims Davies
As part of our plan for jobs, the new job-finding support and JETS services will, crucially, help jobseekers move back into employment as quickly as possible, helping them to identify sectors that could be growing or new to them. I met our JETS providers just last week to hear some of their early success stories from across England and Wales. JETS rolls out in Scotland in early January.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
First, let me say that I appreciate that many people are facing financial disruption due to the pandemic, and the Government have put an unprecedented package of support in place. The universal credit uplift was designed to be targeted at those facing the most financial disruption, but most working-age legacy benefits will be increased in April next year in line with inflation, and legacy benefits recipients could benefit from the local housing allowance or, indeed, the local welfare assistance schemes. I remind the House that claimants on legacy benefits can make a claim to universal credit if they believe they would be better off, but I would encourage them to check their eligibility as their legacy benefit entitlement will cease on application.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
Dr Coffey
The situation that happens with aspects of pensions is quite complicated and often these are reciprocal arrangements, so that is where such things as aggregation may well happen, but that does rely on those agreements being in place. That has been the policy on pensions for longer than any of us in this House have been alive, I expect, and it continues to be honoured. I am conscious of what the hon. Member says, but there may well be other elements of support that the constituent to whom she refers may be entitled.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Will Quince
The universal credit system has risen to the challenge, going up from 2.2 million to 5.8 million claimants. That is why we have this modern, agile, dynamic system. It has performed incredibly well and I have no doubt that it will continue to do so.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
Dr Coffey
I know that the Pensions Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman)—will be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and to look at this matter. We take this absolutely seriously, in terms of wanting people to get the benefits to which they are entitled, and I am sure that he, as a very diligent local MP, will be able to use every lever that he has to improve the prospects of his constituents.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Will Quince
Our £170 million covid winter grant scheme will enable local authorities to support vulnerable households this winter with food and key utilities. As the Secretary of State has made clear, there are conditions, but I would certainly encourage local authorities to work with partners on the ground, making sure that this support reaches people across our communities.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that, according to the Office for National Statistics, the national average increase in unemployment is 24%, but for over-50s, it has risen by a third. Yet vacancies have fallen by 278,000 since the pre-pandemic period. Does the Minister agree that there are approximately a quarter of a million people over 50 who will never find work again?
Mims Davies
The latest ONS labour market data puts the unemployment level in the west midlands region at 145,000. Due to the pandemic, this rate has risen nationally. DWP is working across Government and looking very closely at these figures, using, for example, on older workers, our “Fuller Working Lives” plan. We are working with external organisations and partners to ensure a local and tailored response for all communities so that people are not left behind. As the hon. Member will have heard, we are recruiting additional work coaches as well to make sure that new and existing claimants get the opportunity to return to fulfilling work.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
The decision to deny disabled people on legacy benefits the crucial £20 uplift has been a bitter blow to those who already face years of navigating barriers in the welfare system. Will the Department commit to using the welfare Green Paper and the national disability strategy to ensure that disabled people have access to a welfare system that provides financial security without cruel sanctions?
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
The Department for Work and Pensions will work with disabled people, disabled people’s organisations and disability stakeholder groups on the Green Paper to shape the way we provide financial support and general support across our services. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that this year, there has been a 5% increase—up to £20 billion—in supporting people with disabilities through benefits, and that the legacy benefit increases also impacted on the changes in the local housing allowance. There has also been the increase in discretionary housing support, the various employment support schemes and additional support from local authorities, from which many disabled people will have benefited.
Mr Speaker
I say thank you to Secretary of State Coffey and her team—we have cleared everyone on the list. Thank you, everybody—we have all worked well together.
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 three minutes.
Scheduled Mass Deportation: Jamaica
(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
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make a statement on the scheduled mass deportation by charter plane to Jamaica.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
This charter flight to Jamaica is specifically to remove foreign criminals. The offences committed by the individuals on this flight include sexual assault against children, murder, rape, drug dealing and violent crime. Those are serious offences, which have a real and lasting impact on the victims and on our communities. This flight is about criminality, not nationality. Let me emphasise: it has nothing to do with the terrible wrongs faced by the Windrush generation. Despite the extensive lobbying by some, who claim that the flight is about the Windrush generation, it is not. Not a single individual on the flight is eligible for the Windrush scheme. They are all Jamaican citizens and no one on the flight was born in the United Kingdom. They are all foreign national offenders who between them have served 228 years plus a life sentence in prison.
It is a long-standing Government policy that any foreign national offender will be considered for deportation. Under the UK Borders Act 2007, which was introduced and passed by a Labour Government with the votes of a number of hon. Members who are present today, a deportation order must be made where a foreign national offender has been convicted of an offence and received a custodial sentence of 12 months or more. Under the Immigration Act 1971, FNOs who have caused serious harm or are persistent offenders are also eligible for consideration.
Let me put this flight in context. In the year ending June 2020, there were 5,208 enforced returns, of which 2,630, or over half, were to European Union countries, and only 33 out of over 5,000 were to Jamaica—less than 1%. During the pandemic, we have continued with returns and deportations on scheduled flights and on over 30 charter flights to countries including Albania, France, Germany, Ghana, Lithuania, Nigeria, Poland and Spain, none of which, I notice, provoked an urgent question. The clear majority of the charter flights this year have been to European countries.
Those being deported have ample opportunity to raise reasons why they should not be. We are, however, already seeing a number of last-minute legal claims, including, in the last few days, by a convicted murderer, who has now been removed from the flight.
This Government’s priority is keeping the people of this country safe, and we make no apology—no apology—for seeking to remove dangerous foreign criminals. Any Member of this House with the safety of their constituents at heart would do exactly the same.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
First, no one opposing this flight condones any of the crimes that these individuals have been found guilty of. It is the process of mass deportation that is fundamentally wrong, and it is notorious for bundling people out of the country without due process. Does the Minister recognise that this decision effectively amounts to double jeopardy when those involved in some lesser offences have already served their custodial sentence? Does he recognise the message that that sends about the consequences of being a white offender or a black offender, given the racial disparities in sentencing?
I hope the Minister agrees that no one is above the law, not even the Government, and that no one is beneath adequate defence and proper legal representation, not even those born in other countries. Will he therefore outline whether the deportees have been granted access to adequate legal advice and representation, and whether any have been allowed to appeal this decision, particularly given the lockdown restrictions and the likelihood that they would have no access to legal aid?
On being above the law, the Equality and Human Rights Commission recently found that the Home Office unlawfully ignored warnings that the hostile environment was discriminatory. Can the Minister explain why the Government are so comfortable continuing with a key part of the hostile environment policy when it has been so damningly called into question? Has he considered the 31 children who will be impacted by having a parent removed from this country?
The Home Office has got it wrong again and again on immigration. Will it therefore think again, halt this deportation flight and finally end the illegal hostile environment?
Chris Philp
The hon. Lady speaks of what she calls mass deportations. I have already pointed out that, over the last year, of the 5,800 people who have been removed, only 33 have been of Jamaican nationality.
The hon. Lady mentioned black versus white. She was insinuating in her question that there was some element of underlying racism in this, but I have pointed out already that the vast majority of people who have been removed this year have been removed to European countries. This policy applies to people from Spain, France and Italy as much as it does to people from Jamaica. There is no element of discrimination in this policy whatever, and the hon. Lady was completely wrong to insinuate that, in some way, there was.
The hon. Lady asked about double jeopardy. She said that these people have been punished by a prison sentence already, but I say this: if somebody comes to this country, commits a serious criminal offence and puts our constituents at risk, it is right that, once they have served their sentence, or a great part of it, they should be removed. It is not just me who thinks that; it is the Labour Members who voted for this law in 2007 who think that, some of whom are sitting in this Chamber today.
The hon. Lady mentioned the EHRC and the compliant environment. This case is nothing to do with the compliant environment; it is about implementing the Borders Act 2007, as we are obliged to do. In terms of due process, there are ample opportunities to complain and appeal, as many people do, and I have mentioned already the case of a murderer who was taken off the flight just a few days ago following legal appeals.
We are protecting our fellow citizens, and I suggest that the hon. Lady takes a similar approach.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
Will my hon. Friend make it clear that people who come to the United Kingdom to contribute to our economy and our society are most welcome, but that those who come from foreign countries and then commit the most heinous of crimes, be it murder, sexual violence, violence against children or violence against the person, can expect to experience the full force of law and then be required to leave the country at the end of their sentence? Does he agree that, far from the public disagreeing with that, they are wholly in support of it and expect the Government to take this action to keep society safe?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend, as always, puts it very well. Of course, when people come to this country as immigrants and make a contribution—to academia, to the work environment, and in myriad other ways—we welcome them with open arms. Our new points-based system, which will become active in just a few days’ time, does precisely that. However, as he says, if somebody comes to this country and enjoys our hospitality, but abuses that hospitality by committing a serious criminal offence, they can, should, and will be removed in the interests of public protection.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) for having secured such an important and time-critical urgent question. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for his previous work and advocacy in this important area.
The news of this flight comes just days after the Equality and Human Rights Commission found that the Government, as we have heard, acted unlawfully in their treatment of the Windrush generation through the hostile environment. As Caroline Waters, the chair of the EHRC, said,
“The treatment of the Windrush generation as a result of hostile environment policies was a shameful stain on British history.”
There is no clear timetable for implementing the recommendations of the Wendy Williams report, and with just 12% of applicants having received a payment and at least nine people having died waiting, the Windrush compensation scheme is failing badly. In his written response to me over the weekend, the Minister said that it is wrong and offensive to conflate this returns flight with the Windrush scandal, but I am afraid that given this Government’s track record, their failings on Windrush and the delays in the compensation scheme, we simply have no faith that this Government have done their due diligence in relation to those on this scheduled flight, and we would not be doing ours if we did not ask the questions.
Of course, we recognise that those who engage in violent and criminal acts must face justice. However, we also hear that at least one person on that flight has a Windrush generation grandfather; there is another whose great-aunt was on the HMT Windrush, and another whose grandfather fought in the second world war for Britain. It is clear that we have not yet established just how far the consequences of the Windrush injustice extend. With that in mind, what assessment has been made to ensure that none of those scheduled to be on the flight are eligible under the Windrush scheme, or have been affected by the wider immigration injustices that impacted the victims of the Windrush scandal? What assurances can the Minister provide the House that the mandatory duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of the children left behind, who are innocent in this, has been considered?
It has also been reported that the Home Office has reached an agreement with the Jamaican Government that people who left Jamaica as children will no longer be repatriated. Can the Minister confirm whether this is the case, and can he also confirm what age someone would need to be to have been determined to be a child?
Chris Philp
The hon. Lady, the shadow Minister, asks about the Windrush scheme. As she will be aware, over 6,300 people have now been given citizenship, quite rightly, and 13,300 documents have been issued to those people who suffered terrible wrongs in the past. In terms of compensation, 226 people have now received claims totalling in excess of £2.1 million, with a great deal more to pay out. I can also confirm that all of these cases on the plane have been individually assessed, and none of them is eligible for the Windrush compensation scheme.
The hon. Lady spent a great deal of time talking about Windrush during her question, but I say again—as I said in my letter to her—that it is completely wrong to conflate the people who were the victims of terrible injustice in the Windrush cases with these cases, who are nothing to do with Windrush, have no Windrush entitlement at all, and have committed terrible criminal offences. She also asks about the age eligibility. The Government are fully committed to discharging their obligation under the 2007 Act, which is to seek to remove anyone of any age who has been sentenced to a custodial term of over 12 months. That has been, is, and will remain our policy.
I am not going to comment on the individual operational circumstances surrounding any particular flight, but we are fully committed to the 2007 Act’s provisions. In relation to children, there is a well defined test around family rights and how they interact with removal. It is possible for people to go to the courts if they want to test their family rights against the Government’s obligations to remove them. But we are clear that our priority is protecting British citizens from dangerous criminals, and that is what we are doing.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) [V]
The overwhelming majority of Mansfield residents will feel that foreign criminals of any nationality who violate our laws and our values should be removed from this country. Will my hon. Friend assure me and my constituents that it is public safety that is at the front of his mind; will he be clear that Labour’s attempts to draw everything into an argument about race are both plainly wrong and quite brazenly an attempt to silence people it disagrees with; and will he call out those celebrities who have spent the weekend trying to use their public profiles to shame businesses into not helping to remove murderers from the UK?
Chris Philp
I agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments. This is about protecting the British public. I am aware of cases where people have been removed from the deportation or removal programme owing to various appeals and have then gone on to commit crimes against our fellow citizens. It is precisely the kind of repeat crimes that damage our fellow citizens, our constituents, that we are seeking to prevent.
In relation to the celebrities and everything they have been saying, they should pay attention to the fact that, as I said before, the majority of removals and deportations are to European countries, and any suggestion that there is a racial element to this is obviously confounded by a straightforward look at the facts. Over half of the flights are to European countries. Less than 1% of removals in the past year have been to Jamaica, and anyone who is assisting the Home Office in those flights is doing a service to the country by protecting our fellow citizens.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]
While some deportation decisions are clear cut, many more involve careful balancing exercises weighing up a whole range of factors. The problem is that it is very difficult to trust the Home Office to make those judgment calls as week after week its policies and practices are torn to pieces in report after report. Stephen Shaw, in his Government-commissioned report, said that the deportation and removal of people brought up here from a young age was “deeply troubling” and entirely “disproportionate”. Why not act on that advice and exclude in law the deportation of those who have spent their childhood years here?
More broadly, why not commission Stephen Shaw to review the whole framework on deportation ? Until something like that happens, we simply cannot and will not have any faith in those decisions. The Minister appears to repeatedly conflate deportations and removals, so can he give us the separate figures for deportations only?
Chris Philp
In relation to deportations only, the 1% figure is very similar to the figure for removals more generally. In relation to the hon. Gentleman’s point about Stephen Shaw, we did not accept his recommendation about age back in 2018, and we do not accept it now. We remain fully committed to implementing the obligations imposed by the UK Borders Act 2007, as passed by the last Labour Government. In terms of due process and decision making, of course there is an extensive set of legal processes that anyone is able to avail themselves of, and they frequently do. I mentioned that just a few days ago somebody convicted of murder got themselves taken off the flight by launching just such an appeal, so there are plenty of processes—I say that advisedly—that people can avail themselves of if they disagree with any particular decision.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
The Opposition have been very clear that they oppose the Government’s efforts to deport foreign criminals who pose a risk to the British public and the people of Stoke-on- Trent. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party is the only party committed to law and order, evidenced further by our extra funding for more police?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is a great champion for the people of Stoke-on-Trent and in ensuring their safety as well. It is very disappointing to hear Labour Members questioning the removal of dangerous foreign nationals, although, interestingly, they are only raising it now, when we have had more than 30 charter flights go this year. This is the first time they have thought to raise this issue. This Government will defend the public and stand up for the safety of our constituents, and that is what we will do on Wednesday.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Minister will understand that there is a backdrop of distrust among the communities affected by the Windrush scandal that he should be trying to address in order to build confidence in deportation decisions. Given the Home Office’s response to a previous Select Committee report on Windrush that identified 32 people who had been deported as deemed foreign national offenders but who were likely to be part of the Windrush generation and whose circumstances had never been investigated, and given that the National Audit Office and Wendy Williams have recommended that the circumstances of those cases should be investigated, will he now do so?
Chris Philp
Let me start by offering the Home Affairs Committee Chairman reassurance in regard to the flight this week. All the people in scope for that flight have had their cases individually checked, and none of them is in the scope of the Windrush compensation scheme. As I have said, none was born in the United Kingdom. So those checks that she rightly calls for have been diligently carried out. In relation to the 32 historical cases that she refers to, I will look into that and write to her.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I find it extraordinary that the Opposition should choose an urgent question to plead the case for serious foreign criminals rather than standing up for the victims of crime, particularly on a day when an urgent question might be more appropriate on the issue of the imminent and extraordinarily early release of a woman, Mairead Philpott, who was jailed for the killing of six of her own children. Can my hon. Friend—
Mr Speaker
Order. I believe that it was correct to have this urgent question. Also, there is no alternative urgent question. Maybe if the hon. Gentleman had put one in, we could have considered it.
Tim Loughton
I am not criticising you, Mr Speaker; I am just questioning priorities. Can I ask the Minister how much we are spending already on housing these foreign criminals in the UK, and how much taxpayers’ money is being wasted on chartering places on flights that are not taken, often at the last minute?
Chris Philp
I certainly concur that Mr Speaker is wholly infallible in all matters.
I share my hon. Friend’s surprise at this question being tabled when the Government are simply discharging not only their duty but their obligation under an Act of Parliament passed by the last Labour Government, with the votes of a number of Members who are sitting on the Opposition side of the Chamber this afternoon. We are doing the right thing by protecting our fellow citizens. Many of the people concerned were living in the community rather than being housed. Our principal objective is public safety rather than finances, but his last point about charter flights is right. We suffer astonishingly high levels of legal attrition on these flights, largely as a result of legal claims often made at the very last minute—sometimes I wonder if they are intentionally made at the last minute—and we need to tighten up our legal system. As my hon. Friend may know, the Government intend to legislate next year to do exactly that.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Even if the Home Office were halfway competent in dealing with these matters, this area would still be absolutely fraught with difficulties, as the figures given to the House by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee indicate. It has been reported that the Government have now entered into an agreement with the Government of Jamaica regarding this flight and others. When will that agreement be published?
Chris Philp
We do not have any formal agreements. What we have is an ongoing dialogue about any individual flight or any individual operational circumstance, but let me make it completely clear that our commitment to discharging our duty under the 2007 Act, which is to seek to deport anyone committing an offence of over a one-year sentence, regardless of their age on arrival, remains steadfastly in place.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
As a magistrate and on many prison visits, I have frequently encountered criminals who came to the UK from overseas and committed serious offences that caused pain, suffering and long-lasting psychological harm. Does my hon. Friend agree that the responsibility of all of us across this House is to stand up for the victims of those crimes?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend, speaking as a magistrate, hits the nail exactly on the head. The principal concern of Members of Parliament should be protecting the victims of crime and protecting our constituents from the harm that might otherwise be done to them by foreign national offenders. That is precisely why it is right to remove foreign national offenders—so that they cannot commit any more offences against our constituents.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) [V]
Does the Minister accept that many people feel that this mass deportation is both cruel and potentially dangerous: cruel because he is separating, just weeks from Christmas, families of people who have served their sentence; and possibly dangerous because he is deporting vulnerable people—communities that we know are particularly vulnerable to coronavirus—in the middle of a pandemic?
Chris Philp
The right hon. Lady asks whether this is the right thing to do. The answer to that question is categorically yes—an answer that she herself gave when she voted in 2007 for the Act of Parliament under which the Government are required to carry out these deportations. The right hon. Lady voted for this measure herself. In relation to coronavirus risks, as I said already, we have been carrying out these flights throughout the entire summer and autumn period, using methods that the High Court has found to be covid-safe in immigration removal centres, such as reverse cohorting, distancing, frequent testing, temperature checks and so on and so forth. I therefore do not accept the right hon. Lady’s point. Let me say this again: the overwhelming consideration for Members of this House should be the protection of our constituents.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree with me and my constituents in Dudley North that any person who comes to this country, engages in criminal activity, breaks our laws and abuses our hospitality has no place in our society, and that the Government are therefore doing the correct thing in the interests of national security by removing these people from our country?
Chris Philp
Yes, I agree entirely. As I have said repeatedly, we are protecting our constituents from harm. These are dangerous offenders, whose offences including murder, rape and sexual assault against children. It would be irresponsible of us to allow people such as that to remain in this country when they are not nationals of the United Kingdom.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
Last week, the Equality and Human Rights Commission concluded that the hostile environment policies pursued by this Government broke equalities law. Specifically, the EHRC noted:
“When negative equality impacts were identified by the Home Office and stakeholders, they were repeatedly ignored, dismissed, or their severity disregarded”.
With that in mind, can the Minister say with absolute certainty that neither his Department nor any stakeholders have identified any negative equality impacts with this scheduled deportation flight? If he cannot, does he not then agree that the flight should be halted immediately?
Chris Philp
This flight and others like it are not part of the compliant environment to which the EHRC report referred. This is taking place as a statutory obligation under an Act of Parliament that was passed, as I have said already, by the last Labour Government. I am confident that they gave careful consideration to the equalities implications of the Act of Parliament that they passed. As I have also said, we have looked at each case individually and are confident—we know, in fact—that none of these cases are Windrush eligible. On the question of the equalities impact more widely, I have already pointed out two or three times that the majority of people subject to these charter flight deportations and removals are going to the European Union, which should tell the hon. Member a great deal.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
Can my hon. Friend explain what level of discretion the 2007 Act gives Ministers and reassure the House that both he and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary have considered every single case on this flight and deem them to be suitable for deportation under the conditions of that Act?
Chris Philp
We are very mindful of the obligations placed upon the Home Office and the Government by the terms of the 2007 Act, and we seek to fully abide by its terms. As I said, everyone in the scope of the charter flight going in a few days’ time has been very carefully considered to ensure that they are fully compliant with the obligations imposed by the Act.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
The cost of deportation—economic, ethical and, most importantly, human—cannot be justified. Can the Minister confirm that an equalities impact assessment has been completed regarding these proposed deportations, to demonstrate that due regard has been paid to equalities legislation?
Chris Philp
The hon. Lady talks about human cost. Let me tell her about the human cost caused by these criminals. What about the children who have been sexually assaulted by these criminals? What about the victims who have been murdered by these people? What about the victims of violent assault? What about the people whose lives have been ruined by drug addiction or who have been the victims of rape? What about those human tragedies? The hon. Lady and many Opposition Members appear to have nothing whatsoever to say about the human tragedy of the victims. Let us put the victims at the centre of today’s debate. They are the people we should be standing up for and speaking for. This Government will protect them. Why will she not?
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
Welcome to the modern Labour party—more concerned about stopping the deportation of foreign criminals than keeping our streets safe. We on the Government Benches do take that obligation and duty seriously; that is why we are taking these measures. I thank my hon. Friend for all the work that he is doing to deport these foreign serious criminals and make our country safer. Can he confirm that this Government are removing foreign criminals from the UK every week and that this flight is no different?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is this Conservative Government who are prioritising the victims and public safety. He is also right to say that the deportation of foreign national offenders, as we are required to do by law, happens as a matter of routine, week in, week out.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
Happy St Andrew’s day, Mr Speaker. This is not just about whether people are themselves connected to the Windrush generation. Deporting those who have been in the UK since childhood shows that the lessons of Windrush have not been learned. The Minister keeps referring to murderers and rapists, yet deportation applies to those with sentences as short as 12 months. Is it not time to provide legislative certainty and protection for those who come to the UK as children? Can the Minister say how many were originally included in this flight?
Chris Philp
I would like to reciprocate by wishing the hon. Lady a happy St Andrew’s day as well; I am sure the whole House will join me in that.
When it comes to removing people who are not British citizens—who are citizens of another country—but who put our constituents at risk, it is right that we move to deport as we currently do. The debate about whether some age threshold is appropriate is one that this House had in 2007, when the House rightly decided that anyone who is convicted of an offence and sentenced to more than a year is in scope. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) says something from a sedentary position. He himself voted for that Act, so he expressed his opinion on this matter in the Division Lobby back in 2007.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
I fully support what my hon. Friend is doing to deport these dangerous criminals and to keep people in this country safe. Is he as concerned as I am by reports that activist lawyers are trying to thwart the Government’s legal efforts to deport these criminals and keep the British people safe?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend is right to raise concerns about abuse of legal process. We find, not just in this context but across the entire immigration system, that last-minute claims are made—often immediately before removal or deportation, often 24 hours in advance—even though there has been plenty of opportunity to make such a claim previously, apparently with the express intention of frustrating the process. There is also an opportunity for people to raise repeated claims in sequence and sometimes over a period of many years in a manner that would appear to me to be potentially vexatious. That is something that the Government need to act on to sort out—my hon. Friend is right—and we do intend to legislate next year to close precisely the problematic areas to which he rightly refers.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
My constituent on this flight came to the UK in 1997 aged 26. He married a British citizen in 2004 and has two children aged 21 and 18. He was in prison for two years, and had he not been he would have been able to complete the process of indefinite leave to remain. His life was under threat when he was in Jamaica. It will be under threat if he is returned there. He is on suicide watch at the moment and has an active asylum claim. He was picked up last week and due to be deported this week. Will the Minister at least agree that this is not a proportionate reaction and that this flight should be delayed at least to give the opportunity for proper legal advice to be taken?
Chris Philp
I have the particulars of the case in front of me. He was sentenced to four years and served two. The offences were very serious indeed. No, we certainly will not be stopping the flight, but I do know that the hon. Gentleman has written to me about this particular case and I will, of course, respond to his letter.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
Will the Minister commit to review any law that prevents the deportation of these people, because no law should stop us removing foreign nationals who have committed very serious criminal offences, thereby undermining the very kindness and the hospitality that we have shown them and abusing the process in doing so?
Chris Philp
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I can give him that assurance. He puts it very well. We have extended a welcome and hospitality to people who come to this country, and rightly so. We have a long and proud history of welcoming people who make a contribution to our society, and this Government are the first to recognise the enormous contribution that people who have come to this country as immigrants have made, and the points-based system embraces that very principle. Where people abuse our hospitality by committing serious criminal offences, it is right that we remove them.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) [V]
The Minister does not seem to understand the sensitivities around the Windrush scandal, but nobody is arguing about deporting very serious violent criminals. Can the Minister say with certainty that nobody on this flight has been committed of just driving offences or has been groomed as a child?
Chris Philp
As the hon. Lady will know, only people who have been sentenced to a custodial sentence of a year or more are eligible, so, clearly, minor driving offences are outside the scope of that. It applies only to people who have been sentenced to a year or more in prison. She knows that very well because she voted for the Act of Parliament in 2007 that instituted these measures.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The fact that it is in any way controversial to deport foreign nationals who commit serious offences and are persistent offenders shows just what a farce the Labour party has become in recent years—Lord knows what the public must think of this exchange. May I say to the Minister that the overwhelming majority of my constituents will absolutely support what he is doing? Actually, they would want him to ignore the siren voices from the party opposite, and make it easier to deport foreign nationals who commit offences—perhaps to take in those who commit any offence at all, not just those who have to serve more than a year in prison.
Chris Philp
I am very grateful for the support emanating from the people of Shipley. I think the public will be astonished to see Labour MPs standing up on the side of dangerous criminals instead of on the side of victims and, even more importantly, people who might be victims in the future. On improving the legal system so that we can more readily deport people who are dangerous—dangerous criminals and others—we do, as I say, want to legislate to improve the system. It does not really work at the moment as it should, and my hon. Friend will have plenty of opportunities to support legislation with that purpose in mind next year.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
Government plans to push ahead with the mass deportation of 50 people to Jamaica this week are both obscene and irresponsible, and they fly in the face of the damning Equality and Human Rights Commission report released only last week, which declared the hostile environment policies illegal. We talk about victims, but what about the Windrush generation victims who are still fighting for compensation and justice? Will the Minister outline whether the EHRC’s findings have been taken into account during this process?
Chris Philp
I have already pointed out that these flights are nothing to do with the compliant environment; none of these individuals is in the scope of the Windrush compensation scheme. I must say that the hon. Lady is going a great disservice to those genuine victims of the Windrush tragedy—the Windrush scandal—by conflating them with dangerous offenders who are not British citizens and who are eligible for deportation under an Act that the Labour Government passed in 2007. She should reserve her indignation for those victims who have been affected by these terrible, terrible crimes.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The British people will expect foreign national offenders who have violated our laws and our values to be removed from our country. Does my hon. Friend agree that this charter flight shows that we are acting in the interests of the British people and that we have their overwhelming support in taking this action?
Chris Philp
Yes, I strongly agree. The public watching this afternoon’s debate will be astonished to see some Opposition Members apparently not willing to stand up for our fellow citizens who have been victims of these terrible offences.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I have been contacted by many of my constituents in Vauxhall who are concerned about these deportations. Given the Government’s track record on Windrush and the delay in implementing the lessons from the Wendy Williams review, it is understandable that hon. Members in this House seek assurances and more detailed information from the Minister in regard to this deportation. The Home Secretary has rightly committed to implement all of the 30 recommendations in that review. Will the Minister confirm how many recommendations have been implemented? Will he today give a clear timetable for when each of the 30 recommendations will be implemented?
Chris Philp
I have already given the House a clear assurance that all these cases have been individually looked at and, as I have said several times already, that none is eligible for the Windrush compensation scheme. It is wrong, and indeed almost offensive, to conflate, in any way, these people who have committed terrible criminal offences with those victims of the Windrush scandal; they are completely different things and it is completely wrong to conflate them. As the hon. Lady says, the Home Secretary is fully committed to implementing each and every one of Wendy Williams’ recommendations; she published a response to the Williams review back in September and I know that she will be keeping the House regularly updated about the timing of the implementation of each and every one of those 30 recommendations.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
Nearly 12 months ago, in constituencies such as Workington, this people’s Government were elected on a promise to make Britain safer and more secure. Does my hon. Friend agree that by continuing to remove these dangerous criminals from this country we are delivering on that commitment we made to the British people?
Chris Philp
Yes I do agree, of course. My hon. Friend puts the point very well. One of the most fundamental duties of any Government is to protect their citizens, and ensuring that foreign nationals convicted of serious offences are removed from the country is one very important way in which the Government can protect our fellow citizens. As I have said, I am aware of cases where people were eligible for removal or deportation but for some legal challenge reason this was not done and they then went on to commit some serious offences.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]
I have a constituent on the flight who came to the UK aged 11. He has no friends or family in Jamaica, but he does have three children who do not know that he is likely to be deported. Although he is desperate to see them one last time, he does not want them to worry. Have the Government carried out any assessment of the impact this will have on his children, who are likely to never see their father again?
Chris Philp
The balance between family rights and the obligation on the Government to remove dangerous offenders is laid out in statute. If a challenge is brought, it is up to the courts to determine in each individual case how that balance is struck. I would say—I have the case details in front of me, but I do not want to recite them to the House, for reasons of confidentiality—that the hon. Lady’s constituent is an extremely persistent and prolific offender, and that includes some quite dangerous offences. As I say, the balance between family rights and public safety is set out in statute and is struck by the courts, but I make no apology for putting public safety first.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]
There is great support in Amber Valley for the deportation of serious foreign national offenders but also great concern at how long the process takes. Does the Minister have any plans to revert to the position in the Immigration Act 2014, where some—[Inaudible.]
Chris Philp
I am afraid that the roll-out of rural broadband to my hon. Friend’s house clearly has a bit of a way to go, because he broke up a little. I think he was asking about finding ways to expedite the proceedings, and we are looking at ways we can do that, including by making sure that provisions in previous Acts of Parliament, which he may have been asking about, can be properly implemented. That is very high on the Government’s agenda.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Dangerous foreign criminals, including murderers, rapists and drug dealers, have no right whatever to remain in this country. The people of Blackpool South expect the Government to be resolute in standing up to those activist, left-wing lawyers who, in this instance, are working against the clear national interest. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he will never compromise the security and safety of my constituents by letting such dangerous offenders remain in the UK?
Chris Philp
As always, my hon. Friend speaks very well for his constituents. It is absolutely our intention to make sure that, where there are dangerous people in the United Kingdom, we will tirelessly seek to remove them. That is our duty as a Government, and we will work tirelessly, as I know he will, to discharge that duty.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
What worries me about the case of my constituent, who is due to be deported, is that I cannot even name him today, because there are genuine and credible grounds for him to believe that his life is under threat. That is surely a reason to pause and rethink whether he should be deported.
Chris Philp
There are obviously legal channels through which individuals can raise concerns of the type of the hon. Gentleman just referred to. As I say, many people do precisely that. Just a few days ago, a convicted murderer was removed from the flight for similar reasons. However, let me make it clear that it is our priority to protect British citizens, and that should be the hon. Gentleman’s priority, too.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
It is disappointing that Opposition Members have been less than supportive of the Government’s efforts to deport dangerous foreign criminals who pose a serious threat to this country’s national security and to the safety of the British people. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party is the only party committed to standing up for the victims, to having a firm hand on law and order and to making sure that this country remains safe and secure?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It has been conspicuous this afternoon that it has been Government Members who have stood up to speak out for victims and for the safety of their constituents; we have heard almost nothing of that from Opposition Members. The British public will have heard that, and they will draw their own conclusions.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
If the Minister listens carefully, he will hear that I am also speaking about victims and rehabilitation. The recommendations made by the Windrush lessons learned review have still not been implemented in full, and we still do not know why people are illegally deported. It is this that has caused distrust in the Government. Many of these predominantly black people set for deportation have already served their sentence. Many committed these offences when they were young, as they were victims of drugs operations known as county lines or have been criminalised in association. I put it to the Government that many of these people have grown up in this country since childhood, and it is our country’s moral responsibility to rehabilitate them.
Chris Philp
The hon. Lady said a few moments ago that the people subject to deportation proceedings are mainly black. That is not true because, as I said earlier very clearly, the majority of people removed and deported are removed and deported to European Union countries, and in the last year well under 1% of people subject to these proceedings have come from Jamaica. In relation to age, the test, as we have discussed already, is set out in statute—in the UK Borders Act 2007. It is an Act passed by the last Labour Government with the votes of a number of her colleagues who are sitting on the Opposition Benches right now.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Unlike Opposition Members, the people of Ashfield are absolutely delighted that murderers, rapists and other dangerous criminals are being flown out of the UK and deported to their country of origin. This will keep our streets safer and send out a clear message to anyone who does not share the values of our great country. Can my hon. Friend please reassure me and the people of Ashfield that this Government will continue to send vile criminals back to where they come from as they have no place in our society, and can he also thank Opposition Members for supporting this Act when it was passed in 2007?
Chris Philp
I am sure the Opposition Members who voted for the 2007 Act are extremely grateful for my hon. Friend’s reminder and thanks, but the thrust of his point I completely agree with. It is right that where someone endangers our fellow citizens, we act to deport them, because if we do not do that, we are exposing our constituents to ongoing risk. That is completely unacceptable, and this Government will take action.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Minister is making it clear that he and his Department find it irksome having to comply with the current requirements of the law. Thank goodness they do, because the law is there to protect everyone, and I get the impression that a number of Government Members do not approve of that. What access have those who were due to be on this flight had to legal advice prior to the flight’s departure?
Chris Philp
I would not say the Government find it irksome to offer people due legal process; of course we do not, because we respect those legal processes. However, we do find it deeply frustrating and, frankly, at times inappropriate when the legal system and the legal process are used in an abusive or vexatious way, as they apparently sometimes are. That is something we intend to come back to in legislation next year. In relation to access to justice, there are very ample opportunities provided for consultation with lawyers by all kinds of means. I would say that in my observation of people subject to Home Office proceedings, one thing they are not short of is legal advice—very often legally aided. The access to justice point that the right hon. Member makes is certainly amply catered for in a whole range of different ways.
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.
Agricultural Transition Plan
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s agricultural transition plan, published today.
The Agriculture Bill received Royal Assent on 11 November. The Agriculture Act 2020 sets out powers to reward farmers and land managers who protect our environment, improve animal welfare and produce high-quality food in a more sustainable way. These powers will also help farmers to stay competitive, with measures to increase productivity and invest in new technology. We will also improve transparency in the supply chain to help food producers strengthen their position in the market and seek a fairer return for the food they produce.
Today, we are publishing further details of our approach to exercising the powers under the Agriculture Act over the next seven years. We will remove arbitrary area-based subsidies on land ownership or tenure and replace them with new payments and new incentives to reward farmers for farming more sustainably, creating space for nature on their land, enhancing animal welfare and delivering the other objectives set out in the Agriculture Act.
The central plank of our future policy will be made up of the three components of environmental land management. The sustainable farming incentive will pay farmers for actions that they take to manage their land in an environmentally sustainable way. This could include schemes encouraging catchment-sensitive farming, integrated pest management and sensitive hedgerow management. Local nature recovery will pay farmers for actions that support local nature recovery, creating space for nature and habitats on farm and encouraging co-operation between farmers. Finally, the landscape recovery component will support the delivery of landscape-scale projects to deliver ecosystem recovery through longer-term land use change. This will help us meet our targets to plant 30,000 hectares of woodland a year by 2025, create and restore peatland, protect 30% of UK land by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050.
We know that this policy marks a significant change. I am also very conscious of the fact that many farm enterprises are dependent on the area-based subsidy payments to generate a profit, and that without them, some might judge they would not be profitable, so we have created a seven-year transition period. We want this to be an evolution, not an overnight revolution. That means making year-on-year reductions to the legacy direct payments scheme and simultaneously making year-on-year increases to the money available to support the replacement schemes.
Between 2021 and 2024, we will help farmers prepare to take part in our environmental land management offer. This will include expanding the existing countryside stewardship scheme and opening the new sustainable farming incentive to every farmer from 2022 onwards.
We recognise that there is a problem with poor profitability in agriculture. The premise behind our new policy is to tackle the causes of that poor profitability rather than simply masking it with a subsidy payment. Our new financial incentives for sustainable farming and nature recovery will be set at a rate to incentivise widespread participation and give consideration to natural capital principles. So in some areas they will go beyond the “income forgone” methodology of the past.
We will also make a significant number of grants available to support farmers in reducing their costs and improving their profitability, to help those who want to retire or leave the industry to do so with dignity, and to create opportunities and support for new entrants coming into the industry.
The dysfunctional, top-down rules and draconian penalties that were a feature of the EU era will be removed or reformed. The binary divide between advice and enforcement will also be broken down. Instead, there will be a modern approach to regulation, with more holistic assessments of regulatory compliance and greater emphasis on advice and improvement so that farmers and regulators work together to improve standards.
By 2027, we want to see a reformed agricultural sector. We want farmers to manage their business in a way that delivers profitable food production and the recovery of nature, fusing the best modern technology available today with the rediscovery of the traditional art of good farm husbandry. Our plan delivers those objectives, and I commend the statement to the House.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement, even if most of it was announced this morning in his online conference. For transparency, I remind hon. Members that my little sister is a sheep farmer in Cornwall.
The Secretary of State has majored on the green elements of the announcement, but this is about more than our environment. Of course Labour supports public money for public goods, but that is not what the statement is about. Strip away the green coating and the proposals are a full-throttle attack on English family farms. I say “English” because Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish farmers are going in a different direction because the devolved Governments are maintaining support for small farms for longer. Under the Government’s proposals, many small farmers will lose up to half their current support payments within just three years, leaving many financially unviable.
The public and farmers back high standards, but many farms will not be sustainable economically if the economic foundations of their business are undercut by food produced to lower standards abroad. British farmers remain at risk from future trade deals as the Government have chosen not to require food imports to meet the same standards that we hold our own farmers to.
Farmers themselves have not given today’s announcement a ringing endorsement. The panel that farmers convened to heap praise on the Secretary of State’s speech this morning described it as, “disappointing”, “lacking detail” and, “an announcement about further announcements”—not a glowing endorsement.
I am concerned about the 5% cuts for all, the 50% cuts in three years and the new system not even starting until 2022. Why was no sustainable farming initiative announced for next year, just a 5% cut and no bridge to environmental funding? Why was there so little detail on that and why is there a gap? Given that we are both west country MPs, does the Secretary of State share my concern that many south-west farmers will be forced out of business because of the changes? Does he have regional figures on the expected farm bankruptcies? The estimates that I have heard are deeply worrying. With the Government’s new farm exit schemes, there are huge incentives for people to leave agriculture early. How many small farmers does the Secretary of State expect to take that exit scheme rather than go bust?
Labour has five simple tests for the effectiveness of the policy. Will there be more family farms in 2024 than there are now? I doubt it. Will there be more family farm bankruptcies under the proposals? I expect so. Will Britain produce more of its food here rather than importing it? Will we be more reliant on food from America and Australia in future? Will English farmers have a tougher time than farmers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with their mix of direct payments and environmental funding? Labour backs our British farmers. I am very concerned that the Secretary of State’s announcement today risks breaking English family farms.
George Eustice
First, let me confirm that the policy we set out today is for England. Indeed, most of the powers in the Agriculture Act 2020 were for England. It will be open to the devolved Administrations to pursue their own policy. Even under the common agricultural policy, devolved Administrations had some freedom about the pillar 2 schemes that they could put in place. We will also co-ordinate policy with the devolved Administrations to ensure that there is no disturbance within the internal market. It is the case that over time, albeit at different paces, other devolved Administrations will not want to be shackled to the common agricultural policy that we have inherited, and they will want to take the opportunity to do things better.
The second point I would make relates to the profitability of agriculture. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the position of smaller farms. In fact, work done by AB Agri on farm productivity shows that there is not a correlation between farm size and productivity. Indeed, it is often the case that highly technically proficient, smaller family farms will have lower overheads and can look forward to the future with confidence. Agriculture is an industry that needs attention to detail, and that attention to detail is often best given by some smaller enterprises.
The other point I would make relates to food standards, which have been debated extensively in this House during the passage of the Agriculture Bill, now the Agriculture Act. We made changes to the Bill to introduce the Trade and Agriculture Commission and to require the Secretary of State to bring a report to Parliament outlining the impacts of any trade agreements on those standards. We have also been very clear as a Government that we will protect our producers from being undermined by substandard products produced overseas by using a combination of sanitary and phytosanitary policy in trade agreements and tariff policy.
I do not accept the criticism that the plan lacks detail. It is a 65-page document with many detailed annexes. It sets out in great detail the pace at which we intend to reduce the basic payment scheme, the other schemes we intend to roll out and the years we intend to roll them out. There will be some further consultations in the new year, in particular on the design of the voluntary exit scheme that we have said we will offer to those farmers who want to exit the industry with dignity.
I should make one final point, which is that our Agriculture Act requires the Government to report on food security every three years. The coronavirus pandemic has proven to us that domestic food production is a critical component of the food security of our nation, and that is something we will continue to measure and to support, so that we can have a vibrant food-producing agriculture sector in this country.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) [V]
I broadly welcome the thrust of these transition arrangements to improve the environment, although as a farmer I am concerned about farming viability—given the phased 50% cut in support over the next three to four years—for those who will miss out on the environmental land management scheme pilots for 5,500 successful applicants, until the new ELM scheme comes in from 2024. The Secretary of State is offering a lump sum exit scheme to encourage farmers to retire and a new scheme for new entrants from 2022, but in view of the high costs of mechanisation and the time to achieve the viability of a new enterprise, does that not risk continuing the process of consolidation of farming businesses into larger holdings, in particular in disadvantaged areas?
George Eustice
My right hon. Friend makes an important point, and we are considering that in the design of our schemes. We are working with county farms across the country to improve the offer that county farms have, to create opportunities for new entrants and to encourage them into partnership with other landowners so that there can be more opportunities for those new entrants and to create an incubator model for these new entrants.
In terms of the viability of farms as we progressively reduce the basic payment scheme, it is important to recognise that this is an evolution, not a revolution. It is the case that from 2022 we will open the sustainable farming incentive to all farmers.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) [V]
I see the headlines of stories that the Government have planted today promising that Brexit will transform our fields and farms. One would have to agree, although that transformation will not only be in ways that many in agricultural areas will necessarily welcome. The speed and scale of the reductions proposed worry many others, including, it seems, the Minister’s own colleagues, with the head of the National Farmers Union describing the Government’s approach as
“high risk and a very big ask”.
Lack of clarity on the detail of the replacement environmental land schemes remains a big concern for agricultural and environmental representatives alike. It seems to me that what qualifying criteria we have been made aware of could lend themselves equally well to shooting estates as to hill farmers, for example. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could enlighten us further on that point.
I find it astonishing that the Government have had since 2016 to construct replacement schemes, and yet here we are, just days away from either a no-deal or a low-deal Brexit, amid fears of lower imported standards and enduring the uncertainties of a global pandemic, with so many details still to be outlined. Scottish farmers and crofters do not face the same difficulties, because in Scotland the Government have committed to continuing payments at their current level. However, our Ministers were told just days ago in the spending review that, despite the Government’s manifesto commitment to match EU support, rural Scotland will be £170 million short of what was promised by 2025. The chair of NFU Scotland has said that this shortfall will undermine environmental and biodiversity targets for Scottish farmers and crofters. How does the Secretary of State answer that?
Finally, I would like to hear from the Secretary of State what the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and control over state aid being in the hands of Westminster means for the Scottish Government’s ability to maintain a divergent path to England on farming support. Can he provide assurances that the Bill will have absolutely no impact on Scotland’s ability to set support in Scotland independent of the system chosen for England?
George Eustice
It is the case that England is a long way ahead of Scotland in terms of developing future policy. We want to take the opportunities that come from leaving the European Union to chart a different course and put in place a policy that makes more sense. Our view is that arbitrary area-based subsidies for people based only on the amount of land that they own or rent makes no sense in this day and age, and we should be directing those funds in a different way.
The hon. Lady mentions funds for Scotland. In line with our manifesto commitment, Scotland will have £595 million for its agriculture budget. She should note that we chose an exchange rate fixed in 2019 that is far more favourable for farmers right across the UK than the average exchange rate across the last perspective. She should also note that the European Union has just slashed its agriculture spending by 10%, while the UK Government have maintained it, and changes to the exchange rate mean that the rate of payment is some 20% higher than it would have been had we not voted to leave the European Union.
On the hon. Lady’s final point about divergence, Scotland and other devolved Administrations will have more freedom than ever before to design a policy that they judge to be right for them. We will set up a joint group across the UK to do market surveillance, to ensure that there is not disturbance to the internal market and to share ideas on what works.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
As it is St Andrew’s day, it would be remiss not to highlight the excellence of Scotch beef, lamb and other agricultural products. The Secretary of State said that the measures he has announced will not apply in Scotland. Does he agree that the Scottish Government should now get on with devising a bespoke support scheme for Scotland to take into account our unique geography and climate—for example, continuing with an enhanced less favoured area support scheme—rather than pursuing an independence agenda, which would disrupt Scottish farmers’ biggest single market: the rest of the UK?
George Eustice
My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. When the current incarnation of the common agricultural policy was put in place, NFU Scotland was very clear that area-based payments could not be made to work properly in Scotland. It is difficult therefore to see the justification for maintaining a policy built solely on area-based payments, given the large variance in land types. I agree with him that the Scottish Government should, in line with all other parts of the UK, take this opportunity to do things differently and to do them better.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
British farming genuinely is the best in the world, fundamentally because of the family farming unit upon which it is based. The Government’s plan to deliver environmental goods through the environmental land management scheme is good and laudable, and we support it. However, the transition whereby, in a revolutionary way, people will lose half their income in three years’ time—when the average livestock farmer is reliant on basic payment for 60% of their revenue—will lead to hundreds upon hundreds of those family farms going out of business and therefore not being in a position to deliver those environmental goods by 2028. The landscape of the Lake district and the Yorkshire dales is shaped by centuries of family farming. By accident, the Government could undo all of that in a few short years—even months—so will the Secretary of State think again, not penny pinch, and make sure that the basic payment is rolled over in full until the point at which the environmental land management scheme is available for everyone?
George Eustice
The concept of area-based payments has only been around for about 15 years, and it has not always been in the interests of agriculture. The truth is that farmers may be the recipients of the BPS, but they are not the only beneficiaries: the BPS payment has inflated land rents and input costs, prevented people from retiring, and also prevented new entrants from getting on to the land. That is why we believe there is a better way to pay and reward farmers in future.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I believe that replacing the common agricultural policy with these reforms will help us to achieve crucial goals on protecting nature and the natural environment, and to improve animal welfare—things our constituents really care about. I want the Secretary of State to also confirm today that another crucial goal of these schemes will be food security, and ensuring we are supporting people to make a living from growing food.
George Eustice
Let me commend the role that my right hon. Friend played in the development of this policy and, indeed, some of the changes that were introduced in the latest incarnation of the Agriculture Bill. During her time in this post, she was passionate about the importance of food security and the financial viability of our farms.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]
The Secretary of State will be aware that farmers need time to transition to a new system. He will also be aware that over 100,000 people are employed in the agrifood sector in Northern Ireland, and therefore direct support to farmers is vital. Will he give assurances to UK farmers that the Government will fund agriculture appropriately, to ensure we deliver a productive, profitable and sustainable farming business model for generations?
George Eustice
Since agriculture is devolved, it will be for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Executive, and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to develop a policy that is right for them. However, I can confirm that we have maintained the budget for every part of the UK at the point at which we left the EU, and we will maintain that for every year of this Parliament. For Northern Ireland, that equates to £330 million per year.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Will he outline the importance being placed on flood mitigation in the environmental land management scheme, and urge the Welsh Government to adopt similar measures to help protect communities such as St Asaph and Rhuddlan from flooding?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We will be looking to use the powers in the Agriculture Act to make provision to support and financially reward farmers who may allow their land to be used in certain water catchments to protect communities from flooding—a nature-based solution to that flood risk, as it were. We will also be using this money to support improvements in water quality by supporting an expansion of catchment-sensitive farming. It will be for the Welsh Government to decide their own priorities and the pace at which they detach themselves from the legacy schemes, but we believe that redirecting support in this way is the correct way to go.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
I welcome the emphasis on ensuring that farm subsidies in the future encourage animal welfare, environmental sustainability and nature recovery. However, given that this new policy will see income for some farms fall by 50% over the next three years, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the numbers that will be impacted by these changes, and what opportunity is there in the nature recovery initiative he has outlined for those with marginal farm holdings, often in the urban fringes, where the land now has more of a recreational and environmental benefit than an agricultural one?
George Eustice
It is the case that some of those lands that are in more marginal areas, where it is less productive, will see more opportunities to access local nature recovery, and in some cases even landscape recovery, to get some significant support from the Government for either land use change or making more space for nature on their land. Some of those upland and more marginal areas will be able to get access to the scheme. As I said in my statement, we will also be looking at different payment methodologies to calculate the payment, departing from the income forgone methodology of the past.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
I am pleased to hear from my right hon. Friend that there will be a period of engagement with farmers, landowners, managers and other key stakeholders in Cheshire before finalising the detailed design and operation of this fairer farming system. To that end, will my right hon. Friend tell the House what economic impact assessment his Department has done to help inform these significant and potentially transformative policy decisions?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We are looking at this matter. We believe that by removing the area-based subsidies, there could be some adjustment in land rents to reduce costs for farmers. Through the changes that we are making in the supply chain, it could also be the case that farmers will have a fairer share of the value for the food that they produce. By investing in technology, we can help farmers to reduce costs so that they become profitable without the need for area-based subsidies.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Secretary of State knows that I believe him to be an honourable man, but he is a member of a Government who are now notorious for their chumocracy and favours for friends. What he is ushering in today is a charter for City slickers, carpetbaggers and spivs to take over our farming sector, and to drive out the traditional smaller English farmers, who have been feeding our nation for so many years. Will he please think again before he eradicates the good English farmer?
George Eustice
The hon. Gentleman has a habit of starting off by suggesting that he is going to pay me a compliment, and things go downhill quite quickly thereon. The area-based subsidy that we currently have has a habit of giving the largest payments to the wealthiest landowners. Sometimes these are people who are not really actively farming. Sometimes it is people who made their wealth in the City and are trying to shelter it in land, and then also qualify for taxpayers’ payments—sometimes running into millions of pounds. That cannot be right. The system that we are developing will reward people for what they do with their land and what they do to help nature recover.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has said that he hopes that this plan will encourage new entrants of people trying to get into farming. Will he briefly outline in what way it will be different from what happens now?
George Eustice
All the studies that have been done on this issue have shown that the single most important thing that we can do to help new entrants on to the land is to help those who perhaps should retire, or those who want to retire, to retire with dignity, so that more holdings come on to the market, land rents adjust to a sustainable level and there are opportunities for new entrants. We will then make available grants to support new entrants to invest and set up in their new enterprises.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
A recent poll from AgriScot’s online annual event has shown that 75% of Scottish farmers now oppose Brexit. That is hardly surprising, given the harm, disruption and uncertainty that Brexit has caused the agricultural sector. Does the Secretary of State understand why so many have now turned their backs on his Government’s flagship policy, and does he understand the need for this Government to listen to their concerns?
George Eustice
Agriculture policy is devolved, so Scottish farmers are not turning their backs on the policy that I have announced today for England. Perhaps the lack of enthusiasm is because of the failure of the Scottish Government to show leadership in this area.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
Earlier this year I was fortunate enough to visit Hobkin Ground farm in my constituency, which is actively pursuing regenerative farming and trying to reduce the carbon footprint of raising a cow from field to fork through measures such as new grasses. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give to farmers like Megan and Mark that the new environmental management scheme will help us to help them meet our stringent net zero targets?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are looking at a number of different disciplines within regenerative farming, including methods such as mob grazing, the use of different types of leguminous nitrogen-fixing plant mix in grassland and reduced fertiliser use. If we manage grassland and soils correctly, they can be a really useful store of carbon and contribute to net zero.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
Food poverty in my Hull North constituency is already a huge issue. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that under the new agricultural transition policy we will not see higher food prices for working families who are only just managing?
George Eustice
We think that the policy will lead to stable food prices, but also to a situation in which we change the way we reward farmers. We will reward them not just for occupying land but for farming their land in a nature-sensitive way and a way that enhances animal welfare.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) [V]
I welcome the statement and, as a vet, the fact that high animal welfare and health will be recognised as a key public good. Farmers in Penrith and The Border and throughout the UK produce top-quality food to the highest standards. Will my right hon. Friend assure the farmers and land managers in my constituency and throughout the UK that when the direct payments scheme ends, the new way of funding will be secure and long term, so that they can plan accordingly and continue to produce local food sustainably to benefit our rural communities for generations to come?
George Eustice
Yes. The Agriculture Act 2020 sets out clear objectives on animal health and welfare, as well as the environmental objectives. We recognise that animal health and welfare is a public good, and it is right that the public are willing to support improvements in that regard. The Act also includes support for genetic resources—such as our native and rare breeds—that many farmers in many parts of the country will be able to access.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is a farmer himself, so he will know that farms cannot simply be turned on or off, as local farmers around my constituency in Cheshire have pointed out to me. They have noticed that participants in the ELM scheme will be paid a “competitive” rate; when will they be given details of what that competitive rate is, so that they can start to plan for the future and know exactly when they can alter their long-term plans for the management of their farms to meet the requirements proposed in the White Paper?
George Eustice
We will consult on the design of the sustainable farming incentive in the first half of next year.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Jacob Young is next on the call sheet, but he is down as both physical and virtual. If he is not going to appear, I shall call Alistair Carmichael.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Secretary of State has told us that the Scottish Government’s budget for the scheme will be £595 million, which is the budget that they carry over at present. That figure is not going to last forever; by what means will future budgets be fixed? What mechanisms will be used to resolve any disputes? What will happen if the divergent agricultural policies in any part of the United Kingdom, including England, then have a distorting effect on the UK’s internal market?
George Eustice
The Government set out in our manifesto that we will keep the budget for each part of the UK the same in cash terms for every year of this Parliament, and that is what we intend to do. Matters thereafter will be a matter for all the political parties in their manifestos for future elections and, of course, for future spending reviews. I should point out that the European Union’s budget runs for only seven years and it has cut its budget by 10% for the next perspective.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
Many of us were woken this morning by the Secretary of State speaking on Times Radio about the need to end bureaucracy for farmers. Now that he is, with this statement, pushing the fact that DEFRA is going to be a help, not a hindrance, will he explain how ending the bureaucracy and unnecessary form-filling is going to help to ensure that all our farmers are exactly where they need to be, which is on the land?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Under the current common agricultural policy, we have rules about the maximum width of a gateway, the minimum width of a hedge, the maximum width of a hedge, whether a cabbage should be treated the same as a cauliflower for the purposes of the three-crop rule—the list goes on and on. It makes no sense at all and we will sweep away those unnecessary rules.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I am not sure that the answers so far from the Secretary of State on the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill will provide much reassurance to the agricultural sector or, indeed, anyone in Scotland who values the devolution settlement. Can he guarantee that the Government will not use powers in the Bill to prevent the Scottish Government from pursuing their own agenda on issues related to standards or state aid?
George Eustice
When it comes to standards in trade agreements, which is one of the issues that was debated, that of course is a reserved matter, since it is a matter for those international negotiations. Of course, when it comes to setting standards around animal welfare, those matters are devolved now and will remain devolved, as will the design and administration of any future scheme to replace the common agricultural policy scheme.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
On Friday, I visited the Wynnstay Group headquarters in Montgomeryshire, who supply supplies and services to agricultural communities across England and Wales. My constituency has cross-border farms, so I welcome the tone—especially of evolution, not overnight revolution —of the Secretary of State’s comments. Can I draw him on the funding? We welcome that commitment in Wales, but my farmers have long dealt with the modulation from pillar 1 to pillar 2 in Wales, which is 50%: the highest in the United Kingdom. While Opposition Members talk strong on agricultural funding, for the last decade they have been taking out of direct payments to my farmers. May I draw him on that support and welcome what he is doing in England more broadly?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Indeed, the indications to date are that the Welsh Government will probably strike a similar approach to that which we are taking in England. It may be that Northern Ireland, because of its proximity to the Irish Republic and, indeed, Scotland, for other reasons, may decide to change things at a slower pace. But it is the case that Wales has, even in the last five years, transferred money from the pillar 1 basic payment scheme to the pillar 2 agri-environment schemes.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Cutting income payments by 50% over a period of three years, starting in January, is not evolutionary as the Secretary of State said, but revolutionary. In fact, some might argue—including me—that it is downright stupid. It needs to be rethought. On consultation, there are plenty of voices out there at the moment expressing real concern about the future of local farms in Weaver Vale and Cheshire.
George Eustice
We will not be cutting the budget: we will be cutting the payments that go through the rather dysfunctional legacy basic payment scheme, and we will instead be directing that money into new schemes, including the sustainable farming incentive that farmers will be able to access from 2022.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Hill farmers are hugely important to the landscapes and communities of Thirsk and Malton, particularly in the North York Moors national park. They are very dependent on financial support. Will the Secretary of State commit to looking after their interests and also consider delegating the distribution and administration of moneys direct to the national parks, so they can work directly with their farmers, who understand their landscapes most closely?
George Eustice
I do think that there will be opportunities for some of those upland and moorland areas to be able to really benefit from a new policy that is based on payment for the delivery of environmental goods. There have been many opportunities for them to do so alongside their food production. We are also looking at ways to involve local partners in terms of designing schemes that fit a particular geography. That could include the national parks and local nature partnerships.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I note that the changes will be designed to ensure that by 2028 farmers in England can sustainably produce healthy food profitably without subsidy, while taking steps to improve the environment, improve animal health and welfare and reduce carbon emissions. That is all very laudable and welcome, but it would be remiss of me not to ask what discussions have taken place with the devolved Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that this transition will be applicable—and therefore funded—UK-wide.
George Eustice
It is obviously a devolved policy area, so the Northern Ireland Executive and DAERA will make their own decisions. I suspect that it is likely that they will depart from the legacy schemes in a more cautious fashion, given their proximity to the Irish Republic and some of the cross-border trade that takes place, but it will be open to them and they will have the freedom to design policies that work for them. I suspect that, in common with other parts of the UK, they will quite quickly want to switch off some of the bureaucratic requirements that have been there in the existing basic payment scheme.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
As well as wanting to be custodians of the land, people farm because they want to produce food. While I warmly welcome the thrust of the plan, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government remain committed to increased food security and, if so, can he clarify how this plan will help farmers to maintain or increase food production?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are absolutely committed to domestic food production and the crucial role that that plays towards our food security. The Agriculture Act 2020 requires that every three years, there will be a review of our food security, and that will look at the viability and profitability of our domestic food production. The paper that we have published today sets out plans for a farm investment fund that will have a whole suite of grants available to support farmers to produce food in a more cost-effective way and to add value.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Secretary of State continues to say that he has maintained the budget for the devolved nations. However, farmers in Wales will be £95 million short compared with if they were still in the EU, due to what would have been a crossover of the programme. I find it quite tedious that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams) and the UK Government point the finger at the Welsh Government, who are rightly acting in accordance with the EU rules for agricultural funding until 2023, which the National Farmers Union of Wales confirmed with me just over an hour ago. Will the Secretary of State back up the promises that he has made to farmers and rural communities in my constituency of Gower and across Wales?
George Eustice
The confusion on this stemmed from the fact that the EU budget runs on a cycle called n+3, where n is seven years, so effectively, the EU budget is across a decade. The budget that we have announced is across a Parliament and we have guaranteed the same in each year. A typical spending review cycle is five years. We cannot compare a 10-year EU budget with a five-year UK one that will be renewed at the end of that. The reality is that we have set a favourable exchange rate that is 22% higher than before the referendum result, and that benefits farm incomes. The reality is also that the European Union has had to slash spending on agriculture by 10%.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I draw attention to my involvement in family farms as detailed in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. To enable farmers to access new markets and to obtain fair prices for their high-quality UK-reared-and-grown produce, both at home and abroad, there is a need for investment in food and drink processing facilities. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State could outline the strategy for securing this.
George Eustice
Our paper today outlines plans for a farming investment fund. That can include small grants to support the deployment of new agricultural technology and larger grants—transformation grants—that could support adding value through food processing facilities on farms, but also for groups of growers or producers to come together and collectively invest in such a way.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) [V]
We know that the Tories have already broken a manifesto promise on matching EU funding and that it is going to cost Scotland £170 million, but we have real concerns that the Government are going to use the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill to prevent the Scottish Government from providing the right level of support for Scottish farmers. Can we get absolute clarification that the Tory Government will not use the Bill to block any devolved policies, such as using headage payments for the production of cattle and sheep?
George Eustice
I reject the hon. Gentleman’s claim that the budget is not what was promised. We promised to maintain the budget in each part of the UK in cash terms at the juncture where we left. That is exactly what we are doing. It means that Scotland will receive £595 million per year, 22% higher than it would have received had we used the exchange rate at the start of the last EU programme, and 10% higher than it would have received had we stayed in the EU since it has cut the agriculture budget. This is a good deal for farmers. Indeed it will be open to the devolved Administrations to design their own policy and that could include if they wanted an element of coupled payments.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend reassure farmers in Wiltshire that food production will still be supported under the new scheme and that they will not be undercut by farmers, including in the devolved nations, who are subsidised for food production or by area, not just for stewardship?
George Eustice
I can give my hon. Friend that commitment. The aim of this policy is very much to support and reward farmers for farming more sustainably, but the emphasis throughout is on sustainable food production, not on taking land out of production.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
In his statement, the right hon. Gentleman made mention of the production of high-quality food in “a sustainable way”, and I say amen to that. The reputation and quality of British farm produce is second to none—it is a world beater—so will he consider having a discussion with the devolved Administrations with a view to setting up an agency to promote British farm produce for export, thereby earning money for the Exchequer of our United Kingdom?
George Eustice
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. We do work with the devolved Administrations on the design of future policy. There will be a co-ordinating group on future policy. We also work with all the levy bodies through the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, and the devolved equivalents of those, on a joint approach to marketing our fantastic food and produce around the world.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
It is right that the equipment and technology fund and the transformation fund should focus on core agricultural business and productivity, but can my right hon. Friend also reassure me that his Department will continue to support farm diversification, which has been so important to so many Hampshire farmers?
George Eustice
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point and I can confirm that that will be possible. We made some changes to the Agriculture Bill that was brought through this Parliament to ensure it could support farm diversification projects to help farmers add value.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Many farmers in my area of Warwick and Leamington and the villages around are really concerned. As far as they are concerned, they are in business—they have been farmers for generations to look after and steward the land, but also to look after their herds and to produce the grain and crops that we depend on. Their real concern is to do with livestock, where 80% of their income has come from the BPS—basic payment scheme—payments. They see the proposed changes as being all about preserving a landscape, not about preserving food resilience and their businesses.
George Eustice
It is important to note that since the advent of area-based payments the subsidy payments have been totally decoupled from production. Indeed, had we had our time again a better way to have done it might have been to introduce conditionality to the old payments that were there before. It is already the case that there are people who own a plot of land and claim on it but who are not actually producing food. The logic of our policy today is to focus the payments towards what farmers do with the land, not just dole out money based on how much land they own.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) [V]
The chalky soils of the Meon Valley are very different from the peatlands of the Derbyshire dales, so how will my right hon. Friend ensure that farmers in all areas are incentivised to improve soil quality, for sustainability as well as for farming?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. We made an explicit change to the Agriculture Bill in this latest incarnation to ensure that soil health was recognised as a public good. Different soil types need different approaches and different treatments to bring them back into health. We are working with a number of stakeholders and universities now to establish how best to manage and measure soil health on a range of different soils, and we will have incentives in place to support that endeavour.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
While this statement refers to the future of English policy, what future does the Secretary of State see for Welsh farming following the shortfall of a third in Welsh agricultural support, which revealed itself in last week’s comprehensive spending review? This is labelled by the Welsh farming unions as a Brexit betrayal.
George Eustice
As I have said several times, we do not recognise the caricature that the budget has been cut. We were clear that we would maintain the budget in cash terms for each year of this Parliament. That is precisely what we have done.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
I very much welcome what the Minister has had to say about the restoration of peatlands, but can he go a little further in terms of the natural environment? Does he guarantee that there will be less use, for example, of phosphates and therefore less phosphate run-off? Does he guarantee that we will see no return to the use of the pernicious neonicotinoids that are so damaging to our pollinators, which are so necessary to our agriculture?
George Eustice
As we have outlined in the paper published today, we want to incentivise farmers to embrace integrated pest management. Across the piece, we are likely to see reductions in the use of synthetic chemistry and the adoption of other processes to tackle the problems of pests and diseases. It is also the case that we want to be able to support the restoration of peatlands and so forth.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for outlining the principles and programmes for these changes in payments. As he will be aware, however, it will be in the implementation of those programmes and the inspection of those schemes that issues will appear. Farmers will have worries about the implications of not changing, transitioning and falling in accordance with the new plans. What reassurance can he give to farmers about how implementation will take place?
George Eustice
I can reassure my hon. Friend that I am alive to that danger. When introducing any new scheme, it is critical that we do not over-engineer its design and that we tack towards simplicity to make sure that things are deliverable. What we want to do on this new scheme is move away from the endless form filling, endless mapping, and arguments over maps, and instead get to a position where a trusted adviser or agronomist walks the farm with the farmer, sits down around the kitchen table and helps them put together a plan that is right for their farm.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]
Moran Taing, Mr Deputy Speaker, agus Latha Noamh Anndra sona dhuibh. A happy St Andrews Day to you.
I recently met Fife and Kinross representatives of the National Farmers Union, Scotland. They already face severe problems because of combined impacts of the covid pandemic, the looming chaos of Brexit and serious difficulties in recruiting seasonal workers. Now we find that farmers in Scotland are likely to face a funding loss of £170 million compared with what the Tories promised in their manifesto. The president of the NFUS says that this will undermine the crucial delivery of promises to meet climate change and biodiversity challenges. Why should I believe that the Minister is right and that the president of the NFUS is wrong?
George Eustice
I think I have explained at the Dispatch Box several times the cause of the confusion that there might have been. It is because people are trying to compare a seven plus three year—a 10-year—EU budget with a five-year parliamentary term that we have set for the current budget. We cannot compare two entirely different timescales for a quantum of sum of money.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
For transparency, I remind the House that my wife’s family are farmers in receipt of subsidy. I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and, as we set our own trade policy for the first time in decades, have enormous optimism for the future of British farming. It is also the case, though, that farmers face a great deal of uncertainty as demonstrated by the weather conditions that led to a particularly poor 2020 for so many. With that in mind, will he outline when the detail of the sustainable farming incentive and other bridging schemes will come forward so that farmers can have certainty as they plan for the future?
George Eustice
We will be publishing more papers in the new year on some of the more specific elements of scheme designs, including the voluntary exit scheme, which we mention in the paper today. As I said earlier, in the first six months of next year, we will be consulting on the design of the sustainable farming incentive.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Happy St Andrew’s day to all my Scottish friends, wherever you may be. I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for responding to 39 questions. The House is suspended for three minutes.
Patrick Finucane: Supreme Court Judgment
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement.
The murder of Patrick Finucane on 12 February 1989 in front of his family was an appalling crime that has caused tremendous suffering. It occurred during a difficult and dark period in this nation’s history, which brought untold pain to many families across the United Kingdom and, indeed, Ireland.
Northern Ireland has made massive strides since the Belfast/Good Friday agreement to create a vibrant, inclusive and forward-looking future. However, the legacy of the troubles for many still hangs like a shadow over society. This Government are determined to work hand in hand with the people of Northern Ireland from all communities, with victims and survivors, and with our Irish partners. We want to find a way to bring truth and reconciliation where there is currently hurt, and where too many people continue to suffer due to the absence of information about the circumstances of the deaths of their loved ones.
It is plain that the levels of collusion in the Finucane case, made clear by previous investigations, are totally unacceptable. Former Prime Minister David Cameron rightly apologised publicly in 2012, and I unreservedly repeat that apology today. I also acknowledge that an apology cannot undo history, and nor can it alleviate the years of pain that the Finucane family have felt. It is none the less right that this Government acknowledge that, at the height of the troubles, actions were taken that fell far short of what can and should be expected.
The murder of Patrick Finucane has been the subject of a considerable number of investigations and reviews, including the Stevens 3 investigation and the de Silva review. These investigations led to the conviction of Ken Barrett, a loyalist terrorist who pled guilty to the murder.
In February 2019, 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. That judgment specifically set out that it is for the state to decide what form of investigation, if indeed any is now feasible, is required in order to meet that requirement. It did not order a public inquiry, but in considering all the options open to me to meet the state’s obligations under article 2, I have considered whether a public inquiry would be the most appropriate step to address the specific findings of the courts at this time.
I have, this afternoon, spoken to the Finucane family. I advised them of my decision not to establish a public inquiry at this time. Our public statement, published this afternoon, set out the considered rationale for this decision, which I will now explain directly to the House.
In reaching its conclusion, the Supreme Court identified a number of issues with previous investigations in this case. First, there was no identification of the officers within the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Security Service and Secret Intelligence Service who failed to warn Patrick Finucane of known threats to his life in 1981 and 1985, together with the circumstances in which these failures occurred. Secondly, there was no identification of the RUC officers who, as Desmond de Silva said, probably did propose Mr Finucane as a target for loyalist terrorists in December 1988. Thirdly, there was no identification of the police source who provided intelligence about Patrick Finucane to Ken Barrett.
The Supreme Court identified these shortcomings and other failures of process, but it did not render the previous reviews and investigations, which resulted in significant findings and information being released into the public domain, null and void. The work conducted by, and the findings of, those previous independent investigations and reviews remain valid. The state’s article 2 obligations can be met through a series of processes taken by independent authorities on the initiative of the state, which, cumulatively, can establish the facts and identify the perpetrators and hold them to account where sufficient evidence exists.
In June 2019, an independent review of previous investigations was commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley). The first purpose of this review was to gain a clear understanding of what investigative steps had already been taken to identify all individuals of concern. Its second purpose was to understand the actions taken as part of previous investigations in respect of these individuals. The review was conducted by independent counsel from Northern Ireland. It highlighted that steps had in fact been taken during previous investigations which had not been considered by the Supreme Court but which were relevant to the issues it identified. For example, it found that a number of officers from the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army’s force research unit had been interviewed as part of the Stevens investigation, and that Stevens accepted that there was no direct breach of policy by any individual officer at the time. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) stated in 2011, accepting that collusion occurred is not sufficient in itself.
The Government recognise the need to ensure sufficient levels of public scrutiny of critical investigations and their results. I am today publishing further information that was considered by the independent counsel in their review since the Supreme Court judgment, some of which has not previously been released into the public domain. That includes information pertaining to a Police Service of Northern Ireland review conducted in 2015.
As set out in the 2015 police review, a number of issues were referred to the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland in 2016, and also remain subject to investigation. In addition, the legacy investigation branch of the PSNI informed my Department on 2 November 2020 that Patrick Finucane’s case is shortly due to undergo a process of review in accordance with the priorities set out in its case sequencing model. The Chief Constable confirmed that that is expected to begin early in the new year.
To be clear, this is a purely operational police matter. The UK Government, rightly, have no role whatsoever in determining how or when the police deal with their outstanding legacy case load. However, the fact that a decision on a police review is due shortly is an important development and was a factor in determining the next steps in this case. Critically, a review would consider whether further investigative steps could be taken in this case and whether the PSNI should do this—these were key elements of the Supreme Court judgment. It is, quite properly, for the Chief Constable of the PSNI to determine the precise scope and format of any review, in accordance with their own priorities and review procedures, and the police have indicated that they expect that any review would need to be conducted independently of the PSNI. Such a process, in addition to the ongoing investigations being conducted by the police ombudsman, can play an important role in addressing the issues identified by the Supreme Court. I want to be clear: I am not taking the possibility of a public inquiry off the table at this stage. It is important that we allow the PSNI and police ombudsman processes to move forward, and that we avoid the risk of prejudicing any emerging conclusions from their work. I will then consider all options available to me to meet the Government’s obligations.
I assure the House that this decision has been taken following careful consideration of the facts, the findings of the Supreme Court judgment, the outcome of the independent counsel review and the United Kingdom’s obligations under article 2 of the European convention on human rights. This Government have demonstrated that when the public interest requires it, we will establish public inquiries to look at any potential failings by government or state bodies, as, for example, we have done in the case of the Manchester bombing. In this instance, I believe it is in the public interest to allow the police and ombudsman processes to proceed before taking any decision on whether the state’s article 2 obligations have been discharged or whether further steps are required.
This case, it has to be said, is, sadly, just one example of the violence and tragedy experienced by so many individuals and families across Northern Ireland, the rest of the United Kingdom and indeed Ireland during the troubles. That is why, as a Government, we remain committed to dealing with the legacy of the past in its entirety. We are determined to get this right, working closely with communities. This is vital, so that society in Northern Ireland can look beyond its divisive past and towards a shared future. I commend this statement to the House.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. First, may I pay tribute, on behalf of my party, to the widow of Pat Finucane, Geraldine, and her whole family? As with so many victims I have met, the dignity, determination and strength they have shown in the face of horror unimaginable to many of us in this House is humbling, and I know how difficult today has been for them.
The murder of Pat Finucane in 1989, gunned down in front of his young family in his kitchen by loyalist paramilitaries, involved shocking levels of state collusion. It is welcome to hear the Secretary of State repeat former Prime Minister David Cameron’s apology, but he is right: it is not enough. There has never been an adequate investigation into Pat Finucane’s murder and Supreme Court justice Lord Kerr has said that previous investigations have had profound “shortcomings” that
“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 shocking, and that it has never been investigated to a lawful standard is unjustifiable. We have to ask ourselves, as we do with all legacy issues from the troubles: do we accept a lesser standard of justice for citizens in Northern Ireland than we would if this terrible crime had happened in our own constituencies? The Secretary of State references the Manchester inquiry. Do victims in Northern Ireland not deserve the same transparency and justice?
I have listened carefully to the Secretary of State, but the decision he has taken today will be a desperate disappointment to the Finucanes, and I struggle to see how he can make the case that it prevents him from remaining in breach of his human rights obligations, as the Supreme Court found last year. Indeed, an initial reading suggests that it is at odds with some of the central conclusions the Supreme Court reached. He says that through a series of processes the state can cumulatively meet its article 2 obligations. That was the same argument made by Sir James Eadie for the Government, who said that although the de Silva review had not been article 2 compliant, previous investigations, taken together, meant it was. It is of fundamental importance that the House is aware that Lord Kerr rejected that argument in the Supreme Court case last year. Furthermore, he said that the legal standard had not been met because:
“Sir Desmond did not have power to compel the attendance of witnesses. Those who did meet him were not subject to testing by way of challenging probes as to the veracity and accuracy of their evidence.”
If Sir Desmond had been able to compel witnesses and had had the opportunity to probe their accounts, it may have led to the identification of those in the police and the security services involved in the targeting of Mr Finucane.
It appears that nothing the Secretary of State has announced today will make up for these most fundamental shortcomings in previous reviews, and the family have described his approach as farcical. Is he not concerned that all this does is leave him open to further legal challenge and to being back here in a few months’ or years’ time? Waiting for a legacy investigation branch review, which the police themselves acknowledge they are not operationally independent enough to conduct, and an ombudsman’s review of existing evidence is simply delaying the inevitability of the only right and legal course of action. I note that he is not ruling out a full public inquiry in the future. Why does he not grasp this opportunity to deliver it now?
The troubles were a dark and violent time in our history. More than 3,000 civilians, soldiers and police officers lost their lives. Many have never received justice. The trauma of loss and grief from losing loved ones to such violence has been compounded by the prolonged failures of successive Governments to deliver the truth about what happened to them. That trauma echoes through the generations and is felt at a societal level in Northern Ireland. It is incumbent on the Secretary of State urgently to bring forward legacy proposals that would deliver the truth for all victims. It remains the most significant outstanding element of the Good Friday agreement, 22 years on. However, I regret to say that the Secretary of State’s unilateral approach so far in dealing with legacy has been harmful and hurtful to victims across Northern Ireland. If we are finally to take responsibility in this House for helping Northern Ireland deal with the legacy of its past, then he must urgently engage with all communities, victims and of course our partners to the Good Friday agreement, the Irish Government. This was the essence of the Stormont House agreement, which his Government committed to legislating for just this year.
Today’s announcement is a painful setback for those who have campaigned for the truth for decades and in the faith that the Government are committed to reconciliation. I would strongly urge the Secretary of State, in the further difficult decisions that lie ahead, to remember the deep responsibility that he has to deliver the truth to all victims and to reconciliation in Northern Ireland.
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady is absolutely right: we all should be working to find a holistic approach to the legacy issues for Northern Ireland. It is something we agreed to do and pledged to do as part of the new decade, new approach agreement that saw the return of Stormont this year. I think it is a hugely important piece of work, and it is something we owe to the next generation and the current generations of people across Northern Ireland of all communities. There are still, as she said, far too many families across societies in Northern Ireland who do not know what happened to members of their family and do not have the details of what happened during the troubles. We should all be working across parties and across society to look at how we can get that information so that families can have a way to reconciliation and information that allows that to happen. That is how we allow Northern Ireland to continue not just to build on the peace process, but to really look forward to a more prosperous and forward-looking future. That cannot change what happened in the past, but it does give families and people an opportunity to know more and to understand across all communities.
I have to say I differ from the hon. Lady in what she understands is our approach today, because it is quite the opposite. I have been clear and consistent all the way through that we want, and I want, to make sure that we are engaged not just across all political parties in Northern Ireland, but across civic society and in dealing with our partners in the Irish Government, to whom I speak regularly on these issues as well. We will continue to do that work. People were rightly focused over the last few months of this year on dealing with covid-19, but it is right that we start to move to talk to people about the future relating to the troubles of the past and how we move forward. We are doing that across civic society and across all parties, and we will be doing so.
I also differ from the hon. Lady in what seems to be her lack of confidence in the PSNI. The PSNI is independent. Its review and investigation is independent of Government, and I have confidence in its ability. We saw just this summer phenomenal work from the PSNI, with partners, on dealing with issues in Northern Ireland. I have absolute confidence that it will deal with this review in the right way and in a proper way. I support the opinion that the PSNI has outlined: that it will potentially seek to have an independent force work on this issue. We will support and help it on that, but that is a matter for the PSNI. I believe it is right that we allow this process and the police ombudsman process, which is equally independent, to happen and then to look at the findings from them, because until we know what comes from those reviews and investigations, it is too soon to know whether that would bring compliance with article 2. The hon. Lady seems to want to prejudge that, but we should let the police do their job.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) [V]
The Secretary of State has announced a very difficult decision, which he will know is not without consequences. Like many with an interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland, my Committee is increasingly perplexed with regard to the Government’s current approach to legacy issues. In terms of dealing with legacy and building trust across the communities, what has he assessed the ramification of his announcement today to be, and is he prepared to publish an update in Hansard of his written ministerial statement of 20 March? The lacuna that the Government have created in dealing with legacy is causing enormous consternation on both sides of the community.
Brandon Lewis
I would say to my hon. Friend, who chairs the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, that shortly after the statement in March, when we discussed legacy issues with victims groups, they asked us to pause because the people they represent were facing the challenges of covid. I felt that that was the right thing to do, so we paused that engagement. Over the last few weeks, I have been talking to civic society, as I do regularly, and people across civic society and across the communities obviously have a huge interest in legacy.
The point I have made consistently since the written ministerial statement in March this year is that, to move forward on legacy and to move forward in Northern Ireland, we have to bring people together, and as my hon. Friend rightly says, people across communities have to be clear about what they need to look forward and get the information that can lead to reconciliation. It is right that we engage widely and deeply with civic society and victims groups, as well as political parties and our partners in the Irish Government, before we come back with proposals. I am determined to do that. We have a duty to do that—a duty to the people of Northern Ireland—but we want to do that in a methodical and proper way. I hope people will see that going through these investigations in a methodical and proper way plays a part in that.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
We welcome the Secretary of State’s decision. Equally, we condemn the murder of Pat Finucane. On my 21st birthday, my friend and colleague Edgar Graham, a lawyer and lecturer at Queen’s University, was murdered by the Provisional IRA. There were people involved—not only the gunman, but others who gave information that led to his murder, pointing the finger towards Edgar’s movements and so on. Is it not the case that all innocent victims are entitled to access to justice and to truth, including the family of Edgar Graham, a young lawyer cut down in his prime, and that what we really need is not special attention to any one case but an holistic approach to legacy that enables all innocent victims to have access to truth and justice?
Brandon Lewis
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful point. That is why I specifically made the point in my opening remarks about dealing with the legacy in its entirety and recognising that a great number of people across communities have suffered loss and still do not have information or understanding of what happened to some of their family. We have to find a way through this. We have a duty to do everything we can to bring that information forward. That is why this week, we will publish further information on this case that has not yet been in the public domain. The more information we can bring out and secure for families and victims, the better for the future of Northern Ireland. It is right that we do that for everybody who was affected.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and support his decision. As he said, the murder of Pat Finucane was an appalling, shocking crime, and the involvement of the state, as documented by the de Silva review, was utterly unacceptable. However, I would urge my right hon. Friend, in his approach to legacy, not to let the appalling events of this case overshadow the reality that the vast majority of those who served in the police and armed services in Northern Ireland during the troubles did so with the highest degree of integrity and professionalism.
Brandon Lewis
My right hon. Friend makes a strong point. I know how much time and effort she put into these issues when she was in my role as Secretary of State. She is absolutely right. As I have said, and as she and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) and former Prime Minister David Cameron have said, this case is an example of completely unacceptable behaviour that fell way below not just what we expect today but what we should have expected at any time. There is no escaping that fact, but this should equally not distract us from the fact that so many people so often give so much in the defence of our freedom, our safety and our security across the United Kingdom and have also done so in Northern Ireland, across the armed forces and through our services as well.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP) [V]
I absolutely do not thank the Secretary of State for that statement. The British state murdered Pat Finucane, and the Secretary of State has failed miserably to do right by his family today. Does he not realise that he is sending out a clear message to all victims? That message is: “If you want the truth about what happened to your loved ones, don’t come looking for it here.”
Brandon Lewis
I am afraid that I would say quite the opposite. I am saying clearly that there is a process that we will go through and that we want to ensure that we abide by and meet our article 2 obligations. We will assess this again following the PSNI investigation and the police ombudsman’s work. That is a clear message about following proper due process and letting those investigations work through to see what information we can bring out. Ultimately, the aim of all the work we should be doing on the legacy is to ensure that we secure information for families who have been waiting for it for far too long.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
I appreciate that these are very sensitive issues and that this was a difficult decision for my right hon. Friend to make. I was pleased to hear him say just now that the Government accept their obligations under article 2. Will he confirm that they also accept their obligations under section 6 of the Human Rights Act? I was a professional friend and colleague of the late Sir Desmond de Silva. Would my right hon. Friend accept that the difficulties with his inquiry were related not to any lack of professionalism or integrity on Sir Desmond’s part but to the procedural constraints that were placed upon him and that that was what caused the Supreme Court to find that, thus far, the article 2 obligations had not been met? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that no such procedural constraints will be placed on the ongoing inquiries and investigations and that the Government will ensure that the article 2 obligations, as set out by the Supreme Court’s judgment, will be complied with fully and in a timely manner?
Brandon Lewis
We are absolutely committed to our obligations under article 2. That is why I have said that I will reassess this, following the work by the PSNI and the police ombudsman. On the question of scope, as a police-led investigation, this obviously has different connotations and different powers from those that Desmond de Silva had, and that is quite right. This is a matter for the PSNI, which is independent of the Government, and it will be for the Chief Constable to outline the remit and the process of the review. As I said, he intends to start that early next year. In fact, he told me that he hoped it would start in January. The PSNI will be engaging with the Finucane family around that work, and we will ensure that it does so ahead of the work beginning in early 2021.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
If I can accentuate the positive, I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State says that the question of a future public inquiry is not yet off the table. However, I have to tell him that his reliance on police and ombudsman inquiries as a justification would have a lot more weight if the case were new or recent. But it is 31 years plus since Pat Finucane was murdered. We have had the apologies for collusion, but as others have said, that can never be enough. Surely, those who seek truth and closure in other cases would find that their case for the same closure that the Finucane family want through a public inquiry was enhanced not diminished by holding a public inquiry.
Brandon Lewis
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that every case is different and has to be assessed on its merits. That is how the judicial process and the police process work. It is right that we allow the police process to do its work. We have seen that evidence, including some evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, from Operation Kenova, is bringing out information and understanding that was not there about things that happened many decades ago. There are good examples of new bits of information and evidence and of how evidence can be assessed differently as techniques have changed, which recent work has shown, particularly Operation Kenova. That is positive, but we will assess the matter after the processes are completed so that we continue to ensure that we fulfil our article 2 obligations.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend spoken to the Irish Government about this matter?
Brandon Lewis
We speak to the Irish Government regularly, and I have spoken to them today. Before I came to the House, I spoke to the Irish Government and to the Finucane family.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
This is a very poor decision. It comes on top of sidelining the Stormont House agreement, which is the key to a comprehensive approach for all victims. But the Finucane case in particular raises serious questions about the rule of law, actions of the state and accountability. I strongly support the PSNI, but this approach turns back the clock in terms of investigations. How does it enable documents and witnesses to be compelled and how is it compatible with the independence required under article 2 of the European convention on human rights?
Brandon Lewis
As I have outlined to the hon. Gentleman before, the principles of Stormont House are important. More widely, in looking at how we deal with legacy issues and the issues of the troubles, that ability for reconciliation and information is built on those Stormont House principles, and we must ensure that we deliver on that. In this particular case, I say to the hon. Gentleman that the PSNI is independent. It has already indicated that it expects and will seek to appoint an independent force to look at this. I support it in that, but it is a matter for the Chief Constable of the PSNI. Obviously, the PSNI has its own abilities in a police investigation, and it will set its remit for taking the case forward.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Picking up from the previous point, will my right hon. Friend give a little more clarity on the PSNI review of the Finucane case to allay any concerns that the PSNI would be marking its own homework?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We need to be clear about the difference between the PSNI process and the police ombudsman work. The independent Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland will look at the actions and the activities of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The PSNI will look at the case through the eyes of a police force. It is operationally independent of the Government, and as I said, it has indicated that it is likely to ask an independent force to take the case forward. I therefore believe that we can have confidence in the PSNI’s independence and in that of the process.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
There can be no justification or reservation regarding the murder of Pat Finucane. However, unlike thousands of other wrong and unjustifiable murders, there have been investigations, people in court and people convicted of this murder. Thousands of other relatives had none of those outcomes. Does the Secretary of State agree that to properly deal with the past, we need to see the same unequivocal condemnation from across the House of the murder of Pat Finucane applied to all the other murders, including the terror campaign that was carried out by the organisation that Pat Finucane’s brothers, Seamus, John and Dermot, were part of for many years?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman has just highlighted the strength of feeling across communities on this issue, and understandably so. It is absolutely right that we are all clear that there are too many people from across Northern Ireland—and, indeed, the rest of the United Kingdom—who lost people and who still do not have the information about and understanding of what happened in the way that they should. We must all work to ensure that we are doing everything that we can to get that information, with a pathway to reconciliation for people. Any life lost is one too many, and none of us should be doing anything other than respecting the people who lost people through the troubles in such tragic circumstances and often in a way that none of us today could ever excuse.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I just want to remind everybody to take care that they do not make reference to any live cases that may be ongoing at the moment.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Will he set out for the House what he expects the timescales to be for these reviews? This has all gone on over an extended period. The family are clearly concerned. Indeed, everyone in this House will be concerned about the length of time for which this has been allowed to drag on. If he could give us a position on timescales, I think that would settle some of the issues of concern.
Brandon Lewis
As always, my hon. Friend makes an accurate point. Owing to the independence of the PSNI, the exact timing of the process is a matter for it. As I said earlier, it is expecting to start in early 2021. I saw the Chief Constable about a week or 10 days ago, when he indicated to me that it could well start as early as January. The PSNI will be engaging with the family to seek their views on how they wish to engage with the process before that happens. The question how long the review will take to go forward is an operational matter for the PSNI. Operational matters—even if they are part of the review process in investigation cases—are a matter for the PSNI, which is operationally independent.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
I very much regret the Secretary of State’s decision; it is the wrong one. I am sure that we will return to a public inquiry in the fullness of time. Does he accept the fact that the decision not to hold a public inquiry looks like the state still determined to protect the state? This was no failure by actors of the state; it was collusion by agents of the state. Of course, the reality is that we still need to find out how far that collusion went. Can the Secretary of State be specific: will the PSNI and ombudsman inquiry have access to the records of the security services? Without that, frankly, their own inquiries will not come to the conclusions that we need to be put into the public domain.
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman has a long history of working on issues for Northern Ireland; it is good to see him today, even via video link. As the former Prime Minister David Cameron outlined and as I have reconfirmed today, the fact that we have apologised for the collusion that happened—the unacceptable levels—is in the public domain. That was a matter of record back in 2011, as we all know and have discussed a few times today. The operational independence of the PSNI means that this is a matter for the PSNI. They will assess the remit and how they take this case forward. I have confidence not only in their independence, but in their expertise and professionalism to do that in a proper way. It is after those reviews that we will fully assess where we are in terms of article 2 obligations, before making any further decisions, to ensure that we have completed them.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I broadly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Members on both sides of this House appreciate that he has one of the most difficult jobs in government and the weight of history on his shoulders. May I draw him on the article 2 obligations to which he alluded? Does he believe that this course of action fully discharged our obligations under article 2?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend asks a hugely important question, and the very straight answer to the House is that I cannot answer that yet; I do not know. I believe that these are the right next steps in terms of our article 2 obligations. As I have said, we will assess things after these processes have gone through. They could well be hugely important in the information they contribute, but the final decision on where we are with article 2 compliance will have to be taken after those processes have completed and we can assess what they have brought in terms of information and understanding of the case.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) [V]
The Secretary of State rightly acknowledges that this was an appalling crime, but then continues that it was in a difficult and dark period in this nation’s history—a qualification that changes nothing, because no context is relevant here. It is not for the state or its agencies to uphold the rule of law when it is easy; indeed, the obligation may be seen to increase commensurately with any extenuating challenge in compliance. Almost 32 years later, there will still be no public inquiry ordered by the British state into its collusion in this crime. How does he expect Pat Finucane’s family to maintain confidence regarding this latest failure to secure justice through a public inquiry?
Brandon Lewis
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks back at my statement in Hansard later on, because he has misunderstood the point I was making. This was a dark time—that is a simple fact of the reality of the troubles. I am sure we are all pleased that the Good Friday/Belfast agreement has meant that we have been able to move forward from that period and develop a peace process that is leading to prosperity in Northern Ireland that we should be building on.
I have spoken to the Finucane family today. I understand and appreciate that they will be disappointed by the decision we have made today, because they clearly would like to see a public inquiry. The decision we have to make and the decision I have made is around what is in the public interest and what the right steps are in completing our obligations under article 2, as per the Supreme Court’s decisions.
The police investigation and the police ombudsman’s work in its investigation is an important part of that process. We have to see what comes through with that. I think it is right that we allow that methodical approach to happen without pre-judging what the outcomes of that may be or creating a dual piece of work that could prejudice the work of the police or the police ombudsman. That is the right way forward and the proper due process to follow.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
Would I be right in concluding from my right hon. Friend’s statement that while a public inquiry has not been ruled out, at this stage to proceed with one would not much advance the matter and, in fact, would become entangled with the PSNI review he has announced?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend asks a good question. It is right that with the PSNI taking forward this review and investigation and the police ombudsman doing its review and investigative work, it could be prejudicial to have another process running alongside. In terms of assessing whether the Government have fulfilled our article 2 obligations, we need to let these processes work through and then make that decision.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
In 2012, Sir Desmond de Silva QC’s review found that
“a series of positive actions by employers of the State that actively furthered and facilitated his murder”,
yet even that review had serious shortcomings, as identified by the Supreme Court. At long last, the Government must hold a full public inquiry into the murder of lawyer Patrick Finucane, because in direct contravention of what the Secretary of State has just mentioned, the chief constable of the PSNI has said it is
“our view that there are currently no new lines of inquiry. We now need to decide if a further review is merited given all the previous investigations into this case.”
Why is the Secretary of State procrastinating and adding to the heartache and pain of the Finucane family?
Brandon Lewis
I think I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s question several times already today. The simple fact is that on 2 November, the PSNI notified my Department of the investigative review process it will be starting in early 2021. I think he might be getting his timelines wrong in terms of what he is referring to, because it is not until that is completed that the PSNI can know whether there is anything new that will also inform our decision around our article 2 obligations. That is the right process. I trust the PSNI to do its job professionally.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I would like to see more focus on all the unsolved murders in Northern Ireland. I welcome the independent involvement of the legacy investigation branch into the murder of Patrick Finucane. However, can I be reassured by my right hon. Friend that the branch will be given sufficient resources, access to records and the time to determine what exactly happened on that fateful day 31 years ago?
Brandon Lewis
On the budgetary issue, obviously the investigatory work that the PSNI is doing on cases, including this case coming forward, is part of its budgetary plan. I share my hon. Friend’s view that we must all be working to secure information for families right across the United Kingdom, and particularly those affected by the troubles in Northern Ireland, who do not yet have that information. He is absolutely right about that.
In this case, I will be happy to give the PSNI all the support it needs to go through this process in a proper, efficient way, while always respecting the fact that it is an independent, autonomous body. We have to respect its independence to do its work properly and professionally, as I know it will.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
May I thank the Secretary of State for outlining what I believe was a fair and balanced response to the House today? I think he has very clearly dealt with the issues, and recognises that the complexity of our legacy and our past means that there are many hundreds, if not thousands, of families who equally have a sincere and earnest desire for truth and justice, and that all needs to be considered in the round.
However, if the Secretary of State is committed to informing us of his plans on legacy in the weeks to come, can I ask him sincerely to reconsider the position he has adopted: that the Northern Ireland Office and Her Majesty’s Government will not financially support victims’ pensions? It was his Government that extended the eligibility criteria last year, doing so in a way that increased the costs exponentially, and gave commitments in “New Decade, New Approach”. If the Secretary of State is sincere about dealing with legacy and supporting those who are victims of our troubled past, will he put his money where his mouth is and make sure that people get the support they so desperately need?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman makes a hugely important point, and I fully accept and agree with what he said in the first part of his question. I firmly believe that we have a duty to find a way forward on legacy that allows families to have an understanding, and to get that information and reconciliation for Northern Ireland, building on the peace and prosperity we have seen since the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That is a duty we should all take seriously, and we should do everything we can, working across civic society, to find a way forward that we can all come together and deliver on.
The hon. Gentleman also makes an important point about victims’ payments, which I will answer briefly, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you will allow me. I do think that victims have waited for far too long. I was hugely disappointed with how long it took to get even the designation of the Department arranged by the Northern Ireland Executive; I am as frustrated as others that that is not there. To be fair, I know that the Department of Justice and the Minister are working hard, along with the First Minister, to get this done as quickly as possible, and both are equally passionate about delivering for the victims.
Bearing in mind that the Northern Ireland Executive have had somewhere in the region of £20 billion this year, even as part of the £15 billion block grant, it is important that they work out what amount of that money they are putting into something that they—including the Deputy First Minister—say is a priority, to make sure that money gets to the victims who need it. I encourage the Department of Finance to pull together an independent fiscal council, as agreed under “New Decade, New Approach”, to get proper transparency about these finances, which will help budget in a way that will mean it can properly fund the Department of Justice, through the Executive, to deliver on this for victims.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that he is fully convinced that the path forward he has set out today in his statement to this House fully discharges the Government’s duties and responsibilities towards meeting the Supreme Court’s statements about this case?
Brandon Lewis
Yes, I think this is the right next step: for the police and the police ombudsman to do their work, so that we can then assess whether we have fully completed our obligations under article 2. Once those processes have finished, we will make that assessment and take any decisions we need to, because we are determined to make sure we deliver on those obligations.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Tens of millions—indeed, hundreds of millions—of pounds have already been spent on four investigations into the murder of Pat Finucane, whose family have well-documented terrorist links. One brother died while engaged in terrorist activity and two were captured while engaged in terrorist activity. Indeed, informers have alleged that Pat Finucane himself, for one reason or another, was the solicitor of choice for IRA terrorists when they were captured. The expenditure contrasts starkly with the derisory efforts that have been made to deal with the cases of thousands of people who were killed by the IRA, which have not been investigated and for which no one has been brought to justice.
It is a great pity that the Secretary of State has not today ruled out unequivocally the expenditure of more British taxpayers’ money on further investigation some time in the future. I think that many people in Northern Ireland would have had much more comfort had he done so.
Brandon Lewis
I hear what the right hon. Gentleman has said. We have a core judgment that outlines that we have not yet fulfilled the article 2 obligations. We are clear that we will seek to do that. This is the next step of the process. As I say, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the police ombudsman are independent in terms of coming to those conclusions and decisions. We will let them do their work. I agree with his point about people across Northern Ireland who have lost their lives, been injured or lost loved ones in the troubles. It is important that we all do all we can to get to the bottom of what happened. It was unacceptable and we should work together across parties, across civic society and with our partners in the Irish Government to get as much information as we can for those families, so that we can understand what happened and move forward into a period of reconciliation.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and specifically the decision not to proceed with a full public inquiry at this time for the reasons that he outlined. Does he agree that there is so much more we can do to help individuals in Northern Ireland on both sides of the community to heal the wounds from the past? The broad approach outlined in the legacy proposals can help to deliver that in a fair, consistent and clear manner.
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. He is right that there is not just a duty on us, but a desire in all of us to give people the ability to reconcile and move forward. I have seen some of the really interesting work that has been submitted to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in its report on legacy. We will engage widely with civic society as well as political parties and our partners in the Irish Government to so that Northern Ireland can look forward, while never forgetting the past, to reconciliation, with information for survivors and victims at the heart of that.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I am appalled that the Secretary of State has failed to grant an independent public inquiry. What that means is that the UK, in effect, remains in breach of our international human rights obligations. The Finucane family and the wider community in Northern Ireland have been let down once again. With reference to any future criminal conduct authorisations arising from the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill, does the Secretary of State agree that intelligence sources should never be offered blanket immunity from criminal or civil prosecutions?
Brandon Lewis
I am afraid that I disagree with the hon. Lady about the process that we are going through. We are determined and focused on delivering on our article 2 obligations, as I have outlined. I would also suggest that she looks at the information that we will now be publishing. It has not been in the public domain before this stage, and it is an important part of the process, as is the work of the police ombudsman and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. We thank people across society for the work they have done to keep this country safe at various times in our history.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I too thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I wish to extend my sympathy to those who grieve the loss of their father, husband, son and brother, but will the Secretary of State further outline whether the rationale used to exclude this case from public inquiry is the same as the criteria used to refuse requests for inquiries into the La Mon atrocity, for example, where 12 were killed and 30 were injured, including my constituent Billy McDowell and his late wife Lily, or the slaughter of the four Ulster Defence Regiment men, John Birch, Michael Adams, Steven Smart and Lance Corporal Bradley, at Ballydugan outside Downpatrick some 30 years ago? We need equality, and we want to see it.
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman highlights, as have other colleagues this afternoon, some of the tragic circumstances and the importance of people across all communities, and us all, understanding the losses that have been seen across all communities. I would just say to him, as I have said, that every case has to be looked at on the merits of that individual case. In this particular case, as I say, I believe the next steps are the right ones: to allow the PSNI and the police ombudsman to do their work.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I, too, am thoroughly disappointed that the Secretary of State has not decided to grant a full public inquiry into the death of Pat Finucane. Concern over the Secretary of State’s approach to dealing with legacy is not limited to Opposition Members; the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee said that the proposals in his March statement raised
“profound legal, ethical and human rights issues.”
Does he agree with that assessment? Will he commit to resetting his approach to dealing with legacy to win back the trust of victims and their families?
Brandon Lewis
I do not agree with what the hon. Lady has outlined. The March statement was the start of a conversation, which, as I said, we obviously paused; victims groups particularly requested that we pause it while they were dealing with that first core wave of covid. My view has been, as I have said all along, that I want to engage with civic society, as well as political parties and our partners in the Irish Government, on legacy—on finding a way forward that we can then bring back. I find it interesting sometimes to read what people assume is our position when I have not outlined it yet. It is important that we engage and listen to the people of Northern Ireland rather than making assumptions.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for responding to 25 questions. The House stands suspended for three minutes.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).
Telecommunications (Security) Bill
Monday 30th November 2020
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 View all Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Oliver Dowden)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Cutting-edge technology such as 5G and gigabit broadband have the potential to transform our lives and this Government are investing billions of pounds in their roll-out nationwide, but we can only have confidence in that technology if we know it is secure, and this Bill will create one of the toughest telecoms security regimes in the world, one that will protect our networks even as technologies grow and evolve, shielding our critical national infrastructure both now and for the future.
This Bill acts on the recommendations of the United Kingdom telecoms supply chain review, which in turn was informed by the expert technical advice at the National Cyber Security Centre in GCHQ. First, it establishes a tough new security framework for all the UK’s public telecoms providers. This will be overseen by Ofcom and the Government, and they will have a legal duty to design and manage their networks securely. Rigorous new security requirements will be set out in secondary legislation, and codes of practice will set technical guidance on how providers should meet the law, and where providers are found wanting, Ofcom will have the power to impose steep fines. For example, under the current regime fines for failing to protect security are limited to just £2 million or £20,000 per day, while under the new regime they will rise significantly, to up to 10% of turnover or £100,000 per day. Under the current regime Ofcom has limited monitoring and enforcement powers. Under the new regime it will have the power to enter premises of telecoms providers, to interview staff and to require technical systems tests.
If we pass this Bill, few other countries in the world will have a tougher enforcement regime, and the point of this Bill is not just to tackle one high-risk vendor; it raises the security bar across the board and protects us against a whole range of threats. According to the NCSC, the past two years have seen malicious cyber-activity from Russia and China as well as North Korea and Iranian actors. While I know that telecoms providers are working hard to protect our networks against this hostile activity, the Government have lacked the power to ensure they do so. This Bill puts a robust security framework in place, guaranteeing the protection of our networks.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
It feels like a long time since we had debates about Huawei at, I think, the beginning of the year, which perhaps started this national conversation about our critical national infrastructure. My right hon. Friend speaks about threats: what is the biggest long-term geostrategic threat facing the UK now?
Oliver Dowden
The purpose of this Bill is to give us flexibility so that we do not get bound by the particular circumstances of today, and we have designed it to give us that. The four big threats we consistently face in cyber in this country are, as my right hon. Friend knows, in relation to Russia, China, North Korea and Iran, and we are seeing an evolution in some of those threats, particularly in relation to China.
This new security framework is just one half of the Bill; the second half gives the Government unprecedented new national security powers to identify and tackle high-risk vendors. Under the Bill the Government will be able to designate specific vendors that pose risks to our national security and issue directions to telecoms providers to control their use of goods, services or facilities provided by those vendors.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
In principle, I welcome the Bill. Its focus, however, is on kit, hardware and vendors, and that will go some way towards protecting our telecoms systems, but we are also still facing threats from hacking, so making sure we have basic good cyber-hygiene will be just as important as some of these measures we are discussing today.
Oliver Dowden
In short, yes, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. What this Bill does is bite in three respects. First, it sets out the overarching duties on mobile network operators and other telecoms providers in statute. It then empowers the Government through secondary legislation to provide further requirements on them. On top of that, for the tier 1 providers, which will basically be all the big telecoms providers, it also introduces a code of practice whereby they have to comply with that to ensure that they are secure. Across the board, the Bill tightens the requirements on them.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
To follow up on the comments of my good friend the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), does the Bill also give added protection to private individuals using their mobile phone, to stop them having it tapped by, say, a newspaper reporter?
Oliver Dowden
I cannot imagine what my hon. Friend is alluding to. This is aimed at the telecoms providers, but in tightening the security requirements on them, it in turn, of course, tightens the security for individual telecoms users. The Bill makes it a duty for telecoms providers to comply with those directions and introduces robust penalties for those that fail to do so.
The point is that these powers will protect us against both the high-risk vendors of today and the threats of tomorrow. I know that for right hon. and hon. Members there are significant concerns about one high-risk vendor, Huawei. This has rightly attracted the attention and concern of many hon. Members and I want, first, to reassure them that I have heard them, that I am acting and that I am taking a clear-eyed approach to protecting our national security.
In July, I announced that UK telecoms providers should cease to procure any new 5G equipment from Huawei after 31 December 2020 and remove all Huawei equipment from our 5G networks by the end of 2027. This Bill enables us to implement those decisions in law.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I welcome both the Secretary of State’s direction and his much earlier than expected announcement of no new installations. Does he agree that this fundamentally changes the incentives on any boardroom for using any kit—in this case, Huawei—that is a risk? The cost is going to be laid with the company—that they will have to remove it anyway—which changes the pricing structure that any other company would have to bid for.
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and I will be coming on to that in a minute. It is actually happening now because telecoms providers and mobile network operators know three things. They have to remove Huawei equipment in respect of 5G by 2027 entirely. They cannot purchase any equipment from the end of this year, and—I will come on to this shortly—we have double locked that, as it were, by having the installation requirement. Mobile network operators are already working on that assumption.
Mr Kevan Jones
I find that very strange because the Bill is about security. The Secretary of State is now saying that he is introducing proposals which mean that if, for example, Vodafone or any other operator has got some stock in, it cannot put it in from the end of this year. What is the security risk there? The only reason we changed the projections earlier last year—which I supported—was the US sanctions on future kit. There is not a security risk to the kit that is going in now so how can he use this Bill, on security, for doing that? Is this not just a political decision that he is making?
Oliver Dowden
To clarify the position for the right hon. Gentleman, mobile network operators cannot purchase from December this year—so they can purchase it now— and the installation limit will then apply from September 2021. The point of these measures is to address the concerns that Members rightly raised that companies could be incentivised to purchase large amounts of stock, stockpile it and then roll it out right the way through to 2027. I told the House in July that I would set us on a clear and unambiguous path to 2027, and these measures do exactly that.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that, associated with the Bill, there needs to be a plan for the greatest diversity in the supply chains? That is the long-term solution, because part of the challenge is that we have ended up focusing on one supplier, Huawei, which has been dominant in this field. What action is he taking in that area?
Oliver Dowden
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. The interventions are tempting me to jump around points that I intend to make, but he is right about the importance of diversification. We have published the diversification strategy, which is available for Members to examine, and I will come on to it in a moment.
It is this Bill and this Bill alone that gives Members the assurances they seek for the security of our networks both now and in the future. Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), operators are already taking our approach seriously—they are working now to meet the Government’s requirements. For example, BT has signed a deal with Ericsson for 5G equipment to enable it to phase out Huawei and is already in the process of using Ericsson products to replace Huawei in its core. Where operators can go further and faster without jeopardising the stability of our network, we will of course encourage them to do so, but it would be a big risk to force them to go even further. BT and others have warned that moving faster could put our networks under considerable strain, creating significant risk of blackouts, and it would take longer for 5G to reach the parts of the country where it would make the most difference.
Mr Ellwood
O2, Three and BT had concerns that they would have to cancel their contracts with Huawei but still pay for them, because the equipment was on its way. Could my right hon. Friend clarify what happens to contracts that are in the pipeline, which could see these companies go bust if they have to pay for them?
Oliver Dowden
My Department is in close contact with mobile network operators. I do not think that the sort of risk my right hon. Friend describes of companies going bust is remotely the case. Furthermore, we have given clear advance notice of this. For example, we made the first statements in January this year. We updated the guidance in July, and we also consulted extensively with the mobile network operators on the requirements in relation to installation that I am announcing today.
Oliver Dowden
I will make some progress. I may come back to the right hon. Gentleman later, but I have already given way to him twice.
I know that some Members are concerned that we have not named Huawei on the face of the Bill and that our approach could be reversed in years to come. I want to reassure those Members on a number of fronts. We have not chosen to name Huawei for two compelling practical reasons. First, as we discussed, this Bill is designed to tackle not only the Huaweis of today but the Huaweis of tomorrow, wherever they come from. It needs to be flexible enough to cover future threats and not tie our hands by limiting our response to one company and one company alone. Secondly—this is the most crucial point—making reference to any one company would create a hybrid Bill, dramatically slowing the passage of the Bill and therefore our ability to combat all high-risk vendors, including Huawei.
However, as a concrete sign of our commitment to tackling the national security risks posed by Huawei, I can confirm today that we are going further in two significant ways. First—I hope Members will have had a chance to see this—we have published an illustrative designation notice and an illustrative designated vendor direction to demonstrate how the Bill’s powers in relation to a high-risk vendor could be exercised. Given the level of concern in this House and in the other place about Huawei’s role in 5G infrastructure, these illustrative drafts name Huawei explicitly, clarifying our position beyond doubt, and set out a clear pathway to the reduction and removal of its equipment.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State believe that taking out companies such as Huawei may damage the economic impact, and what assessment has he made about making sure that we are at the forefront of growing 5G network in the UK?
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are clear-eyed about putting national security first. If national security and economic interests are in conflict with each other, national security comes first. But within the context of that, we have properly weighed up the risks as between different dates. I believe that 2027 strikes the appropriate balance in that it can be delivered with impact, in the way that I described in my statement to the House in July—it will have an impact in terms of cost and roll-out for mobile network operators—but it does not run the risk that we go too far and too fast, whereby we risk some sort of blackout and loss of provision.
In addition to the draft directions, we are going a step further by using the illustrative directions to set out a new hard deadline for the installation of Huawei equipment. That direction makes it clear that all operators must not install Huawei equipment in their networks from the end of September 2021.
That clarification has clear practical implications. It will prevent any operator from stockpiling Huawei kit in the hope that the ban might be reversed. The new installation deadline will create cold hard facts on the ground, effectively turning the plan for Huawei’s removal into an irreversible reality.
The powers in the Bill also allow us to keep an eagle eye on the progress of Huawei’s removal. They enable us to require Ofcom to obtain information from companies to see whether a provider has complied, or is complying, and they allow us to require providers to prepare a plan setting out exactly how they intend to get to zero Huawei by 2027.
Using those powers, we will not just publish an annual report of compliance on the removal of Huawei equipment, but keep a close watch on the future progress of all telecoms companies where Huawei is concerned. Under this rigorous monitoring and reporting system, no provider will be able to drag their feet. They will need to provide proof that they are working to meet the 2027 deadline. But, critically, we can do this only if we secure these important powers—the powers that will enable us to take action in relation to Huawei to protect our networks, but also to take action against any other potential high-risk vendors now and in the future.
Mr Kevan Jones
The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. This Bill is actually about security. The reason he is going to get the powers is to take out vendors who are a clear high risk. Huawei has been there for a while. The kit that he is talking about banning after 2021—even if it is stockpiled or part of a contract—has not got a security implication at all because it has already gone through our Huawei centre. So I am not sure that he has the powers in the Bill to do that. I am sorry, but if I were a telecoms provider and I had a contract or a stockpile of kit that I could not use, I would be looking at taking legal action against the Government, because he cannot use the Bill if that equipment is not a threat to national security, which it is not.
Oliver Dowden
I say to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I beg his pardon. It is the right hon. Gentleman. I stand corrected. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that, first, this Bill and the measures in it implement what we announced as a Government in January and July, which, in turn, was based on the advice of the National Cyber Security Centre and GCHQ. In relation to whether I, or any Secretary of State, has sufficient powers in the Bill, I refer him to clause 16(2), which inserts new section 105Z8(4)(a) to (l) into the Communications Act 2003, which sets out a very wide range of bases on which I can designate a provider as high risk and take measures, so I am confident that I have those sufficient powers.
We must never find ourselves in this position again. Over the last few decades, countless countries across the world have become over-reliant on too few vendors, thanks to a lack of competition in the global telecoms supply chain. While this is a global problem, today this Government are officially leading the way in solving it. Alongside the Bill, we have published an ambitious diversification strategy—the first such strategy to be published anywhere in the world. It sets out our vision of what an open, competitive, diverse supply market for telecoms will look like, and the measures we will bring forward to develop an innovative and dynamic market.
We want to make progress as quickly as possible, so today I can also confirm that we are committing £250 million to kick-start this work. That includes funding and building a state-of-the-art national telecoms lab, which will bring together suppliers from across the world to test the performance and security of their equipment. We are also running a 5G open radio access network trial with the Japanese supplier NEC in Wales to help the entire UK benefit from this exciting new industry. That, of course, comes on top of NEC establishing a global open RAN centre of excellence in the UK just last month. We also know that Vodafone has recently announced that it intends to deploy open RAN technology across more than 2,600 of its sites—the largest commitment of its kind across any European network.
Tom Tugendhat
The Secretary of State is rightly focusing on open RAN and the opportunity to partner with others in the democratic and law-abiding world. What has he done to reach out to countries such as South Korea, whose Samsung system could provide for the UK, and to encourage Nokia, Ericsson and Fujitsu in Japan?
Oliver Dowden
I am pleased to say that the Minister for Digital Infrastructure has met every one of the parties my hon. Friend named; indeed, I have met many of them. Essentially, we are working across three strands. First, we are working with the existing vendors—there were three, now to become two—to secure them and make sure we do not lose a further one. We are also working with new potential incumbents such as NEC and Samsung. In addition, we are working across a range of countries, in particular the D10, to ensure that we work together to improve standards in telecoms.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is being customarily generous in giving way, but can I just make a point to him and hear his answer? This situation has constantly been wrongly described as a market failure. It was not a market failure; the failure was in the reality of one country abusing and breaking World Trade Organisation rules on subsidies. The key problem has been that China has subsidised its providers dramatically, even over 100% on contract, which has killed this market over the last 10 years. Once we release the market by stopping that, the private sector will come back into this industry because competition will be real competition, not broken competition. That is the key point.
Oliver Dowden
My right hon. Friend highlights one of a range of different market distortions that have been going on. To a certain extent, there will be some market correction, but the Government also need to intervene, and our diversification strategy addresses that. If we are to get existing vendors who are not currently in the UK market back in, or to create a new open RAN solution, we need to provide financial incentives, and the diversification strategy touches on many of the steps that we propose to take.
We are taking concrete steps towards a solution, but diversification is not just a problem to be solved. It is also an opportunity to be seized. As part of our strategy, we will invest in homegrown solutions that will put us at the forefront of developing 5G technology and all the transformative benefits it brings. The next phase of this work will be taken forward by the Telecoms Diversification Task Force, chaired by Lord Livingston, formerly of BT, and others. I am grateful for the work that he, industry and academic experts have done in developing the strategy and in taking it forward.
The Bill has not been designed around one company, one country or one threat. Its strength is that it creates an enduring, flexible and far-reaching telecoms regime, one that keeps pace with changing technology and changing threats, that supports billions of phone calls, email exchanges and file transfers in this country every day, and that is essential to the UK’s economy and its future prosperity.
I listened carefully to the concerns of Members on both sides of the House in designing the legislation, and I have sought to address those concerns head on in the Bill as it stands before the House. I genuinely hope that the Bill will command cross-party support and that we will be able to work together in the national interest to ensure the security of our telecoms networks. I commend the Bill to the House.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this Second Reading debate on the Telecommunications (Security) Bill on behalf of the official Opposition. Labour will always put national security first, so we are pleased to finally see this Bill brought forward by the Government. All sides of the House agree that the first duty of any Government is to protect their citizens, and we have confidence in our national security services, which go to such lengths to keep us all safe.
I say I am pleased to finally see this Bill brought forward because it has been clear for a long time that there were serious questions over whether high-risk vendors, specifically Huawei, should be allowed to control large sections of our country’s telecoms networks. But let us be frank: until this year, the Government had failed to face reality. I agree with the shadow digital Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), who said here in July that the Government’s
“approach to our 5G capability, Huawei and our national security has been incomprehensibly negligent.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 1378.]
As long ago as June 2013, the Intelligence and Security Committee report on “Foreign involvement in the Critical National Infrastructure” made it absolutely clear that risks had to be properly identified, assessed and managed, and that processes and procedures had to be put in place to achieve this, and those needed to be completely robust.
I am sure that Conservative Members will be keen to mention that Huawei first entered the UK network in 2006 under a Labour Government, but as is very clear from the ISC report, that decision was one taken by officers, and Ministers were not told about it at the time. In fact, they were not even told that a contract had been signed until a year later, seemingly because those officials felt that to invest in Huawei brought significant trade, financial and diplomatic consequences. Since that decision, much has changed with the situation of the UK’s relationship with China. The Conservative party have had ample time not only to begin that removal process, should it have wished to, but to invest in the diversification that could have meant we had a homegrown alternative ready to use. It is only today, after 10 and a half years in government, that this diversification strategy has finally been published.
We know that the political background to this Bill has much to do with the power of many Conservative Back Benchers—many are here today, and I am looking forward to hearing all the contributions to the debate in due course—but it is as much to do with what had been a desire to satisfy the now outgoing President of the United States as it is with the safety of our critical national infrastructure, and this political soap opera has been an unnecessary distraction.
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Lady will forgive me for picking just a very small hole in her argument. One of the very few policies on which President-elect Biden and President Trump, and indeed even Speaker Pelosi, do absolutely agree is the challenge of China and digital infrastructure, and particularly Huawei, so I am not entirely sure this can be put down to satisfying the Trump Administration. Indeed, it is something on which we agree with Australia, Japan, South Korea, Germany, the Czech Republic—I can keep going—while France banned it in 2009. This is not just an American issue.
Jo Stevens
I accept that it is not just an American issue, but it was the right thing for the wrong reasons, essentially. As I say, this political soap opera has been an unnecessary distraction when it comes to the serious matter of extracting high-risk vendors from the network, which has been slow and fragmented.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
On a point of fact and detail, I recall in 2009 the Chinese Premier being with the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown in Downing Street, welcoming the strategic partnership—with an all-singing, all-dancing party in Downing Street—between Vodafone and Huawei. It is therefore a little party political to suggest that it is only the Conservatives who have perhaps taken their eyes off the ball, something which we are correcting today.
Jo Stevens
The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten about the former Prime Minister David Cameron and the former Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, who also gave such a welcome.
It is worth outlining for the record the meandering journey that we have been on towards the publication of the Bill. The House will recall that in May 2019 the current Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) was sacked as Secretary of State for Defence following an inquiry into a leak from a National Security Council meeting at which it was reported that the Government had been advised in May 2019 to remove Huawei from the network. It was not until January this year—eight months later—that the Government decided that Huawei equipment should be excluded from the sensitive core parts of the 5G and gigabit-capable networks and from sensitive and safety-critical locations such as critical national infrastructure, and that its access to the non-sensitive parts of the network described as the “edge” would be capped at 35%.
In May, the United States imposed sanctions on Huawei through changes to their foreign direct product rules that restricted Huawei’s ability to produce important products using US technology or software. The NCSC advised that the UK could no longer be confident that it would be able to guarantee the security of future Huawei 5G equipment affected by the change in those US rules so, as the Secretary of State outlined, the Government changed their position again in July, announcing a ban on the buying of new 5G Huawei equipment after December this year and the removal of all equipment from our 5G networks by the end of 2027.
The UK has been slower to take action than our Five Eyes allies. In August 2018, the Australian Government blacklisted Huawei from the country’s 5G network in response to security advice, and New Zealand took the same decision in that same year. Our Intelligence and Security Committee made it clear 18 months ago that the debate on high-risk vendors had been “unnecessarily protracted” and damaging.
Mr Kevan Jones
It is worse than that. I know we had the panda-hugging days of Osborne and Cameron, but an ISC report in 2013 raised the issue of critical national infrastructure, with particular reference to Huawei, and nothing was done.
Jo Stevens
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. For the benefit of anyone who has not read that report, it is pretty damning. We now find ourselves in a situation in which drastic action is necessary to safeguard national security and our critical national infrastructure, while at the very same time the economic imperative of the roll-out of 5G for the country has never been more urgent—and that has obviously been added to by the impact of the covid pandemic.
It is worth putting on the record that there are reasons other than national security in respect of Huawei that concern many Members from all parties in this House. The telecoms company has provided surveillance technology to the Xinjiang public security bureau, facilitating the construction of the world’s most invasive surveillance state. Last November, an Australian Strategic Policy Institute report detailed how Huawei has developed the Xinjiang public security cloud, which makes possible the total control and repression of Uyghur Muslims. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) set out in a Westminster Hall debate on 4 March this year, the company has a shameful record on workers’ rights, operating
“a ‘wolf’ work culture of long hours and brutal workplace norms.”—[Official Report, 4 March 2020; Vol. 672, c. 282WH.]
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Lady is setting out a long list of concerns with which many in the House would absolutely agree. Does she agree that for the reasons she is outlining it is perhaps now time for us to review the overseas aid that we give to China?
Jo Stevens
I do not want to step beyond my brief and interfere in that of my shadow Cabinet colleague, but we certainly should not be doing business with any companies that breach both human rights and workers’ rights. We have international labour standards in place and these are not companies with which to do business.
Turning now to broadband and 5G roll-out, and the delays and the costs layering on top of them, we have already seen delays in the roll-out of second and third generation fixed broadband, and we are now at the bottom of the OECD tables. In fact, only last week the Government sneaked out in the Chancellor’s spending review plans to water down their broadband promises. Instead of keeping to their manifesto promise to roll out gigabit-speed broadband to every home in Britain by 2025, the Chancellor revealed that the Government are now aiming to have a minimum of 85% coverage by that date. The budget for that plan remains the same, but now only £1.2 billion of the £5 billion will be made available up until 2024, so this will impact on the so-called levelling-up agenda.
The Government’s delay in dealing with the issue of high-risk vendors until now has also meant that there will be added delays and costs to the roll-out of 5G. The Secretary of State accepted that in July, when he said that the cumulative delay would be two to three years. However, the Government’s impact assessment for the Bill does not establish the effect of removing Huawei from the core network on the timescale for the 5G roll-out, so has the Secretary of State’s position, set out in July, of a two to three-year delay changed at all, and why does the impact assessment fail to address that issue? Also in July, the Secretary of State predicted that removing Huawei would cost operators up to £2 billion, but that could be a huge underestimate, because BT alone is saying that it will cost it £500 million, and the costs could be far greater, including the knock-on effects in terms of lost revenue and wider economic benefits.
As well as those economic consequences, there is another impact, because the provision of 5G for most of the UK will increase the digital divide without significant measures to tackle it. The three central problems at the heart of this divide are lack of internet connection, lack of technological devices, and lack of the skills to use new technology in a meaningful way. The Government have promised, and so far failed, to solve the lack of connection, which is a particular problem for under-served communities. There is nothing about 5G that will make it a better option for those communities, who are already lacking affordable access to fast internet. In addition, there is the distinct possibility that in order to access mobile 5G internet, users will need newer and more expensive devices built for those increased speeds. The pandemic has highlighted these divides and thrown into stark relief the need for help and support for those whose lack of connection, skills and equipment is a real barrier both in terms of employment and other meaningful connections.
There is one other significant consequence to the Government’s delay, and that is the new 4G-based emergency services network. That is now unlikely to completely take over from the existing platform until 2024-25. This delay is costing taxpayers millions. If the Government are forced to keep airwaves going beyond 2022, every year of delay adds an extra cost of about £550 million. The core of the ESM network does feature Huawei equipment, but EE has said that it is already working to strip this out and hopes to complete that by 2023. However, can the Secretary of State reassure the House that the presence of Huawei kit in the 4G ESM network will not have any impact on its lifespan, financial implications or security status and safety concerns?
I turn now to the removal of high-risk vendors’ equipment from the 5G networks. For the purposes of this debate, it is probably easier to refer to it as the removal of Huawei equipment, because that is where everybody’s current focus is. This must all be removed from networks by 2027. There is the “no new purchasing” rule from the end of this month, and the Secretary of State has announced today that existing stocks cannot be used after September 2021. However, there are questions for the Government around the implementation of this that I hope the Minister will be able to answer.
I have five specific questions. First, given that the Bill is based on a distinction between the core and the edge of the networks, how confident are the Government of the durability of the barrier between the core and the edge? Secondly, what steps are the Government taking to prioritise the removal of any existing Huawei equipment from the more sensitive core part of the network, and how much equipment does Huawei have in it? Thirdly, are the Government proposing to provide help to businesses who have invested in Huawei equipment ahead of this decision, and will there be legal support, as many operators may have to honour contracts that they cannot actually use or possibly afford? Fourthly, what steps will the Government be taking to work with local authorities and others to minimise disruption to businesses and individuals when removing the equipment? Fifthly and finally, what steps are being taken to minimise the costs to business?
I have one other point, from a different policy angle. When Australia banned Huawei from participating in its 5G network in 2018, China imposed retaliatory measures on Australian goods. The Government’s impact assessment does not address the economic consequences of potential retaliatory measures, so can they explain what steps are being taken to plan for that possibility?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The hon. Lady makes reference to what the Chinese Government have been doing with regards to the Australians, which is appalling and breaches WTO rules. In a way, her request for the Government to formulate plans against such a breach is really a request of the WTO to act in this case, as it should have done earlier against China’s abuses and breaking of the WTO rules.
Jo Stevens
The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point.
This Bill gives huge powers to the Secretary of State under the auspices of national security, but it does not define what that means. The Secretary of State will be responsible for making national security judgments and decisions in relation to potential high-risk vendors. The impact assessment suggests that he will not do so unilaterally and that he will consult with the NCSC, but it is incumbent on the Government to explain why they consider that the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport—I mean nothing personal to the right hon. Gentleman in saying this—is the appropriate decision maker on issues of national security. Would it not be better for the Secretary of State to conduct a multi-agency review prior to using these national security powers, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) has suggested in relation to the National Security and Investment Bill, which hands similar powers to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy?
The lack of a definition of national security in this Bill raises particular concerns about the significant level of discretion afforded to the Secretary of State, the transparency with which such decisions will be made and the ability of Parliament to scrutinise those decisions. On another issue relating to scrutiny, Parliament is being asked to vote on this primary legislation before significant elements of how it will operate have been published, because secondary legislation will set out specific security requirements that providers must meet and the codes of practice that have been mentioned. Those will only be available after the Bill has received Royal Assent.
We have concerns about the role and the scope of the powers given to Ofcom in this legislation. These are new powers, which are pretty onerous. With Ofcom also expected to be named as the regulator in the promised online harms Bill—when that finally arrives—we are concerned about the resourcing of and the expertise within Ofcom to be able to deliver its statutory duties and responsibilities. We are concerned not so much about the volume of work, but that the administering of this new security regime may require skills that Ofcom, and potentially DCMS, are unlikely currently to possess. The impact assessment with the Bill suggests a combined monitoring cost for DCMS and Ofcom of £7 million to £12 million over a 10-year period. Do the Government really think that this resourcing budget will be sufficient?
Finally, I turn to the issue of diversification of the telecoms sector. In the ’80s and ’90s, as BT was privatised, our telecoms supply chain was allowed to fall mainly into foreign hands, although they were the hands of our allies. Conservative Governments over the last decade squandered the world-leading position that our broadband infrastructure had been left in by the last Labour Government. Successive Conservative Governments have lost, given away or under-invested in our sovereign telecoms capability as that supply chain has become dominated by high-risk vendors. There are of course added benefits to reducing reliance on a small number of global vendors, including increasing competition, driving innovation and improving resilience, but, as BT and others have warned, it will take time to move at scale towards new approaches. Network operators need to be confident in the maturity, performance, integration and security credentials of new vendors and technologies before they are deployed in their main networks. We agree that the Government can and should help to accelerate that progress, because in doing so, there is the potential to create opportunities for the UK to take the lead, as well as to create much-needed jobs. The strategy published today will need significant scrutiny. The £250 million announced in the spending review last week is obviously welcome, but it lacks sufficient detail, and we look forward to hearing more about how it will be spent.
The Secretary of State claims that this Bill will give the UK one of the toughest telecoms security regimes in the world and allow us to take the action necessary to protect our networks, and I hope he is right. We will not oppose the Bill’s Second Reading, but we have many concerns that will need to be considered and addressed in Committee. The Bill that the House eventually passes must take steps to ensure that our telecoms supply chain is resilient in the future, or we will be forced to return here in a short time to deal with the next Huawei.
We must be mindful, as with all legislation, that we seek to anticipate the problems of the future rather than just deal with the issues that we face today. We of course fully support steps to remove high-risk vendors from the network, but they must go hand in hand with credible measures to diversify the supply chain. We are in this situation because there are no viable alternatives to Huawei, homegrown or otherwise, and that is, in part, a result of the chronic under-investment and lack of leadership from the Government on digital infrastructure. We have to ensure that this does not happen again.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Ind)
It is an absolute pleasure to follow such sensible speeches from those on both Front Benches. There is a history to today’s legislation which I shall set out and against which my Committee colleagues can develop the Intelligence and Security Committee’s current perspectives. As the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) mentioned, it was in June 2013 that the Intelligence and Security Committee, on which I served under Sir Malcolm Rifkind’s chairmanship, published a no-holds-barred report on foreign involvement in the critical national infrastructure. It focused on the casual and cavalier way in which contracts were signed between British Telecom and Huawei prior to any ministerial involvement, and it insisted that:
“The National Security Council should ensure that there are effective procedures and powers in place…when it comes to investment in the CNI.”
We demanded an effective process by which Government are alerted to potential foreign investment in the CNI; an established procedure for assessing the risks; a process for developing a strategy to manage these risks throughout the lifetime of the contract and beyond; clarity as to what powers the Government have or need to have; and clear lines of responsibility and accountability. The Committee was
“shocked that officials chose not to inform, let alone consult, Ministers on such an issue.”
That, we concluded, must never again be allowed to happen.
The Government’s July 2013 response to the report bordered on complacency. They conceded that
“with hindsight, we agree that Ministers should have been informed”
and put their faith in the relatively new National Security Council, in conjunction with “cross industry-government groups”, to provide better protection in future. Replying to our main finding that their
“duty to protect the safety and security of its citizens should not be compromised by fears of financial consequences”,
the Government observed that
“HMG’s approach balances economic prosperity…with national security…Boosting trade and investment is a key part of the Government’s plan for growth and we are working hard to develop our economic relationships with key trading partners, including China.”
As Huawei’s chief executive officer had been given the full red-carpet treatment at 10 Downing Street only the previous September, that response was all too predictable, and thus the courtship continued, despite growing anxiety among our Five Eyes partners, such as Australia and the United States.
There can be no doubt of the sincerity of the technical advice given by our experts at GCHQ and, more recently, in the National Cyber Security Centre, its public-facing arm. They recognise—as does the Bill—that the lack of diverse suppliers is a critical future vulnerability. For telecommunications to be resilient, their networks need more than two providers on which to depend. Otherwise, the collapse of one provider means total reliance on the other. Yet should that really override the danger of ever-closer involvement with a company legally in thrall to potentially hostile Chinese intelligence services?
In a statement in July last year, the ISC acknowledged the National Cyber Security Centre’s paradoxical point that three providers might be safer than two, even when the third comes from an adversarial state. Yet it rightly pointed out that
“the issue cannot be viewed solely through a technical lens—because it is not simply about telecommunications equipment. This is a geostrategic decision, the ramifications of which may be felt for decades to come… It is about perception as much as anything: our Five Eyes partners need to be able to trust the UK and we must not do anything which puts that at risk… And there is the question as to whether other countries might follow the UK’s decision”
when they are not as capable of protecting their networks as we are of protecting our own.
Some say that the Government’s perseverance with Huawei was justified on the basis of the technical advice they were given—right up to the point earlier this year when the United States brought in its fierce further sanctions. Yet the fact that the US would take such a step should have been anticipated. Our belated U-turn in July shows what happens when multifaceted problems are examined in a one-dimensional way.
Seven long years after our Huawei report, the Government have—in the space of a fortnight—introduced two important Bills: this one and the National Security and Investment Bill. Taken together, according to the National Cyber Security Centre, they should help to establish an
“appropriately secure and resilient telecoms infrastructure”
and
“effect the security transformation we”—
the NCSC—
“believe to be necessary”.
We are assured that
“operators adhering in totality to the new security regime will be among the most secure in the world”.
Hopefully, our US partners—currently promoting an international clean network initiative—will agree and Five Eyes harmony on those vital matters can now be reinstated.
Having waited so long for two such necessary Bills, the ISC must sadly record our concern that, in both cases, their Second Reading debates were held within just four working days of their introduction on First Reading. Normally, adequate notice of about two weeks would enable our hard-working staff to obtain relevant confidential material and advance sight of such legislation to allow proper prior consideration. The tiny window of opportunity afforded by the parliamentary timetabling has prevented this from happening, and our staff had to fall back purely on publicly available sources.
Proposals such as those in this Bill, which the Committee first recommended in 2013, are therefore to be welcomed, but the public rely on the ISC to assure them that we have asked those questions in private that cannot be discussed more openly. As that has not yet happened, our support for the Bill in principle cannot be as unqualified at this stage, as we should like it to be, though I welcome the Minister’s offer to speak to the Committee later this week.
Here are a few of the questions that can be asked on the Floor of the House. First, as the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has not traditionally specialised in national security, on whom will the Secretary of State rely for advice when deciding whether to issue restrictions against high-risk vendors, or directions to telecoms providers?
Secondly, if the answer is the National Cyber Security Centre and our wider intelligence community, will there be procedures to guarantee that they will be consulted with adequate notice, and who will ensure that their advice is given sufficient weight? Thirdly, in view of the revolving door, via which too many businessmen and ex-civil servants effortlessly glide between their former roles and the Huawei boardroom, what assurance can we have that the Government will be immune from lobbying campaigns by those on the payroll of high-risk vendors?
Finally, I have a question that I was pleased, I think, to hear the Secretary of State answer 15 minutes into his opening speech, but it would be nice to have the Minister reiterate that answer: unlike in 2013, do the Government now fully accept that national security must always be their overriding consideration where critical national infrastructure is concerned?
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this Second Reading debate and to follow the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who has given us some very important historical context to how we have arrived at the point we have arrived at today. He posed some pointed and pertinent questions, which we look forward to seeing addressed as the Bill progresses.
The Bill provides a very much stronger security framework for telecommunications infrastructure and gives the Government the ability to manage the risk posed by high-risk vendors. I speak on behalf of my group when I say that we support it in all that it is trying to achieve. 5G technology offers great opportunities for connectivity and for commerce, through the internet of things, including the greater use of telemedicine, automated threat detection and even autonomous vehicles, but anything that compromises the access to or proper use of telecommunications networks or the security and integrity of the information that flows through them is a cause for concern. Whether in terms of intercepting information, interfering with information or stopping it from being transmitted or received, it represents a commercial and security threat to be very much guarded against.
Clearly, the infrastructure that the suppliers use to provide us with that communications bandwidth is of crucial importance in maintaining the security and integrity of that information. Therefore, it is something of a surprise that the UK Government appear to have come to the realisation only comparatively recently that having too much of the critical national infrastructure in too few hands might be a problem.
The Scottish National party is clear: the UK Government need to learn the lessons of how we have got to where we have got to on security in awarding the 5G contracts and to provide assurances going forward that the replacement strategy will be a safe and secure one. My party very much wishes us to be among the forward-looking nations at the forefront of the 5G age. However, given that these new opportunities carry new risks, security and resilience need to be built into it from the outset. We also wish to be assured that this legislation and the impacts that it may go on to have will not adversely impact network roll-out or consumer costs in the longer term, and we also want to make sure that the opportunities for building our domestic capabilities in manufacturing, in open RAN and in the broader supply chain will be fully seized.
Inevitably, in this debate so far there has been a focus on Huawei and China, and for all that Huawei has previously been regarded as a reliable partner, that focus is entirely understandable. The point needs to be made that Huawei did not suddenly become a potentially high-risk vendor overnight. This has not just crept up on us; it has been allowed to creep up on us. The Chinese Government’s involvement in recent state-sponsored cyber-attacks ought to have been enough to set the alarm bells ringing, if they were not already ringing, and to give proper cause for refection over the possible security concerns in that well before now. It is right that we use this opportunity to pause for reflection on the relationship we have with China.
Clearly, it is important to have a strong relationship, one on which we would seek to exert a positive influence, especially when it comes to human rights. However, international relationships need to be founded on self-respect as well as on mutual respect, and if this Government wish to be able to deal with other Governments on as close to equal or favourable terms as is possible, it is important to ensure that they do not leave us in a position where we are too reliant on any other single state for technology or investment.
Make no mistake: a rapid de-engagement of this kind with Huawei technology is not helpful to maintaining constructive relationships. In our relationship with China, there will now inevitably be a price to pay in terms of loss of influence, as well as an economic price to pay at home if this holds up our roll-out of the technology. To be absolutely clear, we are glad that the decision was taken, but although that U-turn was necessary, there needs to be a clearer commitment to domestic manufacturing than in previous years—decades, even—and better visibility on emerging threats from Governments. This situation was avoidable.
Hybrid threats are growing, as are the capabilities of states and non-state bad actors to enact them, and the UK very much likes to see itself as a country that punches above its weight in the world. In our military and intelligence services, that is almost certainly the case, but I believe there needs to be a realisation and an embracing of the concept of total defence and resilience. At this point in time, our Scandinavian and, particularly, Baltic neighbours seem to have a much better grasp of the significance of that concept than the UK Government do. It is to be very much hoped that with this legislation and recent announcements on defence spending, the UK might now be beginning to come to terms with the many ways in which our economic activities, our public space, and even our political space can be undermined in asymmetric and unconventional ways and finally taking steps to properly address that.
To get into some of the detail of the Bill, the Government have made it clear that vendors who they consider to be high risk should not have access to the core 5G infrastructure. Obviously, we agree, but this needs to be a formal part of any requirements for infrastructure of this kind, and there should be assurances from the Government that any replacement vendors for Huawei or, indeed, others meet the very highest standards that we would expect with that objective in mind.
The Government also need to ensure that there is a proper dialogue with our international allies, to ensure conformity—as far as possible—with high standards of protection. Like many western countries, we are an importer of technology, and as such we need to be seeking unity, as far as possible, in the standards we are willing to allow for this infrastructure that we will ultimately be sharing with our allies and neighbours.
For all that technology is a matter that is reserved to Westminster under the Scotland Act 1998, there are clear implications in how the Bill may operate for devolved nations. We would very much like to see in it a duty on the part of Ministers to consult with devolved nations before taking any ministerial actions under the Bill, as well as a duty on the Minister to consult with devolved nations when it comes to the five-yearly review of the effectiveness of clauses 1 to 13. Given the reserved nature of telecommunications, if there are any additional costs that accrue to businesses or Governments—by businesses, I do not necessarily mean the telecoms companies themselves—the UK Government may be willing to at least contemplate assuming some of the costs that might otherwise fall on tiers of government or the non-telecoms businesses.
I wish to spend some time dwelling on the impact of the roll-out. As a Member of Parliament for rural Scotland, I know that this problem is not unique to rural Scotland—other parts of the UK are affected as well—but there is a recurring theme. From the original Vodafone and Cellnet networks through 3G and to 4G, the coverage maps for mobile phones inevitably roll out in exactly the same way and cover pretty much exactly the same pattern, with the same notspots being missed out.
It is my earnest hope that the same thing does not happen with 5G. It is also important to point out that the roll-out of 4G, and even 3G, across Scotland has not been as complete as we would like, and it would be naive in the extreme to think that 5G roll-out will be any different unless there are some significant changes. It would also be naive not to recognise some of the potential problems that the Bill might present in that light, in terms of the rate of build-out that would otherwise have occurred.
To put the issue into perspective, just 42% of Scotland’s land mass has 4G coverage from all four main UK operators, and 80% from at least one mobile operator. Almost 1 million people living in rural areas currently have no reliable mobile service at that speed of connectivity. That is unacceptable, and has to be an early part of any levelling up agenda.
Owing to the lack of hardware interoperability that the mobile network has been built with, mobile network operators will have to rip out and replace a large amount of high-risk vendor equipment from existing 4G mobile masts before they can even be upgraded to 5G using equipment from an alternative supplier, as well as writing off and replacing that equipment from high-risk vendors already deployed. It is inevitable that the resulting reduced competition will drive prices higher.
From discussions with and briefings from the industry, it is clear to me that while operators can absorb the costs of the decision to remove Huawei equipment, BT estimates that the cost will be as much as half a billion pounds for it alone. It will not be possible to move any faster than the 2027 deadline that the Minister mentioned without creating a significant risk of network blackouts, as well the loss of economic benefits that would otherwise accrue to all parts of the UK. It is a huge challenge for the network operators, and we should not underestimate it. I would like to hear the Minister give a clear assurance that the Government will stick to the 2027 deadline and will not make what is already a difficult job for the mobile network operators even harder.
I would also like the Government to look at ways of trying to counteract the negative effect on the speed of the roll-out. Governments of all political stripes have been rewarded handsomely from selling off electromagnetic spectrum portions for mobile roll-out. Looking again at some of the licence fees might allow some of the telecommunications companies to save that money to invest in new infrastructure from non-high-risk vendors, which would compensate for that level of roll-out and give consumers and business the coverage that we all hope they can get from 5G.
On diversification of the marketplace, we very much welcome the Government’s 5G supply chain diversification strategy, which has been announced alongside the Bill. Reducing the reliance on a comparatively small number of big-player vendors will be hugely important in increasing competition, driving innovation and improving resilience. It will take time to move at scale towards new approaches such as open RAN, and to be successful, network operators need to be confident in the maturity of the performance and the integration and the security credentials of new vendors and technologies before they are deployed on the main networks. The Government can help to accelerate that process and create real opportunities for leadership and job creation with an ambitious commitment to research and development and trials. The funding of £250 million for that activity in the spending review and the Government’s national infrastructure strategy are very much to be welcomed.
This is an important and necessary Bill. It is one that we very much look forward to getting into the detail of and scrutinising further as it makes progress.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I welcome the introduction of the Bill. It is long overdue. Over the past two years, the Government have attributed a range of significant cyber-attacks to Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. Such attacks are unlikely to reduce any time soon, but our legislative and technological resilience can increase in the meantime. The UK needs to be proactive in staying ahead of its adversaries, rather than just reactive. The Bill and the National Security and Investment Bill will help in that regard.
The attacks, often through arm’s length third parties, include dangerous espionage attacks, often on the networks of companies that deliver equipment to telecom providers but whose security is currently inadequate. That can no longer be acceptable, and the Bill will go a long way to making the UK’s networks more secure.
I would like to pay tribute, as has already been done, to my predecessors on the ISC, who, in the Committee’s 2013 report “Foreign involvement in the Critical National Infrastructure”, noted that
“there is no general requirement on companies that own CNI assets to inform or consult Government prior to awarding a contract, whether that be to a UK company or a foreign company. Instead, the Government relies on informal processes or the private company taking the initiative themselves. This is far too haphazard an approach given what is at stake.”
The same Committee also stated:
“Government must have a proper procedure for assessing the risks…and also for developing a strategy for managing those risks. Crucially, this should be an integral part of the process, both before and after contracts are awarded, and not merely an afterthought.”
I hope that the Bill marks a national security turning point, where key infrastructure decisions are based on fact-based risk assessments, not on trust, commercial convenience, political convenience or naivety.
Of course, the Bill is also a recognition—I differ from some colleagues—of market failure. The dominance of major telecoms companies, driving out or buying out the competition, has led to companies such as Huawei positioning themselves as perhaps too big to fail or, in the context of the telecoms market, too big not to buy from, or too big not to supply to. In my view, that is down to political and commercial failure, and I am glad that the Government are putting wrong—putting right that wrong. [Interruption.] I was just making sure that the Minister is on his toes—not literally, but I am glad he is paying attention. I am glad that the Government are putting that right; it is long overdue, as I said.
I hope that the new diversification strategy that has been alluded to today will include enough commercial incentives to attract new vendors and suppliers into the market for the first time, or for existing providers to seek new capital raises in order to maximise new markets, many of them in the public sector—the public sector is a good customer in most cases—and global in nature.
I hope that there might be a new global collaboration in joint development of 6G, 7G and beyond. Five Eyes-based companies might be a good place to start, but trusted EU partners can play a key part too. I think about Airbus and the collaboration on civilian airframes across the world; I think about Typhoon and, prior to that, Tornado—large collaboration, R&D developmental projects that brought together trusted partners around the world to look after our national security, albeit on a different platform and in a different context.
As it stands, as we have already heard, there are only three potential suppliers of mobile access network equipment in the UK: Nokia, Ericsson and Huawei. The lack of diversity across the telecoms supply chain has invariably led—that is why we are here today—to a national dependence on limited suppliers.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The point the hon. Member makes about international co-operation is a very good one. In buying into joint efforts with allies, we have a share of the intellectual knowledge. Does he agree that that is something we would not have had with Huawei?
Mark Pritchard
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I am delighted that the Secretary of State has set out that there is going to be a new national telecoms lab. I am not sure whether he has decided on the location, but I commend the telecoms expertise of Shropshire and the west midlands to the Minister.
The Government’s own telecoms supply chain review, published by DCMS in July 2019, found that
“the telecoms market is not working in a way that incentivises good cyber security”—
perhaps another example of British understatement. This Bill will end that, and rightly so.
In its October 2020 report, the Defence Committee, ably led by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), concluded that the current 5G
“regulatory situation for network security is outdated and unsatisfactory.”
I thank all the members of that Committee for the work that they have done in highlighting that.
I welcome the fact that the Bill will strengthen the security framework for technology used in 5G and full-fibre networks, including electronic equipment and the hardware and software at phone mast sites and telephone exchanges, and that it will give the Government new powers to issue directions to public telecoms providers to manage the risk of perceived high-risk vendors. It is right that the Bill will allow the Government to impose controls on telecom providers’ use of any goods, services or facilities supplied by high-risk vendors.
I very much welcome the Government’s new powers to limit and remove high-risk vendors, such as Huawei, about which we have heard so much already, from the UK telecoms network. I also very much welcome the new and revised timetable that the Government have announced today for doing this. In saying that, I hope that the Government are not being overly ambitious, as we heard from other hon. Members, but it is right to establish the principle today and move more swiftly on this key issue of national security and diversity in the marketplace.
I welcome the Bill incentivising better security by financially penalising providers that operate below minimum security standards, but I hope—the Minister is here—that a carrot-and-stick approach will be the default DCMS and Ofcom approach, rather than just a stick, as it is the private sector’s co-operation that will help us to move forward on this. It is very much key to the market diversification that the Government want and, more widely, to the partnership in cyber-security resilience in both the private and public sectors. We do not want to have enmity with the very people that the Government need to work more closely with in dealing with these issues.
The Bill makes Ofcom responsible for monitoring and enforcing telecoms providers’ compliance with their security duties where providers do not meet their obligations. I gently ask the Government whether they feel that Ofcom has the necessary teeth. Will Ofcom outsource or buy in any additional and required expertise?
The Bill, rightly, does not allow vendors to have access to the UK telecoms network denied, removed or limited for any reasons other than the protection of the UK’s national security, again making sure that we are not putting up new barriers to new entrants to the marketplace. It is also welcome that the Bill does not give the Secretary of State the right to limit or remove vendors to protect or improve the commercial interests of other vendors in the marketplace. I hope that the Minister will elucidate this important point so that there can be, from today, investor, shareholder and commercial safeguards that will allow any of those reading Hansard in the private sector to be reassured.
I would like to ask the Minister some questions. How will the Government ensure that Ofcom has sufficient staff with the necessary skills to undertake this work before it assumes its new responsibilities, which are separate from the point of buying in or outsourcing? Even if someone is buying in or outsourcing, they need to have the skills to know what they are outsourcing to and for, and so it is with buying it in, making sure that they are getting the right people in.
How will the Minister’s Department ensure that Ofcom is provided with the necessary information and relevant data on what is a new area of expertise and work for it, particularly in this detail? I welcome the fact that the Bill requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a copy of all designated vendor directions and designation notices, except where doing so would be contrary to the interests of national security. However, when such information cannot be laid before Parliament, as was alluded to by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, will the Minister undertake to provide that information to the Intelligence and Security Committee so that Parliament and the public know that there is sufficient and adequate oversight?
Finally, as the shadow Secretary of State asked, given the recent experience of the Australian Government, what can the Minister say today on the record to deter any temptation by the Chinese Government to take any similar retaliatory measures against the UK? Does he agree that if they were so tempted—I hope they would not be—perhaps the £20 billion trade surplus for China might focus calmer and more reasonable heads in Beijing today?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I hear my hon. Friend’s point, but does he not agree that one of the greatest bastions against this behaviour by the Chinese Government would be for all members of the free world, particularly the Five Eyes, to come together both to condemn their behaviour and to themselves talk about introducing sanctions against China if it carries on behaving like this?
Mark Pritchard
Colleagues will be pleased to hear that I am reaching my concluding comments and I will address that question then. While I have huge respect for my right hon. Friend—he is absolutely right and has been leading the way on this and I pay tribute to him on that—there is a lot we can do with China. In fact, I will put my notes down and jump to my conclusion now.
This is not an anti-China Bill; this is not an anti-Huawei Bill. This is about ensuring the greater resilience of our national security through our telecoms infrastructure. It is not about putting up barriers to entry for existing or new companies coming into the marketplace. I agree that we have to be robust against China when that is right, but we also need to recognise that there is a lot of co-operation and collaboration with China on trade and on climate change, so we agree on many things and we disagree on many things, but I do not think talk of sanctions is necessarily right at this stage.
I support this Bill. It is long overdue; I commend the Government for bringing it forward.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. There is now less than two hours until the wind-ups are likely to start. By my calculation, that means that if everybody is going to have equal time, contributions ought to take about eight minutes. I do not want to set a time limit, but that is a rough guide for the debate.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I join the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) in welcoming this Bill in principle but giving it a qualified welcome. It amends the Communications Act 2003, and in terms of technology 2003 is light years away.
When I was at school computers were not as common as today and even having a telephone at home was a rarity, so great changes have taken place in these types of technologies—as I have seen even in my short lifetime—and the pace of change is only going to increase. That is why this Bill is welcome in updating our laws, and it will not be the last Bill we require, because as technology advances, further updating will be needed. However, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the Intelligence and Security Committee warned about all this in 2013. It was the same with the National Security and Investment Bill last week; the warnings have been there. Yes, there has been a change of direction in the Conservative party from panda hugging to panda bashing now as the flavour of the day, but the question of security should always be central to all this.
To be fair to the Government, they have not stood still. We have been ahead of other nations in terms of Huawei and security and having the Huawei cyber security evaluation centre, which has helped us protect our networks. But a balance must be struck between open competition and being able to interact with other nations, and also protecting our security.
I want to touch briefly on the issue of security, as that is what the Bill is about. I think some people are getting carried away in thinking that the Bill will be used in a protectionist way to protect our own suppliers or as a way of cutting off altogether any trade with regimes that we might have huge reservations about, such as China. We are never going to be able to do that. The powers in the Bill are clearly around security, and my only problem is with the definition of the word. I would argue that the way in which the Government approached the matter of the Huawei security centre had security its centre in order to protect our networks. As the Minister knows, I was one of those who agreed with the Government’s decision in July to allow Huawei to have 35% of the market as long as the security was there. The National Cyber Security Centre was clear in its evidence that that could be maintained. It was the American sanctions that changed that.
When a Secretary of State makes his or her decision on whether to take a vendor out, the important thing is that it is made on the ground of security. It is not clear from the Bill how that will be looked at. I would not want to see lobbying for a certain company, for example, or a situation such as we are currently seeing on the Conservative Back Benches where anything with “China” on it has to be resisted. I should point out that many people in the Chamber tonight will have mobile phones in their pockets that contain Chinese components. Even Ericsson and Nokia, which we are going to allow into our system, use components that are made in China. We cannot just close our minds to China altogether, so these decisions must have security at their centre.
Any decisions made by the Secretary of State have to be around security, and I have some concerns about DCMS having control over this. I raised a similar point on the National Security and Investment Bill. I am not sure that the Department has the necessary expertise. Personally, I would sooner see the Secretary of State taking such decisions alongside the National Security Council, or a sub-committee of the NSC, for example, to ensure that security could be at the heart of those decisions. Likewise, I have reservations about Ofcom. As a regulator, it has been around for quite a while now, but I wonder whether it has the expertise to look at the security sector.
A specific practical point about DCMS and Ofcom is that if a decision were taken by the Secretary of State on security grounds, a lot of the relevant information would be highly classified and would not be available to people without the necessary security clearance. I presume that the Secretary of State has the highest security clearance, but I doubt whether anyone in Ofcom would do so. I would like to hear more about how that will work in practice when they are dealing with highly classified information, because the Bill makes it clear that that is the only way in which a vendor can be struck from the marketplace.
Another issue, which has already been raised, is whether Ofcom will have the necessary budget and focus to undertake this work. The right hon. Member for New Forest East made the point about a revolving door, and that is an issue that concerns many people. There is a revolving door between industry, the various regulatory bodies and the Government.
There is also an issue around oversight. I do not see anything in the Bill that will allow parliamentary oversight of these decisions. Clause 17 refers to the Secretary of State being required to lay a copy of their decisions before Parliament, but there is also a get-out clause in that the requirement
“does not apply if the Secretary of State considers that laying a copy of the direction or notice (as the case may be) before Parliament would be contrary to the interests of national security.”
Anyone who has been in the House for any length of time and who has worked in this field will know that that is the usual way for civil servants to get out of any kind of question whatsoever. There is a need for oversight in this regard. I am not trying to make work for the Intelligence and Security Committee, which I am a member of, but it is the only Committee of Parliament that has a high enough security clearance to be able to see the information that will inform these decisions. Without that, there is an issue in the Bill in terms of how Parliament will scrutinise the Secretary of State’s decisions effectively.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman while he is making such good progress. If a decision were not to be laid before Parliament, would he accept the idea of it going before the Intelligence and Security Committee?
Mr Jones
Yes. If we were able to see it, at least we would be able to get access to the intelligence that informed it. The DCMS has its own Select Committee, but that Committee does not have the clearance, so I would suggest taking the approach the hon. Gentleman describes. There is a way of doing that. Under the Justice and Security Act 2013, the DCMS does not come under the Intelligence and Security Committee’s remit, but we could change the memorandum of understanding to include this issue. I think that is needed, and I said the same thing on the National Security and Investment Bill.
On diversity, we would love to have a large number of vendors, but there is a clear issue we have to recognise. People talk about market failure. There has been a market failure because, in terms of Huawei and the Chinese state, there has been a deliberate decision to buy in to a sector. There has also been a tendency among us all, as consumers of telecoms services, to make sure that the rates go down as low as possible. That has led the prices down, so there is no money in the infrastructure at all, which is why companies have got out of the sector.
There is an area where diversity can come in, and that is open RAN. If the investment goes into that, we could be a world leader, but let us not make the mistakes we have in the past, where we have been a world leader—for example, in fibre technology in the early 1990s—and then gave that lead away.
On the removal of Huawei from the 5G network, the 2027 deadline needs to be maintained. I am sorry, but I think the Secretary of State is wrong in what he is suggesting. If he does what he suggests, that will add further costs and slow our progress. The equipment that is there now has been through the cyber security centre. We are satisfied that there is no security risk from that equipment, so why rip it out before we have to do so? All that that will do is slow our system down and slow the economic advantages that can come from 5G.
We have concentrated a lot in the debate on the hardware. Will the Bill somehow make us completely immune from cyber-attack? No, it will not. The other side to this, which is just as important, is to ensure that we educate companies to ensure that they use their systems safely and that upgrades are done on security networks and other things. That is about the basic education of the people who use a mobile phone or any type of computer network.
With those concerns, I welcome the Bill as a step forward. Let us see it not just as a way for us to somehow solve all our cyber-problems, because we will not. We still have to be vigilant, and we still have to make sure that our security services have the finance, ability and expertise to respond to the enemies who are attacking us.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
This Bill makes sense. I agree with the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) that it is primarily about security. It is a top priority for us to ensure the security of all telecommunications networks, particularly those that might carry classified information and that is what this Bill is all about. I particularly endorse those clauses in the Bill that give the Government robust powers to manage high-risk vendors based, of course, on National Cyber Security Centre advice. That may well also include direct guidance from other intelligence agencies as well. It is also absolutely right that the Government have placed a ban on purchasing new equipment from high-risk vendors from September 2021 and ordered the removal of high-risk vendor equipment from our networks by 2027, but, as I will go on to say, it will have implications. I wish we could achieve that earlier, but, obviously, industry needs time to manage the transition required.
The NCSC is at the forefront in developing telecommunications security requirements. It has done this in collaboration with industry and these requirements are detailed and effectively designed to establish a layered defence against cyber-attacks and infiltration. Codes of practice will devolve from these requirements and they will form a method of operation as well as being a way of calculating risks for operators Ofcom, DCMS, and NCSC. I endorse the view that these requirements and codes of practice will definitely increase the difficulty, the cost and the risks faced by a hostile player attempting to infiltrate or to compromise a UK telecommunications network, but, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that does not mean that we are invulnerable—oh, no, it does not. There are still risks.
Next year, I gather that we will need to pass secondary legislation to endorse codes of practice that will, thereafter, be used to instruct operators on how to meet their security obligations. Such codes of practice will be policed by Ofcom—we have talked about that a little. Most certainly, it will require training on how to do this. Here there needs to be a serious interchange with the NCSC where a working relationship between the two bodies is crucial—and at cost. Of course there are penalties for this decision. Not only will this change delay the roll-out of the 5G network, but significant consequent costs will be incurred by industry. I know that industry may need the Government to support it in consequence of this decision. On the other hand, a recent report has also suggested that upgrading the UK’s 5G infrastructure could be worth about £158 billion to the economy over a 10-year period.
We have already mentioned that there are three significant vendors who provide large-scale telecommunications equipment in the UK. These are Ericsson, Nokia and Huawei. With the significant removal of Huawei as a result of this Bill, choice of vendors is of course reduced by a third, which is most certainly not ideal. It would be far better if we had more choice and competition, but we do not—that is the fact of it. However, Ericsson and Nokia are very good, trusted and long-standing companies whose security credentials are tried and trusted. I am very pleased by the idea of the open radio access network—open RAN—being developed. It is crucial to develop the UK as a world leader in 5G. Essentially, open RAN allows interconnectivity between different telecommunications mobile networks, and avoids the necessity of all components coming from just one supplier. For instance, Ericsson equipment can be interfaced with that of Nokia, or perhaps another new supplier—let’s hope so. That aids the drive towards competition andthus has cost benefits.
I have been an extremely good boy, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope I am going to get a thumbs up for finishing in six minutes. I commend this Bill to the House.
Bob Stewart
I got a thumbs up from Madam Deputy Speaker; I sit down with a big glow on my face.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Follow that if you can.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) make the point: it is about security, absolutely. Anyone who thinks that there are not states out there, which have been named here today, that are not about the UK’s good health, is kidding themselves; it is as simple as that. We have come a long way since the Westminster Hall debate earlier this year, if my memory serves me rightly, but I always think that a late convert is the best convert of all, and we are where we are today. My party and I support the Bill at this stage.
It is an incredibly complex situation, which gets more complex almost by the month and the year. Frankly, the whole subject of cyber-security terrifies me. When I first came down here three years ago, a humble—no, I will not say a humble crofter, because that nomenclature belongs to another Member on this side of the House. When I came down here from the highlands, the situation was forcibly brought home to me when I went to Estonia with the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme. I was firmly instructed by a Sergeant Major from the 3rd Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment on no account whatever to turn on my mobile, otherwise a state not terribly keen on our good health would simply triangulate in on me, and would probably try to hack in; that brought it home to me in no uncertain terms.
In the short time available—I will try to be as good as the hon. Member for Beckenham—I want to make two points. The first was touched on, correctly, by the shadow Secretary of State: there is, alas, an unsavoury side to the way in which China does some things. We are all aware of the reports coming out of that country of the horrendous abuse of the Uyghur people in Xinjiang province; it is an ugly scene. A recent report suggests that some 82 foreign and Chinese companies benefit from the forced labour programme by the Chinese Government. Of course, the Chinese Government would say, “No, no, no. That’s not right at all. It’s not forced labour; it’s not like that.” They have described it as “detention centres”, “re-education” facilities and—this is quite sinister—“de-extremification” camps. They have contorted their language quite deliberately to cover this stuff up. I make no apologies for saying these things. I had hoped that a state being able to behave in that way had been left behind in 1945 or the end of Stalin’s Russia, but, alas, all is not as it should be.
I welcome this Bill as being a bit like the Government discovering their moral compass. Coming away from Huawei has the benefit that we are helping, in our small way, to bring an end to this sort of behaviour by China. It is only a first step. We are going to have to co-operate with other nations. There is a great benefit to what the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said, about an alliance with Five Eyes, but that is for another day. The road ahead is beyond our borders. As a good Liberal Democrat, I would make this point: not only should we co-operate as much as we can with Five Eyes, who are crucial to our security and defence, but we should also try to maintain the best possible relationship with our friends in the European Community.
Let me turn to my second point. The hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) made an excellent speech, and said that 4G and 3G are, at best, patchy. I am afraid that my constituents might be afforded a hollow laugh if I talk about the roll-out of 5G, because in so many parts of Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, there are not a lot of Gs at all—it is not particularly good.
My appeal to Her Majesty’s Government is that they try to address the inequality of provision as they roll out 5G. It is wrong that people should be disadvantaged simply because of where they live. All United Kingdom citizens have a right to these services, and it is fundamental to the way we think of ourselves as a nation—we believe in fairness and fairness of provision. As we come out of this dreadful pandemic, we will have to punch above our weight economically, and access to 5G means that we can mobilise our bright innovators and entrepreneurs all over the United Kingdom, whether they live in the glens and straths of Sutherland, the central belt of Scotland or down here in England.
I will conclude with two points. First, I agree that the 5G diversification strategy brings great opportunities. There will be a financial injection into the UK economy, which will be incredibly useful. Secondly, the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) was spot on: it is not just about the hardware. It is about the software and the clever things we do to safeguard ourselves from cyber-attacks, because as I described with the example of the iPhone in Estonia, there are people and states out there who are not for the good of our health.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I welcome the Government bringing forward this Bill now, and I congratulate them on having listened, which is not always something that Governments can be accused of. The Secretary of State and his Minister, whom I welcome—the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) —have listened to many concerns, and measures to address them are now embedded in the Bill.
China recently said that if there was any further interference, it would poke the eyes out of the Five Eyes. This Bill puts the missing fifth eye back into the Five Eyes, because we have been laggard, lazy and late on this, and I think this would probably be the case across the board, so perhaps that is a positive. The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) made a very good speech. He was right to say that this is not about China. There are plenty of security risks, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, said. Russia is a massive security risk to us and has probably carried out more cyber-attacks on us than anybody else. That is debatable, but it has a very big criminal network that attacks us the whole time.
I accept that. However, the difference is that China is now the driving force for our introducing this Bill, because it poses a very different kind of threat. The fact is that China has juxtaposed the ability to dominate in a market sense, which sucks us in—I will come to project kowtow and the mistakes that were made—while at the same time forcing us to often turn a blind eye to some of the work it did, which we do not do with Russia and some of the more immediate threats. It is a peculiar and different challenge, which is now embedded in the Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East made the important point that the nature of our exposure has been known about for some considerable time, and we should not have ignored it. I thank my colleagues who joined the Huawei interest group early on, in winter last year, and who have campaigned to try to tighten up these security measures. Following that, the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China was set up, which is now made up of politicians on the left and right from 38 countries, and they are asking us to tighten up our security co-operation and ensure that we get this right.
This Bill is long overdue, and it is welcome, but I want to highlight three issues in it. First, although it is not in the text of the Bill, the Government have now announced that they accept 2027 as the end point for Huawei as a provider that may be high-risk and that no new Huawei equipment may be installed from September 2021. That is very welcome. In fact, the September 2021 date is better than I would have expected at this point, so I congratulate the Government on being very clear about that. That is a more important date than 2027, in effect, because it opens the market and allows others to recognise now that they have a possibility of re-entering a market that was closed to them by one company in particular—there are other companies in China—that has manipulated the normal rules of market adherence and subsidy. It has been a disaster for us not to recognise that on that basis alone, forgetting the security risks as well.
I am, however, concerned by another point about the process, which leaves the Secretary of State to make these decisions going forward, against criteria that are laid out, and I will come back to that. I think my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East said, “Who will be the advisers? Who will advise?” That is absolutely right, and the Secretary of State should listen to the Chair of the Committee on that point. It is important to structure who will advise the Secretary of State and how that will happen. Perhaps the Committee can have a very strong look at that and advise the Government on how to structure that.
There should be a more formal structure embedded in the Bill, otherwise it will be too easy for a Secretary of State, under pressure from the Business Secretary or a Chancellor, such as one we once had, who was very keen on a golden era, to be leant on and told, “Do you really need to go down this road?” That will happen. I sat as a Secretary of State, and I can tell the House that all that stuff happens, and anyone else will say that, too. A more structured approach would not allow the Secretary of State to miss the right people on advice. That will be very important.
The descriptions in the proposed new sections of the Communications Act 2003 under clause 16 of the Bill are important, and I will come back to those, because the list gives the Secretary of State plenty of scope. Tightening up the advice means that that scope will not therefore be wasted.
We are here because of the mistakes of the golden era—the great kowtow, as I would rather call it—where we too often ignored the realities of what was going on in security terms for the sake of this great drive that we would benefit massively from the opening up of trade with China. There was also a mistaken belief: too often, liberal democracies and all of us who believe in freedom of speech and the general freedoms believe, rather arrogantly, that all we have to do is open up markets and everyone else will realise that their system must be wrong and therefore they will change it.
That was the great belief. I was told it endlessly in government, “Don’t worry about this sort of stuff. China will change once they realise exactly how wonderful it is to trade with the west.” Well, they did not. They do not want to change, because they think that their form of government is a better form of government. They will say, “We are opened up to the markets. We are getting the benefits of the marketplace.” China was invited to join the World Trade Organisation back in 2001. There have been real problems since then with market forces, but I want to come back to the security elements.
The worry is that others of the Five Eyes spotted what was going on long before us, and we ignored a lot of the evidence that we should have been tightening up much, much earlier. We should have been concerned. I cannot remember which Member said that security should be the No. 1 consideration, over everything else. We lost that—I hate to say that—and considered it just one of the things we might look at.
Mr Kevan Jones
I am not one for doing the Government’s job or supporting them, but I do not think we did that actually, in terms of the Huawei cyber-security evaluation centre. We were ahead of other countries that did not do that, including the United States, and let Huawei into their country networks without any checks whatever. But the issue has to be security. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has strong views about China trade, but security has to be at the heart of things, which I think is where we have been up to now.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I have to say that I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman on this. Although the Huawei cyber-security evaluation centre was installed, when I sat and listened to people from it making a presentation to us earlier in the year, it was almost as though we were watching people who were kind of squeezing their own genuine, real opinion, which would have been coming via GCHQ, about how the real threat was formed. Their arguments did not stand up, even in the face of people who were not every day working on security.
The truth is we need to be careful, and it should have been a tighter position from the word go. The very fact that the Government are bringing this measure forward now suggests that that was not the case. [Interruption.] Listen, I am critical of my own Government. I resigned from the damn thing at one point. I have to say that I therefore do believe it is possible for great Governments, like mine, to get things wrong.
Dr Julian Lewis
In defence of the Huawei cyber-security evaluation centre, its sixth annual report, from September this year, is absolutely devastating in its criticisms of Huawei’s failures to be secure or to make improvements when insecurities have been highlighted.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I agree completely. The point is that when we were talking about this earlier on, it was clear that that was, underneath it all, the centre’s real opinion, but it was kind of moving and modifying. It was also used in a political way, by the way, which I did not think was right. An opinion is either there or it is not; do not get people in to brief Back Benchers about what they should be thinking. I thought that was wrong.
We are absolutely in the right place at this point and the Bill goes a long way towards achieving that. However, we need to do some other things that could be in the Bill. For example, the Bill is about security but it does say on the front that it goes slightly wider than security: the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) signed the bit that says:
“In my view the provisions of the Telecommunications (Security) Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.”
That convention is the European convention on human rights. We need to ask ourselves whether that idea applies to many regimes—not just China—and companies that come from those regimes that may be guilty of human rights abuses.
I asked the Minister previously, in a private context, whether he would consider including in proposed new section 105Z8 of the Communications Act 2003, on designation notices, the inclusion of the ability, where it may arise, to do something in the area of genocide and the involvement of companies in that process. There is very strong evidence in a couple of cases—particularly in the Uyghur case—of the use of slave labour, which should result in those companies being outlawed. The Minister may argue that this Bill might not be the appropriate vehicle for that because it is specifically about security, but every Bill has on its face that we abide by human rights laws. I am not trying to widen the Bill’s scope; I am giving the Minister the opportunity to have that extra element as part of his possible designations. After all, we are dealing with countries and nations that have, particularly in China’s case, torn up much of the book on co-operation and diplomacy.
Let me raise a final point before I conclude. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) has gone, but he mentioned Australia. One of our Five Eyes partners, Australia, had the temerity to ask for an inquiry into the covid outbreak. Since then, the Chinese have attempted, in essence, massively to beat up Australia in a very undiplomatic and aggressive manner. It started with abuse of the individuals who asked for an inquiry and then went further into abuse of the Government. Subsequently, it has gone on to sanctions: the Chinese has now broken WTO rules, with sanctions of more than 200% on Australian wine.
In the past couple of days, the Chinese have produced what I think is called a meme—which is a mocked-up instrument on the internet—that shows something about an Australian soldier trying to kill a child. This is appalling behaviour and I want my Government, at some point, to be very clear that such behaviour is simply not to be borne. Although we have said that we stand with China, the key thing about this sort of thing and our co-operation with our Five Eyes partners is to do more than stand with China: we should condemn behaviour like that that deliberately targets and demeans a democratic nation that goes by the rule of law and human rights, which is something that China does not do. I do hope that the Minister will pass on to his colleagues that no matter what we do with this Bill, we need to make sure that we stand up with our Five Eyes partners, now that we have the National Security and Investment Bill and are moving in that direction, and never allow any one of them to be isolated and picked off one at a time. I commend the Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
The next listed speaker has withdrawn, so we go straight to the Chair of the Defence Committee, Tobias Ellwood.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—does that mean that I get 16 minutes to speak? That is fantastic. [Interruption.] That is my first intervention, so it is now 17 minutes. It is good to catch your eye in this important debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to see present so many colleagues who were there at the start of the journey—I referred to this in the first intervention I made—when we first discussed Huawei in the Chamber.
The Defence Committee looked at this subject because the security of 5G is now critical, given our ever-growing reliance on data movement. To establish a new security framework for the UK telecoms sector and to ensure that telecoms providers operate a secure network and resilient services and manage their supply chains is absolutely fundamental to our new way of life. The completion of 5G over the next decade will be nothing short of revolutionary. Every aspect of our lives as we know them, including how we communicate, socialise, work, travel and manufacture things, will become increasingly dependent on lightning movements of wireless data. The advantages of such scope and scale in our growing online world have very much been appreciated during this pandemic, but, equally, we must recognise how our reliance leaves us very much exposed to those who might choose to cause us harm.
The backdrop of this was of course the lively debate, which I have referred to, over Huawei. Perhaps that was a wake-up call on just how powerful and tech savvy China has become. The Minister and the Secretary of State have made it very clear that this is not just about China—other non-state and state actors are now developing capabilities to interfere with our online world—but I make it very clear indeed that what we are discussing today exposes the wider uncomfortable reality of the gradual geopolitical shift in global power from west to east.
In our lifetimes, China is on course to become more powerful economically, technologically and militarily than the United States of America, and how we handle this so-called Thucydides trap is yet to be reckoned with. This is a usually disruptive transition of influence from one ruling power base to a rising power with eventually more dominance—a transition that history suggests is rarely peaceful. The only example of a peaceful transition is that from the British empire to the American superpower. If we are honest, this Bill is about exactly that. This is the starting point of a bigger conversation about how we manage such a transition. We are placing protections on our country against China, which we privately no longer trust, but I have to say that, publicly, we may be in denial about what we need to discuss.
We should finally come to terms with the fact that China has not matured into the responsible global citizen that, a decade ago, we hoped it would be. Instead, China offers a competing authoritarian ideology, leveraging its colossal economic growth to undercut western competition and ensnare dozens of countries into infrastructure projects and high-tech plans on terms that they can ill afford. Our growing dependence on the online world has created a new virtual theatre of war. The actual character of conflict has been changing in front of us: it is less about terrain, and now more about data. We are becoming increasingly vulnerable, with cyber-attacks, disinformation campaigns, interference in elections, manipulation of social media, data theft, online espionage and sabotage. These are the new battlegrounds that we must prepare for and defend against. Our international rules-based order was crafted in the pre-digital age. A major cyber-attack, for example, could cause more damage than a dirty bomb, but would not technically trip a NATO article 5 response. International law must catch up, and this legislation is a small line of defence in a far wider geopolitical battle that we need to embrace.
Britain is rightly seeking to remain on the cutting edge of this fast-developing digital world, but this can only be achieved with greater protection and, indeed, investment in our critical national infrastructure. Our 5G capability must leave no virtual backdoors left open. Consequently, phasing out high-risk vendors, such as Huawei, from our 5G programme is the right call. However, we have to ask the question: why is it that a decade ago there were 12 vendors that can provide this support, yet today there are only six? There are two in Europe, with Ericsson and Nokia, two in the far east, with NEC and Samsung, and then of course two in China—Huawei and ZTE—and there the question lies. What we need to do about it is to make sure we have that capability to move forward in a secure environment.
We must accept that Huawei has grafted its way into our telecoms network partly because the UK vendor market is not diverse enough. Regaining the secure technological capability on which our new digital world will depend requires more than just legislation to block high-risk vendors from entry; it needs the advancement of our own technological capabilities. Open RAN has been mentioned, but it is still a long way off. OneWeb has been purchased as a possible capability for communications. We have yet to hear what the Government plan to do with that.
Ultimately, we must recognise that Huawei, ZTE and others are so powerful because they are state funded. Perhaps it is time for an Apollo moment: when the United States knew it was losing the space race, a combination of state aid and the commercial sector allowed it not only to catch up with but to overtake the Soviet Union. We need the same penny to drop here and to recognise what China is all about.
It is good to hear growing talk of the D5 trusted alliance of nations. It has been mentioned as an advancement of the Five Eyes community and I very much welcome that. We need to provide an alternative to the cheap solutions that the Chinese are rolling out, which continue to be peddled across the road. They are high-tech versions of the one belt, one road programme. Only with greater western resolve can we design and build the secure foundations for the profound new technological world we are about to experience.
I will underline the elephant in the room: what do we do about China? Unless we in the UK and collectively in the west address China’s conduct, there will be a geopolitical clash. That is inevitable and will slide us towards another cold war.
We should make it clear that the UK has huge respect for the Chinese people. Our histories are intertwined, perhaps more than many of us appreciate. The opium wars, the ceding of Hong Kong, the Boxer rebellion, the century of humiliation—perhaps Britain glosses over many of those historical footnotes, but for those in China, they influence their thinking and their attitude towards the west today.
However, today, the west is recalibrating its view of China. China’s conduct in the pandemic, from its initial efforts to hide the outbreak to rejecting any independent investigation, has exposed a dangerous agenda that we can no longer ignore. During China’s incredible economic ascent, western policy focused on deepening engagement in the hope that China would evolve into a responsible global citizen that embraced hard-fought principles of liberty, democracy and open trade. It is clear that the Chinese Communist party has something very different in mind. As it has increased its economic power, Beijing has deliberately shunned international accountability and rules. It may be gaining superpower status, but it avoids any sense of duty to uphold core values of freedom and the rule of law. Knowing that its conduct repudiates those values, it now pursues a geopolitical authoritarian agenda, as illustrated in the crackdown in Hong Kong, the terrible treatment of the Uyghur minority and its manipulation of the digital world, which mimics its one belt, one road initiative.
With countries becoming locked into long-term commitments with reduced autonomy and little prospect of withdrawal, more and more countries are becoming ensnared in China’s authoritarian sphere of influence. The US now publicly confirms that China is a strategic and geopolitical threat to the west, while here in the UK we have yet to say so, though I am pleased that the Secretary of State pointed out concerns about China.
I hope that the full publication of the Government’s integrated review will confirm that China now is a geopolitical threat. We require a turning point—another Sputnik moment, where we no longer pretend and we do not just legislate on high-risk vendors, but hold the regime behind the state-owned companies to account.
I hope that, with the changing of the guard in Washington, there will be a rejuvenation of the west’s collective resolve about what we stand for, what we believe in and what we are willing to defend. The next decade will be very bumpy indeed. If we are to avoid another cold war, protecting our telecoms infrastructure must be the first step of many.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), with his vast knowledge, and other right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. I thank them for their speeches. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this issue. I spoke about it back in March, when I stated my fear of reliance on Huawei.
Let me quote what I said at that time:
“I am only one of 650 Members of this House, and I absolutely believe in the tenets of democracy, but I will not stay silent. I do not believe that what the Government are doing is in the best security interests of this nation, and if steps can be taken to pare it back, those steps must be taken. We have been known as security giants, and I do not like the idea that we are now standing on the shoulders of Chinese giants. We have stood alone, and can do so again, but it is always best that we stand with our allies. The Chinese may hopefully be strong trading partners post Brexit”—
we will wait to see whether or not that will be the case—
“but by no stretch of the imagination can they ever be considered our allies; their human rights abuses cannot be ignored. This issue is concerning, and we must not leave it here.”—[Official Report, 4 March 2020; Vol. 672, c. 288WH.]
The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) referred to the Uyghur Muslims and the human rights abuses they are going through—the fact that their right to worship has been abused and that they are subjected to violence, both physical and psychological. As others have mentioned, there is also the question as to whether they are involved in some of the slave labour in Huawei and what it does. We have heard and read the stories in the press about Volkswagen, which refused even to acknowledge the fact that perhaps some Uyghur Muslims had been being used as slave labour. I chair the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief, and I feel strongly about this issue. It is close to my heart, so I wanted to speak out. I know it is not directly what this Bill is about, but we have those concerns on human rights issues for the Uyghur Muslims, the Christians and the Falun Gong. We know all about the issue of the forced organ harnessing that takes place, and all those three religious groups are part of that.
So I am thankful for the steps taken by the Prime Minister. We all knew that when these steps were taken, there would be the detrimental knock-on effect of narrowing the UK telecommunications market and possibly driving up infrastructure costs, but I still believe this to have been the right decision. I am thankful for the steps that the Minister announced today, and for the support there seems to be across this Chamber for them. This is about building supply chain resilience, with support available for supporting incumbent suppliers. The security of this nation is undoubtedly a red-line issue, and we must protect it at all costs. Everyone has said that, and we mean it, and we want to see that being delivered though this Bill.
Clauses 1 to 14 introduce a stronger telecoms security framework. The Bill amends the Communications Act 2003 by placing strengthened telecoms security duties on public telecoms providers. I am thankful that the Bill purports to enable more specific security requirements to be set out in secondary legislation, underpinned by the codes of practice providing guidance on the security measures to be taken to meet those requirements. I am given to understand that the Bill gives the telecoms regulator, Ofcom, powers to monitor and enforce industry compliance with the duties and specific security requirements. placing new obligations on public telecoms providers to share information with Ofcom that is necessary to assess the security of their networks.
The UK is part of the Five Eyes, along with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA. We cannot ignore that influence, and the sanctions that the US imposed on Huawei. The US first placed it on the entity list on 16 May 2019, citing national security concerns. This sanctioned the company’s access to important US technology for design and production use. While acknowledging the potential impacts this might have on the reliability of Huawei’s products, the Government, on advice of the National Cyber Security Centre, determined this to be a manageable risk. The restrictions to network access imposed on high-risk vendors in January 2020, alongside pre-existing oversight measures, were considered sufficient mitigation strategies.
So the USA clearly saw what the problems and risks were, and took a stand early on, and I am pleased that we are now doing the same. Chinese influence, across the whole of the world, always has a condition, as we see in many countries in Africa and further afield where it is trying to increase its influence. It has an insatiable demand for every country’s resources, but along with that come the conditions and the influence they have on digital and cyber-security. I am deeply concerned about that, as are others.
It is my belief that while not perfect, this Bill puts in place an emphasis on our nation’s cyber-security that is essential.
During the lockdown, our increasing reliance on the internet has been made abundantly clear. It is phenomenal that where we have been precluded from meeting to worship, our pastors and praise teams have been able to livestream church services, it has been wonderful to carry out certain MP duties online where applicable, and it has been a life-saver for some businesses to carry on their work at home. This has highlighted the reach of the internet into our lives and the absolutely essential nature of its being secure from cyber warfare and attacks. The Government have said that such an attack is highly likely and would have a high impact. I had a discussion with a gentleman from Northern Ireland who is involved in the Royal Air Force, and he said that the greatest threat that it felt was cyber warfare. This Bill will be a very strong way of addressing that.
We can all sit in this place and say that something needs greater funding. Every aspect of our budget could do with enhanced funding. My grandchildren—indeed, probably my great-grandchildren—will be paying off the coronavirus outgoings their entire lives. We need to take what we have and do the best we can with it. My belief is that on this one, the Government have taken the steps to address my grave security concerns, and while the Bill is not all I would like to see, as others have said, I find myself much more content today than I was in this place in March of this year.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
It is a privilege to speak in support of this Bill and to have the opportunity to support many of the calls that colleagues have made.
Only just over a week ago, the Minister and I were in Westminster Hall debating an allied subject to this Bill when we discussed the challenges and opportunities that came from excluding Huawei from our 5G network. I do not want to repeat all the points that were made in that debate, but in the short time since then, the Government have taken significant, welcome steps—something the Minister hinted at—in developing policies associated with the Bill. Today’s publication of the 5G supply chain diversification strategy sees a welcome plan that contributes to the solution that Huawei brought about, as does the neutrORAN pilot that was announced earlier today.
As a backdrop, it is worth recalling that it was the lack of diversity in the supply chain of this specialised area of technology that created a tension between the desire to roll out 5G as quickly as possible and the potential exposure of our national security to high-risk vendors. Among a whole range of factors, we were being forced to weigh up, or were tempted by, the economic and social benefits that 5G could bring within a relatively short timescale against the risks of being exposed to largely one company with its umbilical cord attached to one nation and the potential security risks associated with that country—obviously, China.
The Government ultimately, and rightly, decided that the concern for the latter outweighed the former, and this Bill is the result. That is welcome, but simply passing the Bill will not necessarily reduce the risks if we continue to be exposed to a limited number of vendors. That is why the diversification strategy and the neutrORAN pilot are also important. It is worth highlighting that in any vital supply chain, diversity is key, but a few organisations in the commercial world allow supply chains to become too constrained. The commercial risks, let alone the security risks, are far too great.
It is worth recognising that the reach and influence of 5G will be far greater than any previous generation of communications. Its capacity to carry much larger volumes of data at very high speeds well beyond 400 Gbps capacity means that our connected lives will be taken to a whole new level. Some have mentioned the internet of things, connected vehicles, smart cities and even smart energy networks, and many more areas that we have not even thought of will become connected in an ever greater, independent way, highlighting the risks that we could have faced if this Bill had not been brought forward. However, all these innovations lead to an exponential growth in connectivity and pressures on spectrum that has its natural limits, which also need to be overcome. Smart cell technology is likely to be part of the solution, meaning that more apparatus than ever before will need to be adopted, along with a greater dependence on the fibre networks that will take it from the small cells. However, this also highlights the need for quantum encryption—something I will come to later, because it is not included in the strategy plan that the Minister published earlier today.
It is therefore obvious that alternative suppliers need to be developed, not only because of the risks we are considering but because of the unprecedented demand for equipment needed to deliver the connectivity that will be called for. There is significant value in this—in the research and development, in the intellectual property and in the manufacturing opportunities, all of which need to be exploited. A fundamental turning point for me was during the summer, when the Government announced their intention to adopt open standards such as open RAN. This signalled that the Government understand the challenges, and the need to encourage more investment and innovation in this space. This was a hugely welcome step, and will be pivotal to diversification in the marketplace. Furthermore, today’s neutrORAN pilot project shows that the Government are determined to be at the forefront of the technological advances.
I would add that we need to ensure these pilots are particularly open—very open—to UK businesses. In last week’s debate, I went into detail to highlight the many individual companies that show the UK has exceptional expertise in specific areas, such as radio frequency and satellite communications, base station capability, backhaul and cyber-resilience. I went through a whole list of organisations in last week’s Westminster Hall debate; I will not go through them again, but I will just highlight a few.
Many right hon. and hon. Members have referred to cyber risk, but south-east Wales and the western gateway have among the greatest cyber-resilience expertise anywhere, certainly in Europe: Thales, Airbus, and quantum technology at the University of Bristol, along with GCHQ. It also happens to coincide with the disproportionate strength that south-east Wales has in compound semiconductors, which I will come on to in a moment, and the satellite and radio frequency expertise that exists in north-east England, highlighting that this coincides with the levelling-up agenda that the Government also want to pursue. Today’s Bill will lead to new economic opportunities in different parts of the country.
Enabling the technology through all these elements is a great economic opportunity. 5G will only work with the compound semiconductor technology that I mentioned earlier—high-capacity chips that enable more data to be managed effectively. I said last week that if a silicon chip is a country lane, compound semi-conductors are great big highways: that is the volume of data that will be carried by the 5G network. The world’s largest cluster for compound semiconductor technology is in south-east Wales, part of the western gateway economic region. Companies such as IQE, SPTS Technologies, Newport Wafer Fab and others work with the Compound Semiconductor Applications Catapult, as well as universities from Cardiff and Swansea to Cambridge and Bristol.
It is worth noting that the UK has great expertise in silicon chip design, but we do not manufacture such chips any longer. In contrast, we design and fabricate compound semi-conductor chips, so supporting and encouraging further investment in this sector can maintain manufacturing capacity as well. Their energy efficiency is also a key benefit, particularly with technology consuming 2% to 3% of global energy demand.
Finally, I mentioned quantum encryption earlier. So much more use will be made of fibre technology as part of the small cell element of the 5G roll-out. Quantum encryption is vital if we are going to maintain our defences against the cyber threat that so many colleagues have talked about.
It is a privilege to support this Bill. There are so many elements that must coincide and go along with it, and I am glad that the Minister is taking large leaps in the right direction.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
This is one of those unusual moments when almost everything I wanted to say has been said, so I will be exceptionally brief.
The Minister has done a very good job in listening. There was a time earlier this year when many of us thought that this could become a very difficult issue for the Government. I have to say that the Minister and his entire Department have done a fantastic job in listening, not just to those of us on the Government side of the House but to those on the Opposition side, and making sure that the points we have raised have been addressed—and, if I may say so after the statement today, much sooner than I think many of us expected.
I would also like to say thank you to the Minister for the effort he has put into reaching out not just to companies around the world—Nokia, Ericsson, Fujitsu, Samsung and a few others—to replace Huawei, but to UK companies to make sure that, at some point, we will be talking not about foreign companies supplying UK markets but about UK companies supplying foreign markets. On that, I will merely say thank you and sit down.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat). Like him, I will keep my comments short because of the many contributions we have had this evening so far.
I welcome this Bill very much. I truly believe it has security at its heart. Many of us in this Chamber this evening were here debating this matter and related matters, if memory serves me correctly, on 10 March. We had very heated exchanges and very important points were made. It was a great concern of ours that high-risk vendors and others could access our infrastructure systems. I think it is clear—crystal clear, in fact—that the Government have listened to our concerns, both mine and those of many of my hon. Friends and colleagues from across the House.
The critical national infrastructure that we have should be, and I think increasingly is, a national priority, and I believe that this Bill will ensure this. Indeed, the Act that it seeks to amend, the Communications Act 2003, I am sure will do so too. These powers protect us from threats both now and in the future. As hon. Friends have pointed out in this debate, it is clear that the speed of digital infrastructure, digital services and so on is progressing so fast that we need the powers that we are debating this evening to keep up the pace.
I would like particularly to commend my colleagues here this evening—my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) and my hon. Friends the Members for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) and for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall)—for their very informed and helpful, insightful contributions to this debate. I would like to say an enormous thank you to all of them for what they have contributed in increasing my own understanding of this matter.
We see in many fields, though, that in the future of the market, particularly in this area, it is key that the private sector is involved. We see that where there are foreign powers at play, they can disrupt this market, and we must make sure that that does not continue to happen. The new technology also of course has a vital role to play in dealing with some of the many connectivity issues that we experience here in the UK today. As the Member for West Dorset, I like to speak sometimes for wider Dorset and my neighbouring colleagues who also experience the many difficulties that are associated with lack of connectivity, both in terms of broadband and mobiles. It is not only my mission to make sure that we make that better, but—I believe, after the debate this evening—it is also the mission of this Government to make sure that that is done better and safer, and that the digital security not just of individuals but of the nation and the Government is absolutely at its priority.
Finally, I thank very much the Minister for all the work that he has done, both on this Bill and others. I look forward to working with him still further to make sure we deal with some of those connectivity issues closer to home in West Dorset. I thank him very much indeed.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this debate and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), who was so kind about me it almost makes me think he has set me up for a fall. It is also very good to be able to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) who we might think, having listened to his speech, has every single high-tech industry in his constituency. If that is the case, I am sure he will be willing to share some of it with the south-west.
My maiden speech was made during consideration of the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill, and the shadow Minister was good enough to attend. After that, I have taken a keen interest in this topic and the issues of national security that surround it. The Minister has consistently met me, members of the inter-parliamentary alliance on China and those who had concerns about Huawei, and I thank him for doing so. The result that we have got today is a real progression and benefit to our national security network, and also an example of what we can do when the House works together in a consensual way.
We know that the international landscape is now far more varied and dangerous, and that it seeks to exploit domestic networks. A recent example of this was highlighted in a Bloomberg article that cited Nortel, a Canadian company that was so badly hacked—reportedly—by Huawei in 2000 that it led to the collapse of the company over a period of 10 years. Some 5,000 employees were working in my constituency in the early 2000s. That shows that a company supported by the Chinese state can have a dangerous impact on companies around the world, as well as on our own state infrastructure.
The steps in the Bill are very welcome. Not only will they check the dominance of international companies such as Huawei, but they will identify potential future threats. As right hon. and hon. Members have said, this is not an anti-China Bill or an anti-Huawei Bill; it is about national security and identifying future threats that we may face. It is also an opportunity to focus on our domestic market and what we can do to create new businesses and opportunities and use our homegrown talent. As the Secretary of State mentioned, the £250 million national telecommunications lab will be a perfect opportunity to cultivate and innovate new technologies and encourage new people to go into the sector. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) was kind enough to suggest that it should be based in his constituency, but I might also suggest that it comes down to the south-west and Paignton in my constituency, which has the high-tech EPIC centre focused on photonics. I will put that in there, and I hope to meet the Minister to discuss how we might make that happen.
As we know, how far we can go with this depends on how our willpower is positioned and our determination to cultivate British talent, skills and innovation. The diversification point has been made several times, and much has been said, but we also have to be conscious of the need to create the environment that will see new entrants into the marketplace. Relying on Ericsson and Nokia is all very well, but we can and will be able to develop new companies with our Five Eyes colleagues—the same point was made by the US Secretary of State earlier this year, looking at opportunities to build new companies together. Where diversification is limited, there are correct measures to guide and limit high-risk vendors in our telecommunications network, and those are contained in the Bill, notably in clauses 15 and 23.
I also take the point that the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) made about parliamentary oversight. I hope the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), will forgive me for suggesting that if the Government are unwilling to bring forward proposals for parliamentary oversight, they could go to that Committee so that it could scrutinise them. I apologise for adding to his workload, and I hope he does not think that that is a poor suggestion.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned convention rights, including human rights. One of the biggest grievances many of us have had in terms of Huawei’s role in our telecommunications infrastructure network relates to China’s violations of human rights. The Minister might say that this is not the right time or the right Bill to look at human rights, and if it is not the right Bill, I hope he will say in his closing remarks when the right time to address this point is. I know there are other opportunities, alongside the National Security and Investment Bill, but I would be keen to hear at which point we might address human rights.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend’s excellent speech. The Minister will note, as I pointed out to him, that this Bill is signed off on the basis of the application of rights, including human rights. Every Bill has the right to be amended.
Anthony Mangnall
I thank my right hon. Friend for his experience and knowledge in guiding me on that point. Of course, I accept that he is right on that matter. In that case, how might we address the issue I have raised?
We have righted a wrong. We have addressed an issue on which we have been seen as out of kilter with our international allies. Now, we have the opportunity to go further and to pass this fantastic piece of legislation. We can harness the international community and, as with the Augean stables, clear up the mess. We can make sure that, in future, we have a robust and secure telecommunications infrastructure network that is the pride of Britain.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall). I am delighted to speak in the debate, for two key reasons. First, it shows that the Government do listen to Back Benchers. We have provided feedback all the way through this process, and some of us have some background on this topic. I am therefore greatly reassured that the Minister is here and is listening to what we are saying.
I also commend the Bill for what it is. I am very reassured that the conclusions of the telecoms supply chain review in 2019 are being met. As the world recovers and recalibrates after covid, the UK has a great opportunity to take the initiative and to become a world leader on another piece of vital technology, and I will be firmly supporting the Government on the Bill.
As our defence and national security move ever more online, it has never been more important to secure our lines of communication. With £16.5 billion extra in the Ministry of Defence budget alone, it is really important that the defence sector takes advantage of that, not least in the cyber-sphere. We have heard today of the strategic independence imperative, and I firmly welcome that.
The Bill will do three things. It will allow for better security, which is absolutely important. It will placate our allies, notably in the Five Eyes community, and why not Japan as well? There is a neat link there with the NEC trial that is coming up in Wales. It will also open the door for other 5G providers. I therefore support the UK’s diversification strategy.
As we have heard, clauses 1 to 14 introduce a more robust telecoms security framework. The Bill enables more specific security prerequisites to be set out in secondary legislation. It also gives the telecoms operators’ regulator Ofcom more power to monitor and enforce industry compliance. Clauses 15 to 23 give new national security powers for the Government to manage the risks posed by high-risk vendors, and we have heard much about that today. The Bill therefore gives the Government new powers, and rightly so.
On 14 July, the Secretary of State announced that, from the end of this year, telecoms operators must not buy any 5G equipment from Huawei, with a timetable for removing all Huawei equipment from our 5G network by 2027. September 2021 has also been announced as the new cut-off date for new Huawei equipment in the UK.
What about the wider requirements of the Bill? This is really important, so I urge the Minister to take note. Industry must be given sufficient time to comply with telecoms security requirements, and deadlines must be realistic. The Government, as we have heard, have settled on 2027 as the date by which high-risk vendor equipment is to be removed and this timeframe must be left as it is. It reflects the complexity of the task and slippage will not be welcomed.
I also support the Government’s initial commitment to promote diversification and resilience in the supply chain backed by the initial £250 million from the spending review. That is probably just the start and it may need more funding. I welcome, as I mentioned, the forthcoming trial in Wales with NEC and our Japanese friends.
I will mention Vodafone very quickly. Vodafone has called for greater investment in Open RAN and, of course, Vodafone has been a key contributor to Open RAN. This would reduce UK reliance on mobile network vendors and allow the UK to develop domestic vendors at scale and benefit consumers through greater price competition. That is to be welcomed. Again, it is clear that the more 5G providers there are, the better it is for everyone. As we have heard, the most sensitive core parts of our 5G network must be free of Huawei equipment and must remain so.
Lastly, upgrading the UK’s mobile infrastructure to 5G could be worth as much as £158 billion over the next 10 years. It will also keep us safe. Surely this is worth investing in, so the telecoms bill is absolutely a step in the right direction and I support it.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The Government have acknowledged the need to protect critical communication infrastructure and that is welcome, particularly so as it comes on the heels of the National Security and Investment Bill. Telecoms provision is more important than ever. We have always lived in a data-rich world, but what has changed is how readily we access that data as the way in which we gather, exchange and distribute information has changed. I am left wondering whether T.S. Eliot was not right that wisdom is lost in information. Nevertheless, it is the world in which we live and that world means that the way in which we control or, if necessary, prohibit provision of that data, by which I mean the technology, the networks and those that supply and manage them, is critical to our security. To that end, this Bill is indeed, as the Intelligence and Security Committee was told, an important first step, but only that. We do need to look at other factors, to which I will draw the House’s attention in my brief contribution this evening.
Of course the main purpose of the Bill is to raise telecommunications security standards across the board by means of a new and more rigorous telecoms security framework, but the Bill also gives the Secretary of State particular powers to designate vendors of telecommunications equipment as a risk to national security. All dependence is, by definition, a risk, for dependence creates risk. Over-dependence means unsustainable risks and, in terms of national security and national interest, there are three kinds of risks: monopoly or near-monopoly provision; malevolence; and corporate failure.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, and it is for a very unusual reason. I just feel that I ought to point out to the House that, having exhorted the right hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) to be rather more brief than he was going to be—though I have to say that he took only one minute longer than the eight minutes that Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton) had previously asked people to take—I should point out most unusually to the right hon. Gentleman who currently has the Floor that, as four of his colleagues who have immediately preceded him have spoken incredibly —I mean incredibly—briefly, the exhortation to take only eight minutes no longer applies, though I would not recommend taking no more than about 12 minutes.
Sir John Hayes
Not only is that typical of your generosity, Madam Deputy Speaker, but for me it is what amounts to nirvana, and for the House, something similar I hope.
All of those aspects of risk are mitigated by market diversification, but as we have heard from many speakers during this debate, this market is anything but diversified. The concentration of provision has exacerbated the very risk that this Bill seeks to deal with. It is vital that, as well as the taskforce, which we have heard the Minister has established, a strategy emerges on exactly how we are going to diversify this market, because competition not only counters dependence, but competitive pressure drives up innovation and quality. The telecoms supply chain review judged that, should the UK become dependent on a single vendor of telecoms equipment—particularly a high-risk vendor—it would pose a range of risks to the security and resilience of UK telecoms networks.
The issue of national dependence goes beyond high-risk vendors, however. The number of suppliers in the UK telecoms market—as we have heard repeatedly, currently Huawei, Ericsson and Nokia—is already critically low. While the security of the network can be improved by removing Huawei equipment, the wider problem of potential dependence will be exacerbated by the power to designate vendors and introduce directions unless there are new entrants to the market. We really need to hear from the Minister either in his wind-up or later, if he does not have time tonight, precisely when the diversification strategy will be brought to the House for consideration and what legislation will be necessary. I understand that a Bill may be forthcoming, following this one, to give life to that strategy.
My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) emphasised that diversification is by far the best way to secure UK telecoms. The Government judged in their assessment that there is a global market failure in the telecoms market. While the Government will intervene to take the measures necessary and facilitated by the Bill, unless we grapple with that global failure, we will, I fear, come back to this House time and again and need to do more. As I said when we spoke a week or a two ago about the Bill that I just mentioned, I suspect that security considerations will increasingly feature in Government strategy and policy and that this House will need to debate security issues with much greater regularity than it has historically, given the dynamism that we now face.
I have spoken about market failure and the need for diversification. Let us speak about malevolence, because much has been said, of China in particular, and Russia has been mentioned too. There is no doubt that, as the Government have acknowledged, there are malevolent powers who seek by a variety of means to disrupt the lawful activities of this country and so endanger its citizenry by whatever method they deem most appropriate. We should not be naive about this and, frankly, for too long successive Governments were. This Bill is welcome but again, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, it has been a long time coming, given the warnings that were issued from the ISC and others.
Let me re-emphasise to the Government that we certainly need a diversification strategy urgently. We need the legislation that supports it but there are other matters, too, that I want to conclude with, Madam Deputy Speaker, despite your invitation to speak at appropriate—I will not say “excessive”— length. These questions are critical but not, in my judgment, designed in any way not to recognise the achievement of the Minister and the progress made by the Government.
When will the strategy come forward? I would like to hear about that as soon as possible. Given that the ISC raised this matter 18 months ago, I think we need a firm timeline and an assurance that there will be no more prevarication. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East is right that national security must be an overriding consideration in this field of work. In being deployed, the powers conferred by the Bill must, at heart, always gauge national security as predominant. How will that be determined? Threats are subtle and dynamic, and yet the means and methods by which the Department will both define national security and apply that definition through the provisions of the Bill to differing circumstances have not been made crystal clear. I am mindful that this is a Department for sport and culture without a security role apart from this one— perhaps more skiing than spying, and more existentialism than espionage. What specific processes, structures and procedures will the Department use to access the expertise of the National Cyber Security Centre and the wider intelligence community in designating vendors?
We heard earlier about the expertise, skills and resources of Ofcom, but given that the Bill gives new powers to Ofcom, how will it be held to account? I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East would share my view—I have not discussed this with him so I am making that assumption—that Ofcom ought to be scrutinised by the Intelligence and Security Committee, given the particular nature of its new responsibilities: to proactively assess the security practices of larger telecoms providers; to take action where security is, or is at risk of, being compromised; and to make information available to and provide annual security reports to the Government.
Finally, will the Minister say more about related telecommunications challenges such as Russian involvement with undersea cables that carry comms data and the future security and resilience of satellite technology? The covid crisis emphasises the need to build resilience to risk. It can be done by making more of what we consume, and by recognising that in the fragility and imperfectability of our socioeconomic order, the market is no guarantor of wellbeing, so it must be shaped, guided and, where necessary, constrained by people with power for whom communal interest is the defining purpose. Those people with power are the Minister and others who govern and we here in this House who hold them to account.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Government on it. It is a good Bill, and credit should go to the ministerial team for that. Credit should also go to my Back-Bench colleagues who have made important contributions this year. There are plenty of them, but in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) have helped us to get to a better Bill.
This comes a couple of weeks after Second Reading of the National Security and Investment Bill, which I also spoke in support of. As with that Bill, it is right that we devise a new regime for the risks that we think we face at this time, and we should not be too prescriptive. Our focus in 2020 is Huawei, but we have to leave this open to new threats that we might encounter, so I am comfortable with Huawei’s name not being on the face of the Bill.
I support Ofcom being given the powers to ensure that providers adhere to the new security measures that we want them to take. I also support the Government bringing forward the deadline for buying new equipment from Huawei to September 2021 and the removal of all its equipment by 2027. Of course, I would like that date to be earlier, and I maintain that there is a distinction between what the providers want to do and what is genuinely impossible for them to do, but I accept the Government’s judgment. I accept that, like any businesses making an investment decision, providers require certainty. They need to know that that is the year it is happening, and we need to stick to that. I also accept—perhaps the Minister could comment on this—that providers have an understandable concern that the decisions made by local authorities about masts and so on may further delay the roll-out, and perhaps we can support them in those decisions.
As this debate went on in 2020, I found some of the contributions—not necessarily from this House but from outside it—frustrating. One in particular was the suggestion that there are no risk-free vendors. I accept that, but when we are dealing with companies such as Nokia and Ericsson, we know that we are dealing with fundamentally different entities from companies such as Huawei. We are not concerned that Nokia and Ericsson will collaborate with intelligence agencies on spurious national security grounds, and we are not concerned that there might be back-door vulnerabilities in the equipment, as Vodafone found a decade ago; even though it was assured that they had been taken out, that was not the case. It is also fair to say that we are not concerned about malicious cyber-attacks being directed at us from the Governments of Finland and Sweden. I accept that no provider can be without any risk at all, on the basis that I accept that no system is completely foolproof, but we are dealing with very different companies in those respects, compared with those where we have concerns about the world view of the country they are headquartered in.
Yet we need more competition and more diversity of providers. We would need that, by the way, even if there were no security considerations whatsoever, because competition improves quality, choice and price. I therefore very much support the Government’s investment of £250 million. I represent a largely rural constituency, so I entirely understand the importance of connectivity generally, and of 5G for the country as a whole and for my constituency. It has been suggested that it will be worth £170 billion to our GDP in the next decade. I know that the decisions being made through the Bill will delay the roll-out and increase the cost, yet they are entirely the right decisions to take because they are about our national security. In July 2019, the Government’s own supply chain review found that successive policy decisions had meant that, although we might have achieved good commercial outcomes, we had poor cyber-security. It is therefore entirely right that the Government should now reverse that order of priority, even if it is going to cost more and take more time, and I wholly support their aspiration to have one of the toughest security regimes in the world.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston). I noticed that he was speaking without notes, which was very impressive. Sadly, I still rely on mine. I thank the Minister for bringing forward the Bill, and I thank the ministerial team for talking to us and engaging with so many colleagues. It would be great if other Departments could do that. What can I say? Hint, hint!
When the Henry Jackson Society and I produced our “Defending our Data” document back in May 2019, many Members had yet to form an opinion on Huawei. I am therefore grateful to the 60-odd members of the Huawei interest group who took an interest in this subject, and to the 36 people who voted to show their concern to the Government back in early March on the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill. I am aware that that Bill was not necessarily the right place to express those concerns, but with hindsight I think it sent an important message to the Government from those 36 Members—plus two tellers, of whom I was one. The United States moving its position in subsequent months was also important. I think the change would have happened anyway, regardless of whether there was a Republican or a Democrat Administration. A combination of Back-Bench concern, quite rightly, and the United States’ understanding of the geopolitics being perhaps a little ahead of that of the United Kingdom and on a par with that of Australia helped to shape Ministers’ understanding of the problems.
I am slightly concerned that the situation came to this in the first place, because there were so many warning lights about Huawei’s deepening relationship with BT. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) spoke about Nortel. We must remember that Huawei had a supply contract with Nortel, during which time it hacked its way into Nortel’s systems and stole everything, like a parasite within a body. Nortel was one of the great, spectacular Canadian bankruptcies of the early 21st century. Why? Because it went into partnership with a business that deliberately collapsed it after stealing its IP. If that is not a lesson for us, it is difficult to know what is. Huawei never was and never will be a private firm. It is 99% owned by the Chinese state via trade unions. When I heard Ministers—not this Minister, but others—using the line about Huawei being a private company, I felt that it was a deeply naive thing for the Department to say.
Dr Julian Lewis
Just for the record, a former Prime Minister said that as well, repeatedly.
Bob Seely
It was very concerning that those who govern us were calling a part and parcel of the Chinese state a private firm, which it clearly was not.
The Government claimed that Huawei could be safely limited to the periphery of the network. That is a dubious argument that is still being debated and is not believed by many experts in many other countries. Were there espionage issues with Huawei? Well, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage said, we do not expect a state threat to come from Sweden or Finland. But we do expect a potential threat to come from one-party totalitarian states such as China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. China is clearly one of those. So the Nortel example was a good one.
As we know, China has a dreadful reputation for intellectual property theft and cyber-attacks, so there were many reasons to be deeply concerned about what was happening in our relationship with Huawei. Yet at the same time it became incredibly powerful in this country. Why? Because it had a very aggressive lobbying network. It was throwing money at lobbyists and senior people who used to be at the heart of Government, at very senior levels. This really concerns me about the state of our democracy, and it is one reason that I would like to bring in a foreign lobbying Act. We need to have a much clearer idea of what those companies or oligarchs—those who act on behalf of other people and states—are up to in this country. We did not really know the extent of the Huawei lobbying operation.
Sir John Hayes
My hon. Friend is painting a picture of a strategic view of China and other powers that has prevailed under successive Governments. It is born of a kind of determinism: “We can’t stop them, so we’ll have to live with them”. There is a predetermined inevitability about the domination of these states, and that is a misconception that needs to be challenged fundamentally, in the way in which he is doing so tonight.
Bob Seely
I look forward to being as eloquent and well dressed as my right hon. Friend one day. Before I come to the point that he mentioned on the need for a consistent approach and better understanding, let me say one more thing about Huawei.
A few other Members have touched on this matter: China’s human rights issues. The excellent Australian Strategic Policy Institute has presented credible evidence of significant human rights forced labour issues, with people from Xinjiang province being used not only by Huawei, but by other significant Chinese firms, or by firms producing goods for western consumer markets and western branded goods. This point brings us to the National Security and Investment Bill—although I know that we are not talking about that at the moment—and the need for a definition not only of national security, but of national interest as well. Do we really think it is in our national interest for us to be accepting slave labour products in this country, whether through Huawei—allegedly—or other firms, including well-known branded names? That human rights aspect is well worth playing up.
It seems clear that the China that we had all hoped for —indeed, the golden era that we were meant to welcome under David Cameron and George Osborne—is not the China that we are getting. We need to be realistic. When it comes to international relations, in the west we are effectively liberal internationalists. We take a positive view of humanity—maybe a liberal, rather than a conservative one, if one is being philosophical about these things, but a benign view of humanity. That is not necessarily shared by the hard-nosed realism school of thought that we see in Russia and China, which is much more of a zero-sum game: we win, you lose. China plays that more subtly than Russia, but there are enough similarities between the two that it should be of concern to us. We need a clearer understand that some people out there with whom we do business do not necessarily wish us well and do not wish our values well. Finally on that, we are stumbling towards that understanding, but we need a more consistent approach to how we deal with China, along the same lines of how we deal with Russia. They are not the same—they are very different—but we have been forced to take a more consistent understanding of the Russian threat, and we need to do the same with China.
I congratulate the Minister on his work on the Bill. The “no new install” date is the key now, and that is why everyone is on side with the Bill. We need that September date, because it shuts down any alternatives for Huawei in the short term. We need a consistent approach, whether it is the Huawei Bill or the National Security and Investment Bill, across Government. This is one of the very small number of truly significant policy packages that we will have to get right in this country for the 21st century.
There are two choices for humanity this century. We can go down our route of open, broadly tolerant societies where people control their Governments—that free open model—or there is the closed model of totalitarian or one-party states, which are building up, with Huawei’s help, this Orwellian state, where the state knows what you are thinking before you do. That is not a good avenue for humanity to go down and, without being antagonistic and too hostile to other people, we need to defend our version of the future of humanity with a little more resolve.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I start by thanking Members from all parts of the House for a well-informed debate with many impressive contributions. My first job as a hardware engineer was with Nortel, which has been mentioned by a number of Members. Having spent 23 years in the sector before entering the Commons, I am thrilled that the main debating chamber of our parliamentary democracy should spend so many hours dedicated to our telecommunications infrastructure. I regret that Members who wanted to take part in this debate, particularly from the Opposition Benches, and who could have done so remotely, were not able to do so because of an arbitrary decision by the Leader of the House.
However good the debate is, it cannot make up for the wasted decade under this Government. Successive Tory Governments have squandered the world-leading legacy position on broadband infrastructure left by the last Labour Government. Since then, we have seen delays in the roll-out of networks and the development of a dependency on high-risk vendors. The UK’s sovereign telecoms capabilities and our national security have been neglected, resulting in the Huawei debacle and ultimately this Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) put it so eloquently: national security is the first duty of any Government, and Labour will always put that first. The point was made strongly by a number of Members, including the right hon. Members for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith).
Given where we are, we support the aims of the Bill. National security should be the priority of any Government, and our telecommunications infrastructure is clearly critical to our defence, our security and our economic prosperity. That point was made by a number of Members, including the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard).
We must make sure that we do not find ourselves in a similar position again and that our telecoms network and supply chain are resilient and protected in future, even, critically, as the geopolitical environment evolves. Our telecoms infrastructure lacks security and resilience. We have taken no steps to maintain or develop a sovereign communications capability, and the Government’s broadband strategy, if we can call it that, has far more U-turns, dither and delay than meaningful policies. We want to work with the Government to get issues of national security right, but the Bill is far from perfect.
Members have raised many issues, and I will focus on just three: cost, resource and diversification. I have found telecoms operators to be extremely responsive to the need to take action on the issue of, and in the cause of, national security and to replace high-risk vendors, but six months since the decision to strip out Huawei was finally made, we still do not know how the Government plan to achieve this. They seem to have decided that that is for the private sector to sort out.
The impact assessments, of which there are two, admit that the Government cannot figure out what the impact will be. They have chosen not to give operators any legal protection on existing contracts, but have again not quantified that impact. The Government are apparently happy to pass on the costs of their mistakes, indecision and poor planning to the operators, stating that the costs of removing Huawei are
“commercial decisions that are for the mobile operators to make.”
Yet clearly there was a failure Government here, as 5G security was not sufficiently safeguarded, in the ways that the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) set out so clearly. Will there be a delay in 5G roll-out? Again, we are not clear, and depending on what is factored in, various research projects have found the costs to be anything from £6 billion to £18 billion. If the Government plan to leave this entirely to the mercy of the market, I would say that all the information-gathering skills Ofcom has will not give us an accurate integrated view of progress and effectiveness. There is no mention of working with local authorities to ease this or to make it quicker, cheaper or more effective.
I joined Ofcom in 2004, just a few weeks after it was born, when it was to be a light-touch regulator, small and nimble. Over the years, it has acquired responsibility for critical national infrastructure; the BBC; the Post Office; soon, we understand, the entirety of online harms; and now, it would appear, national security as well. As Members have pointed out, this Bill refers only to the Secretary of State and Ofcom when it comes to making these key decisions. Of the two, I have to say that I would have more confidence in Ofcom, but the Bill says very little about the resources or the skills that will be provided. This is a huge job, an issue that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) set out so clearly in what was a truly excellent contribution. One still has to ask: is it sufficiently well scoped? It is a huge job, but is it actually scoped? Is it the role of Ofcom to consider the security of our current networks, or should it be forward-looking? Members have set out what kind of a challenge that would be. Members also touched on the importance of human rights with regard to China’s record. How is that to play on national security decisions?
Sir John Hayes
The real point about Ofcom is whether it acquires those skills or what the processes will be for it to access them from the intelligence community and the National Cyber Security Centre, which would seem to be a much more straightforward way of quickly tooling up to do the job the hon. Member describes.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention, and indeed for his contribution to the debate. I agree with him, although I think that is something we need to work out and probe in Committee, because currently there is no reference to that, or no plan to do that. I think we should certainly be taking into account and using our existing resources, and we all know that these kinds of resources and skills are both expensive and hard to find at the moment. The right hon. Member makes an important point.
On 14 July, the Secretary of State, who is not in his place, said in this House that he had
“set out a clear and ambitious diversification strategy.”—[Official Report, 14 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 1377.]
I asked him repeatedly over the summer when he would publish this clear strategy that he had already set out. Answer came there none, and I could only conclude that he had misspoken. However, I did think that today we would get that strategy, but unfortunately not. Yes, there is actually a diversification strategy, which has been published, but it is neither clear nor ambitious. It is far more concerned with bringing new vendors into the UK than with developing our sovereign technological capability. Indeed, as it diversifies opportunities for Nokia and Ericsson, we could call it an effective Scandinavian industrial strategy. Apart from a vague commitment to link the scale of home-grown suppliers to the Government’s broader growth and productivity agenda, there is no clear plan—no plan at all—to build UK sovereign capabilities, which the right hon. Members for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) and for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) emphasised as being important.
Just today, Mobile UK, the mobile operators industrial body, emphasised that the Bill and the 5G diversification strategy are intrinsically linked but not, it would appear, by the Government. The diversification strategy also does not refer to fibre, although the Bill applies to our fibre networks too and may impact the Government’s constantly shifting roll-out targets.
Network operators need to be confident in the maturity, performance, integration and security credentials of new vendors and technologies before they are deployed in their main networks. We agree with the Secretary of State that the Government can help accelerate that process, and in doing so there is potential to create opportunities for the UK to take the lead, as well as much-needed high-skilled jobs. The hon. Members for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Bracknell (James Sunderland) all agreed about the importance of diversification, but all the diversification strategy says about developing UK technology, jobs and capability is that it will be part of the industrial strategy, which we have yet to see. Clearly, we do not have a diversification strategy.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree the Bill will have to dovetail closely with the National Security and Investment Bill? If new developments were taken over by foreign entities, that could be a security risk as well. However, as we were told last week, the responsibility for that lies with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, not DCMS.
Chi Onwurah
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He is absolutely right. The question of how the diversification strategy delivers home-grown capability and protects that as it grows and strengthens has been avoided.
As the shadow Secretary of State said, it is important that everyone can benefit from 5G, both in our technological capability and in using it. There is a digital divide in this country: 11 million adults lack one or more basic digital skills and 10% of households do not have internet access. 5G has the potential to increase digital inclusion, providing greater access to broadband. As the hon. Members for West Dorset (Chris Loder) and for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) highlighted, digital technology can be a great leveller, but we need to ensure that the infrastructure and skills base exist for everyone to take advantage of the opportunities it provides. Digital inclusion requires political will, urgent action and a Government who understand the importance of universal digital suffrage. Government interventions on that have been brief—not quite as brief as the intervention of the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) in the debate, but far less eloquent.
As a chartered engineer, I want to finish by celebrating the potential of 5G, which can truly transform our businesses, our industries and our daily lives. It will not only vastly improve our connectivity and browsing experience but support new enabling technologies, from the internet of things to artificial intelligence. If the first industrial revolution was powered by engines, the fourth will be powered by data. As hon. Members have observed, 5G is essential for innovations from driverless cars to smart cities, and to addressing the climate emergency through monitoring and improving our energy efficiency. Some estimates predict that 5G could mean productivity savings for the UK of up to £6 billion a year on top of energy and waste reductions that internet of things devices could enable.
We must get this right. As we all agree, our national security is priceless, but until we see a detailed plan, a proper impact assessment and an industrial strategy, the Opposition will remain deeply concerned that the Government are not prepared to make the interventions necessary to ensure that our national security is safeguarded.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
I thank all Members for a well-informed and important debate. We have heard across the House that all Members believe that this Government should be putting national security at the very top of our agenda. That is what we are doing tonight. We are also putting forward a strategy that will allow the UK to derive all the benefits that we possibly can from all the enhanced digital reliance that we have seen across the country over the course of this pandemic and, of course, before it.
We have all heard this evening just how much connectivity matters and just how much our national security matters. We heard upwards of 20 speeches, which clearly demonstrated the critical importance of the security of our telecoms networks, especially as we move into the next phase of digital connectivity. As the Secretary of State has said, this Bill will raise the security bar across the board. It will provide us with the capabilities that we need to protect ourselves from a range of threats, both now and in the future. I am pleased that the Bill has support across the House. It is clear that we are all keen to put the UK’s national security interests first.
I hope that Members are reassured that the Government are taking these issues seriously. A number of Members referred to the Huawei interest group. Much as I have enjoyed being the subject of the Huawei interest group’s interest, I am glad that we have come to a position that has been welcomed across the House. The Government have taken steps today both to lay out our diversification strategy—an important £250 million commitment that is detailed and has real potential to see British companies grow in the way that my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) identified—and to publish illustrative designations and directions demonstrating the transparency that many Members across the House have asked for. Through that, I think we have demonstrated our commitment to dealing with the risks to our networks and the national security threats that come from high-risk vendors.
I turn to some of the points that have been raised in the course of the debate. The first, which was raised across the House, is the important matter of human rights. We want respect for human rights to be at the centre of all business that takes place in this country. These are vital issues that go much wider than telecoms. A number of Members rightly pointed out that the Telecommunications (Security) Bill will be focused on matters related to telecommunications and security, but of course we have serious concerns about the human rights situation in Xinjiang, including the extrajudicial detention of over 1 million Uyghur Muslims and other minorities in political re-education camps, systematic restrictions on Uyghur culture and the practice of Islam, and extensive invasive surveillance targeting minorities.
Where China is not meeting its obligations under international law, the UK Government will continue to speak out publicly. Indeed, the 30 June formal statement that the UK read out on behalf of 28 countries at the UN Human Rights Council highlighted arbitrary detention, widespread surveillance and restrictions targeting ethnic minorities. The Government published their response to the consultation on transparency in supply chains in September, and we are committed to taking forward an ambitious package of changes to strengthen and future-proof the transparency provisions in the Modern Slavery Act 2015. While, as many have said, issues of human rights are not matters directly for this Bill, they are acutely important, and Britain will continue to take that leading role.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I hear what my hon. Friend says, but surely he would concede that, as this Bill deals specifically with vendors and the vendors are themselves located, originally, in countries that may have been guilty of these abuses of whatever nature, should those companies be found to be using slave labour—such as some that are already referenced in this Bill—that would be a reason not to have them. Would he not think that they were high-risk vendors for the very simple reason that they abused those human rights?
Matt Warman
As I said earlier, we would want to apply those standards not just to telecoms companies but to the garment industry and in a host of other areas where we know that there is the potential for similar abuses. I absolutely hear what my right hon. Friend says, but Britain can do better than focus simply on the relatively narrow aspect of telecoms.
Bob Seely
I hear what the Minister is saying, but I wish to follow up the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). If the debate on this Bill is not the place to discuss human rights, I get that, but we are also told that the debates on the National Security and Investment Bill are not the place to discuss human rights. I may get that as well, but the Government need to say where significant national interest concerns that are outside national security can be addressed. We talk the talk on human rights an awful lot in this country and this Parliament, but we have to put some trousers on that, I think.
Matt Warman
I am not going to engage too heavily with my hon. Friend’s trousers, but I will say to him that, as I said a minute ago, we are committed to taking forward an ambitious package of changes to strengthen and future-proof the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and that is one of several significant avenues that are open to him.
On the important matter of diversification, the telecoms supply chain review asked how we can create sustainable diversity in our telecoms supply chain. That question is addressed by the new diversification strategy that we published today, which is crucial to ensuring that we are never again in a situation in which we are dependent on just a handful of vendors who supply the networks on which so many of us have come to depend. I wish to spend a little time on this issue. The Government have been working at pace to develop the 5G supply chain diversification strategy, which sets out a clear vision for a healthy, competitive and diverse supply market for telecoms and the set of principles that we want operators and suppliers to follow.
The strategy is built around three key strands: first, securing incumbents; secondly, attracting new suppliers; and thirdly, accelerating the development and adoption of open and interoperable technologies across the market. That is why, in the diversification strategy that we published today, we commit to exploring commercial incentives for new market entrants as we level the playing field; to setting out a road map to end the provision of older legacy technologies that create obstacles for new suppliers; and to investing in R&D to grow a vibrant and thriving telecoms ecosystem here in the UK.
I say gently to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) that we have directly addressed a number of the issues that she raised in Westminster Hall last week. I look forward to engaging with her more on the strategy because it is important that we should work together to try to make sure that we all derive the benefits of a serious £250 million Government commitment that will drive early progress and ensure that our 5G diversification strategy not only bolsters the resilience and security of our digital infrastructure but creates opportunities for competition, innovation and prosperity.
Sir John Hayes
It is wonderful that the strategy has emerged, but will my hon. Friend be just as clear about legislative change associated with that strategy? I understand that a further Bill may come forward; given the urgency of this issue and the concentration that his Department is applying to the strategy, when can we expect that legislation?
Matt Warman
We do not anticipate legislation as a direct result of the diversification strategy, but of course there are other important avenues to explore as part of the broader industrial strategy. A lot of what is in the diversification strategy does not need to be delayed by the legislative programme, and I think my right hon. Friend would welcome that.
A number of Members raised the role of Ofcom. Ofcom will monitor, assess and enforce compliance with the new telecoms security framework that will be established by the Bill. It will report on compliance to the Secretary of State alongside publishing the annual reports that he mentioned on the state of the telecoms security sector. I want to be absolutely clear: we have had productive conversations with Ofcom already. Ofcom will continue to have the resources it needs. We appreciate that those needs will be affected by the changes that we are bringing in today, and we will agree their precise nature with Ofcom. We will make sure that Ofcom has all the security clearance that it needs to do the job, and all the resources, external or otherwise, to do the job, because this is an important new power.
Ofcom may also play a role in gathering and providing information relevant to the Secretary of State’s assessment of a provider’s compliance with a designated vendor direction, and it may also be directed to gather further information to comply with the requirements specified in a direction. The Bill already enables Ofcom to require information from providers and, in some circumstances, to carry out inspection of the provider’s premises or to view relevant documents. Ofcom’s annual budget, as I say, will be adjusted to take account of the increased costs it will incur due to its enhanced security role.
Let me turn to a couple of issues raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central. We will of course be working with local authorities and with networks to minimise any disruption, but we do not anticipate that the decisions that we have made over the past few months will have a direct impact on existing commercial decisions. As the Secretary of State said, we do not expect the two to three-year delay to be extended by what we have said today, but we will keep in close contact with the networks and continue to make sure that we do everything we can to remove the barriers to the roll-out of the networks as far as we possibly can. I do, however, expect companies to do as much as they can to minimise the effects. These are commercial decisions that have been made by companies over a number of years. We have already seen, as a result of the Government’s approach over the past few months, significant changes to decisions. I welcome the neutrORAN project that my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan mentioned, as well as a number of others that have been taken by networks that already see important changes to how they procure their networks.
Mr Kevan Jones
The Minister has introduced the September 2021 date after which no new Huawei or high- risk vendor equipment can go into the networks. What will happen to those companies that perhaps have stock of Huawei equipment or entered into contracts thinking that they could implement them before September 2021 and will now have to be told that they cannot? Would they actually lose a lot of money?
Matt Warman
Those decisions, as I said, were taken in the context of the environment that people were already well aware of, and they are taken at a degree of commercial risk. However, we have worked closely with the networks to ensure that there will be no additional delays as a result of this decision. I think it is the right thing that puts national security at the absolute heart of our programme, but it also does that in the context of not jeopardising the clear economic benefits and the clear practical benefits of improving connectivity across the country that we would all like to see.
On the emergency services network, we anticipate that these announcements concerning Huawei will have a very low impact on the emergency services network. We do not anticipate any impact on the programme schedules. There is some Huawei equipment in the EE part of the emergency services dedicated core network that EE is already working towards removing.
Let me cover one other aspect raised by the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). I look forward—maybe that is not quite the right phrase—to appearing before the ISC in the next few days. We will always co-operate with it, and I am very happy to work with it on the best way to balance the obvious requirement between transparency and national security, although we would always seek to be as transparent as we possibly can be within those important bounds.
Dr Julian Lewis
I did ask a few questions. If the Minister cannot answer them now, by all means he should write to me. However, I am concerned about a situation where, for example, a former leader of the Conservative party and former Prime Minister has a major role in the China belt and road funding operation. How secure will Government be against lobbying of people with that sort of connection and prominence?
Matt Warman
I will simply say that the Government will always put our national security interests first, and of course we are always alive to the commercial interests of the companies that seek to engage with us in this matter or any other. I look forward to further engaging with my right hon. Friend and his Committee.
To conclude, this Bill does not simply produce a framework that will address one particular company or even one particular country. It sets up the futureproof regime that will allow us to deal with the company that we have spoken about so much this evening and also its successors in successor networks. The intention of this legislation is to persist well beyond the current challenges that we face. I am glad that it commands the support we have seen across the House. I am immensely grateful for what has been a genuinely well-informed debate and one that I look forward to carrying on in Committee. The Telecommunications (Security) Bill will create one of the toughest telecoms security regimes in the world. It will enable us to protect our national telecoms infrastructure, and it is also a chance for the UK to become the world leader in the development of new 5G technology that we all know we can be.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Telecommunications (Security) Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Telecommunications (Security) Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 19 January 2021.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(David T. C. Davies.)
Question agreed to.
Telecommunications (Security) Bill (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Telecommunications (Security) Bill, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(David T. C. Davies.)
Question agreed to.
Telecommunications (Security) Bill (Ways and Means)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Telecommunications (Security) Bill, it is expedient to authorise provision requiring public communications providers to pay certain costs incurred by the Office of Communications.—(David T. C. Davies.)
Question agreed to.
Telecommunications (Security) Bill (Carry-over)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 80A(1)(a)),
That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Telecommunications (Security) Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.—(David T. C. Davies.)
Question agreed to.
Business without Debate
Statutory Paid Bereavement Leave: Loss of Family Member
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am delighted to have secured this Adjournment debate to highlight the need for statutory paid bereavement leave for all employees upon the sad loss of a close family member or partner. In recent years, I was privileged to be one of a number of MPs who worked cross-party to secure paid bereavement leave for parents on the loss of a child up to the age of 18 years old. That effort showed this place at its best when, finally, that right was enshrined in law as of April this year. As that work was going on, I said in this very Chamber that groundbreaking as that achievement was, it simply did not go far enough, and that I would immediately begin working to extend a similar two-week statutory right for paid bereavement leave to others. This debate is part of that effort.
It is true that the only two certainties in life are death and taxes, and while most of us are happy—comfortable, even—to talk about taxes, there remains a reticence to speak openly and honestly about death. I believe that is why the measures this House has already supported on parental bereavement leave for the loss of a child are only in their infancy, and why the measures under discussion tonight have not yet been adopted: we are too reticent to talk about death. Bereavement is a fact of life, and if only a fraction of the costs associated with it could be mitigated with better support at the right time, we could boost our economy and have a healthier society with a greater sense of wellbeing at its heart. Instead, we have the terrible situation where, in our society and, as a consequence, in our workplaces, people who are bereaved suffer in silence as they are expected to just get on with things. That is not healthy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on having brought this issue forward. I am very aware of what she has said, and support it. I have long supported the idea of paid bereavement leave for families in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Lady agree that for some, getting back to work is a useful part of their grieving process; for others, they need time to work out how their world works without their loved one, and paid leave may well give someone the ability to take a breath without having to go to the doctor? It could be a way forward for their wellbeing and mental health.
Patricia Gibson
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and it is something I will return to in just a moment, if he will permit me.
According to research commissioned by the charity Sue Ryder, a third of employees who experienced a bereavement in the past year did not receive any communication from managers or the leadership of their organisation about bereavement. Only 32% of employees are aware of whether their employer has a bereavement policy, despite the fact that we are in the middle of a global health pandemic, with covid-19 linked to over 56,000 deaths across the UK since the end of March. Of those who felt well supported by their employer after experiencing a bereavement, 60% cited being allowed enough time off and not being pressured to return to work before they were ready as key actions their employer took. This debate is timely, since the global health pandemic—which has touched us all in various ways—has sharply reminded us about the fragility of life, and the profound and cruelly random nature of loss and bereavement.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this issue before the House this evening, and on her work on parental bereavement leave. Does she agree that the real issue we have at the moment is the ambiguity in the law? Essentially, it says that employers must offer a reasonable amount of time for employees to grieve. There are some examples of very good employers—Morrisons, I understand, gives two weeks’ paid leave—and other employers give less time, but it is the ambiguity that creates the problem for employees at the moment.
Patricia Gibson
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. It is that ambiguity—that discretion—over something life-changing like a bereavement that is simply unfair. People deserve a level playing field; after all, death is the great leveller.
Across the UK, during this health pandemic, we have experienced bereavement on a distressing scale, and it has touched us all. That is why there has been such public support for the measures to try to control this virus: each of us has lost, or is in fear of losing, a loved one. This has had a significant impact on our workforce, as 7.9 million people in employment—24% of all employees —have experienced a bereavement in the past 12 months. It is estimated that for every death, six people experience intense grief. Taking into account the number of deaths in the UK each year and employment rates, we can say that bereavement causes nearly 2 million working people to suffer from intense grief each year. Such a profoundly life-changing experience brings with it potential long-term consequences for a person’s mental and physical health, and in some cases can trigger mental health conditions such as depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorders, as well as being linked to an increased likelihood of heart attacks, diabetes and increased mortality. The impacts of grief on society are huge, and cannot and must not be left to the discretion of employers to manage in the workplace.
As the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) mentioned, we all know that many employers are supportive and understanding when an employee suffers a close bereavement, but we also know that many employers are not perhaps as supportive as they could be. Sometimes those who are grieving are pressured to return to work when they are still in the midst of the initial shock and trauma of loss. Without any statutory rights for employees to paid bereavement leave, the time and space to grieve for too many people is determined by the good will of their employer. That cannot be right, and it is counterproductive in a number of ways.
Typically, UK employers offer three to five days’ compassionate leave for the death of a close relative, but the discretionary nature of this leave means potentially that thousands of employees are unable to take leave without fearing that it could undermine their job security. In addition, we know that those in less well-paid jobs are far less likely to receive any discretionary time off with pay when they suffer a bereavement or have any compassionate leave at all, and that is grossly unfair. Death is the great leveller in society, so the time and space to grieve without worrying about loss of pay or pressure to return to work too soon should be available to all. Those on low pay are much less able to absorb the losses associated with unpaid leave and the immediate financial burden of bereavement. They are also at greater risk of being dismissed from work for taking time off or not being able to focus on their work due to the fog of grief. All of this increases the pressure and financial stress on employees who are trying their best to cope with the loss of a close family member. There is also some evidence to suggest that those in more challenged socioeconomic circumstances are more likely to experience complicated or persistent grief, because they are likely to face more difficulties accessing appropriate services and information to help them cope with their feelings of loss and grief.
As well as humane and compassionate reasons for statutory bereavement leave, there are also economic reasons for this change. Research commissioned by Sue Ryder shows that grief experienced by employees who have lost a loved one costs the UK economy £23 billion per year and costs the Treasury nearly £8 billion per year. However, these costs could potentially reach as high as £49 billion to the economy and £18 billion to the Treasury. Most of the considerable economic impact arises from grieving employees being unable to work at their normal levels of productivity while they deal with the emotional, practical and financial aspects of coping with the loss of a close relative. That, in turn, leads to a cost to the Treasury in lost tax revenues and the fallout of reliance on NHS support, such as mental health and social care needs that can often follow. So although statutory bereavement leave for all those who lose a close family member will involve costs, this is actually preventive expenditure, as it will lead to a significant saving for the UK economy and the Treasury, a more productive and resilient workforce, and reduced staff absence. Such support will mean less cause to rely on NHS support, or perhaps even social security support, in the case of those employees who drop out of the workforce altogether following a close bereavement. So of course there are costs attached to statutory paid bereavement leave, but there are also significant costs to not doing this. It is in our interests as a society, and it is in the Treasury’s interests, to take full cognisance of the profound, debilitating effect grief can have on those who lose a loved one, and statutory paid bereavement leave is a progressive and enlightened thing for any society to have in place.
When an individual is suffering from grief, it not only has implications and consequences for the individual, although it undoubtedly does, it also has wider societal and economic consequences for all of us. Clearly, there are individuals who are pressured into returning to work before they are ready to do so. It is not in the employer’s interest, and it is not in our economy’s interest, to simply insist on presenteeism in the workplace. Presenteeism has significant impacts on employer revenue, employee income, tax revenues and total gross value added.
Statutory bereavement leave for the loss of a close relative is something that people across the UK support. In fact, 62% of people across the UK believe it is the right thing to do. The current arrangements allowing leave for family emergencies carry no statutory obligation that such leave should be paid—and it very often is not. The Minister will know that, in its consideration of the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill, a Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy impact assessment conceded that there appear
“to be large differences in what is currently offered to employees when they suffer a bereavement with the situation tending to be managed at the discretion of the employer and line managers.”
We can all agree that that is not satisfactory, which is why it is important that we put an end to what the report called the “large differences” between what employees are offered at the discretion of employers and what they should be entitled to.
We need to put bereavement leave for all who lose a close relative or partner on a statutory footing. That can be done if the political will is there to do it, and that political will certainly exists in our society. I suggest to the Minister that the vehicle for doing this could be the employment Bill, since the proposals put forward this evening indirectly relate to some of the Bill’s expected provisions.
I urge the Minister to study these proposals carefully for the sake of the wellbeing of our workforce and our economy. I urge him to support these progressive and compassionate measures, which would give the profound effects of bereavement the statutory recognition they need and deserve. If he were to do so, or to commit that the Government intend to seriously investigate doing so, while we are in the midst of this global health pandemic, that would send a signal that he and the Government are aware that we are all in this together and that we should come through this together. We need to look after each other, and this Parliament and this Government should take the opportunity to lead the way.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing a debate on this important issue. I am grateful to her for bringing it to the attention of Parliament.
We have heard today about the impact of bereavement on individuals and their wider families, and about the experience of losing someone whom we love or who has played a special role in our lives. That is deeply upsetting, and I sympathise with anybody who has been in that position. We will all experience bereavement at some point in our lives, but the fact that death is an inevitable part of our experience of life does not detract from the sense of loss that most of us will feel or from the fact that, for some of us, that sense of loss will at times feel overwhelming.
I found the hon. Member’s account particularly poignant because I know she speaks from personal experience. She has spoken with passion and compassion. I am grateful to her for her candour and for raising awareness of this issue and of the impact of stillbirths and baby loss generally on individuals and their wider families, both today and on many other occasions in this Chamber.
All of us have been touched in some way by covid-19, whether as a result losing someone who has played a part in our lives or simply as a result of reading the virus’s mortality rates in the press. I have lost two uncles myself during lockdown, one of whose funeral I could not take part in.
In April this year, as the hon. Member said, we introduced parental bereavement leave and pay for employed parents who lose a child under the age of 18 or who suffer stillbirth from 24 weeks of pregnancy. That new entitlement recognises that the death of a child is particularly tragic. Prior to April, employed parents had a statutory right to take time off work following the birth or adoption of their child, but they did not have a specific right to time off work in the event of their child’s death. Parents who are in that dreadful position are now able to take up to two weeks’ leave in the 56-week period following their child’s death. Where they qualify for pay, parents will receive the lower of 90% of their average weekly earnings or the statutory flat rate, which is currently £151.20 a week. Like all entitlements to paid time off work, the statutory scheme provides a floor, not a ceiling.
The Government are mindful of placing additional burdens on business in the current economic climate, but we strongly encourage employers, as we have heard, to go beyond the statutory minimum if they can afford to. This could involve giving parents additional weeks of leave and pay, or paying them at an earnings-related rate when they are off work on parental bereavement leave.
This debate has raised the question of whether the right to paid leave for parents should be extended to all those who lose a close family member. As we have heard, grief is a very personal experience, which affects different people in different ways. While some people understandably want to take time off work following a bereavement, others may prefer to work through their grief. We believe that individuals are best placed to understand their own specific needs. Employers should, and usually do, respond to these needs in an appropriate and sensitive way, even in the absence of a legal requirement to time off work.
While I of course recognise the pain that can accompany bereavement—as I have mentioned, I am speaking from recent personal experience of this—extending entitlements to bereavement leave and pay would come at a significant cost to the public purse. It would also place additional burdens on business at a time when many employers are struggling to keep their businesses afloat. We cannot ignore this fact, and while we are sympathetic to everyone who has lost a close family member, whether through covid-19 or otherwise, the Government have no plans to extend entitlement to bereavement leave and pay at this time.
I remind hon. Members, however, that employees who want to take time off work are already entitled to take up to 5.6 weeks of annual leave a year. All employees also have a day one right to take time off work to deal with an emergency involving a dependant, and in the case of a bereavement the right to time off for dependants can be used to make necessary practical arrangements, including registering the death and arranging and attending the funeral of the person who has died.
The hon. Lady talked about the cost of bereavement. I am unable to comment on the figures today, but my officials have had an initial meeting with representatives from the Sue Ryder charity, who have agreed to share their analysis with us when the report is finalised.
Grieving is a natural process that we should not attempt to stifle, and most of us are able to cope with our loss with support from our family, friends, colleagues and employer, but I recognise that bereavement is a risk factor for physical and mental health issues. Where a bereavement is particularly debilitating or likely to have a longer-term impact on an individual’s mental or physical health, they have access to our excellent national health service. In May this year the Government announced additional funding of £4.2 million to support mental health charities and charities providing bereavement support. That was part of a £750 million package of support for the voluntary sector announced by the Chancellor in April.
Where a bereavement does affect someone’s mental or physical health, they also have the option of taking sick leave. They may be eligible for statutory sick pay. Clearly, statutory sick leave is a means to an end, but bereavement in itself is not a sickness. Employees can, however, self-certify as sick for the first seven days that they are off work. After that time, a fit note is required and their employer can request medical evidence if they wish. Individuals who are not eligible for statutory sick pay and those who require additional support may be eligible for universal credit and the new-style employment and support allowance.
The hon. Lady talked about covid and its effect on families. I was fortunate enough, at the funeral of one of my uncles, to join close family members to pay my final respects, and indeed to do so for my mother, who died just before lockdown, but not everybody has been fortunate. We talk about the death rates in this country, so this is clearly not just personal to me; tens of thousands of people across the country have been through similar experiences. So I am acutely aware of the fact that covid-19 has robbed so many of us of the opportunity to see our loved ones before they died and to say goodbye in the way we would all want.
No two people’s experiences of a bereavement are the same; we all have our coping strategies. Our experience will, however, to a large extent be influenced by how the people around us respond to us and our loss. As the hon. Lady said, far too many people suffer their loss in silence and this can lead to them feeling isolated and alone. While no one should feel obliged to talk about their personal experiences, they should also not be afraid to do so.
We have given employers the tools they need to approach what might otherwise be a difficult conversation with a bereaved employee. In 2014, the Government commissioned ACAS to provide guidance on managing a bereavement in the workplace. The guidance was developed in conjunction with key stakeholders, including Cruse Bereavement Care, Jack’s Rainbow and other bereavement charities. The guidance has been well received and was updated in 2020 to provide more accessible webpage content for users and to take account of the new right of parental bereavement leave. The guidance can be found on ACAS’s website. Use of the guidance continues to grow and has increased since the start of the pandemic. There was a total of 82,000 visits to the guidance between 1 April and 23 November. ACAS is working on further revisions, including revised case studies to offer more detailed support to employers and employees at this difficult time.
Where an individual loses their spouse or civil partner, they may be eligible for a bereavement support payment. This consists of an initial lump sum payment of £2,500 and up to 18 monthly instalments of £100, with higher amounts being paid to those individuals who have children. The initial payment for individuals who have children is £3,500. Bereavement support payments are intended to meet the additional costs of bereavement rather than providing an ongoing income replacement to bereaved spouses and partners.
As the hon. Member mentioned, the Government will bring forward an employment Bill to implement a range of manifesto and other commitments, and we will publish our detailed proposals for that Bill in due course. While the Government are not minded at this time to introduce a new right to time off work for people who have lost a close relative, we do understand how difficult this can be for people in bereavement.
Jonathan Edwards
I thank the Minister for giving way and for the way he has approached the debate. I am slightly disappointed that the Government will not even look at the proposals, because this seems to be a very simple reform. All the Government need to do is define what they mean by “reasonable”. The eligibility criteria are already there. All these different employers have a different idea of what “reasonable” means, so my question would be: what does “reasonable” mean to him as the Minister?
Paul Scully
I have been an employer in the past, and the biggest asset of any business is the employees. Any business owner invests time in training and developing people, and they make up the business. In terms of reasonable time, I have talked about the fact that bereavement is different for different people, and I think that they just need to work together with employees. As I said, I am not minded to put it on a statutory footing, but we will continue to work with Members across the House in the employment Bill and with Sue Ryder in understanding their background. I am looking forward to introducing that Bill to this House, when we can talk about a whole range of issues to support employees through the aftermath of this pandemic and put workers’ rights on a long footing beyond now.
Patricia Gibson
I want to press the Minister on one point and ask for his view on it. If those who are earning a comfortable salary feel that they need to take additional time off, unpaid, they are free to do that, and they are obviously able to absorb that cost. There is a concern about the people in low-paid jobs who cannot take unpaid leave and therefore do not have the choice to take additional time, unless, of course, it is in statute.
Paul Scully
It is essentially about getting the balance right. I talked about eligibility for statutory sick pay, which I know is not suitable for long periods of time, and access to universal credit. There is annual leave of 5.6 weeks per year. It is about getting the balance right between what may suit employees suffering different types of bereavement or having different reactions to bereavement, and employers, especially as we have seen the pressure on them at this moment in time. They may be at risk in relation to the future viability of the business. It is getting that balance right, which is why we continue to try to understand the modern-day employer and the things that we might include in the employment Bill as we reflect on the effect of covid.
There is a range of Government support for people who suffer from a bereavement. Employers can, and do, provide significant support to employees without being legally required to do so. We encourage employers to respond with flexibility and compassion. One of the cornerstones of the employment Bill will be to ensure flexible working by default. That will hopefully provide some succour or support to people who, although not necessarily taking full time off, will be able to arrange their working time around their particular current circumstances.
I thank the hon. Lady and the other hon. Members who contributed to the debate. I also thank everybody who has worked hard to raise awareness of the impact of death on the people left behind.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Import of, and Trade in, Animals and Animal Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Draft Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (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 Members to observe social distancing and to sit only in the places that are clearly marked. Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members could send any speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
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 Import of, and Trade in, Animals and Animal Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Victoria Prentis
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, even though I confess that many of us would quite like to be listening to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the Chamber. The draft Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 and the draft Import of, and Trade in, Animals and Animal Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 were laid before the House on 2 November and 20 October respectively.
The first instrument amends our existing system of official controls on sanitary and phytosanitary imports to ensure that they work after the end of the transition period. It makes amendments to EU retained regulations governing official controls on imports to Great Britain of animals and animal products, plants and plant products, including food, and other imports relevant to the agrifood chain. The amendments set out in this instrument will allow regulations in this area to continue to be fully operable once the UK completes the transition period. They will allow us to continue to deliver controls and checks on all imports subject to SPS checks according to risk.
The second instrument makes amendments to ensure that provisions relating to the import of live animals, including horses, animal products, reproductive material used for animal breeding, and the non-commercial movement of pets continue to work at the end of this year. It also makes minor technical amendments to five previously made EU exit SIs and 30 retained EU instruments. It also revokes a previously made EU exit SI and eight retained EU instruments to ensure that our imports will continue to function at the end of this year.
The changes are, for example, to ensure that references to EU regulatory bodies become references to the Secretary of State or other appropriate authorities. Amendments also include changes to reflect the status of the European economic area as a third country and to introduce the Government’s phased approach to import controls on goods arriving from the EEA.
The Government previously announced that we will phase in border controls on imports from the UK beginning in January. That will prioritise flow at the border and give both businesses and industry longer to prepare for the introduction of full controls. We remain fully committed to the World Trade Organisation and our international trade obligations. The phased approach is temporary and pragmatic in order to support our international trade and to avoid border disruption. We will have controls in place for controlled goods from January 2021 and for all goods, both controlled and standard, in place from July next year. We have taken the decision to list the EEA to import live animals and animal products because, following an assessment of the EU’s SPS regime, with which we are of course very familiar, we do not believe that the risk will change on 1 January next year.
The statutory instruments will ensure that legislation to protect our biosecurity will continue to function in Great Britain after the transition period, and that we will continue to have a functioning imports system that guarantees our high standards of food and animal safety, while ensuring frictionless trade and movements. For the reasons I have set out, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I echo the Minister’s opening comments: I think we are all keen to hear the action going on in the main Chamber. These SIs appear to be largely technical and uncontroversial, although I am always loth to say that when I read through the many pages of changes—and I will come to that in a moment—but the Opposition will not oppose them, because we, too, want to ensure that UK trade remains as robust as we can make it after the end of this period.
However, these are very important issues, and it is hard to overstate the importance of sanitary and phytosanitary controls. There has, of course, been considerable controversy on this around the links between GB and Northern Ireland and, of course, safety issues are in our minds given avian flu and, sadly, the African swine fever in much of the rest of the world. Getting these things right and making sure that our defences are strong are really important, so there are some important questions.
Turning to the official controls SI, paragraph 2.2 of the explanatory memorandum outlines our current
“appropriately designated border control points and other points of entry”
and says that controls are
“also carried out at other locations, such as slaughterhouses, to verify the compliance of imported SPS goods with Official Controls Regulations”.
Will the Minister say a little more about where those kinds of places are? I cannot quite imagine exactly how that works, so I would be grateful if she will explain that. There is not much more that I wanted to ask about other than the impact question because—Labour has made this point with other SIs—it seems hard to imagine that there are no impacts.
On detail and the accuracy, I could not help notice that the previous time this matter was discussed—in the pre-no-deal discussions when it was in the form of SI 2019/1488—the then Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee highlighted a couple of things that were, in effect, errors or needed clarification. I just wonder how we can be sure, as one looks through the huge array of changes, that it is all entirely correct. I suspect it is not, but that is no criticism of those who are doing the drafting. I do not think that we in this place have the capacity to scrutinise such things closely enough. If someone wanted to slip something through, it really would not be hard to do, and it would be hard for people to spot it. We rely on people elsewhere to draw attention to these things, but there is nothing else on the official controls SI that requires further questioning at the moment.
Moving on to the second SI on the import of and trade in animals and animal products, I have one or two questions around the pre-notification requirement, which appears to be changing. Paragraph 7.5 in the explanatory memorandum—I think the Minister touched on this—recognises that imports into Great Britain using existing health certificates will be maintained
“for a period of time after 31 December 2020”,
without any reference to how long that process will continue. Again, the Minister may not have the answer to hand, but there is always a danger that temporary and interim arrangements can drag on in the future. It would be good to have some clarification and on how long that situation may last.
On the impact side, an impact is actually recognised with the import and trade SI, specifically on the pre-verification procedure and the differing computer systems that will be needed. It is estimated that the change will
“add to the staffing costs of a proportion of the 21,600 firms who are estimated to be involved in”
these import activities. Will the Minister give us some indication of the level of those additional staffing costs? It clearly is not the case that things are going remain exactly the same.
The Opposition do not see anything further to clarify at the moment, and we will not oppose the measures.
Victoria Prentis
I will try to answer the questions in turn. On inland sites, which I think the hon. Gentleman asked about to start with, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has confirmed it will require two inland border control posts in England, both in Kent. One will be for Eurotunnel at Sevington, and another is required for the port of Dover.
On impact assessments, none was produced for the first SI as it maintains existing border controls and therefore does not introduce new policy. We have, however, estimated costs as a result of the policy being applied progressively more widely as a result of the phased introduction of border checks, and that is set out in the explanatory memorandum. The border operating model was published in October this year and sets out our phased introduction. I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to that document, and I am happy to share it with him later, if that helps.
The import of products, animals, food and feed computer system, which is being set up, will allow importers or agents to create import notification of consignments bound for Great Britain before arrival. Notifications will be received by port health authorities or the Animal and Plant Health Agency, which can then record checks on the system. I recently asked for an update on how that was progressing, and I was told, “Extremely well,” so I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman on that.
These statutory instruments are critical for ensuring a functioning imports regime at the end of the transition period. Without them, there would be a threat to Great Britain’s biosecurity and lack of clarity for industry. I therefore commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
THE DRAFT OFFICIAL CONTROLS (ANIMALS, FEED AND FOOD, PLANT HEALTH ETC.) (AMENDMENT) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2020
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.—(Victoria Prentis.)
Draft Jurisdiction, Judgments and Applicable Law (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Jurisdiction, Judgments and Applicable Law (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
May I begin by saying what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David? This statutory instrument forms part of the Government’s ongoing work to ensure that there are functioning domestic laws that deal with cross-border civil and commercial and family law matters in place at the end of the transition period, and that they are consistent with the UK’s obligations under the withdrawal agreement.
The instrument is made under sections 8 and 8B of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It amends a number of statutory instruments made to remedy deficiencies in domestic legislation arising from the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. The amendments address minor defects in those instruments, clarify the interaction of international conventions and domestic law after the end of the transition period, and ensure that two of those instruments are consistent with the provisions of the withdrawal agreement.
First, the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 revoke the Brussels Ia regulation—the key EU instrument dealing with jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in cross-border civil and commercial matters. The Government’s exit policy intention is to replicate, as closely as possible, the Brussels Ia employment jurisdiction rules, modified only as necessary to make them work in the UK.
However, in relation to one ground of the special jurisdiction rules, the rule has been inadvertently broadened to cover employees without a habitual place of work in any one part of the UK, rather than employees without a habitual place of work in any one country, as is the case in Brussels Ia. The effect is that a larger group of employees would be able to sue employers in UK courts under this rule. That does not reflect the Government’s policy intention, and neither is it a desirable public policy outcome. This instrument addresses that issue by amending the civil regulations to ensure that the Brussels Ia employment jurisdiction rules are correctly transposed into domestic law, modified only as necessary to make them work in the UK context. It does not represent any reduction in the protection available to employees; it merely properly replicates the existing EU rules.
Secondly, the Jurisdiction and Judgments (Family) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 revokes: the Brussels IIa regulation, which is the main EU regulation dealing with jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in parental responsibility cases; and the maintenance regulation, which is the main EU regulation dealing with jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in maintenance cases. In their place, the UK will move principally to the 1996 Hague convention, for cross-border parental responsibility matters involving parties from EU member states; and to the 2007 Hague convention, for the cross-border recognition and enforcement of maintenance involving parties from EU member states. Where there are no applicable Hague convention rules, the family regulations make provision for the rules that will apply. In the case of maintenance jurisdiction, these are largely the rules as they existed prior to the relevant EU rules taking effect.
Two minor errors have been identified in the amendments made to domestic legislation by the family regulations to reinstate the pre-EU jurisdiction rules for maintenance cases in Scotland. The first error is the carrying through of a reference to
“actions for adherence and aliment”.
These concepts have been abolished in Scots law, making this reference obsolete. This instrument addresses that by simply deleting the reference.
The second error has the unintended effect that, from the end of the transition period, certain applicants seeking maintenance—referred to as “aliment” in Scotland—would be disadvantaged. This would be where that claim is not connected to divorce or other proceedings, and the applicant in such a case would be unable to bring the proceedings in Scotland and would have to pursue the paying party in the courts of the country where the paying party is domiciled.
That problem is addressed in this instrument through an amendment to the family regulations to restore the jurisdiction of the Scottish court to hear claims for aliment where the applicant is domiciled or habitually resident in Scotland. We have worked closely with the Scottish Government to identify these errors and agree suitable remedies via the instrument that we are debating today.
This instrument addresses these areas of uncertainty through amendments to the family regulations to make it clear, and put beyond doubt, that the saving and transitional provisions apply to intra-UK maintenance matters and that the relevant Hague convention rules take precedence over the domestic jurisdiction rules in cases that properly fall under the relevant Hague conventions.
Thirdly, the Cross-Border Mediation (EU Directive) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 revoke or amend, as appropriate, domestic legislation that gave effect to the EU mediation directive—other than court rules and matters within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. One of the domestic instruments amended by the mediation regulations—namely, the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998—has, subsequent to the making of the mediation regulations, been amended further by the Employment Act (Northern Ireland) 2016. This amendment came into effect on 27 January 2020. As such, the mediation regulations do not take account of it. This instrument therefore amends the mediation regulations to take account of that later amendment, ensuring that the meaning of the relevant provision in the Northern Ireland order is clear once it is amended by the mediation regulations.
Fourthly, the Family Procedure Rules 2010 and the Court of Protection Rules 2017 (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 make amendments to the family procedure rules and the court of protection rules that are consequential upon the main civil judicial co-operation exit instruments. The instrument that we are debating today addresses some minor technical errors in the rules regulations, re-establishing a link between the family procedure rules and the transitional provisions in the civil regulations in respect of maintenance cases arising under the 2007 Lugano convention, and fixing a cross-referencing error in, and omitting an erroneous reference to “EU member state” from, the amendments to the court of protection rules.
Fifthly, in addition to these corrective and clarifying amendments, this instrument amends two of the civil judicial co-operation exit instruments to ensure that their provisions are consistent with the UK’s obligations under the withdrawal agreement. The first of these instruments is the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non-Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which amend the Rome I and Rome II regulations. The other instrument is the aforementioned family regulations, which I have already described. This instrument amends the Rome regulations and the family regulations to align these instruments with the UK’s obligations under the relevant provision of the withdrawal agreement—article 66 in the case of the Rome regulations, and article 67 in the case of the family regulations.
I should add that this is the first of two instruments that will amend the CJC exit SIs to ensure that their provisions align with the requirements of the withdrawal agreement. The second of these instruments is still being finalised and will be laid before Parliament shortly.
Finally, I will turn briefly to the impacts. As I have indicated, the amendments in this instrument correct minor technical errors and clarify ambiguities in the civil, family, mediation, and family and court of protection rules regulations, and will ensure that the family regulations and Rome regulations are consistent with directly applicable provisions of the withdrawal agreement. As such, they are not expected to have any significant impact on business, charities or the voluntary or public sectors. Indeed, as a result of the errors and ambiguities being corrected, the amendments will ensure that the civil, family, mediation, and family and court of protection rules exit SIs have the impact intended by the Government when they were laid before Parliament, and as is reflected in the explanatory memoranda for those instruments and, in the case of the civil, family and mediation exit SIs, in the impact assessments published in respect of those instruments.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I thank the Minister for outlining his proposed changes in considerable detail—I am pleased that he did not go through all 13 of the pages that he claims to have prepared for the occasion. This statutory instrument corrects technical defects in several SIs made in relation to the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. The amendments are extremely technical, as we have just heard, so I will not go into the detail again.
However, it is important to recognise that we would not be in this mess if the Government had anticipated these defects when the original instruments were drafted. We all understand and accept that the UK’s withdrawal from the EU necessitates a large volume of legislation, some of which will of course be delegated, but just because the legislation is being dealt with in significant volumes and at pace does not mean that it should not be dealt with properly and diligently.
It is worrying that these defects slipped through the first time, but even more worrying is the fact that in at least once instance the defect had to be brought to the attention of the Ministry of Justice by an external legal expert. I am talking about the amendment to the civil regulations that corrects an error relating to the grounds on which an employer can be sued by an employee—a very important piece of legislation.
It is also pretty disgraceful that the Government have to rely on external experts to bring such defects to their attention. That should simply not be the case. Even one such defect would be cause for concern, but unfortunately Government incompetence goes further. In this SI alone we are fixing defects in the civil regulations, the family regulations, the mediation regulations, the Rome regulations, and even the rules regulations. Is the Minister satisfied that all the errors have now been ironed out, and that we will not find ourselves back here in a few weeks’ time trying to correct further errors?
At least we on the Opposition Benches are keen to provide the public with as much stability and certainty as possible as the transition period comes to a close. I wish that the same could be said of the Government, as we are drawing ever closer to 31 December and still so much is up in the air—a far cry from the promised “oven-ready” exit deal.
Although it is regrettable that these defects were not picked up by the Government when the original instruments were being drafted, we accept that these changes must be made in order to provide legal certainty at the end of the transition period, and therefore we will not oppose them.
Alex Chalk
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for supporting these regulations. They correct minor technical defects, and we are of course grateful to those who have pointed them out. I do not recall the Labour Opposition pointing out these defects with alacrity at the time, but we welcome the sinner that repenteth. I would like to express the Government’s appreciation for the assistance that we have had from the family law stakeholders who raised the issues. We welcome their input and advice, as we also welcome the input and advice of our colleagues in the Scottish and Northern Ireland Governments. I commend this instrument to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
Education
(4 years ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The recent Westminster Hall debate on Unionlearn was as illuminating for what was not said as for what was. There was no attempt by the Government to pretend that there had been a serious consultation with employers or educators before ceasing funding, nor was there a single Conservative Back-Bench MP willing to turn up to that debate to speak in favour of this cut. Does the Minister realise that no one will believe that the Government are serious about levelling up while they are cutting access to level 2 skills for the lowest paid workers?
Gillian Keegan
This Government are committed to substantial investment in further education, with priority given to qualifications aligned with our economic need, but, as I said during that debate, we need to focus taxpayers’ money on those who need it. With only 11% of users unemployed, Unionlearn simply is not the solution.
[Official Report, 23 November 2020, Vol. 684, c. 592.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan).
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins).
The correct response should have been:
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The recent Westminster Hall debate on Unionlearn was as illuminating for what was not said as for what was. There was no attempt by the Government to pretend that there had been a serious consultation with employers or educators before ceasing funding, nor was there a single Conservative Back-Bench MP willing to turn up to that debate to speak in favour of this cut. Does the Minister realise that no one will believe that the Government are serious about levelling up while they are cutting access to level 2 skills for the lowest paid workers?
Gillian Keegan
This Government are committed to substantial investment in further education, with priority given to qualifications aligned with our economic need, but, as I said during that debate, we need to focus taxpayers’ money on those who need it. With only 2% of users unemployed, Unionlearn simply is not the solution.
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
Deaths in Mental Health Care
(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
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Before we start, I remind hon. Members of the new rules in Westminster Hall. They should be getting used to them now, but some have not been in a Westminster Hall debate. I ask Members to sanitise their microphones using the cleaning materials provided before they use them, and dispose of the materials as they leave the Chamber. Members are also expected to honour the one-way system, which means going round clockwise, coming in by the left entrance and leaving by the other entrance. Members can intervene only if they are on the call list. If you are on the call list, you are expected to be here at the start of debate but, unlike the position prior to covid, it is quite permissible to leave after having spoken.
Before I call the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill), I need to advise hon. Members that I have been informed that there are active Health and Safety Executive criminal legal proceedings against Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust relating to deaths in mental health care facilities between October 2004 and April 2015. I have further been informed that the trust has pleaded guilty in those proceedings to failures of care relating to the deaths of 11 patients. Active proceedings are sub judice until sentencing or discontinuance under the House’s resolution. Therefore, Members should be mindful of matters still before the court—in particular, the judgment and sentencing in this case.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 255823, relating to deaths in Mental Health care.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I, too, received that advice not long ago, and sought advice on behalf of the petitioner in regard to anything that I have to say. I will navigate through my speech, bearing in mind that legal statement. I apologise in advance if I stray into such territory, simply because to do justice to this petition I have for the most part chosen to reflect the words of the petitioner. That is only right and just. More than 100,000 people have signed the petition. It is a very personal case, and it is personal for other families whose relatives have died in such horrendous circumstances.
The petition attracted 105,580 UK signatories in support, despite the fact that it was curtailed by the Government closure of Westminster Hall last November due to covid. I will read the text of the petition to put it on the record and inform hon. Members fully. I have spoken to the petitioner, Melanie Leahy, on a number of occasions, and I pay tribute to her for starting the petition. She wrote:
“I request a full public inquiry into death of my son, Matthew Leahy. (20 yrs.)
Matthew was taken to ‘a place of safety’, and died 7 days later. 24 others died by the same means, dating back to the year 2000. An indicator that little was done to address the growing problems. Something went terribly wrong with the NHS Mental Health Services provided to my son.
There really is no way that public concern can be allayed, short of an Inquiry. All investigations to date, including police and inquest proceedings, have been based on a Trust Serious Incident Investigation. A four and half year Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsman Report has now concluded that this investigation was not adequate and lacks credibility.
There has been an inadequacy of investigation. A human rights violation. New evidence has been uncovered and I request a statutory inquiry, that compels witnesses to give evidence on oath.
Matthew is not alone. Many others have died”—
in the same institution—
“whilst ‘In The Care Of The State’.”
The petition ends with a link to a press report dated November 2018 detailing how a two-year police investigation sparked by Matthew’s death six years earlier, into the corporate manslaughter of 24 further patients, was dropped, leaving families without “accountability or recourse”, for their loved ones’ deaths.
In opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee I want to begin with some background. On 15 November 2012, Melanie, Matthew’s mother, received the call that no parent wants to receive: “Matthew has been found hanging and it’s not looking good,” was the quote. It came to light that Matthew had already been dead for more than an hour when that call was made. Melanie described it to me as the first lie of many more that she would uncover after his death. I will share the background of Matthew’s short life, how he ended up in the care of the Essex mental health system, what went wrong, the journey that his mother has been on since his death to get to any form of truth or accountability, and her continued fight for truth, justice, accountability and change for others. I have received a letter from the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) in support of the case. He has had a case of someone dying in similar circumstances in the same place.
The account is quite long, but that is understandable as Melanie’s fight has taken eight years to date, and has encompassed many trials in getting to this point. I have a statement from Melanie that she would like to have been able to read herself. Obviously that is not allowed in this place, so I will read it for her:
“I write these words not just to represent my son, but to represent the multitude of lives that have been affected by the inadequate care offered by mental health services across our nation.”
Mr Stringer, almost within the last 10 minutes I received a statement from families, who asked for it to be read out. I do not have time to do that, but I ask the Minister to accept it if I forward it to her .
The Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention (Ms Nadine Dorries) indicated assent.
The Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention (Ms Nadine Dorries)
indicated assent.
Mike Hill
The statement reads:
“I am mum to Matthew James Leahy, born December 1991. He was a beautiful soul. He understood compassion and he cared for others. He was generous, he was kind, he was smart. He was funny and in his younger years he wanted to be a comedian. He was quite shy in large groups, and was a loyal friend. He was never one to encourage a fight but he would stand up for himself and the ones he loved. And I’m proud to say my son was honest, not a liar, not like some I’ve come across on this journey.
He loved the outdoors, loved anything water sports related and was a fantastic skier. Having left Grammar school, where he excelled in mathematics and computer science, he set up his own computer business, travelling between clients on his motorbike and was doing really well. He had a natural talent for swimming. He actually saved two ladies from drowning and when 18 he became a qualified life guard.
Aged 19 Matthew was having trouble sleeping and complaining of pains in his stomach and having stomach cramps. He was also hallucinating. When Matthew became poorly we turned to so called professionals for help, to help us to understand what was happening with our son. He was sectioned for care and treatment. This sectioning and the failings in care at that time, although noted briefly in the inquest verdicts, have never been investigated.
After Matthew’s death medical records showed that the first psychiatrist involved in his care picked up a B12 and folate deficiency and possible coeliac disease, combined with a thyroid issue. However, these discoveries were never addressed, as a new psychiatrist took over Matthew’s care and put him straight on to anti-psychotic medication. Any further physical checks were minimal.
On 7 November 2012, Matthew was placed under section 3 of the Mental Health Act and admitted to the Linden Centre in Chelmsford, Essex. By 15 November, some seven days in the ‘care of the state’, my son was dead. The last days of his life in a place he called ‘Hell’. And I now believe it truly was a hell on earth.
Alone, malnourished, over-medicated, scared, bleeding, bruised, reportedly raped, injected multiple times, ignored, and frightened. No records of any staff in those last seven days of his life offering him any comfort. I had been advised not to visit and to give him time to settle on the ward. I will live with the guilt for the rest of my life that I listened to so-called professionals and I was not there when my son needed me the most.
An inquest into my son’s death was held in January 2015. An open narrative verdict was reached, which concluded that my son, ‘Matthew James Leahy was subject to a series of multiple failings and missed opportunities over a prolonged period of time by those entrusted with his care. The jury found that relevant policies and procedures were not adhered to, impacting on Matthew’s overall care and wellbeing leading up to his death.’
How the inquest concluded I will never know. Staff were not interviewed by police after Matthew’s death. An internal investigation was carried out, which the Parliamentary and Health Service ombudsman has deemed flawed and not fit for purpose. This flawed investigation formed the basis of every investigation actioned after Matthew’s death.
The ligature was destroyed, the defibrillator was destroyed. Door logs were not downloaded. CCTV was hidden for over seven-plus years, and parts of it either not retained or deleted. So, so many more issues exist.
I have not been able to determine or control any of this—investigations, reviews, reports etc—all processes that have happened around me, with me being entitled to some information and some explanation, but little voice, little influence and little power.
I did think that the system would be open and honest, would explain what went wrong, hold to account those responsible for any failings and afford justice for failing my most precious son. However, I have discovered a deeply troubling mismatch between what I expected and what I found. In any other walk of life, if there had been failings, heads would roll. This has never happened, despite criminal offences being proved.
If the tragedy of losing Matthew hasn’t been bad enough, to not know the full circumstance that led to his death ‘whilst in the care of the state’ is unforgiveable. I still do not have full disclosure and have never seen internal statements. ‘Duty of Candour’ went out of the window the moment Matthew died.
It came to light after Matthew died that paperwork had been falsified, backdated and slipped into his files. It took me four-plus years to finally persuade Essex Police to register this falsification of mental health documents as a crime. I thought, ‘At last, they are listening to me.’ Then the bomb dropped. ‘We won’t be prosecuting, as it’s not in the public interest.’
The Trust has failed to take steps to protect patients in their care. The question remains why no individual has been held to account and why some staff involved in failing my son and other patients have actually been promoted to high-ranking positions within the NHS.
The Coroner called for a Public Inquiry after the inquest in 2015. There have also been multiple calls from various MPs in the last five years. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman went on national television after ‘The Missed Opportunities Report’ was published to say that if he had the power to, he would call a Public Inquiry.
In October last year, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee held an evidence session on the Ombudsman’s Report into the failed care of Matthew and of Ben Morris. (Ben died in the Linden Centre in 2008 aged 20 years).
During the session, the Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention explained, ‘that Public Inquiries do not happen for individual cases. In this case, a Public Inquiry is not an appropriate response because we are talking about two cases’.
I have now been joined in this fight calling for a Statutory Public Inquiry into Essex Mental Health Services by multiple bereaved and failed families. (55 families and growing). How multiple deaths can have gone on unchallenged for so many years and so many people in official positions, not involved with this scandal, have entrapped themselves by collaboration the moment they came across it has baffled me. How the system did not prevent these deaths or at the very least detect the failings/changes needed earlier I’m sure is a question in many failed families’ minds, not just mine.
Where is the Government’s anger? Its thirst for Truth and Justice? Its commitment to getting answers and ensuring it never happens again?
Many families are losing loved ones while under the care of state mental health system. Whether that be due to mental illness, additional vulnerabilities such as autistic and/or learning disabled individuals, those misdiagnosed, or dementia...it does not discriminate.”
The Government are now officially, in Melanie’s words,
“on notice of…Gross and systemic Neglect (resulting in multiple avoidable deaths)…Physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and exploitation of the vulnerable—most of them young, historical and sadly, ongoing.
The right people in Government need to understand the full extent of the Essex Trust’s Failures and I have every faith that once the Government commits to a Full Statutory Public Inquiry into Essex Mental Health, the fundamental truth of what and still is going wrong will be revealed.
Through that knowledge I hope justice and accountability are afforded and that necessary change is made for others who, like I and many others did, look to services when they need safe, compassionate care for their loved ones.”
I have to echo that point in respect of some horrendous cases in the Tees Valley, my own patch.
I will conclude with the following words:
“I offered the Government Matthew’s sad death to be a catalyst of learning and change months ago. Please call a Public Inquiry into Essex Mental Health Services without further delay. Make the changes in Essex and send the learning across the country. I hope then that I can start to grieve the loss of my son and Matthew will be able to then rest in peace.”
I know I have kept my speech narrow, but I felt it appropriate to reflect the true voice of the petitioners. Thank you, Mr Stringer, for allowing me to do that.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
There are a number of people on the list who wish to speak. I will start with a time limit of four minutes, and call James Cartlidge.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Stringer; it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and to follow the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) who introduced the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. He spoke of the case of Matthew Leahy. It is a terrible tragedy, and I pay a huge tribute to his mother, who has campaigned for years through the pain, which is without limit.
We all sympathise, I am sure, but as the hon. Gentleman said the case of Leahy is not the only one at the Linden Centre, Chelmsford. There have been several others, all tragic, including my constituent Richard Wade. I held an Adjournment debate on the case of Richard Wade in October. At the start of that debate, because the HSE case was live, a much stricter sub judice ruling was given, which meant there were things I could not say in the Adjournment debate that I feel able to say today.
I have a very short period of time and I do not have time to give the full details of Richard Wade’s case. The key point is that, on the day he was found hanging in the Linden Centre in Chelmsford, there is strong evidence that his parents have seen—not just documentary evidence, but other evidence that has come to them, including from people who have worked at the Linden Centre—that when his body was first discovered hanging, still alive, the clinicians who found it either panicked, or for some other inexplicable reason left it hanging, locked the door and allowed some minutes to pass before he was discovered a second time, this time with his parents nearby. At that point he was given resuscitation and urgent medical treatment. We do not know the impact of those crucial minutes on his eventual fate several days later, when he passed away. Essentially, his is a life that I believe could have been saved and a death that could have been avoided.
I will not repeat all the points I made about Richard Wade’s case in my Adjournment debate, other than to say that although he died in May 2015—in fact, I met him going to vote in Great Cornard in May 2015, a few days before I had the great privilege of being elected for the first time, and he was dead several days later—in February 2015 another man, who I believe was called Beecroft, also died by ligature in the Linden Centre in Chelmsford, in the very same bathroom where Richard Wade hanged himself that May. The extraordinary thing is that, when the trust reported on Richard Wade’s death in December that year, it never mentioned that there had been a hanging in the same bathroom three months earlier—as if it were a common occurrence or something. It is quite extraordinary.
When the Care Quality Commission came to investigate, because of course, by April 2015, it had taken over from HSE, I am afraid it did not handle the case well. The CQC did not investigate it initially, because, in the words of the report it issued to the Wades in July, the inspectors effectively did not realise that they had taken over statutory responsibility from HSE. It is a catalogue of failures; the Wade case alone would merit an independent inquiry, but there are also Beecroft, Leahy, Morris and potentially other cases.
At the end of my Adjournment debate my hon. Friend the Minister, who was being covered for at the time because she was isolating, announced an independent review into the deaths at the Linden Centre. I was very grateful for that, because I know she has taken huge interest in the matter and very sincerely so. I hope that that can be a full, robust, independent inquiry, like the one we had last week into the Dixon case, which can uncover the truth and can go into places that other mechanisms cannot.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
These are terribly tragic cases; sometimes they cannot be avoided, of course, but at times they are due to the performance of the trust and perhaps of the management of that trust. Where that is the case, does my hon. Friend agree that the leadership of those organisations must be held to account for their performance?
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, echoing the concluding remark from the hon. Member for Hartlepool, and he is absolutely right that there must be accountability. However, when we go into an independent inquiry, there is a danger of saying, “Well, it must be a statutory public inquiry,” and getting into the semantics of the mechanism we use.
I think what my constituents the Wades want is the truth. They simply want to know the truth about what happened to their son. We now have a tangible offer from the Department of Health of a mechanism that all the families can use to get involved, to shape the terms of reference and to help us to deliver something in the public interest—as, again, the petitioners seek—to the benefit of the whole country in terms of wider mental health. Above all, that will bring some sense of accountability to all the families who have suffered so tragically at the Linden Centre in Chelmsford, including the Wades and the Leahys. I believe that the Minister will now act and I give her all my support in doing so.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank the Petitions Committee for granting this important debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) for opening it, and I congratulate Melanie Leahy on the strength of her campaigning to get us to this debate.
As we have heard, Matthew’s case is a tragic one, with a catalogue of failures that culminated in his death. I know that nobody here can fail to be moved by what Matthew and his family went through—the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who has just spoken, certainly was. Melanie has been fighting for answers and justice for her son for eight years now; I pay tribute to the work she has done, but I also say it should not have been necessary.
Matthew was in the Linden Centre for only a few days. In that time, he reported a sexual assault to the police, but they took no follow-up action on his report. Staff claimed that he lacked mental capacity, despite no assessment being carried out. He was heavily medicated with anti-psychotics and tranquillisers, despite him telling staff that he would attempt to kill himself if he was given injections. As we have heard, only a week after being admitted, he was found hanging in his room and he died.
That catalogue of failures would be shocking in itself, but it ended with a young man dying. In cases such as Matthew’s, we have a duty to learn the lessons and ensure that others in mental health care do not end up dying preventable deaths.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I sympathise greatly with the hon. Lady and the story that she is telling and that other hon. Members have told. Does she agree that when it comes to helping people who have mental and psychiatric issues, who need help more than anyone, it is important that facilities are modern? They need in-patient care and they need the staff to be trained and able to respond. If those things were improved, does she think that would be a step in the right direction to try to help people and prevent such tragedies from happening?
Barbara Keeley
There is much that needs to change, but the hon. Member is right that that is one aspect of it. The mental health estate is known for being run down and out of date.
The learning of lessons has not happened in the Linden Centre or in mental health services in Essex. The charity INQUEST has worked on more than 28 cases involving deaths in mental health settings in Essex since 2013, yet despite the many investigations, reports and inquests that have highlighted failures, preventable deaths have continued. At the Linden Centre, INQUEST is aware of six in-patients found hanging between 2004 and 2019. Despite repeated inspections and visits by the Care Quality Commission, people have continued to die in those services.
The ombudsman’s report found clear signs of a cover-up at the Linden Centre. As Melanie told me:
“Matthew had no key worker. Records of observation levels and when he had been observed were changed. His care plan was falsified after he died. His claims of rape were ignored. Lots of documents were missing and a whole catalogue of policy failings were uncovered.”
That speaks of a culture that is less interested in learning from failings than in avoiding the blame for Matthew’s death.
The only way to restore trust in our mental health services is to publicly demonstrate that all those issues, including the one that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, are considered and addressed. Melanie Leahy has suggested that the only way to do that is through a full public inquiry. At the inquest into Matthew’s death, the coroner asked the NHS trust to consider commissioning an independent inquiry.
The ombudsman, in his recommendation, said that the review due to be held by NHS Improvement,
“should consider whether the broader evidence it sees suggests that a public inquiry is necessary.”
In an interview on ITV, the ombudsman went further on the failings, including about Matthew’s care plan being altered after he died and his claim of rape not being investigated. He described them as
“a catalogue of failings which are entirely unacceptable.”
He also said that he would fully support a public inquiry if one was recommended, and that he would like to have investigated further if he had had the powers.
Both public officials who have investigated Matthew’s death, the coroner and the ombudsman, have said that they would support a public inquiry. I ask the Minister, on behalf of Melanie Leahy, to set up a public inquiry. Only a public inquiry will have the transparency and broad participation needed to rebuild trust in the services. The Minister will know that that is the only way that witnesses can be compelled to give evidence without seeking to apportion blame, and evidence must be given on oath.
As Melanie has said,
“Since Matthew’s death I have been on a mission to get to the truth of what happened to Matthew and to get justice for him. On my journey I have not only found that many other families are in the same position as me, but also individuals who have the survived the quotes ‘care’ that they received.”
In this most tragic case, inadequate and neglectful care led to the death of a young man like Matthew. His mother has had to take on a fight over many years to get to the truth. I thank all the families and parents such as Melanie Leahy who have put so much of themselves into their campaign. I return to what she said to me:
“To say the current situation is not good enough is a massive understatement. We know what has to change and we have known for decades. What will make the Government take real action? How many times do we need to hear the same information and recommendations? How many more Matthews have to die?”
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hartlepool on the wonderful way in which he opened the debate and the two preceding speakers on their powerful contributions. I rise to speak on behalf of my constituent, Mrs Marian Coles, who was alerted to the debate and contacted me. I want my speech simply to be what she has written to me, to place her concerns on the record. Mrs Coles said:
“I am writing regarding the Westminster Hall debate concerning deaths in mental health care which calls for independent investigations into deaths in mental health settings. As a family that has been personally affected by this after our son took his own life whilst a mental health inpatient in Kettering in May 2017, we would ask if you would represent us at this debate. This was the second suicide at this facility 7 months apart. Staff failings were admitted at the inquest and 3 nurses were disciplined but they refused to give us the details. It has taken us 3 years for the NHS to settle this case.
We were involved with the serious incident report that took place but strongly support an independent inquiry being held after such deaths as is allowed in other organisations. Why should an organisation investigate itself over a death that may have been caused or contributed to by failures of its own staff or systems? The lack of an independent inquiry hampers the ability to root out issues of system neglect or misconduct and also jeopardises the welfare of future patients by failing to address such concerns. There is overwhelming evidence that the current system for investigating deaths in mental health settings is not fit for purpose.
“We very much hope that you will be able to take part in the debate and offer your support”—
I do—
“for an independent inquiry for families that may be affected by these tragedies. I am deeply traumatised by the death of my son, as is all of my family and we have to live with this every day of our lives”.
It is a privilege for me, as the local MP, to place Mrs Marian Coles’s concerns on the record.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The circumstances of the debate are truly heartbreaking. I begin by extending my condolences to the family of the late Matthew Leahy and all families who have lost loved ones with mental illness at the hands of those who were supposed to protect them and care for them.
For many decades, mental health has not received enough attention or funding in comparison with physical illness. I draw attention to the mental health unit in Lewisham, which has already been viewed as not being fit for purpose—it was not built for people who have mental health problems—yet funding has never materialised for the changes needed to make it suitable for people with mental health problems. With the pressures of the pandemic, medical professionals are reporting more and more that people are suffering with mental illness due to economic hardship or loneliness, so it is clear there will be greater demand for mental health services over the next few years. It is imperative that we have well-functioning and well-funded mental health services to prevent needless deaths of the most vulnerable who are in need of those services. Medical professionals, the police and everybody around them also need support to be able to care for people with mental health illnesses. They need training, supervision and, most of all, not to be overworked. They also need to be able to debrief when they find things difficult.
I would like to raise the case of the late Kevin Clarke, from my constituency of Lewisham East, who sadly died following a mental health relapse. My condolences go out to his family, who are still bereft from the loss of Kevin, who, despite not posing an immediate threat to anyone, was handcuffed and placed in a leg restraint while telling the police that he could not breathe. In October, an inquest concluded that the officer’s restraint and supervision towards Kevin were excessive and sadly contributed to his death. However, the police were not the only professionals involved in his care. Other professionals were also in contact with him prior to this tragic incident.
A strategy of care needs to be in place for all mental health patients, one in which patients are listened to and family members are involved, so that loved ones can talk about preventative measures and their concerns, as well as contribute to the care plans that are needed. Mental health doctors, mental health nurses, social workers and care staff all need to work collaboratively with all professionals involved in keeping the most vulnerable people safe and secure, and to prevent these fatal, awful incidents of suicide or types of restraints leading to death. Change needs to happen.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Hon. Members have either not turned up or taken less time than expected, so, unusually, I will increase the time limit for the last speakers to five minutes.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and to have the extra few minutes, which allows me to speak about a constituency case. I want to put on record how moving the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) was, and how many wonderful speeches there have been today, to give this desperate situation the attention it deserves.
I declare my interest as a patron of Mind in Haringey. I want to put on record my thanks to Deborah Coles, the chief executive of INQUEST, who wrote this important briefing paper and represents, sadly, hundreds of families who face a similar case to Melanie Leahy. They are desperate. They want to know the reasons and what happened prior to losing their child. I hope that at the end we will have a positive statement from the Minister about a proper inquiry and recommendations to be followed as a result of it.
The Minister may well remember Seni’s law, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), as a result of his campaign with Seni’s family. Seni died as a result of police restraint due to his having a very serious mental health problem but not getting the correct care under the mental health services. This Friday I have a constituency meeting with a constituent who has tragically lost her son in similar circumstances. This is not an isolated incident and it is wonderful to have this debate.
I want to focus on the findings from INQUEST and some of the other experts who have looked carefully at the similarities in these cases. We know that between 2013 and 2016 there were 71 deaths similar to the one that we are talking about today. Despite several recommendations made by the coroner following each one of these to prevent further deaths in similar circumstances, as the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) said, the lessons simply are not being learned. Are we doing a read across from similar conditions in the prison service, where, I think, the deaths have come down and the lessons have been learned to some degree? I wonder if there can be shared learning across different services.
We know that in November 2020, INQUEST, the voluntary sector organisation that helps families, looked into 20 recent cases of deaths in adult in-patient mental health settings and found the same issues repeated: lack of staff training, poor record keeping, a failure to involve the family in the care of the patient, a lack of local specialist units and staff shortages.
We know that as a result of covid-19, as other hon. Members mentioned, we have an opportunity to do things differently. We know that we can do much better in terms of accessible data on the number of deaths and how people have died. We know that we can do much better in training our mental health professionals. At Care Quality Commission level, we could do much better in terms of inspections, so that this appalling area is cleaned up once and for all.
We also know that there is failure of communication at crucial times, so that for months and months the family are left not knowing what is the next step and what will happen as a result. That is why it is crucial, as we have all said today, that we have the correct oversight at the national level to monitor the learning and implementation, but also that we have a statutory public inquiry. It can be into Essex mental health services, but what matters is that whatever it is, it is generalised across every single mental health setting.
In the context of covid, where we know there will be at least 20% more people suffering from mental health conditions—including more young people, who are disproportionately affected by covid—there is a real urgency to this work. I hope that we as Members can put more pressure on the Department of Health and Social Care to tackle the problem once and for all.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
Matthew Leahy had his whole life ahead of him. He was just 20 years old when he was detained in November 2012 under the Mental Health Act and transported to the Linden Centre, a secure mental health unit in Chelmsford. Three days after his admission to what his mother, Melanie, believed was a place of safety, Matthew reported that he had been drugged and raped. Four days later, he was found hanged in his room.
Over the ensuing years, multiple inquests and inquiries into the conditions surrounding Matthew’s death have uncovered evidence of serious care failings, including the fact that Matthew’s paperwork was incomplete or missing and that no key worker had been assigned to him. It was revealed that Matthew had no care plan and that staff had falsified one after his death and backdated it.
I welcome the petition and this debate, and I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to Matthew’s parents and all those who have campaigned so hard to get the truth, justice and accountability. I also welcome last month’s announcement by the Minister for Health, the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), that the Government will launch
“an independent review into the serious questions raised by a series of tragic deaths of patients at the Linden Centre between 2008 and 2015.”—[Official Report, 16 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 733.]
It is absolutely right that we commit to uncover the truth about the significant failings in the care and treatment of vulnerable patients, and that the mantra of “learning lessons” is not merely a soundbite accompanied by endless toothless reviews but results in substantive and tangible change.
No mother should ever have to go through the dreadful loss and devastation faced by Melanie Leahy and so many other people, who made difficult decisions in impossible circumstances to hand over their children to the care of others, where they believed their children would be safe. No family should have to campaign for years to forcibly expose the negligence and incompetence of a system that contributed to the death of their loved one.
We know that black people are overrepresented in mental health services and are disproportionately subject to the use of Taser on wards, and it needs to stop. I congratulate Mary Seacole House, a mental health charity in my constituency, on the work that it has done over many years to support patients with mental health problems, and on shining a light on injustices.
My question to the Minister is: how can we challenge and improve the process and culture of attaining inquiries, so that families bereaved by state neglect and wrongdoing are placed at the very heart of conversations about accountability and change, and are not blocked, bullied, stigmatised or cast aside with accusations of being a nuisance or a problem in their quest for truth and justice?
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stinger, and I congratulate my Tees valley colleague, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill), on opening the debate. I join all hon. Members in everything they have said so far, and I echo their expression of sympathies and prayers for the family of Matthew Leahy. I pay tribute to Mrs Leahy for her efforts.
Sadly, we are all too aware that Matthew’s case is not alone. The death of a child is something that no parent should have to experience. From my family circumstances, I know that the impact for the parent lasts a lifetime. Through several close family connections, I know that the anguish of a parent whose child is lost to suicide is even more painful.
In 2019, 195 people died in mental health care across the UK. One of those deaths occurred in my constituency at West Park Hospital in May 2019. That sad death, and indeed all those tragic deaths, serve to tell us that we need to do more. As politicians, we must always be looking to do more to support the mental health care sector, improve outcomes and avoid deaths. We must do all we can to support the staff in our mental health care sector. Every one of those tragic deaths will have had a profound impact on the staff in those facilities.
In 2018-19, the Government increased spending on mental health to a record £12.5 billion, and the NHS long-term plan for mental health increases spending each year by a further £2.3 billion, but we all know that it is not just about the cash; it is about the leadership, the management, the culture and the care. I welcome the recent CQC report, “Out of sight”, which acknowledges the shortcomings of some of our mental health facilities, the challenges they face with patients—particularly those who suffer with autism—and the sense that those places, which are designed for care, are not therapeutic. I hope that its recommendations are followed through. That will address some of the shortcomings, and hopefully we will see fewer deaths.
I listened to the hon. Member for Hartlepool, and I firmly believe that it is vital to embed a culture of learning, safety and improvement across the mental health care sector. I look forward to hearing about the steps that the Minister and her Department are taking to tackle this issue and embed a better culture throughout the sector so that it can do all it can to prevent all deaths in mental health care. The Minister will have heard the calls for independent investigations and inquiries, and I add my voice to them.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank all those who set the scene and the Petitions Committee for what it did.
Our hearts go out to our constituents. Hon. Members have spoken on behalf of them, and I thank them for that. I admire the determination that each and every one of them has shown. A breakdown in care took place, and we must not see another family in that situation.
I want to take a slightly different approach to the issue of mental health and talk about how we can help within the system. Ultimately, that is what the Minister will set out in her response. I have seen too many of my constituents broken, in need of support and let down by the system. I remember one young man, Michael, who came to my office when he was on the edge. He was a young fellow and was homeless and distraught, and the girls in my office were able to reach out and tell him in a helpful, compassionate way, “Your life is important and we will help you.” He broke down in tears.
We were able to help that young fellow get accommodation through the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. We also got him some help from the local food bank, which is always there to help, and were able to sort out his benefits. What happened was that that young fellow had just disappeared off the grid. He clearly had mental health issues and was not able to cope. He got the psychological help that he needed and he got his benefits renewed, so the pressure on him became less of a difficulty because of those who helped—the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, the local benefits office, the food bank, the local churches. All those people came together.
It is my sincere belief—I believe this in my heart—that if Michael had not come to my office, he may not have survived. We all believe that, including the girls in the office and those we spoke to. Every Government body was exceptionally helpful, and we thank them for that.
That is the foundation for mental health. Ours is not to question how or why people have got to the stage that they find themselves it; we must only see how we can help them where they are. The overhaul of the facilities that I spoke about when I intervened on the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) is about updating them, so that the in-patient help gives people hope to reach out. We are desperate to see an upgrade of facilities that are sometimes not fit for purpose.
Sometimes there is no privacy. Sometimes people need a wee bit of privacy where they are, but they also need to be able to reach out and have someone help them at the times when they need that. Some of the wards that I am aware of are mixed-gender wards, where a lack of privacy is obviously even more of a problem. When it comes to people being allowed to visit, they get one hour each, once a week. I do not feel that that is enough; more time should be allocated for visitors.
I am always very aware of the great work that occupational therapists do. They have a brilliant team, with fantastic ideas. They have allocated some rooms for activities. I think that it is important to have some sort of organised activities, so that those who are under pressure psychologically, mentally and socially have somewhere where they can look outwards. The OTs in the area that I represent have come up with a therapy garden. These things can be done in-house and in a way that can really help. There are gardening classes. Again, it is a question of designating an area for people and ensuring that they have it.
To conclude, it is little wonder that patients and those who are in homes remain uninspired and unhopeful if that is how they view a place designed to provide the help and support that they are crying out for. It is clear that we must make massive changes, and if the first step to doing that is an inquiry, that is where we must begin. My heart goes out to all the families who grieve and feel let down. I believe that we can do better, but not only that—we should do better and must do better.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this important debate under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. May I start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill)? I thought that he opened the debate incredibly well. I also pay tribute to Matthew Leahy’s mother for her campaigning to raise this issue here in Parliament. I am incredibly grateful to the 185 people in Warrington South who signed this petition. Many of them have also been in touch with my office over the last few days to raise their concerns about deaths in mental health care.
There is an unsatisfactory gap in the ability of regulators to enforce sanctions in serious cases and, in particular, those that involve death or serious harm to individuals where catastrophic deficiencies in standards of care were involved. Aware of this debate, I heard over the weekend from Richard Evans, who lives in Appleton in my constituency and whose daughter Hannah tragically took her own life five years ago.
At the time of her death, Hannah was a detained patient on Sheridan ward at Hollins Park Hospital in Warrington. Hannah, a 22-year-old young lady, had spent a short amount of time in a number of different settings as a detained patient and had also been cared for in the community by her family. Despite there being awareness of the fact that Hannah was a complex patient with an extensive history of tying life-threatening ligatures and an intense fear of change, she was given just two and a half hours’ notice of her transfer that day to a different hospital by those who were caring for her. When the decision was discussed with her parents, they did not object. Critically, though, they did not know that Hannah had been involved in nine ligature attempts while in an intensive care unit. They are in no doubt that, had they been aware of the history, they would have attempted to block that movement in order to protect and care for their daughter. A fundamental lack of communication between ward staff, management and the family—the next of kin—led to a decision that ultimately resulted in Hannah’s tragic loss of life.
The inquest on Hannah’s case highlights a series of failings on that ward, but also a national problem regarding the lack of provision in place to properly support vulnerable young adults diagnosed with personality disorders and, more widely, the significant number of people in this country who suffer from mental health conditions.
I welcome plans to establish a new Health Service Safety Investigations Body, a new executive non-departmental public body, but it must have the powers to conduct investigations into incidents that occur during the provision of services and have strong implications for the safety of patients. Critically, that body must also improve the quality and effectiveness of local investigations by developing standards and providing advice, guidance and training to organisations.
I am keen to see stronger steps taken with prosecutions, holding those who lead care settings to account. The Care Quality Commission currently has relatively limited powers to prosecute, in part because of reservations about the value of criminal enforcements in healthcare. Legalities aside, speaking to Richard Evans, Hannah’s father, the key issue with many of these sad cases seems to be a basic lack of communication: firstly between local NHS trusts and services, and then a dialogue with families when deaths sadly occur. That is something that can, and must, be addressed.
It is important that we take a zero-suicide policy to prevent unnecessary harm on individuals and their families in the future, and lessons need to be learned from the past. It is time to review the legislation to improve care, in what should be a place of safety for those who are at their most vulnerable.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I pay tribute to all the speakers today; they have spoken very movingly, particularly the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) and even more particularly Ms Leahy, who sounds like an incredible person. All that she is dedicating her life to now is trying to make sure that lessons are learned and changes are made, and that individuals responsible for mismanagement or maladministration are held to account.
The case I allude to is one with which the Minister is familiar. One of my constituents, Andrew Bellerby, was under the care of the Sheffield Health and Social Care NHS Foundation Trust, so these issues do not just pertain to places like the Linden Centre, which sounds horrendous. He presented himself there one evening, having been referred there by his GP. He had a history of suicide attempts. He was seen by untrained nurses who used a triage assessment tool that was designed by the Sheffield trust. These nurses were not trained to use it. Through that tool, they rated him as presenting no risk of suicide. He was then released back into the community, and sadly that evening took his own life.
Mr and Mrs Bellerby, his parents, have championed the cause of trying to find truth and justice, and have been prevented at every turn by Sheffield Health and Social Care NHS Foundation Trust. The communications have been terrible. It has been denial after denial, lie after lie. Eventually, an inquest proved that the Bellerbys were right and that Andrew Bellerby’s suicide was preventable.
All that Mr and Mrs Bellerby wanted was an apology and an admission of the trust’s failure and mismanagement. Instead, there was denial and obfuscation. It cost in the order of £100,000 in legal costs, much of which fell to the taxpayer, although the actual compensation bill at the end was only £9,000. Incredibly, even after all that time and it having been demonstrated that Mr and Mrs Bellerby were right that their son had been poorly treated by the trust, there was no compassion, remorse or proper apology. It is simply unthinkable.
That was back in 2015. The CQC gave the trust a damning rating in 2016, and did another assessment in 2019. The most recent assessment showed that there were 47 breaches of the trust’s legal requirements. It was rated inadequate, and it is now in special measures. One of the things that runs through the report is constant reference to a lack of training. What had been learned in that four year period? Instead of the trust holding up its hands and saying, “Yes, we got this wrong. Yes, we are going to put it right,” which is what the Bellerbys wanted in the first place—I am sure that is what Ms Leahy wants too—the trust was in total denial.
Mr and Mrs Bellerby want to make sure that the assessment tools are prohibited and not used by the health service. They have stopped being used in the Sheffield trust, I am pleased to say, but there are 32 other trusts that may still be using them. The Minister has been great with this family and has met them personally, with me, and he is championing the cause of trying to improve best practice in this area. Questions remain about whether those lessons have been learned in other trusts around the country. Key to the matter, as hon. Members have alluded to in speeches today, is whether the leadership of the trust in question, and other trusts, has been held to account for the maladministration. Kevan Taylor was the CEO at the time, and the accountable officer. He has now left and a new chief executive has taken over. I would really like to know whether he left with a payment, and without any blemish on his track record, or whether he has been held to account or sacked for his underperformance. Demonstrably, for years there has been underperformance by the leadership of the trust. Unless we start to make sure that the individuals who run trusts are held to account if they get things wrong—many do a fine job, of course—such tragic cases will continue to happen.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and an honour to respond on behalf of the Opposition in this profoundly moving and powerful debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) for securing the debate, but it goes without saying that every contribution today has been extremely powerful. Everyone who has spoken has stood up for their constituents and represented the issues very well. The points have been made clearly and concisely, and hon. Members have done Melanie Leahy and the other families very proud.
We are here today because of a mother’s love for her son and her desire to receive some answers about his tragic and untimely death. It is fitting, then, that the debate should take place ahead of National Grief Awareness Week. Matthew Leahy was just 20 years old when he was admitted to the Linden Centre in November 2012 after being detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. While in the care of North Essex Partnership University Trust at the Linden Centre, Matthew phoned his parents on numerous occasions to express his unhappiness at being detained there. I know that I am speaking again of things that have already been mentioned, but it is important to give the details as many times as possible, to get what happened across as powerfully as is necessary to see the change we want.
Two days after being admitted, Matthew phoned his father to tell him that he had been drugged and raped on the ward. Following a 999 call made by Matthew, the Linden Centre staff gave assurances to the family that he was indeed safe in their care. Just days later, Matthew was found unresponsive and hanged, in his room. He was transferred to Broomfield Hospital, where he was pronounced dead. Matthew was in the Linden Centre for just seven days.
As a mother myself, I cannot comprehend what Melanie has had to contend with over the last eight years. Sadly for Melanie and the family, the struggle is not over. An inquest concluded with an open narrative verdict that Matthew was subject to multiple failings and missed opportunities over a prolonged period of time, by those entrusted with his care. Multiple investigations and reviews were carried out into the North Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, and into Matthew’s care, and they raised even more questions about the care that he received and the nature of his death. I want to raise some of the concerns that were found in the various reviews so that everyone here can get further understanding of the scale of the challenge that Melanie and her family have faced for the past eight years.
At post-mortem, traces of the drug GHB were found in Matthew’s system. He had bruises just above both ankles and four to five unexplained needle wounds in his groin. Matthew’s paperwork was incomplete and a key worker was not assigned to him. Staff at the Linden Centre had not issued Matthew with a care plan, but after his death they falsified one and backdated it. A number of ligature points in the Linden Centre previously identified for removal were still there. Essex police dropped a corporate manslaughter investigation into the deaths of 25 patients who were in the care of the North Essex partnership trust at nine separate establishments since 2000. The ombudsman investigated, and agreed that Matthew had not been responded to appropriately after reporting a rape, as well as that the Essex partnership’s investigation of Matthew’s death was inadequate. All this in eight years—the toll it has taken on this family. That is before we consider the prosecution of the Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust by the Health and Safety Executive following the deaths of 11 patients in its care between 2004 and 2015.
The loss of multiple lives and the tearing apart of families were devastating and, most tragically, utterly preventable. We have to learn from those tragic losses so that no other families are affected. I ask the Minister if she will please work with Melanie Leahy on this matter directly, as her predecessor promised to do. I had the honour of speaking to Melanie ahead of the debate. This is her day, Matthew’s day and a day for all who are still seeking answers about their loved ones’ deaths.
The strength it takes to continue this fight after eight long years is commendable. My heart goes out to Melanie’s family and to all who have lost loved ones in similar circumstances, not just at the Linden Centre but in care settings across the country where they were meant to be safe. Many of those people have been mentioned in today’s debate, and I thank Members again for their contributions.
A system is not working properly if it takes so long to investigate such a tragedy, and yet answers are still not forthcoming. A grieving mother should not have to plead with people to sign a petition to get answers surrounding her son’s death. There should be no barriers to the truth. Inquiries and investigations should not be reserved for the most privileged and those who are most familiar with the system.
On the point about time, I highlight that it has taken over a year to have this debate following Melanie’s successful petition. We all understand the mitigating factors that this year has brought, but I would like everyone to consider how every step of the process has been slow. Barriers have been put in place for the family at every single turn.
James Cartlidge
Does the hon. Lady agree that, that being so, it would be very much in the interests of all stakeholders if the inquiry took place, ideally, as soon as possible?
Dr Allin-Khan
Yes, of course it would be in everyone’s best interests for the inquiry to take place as soon as possible. After all this time, Melanie deserves some answers. I support her call for a statutory public inquiry into Essex mental health services and for the appointment of an independent chair. It is crucial that lessons are learned from Matthew’s case.
I will take this moment to read a few words from Melanie about why a statutory public inquiry is so important to her:
“To come this far and then get fobbed off with a review or general inquiry…would simply take…us all back to square one.”
She goes on to ask that the Minister do something real and meaningful that paves the way for truth, justice, accountability and change. There is an opportunity here for the Minister to commit to providing a grieving mother with answers about her son’s death, and to learning lessons so that other families do not suffer in this way. We cannot, and must not, delay any further.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
We have plenty of time, but I ask the Minister to leave enough time for the wind-up at the end.
The Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention (Ms Nadine Dorries)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) on securing such an important debate on the e-petition calling for a full public inquiry into the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Matthew Leahy, and the wider issue of deaths in mental health in-patient settings.
I thank all hon. Members present for making such valuable and powerful speeches on such an important issue. I am going to make quite an important announcement. Therefore, if anybody feels the need to intervene, could they wait until I have finished so that there is no ambiguity on the part of the relatives who may be listening, and so that they fully understand what I am saying and the reasons why I am saying it? In this case, that is quite important, particularly for Mrs Leahy and the relatives.
Matthew Leahy took his own life while he was in the care of the NHS.[Official Report, 3 December 2020, Vol. 685, c. 3MC.] His death was avoidable, as were the deaths of a number of other people in the same facility. While nothing that I or any of us can say today can ease the pain of their families and friends, I am determined that we learn the lessons of these tragic events.
Barbara Keeley
I should like to raise a question with the Minister. She said that Matthew took his own life. Melanie Leahy does not accept that, and I think it would be easier if we used the words “he was found hanging”. The inquest recorded an open verdict, so I do not think it is appropriate in this debate to say that he took his own life.
Ms Dorries
Until we have proceeded a bit further, there is a form of words that I have to use at the moment, and that is the form of words. There is absolutely no contention about how Matthew died or the appalling circumstances in which he was found, but I have to use a particular form of words at this point.
As I said, nothing can ease Melanie’s pain, or that of the relatives of others who were found in similar circumstances in the Linden Centre. Matthew died in November 2012 while he was in the Linden Centre, a mental health facility in the former North Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust. I understand the devastating impact that that has had on Matthew’s family, especially Melanie, whom I have spoken to twice. My heartfelt condolences go out to them now, as was the case when I spoke to them and will continue to be so.
The petition we are debating today calls for a public inquiry into the death of Matthew Leahy on the grounds that past investigations have been inadequate. I first met Melanie last year and I was deeply moved by her story. I took that story away and have continued to work since I first spoke to her. I have since met her again and I have met some of the other families whose loved ones have died at the Linden Centre, and my thoughts are equally with them.
As a result of what I have heard from both Melanie and other relatives, I can confirm today that there will be an independent inquiry into the events at the Linden Centre, covering the period from 2000 to the present day, as requested in Mrs Leahy’s petition. This will mean that all the tragic events are given the attention they deserve to ensure that lessons are learned. The scope will not go earlier than 2000 or later than 2020, in order to keep the inquiry focused and to have it report in a timely manner. I consider that 20 years is a more than adequate timeframe to enable us to understand what happened at the Linden Centre and to learn from it.
I am in the process of appointing an independent chair, and I am considering half a dozen leading candidates at present. They will need to be robustly independent and command the confidence of the families. I have chosen to go down the route of an independent inquiry rather than a public statutory inquiry so that we can move quickly. To inform its findings, the inquiry will be able to call witnesses and undertake a close examination of what actually happened to patients who died at the trust. I will also appoint a barrister—a QC—to assist the chair in their investigations, along with a full secretariat. The inquiry will be independent and will consult families on the specific terms of reference. As an independent inquiry, it can determine how it wishes to work with the families so that they are able to give their accounts.
I will not pull any punches. Hon. Members will be aware of the report of the inquiry into the life and death of baby Elizabeth Dixon, published last week, which set out the details behind what it described as a “20-year cover-up”. I can cite two more inquiries: the Morecambe Bay investigation and the Paterson inquiry, both of which were independent inquiries commissioned by my Department. They left no stone unturned and were frank in their criticisms.
I expect witnesses to come forward irrespective of the type of inquiry. While public inquiries can compel witnesses to appear and give evidence under oath, importantly, they do not have to give evidence that would incriminate them. However, it is incumbent on all holders of public office, and on health professionals, to demonstrate their fitness by voluntarily co-operating with independent inquiries that seek to protect future patients and offer closure to families.
Ms Dorries
I will when I have finished this point.
The independent Paterson inquiry—this is an important point—referred to the General Medical Council two doctors who had refused to give evidence to the inquiry, and they are being investigated. It is not the case that if someone in a professional capacity refuses to give evidence to an independent inquiry, they are not held accountable. That is patently demonstrated by the case of the doctors who are being investigated by the GMC.
With the timeframes that we originally set, I had hoped that the inquiry might report within 18 months. As I have today extended its scope to cover a 20-year span from 2000 to 2020, it will take longer, but I hope that it will report its findings within two years. I hope to announce the chair and outline the terms of reference in a written ministerial statement—
Barbara Keeley
I think it would be easier if the Minister just let me ask the question. It was clear from what my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) said that Melanie Leahy is not necessarily happy with an independent inquiry. We should be clear about that. There is the question of compelling witnesses to attend.
The Minister is talking about appointing the chair. It is important that, for complete independence, any inquiry has the support of families such as Matthew’s. Can she tell us whether she will consider having the position of chair approved by an independent body or, for instance, the Health and Social Care Committee? I do not think people will be comfortable with her appointing the chair. As other hon. Members have said, there has been too much of people appointing other people, and saying, “You review me and I review you.” That is an important point.
Ms Dorries
I would like to get the inquiry going. As in all other inquiries, I believe it is the case—I will come back to the hon. Lady with the reasons why—that ministerial responsibility has to be taken.
As I was about to say, I want to get the inquiry under way before Christmas. I would like to make a written ministerial statement to the House before the Christmas recess to set out the terms of reference of the inquiry and to name the chair, with the provision that the inquiry will commence in the second week of February.
Barbara Keeley
The point has been made that Melanie Leahy has campaigned on this for eight years and has done a wonderful job. I understand the reasons for trying to do this quickly, but it is too hasty for the Minister to move ahead and appoint a chair unless she is clear that the families, and particularly Melanie Leahy, are happy with that. The chair has to be seen to be independent. I am not sure that I am particularly happy with what the Minister is outlining.
Ms Dorries
We will go through the processes that we have been through within the Department of Health and Social Care. They are set in law and abided by during every inquiry; that has included all the past inquiries such as the Dixon inquiry, the Paterson inquiry and the Morecambe Bay inquiry. The same protocols and the same process will be adhered to.[Official Report, 3 December 2020, Vol. 685, c. 4MC.]
James Cartlidge
I am grateful for what the Minister has said. I know that she has battled to get this through because she sincerely believes in the cause and in bringing justice. In my view, it is important that it happens quickly, as I said earlier. My worry is that a statutory inquiry would take months and months to set up. For my constituents the Wades, the key thing is time. The semantics do not matter, as long as what we do finds the truth and probes further. That is exactly what happened with the Dixon inquiry.
Ms Dorries
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that no stone was left unturned in the Dixon inquiry. It took 20 years to conclude, and the summary was devastating in terms of what happened. A nurse can no longer practise in this country, and it was revealed that the trust, doctors and medical staff had engaged in a cover-up for 20 years. It took 20 years of probing, but the inquiry happened. It might be thought that a public inquiry would find out more, but one of the advantages of an independent inquiry is that it can work much more closely with families and take their considerations into account by talking to them and involving them, whereas that would not happen with a public inquiry. As has been demonstrated by each one that has been conducted, an independent inquiry benefits from the relationship built with families and the information that families have been able to input. It is important that families’ stories are heard, because some of them are complex, painful and detailed.
Extending the inquiry from 2000 to 2020, as I have done this morning, incorporates both the former trust and the existing trust. A situation occurred recently within the new trust, and we are able to incorporate both trusts and even more families.
Catherine West
The Minister is being generous in giving way. The people running the inquest certainly say that they think a statutory inquiry would be best. Over a 20-year period, many of us have received emails from constituents whose children are now in social care—for example, a young woman who spent time in 11 different hospitals first went in when she was 14. She is still there at the age of 22, at a cost of £700,000 per annum. What learning is there at an interim level? Will the inquiry allow for learning as we go, rather than our waiting five years for the report? In those five years, we could lose another 10 or 15 patients each year, so what are the interim milestones that could give us support?
Ms Dorries
The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and we would hope for an interim report, but it would depend on the chair. Once we have appointed a chair and secretariat and have the ability to appoint a QC, as required for interviewing witnesses, we will have as a Department, as Ministers and as MPs—independent means independent. Nobody can have any influence on the inquiry, but we would ask for an interim report, particularly if there were findings. However, we have to be aware that findings could prejudice something that might come as a result of the inquiry. Learning is absolutely the key, which is why we have established the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch.
This is an important point at which to mention medical examiners. In April 2019, we introduced medical examiners into hospitals. If there is a death of a patient today, a medical examiner will examine the death certificate—the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) will know this, as she is a practising doctor—look into the circumstances of the death and liaise with the bereaved family. We would hope that the circumstances surrounding a death are already improved by the medical examiner system, which incorporates learning too.
It has been some considerable time since there has been any kind of inquiry into a mental health setting, so it is important that we have an inquiry in order to have a 20-year window. We can take those examples, look at the report and take away the learning. If that can be introduced in an interim report that we can take away, that would be excellent. I cannot guarantee that, however, because we do not know what the chair or secretariat will find once the inquiry begins.
I did not finish replying to an earlier intervention. I hope the inquiry will commence in the second week of February, but the chair and secretariat will be appointed before the December recess.
Kevin Hollinrake
Assuming that the independent inquiry finds that somebody is culpable within the management, will the Minister set out what sanctions might be available to her or to the inquiry to hold those people to account?
Ms Dorries
As a Minister, it is not my role to issue sanctions, but if the chair discovered anything even remotely untoward during the inquiry, it would be referred to the police. The inquiry does not cover up criminal activity—that is the case for any inquiry, not just this one. There would be accountability.
Barbara Keeley
I want to touch on inquests. Given the new evidence in Matthew’s case and many others, does the Minister think it would be appropriate to revisit inquests that returned open or narrative verdicts? That can be important to the families.
Ms Dorries
I cannot comment because, as the hon. Member knows, inquests and coroners are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice. Coroners are almost in the vein of judges, so that is a legal question for the MOJ to answer; it is not within the jurisdiction of the Department of Health and Social Care. Our job is to launch an inquiry, ensure that it has a robust, independent chair, that it is fully funded and staffed, that it establishes terms of reference in consultation with as many families as possible as soon as possible, and that it commences as soon as possible.
As hon. Members will be aware, the Health and Safety Executive has investigated how the trust managed environmental risks from fixed potential ligature points in in-patient wards between 25 October 2004 and 31 March 2015. As a result of the investigation, the Health and Safety Executive has brought a prosecution against the Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, which was formed following the merger of the North Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust with the South Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust. I am sure hon. Members will understand that I cannot go into the details of those proceedings as they are before the courts.
I could say quite a bit about the petition and the cases, but I will conclude to let the hon. Member for Hartlepool have the final say. I thank Melanie Leahy for her years of campaigning. I hope she will understand that a robustly independent inquiry that is unafraid to turn over stones and work with the families, calling those it sees fit to give evidence, is a way to discover what has happened at the Linden Centre over the past 20 years, including what culture developed, what practices were in place and what happened to those young boys who died there. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) said, what is important is that we get to the truth. It does not matter what the framework or structure is; what matters is the truth, knowing how those young boys died, what happened and what we can learn from those dreadful mistakes.
Mike Hill
I thank the Petitions Committee and its staff for their hard work in the background for all Members in the Chamber, who in representing the interests of their constituents have conducted themselves in dignity and with passion. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) and the Minister for their contributions. I cannot say whether Melanie will be happy with that, but she clearly called for a statutory inquiry.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 255823, relating to deaths in mental health care.
Transport for London: Funding
(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
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 331453, relating to funding for Transport for London.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for taking part in the debate. There are quite a lot of Members on the call list, so I will speak as quickly as I can to fit everyone in. I hope hon. Members will forgive me for not taking any interventions, so everyone can get in.
On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I thank the over 170,000 people who have signed this petition, including 1,272 people from Carshalton and Wallington. I appreciate that there might be questions as to why we are having this discussion, given that the second Transport for London bail-out protected free transport for under-18s, but I think this is a live issue that will return, so it is right that we take the time to discuss it this afternoon.
I might be showing my age, but I can remember the introduction of the Oyster card scheme and free travel for under-18s. From the days of keeping loose change by the front door to get the bus to school, we changed to the Oyster card system when I was in high school. I have some personal experience of the impact that removing free transport for under-18s could have, having been on both sides of the introduction.
I pay tribute to the team at the Petitions Committee, which has conducted a survey among those who signed the petition to find out a bit more about their views. We have had over 3,000 responses to that survey. I would like to run through the key findings of the survey. Participants were asked how important zip cards, or other forms of concessionary travel, were for young people, and the impact that their removal might have. A zip card, or other form of concessionary travel, was reported to be “very important” to access school or college by 93% of respondents. It was also considered to be “very important” by 80% of people for accessing services, including medical appointments, 79% for work, 72% for training placements, 60% for accessing leisure and extra-curricular activities, 65% for socialising and 62% for meeting family and friends. If the 16-plus zip card scheme were suspended, 71% of respondents said they would find it “extremely difficult” to access school or college, 57% said it would make it “extremely difficult” to access work and 61% said it would make it “extremely difficult” to access services, including medical appointments.
The survey went on to ask the respondents what impact the removal would have on their travel habits. Almost five times as many young people said they would use taxis “very frequently”, with the number of people who would use private car “frequently” or “very frequently” more than doubling. The number of respondents who indicated they would cycle increased by 82%, but there was no significant change indicated by those who said they would walk. The survey also found that 60% said they would use the tube, DLR, London Overground or TfL Rail less, and 56% said they would use a bus or a tram less.
It is clear that petitioners feel that the change would have a great impact on their lives. Therefore, it is only right that we look at the heart of TfL’s financial situation. It would be easy to say that coronavirus and the subsequent drop in passenger numbers is responsible for TfL’s financial woes. Indeed, the onset of covid-19 has resulted in significant reductions in passenger demand, not just in London but across the country. For most of March and April, daily tube usage was around 5% of normal levels and daily bus usage was only 18% of normal levels. While we have seen a rise in passenger numbers over the past few months, they have remained stubbornly far below normal pre-pandemic levels, and the recent re-imposition of an England-wide lockdown has also had an effect on TfL’s finances.
However, I want to talk about the state that TfL’s finances were in before the pandemic hit. It is clear to me that Londoners were, and are, being let down by a Mayor whose mismanagement of the capital’s transport network has cost TfL billions of pounds in lost revenue, waste and bail-outs, as well as the pursuit of transport policies that he knew TfL could not afford. There are countless of examples of this, and I will run through a few.
At least £640 million in revenue was lost by freezing pay-as-you-go fares that essentially benefit tourists, but not Londoners, who saw the cost of their travel cards rise. Crossrail has been delayed by nearly four years, despite being on time and on budget when this Mayor took office. It was due to open in December 2018, but after multiple delays it is now not expected to open until mid-2022. The delay has cost TfL £3.9 billion in bailouts and £1.35 billion in lost fares revenue.
TfL’s debt has rocketed to a record £11.7 billion. Some 21 major transport projects have been delayed or cancelled. The bill for TfL staff on trade union duties has almost doubled. TfL’s nominee passes, which essentially let the housemate or lodger of anyone working for TfL ride for free on the tube network, cost an estimated £44 million in lost fares. The amount TfL spends on executive pay has ballooned. The number of staff on over £100,000 a year has risen by nearly 100 in the last four years.
TfL’s performance-related pay bonus has gone up by nearly a third, from £8.3 million in 2017 to £11.8 million in 2019. Fare dodging is estimated to cost £400 million. £12.3 million has been wasted on the Rotherhithe crossing and £20 million on Woolwich ferries, and the list goes on.
As pointed out by our excellent candidate for Croydon and Sutton on the London Assembly, Neil Garratt, that has had an effect on boroughs like mine, in Sutton. In a London Assembly report released last year, it was shown that Sutton was dead last for investment from City Hall out of all the London Boroughs, and that was pre-pandemic. That means that the future of transport projects, such as the Tramlink extension to Sutton, which our London Assembly member Steve O’Connell has been championing for a long time, is in jeopardy.
It is fair to say that we are going to be living with the effects of the pandemic for some time, and that includes transport in London. The Government expect TfL to prepare proposals for achieving financial sustainability by 11 January 2021, in advance of a long-term solution for TfL’s finances being announced before the second bailout expires in March 2021.
That long-term package must address the huge wastage that I have outlined and not punish Londoners for the cost of the pre-pandemic mismanagement of TfL’s finances. However, ultimately this comes down to the political choices of the Mayor, and in May next year the petitioners will have a choice to make: four more years of waste and higher costs with the current Mayor, or getting TfL’s finances under control and delivering a better deal for Londoners with Shaun Bailey.
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
Colleagues, some people have withdrawn from the call list; others are not here, but they may turn up. As a best guess, if everyone speaks for five or six minutes at the most, everyone will be called.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. Five minutes is quite a generous allocation compared with many other occasions, so I thank you very much for that, and I thank the Petitions Committee for facilitating this debate.
I also thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for opening the debate, but I must say that his speech was disappointing. It crudely politicised the issue, and we know why—because there is a mayoral election next year and the Conservative party has a pretty duff candidate. I know as much because he ran against me in Hammersmith in 2010. He is 20% behind in the polls, so there we have it. And now I am making a political speech, but that is what happens. These issues, whether they affect our individual constituencies or London as a whole, are ones on which we should be able to reach agreement. TfL’s revenue fell by 90% as a consequence of covid, so to go around pretending that it is something to do with this or that decision by the Mayor is, frankly, ridiculous, and makes the public think we are ridiculous. When such points are made in a debate in this place, we have to rebut them, meaning that we then go around in ever-decreasing circles and end up where we are. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chose to take that position.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend accept an intervention on that point?
Andy Slaughter
I will accept one intervention; I can never refuse my hon. Friend.
Catherine West
Does my hon. Friend find it curious that the introductory speech failed to mention the expenditure on the garden bridge?
Andy Slaughter
Again, this is where we are going: I hope the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington is now shamefacedly regretting making his opening speech in that way.
If I may be indulged, I will speak for a couple of minutes on the general issue and then a couple of minutes on something very dear to my heart and to those of many other hon. Members in south-west London—namely, Hammersmith bridge.
The figures show that the current Mayor managed TfL’s finances immeasurably better than his predecessor, and indeed in a very efficient way. The operating deficit was reduced by more than 70%, the cash balance increased by 30%, and the fares freeze was wonderful for London, as opposed to the 42% rise in fares overseen by the previous Mayor. If we had not had the fares freeze, there would be a bigger gap to fill now, so even basic maths seems to escape Government Members when they talk about these issues.
A bail-out was necessary—does any hon. Member present deny that a bail-out was necessary or appropriate? —but we have to have six-month bail-outs. We cannot have a longer-term one to allow better planning, because of course the Government want to keep this story running and have another artificial row, with a 17 minutes to midnight, last-minute piece of blackmail just when the election is coming up. It really is that transparent, and the way in which the Government are dealing with this issue is, frankly, not worthy. I wish they would stop politicking in this obvious way, because the only people who suffer are our constituents.
The Government have targeted TfL’s progressive policies, such as the under-18s travel card, the over-60s travelcard—perhaps I should declare an interest as of about a month ago—and the congestion charge. I remember the huge fuss about the congestion charge extension and the calls to withdraw it, but suddenly the Government want it to be extended to the north and south circular roads— which, by the way, would virtually bring London to a halt.
Please can we just have a little bit of common sense? Nowhere is that needed more than on the issue of Hammersmith bridge—a major strategic river crossing. It is a concern not just to me as the Member for Hammersmith, but to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson)—we will hear from her later—and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), who will be here, if possible. It affects a whole swathe of London and the south-east. I had a debate on that subject in March and I thought that we were making some progress, but it is always groundhog day.
TfL and Hammersmith and Fulham Council were making progress in drawing up a full schedule of repairs for the bridge, but the taskforce set up by the Government has brought everything shuddering to a halt, as taskforces so often do. It is a national, if not international, embarrassment that we cannot repair a major river crossing. It will cost a lot of money—more than £150 million—but every day I look at the bridges Minister’s Twitter feed, she announces another £100 million here and there for road and bridge schemes around the country. On average, about 85% to 90% of that is paid by central Government, but apparently that does not go for Hammersmith bridge. I hope all London Members will support me in saying that it is about time that the Government set an example on a major piece of London infrastructure, which can be funded only through central Government. TfL, Hammersmith and Fulham Council, and Richmond Council do not have the means to do it. It needs to be funded now.
Last week, the leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Council announced a proposal by Sir John Ritblat and Norman Foster for a very innovative scheme to put a temporary crossing in place that would, in a relatively short period, allow traffic to go over and under the river at that point. That work was done by the local authority, working with the private sector. It still needs funding, and unless we have that funding quickly, my constituents and many others across London will continue to suffer not for weeks or months but years without the basic facility that that provides.
This is an extraordinary dereliction of duty by the Government, for patently party political reasons. The Secretary of State and the Conservative mayoral candidate announce every five minutes, “Don’t worry. Just vote for us and you can have the money.” I am afraid that does not cut any ice. My constituents and others want the bridge repaired. They do not want silly party political squabbles and game-playing. Let us have a response to that. If we can get it from the Minister today, that would be most helpful.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. At the outset, it is important to say that Transport for London is critical to the functioning of the city. It is vital for the economic and social wellbeing of London. These days, although it is unfashionable to say so, London is the economic motor of the UK economy. If TfL does not function, London does not function, and the knock-on effect on the country is inestimable, so it is right that the Government have stepped in.
It is worth pointing out that neither Transport for London nor the Government are responsible for the health crisis that we are in. It is true that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) pointed out, the pandemic has devastated Transport for London’s finances. That is a fact and is not open for debate. It is right that the Government have stepped in twice over a six-month period, to the tune of £3.3 billion, and that cost is borne by the UK taxpayer collectively.
There has been much comment that certain benefits enjoyed by Londoners before the pandemic are not covered by the bail-out agreements. It is important to note that at pre-pandemic levels, there was more than £1 billion within Transport for London’s transport provision. More than £700 million of that went into buses, and there were £330 million of other concessions. The Government’s position in both bail-out agreements is that it would be inequitable to taxpayers across the country to pay for subsidised travel that is not enjoyed elsewhere. Why should taxpayers in Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham pay for a benefit that Londoners enjoy but they do not?
London’s deputy Mayor for transport, speaking on behalf of the Mayor, has pushed back on that. She said that that amounts to levelling down, and that Londoners are more dependent on public transport. I think there is something in that argument, but the financial management at City Hall over the past four years leaves a lot to be desired.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith criticised my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington when he said that he had crudely politicised this issue. Has he ever met Sadiq Khan? I cannot imagine a politician in this country alive today who misses an opportunity to crudely politicise any issue at all.
There are other facts, which were laid out at some length by my hon. Friend. There is the fares freeze—or partial fares freeze, as it should be called, because it is not a complete fares freeze. I am sure that much will be made by Labour Members, when they come to speak, of the withdrawal of the revenue grant from Transport for London’s budget. They will not acknowledge that much of that is replaced by business rates, but they will harp on about the £700 million. They are right to draw attention to that withdrawal, because it has harmed Transport for London’s finances, but it did not happen in one year or overnight; it was phased in over a three-year period. The first year of it was under the previous Mayor, so candidate Khan, before he became Mayor Khan, knew about it. He knew that that money was going to disappear and he still, recklessly, pledged a fares freeze, a partial fares freeze, for the next four years in order to help garner votes to get himself elected. Transport for London’s costing of that at that time was £1.9 billion. Then, a few weeks later, it watered that down, because the commissioner was desperate to keep his job, to £640 million, and that is the figure that it is sticking at for the moment.
On top of that, we have, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington said, the massive delay to Crossrail. It is nearly £4 billion over budget and is four years late, and that will cost more than £1.6 billion in unachieved fares revenue. These things do not help, and they have happened.
Labour Members will say, and the Mayor has been saying ad nauseam, “Well, of course, this is a co-sponsored project between the Department for Transport and Transport for London.” That is true, but Transport for London is, and always was, the delivery arm for the project, because Crossrail Ltd, which the Mayor likes to blame, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Transport for London. And who chairs Transport for London? The Mayor of London. Crossrail’s delay can be laid squarely at the feet of Sadiq Khan.
We have heard about the 21 capital projects that have been delayed. We have heard about some of the fringe benefits—the TFL nominee pass scheme. We have heard—well, we had not heard about this—that trade union facility time at Transport for London has more than doubled under Sadiq Khan. There are now 81 people. The number of people who spend more than half of their time working solely on trade union facility activities has more than doubled. That is more than for the whole of the civil service put together.
We have seen other examples of Sadiq Khan’s wasteful approach to management. Staff costs at City Hall have gone up by 82% in four years. Does anybody believe that London is 82% better governed now than it was in 2016? Anyone at all? Of course not. The Mayor’s press office costs have increased by 33% since Sadiq Khan took office. There have been other really good headline-grabbing things, such as £800,000 spent on beach parties in 2018. And in 2019, £10 million was spent by the Metropolitan police to put every police officer over the rank of sergeant through a personality test to assign a colour to their personality. Apparently, that was critical. Ten million pounds was spent on that by this Mayor of London.
We are living in extraordinary times. The Government are dealing with an unprecedented health crisis. There is no manual for how to do this. The Government interventions, if they go to the full extent announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week, will amount to £280 billion, and they are very, very extensive.
In London, the Government have demonstrated their commitment to maintaining the core functions of Transport for London by injecting £3.3 billion of UK taxpayers’ money to keep Transport for London afloat. I do not think that anybody in this Chamber will argue with that, but in the circumstances, given the fact that the benefits in question are not enjoyed outside London and that City Hall under Sadiq Khan has been so wasteful with public money, it is hardly surprising that the Government should expect City Hall to fund the retention of such benefits.
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
I now have to impose a formal time limit of five minutes.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, but not an honour and not pleasant to hear that my time has been cut back by a minute. However, I am very happy to speak in the debate and to hear hon. Members. It is quite fun to have a little bit of old-fashioned political banter after what has been a pretty heavy six months on coronavirus and everything else—it is quite fun to be talking about bridges and things. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Many transport authorities across the world are trying to shift us all out of our cars and on to trains and buses and into cycling and walking. That is having a bit of a hiccup at the moment because of coronavirus, but I know that we all agree about the importance of clean air. Many hon. Members will have read the tragic story of nine-year-old Ella Kissi-Debrah, who tragically died of asthma. Her family have been given an opportunity to take further legal action, to make us learn more about how we can make an impact on clean air in London.
I am really pleased that we are no longer at loggerheads about how transport will be paid for. I was panicking a couple of weeks back about the congestion charge and under-18s travel. The Child Poverty Action Group made the point that the zip card is incredibly important for young Londoners. As we know, young people have been so badly affected by coronavirus; it would be awful if they were doubly affected through the removal of zip cards.
In areas such as mine, the London Borough of Haringey, there has been a 182% increase in unemployment, including a huge whack of youth unemployment. Anything we can do to help young people use transport to get to job interviews, an apprenticeship, college or sixth form, would help enormously. London MPs do not get that many opportunities to gather together in this Chamber—it is quite fun—but when we talk about levelling up, we need to recognise that many people in our city live on extremely low incomes.
While we have an enormous amount of sympathy for people in Liverpool and Manchester, there massive deprivation in London. More people live in deprivation in London than outside it. I completely agree with the levelling up agenda, but I also think it should apply to London boroughs. Our boroughs, TfL and all our London government arrangements do a fantastic job, given that they often run off the smell of an oily rag.
In the coming six months, all our residents will have to pay more tax. The Chancellor’s announcement last week will mean every London borough will have to put up tax and the Mayor of London will probably have to put up the precept. That is a terrible pity. The International Monetary Fund and other groups have said that we should not be levying more money from citizens, because it is such a tough time for people with businesses and those struggling with their jobs. And now we know there will be a public sector pay freeze. This is not the time to put council tax up. It is very regressive. It is a typical wheeze from central Government to make local governments impose more tax. That is a real pity.
The housing market is quite buoyant at the moment, so I would like to see us work together as London MPs on how we can make developers share a bit more of the transport burden. I know there is a big change with the community infrastructure levy going into other arrangements and so on, but, given the buoyancy of our housing market, it would be useful to look at the transport element and how much more can be done. There is much more we could do, given that a lot of the developers go home with huge bonuses at the end of the annual financial year, while so many of our residents struggle on tiny incomes. There must be a way of getting them to pay for more of the transport improvements required for the clean air and standard of living we desperately need, as well as the cohesive communities we all seek.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I welcome this debate, brought by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn). Before I start, I have an interest to declare: I have two teenagers who enjoy the free travel for under-18s.
I recognise the detrimental effect covid-19 has had on TfL’s finances. Anyone using the tube or bus will know of the dramatic fall in passenger numbers. I travelled here on the tube. The stations and carriages are empty. But we must accept that the rot in TfL’s finances had set in way before covid-19. Much of the blame for TfL being in such an awful mess can be laid at Mayor Khan’s door. Yes, the Government’s decision to phase out the operating revenue element of the TfL grant had some effect—losing £700 million a year would have been difficult to absorb—but the Mayor knew that before he stood for election and introduced his fare freeze. There was no strategic thinking about what could happen in City Hall once he was elected.
The Mayor introduced a major fare freeze across the network despite advice from his transport commissioner not to do so, which he ignored. That led to an extra loss of £640 million on top of the £700 million, which meant the Mayor had a loss of more than £1 billion before he had even finished his first year. This issue has also led to a fall in passenger numbers at the same time—a triple whammy, even before covid struck. In my constituency, people are now feeling the effects of the Mayor’s inability to invest in infrastructure. I might add that people in Pimlico desperately need the tube to be upgraded, because of the terrible noise that they have to deal with. The Mayor and his deputy have made personal promises to the people of Pimlico that now cannot be kept.
One of the big issues that has really affected my constituency is the extension of the congestion charge. A number of constituents and businesses have come to me because they are concerned about the extension to 10 pm from Monday to Friday, and about the extension to Saturdays and Sundays. Many people now describe it as a two-tier system, because at the same time as extending the congestion charge, the Mayor stopped the resident discount from 1 August. That applies no matter how long someone has been living within the congestion charge zone. Their circumstances might change: they will get older and might become frail, or they might have infirm children who need to be transported in a car. Such people can no longer benefit from the 90% reduction, which is a massive issue.
I have had doctors, pharmacists, foster carers, charity workers and market traders all say to me that the extension of the congestion charge and the ending of the discount is having a detrimental effect on their lives. One doctor who lives in Westminster has now been posted to the Surrey border. He wanted to use his car because of the times of his shifts, so he now drives, which adds £15 extra to his daily commute. A market trader in Covent Garden told me that she works at her small business two days a week, on Saturday and Sunday. The congestion charge on Saturdays and Sundays has now added £1,500 to her bottom line. At a time when we are trying to have an economic recovery, the charge is another blow to small businesses.
Why can the Mayor not consider the gross over-expenditure that he has introduced? TfL employees now have a 31% pension contribution from their employer, compared with 13% for doctors, nurses, police officers, firemen and teachers. Why should TfL employees benefit from that? Why has there been an increase of nearly 100 people who earn £100,000 a year working for TfL? All this fat could be cut, so that TfL can keep free travel for under-18s and the over-60s. It has to change, and the Mayor has to be held to account on this issue.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on securing the debate. It pains me to agree with the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), which I do rarely, although this is the second time in a London debate that I have done so. He is right that we would look ridiculous if we tried to say in this debate that there has not been a fall in passenger numbers and that there has not been a financial consequence for TFL. We are clearly saying that is the case, and nobody is saying anything different.
As so many hon. Members have already pointed out, the Government have put in funding packages twice, with £1.7 billion earlier this month and a previous package of £1.6 billion, making £3.3 billion. Ridership has dropped across whole networks, but that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing whether the Mayor’s decisions had an impact on TfL’s finances prior to covid, and the answer to that question, whether one likes it or not, is a resounding yes.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith spoke about how the Mayor has improved various positions, but none of that was a surprise to the Mayor, because back in 2014 TfL’s debt position was set out, along with how sustainable funding would need to be put in place. It was also recognised prior to the 2016 mayoral election that, rather than receiving other financial resources, £16 billion of savings would have to be made by 2022. Of that, £12 billion had been found prior to the Mayor taking office, so the idea that he has been hugely successful in finding any of those savings is complete nonsense.
The agreement that the Mayor has signed alongside this funding package recognises explicitly that he has not done enough during his term of office to find any more of those savings or benefits. I will not reiterate the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) and for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) about the numerous failings of Crossrail and the fact that the pay-as-you-go freeze has not benefited Londoners—something on travelcards might have done more—and £640 million has been lost in revenue.
The fact of the matter is that the agreement the Mayor signed with the Government for the funding package explicitly recognises that his financial management has not been good enough. That is why a major section of the agreement points out that he has failed to find a further range of operating efficiencies and that an assessment of capital efficiencies and a review of the long-term capital plan needs to be put in place. That is being done only because it is a condition of the package.
Finally, it is extraordinary that the Mayor has not proceeded with the plans produced under the previous Mayor and commissioner at TfL and gone through non-operational assets not generating any revenue that could be either used or sold off. That has a direct impact on the free travel for under-18s and over-60s that we are talking about—it is good that the Government’s package recognises its importance and ensures that it will continue—but there are also direct consequences for my constituents. The previous Mayor knew the value of infrastructure and invested in new trains for the District line. As a result of the delay or, indeed, cancellation of 21 infra- structure projects, part of the upgrade to the District line, which is key to the livelihoods of so many of my constituents, has not happened. That is a direct consequence of the Mayor’s financial mismanagement.
If the conditions that the agreement imposes on the Mayor were not in place, free travel for under-18s and over-60s, which is now protected, would be at risk. That is what we are talking about this evening—not what covid has caused but what was happening prior to that.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and the Petitions Committee for the debate. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and declare that I was proudly a trade union officer dealing with Transport for London at the time of the previous Conservative Mayor, seeing at first hand the insane obsession with £400,000 buses and failing schemes such as the garden bridge that cost an eye-watering amount of money and did not even build a bridge over the Thames. To take lectures from Conservative Members about that poppycock —to use one of the Prime Minister’s terms—is simply unbelievable. They are right, however, that the root cause of the problem goes back beyond covid-19 to the cutting of the operating grant.
For a long time, London’s transport system has been the jewel in the crown of this country’s transport infrastructure; every major railway line stops here to serve the rest of our nation as the economic engine. Yet we are the only country in western Europe to have pulled nearly £1 billion of the main subsidy from that transport system, which moves millions of people in and out of London every single day. That is the root cause of the problem. I have seen at first hand how the previous Mayor and the current Mayor have had to suffer the consequences of that decision.
In all honesty, there needs to be a settlement—a real one that is actually sustainable for Londoners. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, London is an economic driver. Although many people are having to work at home at the moment, which may be a fundamental change, the reality is that TfL will not be able to wash its face when 70% of its fares have gone completely.
Let us give the Mayor of London credit where credit is due. He successfully forced the Government to give up their plans to scrap free travel for older and younger Londoners, alongside their ill-conceived attempt, which almost caused a riot, to extend the congestion charge to my constituency of Ilford South on the border of the A406. That was a nakedly political move to hit the Mayor of London, and I believe it would be as deeply unpopular in east London as in many west London constituencies. Clearly, it was thrown straight out the window when constituents made their voices heard.
Again, those negotiations went down to the wire. The funding deal was agreed by the Government only 17 minutes before the deadline. That is not the way to run a system that supports millions of people travelling to work, even during the covid-19 crisis. The deal also came with huge strings, including £160 million of additional savings this financial year. On the facility time for trade unions, under Sadiq, relationships have been far better than they were under the Prime Minister, who would not even pick up the phone to me or any of my colleagues for four years. Megaphone diplomacy through the pages of the Evening Standard is not the way to run our capital city’s transport system.
Despite what was written in black and white in a letter from the Transport Secretary to the Mayor, the Government and, of course, Shaun Bailey, the Conservative candidate, are pretending that Sadiq chose to impose those conditions on Londoners. Londoners will not be taken for fools; they know that the Prime Minister wrongly said on the Floor of the House that the Mayor had bankrupted TfL before the pandemic. To use another of his phrases, that is simply balderdash. There is no possible way that radical change would not have been needed when 90% of footfall disappeared almost overnight.
The knock-on impact of the financial crisis is that young people in my constituency, which is one of the most diverse in London, now face having their zip card taken away from them. That is what allows them to travel across London and, when we are out of covid-19, to visit museums and the local library to study. As the Child Poverty Action Group has said, those are the children whose parents will have to decide whether to put food on the table because they suddenly have to pay for their child to travel to school. Let us not have a north-south divide. Why not level up the north, rather than level down London?
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for bringing forward this debate, which is an important one for us to have across the political parties.
Many of my constituents signed the petitions to scrap the removal of free transport for under-18s. I received so many emails from constituents who were concerned about the issue. I also met so many young people. The impact on them would be devastating were this to continue. I know that this decision will have an impact on so many of their lives, and their families’ lives, as it has during the summer.
I will share with Members the issues impacting my constituents shortly, but I must begin by setting the record straight on why we are in this situation right now. Despite the appalling circumstances that TfL was under when forced to suspend free travel for under-18s, the Government are pretending that the Mayor of London chose to implement those decisions. In fact, the Mayor was forced to accept the devastating bail-out at the last minute, which really punishes Londoners for doing the right thing by following the covid-19 restrictions.
The Prime Minister has oh so wrongly said on the Floor of the House that the Mayor bankrupted TfL before the pandemic. In the four years Sadiq Khan has been Mayor, he has fixed the financial mess that he inherited on TfL from the previous Mayor. He has reduced the operational deficit of TfL by 71% and increased cash reserves by 13%. With the delay of Crossrail in Abbey Wood, the Government have said that London should cover the projected funding gaps that the Crossrail project faces, despite its being a jointly sponsored project with the Government that brings economic benefits across Erith and Thamesmead and beyond.
During the covid-19 lockdown, TfL funding from fares dropped by 90%. Due to the dodgy deal struck between the current Prime Minister and George Osborne in 2015, removing TfL’s Government grant, London has been the only major city in western Europe that has not received direct Government funding to run day-to-day transport services in the last few years, meaning that it relies heavily on funding from passengers’ fares.
Instead of working with the Mayor to ensure that transport in London could continue to operate for people as we come out of lockdown, the Government have forced the Mayor to accept a bad deal that has since been used as a political campaigning tool. We cannot afford to play politics with people’s lives, which is why the Government must accept that the suspension of free travel for under-18s will have devastating consequences for my constituents, and ensure that the Mayor is not forced into that position again next year.
As I mentioned, this summer I spoke to young people about how covid-19 has impacted them. One of the main issues that was raised was the fear of not being able to afford to go to school following that decision. A young person in my constituency said: “As a young person from a family whose income has been affected by the covid-19 pandemic, this will change and hurt my family’s finances by paying for travel when we were barely able to afford it before. I, like many under-18s, rely on public transport every day to get to and from school. By doing this, many children from low-income families will not be able to afford to go back to school or go back home. Please stop this.”
The Government are supposed to work to protect people and ensure that everyone can have equal opportunities and life chances, yet they continue to put the economic burden of covid-19 on the most disadvantaged in society. Thousands of households in Erith and Thamesmead have seen their incomes slashed during covid-19. I am pleased that the Mayor has been able to reverse this appalling decision and secure free travel for under-18s until March 2021, but the uncertainty beyond that, combined with the added uncertainty of job losses and business closures, is causing so much stress for families across London. Young people should not have to pay for covid-19. They have the right to education, culture and safety, and I sincerely hope that the Government will take the time to ensure that cuts to free travel for under-18s will not be forced on the Mayor in 2021.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
We have heard many sensible contributions from Members across the issues tonight. I would like to focus in particular on those that we experience in my constituency and many other parts of London towards the outer edge of the suburbs, in zone 6.
For those who have not had the pleasure of visiting Harefield, in my constituency, I should say that it is well known as the largest village in London to the north-west. Getting there means travelling through proper English countryside surrounded by fields, with grazing livestock and woods. It certainly does not feel like a part of our capital, and although it is served by a small number of bus routes laid on by TfL, we must recognise that for the residents there, and in many other parts of the outer suburbs, the subsidy provided for travel only helps if they can access the transport network reliably. For many places that simply do not have access to trains and tubes, that means a restriction on the benefit that they see. For many of my constituents, in a place that is much more dependent on the car than most of London and also home to many cabbies and minicab drivers, the services that TfL operates to keep our traffic moving are also enormously significant, although afforded rather less attention under what feels very much like a zone 1 Mayor than we have seen historically.
We need to recognise that all Londoners need to benefit from the services provided by TfL. Although my children and I are particularly huge fans of it—there is no greater pleasure than standing on the bridge and watching the tube trains come in and out, and working out which of the bus routes go where—we need to ensure that we provide value for money for all Londoners in how TfL carries out its operations.
At the heart of tonight’s debate is the impact on children and young people of the changes that are taking place and that will take place in the future. London’s local authorities have for a long time had programmes such as the safer routes to school scheme to encourage children to walk or cycle to their local school. There is the home-to-school transport legislation, which sets out a framework of distance around those routes. Of course, in planning the new schools that have been required to meet the rising numbers of children in London, local authorities have always been cognisant of distance to ensure that as far as possible, every mum and dad and every child has access to a good local school.
It is therefore a reasonable challenge to TfL to recognise that a very significant proportion of the journeys undertaken by children are those going to school and are well under the statutory distances. It is a reasonable challenge that transport commissioners need to look at, and they need to ask how, given the difficult times we face and the need to ensure proper social distancing on public transport, we manage that challenge as effectively as possible.
Ultimately, the debate is not about the niceties of the bail-out package. A Mayor of whichever political party needs to show that the fate of London is genuinely in his hands, and that he is willing to take ownership of the challenges that present—whether that is covid, as it is today, or one of the many other challenges our city has faced in the past. The response that comes out of City Hall must command the confidence of all Londoners. The challenge we face at present is that Sadiq Khan comes across as a nice, quite affable chap—he is clearly very good at PR—but he is just not very competent at managing the services and finances in our capital city: not just in respect of TfL, but in so many other regards, such as with the police.
We need to ensure that we bring about a change that ensures that my constituents have a sense that they have a leader in City Hall who can command their confidence, and who understands and is interested in the issues that concern them in the suburbs. That is why we need a change from the mayoral elections when they come up next year.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. For the purposes of the debate, I shall focus on the e-petition, which was about the removal of free travel for under-18s.
The threatened removal of free travel for under-18s caused deep anger and concern not just among young people but across the wider community. It is testament to their campaigning and determination that the Government have backtracked on the demand. When the Government made the demand, I do not think they understood what free travel meant to under-18s. I asked Enfield’s Youth Parliament what free travel meant to them. Tara Larkin, a member of the Youth Parliament, told me that it gives young people a social life and a chance of independence, which is really important for young people’s mental health, especially during the pandemic.
Other members of the Youth Parliament told me that they need free travel to get to and from school and college, to provide care and support to family members, to get to work, to travel for cultural, community and religious activities, and to socialise with friends. One thing that was very clear from their responses was how much they valued this one small benefit that they have. The Child Poverty Action Group found that 37% of London’s children live in relative poverty, and free travel for under-18s is a lifeline for many teenagers.
How did we get to a situation where the Government are ordering the removal of free travel for under-18s in London? Back in March, during the first lockdown, the instruction from the Government was, “Work at home if you can,” and the overwhelming majority of people did just that. In the early months of the pandemic, underground and rail passenger usage plummeted; according to the DFT’s own statistics, that drop was more than 90%. For bus travel, the drop was more than 80%.
During those early days, there was worrying news of committed transport workers who had contracted covid-19 during their ordinary daily work routine, and the sad reality was that for some of them the illness ended in death. People were rightly frightened to use public transport. As bus and train usage plummeted, so did the income from passenger numbers everywhere. Both Transport for London and the national train operators sought help from the Government. We do not know what, if any, conditions were attached to the £5 billion bail-out for the national train operators, because the Government have not released the details of that even to the Transport Committee, but I am pretty sure that those conditions did not remove any perks or benefits from their passengers.
What we do know is that conditions were attached to TfL’s bail-out and we know that, in his letter to the Mayor of London on 14 May 2020, the Secretary of State made a number of demands as conditions of the bail-out. One of those demands was to bring forward proposals “as soon as practicable” for the suspension of free travel for under-18s,
“subject to discussions…about how it is to be operationalised”.
The rationale for that decision was to optimise the use of the available safe transport capacity, but we know from the Government’s own statistics that on the day the letter was written, underground usage was only 6% and bus usage in London was only 13%, so the demands in the letter seem to make little logical sense.
It seems to me that the conditions contained in the letter were ill conceived and poorly thought out. Some people might say that those demands were set out in order to score political points against Sadiq Khan in the forthcoming mayoral elections—I am happy to have that row another time, and there are plenty of months ahead for us to have that contest. But either way, the Department for Transport has failed to understand the reasons why young people use the under-18s travel card.
What would happen? We would end up punishing young people who have already had to endure the Government’s exams and free school meals fiascos, and whose mental health is already suffering due to all the uncertainty surrounding their futures. With negotiations due in the months ahead for a further extension of the Government bail-out of TfL, I say to the Minister, “The kids have suffered enough. Don’t mess around with their free travel. Let the kids have their freedom.”
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. It has been quite amusing to listen to my fellow MPs talking about whether the current or the previous Mayor is more to blame for the current state of TfL’s finances, but there is no doubt at all that whatever decisions have been made by either Mayor in the past, they were made in a pre-pandemic phase. The situation we are in now could not have been anticipated by anybody.
TfL’s income is almost unique in the world for a capital city, in that 80% of it comes from fare income. That is quite unprecedented among capital cities, most of which enjoy a far greater level of Government subsidy. There is no doubt, therefore, that when something such as the pandemic comes along and the instruction is given to Londoners to stay home and not to use public transport, there will be a big impact on finances. Londoners did exactly what they were supposed to do. They stopped using the tube and the buses: the subsequent impact on income has nothing to do with the mayoral policies of either the current Mayor or any previous one. The situation could not have been predicted.
The situation that we are in now is that TfL, not surprisingly, has required a bail-out in order to maintain its services. We need to look forward, not back at which Mayor was responsible for previous finances. What is the plan now for keeping our public transport going in London? In the comprehensive spending review last week, I was disturbed to see that the Government have not budgeted anything in the next financial year for any further bail-outs for TfL.
As I said last week, I am encouraged by the implication that the vaccine roll-out means that we will be back to full capacity on our tubes and buses in May next year, but I am little sceptical about it. I think it is a mistake for the Government not to plan further investment into London’s transport network, because we know that the drivers of the London economy are our cultural industries, our financial services and our retail sector. They have all seen a big hit from coronavirus and, potentially, a big hit from Brexit. They need investment from central Government to get them back up and running, and to get London running again at full speed, as it was before. That investment needs to go into our public transport network.
The point was made by an earlier speaker that the issue is not just about Londoners, but about travellers from abroad. If London is to get back up and running again, it needs to welcome travellers from abroad and it needs the public transport network. I am disappointed to hear from the Government that they plan to finance TfL through tax rises and charges on Londoners. That is what we were told: council tax increases and an increase in the congestion charge.
There was talk of scrapping travel for under-18s to pay for the bail-out. Much has been said about that and there were some excellent contributions from fellow Members. I want to pick up on the point that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) made in his opening remarks about a potential doubling in car usage. In my constituency of Richmond Park, we do not want to see a doubling in car usage. Car usage is already a major scourge on our roads. The congestion and the impact on air pollution is terrible, as is the way it cuts people off from their local town centres.
My particular concern for young people is the impact on their safety. If there is an increase in the number of cars because they are being driven to school instead of catching the bus, then there is a knock-on impact on road safety. I worry for the safety of those who cannot afford to be driven to school and have to walk long distances, potentially in the dark, as well as the knock-on impact that might have on our policing budget. There are many budget implications for local authorities if we take away free travel for under-18s, which need to be considered alongside any potential savings for TfL.
It would be remiss of me not to use this opportunity to talk about Hammersmith bridge. I am talking to the Department for Transport about its long-term plans for travel in London, but please can we get some movement on this? It is imperative, and it has been obvious from the start, that there needs to be a substantial contribution from the Department for Transport. The sooner it can commit to that, the earlier stabilisation works can be undertaken. The sooner we can get pedestrians and cyclists back over the bridge, to connect my Barnes residents to all the services, shops and transport links on the other side of the Thames, the better.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir David. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and the Petitions Committee for bringing this important debate before us, as London MPs.
I thank the 170,000 people who signed the petition against the scrapping of free travel for under-18s and the 1,156 people from Putney who signed it, showing their support for the issue and for young people. It is rare for the voices of young people to be heard, but that is the focus of the debate today. I also thank all the TfL workers who have worked throughout the pandemic to keep us safe as we travel in London.
The plans to remove free transport for under-18s as part of the Transport for London bail-out package should never have been on the table in the first place, and must now be scrapped forever. We never want to see those coming back. Free travel is essential for enabling young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to travel to school; they cannot just change schools midway because of this policy change. They are already locked into having to travel across London. I declare an interest as the mother of a 14-year-old who uses the free travel to go across London to school every day.
Free travel can be essential for travelling to work or apprenticeships, or to get to places for sport and leisure. To cut off the best of London for the most disadvantaged but not for others is very unfair.
Just before half term, when we were not sure whether free travel would be scrapped, one mother came to me and said that she did now know whether she would be able to keep sending her son to school. Her income had gone down as a result of covid, and she had very tight bills. Like so many other families, she had to choose between food, rent and sending her children to school. For children who are disinclined to go to school—those we most want to get back to school—free travel is absolutely essential. There is no point spending money on a catch-up fund for education on the one hand and then cutting the money for getting to school on the other.
I found the Government’s response to the petition very disappointing. I do not know whether other Members saw it, but it was:
“The suspension of free travel for 11-17 year olds will help reduce demand for public transport at peak times”.
Well, children have to travel on public transport at peak times; that is when school starts and finishes. They cannot stay at home and choose when to travel during the day. That cannot be part of Government policy.
I absolutely support Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, who is right to champion the continuation of free travel for under-18s. He successfully forced the Government to give up their plans to scrap free travel for older and younger Londoners, and their absolutely unworkable plans to extend the congestion charge to the south circular, which I hope never come back to the table. All rail services have been hit by the pandemic. The Government immediately bailed out private rail companies with few strings attached, and the same should have happened for Transport for London. All MPs must work together to understand the needs of young Londoners and ensure that free travel remains.
The very extended closure of Hammersmith suspension bridge—a fantastic heritage structure—is also affecting young people travelling in London. Young people travelling to schools in my constituency and out to neighbouring constituencies across the river and across London are affected by the misery caused by the closure of Hammersmith bridge. TfL was poised to fund it just before the pandemic and there were discussions. Transport for London funding is very important, but now that TfL clearly cannot fund it, the Government must step up and do so urgently. The news that Putney boat race will not be happening in Putney, which was announced just a few days ago, was very disappointing and a huge blow for local businesses.
The closure of the bridge also compounds pollution across Putney. It clogs up our roads and makes trips to school, work and hospitals so much longer. The taskforce has been meeting for 10 weeks without very much task or force. I would really like the Minister to announce a change on that. Hammersmith and Fulham Council has done its best. It has put together a plan, started the restoration and looked into the danger that the bridge is causing, but the issue is becoming a political football. It is very disappointing to see the candidate for the mayoral election announcing funding for the bridge left, right and centre, but it does not appear; it is clearly just hot air. Will the Minister make a lot of people across south-west London very happy and bring an end to the misery of the Hammersmith bridge closure by announcing the funding of the restoration?
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for opening the debate and all Members who have taken part in this evening’s discussions.
A number of excellent points have been made about the unfair way in which the Government are treating London. I want to draw the debate back to one particular aspect of that unfairness: the central issue of the risk to young people’s travel. The issue of funding for free transport for under-18s is incredibly important, demonstrated not least by the number of signatories to the petition that led to the debate—more than 170,000 people, the last time it was checked. That is a truly incredible outpouring of support for the “Don’t Zap the Zip” campaign, which has taken social media by storm over the past few months. Londoners past and present have shared their experiences of the scheme, and it is clear that thousands of young people rely on affordable travel in a way that is hard to imagine in some other parts of the country.
Although the scheme demonstrably helps all young Londoners, the reality is that the proposal to suspend free travel for under-18s will hit the poorest hardest. That is especially true in the context of the coronavirus crisis, as many family finances are very stretched. We should all think deeply about that.
Londoners have far less access to a car than most people living elsewhere in the country. Indeed, the most deprived households in London are almost five times less likely to own a car than the least deprived, meaning that affordable public transport plays an especially important part in levelling the playing field and helping all Londoners to get around. A YouGov survey bears that out: 74% of children with a zip card use it to get to school or college, while a further 26% of those surveyed, and more than 36% from low-income families, were concerned that ending the scheme would restrict their access to school, apprenticeship and training options. I am sure we all agree that access to those important services for young people’s development should not be restricted in any way; indeed, it should be encouraged. Furthermore, the same survey found that 33% of children would feel less safe if they were priced out of bus travel, while 38% worried about being late, which is also important.
Free travel is not only about ensuring that children can get to school or training on time and safely; more than half of young people who use the scheme would have relied on it to visit cultural and other activities in central London, and to visit friends and family—all important parts of our shared life in the capital city and around the country. Indeed, if we want families and friends to see one another and reduce social isolation, which is obviously increasingly important during the pandemic and our recovery from it, we should encourage young people to be able to get around in the coming months, as the restrictions are eased. We should also not forget the truly important objective of promoting the use of public transport to reduce air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions, as several Members quite rightly said with reference to their constituencies. Surely, in that context alone, this is a very important scheme.
I have major concerns that Government decisions around TfL funding, including regarding the scheme and for London more generally, are being politicised in a rather sad and unfortunate way, as we have heard. I urge the Minister—she is a thoughtful Minister—to have a word with some of her colleagues about reconsidering their approach, particularly as we recover from the pandemic, when we should be paying tribute to transport workers and their contribution, and about trying to take this whole issue a little bit more seriously.
We should also reconsider—I hope that the Minister will take this back to her colleagues—the effect of the spending review on Londoners. So far as I can see, the review did very little for London at a time when the capital city is under huge pressure. It reconfirmed the Government’s thin commitment to funding Crossrail. I should declare something of an interest, to put it mildly, as a Member for one of those seats that will be a terminus for Crossrail. There is huge potential for Crossrail to be an engine not only for the London economy, but across southern England and out as far away as Oxford, which could benefit the western side, and Kent and Essex as well. I am sure that your constituency would benefit from it, Sir David. I hope that the Minister will look at this again.
Sadly, the Government have been taking the Crossrail project down to the wire, with the investment authority dangerously close to running out of resources. The Mayor has put forward London’s case, but the Treasury does not appear to have listened. Indeed, the Mayor had to fight tooth and nail for weeks against Government Ministers who wished to impose punishing, damaging conditions, as we have heard. I hope that the Government will stop playing politics with London during the pandemic and its aftermath, and that Ministers will think again about their overall approach.
I make three requests to the Minister—I hope that she will take them on board and bring them to the attention of her colleagues. First, the Government should recognise the importance of free travel to under-18s, particularly in supporting education and training, but also on a whole range of fronts—the social and family benefits are significant as well. Secondly, I hope that she will concede that promoting the use of public transport in major cities can play a huge part in tackling environmental problems, as we heard earlier. Finally, as we have all said before, I hope that she will urge her colleagues to rethink their over-political approach to some of these issues and work together for the benefit of London.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, and to respond to the debate. Before I get into the substance of the debate, I want to echo the tributes that have been paid to Transport for London workers who have kept services running throughout the pandemic. I travel on the tube regularly, so I have seen the great way in which they provide those services.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for introducing the debate and all Members who have contributed. We have heard contributions from the hon. Members for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), for Ilford South (Sam Tarry), for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and for Putney (Fleur Anderson), and from my hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). It sounds like a tube map, but everyone made excellent points, and it is a pleasure to respond to them all.
First, it must be recognised that free travel for under-18s is unique to London compared with the rest of England. This should not be a debate about the merits of free travel. The Government recognise the merits of free travel for the most disadvantaged under-18s, which is why it is enshrined in the Education Act 1996 and children will continue to receive it.
Today, we are talking about those benefits that are different in London, and are not available to people in the rest of the country, no matter how disadvantaged they may be. It is important to get that point on record at the outset. Taxpayers all over the rest of the country—in Birmingham, Manchester, my Redditch constituency and other places where the need is just as great—do not enjoy this special benefit. They will rightly ask, “Why does London receive this?”
Andy Slaughter
So much for levelling up.
It is dispiriting to hear a Government Minister, particularly when addressing a group of London MPs, once again using divide-and-rule tactics, trying to set other parts of the country against London. Will the Minister address the issues that have come up in this debate and Members’ serious concerns about our constituents?
Rachel Maclean
Of course I will address those concerns. I am about to do that, but I am highlighting the facts at the outset.
Rachel Maclean
With respect, I do not think I can give way. I want to address the substantive points, but I will be happy to talk to hon. Members on another occasion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington highlighted in his opening speech the shocking extent of the Mayor of London’s financial mismanagement of Transport for London. We all know that coronavirus has cost £1.6 billion in lost fare revenue, but Mayor Sadiq Khan’s mismanagement of Transport for London’s finances has cost £9.56 billion in the round, and we heard many examples from hon. Members during the debate.
We can all agree that the transport network is key in supporting a safe and sustainable recovery for London. That was why, on 31 October, the Government agreed a second extraordinary funding and financing package with TfL for up to £1.7 billion, on top of the £1.6 billion funding package agreed with TfL in May. That is proof of the Government’s commitment to supporting transport services in London while remaining fair to national taxpayers.
The May funding agreement with TfL contained a series of measures to manage demand and to facilitate safe travel, including a temporary suspension of free travel for under-18s. I stress that that was agreed by the Government, the Mayor of London and the deputy mayor for transport. However, the suspension was not operationalised at the time. No one doubts the importance of free travel. It was always the case that children eligible for free home-to-school travel would continue to receive it, with families on low incomes—those most disadvantaged children—continuing to receive that free travel. It is right to say that the rationale was demand management, as before the covid-19 crisis, around a third of journeys were made by young people travelling to school.
Sarah Olney
I pointed out in my speech that in normal, pre-pandemic times, TfL raised about 80% of its own revenue. It was not primarily subsidised by taxpayers, so it is not by and large taxpayers who pay for free travel for young Londoners—or, indeed, for elderly Londoners.
Rachel Maclean
I remind the hon. Lady that central Government have agreed billions of pounds of support for Transport for London.
The initial reason for bringing in the suspension, or discussing it, was because it was seen as necessary to ensure that capacity was available on buses for those who needed to use it, including some schoolchildren, given social distancing requirements. At this point, I would like to refer to the Government’s commitment to support cycling and walking, or active travel. People should walk and cycle wherever possible, and that is why the Government have made £2 billion available to support it. According to TfL’s own statistics, the average journey to school in London is less than 1 km, so it is not unreasonable to suggest that some of those journeys could be made by active travel.
As part of the latest £1.7 billion of extraordinary funding agreed by the Government and TfL on 31 October, national taxpayers will continue to fund free travel concessions to standard English levels, and free travel to school for children who qualify under legislation. If the Mayor wishes to maintain concessions for Londoners above the English level, he will raise the money to pay for that. That represents a fair position for the whole country and brings London in line with the rest of England.
In agreeing the recent extraordinary funding and financing package, the Mayor proposed that he could pay for those concessions by retaining the central London congestion charge at its current level and increasing the existing TfL element of the Greater London Authority’s council tax precept. He must make his final choice by January 2021. It is the Mayor who has decided what the increase to the congestion charge should be and what the coverage is.
Several hon. Members raised the question of Hammersmith bridge. They will know that my noble Friend Baroness Vere of Norbiton is working on that and leading a taskforce. TfL has been given £4 million and a further £2.3 million for immediate mitigation, and a lot of detailed work is ongoing to sort the problem out.
Turning to TfL’s financial situation, the Government did agree a second package that will provide financial support until March 2021. The Government will make up the fare revenue that TfL has lost due to covid-19. The deal runs until 31 March, and the Government will continue to monitor TfL’s financial health and work closely with it to ensure that it continues to operate essential services and supports our recovery from the pandemic.
I would also like to put on record the fact that the Government are not forcing the Mayor of London to raise council tax. If he does so, it will be his decision and his alone. The Department works closely with him and constructive discussions are ongoing. Of course, I remind the Opposition that the Mayor of London is a politician, but nevertheless there are constructive discussions going on, as we have seen from the deals that have been agreed, which benefit Londoners and the transport network on which they rely.
As hon. Members have pointed out, the financial package agreed itself recognises that the Mayor of London has not done enough to find savings. His financial management has not been good enough, and further efficiencies must be found. Opposition Members have highlighted the impact on young people, so I must be clear: it is for the Mayor of London to explain to those young people why he has made the choices that will have those devastating consequences that Members are setting out. The Government have stood behind Transport for London to the tune of £2.3 billion. I suggest it is now time for the Mayor of London to take responsibility and show genuine leadership, instead of seeking to lay all his problems at the door of central Government.
Elliot Colburn
Thank you, Sir David, for giving me quite a lot of time to sum up the debate. Hon. Members will be happy to know that I do not intend to drag this out.
I will begin by thanking all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in this Petitions Committee debate. Petitions are proving to be a very effective way for people to get in touch with and involved in the issues that matter most to them. I have led a couple of Petitions Committee debates, and they are an excellent opportunity for us to put our constituents’ concerns on record. I thank everyone for turning out to support the petitioners today.
I also thank the petitioners for giving us the opportunity, as the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) said, to discuss something about London. It does not seem that we get an opportunity to do so very often. This has been a rare chance for London MPs to get together to discuss issues relating to the capital, and I am grateful to the petitioners for giving that to us.
We have heard about the impact that scrapping under-18 concessions would have on people in our capital city and its effect on some of the most vulnerable in our various communities. We hope that the Mayor can show the leadership that we need from him, put aside his game-playing—the Minister and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) described that well—and come forward to the Government with sensible suggestions by 11 January so that, when further discussions take place in March, we will not be back here with the same complaints.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 331453, relating to funding for Transport for London.
Written Statements
Telecoms: 5G Diversification Strategy
(4 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Oliver Dowden)
I wish to inform the House that the Government have today published their 5G diversification strategy, which sets out the Government’s approach to building a resilient, open and sustainable 5G supply chain.
Digital connectivity is now a core part of the everyday lives of millions of people across the UK. It is fundamentally changing the way we live, work and spend time together.
Throughout the covid-19 pandemic, connectivity has allowed us to stay in touch with family and friends, and to stay plugged in while working remotely and access the content and services we need.
With more and more activity happening online, ensuring security in the networks which provide our connectivity is of paramount importance to this Government.
Looking forward, we are now developing world-class next generation technologies, such as 5G and full fibre, which will promote greater connection, drive growth and provide us with the services of the future. But to fully realise the benefits of these technological advances, we need to have confidence in the security and resilience of the infrastructure on which they are built.
That is why we conducted the telecoms supply chain review to look at the long-term security of our 5G and full fibre networks. It is why in January we announced our decision to exclude high-risk vendors from the core of the network, exclude high-risk vendors from sensitive sites, and limit their overall presence in the access network to 35%. It is also why we took the decision in July to set out a clear path to the complete removal of Huawei equipment from our 5G network.
Through the Telecommunications (Security) Bill, we have introduced legislation that will place these decisions on a statutory footing and set out a new, robust security framework for the UK telecoms sector. This will establish the UK as one of the toughest regimes in the world for telecoms security and resilience.
But looking to the future, there is more that we can do. The findings of the telecoms supply chain review highlighted the need for the Government to intervene in the market to create a more diverse and competitive supply chain in the longer term.
The review underscored the fact that a pronounced lack of supplier diversity has developed in the access network supply chain. This lack of competition has restricted choice in the sector and will continue to pose a risk to the security and resilience of our networks if not addressed.
These findings have made it clear that our current market structure is no longer fit for purpose and that without Government intervention, it is highly likely that the current market structure will persist.
Therefore, it is essential that we take action to address this issue. Today’s strategy will deliver lasting and meaningful change in the 5G supply chain and pave the way for a vibrant and dynamic market. A market where competition and innovation bring forward new, open deployment models; where our networks are flexible, made up of an array of suppliers; and where all operators and suppliers adopt the security standards that will ensure that our networks are robust and resilient.
To realise this ambition, we need to strike a balance between fundamentally shifting the market structure towards our long-term vision and ensuring that we can also guarantee the reliability of supply to our networks in the near term.
We have therefore set out a balanced approach to diversification which will see targeted measures introduced across three separate strands of activity;
Supporting incumbent suppliers;
Attracting new suppliers into the UK market; and
Accelerating open-interface solutions and deployment
The decision to commit to the removal of Huawei equipment from our 5G networks was the right decision for the UK’s telecoms networks, for our national security and our economy—both now and in the long term. However, it brings with it a resilience risk as we become more dependent on the remaining suppliers for our telecoms networks. This strategy means that we can mitigate that resilience risk as we approach the complete removal of Huawei from our 5G networks in 2027.
However, this strategy is about more than that. It is about implementing measures across these strands to facilitate a competitive, diverse and open supply market, which will support economic growth and innovation as the UK adopts next-generation technologies.
We recognise that there is a sharp need to work at pace to make early progress on diversification. As a first step towards delivering our long-term vision, the Government have committed an initial investment of up to £250 million, to kick off work to deliver our key priorities.
This will allow us to take forward specific measures as an absolute priority, such as the establishment of a world-class national telecoms lab, increasing UK influence in telecoms standards setting and beginning to dismantle the key barriers to diversification.
These measures will be partnered by immediate steps we are taking to accelerate the development of open-interface solutions. The Government will be funding the NEC NeutORAN project as part of the wider 5G testbeds and trials programme, which will showcase the latest innovations in the radio access network space. We are also partnering with Ofcom and Digital Catapult to fund the SmartRAN Open Network Innovation Centre (SONIC), an industry-facing testing facility for interoperable solutions.
Alongside this, the Government recognise that this is a global issue which affects many of our international allies. As such, we will be seeking to lead a global coalition like-minded partners to mount a co-ordinated international approach to diversification.
These next phases of work will be led by the recently established Telecoms Diversification Taskforce, an expert panel chaired by Lord Ian Livingston. The taskforce will be advising Government as we design and develop targeted measures across the three strands of our strategy. It will also support us in our work to look beyond 5G and address diversity in the full fibre and wider telecoms supply chain going forward.
As the taskforce does so, the Government will be working closely with players across the telecoms industry to explore opportunities to establish homegrown capability within the wider UK tech industry through R&D investment and fostering key skills.
This strategy presents a significant opportunity to position the UK as a growing power in telecoms and set the UK’s telecoms industry apart, by securing a position at the forefront of new, cutting-edge mobile technologies. By acting now, we are in a position to lead the global telecoms industry towards a more open, competitive and innovative standard—with UK companies setting an example across the sector.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament. uk/business/publications/written-questionsanswers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2020-11-30/HCWS610/ .
[HCWS610]
Covid-19 Contingency Framework and Workforce Fund
(4 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
The Prime Minister has announced the exit from national restrictions on 2 December and set out our return to a regional tiered approach. The strengthened tiering approach takes into account advice from Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) and should prevent the need to introduce stricter national measures and allow for education and childcare settings to remain open across all tiers.
On 13 November, SAGE published papers relating to the latest evidence of incidence and transmission of coronavirus—covid-19—in schools. The science is clear that children and young people are typically at very low risk from coronavirus—covid-19. The disease is much less severe for children, even if they do catch coronavirus—covid-19.
The SAGE papers provide clear evidence regarding the risks from pupils not being in school. The documents are clear that school closures put educational outcomes at risk, especially for disadvantaged students. Transmission to and from children and young people can occur in household, community and educational settings. SAGE also noted that that there are significant educational, developmental and mental health harms from schools being closed, particularly for younger children, and vulnerable children where learning at home is likely to reinforce inequalities—with high confidence. This impact can affect both current levels of education and children’s future ability to learn.
Therefore, this issue requires balancing of risk and harms, including the health risks to children and staff from covid-19; impacts on community transmission; and the direct risks to children’s mental health, wellbeing, development and attainment from missing education. The chief medical officer has reinforced recently that the balance of risks is firmly in favour of keeping schools open. For the vast majority of children, the benefits of attending school far outweigh the low risk from coronavirus—covid-19— and schools can take action to reduce risks further through the system of controls set out in our guidance.
Covid-19 contingency framework for education and childcare settings
The education and childcare settings tiers and the use of rotas in schools was removed from the contain framework and has been replaced by a stronger contingency plan which continues to prioritise vulnerable children and young people, children of critical workers, students in exam cohorts and children in childcare or primary schools.
This framework is not directly linked to policy on local tiers of restriction. This framework is designed to set out how restrictions should be implemented in education and childcare settings as a containment measure for the rare circumstances in which they are required to address community transmission in any area.
This guidance for local authorities, childcare and education settings—excluding higher education—was published on 27 November and covers contingency plans for: early years and primary schools; secondary schools; further education colleges, alternative provision and special schools.
As part of their contingency planning, settings should consider how they would operate in the event that these restrictions become necessary in their local area, including how they would ensure that every child, pupil or student receives the quantity and quality of education and care to which they are normally entitled.
Any restrictions on education should only be as a last resort and should only be instituted on the recommendation of central Government. The Government will do everything possible to avoid triggering those contingency measures at any stage.
An educational or childcare setting should not move to implement restrictive measures of the kind set out in the contingency framework without the explicit agreement of the DfE. DfE will work with other Government Departments, the chief medical officer, the Joint Biosecurity Centre (JBC), Public Health England (PHE) and relevant local authorities to ensure the decision is informed by the available evidence and viewed in conjunction with the wider local interventions in place and under consideration.
Covid-19 workforce fund
Keeping education settings open remains a national priority. We recognise that schools and colleges have faced significant challenges during the pandemic as they have sought to maintain high-quality education for their pupils and students. To support schools and colleges with these ongoing challenges, we have announced a new covid-19 workforce fund targeted at those with the highest staff absences that are also facing significant financial pressures. This will help schools and colleges to meet the cost of absences experienced during the period from the beginning of November until the end of this term, where they meet specific criteria relating to their absence rates and finances:
Mainstream schools and colleges must be experiencing a short-term teacher absence rate at or above 20%, and or a lower long-term—15 days or more—teacher absence rate at or above 10%—costs can only be claimed for the costs incurred above this rate.
Special schools and alternative provision schools must be experiencing a short-term teacher absence rate at or above 15%, and or a lower long-term—15 days or more— teacher absence rate at or above 10%, to be eligible—costs can only be claimed for the costs incurred above this rate.
Claims for support staff absences will be on an exceptional only basis, where necessary in keeping schools and colleges open. In special schools and alternative provision, there will be greater flexibility for claims for these staff.
Before claiming support, schools will first need to use any existing financial reserves, as we would typically expect when facing unforeseen costs. They will be eligible for this additional funding once they have used these reserves down to a level at 4% of their annual income. For colleges, eligibility will be based on their cash position set out in the November financial return.
This fund comes on top of our funding for schools facing exceptional costs during the summer months, the £1 billion covid-19 catch up fund to help all children make up for lost education, as well as the core funding that all schools and colleges continue to receive, and the core school funding that is seeing the biggest increase in a decade. The Department for Education will publish detailed guidance, including conditions for eligibility, shortly.
[HCWS611]
Retail Opening Hours: Christmas and Covid-19
(4 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
I wish to update the House on relaxing local restrictions to enable retail opening hours to be extended in England for Christmas.
On Monday 23 November, the Government published their covid-19 winter plan which will see the return to a regional tier approach to restrictions in England from 2 December. In all tiers, shops will be allowed to reopen, giving people the opportunity to shop for gifts for family and friends in the run up to Christmas. The Government recognise the efforts and investment that retailers have made to ensure their premises are covid-secure; this has been reflected by the fact that the best available Public Health England and NHS Track and Trace data shows there is at present no evidence of significant increased risk of virus transmission in retail premises. Government asked non-essential retailers to close as part of wider restrictions to limit social mixing in November, once those restrictions have been lifted consumers and retail staff can have confidence to return to our high streets.
We have been working closely with senior representatives from the retail sector, local authorities, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Public Health England to plan for a safe and successful reopening of non-essential retail on 2 December. To ensure the reopening of shops is safe and in line with social distancing rules given the high volume of shoppers expected before Christmas and the subsequent sales in January, the Government want to see retailers given the option to extend their daily opening hours from Monday to Saturday. This will help to spread footfall, ease transport pressures and make shopping in a socially distanced way easier by giving shoppers greater flexibility to choose when they shop and avoid peak times.
Restrictions on shop opening hours on weekday and Saturdays were removed by section 23 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. However, many retailers are subject to local controls through planning conditions which restrict opening times, particularly in the early morning, evening and at night, to make the development acceptable to local residents who might otherwise suffer from noise and other local amenity issues.
Given the exceptional circumstances as a result of the coronavirus, the purpose of this written ministerial statement, which comes into effect from 2 December, is to make clear that, as a matter of urgency, local planning authorities should take a positive approach to their engagement with retailers to ensure planning controls are not a barrier to the temporary extension of retail opening times in December and January.
In particular, local planning authorities, having regard to their legal obligations, should not seek to undertake planning enforcement action which would result in the unnecessary restriction of retail hours during this period. The national planning policy framework already emphasises that planning enforcement is a discretionary activity, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.
Where appropriate, local planning authorities should also highlight this temporary relaxation to retailers in their area so that they can take advantage of longer opening hours if they wish to do so.
The Government recognise that longer retail opening hours could have a temporary impact on local residents, but this needs to be balanced by the significant public interest in ensuring there is a safe retail environment during this busy period; in helping local residents undertake Christmas shopping given many shops have been closed over the last month; and in supporting the commercial viability of local shops in England’s high streets and town centres during this challenging period.
This written ministerial statement also confirms that my previous statement to the House of 13 March 2020 about planning enforcement and the delivery of food and other essential goods to retailers during the coronavirus pandemic will remain in place until 31 March 2021 because continued flexibility is necessary to ensure access to food and essential goods in light of ongoing impacts of coronavirus. The statement made on 13 March 2020 is withdrawn with effect from the beginning of 1 April 2021, unless circumstances justify its further extension, in which case a further statement would be made to the House.
[HCWS609]